The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Luis B. Reyes

THE REVISED PENAL CODE o Essence: the substitution of a legislative act for a
CRIMINAL LAW judicial determination of guilt.

4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive
LUIS B. REYES fines.
CRIMINAL LAW – a branch of municipal law which defines crimes, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
1) Right to a speedy disposition of their cases.
CRIME – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law 2) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
forbidding or commanding it. without due process of law.
3) Right to bail: mist not be impaired.
SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW: 4) Sec. 14: presumed innocent, etc.
5) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
1) The RPC (Act No. 3815) and its amendments. 6) No excessive fines and cruel, degrading or inhuman
2) Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, punishments.
Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National 7) No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang same offense.
Pambansa. 8) Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
3) Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law. legal assistance shall not be denied by reason of poverty.
NO COMMON LAW CRIMES IN THE PHILIPPINES: unless there be STATUTORY RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
a particular provision in the penal code or special penal law that
defines and punishes the act, even if it be socially or morally wrong, no 1) Presumed innocent.
criminal liability is incurred by its commission. 2) To be informed.
3) To be present and defend in person and by counsel.
- Court decisions NOT sources of criminal law: merely explain 4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf.
the meaning of, and apply, the law. 5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against
himself.
POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES: the State has the 6) To confront and cross-examine the witness against him.
authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to 7) To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
lay down the rules of criminal procedure. witnesses.
8) To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
- Have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining 9) To appeal in all cases.
criminal offenses.
- Right of prosecution and punishment belongs to the sovereign
power charged by the common will of the members of society. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL

LAWS (ON) MAY BE WAIVED MAY NOT BE WAIVED
1. Must be general in application.

The right of the accused to The right of the accused to be
o No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
confrontation and cross- informed of the nature and cause
without due process of law. examination. of the accusation against him.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. One
which:
a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the WHY: personal rights. Involve public interest which may
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes be affected.
such an act.
b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
when committed.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
1. GENERAL – the law is binding to all persons who reside in the
committed.
Philippines.
d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
o PEOPLE VS. GALACGAC: no foreigner enjoys in this
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its
required at the time of the commission of the offense.
laws and jurisdiction (exception: heads of states and
e) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
diplomatic representatives).
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
o US VS. SWEET: jurisdiction of civil courts is not
something which when done was lawful, and
affected by the military character of the accused
f) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful
(assault of a prisoner of war by an employee of the US
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
Army and was charged with the crime of physical
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
injuries).
proclamation of amnesty.
o Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the
o Inflicting punishment without judicial trial.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 1 | Bantay

Philippines (over murder cases committed by persons i. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
subject to military law. ii. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary,
 Even in times of war, provided that in the place ministers resident, and charges d’affaires.
of the commission of the crime no hostilities are
in progress and civil courts are functioning. NOTE: A consul, vice-consul and other commercial representatives of
o The RPC or other penal law is NOT applicable when a foreign nations are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
military court takes cognizance of the case → the ambassador or minister in the absence of a treaty to the contrary.
Articles of War.
2. TERRITORIAL– the law is binding to all crimes committed
within the National Territory of the Philippines.
JURISDICTION OF MILITARY JURISDICTION OF CIVIL o MEANING: penal laws are enforceable only within its
COURTS (tried by court- COURTS territory.
martial)
o EXTENT: within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.
Members of the AFP and other Members of the AFP and other
persons subject to military law persons subject to military law
when the offense is service- who commit crimes and offenses NOTE: ART. 1, 1987 Constitution: National territory → the Philippine
connected. penalized under the RPC. archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
o The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
a BAR to another prosecution for the same offense. connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth
 Not an administrative case. and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
 Otherwise, the accused would be placed in
double jeopardy. o EXCEPTIONS: instances enumerated under Article 2.
o Offenders of accused of war crimes are triable by 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
military commission. ship or airship.
 CANTOS VS. STYER: a Filipino citizen who 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
associated himself with Japan in the war note of the Philippines or obligations and
against US and the Philippines and committed securities issued by the Government of the
atrocities against unarmed and non-combatant Philippines.
Filipino civilians and looted Filipino property → 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
war criminal subject to the jurisdiction of the introduction into the Philippines of the
military commission. obligations and securities mentioned in the
 EO prescribing rules and regulations governing preceding number.
the trial of war criminals is valid and 4. While being public officers or employees,
constitutional → an exercise by the President of should commit an offense in the exercise of
his powers as Commander-in-Chief of all our their functions.
armed forces. 5. Should commit any of the crimes against
 A military commission has jurisdiction so long national security and the law of nations, defined
as a technical state of war continues: period of in Title One of Book Two of the RPC.
armistice/military occupation up to the effective 3. PROSPECTIVE – the law does not have any retroactive effect.
date of a treaty of peace. o A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a
o EXCEPTIONS: manner in which it was not punishable when committed.
A) ART. 2, RPC: as provided in the treaties and o ART. 366, RPC: crimes are punished under the laws in
laws of preferential application (Bases force at the time of their commission.
Agreement; RP-US Visiting Forces Accord). o EXCEPTION: when new statute is favorable or more
B) ART. 14, CC: subject to the principles of public lenient to the accused.
international law and to treaty stipulations.  This exception has NO APPLICATION:
o EXAMPLES OF LAW OF PREFERENTIAL 1. When the new law is expressly made
APPLICATION: RA 75 in favour of diplomatic inapplicable to pending actions or
representatives and their domestic servants. existing causes of action.
 EXCEPTIONS: when the process is issued to a 2. Where the offender is a habitual
citizen or inhabitant of the Philippines, when the criminal.
process is founded upon a debt before he
entered upon such service, when he is a DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW
domestic servant (unless registered in the
DFA).
 Not applicable when the foreign country does IF THE REPEAL MAKES THE New law shall be applied,
PENALTY LIGHTER IN THE EXCEPT when the offender is a
not provide similar protection to our diplomatic NEW LAW habitual delinquent or when the
representatives. new law is made not applicable to
o PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF pending action or existing cases
OUR CRIMINAL LAWS BY CIRTUE OF THE of action.
PRINCIPLES OF PIL:

corpus should be filed to test the legality
IF THE NEW LAW IMPOSES A The law in force at the time of the of their continued confinement in jail.
HEAVIER PENALTY commission of the offense shall  If the convict, on the other hand, is a
be applied.
habitual delinquent, he will continue
serving the sentence in spite of the fact
IF THE NEW LAW TOTALLY The crime is obliterated / the that the law under which he was
REPEALS THE EXISTING LAW offense ceases to be criminal. convicted has already been absolutely
so that that act which was repealed. This is so because penal laws
penalised under the old law is NO should be given retroactive application
LONGER PUNISHABLE to favor only those who are not habitual
delinquents.
O CONSEQUENCES IF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW IS
PARTIAL OR RELATIVE
EFFECT OF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW TO LIABILITY OF
1. If a case is pending in court involving the
OFFENDER
violation of the repealed law, and the repealing
law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be
TOTAL OR ABSOLUTE, OR PARTIAL OR RELATIVE REPEAL – as
the one applied to him. So whether he is a
to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of offender, qualify
habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still
your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or
pending in court, the repealing law will be the
whether the repeal is partial or relative only.
one to apply unless there is a saving clause in
A. A repeal is ABSOLUTE OR TOTAL when the crime punished the repealing law that it shall not apply to
under the repealed law has been decriminalized by the repeal. pending causes of action.
Because of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a 2. If a case is already decided and the accused is
crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. already serving sentence by final judgment,
7363, which decriminalized subversion. even if the repealing law is partial or relative,
the crime still remains to be a crime. Those who
are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the
PEOPLE VS. TAMAYO effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more
lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that
- Accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an will henceforth apply to them.
ordinance. While case was pending appeal, the ordinance was  Under Article 22, even if the offender is
repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused already convicted and serving sentence,
was being prosecuted.
- HELD: the offense ceases to be criminal. The accused must be a law which is beneficial shall be applied
acquitted. to him unless he is a habitual delinquent
- RATIO the repeal is absolute as it was not a re-enactment or in accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.
repeal by implication. O CONSEQUENCES IF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW IS
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
1. If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the
subsequent repeal of the repealing law will
B. A repeal is PARTIAL OR RELATIVE when the crime punished revive the original law. So the act or omission
under the repealed law continues to be a crime in spite of the which was punished as a crime under the
repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the original law will be revived and the same shall
conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The again be crimes although during the implied
modification may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. repeal they may not be punishable.
Hence, the following rule: 2. If the repeal is express, the repeal of the
O CONSEQUENCES IF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW IS repealing law will not revive the first law, so the
TOTAL OR ABSOLUTE act or omission will no longer be penalized.
1. If a case is pending in court involving the These effects of repeal do not apply to self-
violation of the repealed law, the same shall be repealing laws or those which have automatic
dismissed, even though the accused may be a termination. An example is the Rent Control
habitual delinquent. Law which is revived by Congress every two
2. If a case is already decided and the accused is years.
already serving sentence by final judgment, if
the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he
will be entitled to a release unless there is a
reservation clause in the penal law that it will WHEN THE NEW LAW AND THE OLD LAW PENALIZE THE SAME
not apply to those serving sentence at the time OFFENSE, THE OFFENDER CAN BE TRIED UNDER THE OLD LAW
of the repeal. But if there is no reservation,
those who are not habitual delinquents even if
they are already serving their sentence will US VS. CUNA
receive the benefit of the repealing law. They
are entitled to release. - Accused was charged with selling opium under Act No. 1461 of
the Phil. Commission. During the pendency of the case, Act
 If they are not discharged from
No. 1761 took effect repealing the former law, but both Acts
confinement, a petition for habeas penalize offenses against the opium laws.
- RATIO: such repeal does not have the effect of depriving the

courts of jurisdiction to try and convict the sentence offenders - Repeal of a law carried with it the deprivation of the courts of
charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged with
- Penalty in both Acts are the same. violation of the old law prior to the repeal.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
WHEN THE REPEALING LAW FAILS TO PENALIZE THE OFFENSE

1) Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and
UNDER THE OLD LAW, THE ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED liberally in favour of the accused.
UNDER THE NEW LAW
o No person shall be brought within the terms of criminal
statutes who is not clearly within them, nor should any
act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made
PEOPLE VS. SINDIONG AND PASTOR
so by the statute.
- Accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make a return of the
sales of newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed
under certain sections of the Revised Administrative Code. PEOPLE VS. GARCIA
Those sections were repealed by the National Internal
Revenue Code which does not require he making of return of - Accused was prosecuted for having sold tickets for “llave”
sales of newspapers and magazines. races in violation of Act 4130, as amended by CA No. 301,
- HELD: the court loses jurisdiction. which penalizes any person who, without being a duly
o The accused cannot be legally prosecuted after such authorized agent of the Phil. Charity Sweepstakes, sold
appeal. tickers of said corporation. The tickets sold by the accused
- RATIO: the repealing law wholly fails to penalize the act were different from, and not, the tickets issued by said
defined and penalized as an offense in the old law. corporation. The law relied upon does not include “llave” for
o Said sections were not re-enacted. Sweepstakes races.
- HELD: accused must be acquitted.
- RATIO: not punishable by Act 4130.
A PERSON ERRONEOUSLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED UNDER

A REPEALED STATUTE MAY BE PUNISHED UNDER THE
REPEALING STATUTE 2) In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the
RPC, the Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved
by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.
PEOPLE VS. BAESA
- Accused was charged with having failed to pay the salary of PEOPLE VS. MANGULABNAN
one of his master fisherman. He was convicted under CA No
303, which was repealed by RA No. 602. - During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits
- RATIO: the fact that the offender was erroneously accused fired his gun upward in the ceiling, not knowing that there
and convicted under a statute which had already been was a person up there. The owner, who was up in the
repealed does not prevent conviction under the repealing ceiling, was hit by the slug and was killed.
statute which punishes the same act, provided that the - RATIO: while the English text of ART. 294, PAR. 1 of the
accused had an opportunity to defend himself against the RPC seems to convey the meaning that the homicide should
charge brought against him. be intentionally committed, the Spanish text means that it is
sufficient that the homicide shall have resulted, even if by
mere accident.
- HELD: the crime committed was robbery with homicide.
A NEW LAW WHICH OMITS ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE OLD
LAW DEALING ON THE SAME SUBJECT, OPERATES AS A
REPEAL OF ANYTHING NOT SO INLCUDED IN THE
BOOK ONE
AMENDATORY ACT
PRELIMINARY TITLE
PEOPLE VS. ALMUETE
HISTORY OF THE RPC: AO No. 94 → instructed to revise the old
- Sec. 39 of The Agricultural Tenancy Law (prohibition against Penal Code.
pre-threshing) is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land
Reform Code, because the lessee is now obligated to pay a - Old Penal Code took effect in the Philippines on July 14, 1887
fixed rental. and was in force up to December 31, 1931.
- Sec. 172 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code: repeals all - RPC, as enacted by the Phil. Legislature, was approved on
laws or part of any law inconsistent with.
December 8, 1930 and took effect on JANUARY 1, 1932.
- RATIO: the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also
ceases applies to this case.
BOOK ONE BOOK TWO
SELF-REPEALING LAW: where an act expires by its own limitation,

[1] Basic principles affecting Defines felonies with the
the effect is the same as though it had been repealed at the time of its criminal liability (Arts. 1 to 20). corresponding penalties,
expiration. [2] The provisions on penalties classified and grouped under 14
including criminal and civil liability different titles (Arts. 114 to 365).
(Arts. 21 to 113).

UTILITARIAN THEORY OR PROTECTIVE THEORY: The primary
purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of
society from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in
exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the
punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is
ART. 1 directed against acts and omissions which the society does not
approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which
RPC BASED MAINLY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CLASSICAL punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not
SCHOOL: like the old Penal Code. be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.
- Although some provisions of eminently positivistic tendencies SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

were incorporated (punishment of impossible crimes, juvenile
delinquency, etc.). 1. The Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws – Acts enacted of the Philippine
THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW Legislature punishing offenses or omissions.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

CLASSICAL THEORY POSITIVIST THEORY
1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the
offender. This means that no person shall be brought within
Basis of criminal liability is Man is subdued occasionally by
human free will and purpose of a strange and morbid their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be
penalty is retribution. phenomenon which conditions pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.
him to do wrong in spite of or 2. The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a
Man is essentially a moral contrary to his volition. conflict with an official translation.
creature with an absolute free will 3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law
to choose between good and evil Crime is essentially a social and
and therefore more stress is natural phenomenon and it
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
placed upon the result of the cannot be treated and checked
felonious act than upon the by the application of abstract
criminal himself. principles of law and Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as MALUM IN
jurisprudence not by the SE, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se
It has endeavoured to establish a imposition of punishment, fixed wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws are generally
mechanical and direct proportion and determined a priori; but referred to as MALUM PROHIBITUM.
between crimes and penalty. rather through the enforcement
of individual measures in each Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita.
There is scant regard to the particular case after a thorough,
human element. personal and individual While intentional feloniesare always mala in se, it does not follow that
investigation conducted by a prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala
competent body of psychiatrists prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act
and social scientists. punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se,
and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
ECLECTIC OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY: This combines both positivist Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be
and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social and nature committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to be
should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more proved before criminal liability may arise.
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical
manner; thus, capital punishment When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only
because a law punishes the same.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER THE
1. DOCTRINE OF PRO REO: whenever a penal law is to be REVISED PENAL CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – SPECIAL LAWS
one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will 1. As to moral trait of the offender: in crimes punished under the
be adopted. Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is
2. NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE: there is no considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is
crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act.
civil law countries, but not to common law countries. Because o In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of
of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. the offender is not considered; it is enough that the
No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law prohibited act was voluntarily done.
defining the act, the same is not considered a crime. 2. As to use of good faith as defense: In crimes punished under
3. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA: the act the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is
cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa.
to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting o In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not
from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not a defense
applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from 3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime: in crimes
negligence. punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of

accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing board a vessel not registered or licensed in the
the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and Philippines.
consummated stages in the commission of the crime.
o In crimes punished under speciallaws, the act gives rise NO. 2: any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163) or
to a crime only when it is consummated; there are no forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations in a foreign country
attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law may be prosecuted before Philippine courts.
expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the
crime. NO. 3: REASON: the introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations
4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances: in crimes and securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and counterfeiting of the same, to the economical interest of the country.
aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing
the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered. NO. 4: some of these crimes are bribery (direct and indirect), fraud
o In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and against national treasury, malversation of public funds or property,
aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in failure of accountable officer to render accounts, illegal use of public
imposing the penalty. funds or property, failure to make delivery of public funds or property
5. As to degree of participation: in crimes punished under the and falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse
Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one offender, of his official position.
the degree of participation of each in the commission of the
crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty; thus, - When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our
offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and public officers or employees while in the exercise of his
accessory. functions, he can be prosecuted here.
o In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of - Example: A judge who accepts a bribe while in Japan.
participation of the offenders is not considered. All who
perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the NO. 5: these crimes include treason, conspiracy and proposal to
same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or commit treason, inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals,
accessory to consider. correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy’s country,
espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of neutrality.
TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OF SPECIAL LAW IS MALUM
PROHIBITUM OR MALUM IN SE: analyze the violation: Is it wrong CRIMES PUNISHABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES UNDER ART. 2 ARE
because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you COGNIZABLE BY THE RTC IN WHICH THE CARGE IS FILED: RTC
remove the law, will the act still be wrong? has original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses committed on the
high seas or beyond the jurisdiction or any country on board a ship or
- If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word Warcraft of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippines in
“willfully”, then malice must be proven. Where malice is a accordance with its laws.
factor, good faith is a defense.
- In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART. 2
prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless
the special law punishes an omission.
Except as provided in Examples: the RP-US Visiting Forces
- When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of
the treaties and laws of Accord, the Military Bases Agreement
the Revised Penal Code or a special law. preferential application between the Phil. And the US, provisions
of RA 75.
ART. 2
The five paragraphs of ART. 2 treat of the application of the RPC to Its atmosphere Sovereignty and penal laws extend to all
acts committed in the air, at sea, and even in a foreign country when the airspace which covers a state’s
such acts affect the political and economic life of the nation. territory, subject to the right of way or
easement in favour of foreign aircrafts.
NO. 1: a Philippine vessel, although beyond 3 miles from the seashore
is considered part of the national territory (any person can be tried Interior waters Creeks, rivers, lakes and bays, gulfs,
before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code). straits, coves, inlets and roadsteads lying
wholly within the 3-mile limit.
- BUT when the Philippine vessel is in the territory of a foreign
country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is
subject to the laws of that foreign country. Maritime zone Length: 3 miles from the coastline, starting
from the low water mark.
- Philippine vessel or aircraft = one that is registered in the
Philippine Bureau of Customs.
o A vessel or aircraft which is unregistered or unlicensed
does not come within the purview of this provision.
o If a crime is committed 10 miles from the shores of the Crimes committed on board a Philippine courts have NO
Philippines on board a vessel belonging to a Filipino, foreign merchant ship or airship jurisdiction.
but the same is not registered or licensed in (on high seas on board a foreign
accordance with the laws of the Philippines → ART. 2 merchant vessel)
NOT applicable.
o US VS. FOWLER: The Philippine court has NO
Continuing offense on board a WITHIN the jurisdiction of
jurisdiction over the theft committed on high seas on foreign vessel (US VS. BULL: Philippine courts: the forbidden

Norwegian merchant vessel conditions existed during the time REQUIREMENTS OF “AN OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE ON A
sailing from Formosa to the Phil. the ship was within territorial PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP”
failed to provide stalls for animals waters.
in transit) 1. Registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
2. Ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in
Offenses on board a foreign WITHIN the jurisdiction of international airspace.
merchant vessel while on Philippine courts: when a foreign
Philippine waters merchant vessel enters the 3- Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in
mile limit. accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel
and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever
the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.
RULES AS TO CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN US V. BULL: A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel,
MERCHANT VESSELS: which began when the ship was in a foreign territory and continued
when it entered into Philippine waters, is considered a continuing
1. FRENCH RULE – Such crimes are not triable in the courts of crime. Hence within the jurisdiction of the local courts.
that country, unless their commission affects the peace and
security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. GENERAL RULE: the Revised Penal Code governs only when the
2. ENGLISH RULE – Such crimes are triable in that country, crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s
unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a
to the internal management thereof (this is applicable in the foreign country. The functions contemplated are those, which are,
Philippines). under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign
Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country.
Two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law
even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial EXCEPTION: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was
waters and these are: committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy
grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are
1. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign considered an extension of sovereignty.
country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the
country to whose naval force they belong; PARAGRAPH 5 OF ARTICLE 2, use the phrase “as defined in Title
2. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime One of Book Two of this Code.”
was committed adopts the French Rule, which applies only to
merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the - This is a very important part of the exception, because Title I of
national security or public order of such foreign country. Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include
rebellion.
NOT TRIABLE BY OUR TRIABLE BY OUR COURTS ART. 3: ACTS AND OMISSIONS PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE
COURTS FELONIES.
Crimes NOT involving a breach Felonious homicide, and if the ACTS – an overt or external act.
of public order committed on proper authorities are proceeding
board a foreign merchant vessel with the case in the regular way, - Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
in transit. the consul has no right to external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually
interfere to prevent it. produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
EXAMPLE: mere possession of - Must be one which is defined by the RPC as constituting a
opium as it is not a breach of When tins of opium are landed felony or an external act which has direct connection with the
public order. and used from the vessel on
Philippine soil. felony intended to be committed.
Over offenses committed on
board foreign warships in When the foreign merchant
territorial waters (REASON: vessel is not in transit because A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of
warships are always reputed to the Philippines is its terminal the latter.
be the territory of the country to port, the person in possession of
which they belong and cannot be opium on board that vessel is - The act of taking the watch of B, with the intent to gain,
subjected to the laws of another; liable, because he may be held constitutes the crimes of theft.
Example: US Army transport). guilty of illegal importation of
opium.
Smoking opium within out OMISSION– failure to perform a duty required by law.
territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, - Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone
is certainly a breach of public
who is in danger of dying or is in an uninhabited place or is
order as it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects wounded - abandonment.
within our territory.
THE OMMISSION MUST BE PUNISHABLE BY LAW: the omission to
report to the authorities the commission of a crime which he witness is
NOT a felony.
RA 9371 / Human Security Act of 2007

PEOPLE VS. SILVESTRE AND ATIENZA
- Spouses de la Cruz were gather together with the appellants CRIME - acts and omissions punishable by any (special) law.
herein after supper, and Atienza told the couple that he was
going to set fire upon the spouses’ house, as it was the only
MISTAKE OF FACT – is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
way he couple be revenged upon the people of Masocol, who
he said had instigated the charge of adultery against him and person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
his co-defendant. No one dared to say anything against Requisites:
Atienza as he was armed with a pistol, not eve Silvestre
despite being a meter away from him. The spouses left the 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
house to report the incident but when they turned back, they as the accused believed them to be;
already saw their home in flames. The fire destroyed about 48 2. Intention of the accused is lawful;
houses.
3. Mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
- Silvestre listened to Atienza without raising a protest, and did
not give the alarm when the latter set fire to the home.
- HELD: mere passive presence at the scene of another’s
crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without UNITED STATES V. AH CHONG.:
evidence of agreement or conspiracy, is NOT punishable.
- Silvestre was acquitted. - Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his
room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to
bed, he was awakened by somebody who was trying to open
the door. He asked the identity of the person, but he did not
receive a response. Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he
FELONIES – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal
leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should
Code. he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him.
Believing that he was attacked, he seized a knife and fatally
- Elements: wounded the intruder.
1) That there must be an act or omission.
2) That the act or omission must be punishable by the
RPC.
o There is no crime where there is no law Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have
punishing it. been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of
o Not punished by a special law (crime). culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of
3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by fact.
means of dolo or culpa.
- Classification of felonies according to the means by which they IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT OR LACK
are committed: OF SKILL
INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
By means of deceit. By means of fault. Deficiency of action. Deficiency of perception.
The act or omission of the The act or omission of the If a person fails to take the If a person fails to pay proper
offender is malicious. The offender is not malicious. The necessary precaution to avoid attention and to use due
offender has the intention to injury caused by the offender to injury to person or damage to diligence in foreseeing the injury
cause an injury to another. another person is unintentional, it property. or damage impending to be
being simply an incident of caused.
another act performed without
malice.
Involves lack of skill. Involves lack of foresight.
Murder, treason, robbery, and

malicious mischief.
REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE: a man must
use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts.
A PERSON WHO CAUSED AN INJURY, WITHOUT INTENTION TO - He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and
CAUSE AN EVIL, MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR CULPABLE for his acts which no one would have performed except through
FELONY: culpable abandon.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
PEOPLE VS. DIVINO
- Defendant, who was not a regular medical practitioner, tied a INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES
girl, wrapped her feet with rags saturated with petroleum and
set them on fire, causing injuries.
- While there was no intention to cause an evil but to provide a
BOTH ARE VOLUNTARY: Committed when the wrongful act
remedy, accused was liable for injuries thru imprudence. Committed when the act is results from imprudence,

performed with deliberate intent, negligence, lack of foresight or o Without this power, necessary to determine the morality
which must necessarily be lack of skill, which is also a of human acts, no crime can exist.
voluntary. voluntary act. o Imbecile, insane, infant under 9 years of age, minor
over nine but less than 15 years old and acting without
discernment = NO criminal liability
The offender acts with malice. The offender acts without malice.
3) He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the
act.
o Proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
A hunter thought he saw with his lantern something like the eyes of a NOTE: intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of
deer about 50 meters from him and then shot it. Much to his surprise, intelligence.
it proved to be his companion,
- No freedom, no intent.
- The hunter performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun, - Without intelligence, no intent.
although the resulting homicide is without malice, because he
- But a person who acts with freedom and with intelligence may
did not have the intent to kill the deceased.
- The hunter, knowing that he had two companions, should not have the intent to do an injury to another.
have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every - So a person who caused an injury by mere accident has
undesirable accident, such as the one that unfortunately freedom and intelligence, but since he had no fault or intention
occurred on the person of one of his companions. of causing it = NOT criminally liable.
- Hunter was guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless - Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the
imprudence.
overt acts of a person (example: intent to gain).
o Intent to kill is difficult to prove but it can be deduced
from the external acts performed by a person.
NOTE: a criminal act is presumed to be voluntary.
CRIMINAL INTENT IS PRESUMED FROM THE COMMISSION OF
- In the absence of indubitable explanation, the act must be AN UNLAWFUL ACT
declared voluntary and punishable.
PEOPLE VS. SIA TEB BAN
ACTS EXECUTED NEGLIGENTLY ARE VOLUNTARY
- Accused took a watch without the owner’s consent and was
prosecuted for theft. Accused alleged as a defense that the
PEOPLE VS. LOPEZ prosecution failed to prove the intent to gain on his part.
- A felonious act freely and deliberately executed, the moral and
- Lopez was driving a truck and a girl was crossing the street legal presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises
during a torrential rain. The girl was struck down by the truck. conclusively and indisputably.
Lopez claimed that he had no intention of causing injury to the
girl.
- Lopez was accused of death by reckless imprudence: lack of
malice or criminal design
Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to
exist, unless the contrary shall appear.
WHEN THERE IS NO VOLUNTARINESS IN THE ACT: when there is BUT THE PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT DOES NOT
ARISE FROM THE PROOF OF THE COMMISSION OF AN ACT
compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation.
WHICH IS NOT ULAWFUL
- Reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary:
1) RPC is based on the Classical Theory (basis of criminal
US VS. CATOLICO
liability is human free will).
2) Acts or omissions by law are always deemed voluntary - The accused, a justice of the peace, was prosecuted for
since man is a rational being. malversation.
3) In felonies by dolo, act is performed with deliberate - The act of a person does not make him a criminal, unless his
intent (necessarily voluntary); and in felonies by culpa, mind be criminal.
the imprudence consists in voluntarily, without malice. - The act of the accused in permitting the sums deposited with
him was not unlawful.
- Where the facts proven are accompanies by other facts which
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE (performed or incurred with
show that the act complained of was not unlawful, the
deliberate intent): presumption of criminal intent does not arise.
1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do

an act.
o When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
human being but a tool.
o A person who acts under the compulsion and impulse - EXAMPLE: a minor who married without parental consent was
of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. not liable criminally, because she proved that she acted without
2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting malice through her testimony.
to do the act.

PEOPLE VS. TANEO resistance or aggression is offered by him.
- A person who suddenly got up in his sleep and left with a bolo
in his hand and who injured other was NOT criminally liable.
- His acts were not voluntary for having acted in a dream.
- NO criminal intent. AH CHONG case OANIS case
There was an innocent mistake The accused found no

of fact without any fault or circumstances whatever which
PEOPLE VS. BERONILLA carelessness on the part of the would press them to immediate
accused because he had no time action. The victim was asleep
- The accused received an order from the regional commander or opportunity to make any and the accused had ample time
of an infantry, Philippine Army, to prosecute Borjal. The further inquiry. The accused had and opportunity to ascertain his
accused was then prosecuted for murder. no alternative but to take the identity without hazard to
- Criminal intent was NOT established. facts as they then appeared to themselves.
- He merely acted upon orders of superior officers which turned him.
out to be illegal, without any fault or negligence on his part.
2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should

MISTAKE OF FACT: relieves the accused from criminal liability be lawful.
(ignorantia facti excusat). 3) That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the
part of the accused.
- A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who
caused injury to another. LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME MAY BE INFERRED
- NOT criminally liable because there is NO criminal intent. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE
REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE: - EXAMPLE: defendant was not liable for the crime of perjury
because he had no intention to commit the crime.
1) That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be. LACK OF INTENT TO KILL THE DECEASED, BECAUSE HIS
o The act done would not constitute of a felony had the INTENTION WAS TO KILL ANOTHER, DOES NOT RELIEVE THE
facts been as the accused believed them to be. ACCUSED FROM CRIMINAL RESPOBILITY: the act was malicious
o UN VS. PENALOSA: the accused believed that she and wilful.
was already of age when she contracted marriage.
o PEOPLE VS. BERONILLA: the accused believed that - In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the
the orders of his superior officer were legal. principle of mistake of fact does not apply.
o The act done by the accused would have constituted:
a. A justifying circumstance.
b. An absolutory cause. A wanted to kill B. thinking that the person walking in the dark alley
c. An involuntary act. was B, A shot the person. It turned out to be C, the bother of A. A had
no intention to kill C.
- Since the act and intention of A in firing his pistol are unlawful,
PEOPLE VS. AH CHONG
A cannot properly invoke the principle of mistake of fact in his
defense.
- Accused thought that the one who was trying to open his door
was a robber and believing that he was being attacked, he
wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.
- Acquitted; mistake of fact.
- Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he NO CRIME OF RESISTANCE WHEN THERE IS A MISTAKE OF
would have been justified in killing the intruder. FACT: one who resists an arrest, believing that the peace officer is a
o If the intruder was really a robber, there would have bandit, but who submits to the arrest immediately upon being informed
been unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder. by the peace officer that he is a policeman → NOT guilty of the crime
o Accused gave no provocation at all.
of resistance to an agent of the authorities.
o There would have been a necessity of the accused to
defend himself or his home.
WHEN THE ACCUSED IS NEGLIGENT, MISTAKE OF FACT IS NOT
A DEFENSE
PEOPLE VS. OANIS PEOPLE VS. DE FERNANDO
- Accused (chief of police and corporal), under the instructions - The accused, a policeman, was informed that 3 convicts had
to arrest an escaped convict) fired at a man sleeping with his escaped. In the dark, he saw a person going up the stairs of a
back, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his house, calling for someone inside. The daughter of the owner
identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man. of the house was there during that time. The unknown person
- Both of the accused are guilty of murder. ascended the stairs and the accused fired at the man, thinking
- In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law he was one of the escaped convict. The victim turned out to
does not permit the captor to kill him. be the nephew of the owner of the house.
- Their orders were to arrest, and to get him dead or alive on if - Accused is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence.

- The victim called for someone in the house; he was known to - In throwing the hand grenade at the President with the
the owner of the house. intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice.
- Accused could have inquired from the daughter as to who the o He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his
unknown person might be. wrongful act, even if the wrongful act done be different
- The defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused from that which he intended.
is charged with a culpable felony. o In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another
o In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent. should be UNINTENTIONAL.
o Felonies committed through negligence → there is no - Counsel for accused mistaken: NOT homicide through
intent to consider; replaced by imprudence, reckless imprudence.
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY OF THE INTENDED VICTIM IS NOT

CRIMINAL INTENT IS NECESSARY IN FELONIES COMMITED BY RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE: deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is
MEANS OF DOLO; REASONS: essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence.
1) The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention A PERSON CAUSING DAMAGE OR INJURY TO ANOTHER,
were so. WITHOUT MALICE OR FAULT, IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE
2) An act done by me against my will is not my act. UNDER THE RPC: no malice or negligence = he is exempt from
criminal liability.
GENERAL INTENT SPECIFIC INTENT - He caused an injury by mere accidence, without fault or
intention of causing it.
The third element of In some particular felonies, proof
voluntariness is of general intent. of particular specific intent is
required* US VS. CATANGAY
- Catangay’s gun was accidentally discharged, killing his

companion, when he stumbled against an embankment.
- Accused was not criminally liable because he had no criminal
*EXAMPLES: there must be intent to gain in robbery and theft; intent to intent and was not negligent.
kill in frustrated or attempted homicide; and intent of lewd designs in - His act was lawful: the act of aiming the gun at the deer while
forcible abduction. hunting is lawful, it not being prohibited by any law.
WHEN THE ACCUSED IS CHARGED WITH INTENTIONAL

FELONY, ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT IS A DEFENSE: no
criminal intent; no liability for intentional felony. CLASSES OF CRIMES
- If there is only error on the part of the person doing the act, he 1) Intentional felonies.
does not act with malice → he is NOT criminally liable for 2) Culpable felonies.
intentional felony. 3) Those defined and penalized by special laws (including crimes
punished by municipal and city ordinances).
CRIMINAL INTENT IS REPLACED BY NEGLIGENCE AND o Dolo NOT required.
IMPRUDENCE IN FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF CULPA: o As rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
negligence and indifference = criminal intent. sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by the special law.
- The mind of the accused in culpa is not criminal.
- In order that the act or omission in felonies committed by
means of fault of culpa may be considered voluntary, the INTENT TO COMMIT INTENT TO PERPETRATE
following requisites must occur:
1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting
There must be criminal intent. It is enough that the prohibited act
to do an act. is done freely and consciously.
2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or
omitting to do the act.
3) He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT, LACKS
FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or omitting to
do an act. PEOPLE VS. BAYONA
IN CULPABLE FELONIES, THE INJURY CAUSED TO ANOTHER - Defendant was driving and he had a revolver with him. He
SHOULD BE UNINTENTIONAL, IT BEING SIMPLY THE INCEDENT was called by his friend and he alighted from his car in front
of a polling place, bringing with him his revolver. A
OF ANOTHER ACT PERFORMED WITHOUT MALICE representative of the Department of Interior took possession
of the revolver defendant was carrying.
- The law which defendant violated is a statutory provision and
PEOPLE VS. GUILLEN he intent with which he violated is immaterial.
- The defendant committed the act complained of, and he
- Accused testified in his own behalf that his it was not his main committed it wilfully.
intention to kill the persons surrounding the President, but he - The Election Law does not require for its violation that the
felt no compunction in killing them also in order to attain his offender has the intention to intimidate the voters or to
main purpose of killing the President.
interfere otherwise with the election. GOOD FAITH AND ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT NOT VALID
- He had the intent to perpetrate the act. DEFENSES IN CRIMES PUNSHED BY SPECIAL LAWS: the
proprietary concept of the possession can have no bearing whatsoever
on guilt.
- PEOPLE VS. ORQUIJO: mere unlicensed possession is

sufficient to sustain a conviction of illegal possession of
firearms, regardless of the intent of the unlicensed holder,
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
since the offense is mallum prohibitum.
- EXCEPTIONS:
There must be a criminal It is sufficient if the prohibited act 1) To implement the policy of the government on loose
intent. was intentionally done. firearms, it is imperative that the persons collecting and
surrendering loose firearms should have temporary and
incidental possession thereof, for how can one collect
and deliver without temporarily laying his hands on the
WHEN THERE IS NO INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT firearms?
PROHIBITED: when a man with a revolver merely passes along a 2) When neither of the accused had ever intended to
public road on election day within 50 meters of a police place; when a commit the offense of illegal possession of firearms
peace officer is pursuing a criminal; when a person merely cleans or (civilian guards).
handles their firearms within their own residences on election day living 3) Where the accused had a pending application for
within 50 meters of a polling place. permanent permit to possess a firearm, and whose
possession was not unknown to an agent of the law
IN THOSE CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS, THE ACT who advised the former to keep it in the meantime.
ALONE, IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS MOTIVES, CONSTITUTE THE 4) When appellant was duly appointed as civilian
OFFENSE confidential agent with a mission, authorized to carry a
revolver to carry it out.
US VS. SIY CONG BIENG, ET AL. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA, DISTINGUISHED
- Co Kong, while in charge of appellant’s store and acting as his
agent and employee, sold, in the ordinary course of business,
coffee which had been adulterated by a mixture of peanuts MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
and other extraneous substances.
- Legislature, on the grounds of public policy and compelled by
necessity, to forbid in a limited class of cases the doing of Wrongful from their nature, such Wrong merely because
certain acts, and to make their commission criminal without as theft, rape, homicide, etc. prohibited by statute, such as
regard to the intent of the doer. illegal possession of firearms.
- Health and safety of the people.
- Emergency that is thrown upon the seller the entire
responsibility of the purity and soundness of what he sells and Those so serious in their effects Violations of mere rules of
compels him to know and to be certain. on society as to call for almost convenience designed to secure
unanimous condemnation of its a more orderly regulation of the
members. affairs of society.
REASONS WHY CRIMINAL INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY IN

The intent governs. The only inquiry is has the law
CRIMES MADE SUCH BY STATUTORY ENACTMENT: the display been violated (for reasons of
itself, without the intervention of any other facts, is the evil. public policy)?
If A discharges a loaded gun and kills B, the interest which society When the acts are inherently Refers generally to acts made
has in the act depends upon the intention with which A consummated immoral defined and penalized in criminal by special laws.
the act. the RPC, even by special laws.
- If the gun was discharged intentionally, with the purpose of

accomplishing the death of B, then society has been injured
and its security violated. WHEN THE ACTS ARE INHERENTLY IMMORAL, THEY ARE MALA
- If the gun was discharged accidentally on the part of A, then IN SE, EVEN IF PUNISHED UNDER SPECIAL LAW
society has no concern in the matter, even though the death
of B results.
o WHY: A does not become a danger to society and its
institutions until he becomes a person with a corrupt PEOPLE VS. SUNICO
mind.
- The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose
duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters
in other precincts to the list of a newly created precincts. They
were prosecuted as several voters were omitted in the list.
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law – act is They claimed that they made the omission in good faith.
considered injurious to public welfare. - The acts of the accused are mala in se. it is wrong per so
because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his
fundamental rights.

- For such act to be punishable, it must be shown that it has HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED: established by the testimony of witnesses
been committed with malice. on the acts and statements of the accused before or immediately after
- There is no clear showing that the accused intentionally, the commission of the offense.
wilfully, and maliciously omitted the names of voters.
PEOPLE VS. RAMIREZ
- There were two suffocating smokes noticed during the

progress of the religious service of the Iglesia ni Cristo, which
made appellant to go around. Appellant stabbed the
deceased.
INTENT DISTINGUISHED FROM MOTIVE - The causing of those smokes, presumably by non-members,
which disturbed and interrupted the service is enough motive
for any member of the sect to be offended thereby, particularly
appellant who was a member of some importance.
MOTIVE* INTENT
The moving power which impels The purpose to use a particular

one to action for a definite result. means to effect such result. DISCLOSURE OF THE MOTIVE IS AN AID IN COMPLETING THE
PROOF OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME:
NOT an essential element of a - MOTIVE: accused had been losing in their business
crime and hence, need not be operations.
proved for purposes of - INTENT: to commit arson for the purpose of collecting the
conviction.
insurance on their stock of merchandise.
BUT PROOF OF MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO

*An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime SUPPORT A CONVICTION: mere proof of motive, no matter how
without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no reliable
evidence from which it may be reasonable deduced that the accused
- A good motive does not prevent an act from being a crime. was the malefactor.
- EXAMPLE: EUTHANASIA: the painless killing of a patient who
has no chance of recovery, the motive may be good, but it is - Even a strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the
nevertheless punished by law. place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
LACK OF MOTIVE MAY BE AN AID IN SHOWING THE INNOCENCE

WHEN MOTIVE IS RELEVANT WHEN MOTIVE NEED NOT BE OF THE ACCUSED:
ESTABLISHED
PEOPLE VS. TANEO

When the identity of a person To pin a crime on the accused if
accused of having committed a the commission of the crime has - SC: the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with
crime is in dispute. been proven and the evidence f which he was charged, were no voluntary in the sense of
identification is convicting. entailing criminal liability.
When there is doubt as to the Immaterial when the accused

identity of the assailant. has been positively identified. Lack of motive to kill the deceased has been held as further basis for
acquitting the accused, where the lone testimony of the prosecution
witness is contrary to common experience, and therefore, incredible.
Where the identification of the Where the defendant admits the
accused proceeds from an killing.
unreliable source and the SUMMARY:
testimony is inconclusive and not In ascertaining the truth between
free from doubt. two agnostic theories or versions HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED:
of the killing.
1. BY MEANS OF DECEIT (DOLO) - there is deceit when the act
is performed with deliberate intent.
When there are no eyewitnesses Where guilt is otherwise o Requisites:
to the crime, and where established by sufficient
a) Freedom.
suspicion is likely to fall upon a evidence.
number of persons. b) Intelligence.
c) Intent.
o Examples: murder, treason, and robbery.
When the evidence is merely When there is no longer any o Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
circumstantial. doubt that the defendant was the 1) When the crime is the product of culpa or
culprit. negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill;
2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a
special law or what is called malum prohibitum.

o In criminal law, intent is categorized into two: you have a case of RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE. But if the danger that
1) General criminal intent; and would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor
2) Specific criminal intent. immediate you have only a case of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE.
o General criminal intent is presumed from the mere
doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The
burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted
without such criminal intent.
o Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an
ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the
crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/
murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the
same.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND DISCERNMENT
INTENT DISCERNMENT
The determination to do a certain The mental capacity to tell right

thing, an aim or purpose of the from wrong. It relates to the moral
mind. It is the design to resolve or significance that a person
determination by which a person ascribes to his act and relates to
acts. the intelligence as an element of
dolo, distinct from intent.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE
INTENT MOTIVE
Demonstrated by the use of a Implies motion. It is the moving

particular means to bring about a power which impels one to do an
desired result – it is not a state of act. When there is motive in the
mind or a reason for committing a commission of a crime, it always
crime. comes before the intent. But a
crime may be committed without
motive.
NOTE: If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent.

Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The
specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be
distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.
2. BY MEANS OF FAULT (CULPA) – there is fault when the

wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
o IMPRUDENCE – deficiency of action; e.g. A was
driving a truck along a road. He hit B because it was
raining → reckless imprudence.
o NEGLIGENCE – deficiency of perception; failure to
foresee impending danger, usually involves lack of
foresight.
o Requisites:
a) Freedom.
b) Intelligence.
c) Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or
foresight.
d) Lack of intent.
The CONCEPT OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is the inexcusable lack

of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform
an act. If the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest,

ART. 4: CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE INCURRED:
APPLICATION OF ART. 4: this article has no reference to the manner RATIONALE OF RULE IN PAR. 1: he who is the cause of the cause is
criminal liability is incurred (ART. 3). the cause of the evil caused.
ONE WHO COMMITS AN INTENTIONAL FELONY IS IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES AND PHRASES IN
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH MAY PARAGRAPH 1
NATURALLY AND LOGICALLY RESULT THEREFROM, WHETHER
FORESEEN OR INTENDED OR NOT: there are cases where the 1) “COMMITTING A FELONY:” if the act is not punishable by the
consequences of the felonious act of the offender are not intended by Code, it is not a felony.
him. o The felony committed by the offender should be one
committed by means of dolo (with malice).
- In those cases, “the wrongful act done” is “different from that o If the wrongful act results from the imprudence,
which he intended.” negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill of the
offender, his liability should be determined under ART.
PARAGRAPH 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause 365 (defines and penalizes criminal negligence).
of the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical o The act or omission should not be punishable by a
consequence of the felonious act. special law, because the offender violating a special
law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.
- RATIONALE: “he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.”
- A person committing a felony s criminally liable although the PEOPLE VS. DIVINO
consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him.
o One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural - Defendant, who was not a regular medical practitioner, tied a
girl, wrapped her feet with rags saturated with petroleum and
consequences of one’s illegal acts merely because one
set them on fire, causing injuries.
does not intend to produce such consequences. - While there was no intention to cause an evil but to provide a
- EXAMPLES: remedy, accused was liable for injuries thru imprudence.
- Defendant did not commit an intentional felony, only an illegal
practice of medicine punishable by a special law.
PEOPLE VS. MARIANO: o Violation of a statute is proof of negligence or
imprudence.
- The death of a 6 year-old victim brought about by rape
committed by the accused when she hit her head on the
pavement → he is responsible for all the consequences of
said act. o When a person has not committed a felony, he is not
criminally liable for the result which is not intended.
 A snatched the bolo carried by B at his belt out
of curiosity, injuring B. A is not criminally liable
for the physical injuries caused because there is
US VS. BORBST
no provision in the RPC which punishes that act
- One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural of snatching the property of another due to
consequences of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does curiosity.
not intent to produce such consequences.  A tried to retain the possession of his bolo
which was being taken by B and in the struggle,
the bolo hit a bystander = NOT criminally liable
because the law allows a person to use the
necessary force to retain what belongs to him.
A fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead = liable or the injury
caused to C, although A had no intention to injure C.
- Abberratio ictus. PEOPLE VS. BINDOY
- The accused offered tuba to Pacas’ wife. She refused as she

already done so and the accused threatened to injure her if
she would not accept. There ensued an interchange of words
and Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take
A gave a fist blow on the head of D, causing the latter to fall, his head away the bolo the accused was carrying. This disturbance
striking a hard pavement = liable for death of D, although A had no attracted the attention of Omandam and in the course of the
intention to kill D. struggle, the accused was able to disengage himself from
Pacas and wretched the bolo from the latter’s hand, and
Omamdam (who was behind the accused) was hit in the
chest. The accused was not aware of Omamdam’s presence
in the place.
A stabbed another in the dark, believing that the latter was E, when in - No evidence that the accused injured the deceased
fact it was G = liable for the injury caused to G, although A had no deliberately and with the intention of committing a crime.
intention to injure G. - He was only defending his possession of the bolo and his
conduct was perfectly legal.
- Error in personae. - Had the accused attempted to wound Pacas during the
struggle, but instead of doing so, he wounded Omamdam, he

would have been liable for the death of Omamdam.
o WHY: attempting to wound another = committing a
felony (attempted homicide).
PEOPLE VS. MONLEON
- The accused in his inebriated state had no intent to kill his

2) “ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT wife.
FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED.” - He was infuriated because his son did not feed his carabao.
o Causes which may produce a result different from that He was provoked to castigate his wife because she prevented
him from whipping his negligent son. He could have easily
which the offender intended are:
killed his wife had he really intended to take her life. He did
not kill her outright.
- The maltreatment inflicted by the accused on is wife was the
MISTAKE IN THE MISTAKE IN THE THE ACT EXCEEDS proximate cause of her death.
IDENTITY OF THE BLOW (when the THE INTENT (the
VICTIM offender intending to injurious result is
do an injury to one greater than that
person actually intended).
REQUISITES OF PAR. 1: in order that a person may be held
inflicts it on another.
criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to
commit, the following requisites must be present:
Error in personae. Aberration ictus. Praetor intentionem.
1) That an intentional felony has been committed.
o In the cases of PEOPLE VS. VILLANUEVA and
PEOPLE VS. PEOPLE VS. PEOPLE VS. PEOPLE VS. BINDOY, the accused ere not held
OANIS; PEOPLE MABUGAT***: the CAGOCO: the criminally liable, because they were not committing a
VS. GONA: accused, having accused, without
felony when they caused the injury to another.
defendant went out discharged his intent to kill, struck
of the house with the firearm at Juana the victim with his fist o NO felony is committed:
intention of Buralo but because on the back of the a) When the act or omission is not punishable by
assaulting Dunca, of lack of precision, head from behind, the RPC.
but in the darkness hit and seriously causing the victim to  Example: attempting to commit a
of the evening, wounded Perfecta fall down with his suicide.
defendant mistook Buralo, it was held head hitting the
Mapudul for Dunca that the accused was asphalt pavement
and inflicted upon liable for the injury and resulting in the
him a mortal wound caused to the latter. fracture of his head. If A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself.
with a bolo. Accused was liable When he dropped to the ground he fell on an old woman who died as
Defendant is for the death of the a consequence.
criminally liable. victim.
- A is not criminally liable for intentional homicide.
- A was not committing a felony when he attempted a suicide.
***PEOPLE VS. MABUGAT

b) When the act is covered by any of the justifying
- Accused and Juana Buralo are sweethearts. The accused circumstances enumerated in ART. 11.
invited Juana to take a walk with him but she refused on  One who shoots at another in self-
account of the accused having frequently visited the house of defense, defense of relative, defense of
another woman. Later on, the accused went to the house a stranger, or in the fulfilment of duty is
where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion, the not committing a felony, the act being
accused, revolver in hand, waited until Juana and her niece
justified.
and he followed them. As the two girls were going upstairs,
the accused fired a hoot from his revolver at Juana but which
wounded her niece, Perfecta. Perfecta did not die due to
proper medical attention. B, who was being fired at with a gun by C to kill him, fired his pistol at
- The accused was guilty of frustrated murder, qualified by the latter in self-defense, but missed him and instead hit and killed D,
treachery. a bystander.
- B is not criminally liable for the death of D.

- One acting in self-defense is not committing a felony.
PEOPLE VS. TOMOTORGO
- The conduct of the wife of the accused aroused his ire and
incensed with wrath and his anger beyond control, he picked
up a piece of wood and started hitting his wife with it until she
fell to the ground, complaining of severe chest pains. A policeman, who was pursuing to arrest an armed prisoner who had
Realizing what he had done, he picked her up and brought her just escaped from jail, fired his service pistol at the latter when he
home. Despite his efforts to alleviate her pain, the wife died. refused to be captured. The slug fired from the pistol of the
- SC: the fact that the appellant intended to maltreat his wife policeman, after hitting the prisoner on his right leg, hit and seriously
only or inflict physical injuries does not exempt him from injured a passer-by.
liability for the resulting and more serious crime of parricide.
- The policeman is not criminally liable for the injury caused to

the passer-by because being in the fulfilment of a duty, he o In the following cases, the wrong done is the direct,
was not committing a felony. natural and logical consequence of the felony
- Of course, the act of defense or fulfilment of duty must be committed:
exercised with due care; otherwise, the accuse will be liable
for culpable felony.
USE VS. VALDEZ; PEOPLE VS. BUHAY
- The victim who was threatened or chased by the accused with

a knife, jumped into the water and because of the strong
PEOPLE VS. SALINAS current or because he did not know how to swim, he sank
down and died of drowning.
- The three accused, together with two small boys, went to the
place of Aquino to get their horses which the latter caught for
having destroyed his corn plants. When one of the accused
and the two boys were already inside the house of Aquino, the
accused asked, with signs of respect and in a nice way,
PEOPLE VS. MOLDES
Aquino what had the horses destroyed. Thereafter, one of the
other accused, who was at the front of the house of Aquino
- Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long
told Aquino to come down from the house and he will bolo him
as the wound inflicted is dangerous (calculated to destroy or
to pieces. Aquino then was about to go downstairs and one of
endanger life).
the accused tried to stop him. While the two were struggling,
o That is true even though the immediate cause of the
Mercuria Aqunio, carrying her one month old child Tibule,
death was erroneous or unskilful medical or surgical
approached the two of them. Mercuria tried to remove the
treatment.
hand of the accused which held the neck of Aquino and the
- A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and
accused pulled her right hand, causing her to fall down over
to take away from human life a salutary and essential
with her child. Tibule was pinned on the floor by Mercuria’s
safeguard.
body.
- I would be easy in any cases of homicide to raise a doubt as
- Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused,
to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open wide he
in his efforts to prevent Aquino from going down the house to
door by which persons guilty of the highest crime might
have a bloody encounter with the other accused in the yard,
escape conviction and punishment.
by taking hold of Severino and pulling or jerking the right hand
of Mercuria who tried to free Aquino from his hold, committed
or was committing a crime.
- It cannot be likewise said that the death of the child was the
direct result of a crime which the accused has committed or o BUT where it clearly appears that the injury would not
was in the act of committing. have caused death, in the ordinary course of events,
but would have healed in so many days and where it is
shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to the
malicious or careless acts of the injured person or a
o Any person who creates in another’s mind an third person → accused not liable for homicide.
immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to  Not those which bear no relation to the initial
do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable cause and are due to the mistakes committed
for the resulting injuries. by the doctor in the surgical operation and the
treatment of the victim’s wound.
o The victim was suffering from internal malady:
PEOPLE VS. PAGE; PEOPLE VS. TOLING
- During a robbery in a passenger jeepney, one of the culprits

told the women passengers “to bring out their money and not PEOPLE VS. ILLUSTRE: blow was efficient cause of death.
to shout ‘or else there will be shoots.’” One of the women
jumped out of the jeepney. Her head struck the pavement and - The deceased had a delicate constitution and was suffering
died as a consequence. from tuberculosis. The accused gave fist blow on the
- HELD: if a man creates in another person’s mind an deceased’s right hypochondrium, bruising the liver and
immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to try producing internal haemorrhage, resulting in the death of the
to escape, and, in doing so, the latter injures himself, the man victim.
who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the - The accused was liable for homicide.
resulting injuries.
- REASON: a felony was being committed (at that stage of
execution, attempted robbery with intimidation which is
punishable under ART. 294 of the Code).
- Relied on US VS. VALDEZ: if a person against whom a PEOPLE VS. RODRIGUEZ: blow accelerated death.
criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be
in danger or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps - The deceased was suffering from internal malady. The
into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-reservation, the accused gave fit blows in the back and abdomen, producing
assailant is responsible for homicide in case of death results inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis, and causing death.
by drowning. - The accused was liable for homicide, because by his fist
blows he produced the cause for the acceleration of the death
of the deceased.
2) That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,

natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender.
PEOPLE VS. REYES: blow was proximate cause of death.

from the hand of the accused a wound in his abdomen below
- The deceased was suffering from heart disease. The accused the navel. While undergoing medical treatment, the victim took
stabbed the deceased with a knife, but as the blade of the out the drainage from his wound and as a result of the
knife hit a bone, it did not penetrate the thoracic cavity, but it peritonitis that developed, he died. The accused claimed as a
produced a shock, resulting in the death of the victim. defense that had not the deceased taken out the drainage, he
- The accused was liable for homicide, because the stabbing would not have died.
was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. - Death was the natural consequence of the mortal wound
inflicted.
- The victim, in removing the drainage from his wound, did not
do so voluntarily and with knowledge that it was prejudicial to
o The offended party refused to submit to surgical his health.
o The act of the victim was attributed to his pathological
operation:
condition and state of nervousness and restlessness
on account of physical pain caused by the wound,
aggravated by the contract of the drainage tube with
US VS. MARASIGAN the inflamed peritoneum.
- The accused drew his knife and struck Mendoza. In
attempting to ward off the blow, Mendoza was cut in the left
hand. The extensor tendon in one f the fingers was severed.
As a result, the middle finger of the left hand was rendered
useless. PEOPLE VS. RELOJ
- The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical
operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary - The accused stabbed the victim with an ice pick. The victim
results of his crime. was brought to the hospital where a surgical operation was
- It was the accused’s voluntary act which disabled Mendoza performed upon him. Although the operation was successful
and he must abide by the consequences resulting therefrom and the victim seemed to be in the process of recovery, he
without aid from Mendoza. developed, five days later, a paralytic ileum – which takes
place sometimes in consequence of the exposure of the
internal organs during the operation – and then died.
- The exposure of the internal organs in consequence of a
surgical operation in the abdomen sometimes results in a
o The resulting injury was aggravated by infection: paralysis of the ileum and that said operation had to be
performed on account of the abdominal injury inflicted by the
accused.
PEOPLE VS. RED - The accused is responsible for the natural consequences of
his own acts.
- The accused wounded the offended party with a bolo. When
the offended party entered the hospital, no anti-tetanus
injection was given to him and the wounds became infected
when he went out of the hospital. DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE – that cause, which, in natural
- The accused is responsible for the duration of the treatment
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
and disability prolonged by the infection.
- US VS. DE LOS SANTOS: but the infection should not be due produces the injury and without which the result would not have
to the malicious act of the offended party. occurred.
- “NATURAL:” an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life

or events.
- “LOGICAL:” there is a rational connection between the act of
PEOPLE VS. BAYUTAS the accused and the resulting injury or damage.
- Requisites:
- Although the wounds might have been cured sooner than 58 1) The direct, natural, and logical cause.
days had the offended party not been addicted to tuba
drinking, this fact does not mitigate the liability of the accused. 2) Produces the injury or damage.
3) Unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause.
4) Without which the result would not have occurred.
- PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion,
PEOPLE VS. CORNEL all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its immediate
- The accused attacked the deceased with a bolo. After the predecessor.
deceased had fallen, the accused threw a stone which hit him - The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
on the right clavicle. The wounds inflicted could not have
caused the death of the deceased. A week later, the resulting injury when:
deceased died of tetanus secondary to the infected wound. a) There is an active force that intervened between the
- The accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active
force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused, or
b) The resulting injury is due to intentional act of the
victim.
PEOPLE VS. QUIANSON
- The accused took hold of a fireband and applied it to the neck QUINTO VS. ANDRES
of the person who was pestering him. The victim also received

- If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a felony.
manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a
consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter is nature
or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes
cooperated in producing the factual result. - The following are not efficient intervening causes (they do not
- The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his
break the relation of cause and effect):
delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of
the victim. 1) PEOPLE VS. ILLUSTRE and PEOPLE VS. REYES: the
- A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and weak or diseased physical condition of the victim as
take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard. when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart
disease.
2) PEOPLE VS. ALMONTE and PEOPLE VS.
QUIANSON: the nervousness and temperament of the
victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an
VDA. DE BATACLAN VS. MEDINA internal haemorrhage brought on by moving about
against the doctor’s orders, because of his nervous
- While a bus was running very fast on a highway, one of the
front tires burst and the vehicle began to zigzag until it fell into condition due to the wound inflicted by the accused.
a canal and turned turtle; gasoline also began to leak and four 3) PEOPLE VS. BUHAY, US VS. VALDEZ, US VS.
of its passengers could not get out of the overturned bus. BAYUTAS: causes which are inherent in the victim,
About ten men, one of them carrying a lighted torch, such as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim, and (b)
approached the overturned bus to help those left therein, and the victim being addicted to tuba drinking.
almost immediately a fierce fire started, burning the trapped 4) US VS. MARASIGAN and PEOPLE VS. RED: neglect
passengers.
of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the
- ISSUE: Whether the proximate cause of the death of the four
passengers is the negligence of the driver resulting the fall injured party of medical attendance or surgical
into the canal and overturning of the bus, or the fire that operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-
burned the bus. THE OVERTURNING OF THE BUS. tetanus injection to the injured person.
- REASONS: when the vehicle turned not only on its side but 5) PEOPLE VS. MOLDES: erroneous or unskilful medical
completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in
tank was not unnatural or unexpected. an outlying barrio where proper modern surgical service
o The coming of the man with a lighted torch was in
was not available.
response to the call for help and that because it was
very dark, the rescuers had to carry a light with them.
o They also came from a rural area where lanterns and
flashlights were not available that they had to use a PEOPLE VS. PIAMONTE
torch.
- In other words, the coming of the men with the torch was to be - One of the accused stabbed the injured party with a hunting
expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of knife. The injured arty was taken to the hospital and was
the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for operated on. The operation did him well but he contracted
outside help. mucus colitis which developed because of his weak condition.
- ALSO, the driver and the conductor were on the road walking He died.
back and forth: they should have known that gasoline must - WON the accused who stabbed the injured party liable for the
have leaked from the tank and soaked the area in and around latter’s death. YES.
the bus. - While the wounds inflicted were not the immediate cause, they
o They did not caution or take steps to warn the were however the proximate cause of death.
rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus.
o Negligence on the part of the carrier.
- The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural

consequence of the physical injuries inflicted when the
following facts are established:
PEOPLE VS. LUCES 1) That the victim at the time the physical injuries were
inflicted was in normal health.
- Accused Luces gave a fist blow on the stomach of Feliciana,
2) That death may be expected from the physical injuries
causing her to fall unconscious. She never regained
consciousness and a few minutes thereafter, she died. inflicted.
- Autopsy: probable cause of death was cardiac failure. 3) That death ensued within a reasonable time.
- HELD: The blow was the primary and proximate cause of her
death.
- The gravity of the crime does not depend on the more or less PEOPLE VS. TAMMANG
violent means used, but on the result and consequence of the
same and if the accused had not ill-treated the deceased, she - The boy Jundam was in good health on the morning of the
would not have died. incident. He was whipped, spanked, and thrown against the
post by his teacher, his breast hitting it. He complained to his
mother about the oppressive pain, crying and massaging is
breast all the time. He was also found to have two suspicious
bluish spots and vomited blood until he died three days
PEOPLE VS. MARTIN afterwards.
- There being no intervening cause, the liability of the teacher
- The accused, who strangled his wife then suffering from heart for homicide necessarily follows from the premises stated.
disease, was found guilty of parricide even if the death of his - Had it been proved, as claimed by the dense, that the boy
wife was the result of heart failure because the heart failure died of hydrophobia, that would have constituted an
was due to fright or shock caused by the strangling, which is a intervening cause, and the accused would have been

acquitted.
URBANO VS. IAC

PEOPLE VS. RELLIN
- Where medical findings lead to a distinct possibility that the
- If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening
act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the cause later or between the time the deceased was wounded
offender is not responsible for such consequences. to the time of his death, the accused must be acquitted of the
crime of homicide.
- A person not liable criminally for all possible consequences

which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for PROXIMATE CAUSE IS NEGATED BY:
such as are proximate.
1) Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient
PEOPLE VS. ROCKWELL PEOPLE VS. intervening cause.
CAGOCO 2) Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the
victim.
Where a person struck another with his fist There was no active
and knocked him down and a horse near force that intervened
QUESTION 1: is the accused responsible for the result, if there is a
them jumped upon him and killed him, the between the felonious
assailant was not responsible for the death act and the result. neglect of the wound or there is an improper treatment of the wound?
of that person.
ANSWER: PEOPLE VS. MORALLOS → the neglect of the wound or
There WAS an active force: the jumping of its unskilful and improper treatment, which are of themselves
the horse upon the deceased. consequences of the criminal act and which might naturally follow I any
case, must in law be deemed to have been among those
consequences which were in contemplation of the guilty party and for
which he is to be held responsible. Unskilful and improper treatment
- In the following cases, the injury caused is NOT the direct, may be an active force, but it is not a distinct act or fact absolutely
logical and necessary consequence of the felony committed, foreign from the criminal act.
because the felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
resulting injury: QUESTION 2: is the accused criminally liable for the consequences
which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person?
US VS. DE LOS SANTOS

ANSWER: US VS. MONASTERIAL → persons who are responsible for
- If slight physical injuries be inflicted by A upon B, and the an act constituting a crime are also liable for all the consequences
latter deliberately immerses his body in a contaminated arising therefrom and inherent therein, other than those due to
cesspool, thereby causing his injuries to become infected and incidents entirely foreign to the act executed, or which originate
serious, A cannot be held liable for the crime of serious through the fault or carelessness of the injured person, which are
physical injuries. exceptions to the rule not arising in the present case.
- The act of B in deliberately immersing his body in a
contaminated cesspool, not the slight physical injuries inflicted
In the case of PEOPLE VS. QUIANSON, one who inflicts injury to
by A, is the proximate cause of the serious physical injuries.
another is deemed guilty of homicide is the injury contributes to the
death of the latter, “even if the deceased might have recovered f he
had taken proper care of himself, or submitted to surgical operation.”
PEOPLE VS. PALALON It would seem that the fault or carelessness of the injured party, which
would break the elation of the felony committed and the resulting
- The accused struck a boy on the mouth with the back of his injury, must have its origin from his malicious act or omission (US VS.
hand. Later, the boy died. NAVARRO), as when the injured party had a desire to increase the
- Death might have been caused by fever prevalent in the criminal liability of his assailant.
locality, not by the blow on the mouth.
- The accused who gave the blow was NOT liable for the death
of the deceased. A SUPERVENING EVENT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF
AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL INFORMATION OR OF A NEW
CHARGE WITHOUT DOUBLE JEOPARDY
US VS. EMBATE PEOPLE VS. PETILLA
- The accused struck a child, who was seriously ill with fever for - Where the charge contained in the original information was for
three weeks, upon the thighs with a slipper, pushed and slight physical injuries because at that time the fiscal believed
dragged him, throwing him heavily on the mat spread on the that the wound suffered by the offended party would require
floor. The child died two days later. medical attendance for a period of only 8 days, but when the
- As the true cause of the child’s death was not proved, the preliminary investigation was conducted, the justice of the
accused was convicted of physical injuries only. peace found that the wound would heal after a period of 30

days, the act which converted the crime into a more serious being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that
one had supervened after the filing of the original information prevented the crime from being produced.
and this supervening even can still be the subject of - Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime as defined and
amendment or of a new charge without necessarily placing penalized in ART. 4, PAR. 2 and 59 of the RPC.
the accused in double jeopardy.
i. “Would be an offense against persons.”

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES: the commission of an impossible crime is
indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the
actor. A fired to B, who was lying on bed, not knowing that B was dead
hours before.
- Such person is a potential criminal.
- POSITIVIST THINKING: the community must be protected - In crime against persons, as would have been in this case, it
is necessary that the victim could be injured or killed. A dead
from anti-social activities, whether actual or potential, of the
person cannot be injured or killed.
morbid type of man called “socially dangerous person.” - Had B been alive when he was shot, and as a consequence
- The second paragraph defines the so-called impossible crimes he died, the crime committed by A would have been murder, a
(impossible attempts): crime against persons.
- REQUISITES: - There is physical and legal impossibility in this example.
1) That the act performed would be an offense against
persons or property.
2) That the act was done with evil intent.
 He must have the intent to do an injury to
INTOD VS. CA
another.
- The accused, intending to kill a person, peppered that letter’s
bedroom with bullets, but since the intended victim was not
A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found out home at the time, no harm came to him.
that B was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in his - Guilty of an impossible crime because of the factual
breast three times with a knife. impossibility of producing the crime.
- WON this is an impossible crime. NO.

- A knew that B was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless
body. There was no evil intent on the part of A, because he ii. “Would be an offense against property.”
knew that he could not cause an injury to B.
- Even subjectively, he was not a criminal.
A, with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket of B. when A had
the watch in his possession, he found out that it was the watch which
he had lost a week before (the watch belonged to A).
3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or
that the means employed is either inadequate or - WON this is an impossible crime. YES, it may be.
ineffectual. - The act performed would have been heft had the watch been
a. “Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:” the property of B. but there is a legal and physical impossibility
the act intended by the offender by its nature of accomplishing it, because in theft, the personal property
one of impossible accomplishment → legal or taken must belong to another.
physical impossibility.
EXAMPLES:
An employee who, having known the safe combination, opens the
safe in the office for the purpose of stealing money, but who finds the
1. When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a
safe empty, is guilty of impossible crime.
substance which he believes to be arsenic when it fact it is
common salt.
- The act performed would have been theft were it not for the
2. When one tries to murder a corpse.
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment.
- If there is no personal property that could be taken, it is
inherently impossible to commit theft.
JACINTO VS. PEOPLE

b. “Employment of inadequate” means.
- A collector for a company did not remit the customer’s check
payment to the company, but instead, appropriated it for
herself by depositing it to the bank of a relative. The check
was, however, dishonoured. A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing
- In this case, petitioner performed all the acts to consummate it with the food given to B, believing that the quantity employed by him
the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property, is sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed.
had it not been impossible of its accomplishment.
- Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would - The means employed (small quantity of poison) is inadequate
have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully to kill a person.
hers.
- It was only due to EXTRANEOUS circumstance of the check

 Where the means employed is
ADEQUATE and the result expected is
not produced: FRUSTRATED FELONY. Parricide, murder, homicide, Robbery, brigandage, theft,
 EXAMPLE: when an intended infanticide, abortion, duel, usurpation, culpable insolvency,
physical injuries, rape. swindling and other deceits,
victim has developed strong
chattel mortgage, arson and
resistance to poison because he other crimes involving
had been working in a mine. destruction, malicious mischief.
c. Employment of “ineffectual means.”
A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he though NOTE: if the act performed would be an offense other than a felony
was arsenic when in fact it was sugar. B could not have been killed, against persons or against property, there is no impossible crime.
because the means employed was ineffectual.
PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN PUNISHING THE IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
- BUT A showed criminal tendency and hence, he should be
to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.
punished for it in accordance with ART. 2, PAR. 2, in relation
to ART. 59.
- Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but
subjectively, he is a criminal.
ART. 5
A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter, A,
not knowing that it was empty. When he pressed the trigger, it did not PAR. 1: contemplates a trial of a criminal case → requisites.
fire.
1) The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by
- The means used by A is ineffectual.
any law.
2) But the court deems it proper to repress such act.
3) In that case, the court must render the proper decision by
4) That the act performed should not constitute a violation dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.
of another provision of the RPC. 4) The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive,
through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which
induce him to believe that the said act should be made the
A, who knew that B owned and always carried a watch, decided to rob subject of penal legislation.
B of said watch. When A met B for that purpose, B did not have the
watch because he forgot to carry it with him. Thinking that B had the BASIS OF PAR. 1: “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” → there is
watch with him, A pointed his gun at him and asked for the watch. no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
Finding that B did not have the watch, A allowed B to go without
further molestation. PAR. 2: requisites:
- WON this is an impossible crime. NO, ATTEMPTED
ROBBERY. 1) The court after trial finds the accused guilty.
- There was intent to gain on the part of A when he decided to 2) The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for
take the watch of B at the point of gun. The crime of robbery the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because:
with intimidation of person is not produced, not because of the a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice,
inherent impossible of its accomplishment, but because of a and/or;
cause or accident (that B forgot to carry the watch with him) b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser
other than A’s own spontaneous desistance.
gravity.
- ANOTHER REASON: A’s pointing his gun at B already
constituted at least the crime of grave threats. 3) The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
4) The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive,
through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive
clemency.
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES AND PHRASES IN
PARAGRAPH 2: EXAMPLES OF THE ACCUSED ACTING WITH LESSER DEGREE
OF MALICE:
1) “PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD BE AN OFFENSE
AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY.”
o The offender intends to commit a felony against PEOPLE VS. MONLEON
persons or a felony against property, and the act
- The accused maltreated his wife in his inebriated stage,
performed would have been an offense against persons
because she prevented him from whipping their negligent son,
or property. and the maltreatment inflicted by the accused was the
o BUT a felony against persons or property should not be proximate cause of her death.
actually committed, for, otherwise, he would be liable or - SC: considering that the accused had no intent to kill his wife
that felony; there would be no impossible crime to and that her death might have been hastened by lack of
speak of. appropriate medical attendance or her weak constitution.
- Penalty of reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.
FELONIES AGAINST FELONIES AGAINST

PERSONS PROPERTY

1) PEOPLE VS. ESTOISTA: the rampant lawlessness against
PEOPLE VS. ESPINO property, person, and even the very security of the
government, directly traceable in large measure to
- Father and son were convicted of qualified theft for stealing promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify
ten tender coconut fruits from two coconut trees in a coconut
plantation, for the family’s consumption. imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear
- CA: we are of the belief that the degree of malice behind the excessive.
appellants’ felonious act does not warrant the imposition of so 2) PEOPLE VS. TIU UA: congress thought it necessary to repress
stiff a penalty as we are now constrained to mere out under profiteering with a heavy fine so that dealers would not take
the law. We recommend that he may be pardoned after advantage of the critical condition to make unusual profits.
serving 4 months (instead of 3 years). o Fine of Php5K for selling Klim milk for Php2.20 (1.80
only).
COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY THE PENALTY PROVIDED

EXAMPLE OF TOTAL ABSENCE OF INJURY
BY LAW
PEOPLE VS. CABAGSAN and MONTANO

PEOPLE VS. LIMACO
- The defendant chief of police altered and falsified the
- A trial judge expressed in his decision his view against the
municipal police blotter and the book of records of arrests and
wisdom of the death penalty and refused to impose it.
the return of the warrant of arrest and the bail bond of a
- HELD: it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the
person charged with qualified seduction so as to make them
law, regardless of their private opinions.
show that the said person was arrested and gave bond on
- The courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or
Sept. 13, 1930, whereas in truth, that person was arrested on
morality of laws. That question falls exclusively within the
Sept. 6, 1930.
province of the Legislature and the Chief Executive.
- The defendant justice of peace conspired and cooperated
- The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and if
which his co-defendant in making said falsification in order to
not in disharmony with the Constitution, to apply them.
meet the administrative charges then pending against him.
- There is apparent lack of malice and total absence of injury.
o Those falsifications were committed to make it appear
that there was no delay in the preliminary investigation
conducted by the justice of the peace for qualified
seduction. PEOPLE VS. OLAES
- A trial judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment,

although the commission of the crime of robbery with
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY homicide was attended by the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity and in band, “in view of the attitude of the Chief
Executive on death penalty.”
- HELD: Courts should interpret and apply the laws as they find
PEOPLE VS. CANJA, MONTEMAYOR, J (concurring) them on the state books, regardless of the manner their
judgments are executed and implemented by the executive
- The violence with which appellant killed her husband reveals department.
the pent-up righteous anger and rebellion against years of
abuse, insult, and tyranny seldom heard of. Considering all
these circumstances and provocations, including the fact as
already stated that her conviction was based on her own
confession, the appellant is deserving of executive clemency, JUDGE HAS THE DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED
not of full pardon but a substantial if not radical reduction or BY THE SUPREME COURT
commutation.
PEOPLE VS. SANTOS
- It is a judge’s duty to apply the law as interpreted by the

PEOPLE VS. MANLAPAZ Highest Court of the land, and hat any deviation from a
principle laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a
- The crime committed by the accused is simple rape. Before sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays and expenses to
ART> 335 of the RPC was amended, simple rape was the litigants.
penalized by reclusion temporal. RA 4111 raised the penalty
for simple rape to reclusion perpetua and made qualified rape
a capital offense.
- Taking notice of the rampancy of sexual assaults, ensuing
from the lawlessness and deterioration of morals occasioned PEOPLE VS. AMIGO
by the war, the law-making body sought to deter rapists by
increasing the penalty for rape. - Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of
- Executive clemency may be extended to him. the courts is to apply the law, disregarding their feeling of
sympathy or pity for an accused.
- The remedy is elsewhere – clemency from the executive or an
amendment of the law by the legislative.
PENALTIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WHEN INTENDED TO
ENFORCE A PUBLIC POLICY

“WHEN STRICT PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE:” not applicable to an
offense defined and penalized by a special law (PEOPLE VS.
SALAZAR).
- ART. 5 of the RPC may not be invoked in cases involving acts

mala prohibita, because said article applies only in acts mala in
se, or crimes committed with malice or criminal intent.

ART. 6 b) ACTS OF EXECUTION – acts directly connected the
crime. They are punishable under the RPC.
ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSUMMATED STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME
When the offender When the offender When all the ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSUMMATED
commences the performs all the acts elements necessary
commission of a of execution which for its execution and
felony directly by would produce the accomplishment are Overt acts of All acts of execution All the acts of
overt acts, and does felony as a present. execution are are present. execution are
not perform all the consequence but started. present.
acts of execution which, nevertheless, Crime sought to be
which should do not produce it by Not all acts of committed is not The result sought is
produce the felony reason of causes execution are achieved. achieved.
by reason of some independent of the present.
cause or accident will of the Due to intervening
other than his own perpetrator. Due to reasons other causes independent
spontaneous than the of the will of the
desistance. spontaneous perpetrator.
desistance of the
perpetrator.
DEVELOPMENT OF A 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. o In performing e acts of execution of a felony, the
offender may reach only the first stage or the
1. INTERNAL ACTS –mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not second stage. In either case, he does not
punishable even if, they been carried out, they would constitute produce the felony he intends to commit. But he
a crime. is liable for attempted felony or frustrated felony,
o Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime as the case may be.
than a mere effect without the intention is a crime.
ATTEMPTED FELONY: ELEMENTS:
A intended to commit treason and joined a body of armed me in the 1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly
belief that they were Makapilis, when in fact they were Guerilleros. by overt acts.
2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should
- A was not liable for treason, despite his intent.
produce the felony.
3) The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance.
2. EXTERNAL ACTS. 4) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause
a) PREPARATORY ACTS – acts tending toward the or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
crime.
o Ordinarily, preparatory acts are not punishable. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART. 6:
Hence, proposal and conspiracy to commit a
felony, which are only preparatory acts, are not 1) “COMMENCES THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY
punishable, except when the law provides for DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS.”
their punishment in certain felonies. o When is the commission of a felony deemed
o But preparatory acts which are considered in commenced directly by overt acts? When the following
themselves, by law, as independent crimes are two requisites are present:
punishable. i. That there be external acts.
 Possession of picklocks under ART. 304 ii. Such external acts have direct connection with
is a preparatory act to the commission the crime intended to be committed.
of robbery. o They should not be mere preparatory acts, for
preparatory acts do not have direct connection with the
crime which the offender intends to commit.
o OVERT ACTS: some physical activity or deed,
For merely doing the following acts, a person is not liable for indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
attempted homicide or attempted arson, because they do not more than a mere planning or preparation, which if
constitute even the first stage of the acts of execution of those crimes: carried to is complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
1) Buying poison or carrying a weapon with which to kill the not by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
intended victim.
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
2) Carrying inflammable materials to the place where the house
is to be burned.
PREPARATORY ACT OVERT ACT

A bought poison from a A mixed the poison with the food officer for the purpose of corrupting him is the overt act in the
drugstore, in preparation for the intended for B, and the latter, not crime of corruption of public officer.
killing of B by means of poison. knowing that it contained poison, - There are felonies, because of their nature or the manner of
put into his mouth a spoonful committing, the overt acts are not performed with bodily
NOTE: it is NOT an overt act thereof. movement or by physical activity.
because it has no direct
connection with the crime of NOTE: constituted the over acts
murder which A Intended to of murder. The nature of the
commit. The poison purchased external act thus performed by A o The external acts must have a direct connection with
may be used by A to kill rats or clearly indicated that he intended
the crime intended to be committed by the offender:
insects. Hence, the act of buying to commit the crime of murder. If
poison did not disclose for some reason or another, B
necessarily an intention to kill a threw away the food with poison
person with it. from his mouth, A is liable for At early dawn, A was surprised by a policeman while in the act of
attempted murder. making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap
goods. At that time, the owner of the store was sleeping inside with
another Chinaman. A had only succeeded in breaking one board and
in unfastening another from the wall.
- WON there is an attempted robbery in this case. NO.

PEOPLE VS. TOBAGO - While it is true that the first requisite is present, that is, there
were external acts of breaking one board and unfastening
- While Tobago was talking with the Chief of Police, he made a another from the wall of the store to make an opening through
motion to draw his pistol, but the latter embraced him and which A could enter the store, yet the second requisite is not
prevented him from drawing his pistol. Tabago then told his present, for such acts had no direct connection with the crime
two companions to fire at the Chief of Police, but they could of robbery by the use of force upon things.
not do so, because the Chief of Police e\was embracing - In case of robbery by use of force upon things, in order that
Tabago. One of his companions, Avelino Valle, fired a shot the simple act of entering by meaning of force, another
but the same was not aimed at anybody. person’s dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit
- HELD: the accused cannot be convicted of the crime of this offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly
attempted homicide. The action of the accused in placing his intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some
hand on his revolver, which was then on his waist, is indeed personal property belonging to another.
very equivocal and susceptible of different interpretations. For - CRIME COMMITED: attempted trespass to dwelling, because
example, it cannot be definitely concluded that the attempt of the intention of the accused was obviously disclosed by his
the accused to draw out his revolver would have, if allowed or act of making an opening through the wall, and that was to
be carried to its complete termination following its natural enter the store against the will of its owner who was then living
course, logically and necessarily ripped into a concrete there (PEOPLE VS. LAMAHANG). It was only an attempt
offense, because it is entirely possible that at any time during because A was notable to perform all the acts of execution
the subjective stage of the felony, the accused could have which should produce the felony of trespass to dwelling. Had
voluntarily desisted from performing all the acts of execution a commenced entering the dwelling through the opening, he
and which, had it happened, would completely exempt him would have performed all the acts of execution.
from criminal responsibility for the offense he intended to
commit.
o INDETERMINATE OFFENSE: one where the offender

in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation
o TO CONSTITUTE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE: the
to its objective is ambiguous.
person using the firearm must fire the same, with intent
to kill, at the offended party, without however inflicting a
mortal wound on the latter.
PEOPLE VS. LAMAHANG
o Rising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is
not an overt act of homicide: - The final objective of the offender, once he succeeded in
entering the store, may be t rob, to cause physical injury to the
inmates, or to commit any other offense. In such case, there is
US VS. SIMON no justification in finding the offender guilty of attempted
robbery by the use of force upon things.
- The crime committed was only that of threatening another with
a weapon because all that the accused id was to raise his
bolo as if to strike or stab the offended party with it. The latter
shouted for help and ran away. No blow was struck; nor was INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE VIEWED FROM THE
there proof of threats to kill or to do bodily harm. NATURE OF THE ACTS EXECUTED BY HIM, AND NOT FROM HIS
ADMISSION
 If a blow with the bolo was struck and there was

PEOPLE VS. LIZADA
intent to kill on the part of the accused, the act
of striking the offended party with the bolo - For overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is
would be an overt act of the crime of homicide. necessary that their objective be known and established or
such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should
obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended,
US VS. GLORIA said objective and finality to serve as ground for designation of
the offense.
- A proposal consisting in making an offer of money to a public

A picked the pocket of B, inside of which A aimed his pistol at B to
there was a wallet containing P50. Before kill the latter, but when
A Could remove it from the pocket of B, he pressed the trigger, it
the latter grabbed A’s hand and jammed and no bullet
prevented him from taking it. In this case, was fired from the pistol.
A failed to perform all the acts of
PEOPLE VS. LAMAHANG
execution, that is, taking the wallet.
- Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favour as
CAUSE: the timely discovery of B of the
well as against the accused, and which show an innocent as
overt act of A.
well as a punishable act, must not and cannot furnish grounds
by themselves for attempted crime.
5) “OTHER THAN HIS OWN SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE.”

- NOT CONSUMMATED: material damage is wanting; the nature o If the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by
of the action intended cannot exactly be ascertained, but the reason of his own spontaneous desistance, there is NO
same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed. attempted felony (law does not punish him).
o The overt acts leading to the commission of the offense o REASON: sort of a reward granted by law to those who,
are not punishable except when they are aimed directly having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of
at its execution, and therefore they must have an their conscience and return to the path of
immediate and necessary relation to the offense. righteousness.
2) “DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS:” only offenders who personally

PEOPLE VS. VILLACORTE
execute the commission of a crime can be guilty of attempted
felony. - One who takes part in planning a criminal act but desists in its
o “DIRECTLY” → suggest that the offender must actual commission is exempt from criminal liability. For after
commence the commission of the felony by taking taking part in the planning, he could have desisted from taking
direct part in the execution of the act. part in the actual commission of the crime by listening to the
call of his conscience.
A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it.
- A cannot be held liable for attempted homicide, because, o It is NOT necessary that the desistance be actuated by
although there was an attempt on the part of A, such an a good motive (fear or remorse.
attempt was not done directly with physical activity. The  The Code requires only that the discontinuance
inducement made by A to B is in the nature of a proposal, not of the crime comes from the person who has
ordinarily punished by law.
- But if B, pursuant to his agreement with A, commenced the begun it, and that he stops of his own free will.
commission of the crime by shooting C, with intent to kill, but o The desistance should be made before all the acts
missed and did not injure C, both A and B are guilty of executed are performed:
attempted felony, because of conspiracy.
o When there is conspiracy, the rule is – the act of one is
the act of all. A stole a chicken under the house of B one evening. Realizing that
what he did was wrong, A retuned the chicken to the place under the
house of B.
3) “DOES NOT PERFORM ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION.” - Since the crime of theft was already consummated, the return
o If anything yet remained for him to do, he would be of the stolen property does not relieve A of criminal
responsibility. A had already performed all the acts of
guilty of an attempted crime.
execution which produced the crime of theft before he
returned the chicken.
PEOPLE VS. LAMAHANG
- When the accused, for the purpose of entering the dwelling of

another, broke one board and unfastened another from the
wall but before he could start entering through the opening A attacked and wounded B in the abdomen with a sharp-edged
this created he was arrested by a policeman, the crime weapon, causing a wound serious enough to have produced death. A
committed was only attempted trespass to dwelling, because was about to assault B again, but this time, A desisted and left B. b
there was something yet for him to do: to commence entering was taken to the hospital by another person. Because of the timely
the dwelling through that opening in order to perform all the and skilful medical treatment by a physician, B did not die.
acts of execution.
- A is liable for frustrated homicide.
- NOTE: when A desisted, he had already inflicted a mortal
wound on B, which could have produced his death were it not
for the timely intervention of a physician.
4) “BY REASON OF SOME CAUSE OR ACCIDENT.”
CAUSE ACCIDENT o The desistance which exempts from criminal liability

has reference to the crime intended to be committed,

and has no reference to the crime actually committed objective phase of the crime.
by the offender before his desistance:
A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol at B, but did not hit the latter. B FRUSTRATED FELONY:
cried and asked A not to shoot him. A desisted from firing his pistol
again at B. - ELEMENTS:
1) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
- WON A is criminally liable. YES, not for attempted homicide
o Nothing more is left to be done by the offender
because he desisted before he could perform all the acts of
execution, but for gave threats which was already committed because he has performed the last act
by him when he desisted. necessary to produce the crime.
o In ATTEMPTED felony, the offender does not
perform all the acts of execution as he does not
perform the last act necessary to produce the
crime. He merely commences the commission
PEOPLE VS. LIZADA of a felony directly by overt acts.
- The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts hi from

criminal liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt A, with intent to kill B, fires his gun at B, the discharge of the gun is
him from the crime committed by him before his desistance. only an overt act.
- ATTEMPTED: if the slug fired from the gun misses B or the

wound inflicted on B is not mortal, the last act necessary to
produce the crime of homicide is not yet performed by A.
ARANETA, JR. VS. CA - FRUSTRATED: if the wound inflicted is mortal (sufficient to
cause death), A performs the last act. If no medical
- ISSUE: Should an accused who admittedly shot the victim but attendance is given, B would surely die, yet he survives.
is shown to have inflicted only a slight wound be held - CONSUMMATED: the victim dies.
accountable for the death of the victim due to fatal wound
caused by his co-accused?
- HELD: The slight wound did not cause the death of the victim
nor materially contribute to it. His liability should therefore be o The SC, in certain cases, has emphasized the
limited to the slight injury he caused. However, the fact that he
belief of he accused.
inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill.
The use of a gun fired at another certainly leads to no other
conclusion than that there is intent to kill. He is therefore liable
for the crime of attempted homicide and not merely slight PEOPLE VS. SY PIO
physical injury.
- The accused entered a store and once inside, he fired his .45
caliber pistol at the Chinaman Sy, who was hit fatally. Kiap,
who was in the store, asked him why he fired the shot and
without answering him, the accused fired at Kiap, hitting him
o In attempted felony, the offender never passes the
on the right shoulder. Upon being hit Kiap immediately ran
subjective phase of the offense. behind the store to hide and he heard the accused fire at
several other directions before he ran away. The wound of
SUBJECTIVE PHASE OF THE OFFENSE: that portion of the acts Kiap healed in 20 days and was inflicted on the part of his
constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender body which could not have produced his death. For shooting
begins the commission of the crime to the point where he has still Kiap, the accused was prosecuted for and declared guilty of
control over his acts, including their natural course. FRUSRATED murder.
- HELD: The fact that Kiap was able to escape, which the
accused must have seen, must have produced in the mind of
- If between these two points, the offender is stopped by any
the accused the belief that he was not able to hit his victim at
cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective a vital part of the body. In other words, the accused knew that
phase has not been passed → ATTEMPTED. he had not actually performed all the acts of execution
- If he is not stopped but continues until he performs the last act, necessary to kill his victim. The accused is guilty of
provided the crime is not produced → FRUSTRATED. ATTEMPTED MURDER because he did not perform all acts
o The acts then reached the objective phase of the crime. of execution, actual and subjective, in order that the purpose
and intention that he had to kill his victim be carried out.
A, with intent to kill, mixes poison in the soup intended for B, and B
begins to take into his mouth a spoonful of it. Until this point, A can
still prevent the poisoning of B by voluntary desisting and telling B to
throw away the substance from his mouth as it contains poison. PEOPLE VS. DAGMAN
- But from the moment B swallows it, A has no more control - FRUSTRATED: deadly weapons were used, blows were
over his acts. The poison is now in B’s stomach and it will directed at the vital parts of the body, the aggressors stated
require the intervention of a physician to prevent the poisoning their purpose to kill and thought they had killed. the subjective
of B. phase of the crime was entirely passed, and subjectively
- If because of the intervention of the physician, B did not die, A speaking, the crime was complete. The felony is not produced
will be liable for FRUSTRATED MURDER. by reason of causes independent of the will of the
o The acts performed by A, following their natural perpetrators; in this instance, the playing possum by the
course, passed from the subjective phase to the victim, that is, he escaped death from the aggressors by the

ruse of feigning death.
o In the following case, the stage of execution

was held to be ATTEMPTED, because there
was no wound inflicted, or the wound inflicted
was not mortal.
US VS. LIM SAN
- FRUSTRATED: the defendant believed that he had performed US VS. BIEN: accused, with intent to kill, threw a Chinaman into the
all the acts necessary to consummate the crime of murder,
deep water, and as the Chinaman did not know how to swim, he
and, therefore, of his own will, desisted from striking further
made efforts to keep himself afloat and seized the gunwale of the
blows. He believed that he had killed Keng Kin. Death did not
boat, but the accused tried to loosen the hold of the victim with the
result for reasons entirely apart from the will of the defendant.
oar. The accused was prevented from striking the latter by other
If after the first blow, someone had rushed to the assistance of
persons.
Keng Kin and by his efforts had prevented the accused from
proceeding further in the commission of the crime, the
defendant not believing that he had performed all the acts
necessary to cause death, he would have been guilty of
attempted murder.
PEOPLE VS. KALALO: accused fired four successive shots at the
offended party while the latter was fleeing to escape from his
assailants and save his own life. He did not hit the offended party,
either because of his poor aim or because his intended victim
succeeded in dodging the shots.
US VS. EDUAVE
- PEOPLE VS. ABAN: even if no wound was inflicted, the
- FRUSTRATED: the aggressor stated his purpose to kill,
assailant may be convicted of attempted homicide, provided
thought he had killed, and threw the body in the bushes. when
that he had intent to kill the offended party.
he gave himself up, he declared that he had killed the
complainant, though death did not result.
PEOPLE VS. DOMINGO: two physicians called to the witness stand

o The belief of the accused ned not be
by the prosecution could not agree that the wounds inflicted upon the
considered. What should be considered is complainant would cause death. One of them testified that the
WHETHER ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION wounds were not serious enough to produce death even if no medical
performed by the offender “WOULD PRODUCE assistance had been given to the offended party.
THE FELONY AS A CONSEQUENCE.”
PEOPLE VS. GUIHAMA

PEOPLE VS. SOMERA: the head of the offended party was merely
- In crimes against persons, as homicide, which requires the grazed by the shot which hit him, the wound being far from fatal.
victim’s death to consummate the felony, it is necessary for
the frustration of the same that a mortal wound be inflicted,
because then the wound could produce the felony as a
consequence. 2) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
o In the followings cases, the stage of execution A approached B stealthily from behind and made a movement with his
was held to be FRUSTRATED, because the right hand to strike B on the back with a deadly knife, but the blow,
wound inflicted was mortal: instead of reaching the spot intended, landed on the frame of the back
of the chair on which B was sitting at the time and did not cause the
slightest physical injury on B.
PEOPLE VS. HONRADA: accused stabbed the offended party in the
abdomen, penetrating the liver and in the chest. - ATTEMPTED murder only, because without inflicting a deadly
wound upon a vital spot of which B should have died, the
crime of murder would not be produced as a consequence.
- PEOPLE VS. BORINAGA, superseded by PEOPLE VS.
KALALO.
- Dissenting, J. VILLAREAL: FRUSTRATED as the death was
PEOPLE VS. MERCADO: accused wounded the victim in the left
prevented by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon, cause a wound in the
(the chair standing between the deadly knife and the back of
peritoneal cavity, serious enough to have produced death.
B).
3) But the felony is not produced;

PEOPLE VS. DAVID: accused fired his revolver at the offended party,
hitting him in the upper side of the body, piercing it from side to side o If the felony is produced, it would be
and penetrating the lungs. consummated.

4) By reason of causes independent of the will of the The evil intent of the offender is The evil intent of the offender
perpetrator. possible of accomplishment. cannot be accomplished.
o Even if all acts of execution have been
performed, the crime may not be consummated,
What prevented its The evil intent of the offender
because certain causes may prevent its
accomplishment is the cannot be accomplished because
consummation: INTERVENTION OF THIRD intervention of certain cause or it is inherently impossible of
PERSON (FRUSTRATED) of DUE TO THE accident in which the offender accomplishment or because the
PERPETRATOR’S OWN WILL (4th element not had no part. means employed by the offender
present). is inadequate or ineffectual.
A doctor conceived the idea of killing his wife, and to carry out his
plan, he mixed arsenic with the soup of his victim. Immediately after CONSUMMATED FELONY: a felony is consummated when all the
the victim took the poisonous food, the offender suddenly felt such a elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
twinge of conscience that he himself washed out the stomach of the
victim ad administered adequate antidote. - Every crime has its own elements which must all be present to
constitute a culpable violation of a precept of law.
- CRIME: at most, PHYSICAL INJURIES.
- NOT FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE: for even though the - When felony has two or more elements and one of them is not
subjective phase f the crime had already been passed, the proved by the prosecution during the trial, either:
most important requisite of a frustrated crime (4th) was lacking. 1) The felony is not shown to have been consummated.
- NOT ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE: the doctor already performed 2) The felony is not shown to have been committed.
all the acts of execution. 3) Another felony is shown to have been committed.
- The intent to kill which the doctor entertained I the beginning
disappeared when he prevented the poison from producing
the death of his wife.
APPLICATION:
a. HOMICIDE: death of the victim is an element of the offense. If

the element is absent because the victim does not die, the
- REQUISITES: crime is NOT consummated. It is either ATTEMPTED or
1) That the offender has performed all acts of execution FRUSTRATED.
which would produce the felony. b. THEFT: when the element of intent to gain is lacking on the
2) That the felony is not produced due to causes part of the person taking it, the crime is NOT COMMITTED.
independent of the perpetrator’s will. c. ESTAFA: if the element of deceit or abuse of confidence is not
proved, there is NO CRIME. There is only civil liability.
o If the element of damage only is not proved, the
accused may be found guilty of ATTEMPTED or
ATTEMPTED FELONY FRUSTRATED FELONY FRUSTRATED ESTAFA.
d. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST PERSONS: if the
element of intent to gain is not proved, the accused can be
The offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. found guilty of GRAVE COERCION.
e. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION: if the element of lewd designs is not
proved, the accused may be held liable for KIDNAPPING AD
The offender merely commences The offender performed all the SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION.
the commission of a felony acts of execution which would
directly by overt acts and does produce the felony as a
not perform all the acts of consequence.
execution.
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CRIME IS ONLY
*reached the OBJECTIVE
*not passed the SUBJECTIVE PHASE. ATTEMPTED, OR FRUSTRATED, OR IT IS CONSUMMATED:
PHASE.
1) THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE: ARSON
a. CONSUMMATED: even if only a portion of the wall or
There is such INTERVENTION There is NO INTERVENTION of any other part of the house is burned. It does not
and the offender does not arrive a foreign or extraneous cause or depend upon the extent of the damage caused.
at the point of performing all of agency between the beginning of o If any part of the house, no matter how small is
the acts which should produce the consummation of the crime
the crime. He is stopped short of and the moment when all of the burned.
that point by some cause apart acts have been performed which b. FRUSTRATED: having set fire to some racks and jute
from his own voluntary should result in the sacks, soaked in kerosene oil, and placing them near
desistance. consummated crime. the wooden partition of the house if no part of the house
began to burn.
o If there was blaze, and no part of the house is
burned.
c. ATTEMPTED: when a person poured gasoline under
ATTEMPTED and IMPOSSIBLE CRIM
the house of another and was about to strike a match to
FRUSTRATED
set the house on fire when he was apprehended, he
was guilty of attempted arson. The acts performed by
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished. him are directly connected with the crime of arson.
2) THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING A FELONY:

- HELD: consummated theft.
THEFT ESTAFA - The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property
stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime of theft. It finds
no support or extension in ART. 308, whether as a descriptive
US VS. ADIAO: US VS. DOMINGUEZ: or operative element of theft or as the mens rea or actus reus
CONSUMMATED: a customs FRUSTRATED: a salesman of of the felony.
inspector abstracted a leather the Philippine Education - WHEN IS THE CRIME OF THEFT PRODUCED? Theft is
belt from the baggage of a Company received P7.50 for the produced when there is deprivation of personal property due
Japanese and secreted it in the sale of books, which he should to its taking b one with intent to gain. So it is immaterial to the
drawer of his desk in the have given to the cashier. product of the felony that the offender, once having committed
Customs House, where it was Instead, he put it in his pocket all the acts of execution for theft, is able or unable to freely
found by other Customs with intent to misappropriate the dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the
employees. amount. owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution.
- With intent to gain, he acquired physical possession of the
All the elements necessary for its The accused performed all the stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of time
execution and accomplishment acts of execution. However, the that he was able to drop these off at a spot in the parking lot,
were present. Actual taking with crime was not consummated as and long enough to load these onto a taxicab.
intent to gain of personal there was no damage caused in - Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete from
property, belonging to another, view of the timely discovery of the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if
without the latter’s consent, is the felonious act. he has no opportunity to dispose the same.
sufficient to constitute - WHEN THEFT IS ATTEMPTED: unlawful taking, which is the
consummated theft. It is not ELEMENTS: deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which
necessary that the offender 1. Abuse of confidence produces the felony in its consummated stage. Without
carried away or appropriates the 2. Damage to the offended unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only
property taken. party must occur be attempted theft.
In theft, the mere removal of the The estafa was only frustrated
personal property belonging to even if the sales money was
another with intent to gain is already in defendant’s pocket PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ
sufficient. The act of removing because the offended party must
the personal property constitutes be actually prejudiced or - The accused was found inside a parked jeep of Captain
the element of taking in theft. damaged. This element is lacking Parker by American MP. The jeep’s padlock had been forced
here. open and lying between the front seats and the gearshift was
The taking is COMPLETE. an iron bar. Captain Parker was then inside the theatre.
- ATTEMPTED THEFT: the accused already commenced to
carry out his felonious intention, and that if he did not perform
all the acts of execution which should have produced the
o CONSUMMATED THEFT: Espiritu and Dino cases crime of theft, it was because of the timely arrival of the MP.
- The overt acts of the accused consisted in forcing upon the
padlock and locking the gearshift to a ring attached to the
PEOPLE VS. ESPIRITU PEOPLE VS. DINO dashboard which was placed there to avoid the jeep from
being stolen.
CONSUMMATED: The accused FRUSTRATED: a truck load with

removed from the pile nine stolen boxes of rifles was on the
pieces of hospital linen and took way out of the check point in o Example of ATTEMPTED ESTAFA by means of deceit:
them to their truck, where they South Harbor surrounded by a
were found by a corporal of the tall fence when an MP guard
MP guard when they tried to discovered the boxes on the US VS. VILLANUEVA
pass through the check point. truck (timely discovery).
- The accused fraudulently assumed authority to demand fees
for the Bureau of Forestry, when he noticed that a timber was
HELD: the thieves were able to HELD: the fact determinative of cut in the first by the complainant without permit and used it in
take or get hold of the hospital consummation of the crime of building his house the accused tried to collect P6 from the
linen. theft is the ability of the offender complainant ostensibly to save him from paying a fine and to
to dispose freely of the articles prepare for him a petition to obtain a permit to but timber. The
stolen, even if it were more or complainant refused or was unable to give the P6 to the
less momentarily. accused.
- Fraudulent and false representations of the accused that he
was authorized to collect P6 is the overt act.
- The refusal or inability of the complainant to give P6 to the
o THEREIS NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED THEFT: SC accused is a cause which prevented the latter from performing
declined to adopt the Dino ruling in this jurisdiction. all the acts of execution.
The accused were sighted by a security guard outside a supermarket

hauling a pushcart with cases of detergents and thereafter loading o Examples of FRUSTRATED ESTAFA by means of
said cases of detergents in a taxi. When the taxi was stopped by a deceit:
security guard, who asked for the accused for a receipt for the
merchandise, the accused fled on foot but were apprehended and the
stolen merchandise were recovered. PEOPLE VS. GUTIERREZ: the accused offered to give complainant
a job as office boy in Ft. McKinley with a salary of P25, but he asked

P3.80 for X-ray examination. The representation of the accused that - LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: the element of intent
the amount of P3.80 was for X-ray was false. Complainant handed to to kill not having been fully established, and considering that
him P3.75 and while taking the remaining five centavos from his the injuries suffered by the offended party were not
pocket, a policeman placed the accused under arrest. necessarily fatal and could be healed in less than 30 days.
PEOPLE VS. MALINAO: accused voluntarily left their victim after

giving him a sound thrashing, without inflicting any fatal injury,
PEOPLE VS. CASTILLO: the accused made false pretenses and was although they could have easily killed their said victim, considering
apprehended immediately after receiving the money from the their superior number and the weapons with which they were
complainant inside the compound of the latter’s employer, pursuant to provided, the intent to kill on the part of the accused is wanting.
a pre-arranged plan with the authorities.
- PHYSICAL INJURISE, not attempted murder.
o Mere removal of personal property, not sufficient to

consummate the crime of robbery by the use of force 3) THE MANNER OF COMMITTING THE SAME, must be
upon things: considered:
PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO FORMAL Consummated in one instant (single act), no
CRIMES attempt: SLANDER, FALSE TESTIMONY.
- The culprits, after breaking the floor of the bodega through
which they entered the same, removed a sack of sugar from RULE: there can be no attempt at a formal crime,
the pile; but were caught in the act of taking it out through the because between the thought and the deed, there
opening on the floor. is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link.
- FRUSTRATED: ARTS 299 and 302 → since the offender
must enter the building to commit the crime, he must be able PEOPLE VS. MARCOS: in the sale of marijuana
to carry out of the building the thing taken to consummate the and other prohibited drugs, the mere act of selling
crime. or even acting as broker consummates the crime.
- In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
(ART. 294), the crime is consummated the moment the
offender gets hold of the thing taken and / or is in a position to CRIMES FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY: mere attempt
dispose of it freely. CONSUMMATED to flee.
BY MERE
ATEMPT OR CORRUPTION OF MINORS: mere proposal to
PROPOSAL OR the minor to satisfy the lust of another.
BY OVERT ACT
o Element of intent to kill, when present in inflicting TREASON: there is no attempted treason
physical injuries would be either ATTEMPTED or because the overt act itself consummates the
FUSTRATED, as the case may be. crime.
US VS. JOVEN: defendant, with a pocket knife, inflicted several FELONY BY There can be no attempted stage here because in
wounds on the victim the words “until I can kill you” were uttered by OMMISSION this kind of felony, the offender does not execute
the assailant. acts. He omits to perform an act which the law
requires him to do.
- ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE, not physical injuries, because the
intention to kill is evident. But killing a child by starving him, although
apparently by omission, is in fact by commission.
CRIMES US VS. BASA: BETTING IN SPORT

US VS. MAGHIRANG: the accused inflicted bolo wounds on the REQUIRING THE CONSTESTS and CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
INTERVANTION OFFICER: require the intervention of two persons
shoulder and across the lips of the victim and them withdrew.
OF TWO to commit them, the same are consummated by
PERSONS TO mere agreement. The offer made by one of the
- Not frustrated homicide, but SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
COMMIT THEM parties to the other constitutes attempted felony,
as the accused probably knew that the injuries were not such
ARE of the offer is rejected.
as should produce death. Intent to kill was not present.
CONSUMMATED
BY MERE PEOPLE VS. DIEGO QUIN: FRUSTRATED
AGREEMENT BRIBERY: the defendant fails to corrupt a public
officer because the latter returned the money
given by the defendant.
MONDRAGON VS. PEOPLE: petitioner started the assault on the
offended party by just giving him fist blows; the wounds inflicted on US VS. TE TONG: the accused who delivered the
the offended party were of slight nature and the petitioner retreated money to a police officer (his purpose is to use
and went away when the offended party started hitting him with a the same as evidence in the prosecution of the
bolo, thereby indicating that if the petitioner had intended to kill the accused) was guilty of attempted bribery.
offended party, he would have held his ground and kept on hitting the
offended party with his bolo to kill him.

MATERIAL HOMICIDE, RAPE, ETC: are not consummated in - EXCEPTION: light felonies committed against persons or
CRIMES one instant or by a single act. property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
o REASON: the commission of felonies against persons
(a) CONSUMMATED RAPE: the victim testified or property presupposes in the offender moral
that there was partial penetration of the male
organ in her private parts and that she felt intense depravity.
pain. o EXAMPLE OF LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST PERSON:
slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
(b) FRUSTRATED RAPE: (ERINA) if there is no o EXAMPLE OF LIGHT FELONIES AGAINST
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital PROPERTY:
organ of the child, the accused is entitled to the i. Theft by hunting or fishing or gather fruits,
benefit of the doubt → stray case.
cereals or other forest or farm products upon an
SC: it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated inclosed estate or field where the trespass is
stage in rape can be committed. Perfect forbidden and the value of the thing stolen does
penetration is not essential. not exceed P5.
ii. Theft, where the value of the stolen property
(c) ATTEMPTED RAPE: accused placed himself does not exceed P5 and the offender was
on top of a woman, raised her skit and prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of
endeavoured o have sexual intercourse with her,
earning a livelihood.
but not succeeding because the offended party
was able to extricate herself and to run away. iii. Alteration of boundary marks.
iv. Malicious mischief where the damage is not
(d) CONSUMMATED HOMICIDE: accused shot more than P200 or if it cannot be estimated.
the victim in the left forearm and his co-accused
stabbed the victim in the chest. The fact that he ART. 8
did not inflict the mortal wound is of no moment,
since the existence of conspiracy was IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES:
satisfactorily shown by the evidence.
(e) FRUSTRATED MURDER: accused stabbed 1) “CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY”
his two victims as they were about to close their a. Conspiracy to commit a felony.
store in the evening. One of them died. The b. Proposal to commit a felony.
assault upon the surviving victim constituted 2) “ONLY IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE LAW SPECIALLY
frustrated murder. PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR.”
o Mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony.
(f) ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE: the accused
intended to kill his victim but he was not able to o EXAMPLES: treason, rebellion, and sedition
perform all the acts of execution. The wounds
inflicted did not affect vital organs.
PEOPLE VS. PERALTA
- An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from

the viewpoint of morality, but as long as the conspirators do
NO ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE CRIME: since the
not perform acts in furtherance of their malevolent design, the
offender in impossible crime has already performed the acts for the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquillity of
execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. the public remains undisturbed. However, when in resolute
execution of a common scheme, a felony is committed by two
- There is no frustrated impossible crime because the acts or more malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy assumes
performed by the offender are considered as constituting a pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the
consummated offense. perpetrators.
ART. 7
GENERAL RULE: conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not

LIGHT FELONIES: those infractions of law for the commission of
punishable.
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
or both, is provided.
- EXCEPTION: they are punishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
- Light felonies punished by the RPC:
- REASON: only preparatory acts, and the law regards the as
1) Slight physical injuries.
innocent or at least permissible, except in rare and exceptional
2) Theft.
cases.
3) Alteration of boundary marks.
4) Malicious mischief.
RPC SPECIALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY FOR MERE
5) Intriguing against honor.
CONSPIRACY:
- GENERAL RULE: light felonies are punishable only when they
have been consummated.
1. ART. 115: conspiracy to commit treason.
o REASON: they produce such light and insignificant
2. ART. 136: conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
moral and material injures that public conscience is
insurrection.
satisfied with providing a light penalty for their
3. ART. 141: conspiracy t commit sedition.
consummation.
o If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so
slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.
NOTE: these conspirators need not actually commit treason, coup, or
sedition as it is sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide to PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ
commit them.
- For a collective responsibility among the accused to be
established, it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression,
- When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability,
all of them acted in concert each doing his part to fulfil their
it is not punishable as a separate offense. common design to kill their victim, and although only one of
- If any one of the conspirators actually committed the felony, the them may have actually stabbed he victim, the act of that one
conspiracy is not a separate offense. is deemed to be the acts of all.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF CONSPIRACY AS FELONY AND AS A

MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
- The acts of the defendants must show a common design:
o WHAT MUST BE SHOWN TO EXIST CLEARLY ND
A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and take arms against CONVINCINGLY: there must be unity of purpose and
the government with the help of their followers. Even if A did not carry unity in the execution of the unlawful objective.
out their plan to overthrow the government, A and B are liable for o Obedience to a command does not necessarily show
conspiracy to commit rebellion.
concert of design.
- But if A and B and their followers did rise publicly and take
arms against the government to overthrow it, thereby
committing rebellion, their conspiracy is not a felony. Hey are PEOPLE VS. DORICO
liable for rebellion and their conspiracy is only a manner of
incurring criminal liability for rebellion. - Although the defendants are relatives and had acted with
some degree of simultaneity in attacking their victim, this fact
alone does not prove conspiracy.
A, B and C, after having conceived a criminal plan, got together,

agreed and decided to kill D. If A, B and C failed to carry out the plan
for some reason or another, they are not liable for having conspired PEOPLE VS. PUGAY
against D, because the crime they conspired to commit, which is
murder, is not treason, rebellion or sedition. - The deceased and he accused were friends. While a town
fiesta was being held in the public plaza, the group of accused
- But if they carried out the plan and personally took part in its Pugay and Samson saw the deceased walking nearby, and
execution which resulted in the killing of D, they are all liable started making fun of him. Not content with what they were
for murder, even if A merely acted as guard outside the house doing, accused Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from
where D was killed and B merely held the arms of D when C under the engine of a ferris wheel and poured its contents on
stabbed him to death. Their conspiracy is only a manner of the body of the deceased. Then, the accused Samson set the
incurring criminal liability for murder. latter on fire, making a human torch out of him.
- There is nothing in the records showing that there was
previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose between the
two accused immediately before the commission of the crime,
where there was no animosity between the deceased and the
- Indications of conspiracy: accused and it is clear that the accused merely wanted to
make fun of the deceased, the respective criminal
responsibility of the accused arising from different acts
PEOPLE VS. GERONIMO directed against the deceased is individual and not collective,
and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.
- When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing another part
so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same
object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in
- Period of time to afford opportunity for mediation and reflection
fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action and concurrence of is not required in conspiracy.
sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said
defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.
PEOPLE VS. MONROY
- Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree,

expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it. Once this assent is established, each and
PEOPLE VS. CANTUBA
everyone of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the
crime committed by anyone of them.
- An accused has been held as a co-conspirator as the
circumstances of his participation indubitably showed unity of
purpose ad unity in the execution of the unlawful acts, gleaned
from the fact the he knew the plot to assassinate the victim as
he too had been ordered to scout for a man who could do the REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY:
job; he also knew exactly the place where the killing was to
take place and also the date and approximate time of the 1) That two or more persons came to an agreement.
assault. o Presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more
persons.
2) That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony.

o Must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring about
what has already been conceived and determined. A conceived the idea of overthrowing the present government. A
3) That the execution of the felony be decided upon. called several of his trusted followers and instructed them to go
o They must have already made up their minds to commit around the country and secretly to organize groups and to convince
them of the necessity of having a new government.
the crime. There must be determination to commit
them. - What A proposed in this case is not the execution of the crime
of rebellion, but the performance of preparatory acts for the
DIRECT PROOF IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH commission of rebellion → there is no criminal proposal.
CONSPIRACY
PEOPLE VS. BUNTAG

If the proponents of rebellion desist before any rebellious act is
- Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, and may actually performed by the would-be material executors, inform the
be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, authorities and aid in the arrest of their fellow plotters, should the
during, and after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy can proponents be exempt?
be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused
themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose and - The proponents should be exempt from the penalties provided
design, concerted action and community of interests. It is not for criminal proposals and conspiracies, for the law would
necessary that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the rather prevent than punish crimes and encouragement should
victim. Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co- be given to those who hearken to the voice of conscience.
principals, regardless of the extent and character of their - BUT once the proposal to commit rebellion is made by the
participation. 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.
QUANTUM PROOF IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY
- The law does not require that the proposal be accepted by the
PEOPLE VS. COMADRE person to whom the proposal is made.
o If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit treason
- The elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond or rebellion, because there would be an agreement and
reasonable doubt. a decision to commit it.
- Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not
- Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer.
make him a conspirator, for conspiracy transcends
companionship. o ATTEMPTED BRIBERY if not accepted.
o Their close relationship with Antonio is insufficient to - The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable
establish conspiracy considering that they performed are against the security of the State or economic security.
no positive act in furtherance of the crime. o Treason: external security of the State.
- Neither was the act of running away with Antonio an act of o Coup, rebellion and sedition: against internal security.
giving moral assistance to his criminal act → devoid of any o Monopolies and combinations of restraint of trade:
factual basis.
against economic security.
o REASON: if the culprit succeeds in his criminal
enterprise, he would obtain the power and therefore
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL: impunity for the crime committed.
1) That a person has decided to commit a felony. ART. 9:

2) That he proposes its execution to some other person or CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THEIR
persons. GRAVITY:
THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PROPOSAL WHEN: IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES:
1) The person who proposes is not determined to commit the 1) “TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES THE CAPITAL
felony. PUNISHMENT (death penalty).”
2) “OR PENALTIES WHICH IN ANY OF THEIR PERIODS ARE
AFFLICTIVE” → the higher or highest of the penalties must be
A desires that the present government be overthrown. But A is afraid an afflictive penalty (reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
to do it himself with others. A then suggests the overthrowing of the perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or
government to some desperate people who will do it at the slightest temporary special disqualification, prison mayor).
provocation. 3) “PENALTIES WHICH IN THEIR MAXIMUM PERIOD ARE
CORRECTIONAL” → the higher or the highest of the penalties
- A is not liable for proposal to commit rebellion, because A has
not decided to commit it. must be correctional penalty (prision correccional, arresto
mayor, suspension, destierro).
4) “THE PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR OR A FINE NOT
EXCEEDING 200 PESOS, OR BOTH, IS PROVIDED.”
2) There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal (only a
suggestion). ART. 10
3) It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.

Are offenses punishable under special laws subject to the provisions of
the RPC? PEOPLE VS. PADAONG
1) Offenses under special laws are not subject to the provisions of - It would be a legal impossibility to determine what penalty is to
be imposed upon a mere accomplice. The combined
the Code.
provisions of both the RPC and the NIRC do not provide any
o The RPC is not intended to supersede special penal such penalty or at least lay down the bass or the manner of its
laws. determination. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.
o Special legal provisions prevail over general ones. - Hence, even if appellant is conceded to have performed acts
2) The Code is supplementary to such laws. which would make him an accomplice, it would nevertheless
be impossible to impose any penalty upon him because of the
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES: demonstrated inapplicability of the principles of the RPC on
accomplices to the case at bar.
1) “SPECIAL LAWS:” a penal law which punishes acts not defined
and penalized by the RPC.
o A statute, penal in character, which is not an o Plea of guilty as mitigating circumstance under the RPC
amendment to the RPC. (ART. 13, PAR. 7) is not available to offenses
punishable under special laws:
US VS. BASA NAVARRA VS. PEOPLE
PEOPLE VS. RESPECIA
This ruling is still good, The prohibitions against the
- Offenses which are punishable under the special laws are not
notwithstanding the case of interest in municipal contracts
subject to the provisions of ART. 64 of the RPC, and it has
NAVARRA VS. PEOPLE. includes all the steps taken to
been held that the provisions of the RPC, relative to the
consummate the contract, that is,
application of the circumstances modifying the criminal liability
Sec. 28 of the Municipal Code frustrated and attempted stages
of the accused are not applicable to special laws.
does not punish an attempt to are included.
- REASON: the penalty prescribed by special law is usually
commit this crime. In offenses
indeterminate and does not contain three periods.
crated by acts of the The transaction in which the
Commission, the last paragraph councillor became interested,
of ART. 3 of the Penal Code having been approved by the
relating to attempts to commit municipal council, the offense
crimes is not applicable. was consummated. 2) “SUPPLEMENTARY:” supplying what is lacking, additional.
o SC has extended some provisions of the Penal Code to
The proposal, not having been special penal laws, such as:
accepted by the municipal a. The provisions of ART. 22 with reference to the
council, the offense was only in
retroactive effect of penal laws if they favour the
the attempted stage.
accused.
b. ART. 17 with reference to participation of
principals in the commission of the crime.
o The special law has to fix a penalty for the attempt and c. Those of ART. 39 with reference to subsidiary
a penalty for the frustration of the crime defined by it in imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the
order to that the crime may be punished in case its fine.
commission reached only the attempted or frustrated d. Those of ART. 45 with reference to the
stage of execution. confiscation of the instruments used in the
o When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit commission of the crime.
the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is o The suppletory application of the RPC to special laws,
punishable by the same penalty provided by that law. by virtue of this article, finds relevance only when the
provisions of the special law are silent on a particular
matter.
PEOPLE VS. JOLLIFFE o But the RPC is not suppletory when the penalties under
the special law are different from it:
- When the accused was about to board a plane of the Pan  When the penalties under the special law are
American World Airways, four pieces of gold bullion were different from and are without reference or
found tied to his body. He was charged with a violation of RA
relation to those under the RPC.
265.
- HELD: The circular issued in accordance with the provisions
of RA 265 explicitly applies to “any person desiring to export
gold” and hence, it contemplates the situation existing prior to PEOPLE VS. PANIDA
the consummation of the exportation. Indeed, it’s purpose
would be defeated if the penal sanction were deferred until - The Court did not apply the provisions of the RPC suppletorily
after the article in question had left the Philippines, for as the anti-carnapping law provides for its own penalties
jurisdiction over it and over the guilty party would be lost which are distinct and without reference to this Code.
thereby.
o Special laws amending the RPC, such as PD 533, with

o ART. 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice respect to the offense of theft of large cattle, are subject
under a special law: to its provisions.

CHAPTER TWO - REASON WHY PENAL LAW MAKES SELF-DEFENSE
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LAWFUL: it would be quite impossible for the State in all cases
EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY to prevent aggression upon its citizens and offer protection to
the person unjustly attacked.
The circumstances affecting criminal liability are: o It cannot also be conceived that a person should
succumb to an unlawful aggression without offering any
i. Justifying circumstances (ART. 11). resistance.
ii. Exempting circumstances (ART. 12), and other absolutory o Man has a natural instinct to protect, repel, and save
causes (ARTs. 20; 124, last par.; 280, last par.; 332; 344; etc.) his person or rights from impending danger or peril.
iii. Mitigating circumstances (ART. 13). o Based on that impulse of self-preservation born to man
iv. Aggravating circumstances (ART. 14). and part of his nature as a human being.
v. Alternative circumstances (ART. 15).
REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE:
IMPUTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY 1) UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION: on the part of the person injured

or killed by the accused.
o It is a condition sine qua non.
The quality by which an act may The obligation of suffering the
be ascribed to a person as its consequences of crime. o There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete,
author or owner. unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression
against the person defending himself.
o It is necessary that we be assaulted or attacked, or at
It implies that the act committed It is the obligation of taking the least threatened with an attack in an immediate and
has been freely and consciously penal and civil consequences of imminent manner.
done and may, therefore, be put the crime. o If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to
down to the doer as his very
prevent or repel. The second requisite of defense will
own.
have no basis.
o The fulfilment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a
Implies that a deed may be Implies that the person must take more or less violent manner is an aggression, but it is
imputed to a person. the consequence of such a deed. lawful.
PEOPLE VS. GAYRAMA

GUILT: an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to
answer for the consequence of a crime unless he is guilty. - The act of a chief of police who used violence by throwing
stones at the accused when the latter was running away from
ART. 11 him to elude arrest for a crime committed in his presence, is
not an unlawful aggression.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- The purpose of the peace officer was to capture the accused
and place him under arrest.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: those where the act of a person is
said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not
to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil
liability. o ART. 249 of the NCC: a person may use force or
violence to protect his property, and if in protecting his
- There is no civil liability, except in PAR. 4 of ART. 11, where property such person uses force to prevent its being
the civil liability is borne by the person benefited by the act. taken by another, the owner of the property is not an
- BASIS: the law recognizes the no-existence of a crime. unlawful aggressor because he is merely exercising a
- Recognizes the acts of such persons as justified. right.
- It is incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal
liability, to prove the justifying circumstance by him to the
satisfaction of the court. US VS. MERCED
PAR. 1: SELF-DEFENSE → the accused must rely on the strength of - Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self-
his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. defense if he killed the offended husband who was assaulting
him.
- The assault was natural and lawful.
- Must be proved with certainly by sufficient, satisfactory and - REASON: it was made by a deceived and offended husband
convicting evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal in order to defend his honor and rights by punishing the
aggression on the part of the person invoking it and it cannot offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and (the
be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by paramour), he would have exercised a lawful right and such
any separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely acts would have fallen within the sanction of ART. 247 of the
doubtful. RPC.
- The paramour knew well that by maintaining unlawful relations
- Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one
with (the deceased’s wife), he was performing an unlawful and
assaulted but also that of his rights →those rights the criminal act and exposed himself to the vengeance of the
enjoyment of which is protected by law. offended husband.
- Aside from the right to life on which the legitimate defense of ur
person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and the
right to honor which is not the least prized of man’s patrimony.

o WHEN IS THERE UNLAWFUL AGRESSION: suddenly kissed her and immediately thereafter ran off in the
direction of his house, pursued by the girl’s companions, but
they did not overtake him. Then, when Jose Laurel went to the
PEOPLE VS. CRISOSTOMO parochial building, three people approached him and told him
that Castillo was waiting for him on the ground floor of his
- The peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. house. The accused then met with Castillo and the latter
- There must be actual physical force or actual use of a asked why he kissed the girl, his sweetheart. The accused
weapon. replied that she was very fickle and prodigal of her use of the
word “yes” on all occasions. Castillo struck him a blow on the
head with a cane or club. The accused fell on the ground and
he feared that his aggressor would continue to assault him, he
took his pocketknife and stabbed Castillo. He would have
died, had it not been for the timely medical aid rendered to
US VS. GUYSAYCO him.
- HELD: the defensive act executed by Jose Laurel was
- In case of threat, the same must be offensive and positively attended by the three requisites of illegal aggression on the
strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury. part of Castillo, there being:
1) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused, who did not provoke the occurrence
complained of.
o It presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected 2) The pocketknife was a reasonable means to prevent
attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a or repel the same (against the assault made upon him
threatening or intimidating attitude. with a cane).
o It refers to an attack that has actually broken out or
materialized, or at the over least, is clearly imminent; it
cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening
b. IMMINENT: that the danger is on the point of
stance or posture.
happening. It is not required that the attack
o When there is no peril to one’s life, limb or right, there is
already begins, for it may be too late.
no unlawful aggression,
PEOPLE VS. CABUNGCAL

US VS. PADILLA
- The accused invited several persons to a picnic in a fishery on
- The deceased, after kidding the accused, another
his property. In the afternoon returned in two boats, one
Constabulary soldier acting as sentry and singing, told the
steered by the accused Nine persons were in the boat steered
latter that he had no voice for singing and, after words were
by the accused. The deceased was another passenger of the
exchanged and while still in a spirit of fun, the deceased
boat. Upon reaching a place of great depth, the deceased
seized the accused by the throat, whereupon the latter killed
rocked the boat, which started it to take water, and the
the deceased with his rifle.
accused, fearing the boat might capsize asked the deceased
- HELD: the fact that the deceased seized the accused by the
not to do it. As the deceased paid no attention to this warning
throat and exerted pressure thereon in one of his frolics which
and continued rocking the boat, the accused struck him on the
he had persistently kept up with notorious imprudence, and in
forehead with an oar. He fell down but he grasped the side of
spite of the opposition of the accused, cannot be considered
the boat, saying that he was going to capsize it and started to
as an illegal aggression in the case of two companions in
move it with this end in view. The accused struck him on the
arms quartered in the same barracks.
neck with the same oar and the deceased died as a
consequence.
- HELD: due to the condition of the river at the point where the
deceased started to rock the boat, if it had capsized, the
passengers would have run the risk of losing their lives, the
PEOPLE VS. YNCIERTO majority of whom were women, especially the nursing child.
- The conduct of the deceased in rocking the boat until the point
- The deceased merely held the hands of the son of the of it having taken water and his insistence on this action in
accused to request him (the son) to release the knife in order spite of the accused’s warning, gave rise to the belief on the
that nothing untoward might happen, but he refused to do so, part of the accused that t would capsize if he did not separate
and in order to avoid bloodshed, the deceased tried to wrest the deceased from the boat in such a manner as to give him
the knife from him and in doing so, pressed him against a no time to accomplish his purpose. It was necessary to
coconut tree, without the lease intention of harming him. disable him momentarily.
- The father was not justified in killing the deceased, because - The blow given him by the accused on the forehead with an
there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the latter. oar was the least that could reasonably have been one. This
consideration militates with greater weight with respect to the
second blow given in his neck with the same oar, because
then the danger was greater than the boat might upset,
o PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE: especially as the deceased had expressed his intention to
a. ACTUAL: that the danger must be present, that upset it.
is, actually in existence. - The case involved defense of relatives and strangers.
US VS. JOSE LAUREL

o Peril to one’s limb: when a person is attacked, he is in
- While the girl was walking along the street one night, on her imminent danger of death or bodily harm.
way from the house of Castillo, accompanied by several
young people, she was approached by the accused who

making the attack was an blows is an unlawful aggression
PEOPLE VS. MONTALBO unlawful aggressor. which may justify the use of the
knife.
- An attack with fist blows may imperil one’s safety from
physical injuries. Such an attack is unlawful aggression.
PEOPLE VS. CAJURAO

o There must be physical force or actual use of weapon:
- When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer
has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
WHEN THERE IS WHEN THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION cessation of the unlawful aggression and the danger or risk to
AGRESSION life and limb, the necessity for the person invoking self-
defense to attack his adversary ceases. If he persists in
attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke justifying
A slap on the face as Insulting words addressed to the accused, no circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense does not justify the
the act of slapping matter how objectionable they may have unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the
another constituted been, without physical assault. fray.
the use of force
qualifying an A light push in the head with the hand / a
unlawful aggression mere push or a shove, not followed by other
*** acts. o The attaché made by the deceased and the killing of
the deceased by defendant should succeed each other
Mere belief that an impending attack, or an without appreciable interval of time:
intimidating or threatening attitude.
Playful kicking at the foot by way of greeting

between friends = practical joke → slight US VS. FERRER
provocation.
- In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is
essential that he 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.
***PEOPLE VS. SABIO
- Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it

is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled
o When killing of the deceased by the accused was after
with a wilful disregard, may, a defiance, of an individual’s
personality → regarded as placing in real danger a person’s the attack made by the deceased, the accused must
dignity, rights and safety. have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool
thinking.
o RETALIATION is NOT self-defense: PEOPLE VS. ARELLANO
- The deceased drew his revolver and levelled it at the accused

US VS. CARRERO who, sensing the danger to his life, sidestepped and caught
the hand of the deceased with his left, thus causing the gun to
- When a person who was insulted, slightly injured or drop to the floor. Immediately, the accused drew his knife,
threatened made a strong retaliation by attacking the one who opened it and stabbed the deceased in the abdomen.
gave the insult, caused the slight or made the threat, the - Under such circumstances, the accused could not be
former became the offender, and the insult, injury or threat expected to have acted withal the coolness of a person under
should be considered only as a provocation mitigating his normal condition. Uppermost in his mind at the time must
liability. have been the fact that his life was in danger and that to save
himself, he had to do something to stop the aggression. He
had no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking
because it was imperative for him to act on the spot.
RETALIATION SELF-DEFENSE
o The unlawful aggression must come from the person
The aggression that was begun The aggression was still existing who was attacked by the accused:
by the injured party already when the aggressor was injured
ceased to exist when the or disabled by the person making
accused attacked him. a defense. PEOPLE VS. GUTIERREZ
- Although the accused was unalfully attacked, nevertheless,

When a person had inflicted Where a person is about to strike the aggressor was not the deceased but another person. In
slight physical injuries on another with fist blows and the order to constitute an element of self-defense, the unlawful
another, without intention to inflict latter, to prevent or repel the aggression must come, directly or indirectly, from the person
other injuries, and the latter blows, stabs the former with a who was subsequently attacked by the accused.
attacked the former, the one knife, the act of striking with fist
o A public officer exceeding his authority may become an When the accused surrendered The accused DID NOT act in
unlawful aggressor: to the policemen, he declined to self-defense, if he had done so,
give any statement, which is the that circumstance would have
natural course of things he would been included in his confession.
have done if he had acted merely He never declared in his
PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ
to defend himself. A protestation confession that he acted in self-
of innocence or justification is the defense. Had he acted in self-
- A provincial sheriff who, in carrying out a writ of execution, logical and spontaneous reaction defense, he should have
exceeded his authority by taking against the will of the of a man who finds himself in reported the incident to the police
judgement debtor personal property with sentimental value to such an inculpatory predicament of the three towns, the poblcion
the latter, although other personal property sufficient to satisfy as that in which the policemen of which he passed when he fled
the claim of the plaintiff was made available to said sheriff, came upon him still clutching the from the scene of the incident.
was an unlawful aggressor and the debtor had a right to repel death weapon and his victim
the unlawful aggression. dying before him.
o Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of o Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted
accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may in self-defense:
belie claim of self-defense.
PEOPLE VS. DORICO: the evidence showed that the wounds of the
PEOPLE VS. BATAS victim were inflicted from behind.
- The location, number and seriousness of the stab wounds
inflicted on the victims belie the claim of self-defense. One of
the victims alone sustained 21 wounds.
PEOPLE VS. PEREZ: the revolver of the deceased was still tucked
inside the waistband of his pants, which is indicative of his
unpreparedness when he was fired upon simultaneously by the
accused with their high-calibered weapons. The fact that the
PEOPLE VS. LABIS deceased received a total of 13 gunshot wounds is inconsistent with
the claim that the deceased was fired upon self-defense.
- Appellant’s theory of self-defense is negative by the nature
and location of the victim’s wounds which, having a right-to-
left direction, could not have possibly been inflicted by a right-
handed person in front of the victim with a two-feet long bolo.
PEOPLE VS. AQUINO: the direction and trajectory of the bullets
would have been different had the victim been standing upright two or
three meters to the left of the truck.
PEOPLE VS. TOLENTINO
- the nature, character, location and extent of the wound, as

testified to by the doctor who had examined the wound, clearly o When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer
show that the deceased was struck either from behind or while exists, because the aggressor runs away, the one
his body was in a reclining position, from which it follows that making a defense has no more right to kill or even
the accused did not act in self-defense. wound the former aggressor.
PEOPLE VS. ALCONGA

o The improbability of the deceased being the aggressor
belies the claim of self-defense. - There were two stages in the fight between the accused and
the decased. During the first stage of the fight, the accused, in
inflicting several wounds upon the deceased, acted in self-
PEOPLE VS. DIAZ defense because then the deceased, who had attacked the
accused with repeated blows, was the unlawful aggressor. But
- It was unlikely that a sexagenarian would have gone to the when the deceased, after receiving several wounds, ran away,
extent of assaulting the 24-year-old accused who was armed from that moment there was no longer any danger to the life of
with a gun and a bolo, just because the latter refused to give the accused who, being virtually unscathed, could have
him a pig. chosen to remain where he was. When he pursued the
deceased, fatally wounding him upon overtaking him, Alconga
was no longer acting in self-defense, because the aggression
begun by the deceased ceased from the moment he took to
his heels.
o The fact that the accused declined to give any
statement when he surrendered to a policeman is
inconsistent with the plea of self-defense:
PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO

PEOPLE VS. MANANSALA PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ

- The deceased, who appeared to be the first aggressor, an out
of bullets and fled, and the accused pursued him and, after JUSTO VS. CA: where there was a mutual agreement to fight, an
overtaking him, inflicted several wounds on the posterior side aggression ahead of the stipulated time and place would be unlawful.
of his body. The acceptance of the challenge did not place on the offended party
- In such a situation, the accused should have stayed his hand, the burden of preparing to meet an assault at any time even before
and not having done so, he was guilty of homicide. reaching the appointed time and place for agreed encounter, and any
such aggression was patently illegal.
o Retreat to take more advantageous position: if it is clear

that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take
a more advantageous position to insure the success of A and B were in the office of a division superintendent of schools. A
the attack already begun by him, the unlawful and B had an altercation. A grabbed a lead paper weight from a table
and challenged B to go out, to fight outside the building. A left the
aggression is considered sill continuing, and the one
office, followed by B. when they were in front of the table of a clerk, B
making a defense has a right to pursue him in his asked A to put down the paper weight but instead, A grabbed the
retreat and to disable him. neck and collar of the polo shirt of B, which was torn. B boxed A
o No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to several times.
fight:
- The aggression made by A, which took place before he and B
could go out of the building, is unlawful, notwithstanding their
US VS. NAVARRO agreement to fight.
- The accused and the deceased, after an altercation in a bar,

agreed to fight, went to a store and purchased two knives.
Thereafter, the accused repeatedly expressed his desire and o One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-
wish to the deceased not to fight, and that the former begged defense:
the latter that there be no fight between them. The deceased
paid no heed to such request and attacked the accused, but
the accused succeeded in killing the deceased. PEOPLE VS. KRUSE
- Aggression was reciprocal and legitimate as between two
contending parties. - Appellant’s version of the incident was to the effect that he
had come to the aid of Villafria at the latter’s call when Villafria
boxed Mariano Dioso and engaged the group Dioso, Saldo
and Caunte in a fight. In other words, he voluntarily joined the
fight, when he did not have to. He voluntarily exposed himself
PEOPLE VS. MONTEROSO to the consequences of a fight with his opponents. The first
attack which came from either is but an incident of the fight.
- When the accused, pursued by the deceased, reached his
house, he picked up a pestle and, turning towards the
deceased, faced him, saying: “come on if you are brave,” and
hen attacking and killing him. o RULE: “STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT.”
- The accused did not act in self-defense, for what he did after,
believing himself to be duly armed, was to agree to the fight.
US VS. DOMEN: the accused us where he has the right to be so the
law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly
advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
PEOPLE VS. DEL PILAR - REASON: if one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of
being attacked in the back by the aggressor.
- If the deceased challenge the accused to a fight and forthwith
rushed towards the latter with a bolo in his hand, so that the
accused had to defend himself by stabbing the deceased with
a knife, the accused, not having accepted the challenge, acted
o UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER
in self-defense.
RIGHTS: REQUISITES:
i. Unlawful aggression.
ii. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it.
US VS. CORTEZ
- REASON FOR THE RULE: when parties mutually agree to DEFENSE OF PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ: embracing a woman,
fight, it is immaterial who attacks or received the wound first, RIGHT TO touching her private parts and her breasts, and
for the first act of force is an incident of the fight itself and in CHASTITY; throwing her to the ground for the purpose of raping
no wise is it an unwarranted and unexpected aggression, Attempt to her in an inhabited place when it was twilight,
which alone can legalize self-defense. rape a constitute an attack upon her honor and therefore,
woman. an unlawful aggression. She was justified in making
use of the knife in repelling what she believed to be
an attack upon her honor since she had no other
o Aggression, which is ahead of the stipulated time and means of defending herself.
place, is unlawful:
PEOPLE VS. JAURIGUE: placing of hand by a
man on the woman’s upper thigh is unlawful

aggression, but the means employed by the - Will any reasonable man say that A is more criminal than he
accused in the defense of her honor was evidently would have been if there had been a bullet in the pistol?
excessive. If the accused only gave the deceased - Those who hold such doctrine must require that a man so
fist blows or kicked him, to prevent him from going attack must, before he strikes the assailant, stop and
further in his attempt to commit an outrage upon her ascertain how the pistol is loaded – a doctrine which would
honor, she would have been completely justified in entirely take away the essential right of self-defense.
doing so.
PEOPLE VS. LUAGUE: an attempt to rape a

woman constitutes an aggression sufficient to put o There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy
her in a state of legitimate defense, inasmuch as a
pistol, provided the accused believed it was a real gun:
woman’s honor cannot be esteemed as a right as
precious, if not more than her very existence. The
woman thus imperilled may kill her offender if that is
the only means left for her to protect her honor from PEOPLE VS. BORAL: the Crispin Oscimina’s gun turned out to be a
so grave an outrage. pistol is inconsequential, considering its strikingly similar resemblance
to a real one and defendant-appellant’s belief that a real gun was
being aimed at him.
DEFENSE OF PEOPLE VS. APOLINAR: defense of property can
PROPERTY be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it
is coupled with an attack on the person of one
entrusted with said property. had the accused, who o Forcibly pushing picketers to let company trucks enter
wanted to stop the thief then approaching him, been the compound is not unlawful aggression against the
attacked, he would have been justified in shooting rights of the picketers.
him, if the shotgun was the only available weapon
for his defense. All three requisites of self-defense,
particularly unlawful aggression, must also concur
PEOPLE VS. CALIP
in defense of property.
PEOPLE VS. GOYA: the injured party did not lay - The act of the security officer of a strike-bound company in
hands on the guard or make any attempt to attack forcibly pushing the picketers after he had ordered them to
give way and let company trucks to enter the compound, but
the latter, so the guard cannot properly and legally
claim defense of property. There must be an attack the picketers refused, does not does not constitute unlawful
aggression against the legitimate rights of the picketers as
by the one stealing the property on the person
would justify its repulsion with equal and reasonable force,
defending it.
such as inflicting physical injuries upon the officer, for what
was under attack by said security officer was not the right of
picketing, but the picketers’ act of remaining in the
DEFENSE OF PEOPLE VS. MIRABILES: violent entry to
passageway when the trucks wanted o get inside, which is not
HOME another’s house at nighttime, by a person who is
a part of the picketing protected by law.
armed with a bolo, and forcing his way into the
house, shows he was ready and looking for trouble,
and the manner of his entry constitutes an act of
aggression. The owner of the house need not wait
for a blow before repelling the aggression, as that o A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not
blow may prove fatal. preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not
unlawful aggression, because it is required that the act
PEOPLE VS. SALATAN: courts must not hesitate be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful
to sustain the theory of self-defense of the victim of intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.
thievery or robbery when such thief or robber by
overt acts shows aggression instead of fear or
desire to escape upon apprehension for certainly
such an intruder must be prepared not only to steal US VS. GUY-SAYCO:
but to kill under the circumstances. In the case at
bar, even if the accused did not actually see the - As her husband had stayed away from home for more than
victim assaulted the accused under cover of two weeks, remaining in the barrio of Dujat, distant about two
darkness is such unlawful aggression as would and one-half hours’ walk from the town under the pretext that
justify the accused to defend himself. he was engaged in field work, the accused decided to go to
said barrio and join him. To this end, she hired a carromata
and after getting some clothes and other things necessary for
herself and husband, started out with her infant child and
servant girl; but before reaching the barrio and the camarin
o The belief of the accused may be considered in where her husband ought to be, night came on, and she
determining the existence of unlawful aggression: alighted and dismissed the vehicle after paying the driver.
They had yet to travel some distance. On seeing her
husband’s horse tied in front of a house, she suspected that
he was inside; thereupon, she went to the steps leading to the
A, in the peaceable pursuit of his affairs, sees B rushing rapidly house, which was a low one, and then saw her husband
toward him, with an outstretched arms and a pistol in his hand, and sitting down with his back towards the steps. She immediately
using violent menaces against his life as he advances. Having entered the house and encountered her husband, the
approached near enough in the same attitude, A, who has a club in deceased and the owners of the house taking supper
his hand, strikes B over the head before or at the instant the pistol is together. Overcome and blinded by jealously, she rushed at
discharged; and of the wound B dies. It turns out that the pistol was Lorenza Estrada, attacker her with a pen knife that she carried
loaded with powder only, and that the real design of B is only to terrify and inflicted five wounds upon her in consequence of which
A. Lorenza fell to the ground, covered with blood and died a few
moments afterwards.

- Even though it was true that when the accused made her o The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the
appearance, the deceased Lorenza arose with a knife in her circumstances:
hand and in threatening manner asked the accused what had
brought her there, such an attitude does not constitute the
unlawful aggression, which, among others, is the first PEOPLE VS. OCANA: the accused, who was then unarmed, was
indispensable requisite upon which exemption (justification) by being mauled with fistic blows by the deceased and his companions
self-defense may be sustained. for refusing their offer to drink wine, picked up a lead pipe within his
- In order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually reach and with it struck the deceased on the forehead, resulting in the
committed, it is necessary that an attack or material latter’s death.
aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent
of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made; a - The use by the accused of such lead pipe under the
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to circumstances is reasonable.
justify the commission of an act which is punishable per se, - That the accused did not select a lesser vital portion of the
and allow a claim of justification on the ground that it was body of the deceased to hit is reasonably to be expected, for I
committed in self-defense. such a situation, the accused has to move fast, or in split
seconds, otherwise, the aggression on his person would have
continued and his life endangered.
o EXAMPLES OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL

INJURY:
a. When one aims a revolver at another with the a. NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION
intention of shooting him. TAKEN: if there was no unlawful aggression or,
b. The act of a person in retreating two steps and if there was, it has ceased to exist, there would
placing his hand in his pocket with a motion be no necessity for any course of action to take
indicating his purpose to commit an assault with as there is nothing to prevent or to repel.
a weapon. i. Place and occasion of the assault
c. The act of opening a knife, and making a motion considered.
as if to make an attack. ii. The darkness of the night and the
o When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon surprise which characterized the assault
is sufficient unlawful aggression. considered:
o Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary:
PEOPLE VS. LARA: when the accused, while walking along in a dark
PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ: the accused, disliking the intervention of street at night with pistol in hand on the lookout for an individual who
the deceased in a certain incident between the accused and a couple, had been making an insulting demonstration in front of his house, was
armed himself with a gun and went to the house of the deceased, and suddenly held from behind and an attempt was made to wrench the
upon seeing the latter holding a kris in his hand, shot him to death. postil from him.
- There was no unlawful aggression, notwithstanding the claim - He was justified in shooting him to death, in view of the
of the accused that the deceased was a man of violent darkness and the surprise which characterized the assault.
temper, quarrelsome, and irritable, and that the latter might The deceased might be able to disarm the accused and to use
attack him with the kris, because he merely imagined a the pistol against the latter.
possible aggression.
- The aggression must be real, or at least, imminent.
PEOPLE VS. CALAVAGAN: the theory of self-defense is based n the

o Aggression that is expected: necessity on the part of the person attacked to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression, and when the danger or risk on his part has
disappeared, his stabbing the aggressor while defending himself
US VS. BATUNGBACAL: in this case, it is not necessary to wait until should have stopped.
the blow is about to be discharged, because in order that the assault
may be prevented, it is not necessary that it has been actually
perpetrated.
- It is well-known that the person who pursues another with the PEOPLE VS. MASANGKAY: the claim of self-defense is not credible
intent and purpose of assaulting him does not raise his hand as the accused narrated that he had succeeded in disarming the
to discharge the blow until he believes that his victim is within victim of the piece of wood the latter was allegedly carrying so that
his reach. stabbing with such frequency, frenzy and force can no longer be
considered as reasonably necessary.
2) REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO

PREVENT OR REPEL IT:
o MEANING: that [1] there be a necessity of the course US VS. RIVERA: when the deceased who endeavoured to set fire to
of action taken by the person making a defense, and [2] the house of the accused in which the two small children of the latter
were sleeping was already out of the house and prostrate on the
there be a necessity of the means used. BOTH must be
ground, having been boloed by the accused, there was no reasonable
reasonable. necessity of killing her.
o DEPENDS ON: the existence of unlawful aggression
and upon the nature and extent of the aggression.

PEOPLE VS. PASCA: while accused might have been and doubtless
was justified in picking up the bamboo pole to keep his adversary at
bay, he was not justified in striking the head of the deceased with it,
as he was not in any real danger of his life, for his adversary, although US VS. MACASAET; PEOPLE VS. ESPINA: the fact that the
armed with a bolo, had not attempted to draw it, and limited his accused struck one blow more than once was absolutely necessary to
assault to an attempt to push the accused back to the shallow pool save his own life, or that he failed to hold his hand so as to avoid
into which he had been thrown at the outset of the quarrel. inflicting a fatal wound where a less severed stroke might have served
the purpose, would not negative self-defense, because the accused,
in the heat of an encounter at close quarters, was not in a position to
reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to determine the effects
thereof.
PEOPLE VS. NARVAEZ: while there was an actual physical invasion
of the appellant’s property when the deceased chiselled the walls of
his house and closed appellant’s entrance and exit to the highway,
which he had the right to resist, the reasonableness of the resistance
is also a requirement. When the appellant fired his shotgun from his US VS. MACK; US VS. DOMEN: if it was necessary for the accused
window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to to use his revolver, he could hardly, under the circumstances, be
the attack. expected to take deliberate and careful aim so as to strike a point less
vulnerable than the body of his assailant.
PEOPLE VS. RABANDABAN PEOPLE VS. ALVIAR

PEOPLE VS PANTE: at the moment the deceased was about to stab
the superior officer of the accused, the latter hit the deceased with a
When the wife was disarmed by When the defendants, who had palma brava. The trial court believed that the accused should have
her husband after wounding him been attacked by the deceased, only struck his hand to disable it, or only hit him in a less vulnerable
seriously but she struggled to succeeded I snatching he bolo part of the body.
regain possession of the bolo, away from the latter, and the
here was a reasonable necessity deceased already manifested a - HELD: the trial court demanded too much of the accused’s
for him to use said bolo to refusal to fight, the defendant wisdom, judgment and discretion during the split second he
disable her, because he was was not justified in killing him. had to think and act to save his superior officer.
already losing strength due to
loss of blood and to throw away
the bolo would only give her a
chance to pick it up and again
use it against him.
PEOPLE VS. GALACGAC: in repelling or preventng an unlawful
aggression, the one defending must aim at his assailant, and not
indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon.
- Appellant certainly had no right to fire at random his

PEOPLE VS. DEL PILAR: the fact that minor physical injuries were unlicensed revolver. He knew that there were many innocent
inflicted by the accused after the unlawful aggression had ceased and persons in Soriano’s house (his wife, sister and brother-in-
after he had stabbed the deceased with two mortal wounds, said law). Besides, there were many inhabited houses in the
mortal wounds hang been inflicted at a time when the requisites of vicinity. Of course, appellant had a perfect and lawful right to
complete self-defense were still present, cannot and should not affect defend himself against the unjustified assault upon his person
the benefit of said complete self-defense in the absence of proof that made by Soriano. However, because he did not aim at his
those relatively small wounds contributed to or hastened the death of assailant but instead indiscriminately fired his deadly weapon
the deceased. at the risk of the lives and limbs of the innocent persons he
knew were in the place of occurrence, his act of defense was
- This ruling should not be applied if the deceased, after not exercised with due care.
receiving minor wounds, dropped his weapon and signified - However, there being no intent to kill, appellant was held liable
his refusal to fight any longer, but the accused hacked him for physical injuries.
to death. The reason is that the wound inflicted, after the
aggression had ceased, was the cause of death.
b. NECESSITY OF THE MEANS USED: when

there is no rational necessity to employ the
NOTE: the person defending is not expected to control his blow:
means used:
BROWNELL VS. PEOPLE:

US VS. APEGO: a sleeping woman, who was awakened y her
- Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean the brother-on-law grasping her arm, was not justified in using a knife to
killing of the unlawful aggressor. But the person defending kill him as the latter did not perform any other act which could be
himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his construed as an attempt against her honor.
blow. The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified
a long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time when the PEOPLE VS. MONTALBO: when a person was attacked with fist
elements of complete self-defense are still present. blows only, there was no reasonable necessity to inflict upon the
- One is not required, when hard-pressed, to draw fine assailant a mortal wound with a dagger.
distinctions as to the extent of the injury which a reckless and
infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him. PEOPLE VS. JAURIGUE: when a man placed his hand on the upper

thigh of a woman seated on a bench in a chapel where there were himself are of the same size and strength.
many people and which was well-lighted, there was no reasonable
necessity to kill him with a knife because there was no danger to her
chastity or honor. PHYSICAL PEOPLE VS. IGNACIO: when the one
CONDITION, defending himself who was of middle age, was
PEOPLE VS. BOHOLST-CABALLERO: there was a reasonable CHARACTER and cornerned, had his back to the iron railing, and
necessity to the use of the knife as the husband of the accused was SIZE three or four men bigger and stronger than he
kneeling over her as she ay on her back on the ground and his hand were striking him with fists, such person was
choking her neck when she pulled out the knife inserted at the left justified using a knife.
side of her husband’s belt and plunged it at his body.
PEOPLE VS. SUMICAD: the aggressor was a
bully, a man larger and stronger, of known
violent character, with previous criminal
NOTE: the test of reasonableness of the means used: perfect equality records for assault. He attacked with fist blows
between the weapon used by one defending himself and that of the a smaller man who was then armed with a
bolo. In spite of having received, as a warning,
aggressor is not required, because the person assaulted does not
a cut with a bolo on the left shoulder, the
have sufficient tranquillity of mind to think, to calculate and to choose aggressor continued to attempt to possess
which weapon to use. himself of the bolo. Killing him with a bolo was
justified in this case.
PEOPLE VS. ENCOMIENDA: what the law requires is rational PEOPLE VS. PADUA: considering that the
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal aggressor provoked the incident and started
factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person the aggression; considering that he is of violent
attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that moves temperament, troublesome, strong and
or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not aggressive with three criminal records, twice of
depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of slander by deed and once of threat to kill;
such injury. considering that he wanted to impose his will
on the family of the accused for having
rejected his nephew as a suitor of the sister of
the accused, boxing them one after another
and in their own home – CA held that the
accused was justified in striking him with a bolo
THE NATURE PEOPLE VS. PADUA although as a general
on the forehead and on the right eye.
AND QUALITY OF rule, a dagger or a knife is more dangerous
THE WEAPONS than a club, the use of a knife or dagger, when
attacked with a club, must be deemed
reasonable if it cannot be shown that the OTHER US VS. BATUNGBACAL: M, being abruptly
person assaulted [1] had other available CIRCUMSTANCES awakened by shouts that P was pursuing H
means or [2] if there was other means, he CONSIDERED and M’s two children, and seeing, upon
could coolly choose the less deadly weapon to awakening, that in fact P was infuriated and
repel the assault. pursuing H with a bolo in his hand and his arm
raised in an attitude as if to strike, took up a
PEOPLE VS. ONAS: the use a bayonet shotgun lying within his reach and fired at P,
against a can is not reasonable. In stabbing killing him at once. Under the circumstances, in
the deceased with his bayonet, the accused view of the imminence of the danger, the only
went beyond what was necessary to defend remedy which could be considered reasonable
himself against the unlawful aggression made necessary to repel or prevent that aggression,
by the deceased. was to render the aggressor harmless. As M
had on hand a loaded shotgun, this weapon
PEOPLE VS. RAMILLO: since the deceased was the most appropriate one that could be
was a gangster with a reputation for violence, used for the purpose, even at the risk of killing
the use by the accused of a dagger to repel the the aggressor, since the latter’s aggression
persistent aggression by the deceased with a also gravely threatened the lives of the parties
wooden pestle is reasonably necessary under assaulted.
the circumstances.
PEOPLE VS. AGUILARIO: at a distance,

stones hurled by the deceased, who was a OTHER NOTES: reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent
known boxer, big and strong, may constitute a or repel unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in favour of law-
graver danger than a bolo. The use of a bolo abiding citizens.
was held reasonable.
US VS. MACK: the use of revolver against an

PEOPLE VS. SO: there are many lawless elements who kill for the
aggressor armed with a bolo was held
thrill of killing. There is no adequate protection for the law-abiding
reasonable, it appearing that the deceased
citizens. When a lawless person attacks on the streets or particularly
was advancing upon the accused and within a
in the victim’s home, he should assume the risk of losing his life from
few feet of striking distance when the latter
the act of self-defense by firearm of his victim. Otherwise, the law-
shot him.
abiding citizens will be at the mercy of the lawless elements.
PEOPLE VS. MONTALBO: when a person is
attacked with fist blows, he must repel that
same with the weapon that nature gave him,
meaning with fists also. This ruling applies only RULES: regarding the reasonableness of the “necessity of the means
when the aggressor and the one defending employed” when the one defending himself is a PEACE OFFICER →

the peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law asked B why he had done so. This question angered B who
which he must uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private immediately attacked A.
individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a peace officer
requires him to overcome his opponent. - If A would kill B to defend himself, the third requisite of self-
defense would still be PRESENT, because even if it is true
that the question of A angered B, thereby making B attack A,
such provocation is NOT SUFFICIENT.
- A had the right to demand explanation why B had built the
fence on A’s property. The exercise of a right cannot give rise
US VS. MOJICA: the fact that a policeman, who was armed with a to sufficient provocation.
revolver and a club, might have used his club instead, does not alter
the principle since policeman’s club is not a very effective weapon as
against a drawn knife and a police officer is not required to afford a
person attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.  How to determine the sufficiency of
provocation: it should be proportionate
to the act of aggression and adequate to
stir the aggressor to its commission.
PEOPLE VS. CAINA: the use by a police officer of his service  To engage in a verbal argument cannot
revolver in repelling the aggression of the deceased who assaulted be considered sufficient provocation.
him with a kitchen knife and continued to hive him thrusts in the
confines of a small room measuring 6 feet by 6 feet is reasonable and
necessary. Considering the imminent danger to which his life was Is it necessary for the provocation to be sufficient that the one who
exposed at that time, he could hardly be expected choose coolly, as gave it must have been guilty of using violence and thus becoming an
he would under normal conditions, the use of his club as a less deadly unlawful aggressor himself? NO, IT IS NOT NECESSARY. The
weapon to use against his assailant. As a police officer in the lawful provocation is sufficient –
performance of his official duty, he must stand his ground and cannot,
like a private individual, take refuge in flight. His duty requires him to 1. US VS. MCCRAY: When one challenges the deceased to
overcome his opponent. come out of the house and engage in a fist-fight with him and
prove who is the better man.
PEOPLE VS. VALENCIA: the version of the defense

deserves no credit. Accused father and son challenged the
PEOPLE VS. YU, JR: there is no evidence that the accused was also deceased to fight and they killed him when he came out. One
armed with a weapon less deadly than a pistol. But even if he had a of the first requisites of self-defense is unlawful aggression.
club with him, the pistol would still be a reasonable means to repel the Accused father called out the deceased from his house and
aggression of the deceased, for a police officer is not required to provoked him to fight. Coming out, said accused threw a stone
afford a person attacking him with a drawn knife is the opportunity for at him. The deceased merely fought back but together both
a fair and equal struggle. While the law on self-defense allows a accused assaulted him until he fell wounded.
private individual to prevent or repel aggression, the duty of a peace
officer requires him to overcome the opponent. The peace officer, in 2. PEOPLE VS. SOTELO: when one hurls insults or imputes to
the performance of his duty, represents the laws which he must another the utterance of vulgar language, as when the
uphold. accused and his brothers imputed to the deceased, the
utterance of vulgar language against them, which imputation
provoked the deceased to attack them.
PEOPLE VS. DOLFO: but it is not enough that the

3) LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF
provocative act be unreasonable or annoying. A petty
THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF: question of pride does not justify wounding or killing an
o REASON: when the person defending himself from the opponent.
attack by another gave sufficient provocation to the
latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given 3. PEOPLE VS. GETIDA: when the accused tried to forcibly kiss
cause for the aggression. the sister of the deceased, the accused thereby gave
o Cases in which third requisite of self-defense is sufficient provocation to the deceased to attack him. There is
no complete self-defense, because the third requisite is not
considered PRESENT:
present.
a. When NO PROVATION AT ALL was given to
the aggressor by the person defending himself:
c. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it

A shot B to death because B was running amuck and with a dagger was NOT GIVEN BY THE PERSON
was rushing towards A manifestly intending to stab A.
DEFENDING HIMSELF:
- Here was no provocation whatsoever on the part of A.
- The third requisite of self-defense is present.
PEOPLE VS. BALANSAG: the third requisite of self-defense was
present because the provocation proven at the trial was not given by
the accused but by the brother-in-law of the deceased.
b. When, even if a provocation was given, it was
NOT SUFFICIENT:
PEOPLE VS. ALONGA: the attack made by the deceased when

A, having discovered that B had built a part of his fence on A’s land, Alconga was the one defending himself during the first stage of the

flight, was not considered as a provocation to Alconga in the second
stage of the fight, because then he was the aggressor and the third
requisite of self-defense is limited to the person defending himself. All of the elements of self-defense are present in this case:
1. A woman being strangled and choked by a furious aggressor

and rendered almost unconsciously by the strong pressure on
d. When, even if a provocation was given by the her throat had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon
person defending himself, it was not proximate within her reach to save herself from impending death.
and immediate to the act of aggression. Reasonable necessity of the means employed in self-defense
does not depend upon the harm done but rests upon the
imminent danger of such injury.
A slapped the face of B one or two days before and B, upon meeting
A, attacked the latter but was seriously injured when A defended 2. She did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the
himself. aggression or attack on her person by her husband. While it
was understandable for the latter to be angry at his wife for
- A’s provocation should be disregarded, because it was not finding her on the road in the middle of the night, he was not
proximate and immediate to the aggression made by B. in this justified in inflicting bodily punishment with an intent to kill by
case, the third requisite of self-defense is still present. choking her wife’s throat. All that she was to provoke an
imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband,
which is not a sufficient provocation under the law of self-
defense.
US VS. LAUREL: the kissing of the girlfriend of the aggressor was a
sufficient provocation to the latter, but since the kissing of the girl took BATTERED WOMAN SYDROME as a defense: victim-survivors who
place two days before the aggression was made, the provocation was are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome
disregarded by the SC. do not incur criminal and civil liability.
- A battered woman is a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to

any forceful physical or psychological behaviour by a man in
ILLUSTRATION OF THE THREE REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE: order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without
concern for her rights. They include wives or women in any
form of intimate relationship with men. The couple must also go
PEOPLE VS DOLFO: A was an electrician while B was his assistant. through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find
A called B to him who instead of approaching asked him, “why are
herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a
you calling me?” A considered the retort as a provocative answer and
suddenly threw a 4 by 2 inches piece of wood at B. B retaliated by second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined
throwing at A the same piece of wood. A picked up the piece of wood, as a battered woman.”
approached B and started to beat him with the piece of wood. B - They have low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about home, the
defended himself with a screwdriver and inflicted a mortal wound on family and the female sex role; emotional dependence upon
A. the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the
batterer’s actions; and false hopes that the relationship will
QUESTION 1: was there sufficient provocation on the part of B when
he retorted “why are you calling me?” improve.
- Characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,” which had
B’s answer of “why are you calling me?” when summoned by A might three phases:
have mortified and annoyed the latter but it was not sufficient 1) The tension-building phase: minor battering occurs
provocation. The provocation must be sufficient or proportionate to (verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of
the act committed and adequate to arouse one to its commission. It is hostile behaviour).
not sufficient that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying. A
2) The acute battering incident characterized by brutality,
small question of self-pride does not justify hurting or killing an
opponent. destructiveness and sometimes, death. At this stage,
she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the
QUESTION 2: was there reasonable necessity in using the terrible pain.
screwdriver to repel the attack? 3) The tranquil, loving (or, at least, non-violent) phase: the
battered woman tried to convince herself that the
The act of A in hurling the piece of wood at B when his pride was hurt battery will never happen again and that her partner will
constituted unlawful aggression. Subsequent act of A in attacking B
change for the better.
with the piece of wood, after B had hurled back the thrown piece of
wood, was a continuation of the unlawful aggression already begun. - A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor
The subsequent act of A placed B in his defense, justifying the use of of the emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation
a reasonable means to repel it. and despair, she feels responsible for his well-being.
- EFFECT: the psychologist explains that the cyclical nature of
In determining whether a particular means employed to repel an the violence inflicted upon the battered woman immobilizes the
aggression is reasonable, the person attacked should not be
latter’s “ability to act decisively in her own interests, making her
expected to judge things calmly and act coolly or serenely as one not
under stress or not facing a danger to life or limb. The test is: feel trapped in the relationship with no means to escape.”
considering the situation of the person defending himself, would a - REASONS WHY SHE DOES NOT READILY LEAVE AN
reasonable man placed in the same circumstance have acted in the ABUSIVE PARTNER: poverty, self-blame and guilt arising from
same way? In this case, the screwdriver was a reasonable means to the latter’s belief that she provoked he violence, that she has
repel the unlawful aggression of A. B was justified in killing him with it. an obligation to keep the family intact at all cost for the sake of
All the requisites of self defense were present. Hence, accused B their children, and that she is the only hope of her spouse to
must be, as he was, acquitted.
change.

PEOPLE VS. GENOSA: battered women feel unsafe, suffer from
pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship. Unless a
shelter is available, she stays with her husband, not only because she
typically lacks a means of self-support, but also because she fears
that if she leaves, she would be found and hurt even more.

FLIGHT, INCOMPATIBLE WITH SELF-DEFENSE: other to prevent him from doing harm is not acting in defense of a
relative, but is guilty of homicide.
PEOPLE VS. MARANAN: the appellant went to hiding after the

hacking incident. suffice it to state that flight after the commission of
the crime is highly evidentiary of the guilt, and incompatible with self-
defense. PEOPLE VS. PANURIL: in this case, when he saw the deceased and
his brother facing each other in a fight, each holding a taki taki, an
instrument for uprooting rubber seedlings, the accused hit the
deceased on the head with his taki taki, causing the latter’s death.
PAR. 2:
- The accused appears to be the aggressor, he cannot invoke
- RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED: the defense of having acted in defense of a relative.
1) Spouse.
2) Ascendants.
3) Descendants.
4) Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or US VS. ESMEDIA: must unlawful aggression exist as a matter of fact,
relatives by affinity in the same degrees. or can it be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making
o Because of marriage: parents-in-law, son or a defense?
daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law.
o The relationship by affinity created between the - ANS.: YES. It can be made to depend upon the honest belief
surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the of the one making a defense.
- A attacked and wounded B with a dagger, causing the latter to
deceased spouse survives the death of either fall down, but B immediately stood up and defended himself
party to the marriage which crated the affinity. by striking A with a bolo, and as a result, A was seriously
5) Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil wounded and fell in the mud with B standing in front of A in a
degree. position as if to strike again in case A would stand up. There is
o CONSANGUINITY: refers to blood relatives. no doubt that A was the unlawful aggressor.
2nd civil degree: brothers and sisters. o But when the sons of A came, what they saw was that
their father lying in the mud, wounded. They believed
3rd civil degree: uncle and niece or aunt and
in good faith that their father was the victim of an
nephew. unlawful aggression. If they killed B under such
4th civil degree: first cousins. circumstances, they are justified.
o There is a MISTAKE OF FACT on the part of the sons
of A.
PEOPLE VS. CABELLON:
- A acted in defense of the husband of A’s sister-in-law.

- NO defense of relative because the relation between A and 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
the husband of A’s sister-in-law is not one of those mentioned prevent or repel it.
in PAR. 2 of ART. 11.
- The husband of A’s sister-in-law is a stranger to A for purpose
of the law on defense of relatives.
ESLABON VS. PEOPLE: the gauge of reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repel the aggression as against one’s self or in
defense of a relative is to be fond n the situation as it appears to the
person repelling the aggression. It has been held time and again that
- BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION: founded not only upon a the reasonableness of the means adopted is not one of mathematical
humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood calculation or “material commensurability between the means of
which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great peril, to the attack and defense” but the imminent danger against the subject of
rescue of those close to them by ties of blood. the attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct more than
- REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES: reason that moves the defender to repel the attack.
1) Unlawful aggression.
BALUNUECO VS. CA: of the three requisites of defense of relatives, 3) In case the provocation was given by the person
unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, for without it any attacked, the one making a defense had no part
defense is not possible or justified. In order to consider that an therein.
unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an o Merely states an event which may or may not
attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining take place.
the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made; a o REASON: that although the provocation
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the
prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do
commission of an act which is punishable per se, and allow a claim of
exemption from liability on the ground that it was committed in self- not reach the defender who took no part therein,
defense or defense of a relative. because the latter was prompted by some noble
or generous sentiment in protecting and saving
a relative.
PEOPLE VS. MORO MANUBE: when two persons are getting ready PEOPLE VS. TORING: the accused was previously shot by the
to stroke each other, there can be no unlawful aggression, and hence, brother of the victim. It cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking the
a relative of either who butts in and administers a deadly blow on the victim, the accused was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence

or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his without attempting to save his life.
cousin. Rather, he was motivated with revenge, resentment or evil
motive because of a running feud between them.
- Requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a

disinterested or generous motive, when it puts down “revenge,
o The fact that the relative defended gave resentment, or other evil motive” as illegitimate.
provocation was immaterial. - STRANGERS: not included in the enumeration of relatives
mentioned in PAR. 2.
o Even a close friend or a distant relative.
Even if A slapped the face of B who, as a consequence of the act of
- “NOT BE INDUCED” → even if a person has a standing grudge
A, immediately commenced to retaliate by drawing a knife and trying
to stab A, and C, father of A, killed B in defense of his son, C is against the assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a
completely justified. stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger from
serious bodily harm or possible death, the third requisite of
- Notwithstanding the fact that the provocation was given by his defense of stranger still exist.
son A. o REASON: the alleged defense of stranger would be
- But if C had induced his son A to injure B, thereby taking part only a pretext.
in the provocation made by A, C would not be completely
justified in killing B while the latter was about to stab A,
because the third requisite of defense of relative is lacking.
- Suppose, the person defending his relative was also induced PEOPLE VS. CABELLON AND GAVIOLA: if in defending his wife’s
by revenge, or hatred, would there be a legitimate defense of brother-in-law, the accused acted also from an impulse of resentment
a relative? As long as the three requisites of defense of against the deceased, the third requisite of defense of stranger is not
relatives are present, it will still be a legitimate defense. present.
o Examples of defense of relatives: - Examples of defense of stranger:
PEOPLE VS. AMMALUN: the accused, at a distance of about 20 PEOPLE VS. ANCHETA: A was able to deprive B, a constabulary
“brazes” from his house, heard his wife shouting for help. He rushed lieutenant, of his pistol during the fray. B ordered C, a constabulary
to the house and once inside saw the deceased on top of his wife. He soldier under his command, to search A for a pistol. When C was
drew his bolo and hacked the deceased at the base of his neck when about to approach A to search him, the latter stepped back and shot
the latter was forcibly abusing his wife. at C, who was able to avoid the shot. When A was about to fire again
at C, D, another constabulary soldier, fired at A with his rifle which
killed him.
- D was justified in killing A, having acted in defense of

stranger.
US VS. RIVERA: Domingo Rivera challenged the deceased to prove
who of them was the better man. When the deceased picked up a
bolo and went after him, Domingo Rivera took to flight. The deceased
pursued him and upon overtaking him, inflicted two wounds. Antonio
Rivera, father of Domingo, rushed to his son’s assistance and struck
with a cane the bolo from the hands of the deceased. PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ: A heard screams and cries for help. When A
responded, he saw B attacking his (B’s) wife with a dagger. A
- While the son was originally at fault for giving provocation to approached B and struggled for the possession of the weapon, in the
the deceased, yet the father was justified in disarming the course of which A inflicted wounds on B.
deceased, having acted in lawful defense of his son.
- But Domingo Rivera was declared guilty of the crime of - A acted in defense of a stranger.
homicide.
- Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being throttled

PAR. 3: is defense of stranger.
- REQUISITES:
1) Unlawful aggression. US VS. SUBINGSUBING: A Japanese hit an old man 78 years of age
on the face, shoved him to the ground and attempted to choke him.
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
The accused furnished the old man with a small gaff, used by game
prevent or repel it. cocks, with which the old man killed his assailant.
3) The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motives. - The accused was justified in furnishing the old man with the
gaff, it being in defense of stranger.
- BASIS:
US VS. AVIADO: what one may do in his defense, another may do for PAR. 4:
him. Persons acting in defense of others are in the same condition
and upon the same plane as those who act in defense of themselves. - “DAMAGE TO ANOTHER” → covers injury to persons and
The ordinary man would not stand idly b and see his companion killed damage to property.

- Example of DAMAGE TO PROPERTY under PAR. 4:
PEOPLE VS. NORMA HERNANDEZ: the CA applied PAR. 4 of ART.
11 in a case of slander by deed, a crime against honor, where the
accused (a woman) who was about to be married to the offended
party eloped with another man, after the offended party made Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to prevent its
preparation for the wedding, the Court holding that there was a spread to adjacent houses of strong materials, the surrounding nipa
necessity on the part of the accused of avoiding a loveless marriage houses are pulled down.
with the offended party, and that her refusal to marry him and her
eloping with the man whom she loved were justified and did not
amount to the crime of slander by deed.
TAN VS. STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO.: a truck of the Standard

Vacuum Oil Co. delivering gasoline at a gas station caught fire and,
- “THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED ACTUALLY order to prevent the burning of the station, the truck was driven to the
EXIST” → if the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or middle of the street and there abandoned, but it continued to move
anticipated or may happen in the future, PAR. 4 is not and thereafter crashed against and burned a house on the other side
applicable. of the street.
- Example of an INJURY TO PERSON under PAR. 4:
- The owner of the house had a cause of action against the
owner of the gas station.
A person was driving his car on a narrow road with due diligence and
care when suddenly he saw a 6x6 truck in front of his car. If he would
swerve his car to the left he would fall in a precipice, or if he would
swerve it to the right he would kill a passer-by. He was forced to
choose between losing his life in the precipice or sacrificing the life of During the storm, the ship was heavily loaded with goods was in
the innocent bystander. He chose the latter, swerved his car to the danger of sinking. The captain of the vessel ordered part of the goods
right, ran over and killed the passer-by. thrown overboard.
- In view of his example and the principle involved, the killing of - In this case, the captain is not criminally liable for causing part
the fetus to save the life of the mother may be held excusable. of the goods thrown overboard.
- “THAT THE INJURY FEARED BE GREATER THAN THAT - The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result
DONE TO AVOID IT” → the instinct of self-preservation will from a violation of law by the actor → an escaped convict who
always make one feel that his own safety is of greater has to steal clothes in order to move about unrecognized does
importance than that of another. not act from necessity.
- The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence - There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this paragraph:
or imprudence of the actor: o Although, as a rule there is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances, it is only in PAR. 4 of ART. 11 where
there is CIVIL LIABILITY, but the civil liability is borne
If in the example above, the driver drove his car at full speed, by the persons benefitted.
disregarding the condition of the place, and although he saw the 6x6 o They shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit
truck at a distance 500 meters away, he did not slacken his speed, he which they may have received.
cannot invoke PAR. 4 of this article, because the state of necessity
was brought about by his own reckless imprudence.
PAR. 5:
- REQUISITES:
- When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke 1) That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or
the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
injury: 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.
PEOPLE VS. ROCOHERMOSO: A with a bolo and B with an axe
attacked D who was wounded. Nearby, C embraced E, D’s son, who
had a gun slung on his shoulder, and grappled with him. D died. A, B PEOPLE VS. OANIS: the first requisite is present, because the
and C were prosecuted for murder. C invoked the justifying accused peace officers, who were trying to get a wanted criminal,
circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury in explaining his were acting in the performance of a duty.
act of preventing E from shooting A and B.
- The second requisite is not present, because through
- His reliance on that justifying circumstance is ERRONEOUS. impatience, over-anxiety, or in their desire to take no chance,
The act of C in preventing E from shooting A and B, who were the accused exceeded in the fulfilment of their duty when they
the aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of D without killed a sleeping person whom they believe to be the wanted
any risk to his assailants. C was not avoiding any evil when he criminal without making any previous inquiry as to his identity.
sought to disable E.
- Even if E was about to shoot A and B, his act, being in
defense of his father, is not an evil that could justifiably be
avoided by disabling E. - FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY:

natural thing for him to do would have been to give his back to
PEOPLE VS. FELIPE DELIMA: Napilon escaped from the jail where the guard.
he was serving sentence. Some days afterwards the policeman, - It is clear that the guard had absolutely no reason to fire at
Delima, who was looking for him, found him in the house of Alegria, Tipace. The guard could have fired at him in self-defense or if
armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and absolutely necessary to avoid his escape.
demanded his surrender. The fugitive answered with a stroke of his
lance. The policeman dodged it, and to impose his authority fired his
revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away, without
parting with his weapon. The police officer went after him and fired
again his revolver, this time hitting and killing him. The policeman was US VS. MAGNO: the prisoner attempted to escape, and the
tried and convicted by the CFI of homicide and sentenced to reclusion Constabulary soldiers, his custodians, shot him to death in view of the
temporal and the accessory penalties. fact that the prisoner, disregarding the warning of his custodians,
persisted in his attempt to escape, and there was no other remedy but
- The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The to fire at him in order to prevent him from getting away.
deceased was under the obligation to surrender, and had no
right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault - It was held that the Constabulary soldiers acted in the
and disobedience with a weapon in his hand, which compelled fulfilment of duty and, therefore, were not criminally liable.
the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, which,
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstances.
- ART. 11, PAR. 5 of the RPC being considered, Delima
committed no crime, and he is hereby acquitted with costs de - Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified:
oficio.
PEOPLE VS. GAYRAMA: the accused, who had slashed with a bolo
the municipal president on his arm, ran away and refused to be
arrested.
PEOPLE VS. BISA: if a detained prisoner under the custody of the
accused, a policeman detailed to guard him, by means of force and - If the chief of police had been armed with a revolver and had
violence, was able to leave the cell and actually attempted to escape, used it against the accused, the act of the chief of police
notwithstanding the warnings given by the accused not to do so, and under those circumstances would have been fully justified.
was shot by the accused, the latter is entitled to acquittal in - REASON: it is the duty of peace officers to arrest violators of
accordance with the ruling laid down in PEOPLE VS. DELIMA. the law not only when they are provided with the
corresponding warrant of arrest, but also when they are not
provided with said warrant if the violation is committed in their
own presence. And this duty extends even to cases the
purpose of which is merely prevent a crime about to be
consummated.
VALCORZA VS. PEOPLE: four members of the police went after him
as soon as the detention prisoner had escaped. When the escaping
detainee saw one of the policemen, he lunged at the latter, hitting him
with a stone on the right cheek, as a consequence of which he fell
- BUT shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified:
down, and while in that position on the ground, he was again struck
with a stone by the escaping detainee. Thereafter, the latter ran away
pursue by the policeman and his companions. In the course of the
pursuit, the policeman fired a warning shot into the air, and as the PEOPLE VS. BENTRES: a security guard accosted a thief who had
escaping detainee paid no heed to this, the policeman fired into the stolen ore in the tunnel of a mining company. The thief tried to flee.
air four times more and kept of pursuing him. As the latter was The security guard ordered him to stop, but the latter disregarded the
apparently widening the distance between then, and fearing that he order. The security guard fired four shots into the air with is carbine to
might finally be able to elude arrest, the policeman fired directly at him scare the thief and to stop him. As the thief continued to flee, saying
while he was in the act of jumping again into another part of the creek, that he would not stop even if he died, the security guard fired a fifth
the shot having hit him on the back. shot directed at the leg of the thief, but the bullet hit him in the lumbar
region and died.
- The security guard acted in the performance of his duty, but

he exceeded the fulfilment of his duty by shooting the
deceased. He was adjudged guilty of homicide.
PEOPLE VS. LAGATA: when the guard called his order to assemble,
one of his prisoners was missing. So, he ordered the others to look for
him. The other prisoners scampered. The guard fired at two of the
prisoners, wounding one (Abria) and killing the other (Tipace). His
reason was to prevent the attempt of the prisoners to escape.
PEOPLE VS. OANIS, supra: although an officer in making a lawful
- As regards the shooting of Abria and Tipace, the Court is arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to
convinced that the facts were as narrated by the witnesses for secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his
the prosecution. Abria was shot when he was only three escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily
meters away from the guard and the defense has not even harm, yet he is never justified in using unnecessary force or
shown that Abria attempted to escape. Tipace was also shot threatening him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous
when he was about four or five meters away from the guard. means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
The latter’s allegation that Tipace was running – conveying
the idea that said prisoner was in the act of escaping – - The doctrine is restated in the Rules of Courts: no violence or
appears to be inconsistent with his own testimony to the effect unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest, and the
that Tipace was running sidewise, with his face looking person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint
towards him (the guard), and with the undisputed fact that than is necessary for his detention.
Tipace was hit near one axilla, the bullet coming out from the
opposite shoulder. If Tipace’s purpose was to escape, the
- Legitimate performance of duty: - BUT if the accused were a PRIVATE PERSON, not in the
performance of a duty, the result would be different. In the first
case there would be no self-defense because there is no
PEOPLE VS.CABRERA: when the victim without apparent reason, unlawful aggression. In the second case, the one pointing the
but probably due to drunkenness, fired at his gun several times at the gun at another would be committing a felony.
Alta Vista Club, the accused and his partner had to intervene for they o For instance, A levelled his gun at B, threatening the
were with the NBI. They would have been remiss in their duty if they latter with death. B grabbed the muzzle of the gun and
did not. True, the deceased companion of the accused shot the victim in the struggle for the possession of the gun, A
who died as a result. But it would be doing injustice to a deceased squeezed the trigger, causing it to fire, hitting and
agent of the law who cannot now defend himself to state that when he killing B.
approached the trouble making victim, he had a preconceived notion o A is criminally liable under ART. 4, PAR. 1, in relation
to ill. It must be presumed that he acted pursuant to law when he tried to ARTS. 282 and 249.
to discharge his duty as an NBI agent and that the killing of the victim
was justified under the circumstances. The same is true for the
accused.
- Lawful exercise of right or office:
A. OF RIGHT:
o DOCTRINE OF “SELF-HELP” UNDER ART.
- Illegal performance of duty: 429, Civil Code, applied in Criminal Law.
PEOPLE VS. TAN: the defense of fulfilment of a duty does not avail. PEOPLE VS. DEPANTE: while Depante was in a Chinese store,
The attitude adopted by the deceased in putting his hands in his Iquiran, his querida, saw him holding a five-peso bill in his left hand.
pockets is not sufficient to justify the accused to shoot him. The Mariano had just bought a package of cigarettes and the five-peso bill
deceased was unarmed and the accused could have first warned him, was he was holding was part of the change he had just received from
as the latter was coming towards him, to stop where he was, raise his the storekeeper. Iquiran, who was in a bad mood because Depante
hands, or do the things a policeman is trained to do, instead of had not given her support for sometime, approached him and after
mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that the deceased uttering insulting words, grabbed the five-peso bill from Mariano’s
was armed. hand. When he acted to recover the same, she grabbed his shirt,
tearing the same. mariano gave her fist blows on the forehead, on the
right side of the head and on the middle part of her left arm, knocking
her down. He was able to regain possession of the five-peso bill.
PEOPLE VS. PERALTA: appellant was not in the performance of is - WON the act of Iquiran in grabbing the five-peso bill an actual
duties at the time of the shooting for the reason that the girls he was or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
attempting to arrest were not committing any act of prostitution in his Mariano Depant’s property? YES.
presence. If at all, the only person he was authorized to arrest during o More than that, the act could be attempted robbery.
that time was Roberto Reyes, who offered him the services of a The fact the Quiran was a querida and that Mariano
prostitute, for acts of vagrancy. Even then, the fatal injuries that the had not supported her for sometime was not an
appellant caused the victim were not necessary consequences of exempting or justifying circumstance. Robbery can
appellant’s performance of his duty as a police officer. The record even be committed by a wife against her husband.
shows that appellant shot the victim not once but twice after a heated Only theft, swindling and malicious mischief cannot be
confrontation ensued between them. His duty to arrest the female committed by a wife against her husband.
suspects did not include any right to shoot the victim to death. - WON Mariano use such force as was reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent the actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property. NO.
o He cannot claim full justification, for the three fist blows
which rendered Pacencia unconscious for sometime
- Distinguished from self-defense and from consequence of
were not reasonable, considering the sex of the
felonious act: complainant.
o Hence, appellant is criminally liable, though mitigated.
PEOPLE VS. DELIMA, supra: the prisoner who attacked the

policeman with “a stroke of his lance” was already running away when
he was shot, and, hence, the unlawful aggression had already ceased
to exist; but the killing was done in the performance of a duty. The
rule of self-defense does not apply.
ACTUAL INVASION
MERE DISTURBANCE REAL DISPOSSESSION

PEOPLE VS. BISA: the public officer acting in the fulfilment of a duty
may appear to be an aggressor but his aggression is not unlawful, it
being necessary to fulfil his duty.
Force may be used against it at Force to regain possession can
any time as long as it continues, be used only immediately after
- The guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner and the
even beyond the perspective the dispossession.
prisoner grabbed the muzzle of the gun and, in the struggle for
period for an action of forcible
the possession of the gun, the guard jerked away the gun
entry.
from the hold of the prisoner, causing the latter to be thrown
halfway around, and because of the force of the pull, the
guard’s finger squeezed the trigger, causing it to fire, hitting
If a ditch is opened by Pedro in If Juan, without permission of
and killing the prisoner.
the land of Juan, the latter may Pedro, picks up a book belonging
- The guard was acting in the fulfilment of duty.
close it or cover it by force at any to the latter and runs off with it,

time. Pedro can pursue Juan and
recover the book by force. PEOPLE VS. BERONILLA: when the accused acted upon orders of
superior officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not
question, and obeyed the orders in good faith, without being aware of
their illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, he is not
liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not negligent.
IF THE PROPERTY IS IMMOVABLE
There should be no delay in the use of force to recover it; a delay, ART. 12
even if excusable, such as when due to the ignorance of the EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
dispossession, will bar the right to the use of force. Once the
usurper’s possession has become fi by the lapse of time, the lawful EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (non-imputablity): those grounds for
possessor must resort to the competent authority to recover his
exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of
property.
the crime of any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
B. OF OFFICE: - BASIS: COMPLETE ABSENCE of intelligence, freedom of

o The executioner of the Bilibid Prison cannot be action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of
held liable for murder for the execution the accused.
performed by him because he was merely - Under the RPC, a person must act with malice or negligence to
acting in the lawful exercise of his office. be criminally liable.
o The surgeon who amputated the leg of a patient o One who acts without intelligence, freedom or action or
to save him from gangrene is not liable for the intent does not act with MALICE.
crime of mutilation, because he was acting in o On the other hand, one who acts without intelligence,
the lawful exercise of his office. freedom of action or fault does not act with
NEGLIGENCE.
PAR. 6: - Here, there IS a crime committed but NO criminal liability
arises.
- REQUISITES: o Technically, one who act by virtue of any of the
1) That an order has been issued by a superior. exempting circumstances commits a crime, although by
2) That such order must be for some lawful purpose. the complete absence of any of the conditions which
3) That the means used by the subordinate to carry out constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no
said order is lawful. criminal liability arise.
o WHEN ABSENT: when an executioner put a - Any of the circumstances mentioned in ART. 12 is a matter of
convict to death a day earlier than the date fixed defense and the same must be proved by the defendant to the
by the court. satisfaction of the court.
- Both the person who gives the order and the person who
executes it, must be acting within the limitations prescribed by PAR. 1:
law.
- When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate
IMECILE INSANE
who obeyed it is criminally liable:
Exempt in all cases from criminal Not so exempt if it can be shown

PEOPLE VS. BARROGA: one who prepared a falsified document liability. that he acted during a lucid
with full knowledge of its falsity is not excused even if he merely acted interval (the insane acts with
in obedience to the instruction of his superior, because the instruction intelligence).
was not for a lawful purpose.
One who, while advanced in age,

has a mental development
comparable to that of children
PEOPLE VS. MARGEN: a soldier who, in obedience to the order of between two and seven years of
his sergeant, tortured to death the deceased for bringing a kind of fish age → deprived completely of
different from that he had been asked to furnish a constabulary reason or discernment and
detachment, is criminally liable. Obedience to an order of a superior is freedom of the will at the time of
justified only when the order is for some lawful purpose. The order to committing the crime.
torture the deceased was illegal, and the accused was not bound to
obey it.
- To constitute INSANITY, there must be complete deprivation of

intelligence or that there be total deprivation of the freedom of
- The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of the will:
his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and
he is not negligent:
PEOPLE VS. FORMIGONES: The SC of Spain held that in order that
the exempting circumstances of insanity may be taken into account, it
is necessary that there be complete deprivation of intelligence while

committing that act, that is, that the accused be deprived of reason; be known only by outward acts. Thereby, we read the thoughts, the
that he acts without the lease discernment; or that there be a total motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his
deprivation of freedom of the will. acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. To prove
insanity, therefore, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing,
will suffice.
PEOPLE VS. PUNO: insanity exists when there is a complete

deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is - DISTINGUISH:
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment, because
there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is
total deprivation of freedom of the will. INSANITY AT THE TIME OF INSANITY AT THE TIME OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE THE TRIAL
FELONY
- Thus, mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough,

especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his act He is exempt from criminal He is liable criminally when he
→ mitigating circumstance. liability. was sane at the time of the
commission of the crime***
- Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony:
CHIN AH FOO VS. CONCEPCION: the court shall order his

confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for *** The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental capacity of
persons afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first the accused be restored to afford him a fair trial.
obtaining the permission of the court.
- Evidence of insanity:
- But the court has no power to permit the insane person to
leave the asylum without first obtaining the opinion of the
Director of Health that he may be released without danger. US VS. GUEVARA, PEOPLE VS. FAUSTO, PEOPLE VS. PUNO:
the evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under
prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. If the evidence
points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the
- Who has the burden of proof to show insanity? accused cannot be acquitted. He is presumed to be sane when he
committed it.
PEOPLE VS. BASCOS: the defense must prove that the accused
was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, because the
presumption is always in favor of sanity.
PEOPLE VS. BONOAN: if the insanity is only occasional or
intermittent in its nature, the presumption of its continuance does not
arise. He who relies on such insanity proved at another time mist
prove its existence also at the time of the commission of the offense.
PEOPLE VS. AQUINO: sanity being the normal condition of the Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will be
human mind, the prosecution may proceed upon the presumption that presumed that the offense was committed in one of them. But a
the accused was sane and responsible when the act was committed. person who has been adjudged insane, or who has been committed
The presumption is always in favour of sanity and the burden of proof to a hospital or to an asylum for the insane, is presumed to continue
of insanity is on the defense. to be insane.
- How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the presumption - When defense of insanity is NOT CREDIBLE:
of sanity?
PEOPLE VS. RENEGADO: appellant himself testified that he was

acting very sanely that Monday morning, as shown by the fact that he
PEOPLE VS. BASCOS: the wife of the accused and his cousin
went to the canteen in a jovial mood “singing, whistling, and tossing a
testified that the accused had been more or less continuously out of
coin in his hand.” He saw persons inside the canteen and he noticed
his mind for many years. The assistant district health officer who, by
the arrival of Lira who banged his folders on the table, elbowed him,
order of the court, examined the accused found that the accused was
and said in a loud voice: “ano ka.” He saw Lira put his right hand
a violent maniac. The physical expressed that opinion that the
inside his pocket and with the other hand pushed a chair towards him.
accused was probably insane when he killed the deceased. The total
He became “confused” because he remembered that Lira threatened
lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased bears
to kill him if he would see him again. At this point “he lost his senses”
out the assumption that the former was insane.
and regained it when he heard the voice of Mrs. Tan saying: “Loreto,
don’t do that.” And then he found out that he wounded Lira.
- If appellant was able to recall all those incidents, we cannot

understand why his memory stood still at the very crucial
PEOPLE VS BONOAN: in order to ascertain a person’s mental moment when he stabbed Lira to return at the snap of a finger
condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence f as it were, after he accomplished the act of stabbing his
the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and victim.
after that time. Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of - The defense of sanity is INCREDIBLE.
derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. Mind can

The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or
mental defect, producing an “irresistible impulse,” as when the
accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which
PEOPLE VS. AMBAL: the accused knew that his wife was dead would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act.
because he was informed of her death. He said that his wife
quarrelled with him. She was irritable. He remembered that a week In the BONOAN case, supra, an irresistible homicidal impulse was
before the incident he got wet while plowing. He fell asleep without considered embraced in the term “insanity.”
changing his clothes. He immediately surrendered after the incident.
He remembered that he rode on a tricycle. During his confinement in
jail, he mopped the floor and cooked food for his fellow prisoners.
Sometimes, he worked in the town plaza or was sent unescorted to - SCHIZOPHRENIA, formerly called dementia praecox.
buy food in the market.
- He is NOT insane. PEOPLE VS. ALDEMITA: medical books describe schizophrenia as a

chronic disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between
fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and
delusions. Formerly called dementia praecox, it is the most common
form of psychosis.
PEOPLE VS. MAGALLANO: government psychiatric doctors who
had closely observed the accused for a month and a half found him in
good contact with his environment and that he did not manifest any
odd behaviour for in fact he could relate the circumstances that led to
his confinement. He exhibited remorse for killing the victim, his wife, PEOPLE VS. MADARANG: symptomatically, schizophrenic reactions
and he voluntarily surrendered to the police headquarters where he are recognizable through odd and bizarre behaviour apparent in
executed a statement confessing his misdeed. He was coherent and aloofness or period of impulsive destructiveness and immature and
intelligent. Before the killing, he was working for a living through exaggerated emotionally, often ambivalently directed. The
fishing three times a week and he himself fixed the prices for his interpersonal perceptions are distorted in the more serious states by
catch. delusions and hallucinations. In the most disorganized form of
schizophrenic living, withdrawal into a fantasy life takes place and is
- The presumption of sanity has not been overcome. associated with serious though disorder and profound habit
deterioration in which the usual social customs are disregarded.
During the initial stage, the common early symptom is aloofness, a
withdrawal behind barriers of loneliness, hopelessness, hatred and
fear. Frequently, the patient would seem preoccupied and dreamy
PEOPLE VS. PUNO: the accused was afflicted with “schizophrenic and may appear “faraway.” He does not empathize with the feelings
reaction” but knew what he was doing. He has psychosis, a slight of others and manifests little concern about the realities of life
destruction of the ego. In spite of his “schizophrenic reaction,” his situations. The schizophrenic suffers from a feeling of rejection and an
symptoms were “not socially incapacitating” and he could adjust to his intolerable lack of self-respect. He withdraws from emotional
environment. He could distinguish between right and wrong. He had involvement with other people to protect himself from painful
no delusion and he was not mentally deficient. relationships. There is shallowness of affect, a paucity of emotional
responsiveness and a loss of spontaneity. Frequently, he becomes
- The accused was not legally insane when he killed the neglectful of personal care and cleanliness. A variety of subjective
hapless and helpless victim. experiences, associated with or influenced by mounting anxiety and
fears precede the earliest behavioural changes and oddities. He
becomes aware of increasing tension and confusion and becomes
distracted in conversation manifested by his inability to maintain a
train of thought in his conversation. Outwardly, this will be noticed as
PEOPLE VS. AQUINO: the mental illness of the accused was blocks or breaks in conversations. The schizophrenic may not speak
described as “organic mental disorder with psychosis” but the doctor or respond appropriately to his companions. He may look fixedly
said that a person suffering from insanity may know that what he is away, or he may appear to stare, as he does not regularly blink his
doing is wrong. He also observed that the mental illness of the eyes in his attempt to hold is attention.
accused came on and off. When interviewed upon his admission to
the mental institution, he recalled having taken 120 cc of cough syrup
and consumed about 3 sticks of marijuana before the commission of
the crime, an admission confirming his prior extrajudicial confession. - KLEPTOMANIA:
- The presence of his reasoning faculties, which enabled him to

exercise sound judgment and satisfactorily articulate the If the accused appears to have been suffering from kleptomania when
aforesaid matters, sufficiently discounts any intimation of he committed the crime of theft, how shall we regard his abnormal,
insanity of the accused when he committed the dastardly persistent impulse or tendency to steal? Is it an exempting
felonies. circumstance or only a mitigating circumstance?
The courts in the US have conflicting opinions. Some believe that it is

an exempting circumstance. Others believe that it is only a mitigating
- DEMENTIA PRAECOX is covered by the term insanity. circumstance.
In this jurisdiction, the question has not been brought before the court
When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of for its determination.
dementia praecox, homicidal attack is common, because of delusions
that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being The case of a person suffering from kleptomania must be investigated
taken. During the period of excitement, such person has no control by competent alienist or psychiatrist to determine whether the impulse
whatever of his acts (PEOPLE VS. BONOAN). to steal is irresistible or not. If the unlawful act of the accused is due
“to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing an irresistible

impulse, as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the a bolo, and upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her
power of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from and also attacked other persons, is NOT criminally liable, it appearing
doing the act,” the irresistible impulse, even to take another’s that the act was committed while in a dream. The act was done
property, should be considered as covered by the terms “insanity.” In without criminal intent.
the case of PEOPLE VS. BONOAN, 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.
PEOPLE VS. GIMENA: Somnambulism or sleepwalking, where the
On the other hand, if the mental disease or mental defect of the acts of the person afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the plea of
accused only diminishes the exercise of his will-power, and did not insanity and must be clearly proven.
deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, then kleptomania, if it be
the result of his mental disease or mental defect, is only a mitigating - In the case of US VS. ODICTA, it was held that the case of
circumstance. the somnambulist falls under the rule that a person is not
criminally liable if his acts are not voluntary. The ruling the
case of PEOPLE VS. GIMENA and that in the case of US VS.
ODICTA are not inconsistent. The act of a person is not
- EPILEPSY may be covered by the term “insanity.” voluntary when he does not have intelligence and intent while
doing the act.
- WON hypnotism is so effective as to make the subject act
PEOPLE VS. MANCAO AND AGUILAR: epilepsy is a chronic during artificial somnambulism, is still a DEBATABLE
nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals, attended question.
by convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness.
Where the accused claimed that he was an epileptic but it was not
shown that he was under the influence of an epileptic fit when he
committed the offense, he is not exempt from criminal liability. 2) Committing a crime while suffering from malignant
malaria:
- Feeblemindedness is NOT imbecility: PEOPLE VS. LACENA: one who was suffering from malignant
malaria when she wounded her husband who dies as a consequence
NOT criminally liable. Because such illness affects the nervous
PEOPLE VS. FORMIGONES, supra: feeblemindedness is not system and causes among others such complication as acute
exempting, because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. melancholia and insanity at times.
An imbecile or an insane cannot distinguish right from wrong.
- BASIS OF PAR. 1: on the complete absence of intelligence, an

- Pedophilia is NOT insanity: element of voluntariness.
PAR. 2: RA 9344, otherwise known as Juvenile Justice and Welfare

PEOPLE VS. DIAZ: the doctor’s testimony, however did not help Act of 2006, raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from nine to
accused’s case because although he admitted having initially FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
categorized accused as insane, the doctor eventually diagnosed
accused to be afflicted with pedophilia, a mental disorder not
- Under SEC. 6 of the said law, a child FIFTEEN years of age or
synonymous with insanity. He explained that pedophilia is a sexual
disorder wherein the subject has strong, recurrent and uncontrollable under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
sexual and physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfil, exempt from criminal liability.
especially when there are no people around. He claimed, however, - However, the child shall be subject to an intervention program
that despite his affliction, the subject could distinguish between right as provided under SEC. 20 of the same law.
and wrong. In fact, he maintained that pedophilia could be committed - BASIS OF PAR. 2: also on the complete absence of
without necessarily killing the victim although injuries might be
intelligence.
inflicted on the victim in an effort to repel any resistance.
PAR. 3: a child above FIFTEEN years but below EIGHTEEN years of
age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
- Amnesia is NOT proof of mental condition of the accused. an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subject to the appropriate proceedings
in accordance with this Act.
PEOPLE VS. TABUGOCA: amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to
a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof that the - The exemption from criminal liability herein established does
accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforce
was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental in accordance with existing laws.
condition of the accused when the crime was performed. - “UNLESS HE/SHE ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT” → an
EXCEPTION to the general rule that a minor under 18 but
above 15 has acted without discernment.
o Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that
- Other cases of lack of intelligence:
a minor who is over 15 but under 18 years of age has
1) Committing a crime while IN A DREAM:
acted with discernment, in order for the minor not to be
entitled to this exempting circumstance.
PEOPLE VS. TANEO: one who, while sleeping, suddenly got up, got - PERIODS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY:

1) The age of ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY: 15 years 2) Conduct of offender.
and below (infancy).
2) The age of CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: 15
years and 1 day to 18 years. PEOPLE VS. ALCABAO: the accused, 11 years old (disregard age:
3) The age of FULL RESPONSIBILITY: 18 years or over case cited to illustrate discernment of a minor) shot the offended
party, who had caught him shooting at the latter’s mango fruits, with a
(adolescence) to 70 (maturity).
slingshot hitting the latter in one of his eyes, and after having done so
4) The age of MITIGATED RESPONSIBILITY: 15 years said: “putang ina mo, mabuti matikman mo.”
and 1 day to 18 years, the offender acting with
discernment; over 70 years of age. - It was held that the first part of the remark clearly manifested
the perverted character of the accused and the second part
NOTE: SENILITY which is the age over 70 years, although said to be reflected his satisfaction and elation upon the accomplishment
the second childhood, is only a MITIGATED responsibility. It cannot be of his criminal act.
- These facts indicate discernment on the part of the minor.
considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.
- CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW: a person who at the

time of the commission of the offense is below 18 years old but
- PRESUMPTION OF MINORITY: the child in conflict with the
not less than 15 years and 1 day old.
law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and shall enjoy all
- DISCERNMENT → the capacity of the child at the time of the
the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18
commission of the offense to understand the differences
years or older at the time of the commission of the offense.
between right and wrong and the consequences of the
o In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
wrongful act.
resolved in his/her favour.
- THE AGE OF THE CHILD SHALL BE DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING RULES:
PEOPLE VS. DOQUENA, GUEVARRA VS. ALMADOVAR: the
discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from 1) The best evidence to prove the age of a child is an
criminal liability of a minor under 15 years of age but over 15 years of original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
age, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to birth.
understand the difference between right and wrong, and such 2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records school records or any pertinent document that shows
in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
the date of birth of the child.
comportment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during
the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial. 3) In the absence of the documents under PAR. 1 and 2 of
this section due to loss, destruction or unavailability, the
testimony of the child, the testimony of a member of the
family related to the child by affinity or consanguinity
- Determination of discernment: shall take into account the ability who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
of a child to understand the moral and psychological pedigree such as the exact age or date of the child, the
components of criminal responsibility and the consequence of testimonies of the other persons, the physical
the wrongful act, and whether a child can be held responsible appearance of the child and other relevant evidence,
for essentially antisocial behaviour. shall suffice.
- Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the law
has the burden of proving the age of such child.
INTENT DISCERNMENT o If the age of the child is contested prior to the filing of
the information in court, a case for determination of age
under summary proceeding may be filed before the
Refers to the desired act of the Relates to the moral significance
Family Court which shall render its decision within 24
person. that a person ascribes to said
act. hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all
the parties.
o In all cases involving a child, the court shall make a
categorical finding as to the age of the child.
- The allegation of “WITH INTENT TO KILL” in the information is
GUEVARA VS. ALMODOVAR: a person may not intend to shoot sufficient allegation of discernment:
another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act
which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an
air rifle. PEOPLE VS. NEITO: where the information for homicide filed in the
CFI alleges “that said accused, with the intent to kill, did then and
there wilfully, criminally, and feloniously push one Lolita Padilla, a
child 8 ½ years of age, into a deep place x x x and as a consequence
- DISCERNMENT MAY BE SHOWN: thereof Lolita got drowned and died right then and there,” it is held
1) Manner of committing the crime. that the requirement that there should be an allegation that she acted
with discernment should be deemed amply met with the allegation in
the information that the accused acted “with the intent to kill.” The
PEOPLE VS. MAGSINO: when the minor committed the crime during allegation clearly conveys the idea that she knew what would be the
nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot to another town to avoid consequence of her unlawful act of pushing her victim into deep water
discovery, he manifested discernment. and that she knew it to be wrong.

- BASIS OF PAR. 3: also on the complete absence of presupposes that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the
intelligence. person performing the lawful act with due care, whereas, in this case,
the prosecution had duly established the appellant was guilty of
PAR. 4: negligence.
- ELEMENTS:
1) A person is performing a lawful act.
3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident.
o Examples of an accident:
PEOPLE VS. GALACGAC: while defending himself against the
unjustified assault upon his person made by his assailant, appellant
Galacgac fired his revolver at random, wounding two innocent US VS. TANEDO: the accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and
persons. fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a while chicken, recoiled and struck
the tenant who was a relative of the accused. The who was injured
- The discharge of a firearm in such a thickly populated place in died.
the City of Manila being prohibited and penalized by ART. 155
of the RPC, appellant Galacgac was not performing a lawful - If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in
act when he accidentally hit and wounded Marina Ramos and the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and
Alfonso Ramos. Hence, the exempting circumstances without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability.
provided for in ART. 12, PAR. 4, of the RPC cannot be - There is no question that the accused was engaged in the
properly invoked by appellant Galacgac. performance of a lawful act when the accident occurred. He
was not negligent or at fault, because the deceased was not in
the direction at which the accused fired his gun. It was not
foreseeable that the slug would recoil after hitting the wild
chicken.
o Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even
if it fired and seriously injured the assailant, is a
lawful act.
US VS. TAYONGTON: a chauffer, while driving his automobile on the

PEOPLE VS. VITUG, PEOPLE VS. TIONGCO: when the defendant proper side of the road at a moderate speed and with due diligence,
drew his gun and with it struck the deceased after the latter had given suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle coming
him a fist blow on the shoulder, the defendant was performing a lawful from the sidewalk and crossing the street without any warning that he
act. The striking with the gun was a legitimate act of self-defense. But would do so. Because it was not physically possible to avoid hitting
we might ask – was the striking done with due care as required by the him, the said chauffer ran over the man with his car. It was held that
second element for exemption? The Court believes so, since the he was not criminally liable, it being a mere accident.
striking could not have been done in any other manner except how it
was done so by the appellant. Whether the gun was cocked or
uncocked, the striking could not have been done in any other manner.
The injury, therefore, that resulted from the firing of the gun was
caused by accident and without any fault or intention on the part of
US VS. KNIGHT: just as the truck then being driven by the accused
defendant in causing it, in accordance with the 3rd and 4th requisites.
was passing the slow-moving road roller, a boy about 10 or 12 years
of age jumped from the step of the side board of the road roller
- The TC puts much stress on the fact that since the appellant
directly in front of the truck, and was knocked down, ran over and
allegedly had his finger on the trigger with the gun already
instantly killed. The accused was acquitted of all criminal liability
cocked it was reckless and imprudent of him to have used the
arising out of the unfortunate accident which resulted in the death of
gun in striking the deceased. This Court does NOT agree.
the boy.
Under the circumstances, striking him, as was done here, and
not shooting him, was more prudent and reasonable thing to
do, whether the gun was cocked or uncocked.
o ACCIDENT: something that happens outside

the sway of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, lies beyond
PEOPLE VS. REYTA: but the act of drawing a weapon in the course the bounds of humanly foreseeable
of a quarrel, not being in self-defense, is UNLAWFUL—it is light consequences.
threat, and there is no room for the invocation of accident as a ground  If the consequences are plainly
for exemption.
foreseeable, it will be a case of
NEGLIGENCE.
o Accident presupposes lack of intention to
2) With due are. commit the wrong done:
o The person performing a lawful act must do so
with due care, without fault or negligence.
PEOPLE VS. GATELA: the exempting circumstances of ART. 12,
PAR. 4 of the RPC refers to purely accidental cases where there was
absolutely no intention to commit the wrong done. It contemplates a
PEOPLE VS. SAN JUAN: appellant claims exemption from criminal situation where a person is in the act of doing something legal,
liability under ART. 12, PAR. 4 of the RPC which provides that any exercising due care, diligence and prudence but in the process,
person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an produces harm or injury to someone or something not in the least in
injury be mere accident without fault or intention of doing it is the mind of the actor – an accidental result flowing out of a legal act.
exempted from criminal liability. But, this exempting circumstance
cannot be applied to the appellant because its application

o Case of negligence, NOT ACCIDENT:
PEOPLE VS. SAMSON: husband and wife had an altercation. The
deceased husband got a carbine and holding it by the muzzle raised it
PEOPLE VS. NOCUM: as the two persons fighting paid him no above his right shoulder in an attempt to strike accused wife. She
attention, the defendant drew a .45 caliber pistol and shot twice in the side-stepped and grappled with him for the possession of the gun and
air. The bout continued, however, so he fired another shot at the in the scuffle, the gun went off, the bullet hitting her husband in the
ground, but unfortunately the bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio neck. So went the version of the accused.
Francisco, an innocent bystander who died thereafter.
- It was difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, for her who was frail
- The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless and shorter than her husband, who was robust and taller, to
imprudence. It is apparent the defendant wilfully discharged have succeeded in taking hold of the carbine, for if her
his gun, without taking the precautions demanded by the husband was to strike her with the butt of the carbine and she
circumstances that the district was populated, and the side-stepped, he would not have continued to hold the carbine
likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement in a raised position. Actual test during the trial showed that the
of the thoroughfare. carbine was not defective and could not fire without pressing
the trigger. The absence of any powder burns at the entrance
of the wound in the body of the deceased is convincing proof
that he was shot from a distance, and not with the muzzle of
the gun almost resting on his shoulder or at the back of the
o Accident and negligence, intrinsically
neck.
contradictory:
PEOPLE VS. FALLORINA: In JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION - BASIS OF PAR. 4: on lack of negligence and intent.
VS. CA, the SC held that an accident is a fortuitive circumstance,
o Under this circumstance, a person does not commit
event or happening; an event happening without any human agency,
or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an even which either an intentional felony or a culpable felony.
under the circumstance is unusual or unexpected by the person to
whom it happens. Negligence, on the other hand, is the failure to PAR. 5: this exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is
observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime.
degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand without which such other person suffers injury. - ELEMENTS:
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory. 1) That the compulsion is by means of physical force.
2) That the physical force must be irresistible.
o The death of the deceased in this case was

US VS. ELICANAL: before a force can be considered to be an
considered caused by mere accident: irresistible one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
that, in spite of all resistance, t reduces him to a mere instrument and,
as such, incapable of committing a crime. It must be such that, in
PEOPLE VS. AYAYA: the accused was prosecuted for having killed spite of the resistance of the person on whom it operates, it compels
her husband. Explaining what took place, she said, in part: “when the his members to act and his mind to obey. Such a force can never
door was ajar my son went in, and then my husband pushed it and as consist in anything which springs primarily from the man himself; it
I saw that he was about to crush my son’s head, I jabbed my husband must be a force which acts upon him from the outside by a third
with the point of the umbrella downwards to prevent him from person.
crushing my son’s head.”
- The Court finds nothing improbably n this statement an if we

add to this the absence of any reasonable motive to prompt o EXAMPLE:
said defendant to injure her husband, the Court is compelled
to conclude that in thrusting her umbrella in the opening of the
door in question, she did so to free her son from the imminent
danger of having his head crushed or being strangled. And if US VS. CABALLEROS: it appears that Baculi, one of the accused
she thus caused her husband’s injury, it was by ere accident, who was not a member of the band which murdered some American
without any fault or intention to cause it. school-teachers, was in a plantation gathering bananas. Upon hearing
the shooting, he ran. However, Baculi was seen by the leaders of the
band who called him, and striking him with the butts of their guns,
they compelled him to bury the bodies.
4) Without fault or intention of causing it. - Baculi was not criminally liable as accessory for concealing
o When claim of accident not appreciated: the body of the crime (ART. 19) of murder committed by the
band, because Baculi acted under the compulsion of an
irresistible force.
PEOPLE VS. TAYLARAN: repeated blows negate claim of wounding
by mere accident.
o No compulsion of irresistible force:
PEOPLE VS. REYES: accidental shooting is negated by threatening PEOPLE VS. SARIP: the pretension of an accused that he was
words preceding it and still aiming the gun at the prostrate body of the threatened with a gun by his friend, the mastermind, is not credible
victim, instead of immediately helping him. where he himself was armed with a rifle.

o Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible
force: the irresistible force can never in an
impulse or passion, or obfuscation. It must
consist of an extraneous force coming from a BUT is A had threatened to burn the house of B should the latter not
third person. kill his (B’s) father, and B killed his father for fear that A might burn his
(B’s) house, B is not exempt from criminal liability for the reason that
3) That the physical force must come from a third person.
the evil with which he was threatened was much less than that of
- BASIS OF PAR. 5: complete absence of freedom, an element killing his father.
of voluntariness.
PEOPLE VS. LORENO: a person who acts under the compulsion of - Nature of duress as a valid defense:
an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal
liability because he does not act with freedom.
PEOPLE VS. BORJA, citing PEOPLE VS. QUILLOY: duress as a
valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear
of one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote
fear.
- Nature of force required:
PEOPLE VS. LORENO, PEOPLE VS. VILLANUEVA: the force must - The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-
be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not defense:
only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear, or
intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not PEOPLE VS. PALENCIA, PEOPLE VS. ABANES: a threat of future
enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
combat. equal combat.
- Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity

to run away if he had wanted to or to resist any possible
aggression because he was also armed.
PAR. 6: also presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a
crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation or
threat, not force or violence.
- ELEMENTS: PEOPLE VS. PARULAN: where the accused, who testified that he
1) That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil was intimidated into committing the crime, had several opportunities
greater than or at least equal to, that which he is of leaving the gang which had decided to kidnap the victim, his theory
required to commit. that he acted under intimidation is untenable.
2) That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it (US
VS. ELICANAL).
- For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be
PEOPLE VS. VARGAS AND KAMATOY: where the accused testified
invoked successfully, the following REQUISITES must concur that he joined the band because he was threatened by the leader
(PEOPLE VS. PETENIA): thereof, but it appears that the leader was armed with a rifle, so that
1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear. he would have resisted said leader, it was held that the accused did
2) The fear must be real and imminent. not act under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
3) The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to injury.
that committed.
- Illustration:
PEOPLE VS. ROGALDO: as regards accused Domingo Golfeo, the

US VS. EXALTACION: Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura
evidence is clear that it was he who first struck Areza with the butt of
Tanchino were compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance to
his gun hitting him on the side of his body, then gave him a fist blow
the Katipunan whose purpose was to overthrow the government by
on his stomach, and after he had been taken to a secluded place, it
force of arms.
was he who ordered Areza to lie downin the fashion adopted by the
Kempetai during gloomy days of Japanese occupation and in that
- In this case, the accused cannot be held criminally liable for
position gave him a blow on the back of his neck which almost
rebellion, because they joined the rebels under the impulse of
severed his head from the body. His participation in the killing of
an uncontrollable fear on an equal or greater injury.
Areza cannot therefore be doubted. His only defense is the that he did
- The penalty for rebellion, the crime which Exaltacion was
so in obedience to the order of his commander, and because he acted
required to comit, is prison mayor, that is, imprisonment for a
under the influence of uncontrollable fear, he should be exempt from
period of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, and fine. The act
criminal responsibility.
which he was asked to commit was to swear allegiance to the
Katipunan and become one of those engaged in overthrowing
- This defense of Golfeo is clearly untenable not only because
the government b force of arms. If he did not commit it, he
of the well-settled rule that obedience to an order of a superior
would be killed. Death is a much greater injury than
will only justify an act which otherwise would be criminal when
imprisonment for 12 years and paying a fine.
the order is for a lawful purpose, but also because the

circumstances under which Golfeo participated in the torture or injury would be inflicted upon him if he did not comply with
and liquidation of Areza cannot in any way justify his claim the alleged order to kill the deceased.
that he acted under an uncontrollable fear of being punished
by his superiors if he destroyed their order.
- In the first place, at the time of the killing, Golfeo was armed
with an automatic carbine such that he could have protected
himself from any retaliation on the part of his superiors if they PEOPLE VS. FERNANDO: mere fear of a member of the Huk
should threaten to punish him if he disobeyed their order to kill movement to disobey or refuse to carry out orders of the organization,
Areza. in the absence of proof of actual physical or moral compulsion to act,
- In the second place, the evidence shows that Areza was is not sufficient to exempt the accused from criminal liability.
brought to a secluded place quite far from that where his
superiors were at the time and in such a predicament, he and
his companion Arsenal could have escaped with Areza to
avoid the ire of their superiors.
- The fact that he carried out their order although his superiors - Real, imminent or reasonable fear: US VS. EXALTACION (fear
were at some distance from him and that without pity and of immediate death).
compunction he struck his victim in a Kempetai fashion shows o A threat of future injury is not enough:
that he acted on the matter not involuntarily or under the
pressure of fear or force, as he claims, but out of his own free
will and with the desire to collaborate with the criminal design PEOPLE VS. PALENCIA, PEOPLE VS. ABANES: to appreciate
of his superiors. duress as a valid defense, a 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 for the accused to escape.
o Command of Hukbalahap killers, as cause of

uncontrollable fear:
- Distinction between IRRESISTIBLE FORCE and
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR:
PEOPLE VS. REGALA: Timoteo Montemayor was accused of
murder, for having told his two companions to fetch shovels and to dig
a grave and for having walked behind the Hukbalahap killers to the IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
place of the execution of the victim. It appears that the two
Hukbalahaps were ruthless killers and were then in a mood to inflict
extreme and summary punishment for disobedience to the command. PAR. 5: the offender uses PAR. 6: the offender employs
The place was isolated, escape was at least risky, and protection by violence or physical force to intimidation or threat in
lawfully constituted authorities was out of reach. The accused was compel another person to commit compelling another to commit a
ACQUITTED, for having acted under the impulse of uncontrollable a crime. crime.
fear of an equal or greater injury.
- BASIS OF PAR. 6: also based on the complete absence of

o In treason: freedom.
PAR. 7:
PEOPLE VS. BAGALAWIS, citing the case of REPUBLICA VS.
M’CARTY: in the eyes of the law, nothing will excuse that act of
joining an enemy, but the fear of immediate death. - ELEMENTS:
1) That an act is required by law to be done.
- This ruling is similar to that in the Exaltacion case. 2) That a person fails to perform such act.
3) That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause.
- When prevented by some lawful cause:
- Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear:
A confessed to a Filipino priest that he and several other persons

PEOPLE VS. MORENO: the defendant ordered the deceased whose were in conspiracy against the Government. Under ART. 116, a
both hands were tied at the back to kneel down with the head bent Filipino citizen who knows of such conspiracy must report the same to
forward by the side of the grave already prepared for him by order of the governor or fiscal of the province where he resides. If the priest
said defendant. Then, defendant hacked the head of the deceased does not disclose and make known the same to the proper authority,
with a Japanese sabre and immediately kicked the prostrate body of he is exempt from criminal liability, because under the law, the priest
the victim into the grave. cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to
know by reason of the confession made to him in his professional
- When prosecuted for murder, the defendant claimed that he capacity.
had been ordered by Major Sasaki to kill the deceased. He
also claimed the he could not refuse to comply with that order,
because the Japanese officer made a threat.
- SC: if the only evidence relating to a sort of a threat is the - When prevented by some insuperable cause:
testimony of the defendant: “as they insisted and I informed
them that I could not do it, then Captain Susuki told me, ‘you
have to comply with that order of Major Sasaki; otherwise, you
have to come along with us,’” that threat is not of such serious US VS. VICENTILLO: the municipal president detained the offended
character and imminence as to create in the mind of the party for three days because to take him to the nearest justice of the
defendant an uncontrollable fear that an equal or greater evil peace required a journey for 3 days by boat as there was no other

means of transportation. 1) ART. 6: the spontaneous desistance of the person who
commenced the commission of a felony before he could
- Under the law, the person arrested must be delivered to the perform all the act of execution.
nearest judicial authority at most within eighteen hours (now 2) ART. 20: Accessories who are exempt from criminal
thirty-six hours, ART. 125, RPC, as amended); otherwise, the
public officer will be liable for arbitrary detention. The distance liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories
which required a journey for three days was considered an shall not be imposed upon those who are such with
insuperable cause. Hence, it is was held that the accused was respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
exempt from criminal liability. 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.
o PAR. 1, ART. 19: “by profiting themselves or
PEOPLE VS. BANDIAN: a mother who at the time of childbirth was assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of
overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left the child
the crime.
in a thicket where said child died, is not liable for infanticide, because
it was physically impossible for her to take home the child. 3) ART. 124, LAST PAR: The commission of a crime, or
violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
- The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the woman compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital,
constitute an insuperable cause. shall be considered legal grounds or the detention of
any person.
4) ART. 247, PARS. 1 and 2: Death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstances. – Any legally
- BASIS OF PAR. 7: because he acts without intent, the third
married person who, having surprised his spouse in the
condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.
act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act
In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the
of immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
crime.
serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
- Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of
o If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of
intelligence.
any other kind, he shall be exempt from
- In PARs. 1, 2 and of ART. 12, the imbecile, insane or minor,
punishment.
not having INTELLIGENCE, does not act with intent.
5) ART. 280, PAR. 3: The provisions of this article (on
- The person acting under any of the circumstances mentioned
trespass to dwelling) shall not be applicable to any
in PARs. 5 and 6 of ART. 12, not having FREEDOM OF
person who shall enter another’s dwelling for the
ACTION, does not act with intent.
purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself,
- In PAR. 4 of ART. 12, it is specifically stated that the actor
the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor
causes an injury by mere ACCIDENT without intention of
shall it e applicable to any person who shall enter a
causing it.
dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter
DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTIFYING AND
cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while the
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
same are open.
6) ART. 332: Persons exempt from criminal liability. – No
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE criminal, but only civil, liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
Does not transgress the law, that There is a crime but no criminal persons:
is, he does not commit any crime liability. The act is not justified, i. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
in the eyes of the law, because but the actor is not criminally relatives by affinity in the same line;
there is nothing unlawful in the liable. There is civil liability,
j. The widowed spouse with respect to the
act as well as in the intention of except in PARs. 4 and 7 (causing
the actor. The act of such person an injury by mere accident; failing property which belonged to the deceased
is in itself both just and lawful. to perform an act required by law spouse before the same shall have passed into
There is neither a crime nor a when prevented by some lawful the possession of another; and
criminal. No civil liability, except or superable cause) of ART. 12. k. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
in PAR. (causing damage to sisters-in-law, if living together.
another in state of necessity). See ART. 101 which does not 7) ART. 344, PAR. 4: In cases of seduction, abduction,
mention PARs. 4 and 7.
acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the
offender with the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES: those where the act committed is a crime upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also
but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and
imposed. accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned
crimes.
- In addition to the justifying circumstances (ART. 11) and the - INSTIGATION is an absolutory cause.
exempting circumstances (ART. 12), there are other absolutory
causes in the following articles, to wit:
PEOPLE VS. PHELPS: an internal revenue agent, representing

himself as a private individual engaged in gambling, approached the punishable, the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of
accused and induced the later to look for an opium den where he said a crime that facilitates for its commission were purposely placed in his
he could smoke opium. The agent went to the accused three times to way, or that the criminal act was done at the ‘decoy solicitation’ of
convince the latter of his desire to smoke opium. Because of the persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning
insistence of the agent, the accused made efforts to look for a place complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its
where both of them could smoke opium until finally he found on. The commission. Especially is this true in hat class of cases where the
agent and the accused went to the place which turned out to be the offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation
house of a Chinaman, and there the agent received an opium pipe and merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by
paid P2.00 for the service to both of them. After a while, the agent left. the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by
He returned later to arrest the accused allegedly for smoking opium. him free from the influence or the instigation of the detective. The fact
that an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is
- The accused was NOT criminally liable. no defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the
- He was instigated to commit the crime of smoking opium. original design was formed independently of such agent; and where a
- Suppose that the agent in that case induced the accused to sell person approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner
opium to him and the accused sold opium, could the accused or the public authorities, and being authorized by them to do so, assist
be held liable for illegal possession of opium? the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny was nevertheless
o YES. The accused was then in possession of opium committed.
and the mere possession of opium is a violation of the
law within itself.
A detective representing to a private individual, jobless, and in need of

- BASIS OF EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY: a sound money, befriended a well-known thief. The thief told him that there was
public policy that the courts shall condemn this practice easy money around if he would take a chance. The detective asked
(instigation) by directing the acquittal of the accused. the thief what it was and the latter told him that he was going to break
- ENTRAPMENT is NOT an absolutory cause. into the house of a rich man to steal some jewels and money. The
detective pretended to have agreed with him and the two went to the
house, entered it through the window, and once inside, the thief
opened with a false key the wardrobe in the house and took jewels and
PEOPLE VS. LUA CHUA AND UY SE TIENG: the accused wrote to money. Then and there the detective arrested the thief. Is the thief
his correspondent in Hong Kong to send him a shipment of opium. The criminally liable for the robbery committed?
opium had been in Hong Kong for sometime, awaiting a ship that
would go direct to Cebu. The Collector of Customs of Cebu received - YES, it was entrapment. The fact that an agent of the law acted
information that the accused was intending to land opium in the port. as a supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter,
The Collector promised the accused that he would remove all the provided that the original design was formed by the thief
difficulties in the way, and for this purpose agreed to receive P2K. Juan independently of such agent.
Samson, a secret serviceman, pretended to smooth the way for the
introduction of the prohibited drug. The accused started landing the
opium. At this time, the agents of the law seized the opium and had the
accused prosecuted.
- ENTRAPMENT and INSTIGATION distinguished.
- It is true that Juan Samson smoothed the way for the
introduction of the prohibited drug, but that was after the
accused had already planned its importation and ordered for ENTRAPMANT INSTIGATION
said drug.
- Juan Samson neither induced nor instigated the accused to
import the opium in question, but pretended to have an The entrapper resorts to ways The instigator practically induces
understanding with the Collector of Customs, who had and means to trap and capture a the would-be accused into the
promised them that he would remove all the difficulties in the lawbreaker while executing his commission of the offense and
way of their enterprise so far as the customs house was criminal plan. himself becomes a co-principal.
concerned.
- This is not a case where an innocent person is induced to
commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but is simply a trap No bar to the prosecution and The accused must be acquitted.
set to catch the criminal. conviction of the lawbreaker.
- Suppose, the accused had not yet ordered for opium in Hong
Kong when he talked with the Collector of Customs but that on
the strength of the assurance of the Collector of Customs, he PEOPLE VS. MARCOS: The The law enforcer conceives the
later ordered for opium in Hong Kong, would it be instigation? means originated from the mind commission of the crime and
o YES, it would be instigation, not entrapment, because of the criminal. The idea and the suggests to the accused who
the accused was instigated to import a prohibited drug, resolve to commit the crime come adopts the idea and carries it into
a crime punished by ART. 192. from him. execution.
A person has planned, or is about A public officer or a private

to commit a crime and ways and detective induces an innocent
16 CORPUS JURIS, page 88, SEC. 57 means are resorted to by a public person to commit a crime and
by the courts of the Unites States. officer to trap and catch the would arrest him upon or after the
criminal. commission of the crime by the
latter.
ENTRAPMENT AN INSTIGATION. – While it has been said that the
practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting
criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while instigation, as NOT A DEFENSE. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE.
distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and
has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or

- Instigation must be made by public officers or private c) The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting
detectives: circumstances (ART. 12).
d) The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:
1. Spontaneous desistance during the attempted stage
STATE VS. HAYES: a criminal act may not be punishable if the (ART. 6), and no crime under another provision of the
accused was induced to commit it y active cooperation and instigation Code or other penal law is committed.
on the part of public detectives.
2. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not
against persons or property (ART. 7).
3. The accessory is a relative of the principal (ART. 20).
4. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (ART. 124).
SAUNDERS VS. PEOPLE: A sound public policy requires that the 5. Legal grounds for trespass (ART. 280).
courts shall condemn this practice by directing an acquittal whenever it 6. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is
appears that the public authorities or private detectives, with their committed against a relative (ART. 332).
cognizances, have taken active steps to lead the accused into the 7. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are
commission of the act. As was said in a Michigan case: “Human nature inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or
is frail enough at best, and requires no encouragement in wrongdoing.
daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
If we cannot assist another, and prevent him from committing crime,
we should at least abstain from any active efforts in the way of leading person (ART. 247).
him into temptation.” 8. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when
the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or
- If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not acts of lasciviousness (ART. 344).
performing public function, both he and the one induced are 9. Instigation.
criminally liable for the crime committed: the former, as e) Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
principal by induction; and the latter, as principal by direct
f) Prescription of crimes (ART. 89).
participation.
g) Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal
action in crimes against chastity (ART. 344).
- There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation CHAPTER THREE
of the law is simply discovered. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: those which, if present in the

PEOPLE VS. TAN TIONG: charged with and prosecuted for a violation commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor form criminal
of EO 62, series of 1945, the accused having sold a can of Mennen liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Talcum Powder for P1 when the ceiling price for said article was only
P0.86, the defense contended that the government agent induced the - BASIS: based on the diminution of their freedom of action,
accused to violate the law by purchasing from him the article and intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the
paying for it in an amount above the ceiling price.
offender.
- The agent did not induce the accused to violate the law. He
simply discovered the violation committed by the accused when CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
he (the agent) purchased the article from him. It was he
accused who charged and collected the price. There was not 1) ORDINARY MITIGATING: those enumerated in subsections 1
even an entrapment. to 10 of ART. 13.
o Those mentioned in the subsections 1 of ART 13 are
ordinary mitigating circumstances, if ART. 69, for
instance, is not applicable.
- Assurance of immunity by a public officer does NOT exempt a
2) PRIVILEGED MITIGATING: ART, 68 (1) and (2), ART. 69,
person from criminal liability.
ART. 64 (5).
o Applicable only to particular crimes:
a) Voluntary release of the person illegally
PEOPLE VS. ALABAS: the accused who delivered to the barrio
lieutenant a gun and ammunition when the latter announced “that detained within 3 days without the offender
anyone who is concealing firearms should surrender them so that he attaining his purpose and before the institution
will not be penalized” is NOT exempt from criminal responsibility of criminal action (ART. 268, PAR. 3). The
arising from the possession of the unlicensed firearm and ammunition. penalty is one degree lower.
In fact, not even the President could give such assurance of immunity b) Abandonment without justification of the spouse
to any violator of the firearm law. His constitutional power of clemency who committed adultery (ART. 33, PAR. 3). The
can be exercised only after the conviction.
penalty is one degree lower.
c)
COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES: DISTINCTIONS:
a) Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
proved by the prosecution and the elements proved do not
constitute any crime.
b) The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying Susceptible of being offset by any Cannot be offset by aggravating
circumstances (ART. 11). aggravating circumstance. circumstance.

NOTE: PARs. 1 and 2 of ART. 12 cannot give place to mitigation,
If not offset by an aggravating Produces the effect of imposing because, as stated by the SC of Spain, the mental condition of a
circumstance, produces only the upon he offender the penalty person is indivisible. That is, there is no middle ground between sanity
effect of applying the penalty lower by one or two degrees than and insanity, between presence and absence of intelligence.
provided by law for the crime in that provided by law for the crime.
its minimum period, in case of
divisible penalty. - BUT if the offender is suffering from some illness which would
diminish the exercise of his will-power, without however
depriving him of consciousness of his acts, such circumstance
is considered a mitigation under PAR. 9 of ART. 13. It would
seem that one who is suffering from mental disease without
PEOPLE VS. HONRADEZ: the accused who was charged with however depriving one of consciousness of one’s act may be
robbery was less than 18 years old. He committed the crime during given the befit of that mitigating circumstance.
nighttime purposely sought, which is an aggravating circumstance.
WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY THE ACT
- The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot offset the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. ARE NOT ATTENDANT:
1) INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVES,

AND DEFENSE OF STRANGER: not that in these three
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY REDUCE THE PENALTY, classes of defense, unlawful aggression must be resent, it
BUT DO NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CRIME: when the being an indispensable requisite. What is absent is either one
accused is charged with murder, as when treachery as a qualifying or both of the LAST TWO REQUISITES.
circumstance is alleged in the information, the fact that there is a o UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION + ONE of the other two:
generic or privileged mitigating circumstance does not change the when the two of the three requisites mentioned therein
felony to homicide. are present, the case must NOT be considered as one
in which an ordinary or generic mitigating circumstance
- If there is an ordinary or generic mitigating circumstance, not referred to in ART. 69 of this Code.
offset by any aggravating circumstance, the accused should be o This, if in self-defense there was unlawful aggression
found guilty of the same crime of murder, but the penalty to be on the part of the deceased, the means employed to
imposed is reduced to the minimum of the penalty for murder. prevent or repel it was reasonable, but the one making
- If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty for a defense gave sufficient provocation, he is entitled to a
murder will be reduced by one or two degrees lower. PRIVILEGED mitigating circumstance, because the
- In every case, the accused should be held guilty of murder. majority of the conditions required to justify the act is
present (ART. 69).
 Also, if in the defense of a relative there was
PEOPLE VS. TALAM: the judgment of the TC that the mitigating unlawful aggression on the part of the
circumstance of non-habitual drunkenness changes the felony to deceased, but the one defending the relative
homicide is erroneous, because treachery is alleged in the information used unreasonable means to prevent or repel it,
and the crime committed by the appellant is that of murder. The
he is entitled to a PRIVILEGED mitigating
mitigating circumstance reduces the penalty provided by law but does
not change the nature of the crime. circumstance.
PEOPLE VS. MARTIN: when there is unlawful aggression on the part

ART. 13: of the deceased without sufficient provocation by the defendant, but
the latter uses means not reasonably necessary, for after having
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
snatched the rope from the deceased, he should not have wound it
around her neck and tightened it.
PAR. 1: “THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.”
- There is INCOMPLETE self-defense on the part of the
- This clause has reference to (1) justifying circumstances, and defendant, which may be considered a PRIVILEGED mitigating
(2) exempting circumstances which are covered y Chapter Two circumstance.
of Title One. - BUT if there is no unlawful aggression, there could be no self-
defense or defense of a relative, whether complete or
- CIRCUMSTANCES OF JUSTIFICATION OR EXEMPTION
incomplete.
WHICH MAY GIVE PLACE TO MITIGATION → REASON: not
all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant, are the
following: o Example of incomplete defense:
(1) SELF-DEFENSE (ART. 11, PAR. 1)
(2) Defense of relatives (ART. 11, PAR. 2)
(3) Defense of stranger (ART. 11, PAR. 3)
(4) State of necessity (ART. 11, PAR 4) US VS. RIVERA: the deceased was about to set on fire the house of
(5) Performance of duty (ART. 11, PAR. 5) the accused, where she was sleeping together with her two children.
(6) Obedience to order of superior (ART. 11, PAR. 6) They grappled and the accused boloed to death the deceased.
(7) Minority above 15 but below 18 years of age (RA 9344)
- There was UNLAWFUL aggression consisting in trying to set
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (ART. 12, PAR. 4)
on fire the house of the accused.
(9) Uncontrollable fear (ART. 12, PAR. 6) - There was the element of danger to the occupants of the
house.

- BUT having already driven out the aggressor outside of the defined in ART. 11, No. 5 of the RPC. According to such legal
house, who was prostrate to the ground, the accused should provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in
not have persisted in wounding her no less than fourteen times. the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
- ABSENCE OF ONE CIRCUMSTANCE: reasonable necessity office.
of killing the aggressor. - The SECOND requisite is wanting for the crime committed by
- The accused entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance of them is NOT the necessary consequence of a due
incomplete defense. Here, the accused acted in defense of her performance of their duty. Their duty was to arrest Balagtas, or
person, her home and her children. to get him dead or alive if resistance is offered by him and they
are overpowered. But through the impatience or over anxiety or
in the desire to make no chances, they have exceeded in the
fulfilment of such duty by killing the person whom they believed
o Example of incomplete SELF-DEFENSE: to be Balagtas without any resistance from him and without
making any previous inquiry as to his identity. According to
ART. 69 of the RPC, the penalty lower by one or two degrees
than that prescribed by law shall, in such case, be imposed.
PEOPLE VS. DE JESUS: the accused is entitled only incomplete self- - Since the SC considered one of the two requisites as
defense. The accused was in the state of drunkenness, so he was not constituting the majority, it seems that there is no ordinary
as dangerous as he would if he had been sober. His aim proved faulty mitigating circumstance under ART. 13, PAR. 1, when the
and easily evaded as shown by the fact that the person defending was justifying or exempting circumstance has two requisites only.
not hit by the stab attempts-blows directed against him. The necessity
of the means used to repel the aggression is not clearly reasonable.
4) INCOMPLETE JUSTFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF

o Examples of incomplete defense of RELATIVE: OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER:
PEOPLE VS. TORING: the deceased hit the first cousin of the PEOPLE VS. BERNAL: Roleda fired at Pilones, following the order
accused with the butt of a shotgun. The deceased also pointed the of Sergeant Benting, Roleda’s superior. It appears that on their way
shotgun at the first cousin, took a bullet from his jacket pocket, showed to the camp, Roleda learned that Pilones had killed not only a barrio
lieutenant but also a member of the military police, and this may
it to him and asked him, “Do you like this, Dong?” to which the latter
replied, “No, Noy, I do not like that.” The deceased then placed the have aroused in Roleda a feeling of resentment that ay have
bullet in the shotgun and was thus pointing it at the first cousin when impelled him to readily and without questioning follow the order of
Sgt. Benting. To this may be added the fact of his being subordinate
the accused came from behind the deceased and stabbed him.
of Sgt. Benting who gave the order, and while out on patrol when the
- There was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased soldiers were supposed to be under the immediate command and
control of the patrol leader, Sgt. Benting.
and there was no provocation on the part of the accused.
- HOWEVER, because of a RUNNING FEUD between the
deceased and his brother on one side and the accused and his
brother on the other side, the accused could not have been
impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO EXEMPT FROM
desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. CRIMINAL LIABILITY ARE NOT ATTENDANT:
- He was MOTIVATED by revenge, resentment or evil motive.
- He is only entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of 1) INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY
incomplete defense of relative. OVER 15 AND UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE: to be exempt
from criminal liability under RA 9344, two conditions must be
present:
a. That the offender is over 15 and under 18 years old,
2) INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
and
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY: if any of the
b. That he does not act with discernment.
last two requisites mentioned in PAR. 4 of ART. 11, there is
only a mitigating circumstance.
3) INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OR
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006: therefore, if
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY: the minor over 15 and under 18 years of age acted with discernment,
o REQUISITES that must be present in order that the he is entitled only to a mitigating circumstance, because not all the
circumstance in ART. 11, NO.5 may be taken as a requisites necessary to exempt from criminal liability are present.
justifying one:
A. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
B. That the injury caused or offense committed be 2) INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
the necessary consequence of the due ACCIDENT:
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise o Under PAR. 4 of ART. 12, there are four requisites that
of such right or office. must be present in order to exempt one from criminal
liability, namely:
a. A person is performing a lawful act.
PEOPLE VS. OANIS, supra: only one of the requisites of circumstance b. With due care.
No. 5 of ART. 11 was present, ART. 69 was applied. c. He causes an injury to another by mere
accident, and
- SC: as the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
committed is murder with the qualifying circumstance of
o If the SECOND requisite and the 1st part of the
alevosia. There is, however, a mitigating circumstance of
weight consisting in the incomplete justifying circumstance FOURTH requisite are ABSENT, the case will fall under

ART. 365 which punishes a felony by negligence or PAR. 2: impliedly repealed by RA 9344.
imprudence.
 In effect, there is a mitigating circumstance,
because the penalty is lower than that provided BEFORE NOW
for intentional felony.
o If the FIRST requisite and the 2nd part of the FOURTH
An offender under 15 or over but Under RA 9344 or the “Juvenile
requisite are ABSENT, because the person committed under 18 years of age is entitled Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,”
an unlawful act and had the intention of causing the only to benefits provided under such offender may be exempt
injury, it will be an INTENTIONAL felony. The 2nd and the ART. 68 of the RPC. from criminal liability if he/she
3rd requisites will not be present either. acted without discernment ***
 In this case, there is not even a mitigating
circumstance.
3) INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR: *** On the other hand, if such offender acted with discernment, such
o Under PAR. 6 of ART. 12, uncontrollable fear is an child in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs provided
exempting circumstance if the following requisites are under Chapter 2 of RA 9344.
present:
a. That the threat which caused the fear was of an MEANING OF DIVERSION AND DIVERSION PROGRAM UNDER RA
evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which 9344:
he was required to commit.
b. That it promised an evil of such gravity and
DIVERSION DIVERSION PROGRAM
imminence that an ordinary person would have
succumbed to it (uncontrollable).
o If only one of these requites is present, there is only a Refers to an alternative, child- Refers to the program that the
mitigating circumstance. appropriate process of child in conflict with the law is
o ILLUSTRATION: determining the responsibility the required to undergo after he/she
treatment of a child in conflict with is found responsible for an
the law on the basis of his/her offense without resorting to formal
PEOPLE VS. MAGPANTAY: in the night of May 8, 1947, Felix and social, cultural, economic, court proceedings.
Pedro took turns to guard, so that when one was asleep the other was psychological, or educational
awake. At about 9:00 when Pedro was asleep, the silhouette of a man background without resulting to
passed in front of their house without any light. The night was dark and formal court proceedings.
it was drizzling. The coconut trees and the bushes on the sides of the
road increased the darkness. When Felix saw the silhouette, he asked
it who it was, but it walked hurriedly, which made Felix suspicious as it
might be a scouting guard of the Dilim gang. Felix fired into the air, yet SYSTEM OF DIVERSION: children in conflict with the law shall
the figure continued its way. undergo diversion programs without undergoing court proceedings
subject to the following conditions:
When Pedro heard the shot, he suddenly grabbed the rifle at his side
and fired at the figure on the road, causing the death of the man. This
(a) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed is not
man was afterward found to be Pedro Pinion, who was returning home
unarmed after fishing in a river. more than 6 years imprisonment, the law enforcement office or
Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local social
The accused voluntarily surrendered to the barrio-lieutenant and then welfare and development officer or other members of the Local
to the chief of police. Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC) established in all
levels of local government pursuant to RA 9344, shall conduct
HELD: the accused acted under the influence of the fear of being mediation, family conferencing and conciliation and, where
attacked. Having already in his mind the idea that they might be raided
appropriate, adopt indigenous modes of conflict resolution in
at any moment by the Dilim gang and suddenly awakened by the shot
fired by Felix, he grabbed his gun and fired before he could be fired accordance with the best interest of the child with a view to
upon. The fear, however was not entirely uncontrollable, for had he not accomplishing the objectives of restorative justice and the
been so hasty and had he stopped a few seconds to think, he would formation of a diversion program. The child and his/her family
have ascertained that there was no imminent danger. shall be present in these activities.
(b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more
He is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of grave fear, not entirely than 6 years of imprisonment, the local social welfare and
uncontrollable, under PAR. 1, ART. 13 in connection with PAR. 6 of
ART. 12 of the RPC. That said two provisions may be taken together to development officer shall meet with the child and his/her
constitute a mitigating circumstance has been declared by the SC of parents or guardians for the development of the appropriate
Spain. diversion and rehabilitation program, in coordination with the
Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC)
created pursuant to RA 9344.
(c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds
o With due respect, it is believed that ART. 69, in 6 years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to
connection with PAR. 6 of ART. 12, not ART. 13, PAR. 1, only by the court.
in relation to PAR. 6 of ART. 12, should be applied.
CONFERENCING, MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION: a child in
conflict with the law may undergo conferencing, mediation or
conciliation outside the criminal justice system or prior to the his entry

into said system. A contract of diversion may be entered into during b) When the death sentence is already imposed, it shall
such conferencing, mediation or conciliation proceedings. be suspended and commuted (ART. 83).
- In any of the above-mentioned two cases, the penalty of death
CONTRACT OF DIVERSION: if during the conferencing, mediation or will have to be lowered to life imprisonment (reclusion
conciliation, the child voluntarily admits he commission of the act, a perpetua).
diversion program shall be developed when appropriate and desirable
as determined under SEC. 30. Such admission shall not be used BASIS OF PAR. 2: the mitigating circumstance in PAR. 2, ART. 13 are
against the child in any subsequent judicial, quasi-judicial or based on the diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
administrative proceedings. The diversion program shall be effective
and binding if accepted by the parties concerned. The acceptance PAR. 3:
shall be in writing and signed by the parties concerned and the
appropriate authorities. The local social welfare development officer
shall supervise the implementation of the diversion program. The US VS. REYES: this circumstance can be taken into account only
diversion proceedings shall be completed within 45 days. The period of when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act
prescription of the offense shall be suspended until the completion of
and its consequence.
the diversion proceedings but not to exceed 45 days.
- The child shall present himself/herself to the competent

authorities that imposed the diversion program at least once a - ILLUSTRATIONS:
month for reporting and evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program.
- Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract PEOPLE VS. RABAO: the husband who was quarreling with his wife
of diversion, as certified by the local social welfare and punched her in the abdomen, causing the rupture of her hypertrophied
development officer, shall give the offended party the option to spleen, from which she died.
institute the appropriate legal action.
- The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended
during the effectivity of the diversion program, but not
exceeding a period 2 years.
US VS. BERTUCIO: the accused confined himself to giving a single
blow with a bolo on the right arms of the victim and did not repeat the
WHERE DIVERSION MAY BE CONDUCTED: diversion may be blow. The death of the victim was due to neglect and the lack of
conducted at the Katarungang Pambarangay, the police investigation medical treatment, his death having resulted from hemorrhage which
or the inquest or preliminary investigation stage and at all levels and those who attended to him did not know how to stop or control in time.
phases of the proceedings including judicial level.
DUTY OF THE PUNONG BARANGAY OR THE LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHEN THERE IS NO DIVERSION: if the
offense does not fall under the category where the imposable penalty PEOPLE VS. URAL: the accused, a policeman, boxed the deceased,
a detention prisoner, inside the jail. As a consequence of the fistic
for the crime committed is not more than 6 years of imprisonment or in
blows, the deceased collapsed on the floor. The accused stepped on
cases of victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is also not the prostrate body and left. After a while, he returned with a bottle,
more than 6 years imprisonment, or if the child, his/her parents or poured its contents on the recumbent body of the deceased, ignited it
guardians does not consent to a diversion, the Punong Barangay with a match and left the cell again. As a consequence, the victim later
handling the case shall, within 3 days from determination of the on died.
absence of jurisdiction over the case or termination of the diversion
proceeding as the case may be, forward the records of the case to the - The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of “no
intention to commit a grave so wrong as that committed.”
prosecutor or the appropriate court, as the case may be.
- In case a Law Enforcement Officer is the one handling the

case, within same period, the Law Enforcement Officer shall - Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by external
forward the records of the case to the prosecutor or judge acts.
concerned for the conduct of inquest and/or preliminary
investigation. The document transmitting said records shall
display the word “CHILD” in bold letters. PEOPLE VS. URAL: the intention, as an internal act, is judged not
only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil
THAT THE OFFENDER IS OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE IS ONLY A produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not
GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: while PAR. 2 of ART. 13 aimed at a vital part of the body.
covers offenders under 18 years of age and those over 70 years, ART.
- Thus, it may be deduced from the proven facts that the
68, providing for privileged mitigating circumstances, does not include
accused had no intent to kill the victim, his design being only to
the case of offenders over 70 years old. maltreat him, such that when he realized the fearful
consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the victim to
- Prior to the enactment of RA 9346 prohibiting the imposition of secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
the death penalty, there were two cases where the fact that the
offender is over 70 years of age had the effect of a privileged
mitigating circumstance, namely:
a) When he committed an offense punishable by death,
that penalty shall not be imposed (ART. 47, PAR. 1). US VS. FITZGERALD: the accused fired a loaded revolver at the
deceased and killed him.

The clear intention of the accused to kill the deceased may be inferred
- It must be presumed, taking into consideration the means from the fact that he used a deadly weapon and fired at the deceased
employed as being sufficient to produce the evil which resulted, almost point blank, thereby hitting him in the abdomen and causing
that he intended the natural consequence of his act and he is, death.
therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit a wrong as that
committed.
PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA, PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO: where the evidence

shows that if not all the persons who attacked the deceased, at least
some of them, intended to cause his death by throwing at him stones
PEOPLE VS. AMIT: at the time of the commission of the crime, the of such size and weight as to cause, as in fact they caused, a fracture
accused was 32 years of age, while his victim was 25 years his senior. of his skull, and as the act of one or some of them is deemed to be the
When the latter resisted his attempt to rape her by biting and act of the others there being sufficient proof of conspiracy, the
scratching him, to subdue her, the accused boxed her and then held mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit a grave so wrong as
her on the net and pressed it down, while she was lying on her back the one actually committed cannot favorably be considered.
and he was on top of her, these acts were reasonably sufficient to
produce the result that they actually produced—the death of the victim.
o Inflicting of five stab wounds in rapid succession

negates pretense of lack of intention to cause so
serious an injury:
US VS. MENDAC: the assailant, armed with a bolo, inflicted upon his
victim a serious and fatal wound in the abdomen.
PEOPLE VS. BRANA: the inflicting by the accused of 5 stab wounds
- It is not to be believed that he had no intention of killing his
caused in rapid succession brings forth in bold relief the intention of the
victim, having clearly shown, by the location of the wound, that
accused to snuff out the life of the deceased, and definitely negates
he had a definite and perverse intention of producing the injury
any pretense of lack of intention to cause so serious an injury.
which resulted.
- ART. 13, PAR. 3 is NOT applicable when the offender

PEOPLE VS. ORONGAN: defendant alleged as mitigating employed brute force:
circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave an injury.
- The plea was groundless; he used a knife six inches long. The PEOPLE VS. YU: to prove this circumstance, the accused testified that
fatal injury was the natural and almost inevitable consequence. “my only intention was to abuse her, but when she tried to shout, I
Moreover, he attempted to stab a second time but was covered her mouth and choked her and later I found out that because
prevented from doing so. of that she died.”
- SC” it is easy enough for the accused to say that he had no

intention to do great harm. But he knew the girl was very tender
- The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury in age (6 years old), weak in body, helpless and defenseless.
He knew or ought to have known the natural and inevitable
inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may show that the
result of the act of strangulation, committed by men of superior
accused intended the wrong committed. strength, specially on an occasion when she was resisting the
onslaught upon her honor. The brute force employed by the
appellant, completely contradicts the claim that he had no
PEOPLE VS. FLORES: intention must be judged by considering the intention to kill the victim.
weapon used, the injury inflicted, and his attitude of the mind when the
accused attacked the deceased. Thus, when the accused used a
heavy club in attacking the deceased whom he followed some
distance, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, it is to be o It is the intention of the offender at the moment when he
believed that he intended to do exactly what he did and must be held
is committing the crime which is considered.
responsible for the result, without the benefit of this mitigating
circumstance.
PEOPLE VS. BOYLES, PEOPLE VS. ARPA: the point is raised that
the TC should have considered the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The argument is
that the accused planned only to rob; they never meant to kill.
PEOPLE VS. REYES, PEOPLE VS. DATU BAGUINDA: when a
person stabs another with a lethal weapon such as a fan knife (the - ART. 13, PAR. 3, of the RPC addresses itself to the intention of
same could be said of the butt of a rifle), upon a part of the body, for the offender at the particular moment when he executes or
example, the head, chest, or stomach, death could reasonably be commits the criminal act; not to his intention during the
anticipated and the accused must be presumed to have intended the planning stage. Therefore, when, as in the case under review,
natural consequence of his wrongful act. the original plan was only to rob, but which plan, on account of
the resistance offered by the victim, was compounded into the
more serious crime of robbery with homicide, the plea of lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be granted. The
irrefutable fact remains that when they ganged up on their
PEOPLE VS. REYES: as to the alleged lack of intent to commit a victim, they employed deadly weapons and inflicted on him
grave so wrong as that committed, the same cannot be appreciated. mortal wounds in his neck. At that precise moment, they did

intent to kill their victim, and that was the moment to which intention.
ART. 13, PAR. 3 refers.
- Lack of intent to kill, not mitigating in physical injuries:
PEOPLE VS. GARACHICO: ART. 13, PAR. 3 of the RPC “addresses

itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he PEOPLE VS. GALCGAC: in crimes against persons who do not die as
executes or commits the criminal act; not to his intention during the a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the
planning stage.” felony to mere physical injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating
circumstance under ART. 13, PAR. 3.
- Therefore, if the original plan, as alleged by the accused, was
merely to ask for forgiveness from the victim’s wife who
scolded them and threatened to report them to the authorities,
which led to her killing, the plea of lack of intention to commit
o Mitigating when the victim dies:
so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance. The record shows that the accused held the
victim’s wife until she fell to the floor, whereupon they strangled
her by means of a piece of rope tried around her neck until she PEOPLE VS. PUGAY: as part of their fun-making, the accused merely
died. The brute force employed by the accused completely intended to set the deceased’s clothes on fire. Burning the clothes of
contradicts the claim that they had no intention to kill the victim. the victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical injuries
on this person. The accused is guilty of the resulting death of the victim
but he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
- Lack of intention to commit a grave so wrong, mitigating in
robber with homicide.
GARCIA VS. PEOPLE: in this case, petitioner was committed a felony

PEOPLE VS. ABUEG: the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
when he boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence, the fact that
commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated favorably in robbery with the victim was previously afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter
homicide, where it has not been satisfactorily established that in petitioner’s liability for his death.
forcing entrance through the door which was then closed, with the use
of pieces of wood, the accused were aware that the deceased was - Nevertheless, the Court must appreciate as mitigating
behind the door and would be hurt, and there is no clear showing that circumstance in favor of petitioner the fact that the physical
they ever desired to kill the deceased as they sought to enter the injuries he inflicted on the victim, could not have resulted
house to retaliate against the male occupants or commit robbery. naturally and logically, in the actual death of the victim, if the
latter’s heart was in good condition.
- Appreciated in murder qualified by circumstances based on

manner of commission, not on state of mind by accused. - Not applicable to felonies by negligence:
PEOPLE VS. ENRIQUEZ: several accused decided to have a foreman PEOPLE VS. MEDINA: in the case of infidelity in the custody of
beaten up. The deed was accomplished. But the victim died as a result prisoners through negligence (ART. 224), this circumstance was not
of hemorrhage. It was not the intention of the accused to kill the victim. considered.
- Murder results from the presence of qualifying circumstances - REASON: in felonies through negligence, the offender acts
(in this case with premeditation and treachery) based upon the without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by
manner in which the crime was committed and not upon the negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in
state of mind of the accused. The mitigating circumstance that culpable felonies. Hence, in felonies through negligence, there
the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as is no intent on the part of the offender which may be
that committed is based on the state of mind of the offender. considered as diminished.
- Hence, there is no incompatibility between evident
premeditation or treachery, which refers to the manner of
committing the crime, and this mitigating circumstance.
- WON ART. 13, PAR. 3 is applicable to felonies where the
intention of the offender is immaterial.
- Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery:
PEOPLE VS. CRISTOBAL: in unintentional abortion, where the
abortion that resulted in not intended by the offender, the mitigating
circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit a grave so
PEOPLE VS. PAJENADO: lack of intention to commit a grave so wrong as that committed is no applicable.
wrong is not appreciated where the offense committed is characterized
by treachery. The five accused claim that the weapons used are mere
pieces of wood, and the fact that only seven blows were dealt to the
deceased by the five of them, only two f which turned out to be fatal,
shows the tragic and grievous result was far from their minds. The
record shows, however, that the offense committed was characterized PEOPLE VS. FLAMENO: but in another case, where the accused
by treachery and the accused left the scene of the crime only after the pulled the hair of the complainant who was three months pregnant
victim had fallen down. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of lack of causing her to fall on her buttocks on the cement floor, with the result

that after experiencing vaginal hemorrhage the foetus fell from her at most, he can be given the benefit of the mitigating
womb, it was held that the accused having intended at the most to circumstances under the provisions of PAR. 4 of ART. 13.
maltreat the complainant only, the mitigating circumstance in ART. 13,
PAR. 3 should be considered in favor.
- Unintentional abortion is committed by any person who, by

violence, shall cause the killing of the foetus in the uterus or the US VS. FIRMO: when the deceased abused and ill-treated the
violent expulsion of the foetus from the maternal womb, accused by kicking and cursing the latter, the accused who killed him
causing its death, but unintentionally. committed the crime with this mitigating circumstance.
- Applicable only to offenses resulting in physical injuries or

material harm: PEOPLE MARQUEZ: when in his house, the accused saw an
unknown person jump out of the window and his wife begged for his
pardon on her knees, he killed her. Such conduct on the part of his
PEOPLE VS. GALANG DE BAUTISTA: the mitigating circumstance wife constitutes a sufficient provocation to the accused.
that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed was not appreciated in cases of defamation or slander.
US VS. CORTES: although there was no unlawful aggression,

- Applied in MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS: because the challenge was accepted by the accused, and therefore
there was no self-defense, there was however the mitigating
circumstance of immediate provocation. In this case, the deceased
PEREZ VS. PEOPLE: petitioner is entitled to the mitigating insulted the accused and then challenged the latter.
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
- The records bear out that petitioner misappropriated the

missing funds under his custody and control because he was
impelled by the genuine love for his brother and his family. Per US VS. MENDAC: when the defendant sought the deceased, the
his admission, petitioner used part of the funds to pay off a challenge to fight by the latter is not provocation.
debt owed by his brother. Another portion of the
misappropriated funds went to his medications for his - If the defendant appeared in front of the house of the
debilitating diabetes. deceased, after they had been separated by other persons who
- Further, as shown earlier, petitioner restituted all but P8K of the prevented a fight between them, even if the deceased
funds in less than one month and a half and said small balance challenged him to a fight upon seeing him near his house, the
in 3 months from receipt of demand of COA on JAN. 5, 1999. defendant cannot be given the benefit of the mitigating
Evidently, there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. circumstance of provocation, because when the defendant
sought the deceased, the former was ready and willing to fight.
- BASIS OF PAR. 3: intent, an element of involuntariness in

intentional felony, is diminished.
PEOPLE VS. MANANSALA: there was sufficient provocation on the
PAR. 4: PROVOCATION part of the victim where the latter hit the accused on the eye with his
fist before the fight.
- Understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any
one.
- REQUISITES: US VS. FIRMO: the deceased, while intoxicated, found the accused
1) That the provocation must be SUFFICIENT; lying down without having prepared the evening meal. This angered
o As to whether a provocation is sufficient the deceased and he abused the accused by kicking and cursing him.
depends upon the act constituting the A struggle followed and the accused stabbed him with a pen knife. The
provocation, the social standing of the person accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance that sufficient
provoked, the place and the time when the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act.
provocation is made.
o Examples of sufficient provocation:
PEOPLE VS. MACARIOLA: the victim’s act of kicking the accused on

the chest prior to the stabbing does not constitute unlawful aggression
US VS. CARRERO: the accused was a foreman in charge of the for purposes of self-defense, but the act may be considered as
preservation of order and for which purpose he provided himself with a sufficient provocation on the victim’s part, a mitigating circumstance
pick handle. The deceased, one of the laborers in the line to receive that may be considered in favor of the accused.
their wages, left his place and forced his way into the file. The accused
ordered him out, but he persisted, and the accused gave him a blow
with the stick on the right side of the head above the ear.
- When the aggression is in retaliation for an insult, injury, or

threat, the offender cannot successfully claim self-defense, but ROMERA VS. PEOPLE: thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to
kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in our view,

sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate killed the deceased, the provocation given by the other person
his thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance.
danger. Petitioner stabbed the victim as a result of those provocations,
and while petitioner was still in a fit of rage. In our view, there was
sufficient provocation and the circumstance of passion or obfuscation
attended the commission of the offense. o Difference between sufficient provocation as a
requisite of incomplete SELF-DEFENSE and as
a MITIGATING circumstance.
o Provocation held not sufficient:
As a REQUISITE OF As a MITIGATING
INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE CIRCUMSTANCE
PEOPLE VS. LAUDE: when the injured party asked the accused for
an explanation for the latter’s derogatory remarks against certain
ladies, the accused cannot properly claim that he was provoked to kill. It pertains to its absence on the It pertains to its presence on the
part of the person defending part of the offended party.
himself.
PEOPLE VS. NABORA: while the accused was taking a walk at the
New Luneta one evening, the deceased met him and pointing his o The provocation by the deceased in the first
finger at the accused asked the latter what he was doing there and
stage of the fight is not a mitigating
then said” “Don’t you know we are watching for honeymooners here?”
The accused drew out his knife and stabbed the deceased who died as circumstance when the accused killed him after
a consequence. he had fled.
- The provocation made by the deceased was not sufficient.

PEOPLE VS. ALCONGA: the provocation given by the deceased at
the commencement of the fight is not a mitigating circumstance, where
the deceased ran away and the accused killed him while fleeing,
because the deceased from the moment he fled did not give any
US VS. ABIJAN: the fact that the deceased (a public officer) had provocation for the accused to pursue and to attack him.
ordered the arrest of the accused for misdemeanor is not such a
provocation within the meaning of this paragraph that will be
considered in mitigation of the penalty for the crime of homicide
committed by the accused who killed the officer giving such order. The 3) That the provocation must be IMMEDIATE to the act,
performance of a duty is not a source of provocation. i.e. to the commission of the crime by the person who
is provoked.
PEOPLE VS. TAN: between the provocation by the offended party and
PEOPLE VS. CA: assuming for the sake of argument that the blowing the commission of the crime by the person provoked, there should
of horns, cutting of lanes or overtaking can be considered as acts of NOT be any interval of time.
provocation, the same were not sufficient. The word ‘sufficient’ means
adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong and must accordingly - He reason for this requirement is that the law states that the
be proportionate to its gravity. Moreover, the deceased’s act of asking provocation “immediately preceded the act.” When there is an
for an explanation from the accused was not sufficient provocation for interval of time between the provocation and the commission of
him to claim that he was provoked to kill or injure the deceased. the crime, the conduct of the offended party could not have
excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having
had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control.
- Provocation given by an adversary at the commencement and
2) That it must ORIGINATE FROM THE OFFENDED during the first stage of a fight cannot be considered as
PARTY; and mitigating where the accused pursued and killed the former
while fleeing, and the deceased, from the moment he had fled
after the first stage of the fight to the moment he died, did not
give any provocation for the accused to pursue, much less
PEOPLE VS. REYES: where the alleged provocation did not come
further attack to him.
from the deceased but from the latter’s mother, the same may not be
appreciated in favor of the accused.
PEOPLE VS. BENITO: the provocation did not immediately precede

the shooting. The accused had almost a DAY to mull over the alleged
PEOPLE VS. MALABANAN: A and B were together. A hit C on the
provocation before he reacted by shooting the victim. The inevitable
head with a piece of stone from his sling-shot and ran away. As he
conclusion is that he did not feel sufficiently provoked at the time the
could not overtake A, C faced B and assaulted the latter. In this case,
alleged provocation was made, and when he shot the victim the next
C is not entitled to this mitigating circumstance, because B never gave
day, it was a deliberate act of vengeance and not the natural reaction
the provocation or took part in it.
of a human being to immediately retaliate when provoked.
- If during the fight between the accused and another person
who provoked the affair, the deceased merely approached to
separate them and did not give the accused any reason for
attacking him, and in attacking the other person the accused

him that, seized by that feeling of hatred and rancor, he stabbed
But see the case of PEOPLE VS. DEGUIA, ET AL: where one of the indiscriminately the people around.
accused, after the provocation by the deceased consisting in accusing
him of having stolen two jack fruits from his tree and summarily taking
them from the sled of the accused, went home and later returned fully
armed and killed the deceased. YET, it was held that the provocation - Applies to grave offense committed against surviving spouse of
should be considered in favor of the accused.
deceased relative:
- There seems to be a misapplication of the rule in this case.
This ruling would be correct if the accusation that the accused
stole the jack fruits be considered as a grave offense instead of INTESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG
provocation, because an interval of time between the grave VS. PEOPLE: the relationship by affinity created between the surviving
offense and the commission of the crime is allowed in such spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the
case. death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity.
- Thus, if A (the surviving husband of B) was killed by C, B’s

brothers would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
vindication of grave offense if they cause serious physical
o Threat immediately precede the act: injuries to C immediately after learning of A’s death.
US VS. GUY-SAYCO: A was threatened by B with bodily harm and

because of the threat, A immediately attacked and injured B.
- A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the
- There was a mitigating circumstance of threat immediately vindication:
preceding the act.
- The threat should not be offensive and positively strong,
because, if it is, the threat to inflict real injury is an unlawful PEOPLE VS. PARANA: the word “immediate” used in the English text
aggression which may give rise to self-defense. is not the correct translation. The Spanish text uses “proxima.” The fact
that the accused was slapped by the deceased in the presence of
many persons a few hours before the former killed the latter, was
considered a mitigating circumstance that the act was committed in the
 Vague threats not sufficient: immediate vindication of a grave offense. Although the grave offense
(slapping of the accused by the deceased), which engendered
perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, it was held that the
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under
NOT SUFFICIENT THREAT SUFFICIENT THREAT which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was
committed.
The victim’s mere utterance, “if The victims shouted at the

you do not agree, beware,” accused, “follow us if you dare
without further proof that he was and we will kill you.”
bent upon translating his vague
threats into immediate action. PEOPLE VS. PALAAN (unpublished): the killing of the paramour by
the offended husband one day after the adultery was considered still
proximate.
- BASIS OF PAR. 4: based on the diminution of intelligence and

intent.
PEOPLE VS. DIOKNO: the lapse of time between the gave offense
PAR. 5: (abducting the daughter of the accused by the deceased) and the
vindication (killing of the deceased) was two or three days.
- REQUISITES:
1) That there be a GRAVE OFFENSE done to the one - SC: the presence of the 5th mitigating circumstance of ART. 13
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, of the RPC, that is, immediate vindication of a grave offense …
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or may be taken into consideration in favor of the two accused,
because although the elopement took place on JAN. 4, 1935,
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. and the aggression on the 7th of said month and year, the
2) That the felony is committed in vindication of such offense did not cease while (the abducted daughter’s(
grave offense. A LAPSE OF TIME is allowed between whereabouts remained unknown and her marriage to the
the vindication and the doing of the grave offense. deceased unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption
- ILLUSTRATIONS: from the time the offense was committed to the vindication
thereof. (The) accused belongs to a family of old customs to
whom the elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a
grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the
PEOPLE VS. PONGOL, citing PEOPLE VS. LIBRIA: being accused by
peace and tranquility of the home and at the same time
the victim that the accused stole the former’s rooster which made the
spreads uneasiness and anxiety in the minds of the members
latter feel deeply embarrassed, and the encounter took place in about
thereof.
half an hour’s time.
- Interval of time negating vindication:

PEOPLE VS. DONIEGO: stabbing to death the son of the accused
which most naturally and logically must have enraged and obfuscated

PEOPLE VS. LUMAYAG: approximately 9 months before the killing, - On the other hand, the attenuating circumstance of immediate
the deceased boxed the accused several times in the face resulting in vindication of a grave offense—the stabbing of his son to
the conviction of the deceased for less serious physical injuries. He death, or of having committed the crime upon an impulse so
appealed, pending which the accused killed him. It cannot be said that powerful so naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation,
the second incident was an immediate or a proximate vindication of the may be deemed to have attended the commission of the crime
first. alternatively, because both mitigating circumstances cannot co-
exist.
PEOPLE VS. BENITO: the deceased uttered the following remark at - Basis to determine the gravity of offense of vindication:
11:00 in the morning in the presence of the accused and his
officemates: “nag-iistanbay pala ditto and magnanakaw” of “hindi ko
alam na itong Civil Service pala ay istambayan ng magnanakaw.” At PEOPLE VS. UIZ: the question whether a certain personal offense is
5:00 in the afternoon of the same day, the accused killed the grave must be decided by the court, having in mind the social standing
deceased. The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave of the person, the place, and the time when the insult was made.
offense does not avail.
US VS AMPAR: during a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the

PEOPLE VS. LOPEZ: where the accused heard the deceased say that deceased for some roast pig. In the presence of many guests, the
the accused’s daughter is a flirt, and the accused stabbed the victim deceased insulted the old man, saying: “There is no more. Come here
two months later, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication and I will make roast pig of you.” A little later, while the deceased was
of a grave offense cannot be considered in favor of accused because squatting down, the old man came up behind him and struck him on
he had sufficient time to recover his serenity. The supposed vindication the head with an axe.
did not immediately or proximately follow the alleged insulting and
provocative remarks. - While it may be mere trifle to an average person, it evidently
was a serious matter to an old man, to be made the butt of a
joke in the presence of so many guests. The accused was
given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of vindication of
- Distinguish PROVOCATION from VINDICATION: a grave offense.
- In that case, the age of the accused and the place were
considered in determining the gravity of the offense.
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
It is made directly only to the The grave offense may be - Considered GRAVE OFFENSE:
person committing the felony. committed also against the
offender’s relatives mentioned by
law. PEOPLE VS. BATIQUIN: sarcastic remark implying that the accused
was a petty tyrant.
The cause that brought about the The offended party must have - The offended party, a volunteer worker to repair an abandoned
provocation need not be a grave done a grave offense to the road, arrived in the afternoon when the work should have
offense. offender or his relatives started in the morning. Inquired by the accused, the man in
mentioned by the law. charge of the work, why he came late, the offended party
retorted sarcastically: “Perhaps during the Spanish regime
when one comes late, he is punished.” Infuriated at the reply,
It is necessary that the The vindication of the grave the accused fired his gun but did not hit the offended party.
provocation or threat immediately offense may be proximate, which
preceded the act, i.e. that there admits of an interval of time
be no interval of time between the between the grave offense done
provocation and the commission by the offended party and the
of the crime. commission of the crime by the PEOPLE VS. ROSEL: remark of the injured party before the guests
accused. that accused lived at the expense of his wife. The place was taken into
consideration in that case.
REASON: this greater leniency in the case of vindication is due
undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the honor or a person, an
offense which is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against
the one giving the provocation or threat.
PEOPLE VS. LUNA: taking into account that the American forces had
just occupied Manila, it is not strange that the accused should have
considered it then as a grave offense when the offended party said:
“You are a Japanese spy.”
o Killing a relative is a grave offense:
- The time was taken into consideration in that case.
PEOPLE VS. DONIEGO: it was most natural and logical for the
appellant to have been enraged and obfuscated at the sight of his
dead son and seized by that feeling of hatred and rancor, to have
stabbed indiscriminately the people around x x x.
US VS. ALCASID, US VS. DAVIS: if a person kills another for having US VS. SALANDANAN: when there are causes naturally producing in
found him in the act of committing an attempt against his (accused’s) a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control,
wife, he is entitled to the benefits of this circumstance of having acted thereby diminishing the exercise of his will.
in vindication of a grave offense against his and his wife’s honor.
- Rule for the application of this paragraph: passion or

obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only
PEOPLE VS. DAVID: where the injured party had insulted the father of when the same arose from lawful sentiments.
the accused by contemptuously telling him: “Pshe, ichura mong lalake” o For this reason, even if there is actually passion or
(Pshaw, you are but a shrimp), the accused who attacked the injured
obfuscation on the part of the offender, there is not
party acted in vindication of a grave offense to his father.
mitigating circumstance, when:
(1) The act is committed in a spirit of
LAWLESSNESS, or
- The provocation should be proportionate to the damage (2) The act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE.
caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission: - REQUISITES:
1) That there be an act, both UNLAWFUL and
SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE such a condition of mind;
PEOPLE VS. LOPEZ: aside from the fact that the provocation should and
immediately precede the commission of the offense, it should also be
proportionate to the damage caused by the act and adequate to sir one
to its commission. US VS. TAYLOR: the crime committed by the accused must be
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the injured party.
- The remark attributed to the deceased that the daughter of the
accused is a flirt does not warrant and justify the act of accused
in slaying the victim.
PEOPLE VS. QUIJANO: a common-law wife, who, having left the

common home, refused to go home with the accused, was acting
- BASIS OF PAR. 5: based on the diminution of the conditions of within her rights, and the accused (the common-law husband) had no
voluntariness. legitimate right to compel her to go with him.
- Grave offense must be directed to the accused:
- The act of the deceased in refusing to go home with the
accused, while provocative, nevertheless WAS INSUFFICIENT
PEOPLE VS. BENITO: the supposed grave offense done by the victim to produce the passion and obfuscation that the law
was an alleged remark made in the presence of the accused that the contemplates.
Civil Service Commission is a hangout of thieves. The accused felt
alluded to because he was facing then criminal and administrative
charges on several counts involving his honesty and integrity.
- The remark itself was general in nature and not specifically US VS. ORTENCIO: BUT where the accused killed his wife on the
directed to the accused. If he felt alluded to by a remark which occasion when she visited her aunt’s husband, this mitigating
he personally considered insulting to him, that was his own circumstance was held to be applicable, having in mind the jealousy of
individual reaction thereto. Other people in the vicinity who the accused and her refusal to return to his house until after the arrival
might have heard the remark could not have possibly known of her uncle.
that the victim was insulting the accused unless they were
aware of the background of the criminal and administrative
charges involving moral turpitude pending against the accused.
The remark cannot be considered a grave offense against the
accused.
PEOPLE VS. ANCHETA: the mitigating circumstance of having acted
under an impulse so powerful as to have produced passion and
obfuscation should be considered in favor of the owner who, upon
seeing the person who stole his carabao, shoots the supposed thief.
- Vindication of a grave offense incompatible with passion or
obfuscation:
PEOPLE VS. DAGATAN: vindication of a grave offense and passion PEOPLE VS. SAMONTE: the act of the deceased in creating trouble
or obfuscation cannot be counted separately and independently. during the walk of the departed father of defendant-appellant
scandalizes the mourners and offends the sensibilities of the grieving
family. Considering that the trouble created by the deceased was both
unlawful and sufficient to infuriate accused-appellant, his guilt is
PAR. 6: mitigated by passion or obfuscation.
- This paragraph REQUIRES that:

1) The accused acted upon an IMPLSE.
2) The impulse must be so PWERFUL that it naturally
PEOPLE VS. CASTRO: the accused is entitled to the mitigating
produced passion or obfuscation in him. circumstance of passion or obfuscation where he hit the deceased
- Why passion or obfuscation is mitigating:

upon seeing the latter box his 4-year-old son. The actuation of the elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of a felony.
accused arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the
rescue of a beleaguered son, regardless of whether the latter be right
or wrong.
PEOPLE VS. AGUINALDO: … or if several hours passed between the

cause of passion or obfuscation and the commission of the crime.
o Exercise of a right or fulfilment of duty is not
proper source of passion or obfuscation.
PEOPLE VS. NOYNAY: the accused killed the deceased when the PEOPLE VS. MATBAGON: … or where at least half an hour
latter was about to take the carabao of the accused to the barrio intervened between the previous fight and subsequent killing of the
lieutenant. deceased by the accused.
- The action of the deceased in taking the carabao of the

accused to him and demanding payment for the sugar cane
destroyed by that carabao and in taking the carabao to the
barrio lieutenant when the accused refused to pay, was PEOPLE VS. MOJICA: although the fact that accused was subjected
perfectly legal and proper and constituted NO reasonable by the deceased to a treatment (being slapped and asked to kneel
cause for provocation to the accused. The finding that the down) offensive to his dignity could give rise to the felling of passion or
accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to obfuscation, the same cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance
have produced passion or obfuscation was NOT justified, where the killing took place ONE MONTH and FIVE DAYS later.
because the deceased was clearly within his rights in what he
did.
PEOPLE VS. PAREJA: it is error to consider for the accused, passion

or obfuscation, where the newspaper articles written by the victim
PEOPLE VS. CALISO: since the mother of the child, killed by the assailing the former’s official integrity have been published for an
accused, had the perfect right to reprimand the said accused for appreciable period long enough for pause and reflection.
indecently converting the family’s bedroom into a rendezvous of herself
and her lover, the said accused cannot properly invoke the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation to minimize her liability for the
murder of the child.
PEOPLE VS. CONSTANTINO: the circumstances is unavailing where
the killing took place FOUR DAYS after the stabling of the accused’s
kin.
US VS. TAYLOR: the accused was making a disturbance on a public - REASON FOR THESE RULINGS: the act producing the
street and a policeman came to arrest him. obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of
the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
- The anger and indignation resulting from the arrest cannot be accused might have recovered his normal equanimity.
considered passion or obfuscation, because the policeman was
performing a lawful act.
 The defense must prove that the act

which produced passion or obfuscation
o The act must be sufficient to produce such a
took place at a time not far removed
condition of mind:
from the commission of the crime.
US VS. DIAZ, PEOPLE VS. BAKIL: if the cause of the loss of self-
control was trivial and slight, as when the victim failed to work on the PEOPLE VS. GARVACIO: the accuse claimed that he had not been
hacienda on which the accused was the overseer, or where the regularly paid his wages by the victims who, he claimed further, used
accused saw the injured party picking fruits from the tree claimed by to scold him and beat him; but he failed to prove that those acts which
the former, the obfuscation is NOT mitigating. produced passion and obfuscation in him took place at a time far
removed from the commission of the crime which would justify a
interference that after his passion had been aroused, he had no time to
reflect and cool off. Mitigation does not avail him.
2) 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. PEOPLE VS. LAYSON: for the circumstance to exist, it is necessary
o NO passion or obfuscation AFTER 24 HOURS, that the act which gave rise to the obfuscation be not removed from the
or SEVERAL HOURS, or HALF an hour. commission of the offense by a considerable length of time, during
which period the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
PEOPLE VS. SARIKALA: there could have been no mitigating

circumstance of passion o obfuscation when more than 24 hours

 The crime committed must be the result and immoral passions,” yet such is not the case here where the
of a sudden impulse of natural fact that the accused lived for 15 long years as the real wife of
uncontrollable fury. the deceased, whose house she helped to support, could not
but arouse that natural feeling of despair in the woman who
saw her life broken and found herself abandoned by the very
man whom she considered for so long a time as her husband
PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ, PEOPLE VS. DAOS: obfuscation cannot
and for whom she had made so man sacrifices. The mitigating
be mitigating in a crime which was planned and calmly mediated or if
circumstance of passion or obfuscation was considered in favor
the impulse upon which the accused acted was deliberately fomented
of the accused.
by him for a considerable period of time.
PEOPLE VS. YUMAN: Marciano Marin and Beatriz Yuman, without

PEOPLE VS. PAGAL: the circumstances of passion and obfuscation
being joined in lawful wedlock, lived as husband and wife for three or
cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly mediate
four years until Marciano left their common dwelling. Beatriz stabbed
before its execution.
him with a pen-knife. When asked why she wounded Marciano, she
replied that Marciano “after having taken advantage of her” abandoned
her. It was held that the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation should
be taken into consideration in favor of the accused, in view of the
peculiar circumstances of the case and the harsh treatment which the
PEOPLE VS CONSTANTINO: there is neither passion and deceased gave her a short time before she stabled him.
obfuscation nor proximate vindication of a grave offense where the
killing of the deceased was made four days after the stabbing of the
appellant’s kin. Moreover, vengeance is not a lawful sentiment.
PEOPLE VS. BELLO: the defense submits that the accused is entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of having acted on a provocation
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION MUST ARISE FROM LAWFUL sufficiently strong to cause passion and obfuscation, because the
SENTIMENTS: deceased’s flat rejection of the entreaties of the accused for her to quit
her calling as a hostess and return to their former relation, aggravated
by her sneering statement that the accused was penniless and invalid,
US VS. HICKS: for about 5 years, the accused and the deceased lived provoked the accused into losing is head and stabbing the deceased. It
illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. Afterwards, the deceased appears that the accused had previously reproved the deceased for
separated from the accused and lived with another man. The accused allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Her loose conduct was
enraged by such conduct, killed the deceased. forcibly driven home to the accused by the remark of one Marasigan
on the very day of the crime that the accused was the husband “whose
- Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation wife was being used by one Maring for the purpose of prostitution,” a
because of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance cannot be remark that so deeply wounded the feelings of the accused that he
considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate was driven to consume a large amount of wine before visiting Alicia
criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which (deceased) to plead with her to leave her work. Alicia’s insulting refusal
originate from legitimate feelings, and not those which arise to renew her liaison with the accused, therefore was not motivated by
from vicious, unworthy and immortal passions. any desire to lead a chaste life henceforth, but showed he
determination to pursue a lucrative profession that permitted her to
distribute her favors indiscriminately. It was held that the accused
insistence that she live with him again, and his rage at her rejection of
the proposal cannot be properly qualified as arising from immoral and
unworthy passions. Even without benefit of wedlock, a monogamous
US VS. DE LA CRUZ: BUT the ruling in the case of HICKS should be liaison appears orally of a higher level than gainful promiscuity.
distinguished from the case where the accused, in the head of passion,
killed his common-law wife upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal
communication with a common acquaintance.
- It was held in such a case that the accused was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, because the PEOPLE VS. GRAVINO: passion or obfuscation must originate from
impulse was caused by the sudden revelation that she was lawful sentiments, not from the fact that, for example, the girl’s
untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms sweetheart killed the girl’s father and brother because the girl’s parents
of another. objected to their getting married and the girl consequently broke off
- In HICKS, the cause of passion and obfuscation of the accused their relationship. Such an act is actuated more by a spirit of
was his vexation, disappointment and anger engendered by the lawlessness and revenge rather than any sudden and legitimate
refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury.
him, which she had a perfect right to do.
- In spirit of lawlessness:
PEOPLE VS. ENGAY: the accused, as a common-law wife, lived with

the deceased for 15 years, whose house she helped support. Later, PEOPLE VS. SANICO: the accused who raped a woman is not
the deceased married another woman. The accused killed him. entitled to the mitigating circumstance of “having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion” just
- Although it was held in the HICKS case that “the causes which because he finds himself in a secluded place with the young ravishing
produce in the mind loss of reason and self-control and which woman, almost naked, and therefore, “liable to succumb to the
lessen criminal responsibility are those which originate from uncontrollable passion of his bestial instinct.”
lawful sentiments, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy

had taken place.
- In spirit of revenge:
- Illustration of impulse of special motives:

PEOPLE VS. CALISO: a woman taking care of a 9-month-old child,
poisoned the child with acid. She did it, because sometimes before the
killing of the child, the mother of the child, having surprised her PEOPLE VS. MIL: the accused killed P, because the latter did not
(accused) with a man on the bed of the master, had scolded her. She deliver the letter of F to A, on which (letter) the accused had pinned his
invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation resulting hopes of settling the case against him amicably. The failure of P to
from hat scolding by the mother of the child. deliver the letter is a prior or unjust and improper act sufficient to
produce great excitement and passion in the accused as to confuse his
- She cannot be credited with such mitigating circumstance. She reason and impel him to kill P. It was a legitimate and natural cause of
was actuated more by spirit of lawlessness and revenge than indignation and anger.
by any sudden impulse of natural an uncontrollable fury.
- Obfuscation arising from jealousy:
PEOPLE VS. BATES: passion and obfuscation may not be properly

appreciated in favor or appellant. To be considered as a mitigating PEOPLE VS. SALAZAR, citing US VS. HICKS; PEOPLE VS.
circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful OLGADO ET AL.: the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor of the accused whose
anger and resentment. In the present case, clearly, Marcelo was relationship with the woman (his common-law wife) was illegitimate.
infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by Jose. However, a
distinction must be made between the first time that Marcelo hacked
Jose and the second time that the former hacked the latter. When
Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if
appellant refrained from doing anything else after that, he could have
validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. PEOPLE VS. MARASIGAN, PEOPLE VS. MACABANGON: where
But when upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to the killing of the deceased by the accused arose out of rivalry for the
Jose, who by then was already prostrate on the ground and hardly hand of a woman, passion or obfuscation is mitigating.
moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of someone acting out of
anger in the spirit of revenge. - The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous
relations with a woman is a powerful instigator of jealousy and
prone to produce anger and obfuscation.
- The offender must act under the impulse of special motives:
US VS. DE LA PENA: in an early case, it was held that the loss of

PEOPLE VS. DE GUIA: excitement is the natural feeling of all persons
reason and self-control due to jealousy between rival lovers was not
engaged in a fight, especially those who had received a beating, and
mitigating.
the impulse in that state is not considered in law so powerful as to
produce obfuscation sufficient to mitigate liability.
- Obfuscation – when relationship is ILLEGITIMATE – NOT

mitigating:
US VS. HERRERA, US VS. FITZGERALD: two individuals had been
wrestling together and after being separated, one of them followed up
the other and wounded him with a knife as he was entering a vehicle. PEOPLE VS. OLGADO: the relations of the accused with Rosario
Rianzales were illegitimate. The injured party made indecent
- The aggressor cannot claim in his favor that the previous propositions to her which provoked the accused. The accused attacked
struggle produced in him entire loss of reason or self-control, the injured party. The obfuscation of the accused is not mitigating,
for the existence of such excitement as is inherent in all who because his relations with Rosario Rianzales were illegitimate.
quarrel and come to blows does not constitute a mitigating
circumstance. The guilty party must have acted under the
impulse of special motives.
- The cause producing passion or obfuscation must come from
the offended party:
o But the ruling is DIFFERENT in the following case:

US VS. ESMEDIA: the two sons, believing that S would inflict other
wounds upon their father, who was already wounded, in defense of
PEOPLE VS. FLORES: while the Attorney-General hesitates to accept their father, immediately killed S. under this great excitement, the two
the conclusion of the lower court with reference to the attenuating sons also proceeded to attack and did kill C who was near the scene at
circumstances of unjust provocation and arrebato y obcecacion, the the time.
Court is inclined to accept that theory. The record discloses that each
used very insulting language concerning the other and that they must - Since C had taken no part in the quarrel and had not in any
have been very greatly excited as a result of the quarrel, or otherwise, manner provoked the sons, passion or obfuscation cannot
the other people present would not have intervened. The acts mitigate their liability with respect to the killing of C. This
complained of were committed by the defendant soon after the quarrel extenuating circumstance is applied to reduce the penalty in

cases where the provocation which caused the heated passion considering in favor of the accused the two mitigating
was made by the injured party. circumstances of provocation and obfuscation.
- Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and

PEOPLE VS. LAO: where passion or obfuscation of the accused is not obfuscation:
caused by the offended party but by the latter’s relatives who mauled
the wife of the accused, the same may not be considered as a
mitigating circumstance in his favor. PEOPLE VS. YAON: it was held that if the accused assailed the victim
in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he cannot successfully
allege that he was also, in the same breath, blinded by passion and
obfuscation, because these two mitigating circumstances cannot both
- May passion or obfuscation lawfully arise from causes existing exist and be based on one and the same fact of motive. At most, only
only in the honest belief of the offender? YES. one of them could be considered in favor of the appellant, but not both
simultaneously. Viada, citing more than one dozen cases, says that it
is the constant doctrine of the Spanish SC that one single fact cannot
US VS. FERRER: thus, the belief of the defendant that the deceased be made the basis of different modifying circumstances.
has caused his dismissal from his employment is sufficient to confuse
his reason and impel him to commit the crime.
EXCEPTION: when there are other facts, although closely connected.
US VS. MACALINTAL, PEOPLE VS. ZAPATA: it has also been held PEOPLE VS. DIOKNO: but where there are other facts, although
that the belief entertained in good faith by the defendants that the closely connected with the fact upon which on circumstance is
deceased cast upon their mother a spell of witchcraft which was the premised, the other circumstance may be appreciated as based on the
cause of her serious illness, is so powerful a motive as to natural other fact.
produce passion of obfuscation.
- Thus, where the deceased, a Chinaman, had eloped with the
daughter of the accused, and later when the deceased saw the
accused coming, the deceased ran upstairs in his house, there
are two facts which are closely connected, namely:
(1) Elopement, which is a grave offense to a family of old
PEOPLE VS. TORRES: one of the accused, s self-appointed
customs, and
representative of God who claims supernatural powers, demanded of
(2) Refusal to deal with him, a stimulus so strong enough
the deceased to kiss and awake her dead sister who, she said, was
to produce in his mind a fit of passion.
merely asleep. The deceased, an old lady, refused. The accused
- TWO mitigating circumstances of (1) vindication, and (2)
thought that the deceased had become a devil. Then she commanded
passion were considered in favor of the accused. The
her companions to surround the deceased and pray to drive the evil
mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense was
spirits away, but, allegedly without success. The accused barked an
based on the fact of elopement and that of passion on the fact
order to beat the victim to death as she had turned into Satan or
that the deceased, instead of meeting him and asking for
Lucifer.
forgiveness, ran away from that accused.
- The accused and her sisters are entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation. Her order to kiss and
awake her sister was challenged by the victim. This generated
a false belief in the minds of the three sisters that in the victim’s PASSION OR OBFUSCATION COMPATIBLE WITH LACK OF
person resided the evil spirit – Satan or Lucifer. And this INTENTION TO COMMIT A GRAVE SO WRONG: PEOPLE VS.
triggered “an impulse so powerful as naturally to have CABEL
produced passion or obfuscation.”
- Passion or obfuscation INCOMPATIBLE with treachery:
- BASIS OF PAR. 6: because the offender who acts with passion PEOPLE VS. WONG: passion or obfuscation cannot co-exist with
or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and treachery, for while in the mitigating circumstance of passion or
intent. obfuscation the offender loses his reason and self-control, in the
- Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same aggravating circumstance of treachery, the mode of attack must be
cause should be treated as only one mitigating circumstance: consciously adopted. One who loses reason and self-control cannot
deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the
execution of a crime.
PEOPLE VS. PAGAL: since the alleged provocation which caused the
obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the
alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the o Vindication or obfuscation cannot be considered when
deceased, those two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered the person attacked is not the one who gave cause
as two distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as therefor.
one.
- Thus, where the accused killed his wife during a quarrel, PEOPLE VS. DAGATAN: vindication and obfuscation cannot be
because he had no work, resented her suggestion to join her considered, not only because of elopement of Lucila Dagatan and
brother in the business of cutting logs, the court erred in Eleuterio Yara and her abandonment by the latter took place long

before the commission of the crime, but also because the deceased to a greater extent.
was not the one who eloped with and abandoned her.
1) VOLUNTARY SURRENDER to a person in authority or his

- Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with evident agents.
premeditation. o REQUISITES:
A. That the offender had NOT BE ACTUALLY
ARRESTED.
PEOPLE VS. PAGAL: the aggravating circumstance of evident B. That the offender surrendered himself to a
premeditation cannot co-exist with the circumstance of passion and
PERSON IN AUTHORITY or TO THE
obfuscation. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act must be preceded by calm thought and reflection upon the LATTER’S AGENT.
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time C. That the surrender was VOLUNTARY.
sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment. Requisite:
PEOPLE VS. GERVACIO, citing PEOPLE VS. SAKAM: for voluntary

- Passion or obfuscation distinguished from irresistible force: surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a
manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his
PASSION or OBFUSCATION IRRESISIBLE FORCE guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
Mitigating circumstance. Exempting circumstance.
Cannot give rise to an irresistible PEOPLE VS. FLORES: merely requesting a policeman to accompany
force because irresistible force the accused to the police headquarters is not equivalent to the
requires physical force. requirement that he “voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agents.”
In the offender himself. Must come from a third person. - The accused must actually surrender his own person to the
authorities, admitting complicity in the crime. His conduct, after
the commission of the crime, must indicate a desire on his part
Must arise from lawful The irresistible force is unlawful. to own the responsibility for the crime.
sentiments.
o Cases of voluntary surrender:

- Passion or obfuscation distinguished from provocation:
PEOPLE VS. TENORIO: the accused, after plunging a bolo into the
PASSION or OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION victim’s chest, ran toward the municipal building. Upon seeing a
patrolman, he immediately threw away his bolo, raised his two hands,
offered no resistance and said to the patrolman “here is my bolo, I
Produced by an impulse which Comes from the injured party. Stabbed the victim.” There was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily
may be caused by provocation. to the authorities.
The offense which engenders Must immediately precede the

perturbation of mind need not be commission of the crime.
immediate. It is only required that PEOPLE VS. DAYRIT: after the commission of the crime, the accused
the influence thereof lasts until fled t a hotel to hide not from the police authorities but from the
the moment the crime is companions of the deceased who pursued him to the hotel but could
committed. not get him because the door was closed after the accused entered.
Once in the hotel, the accused dropped his weapon at the door and
when the policemen came to investigate, he readily admitted
EFFECT: the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the ownership of the weapon and then voluntarily went with them. He was
offender. investigated by the fiscal the following day. No warrant had been
issued for his arrest. The accused was granted the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
PAR. 7: TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES are provided in this

paragraph:
PEOPLE VS. BENITO: immediately after the shooting, the accused

having all the opportunity to escape, did not do so but instead called up
PEOPLE VS. FONTABLA: although these circumstances are
the police department. When the policemen went to the scene of the
considered mitigating in the same subsection of ART. 13, when both
crime to investigate, he voluntarily approached then and without
are present, they should have the effect of mitigating as two
revealing his identity, told them that he would help in connection with
independent circumstances. If any of them must mitigate the penalty to
the case as he knew the suspect and the latter’s motive. When brought
a certain extent, when both are present, they should produce this effect

to the police station immediately thereafter as a possible witness, he
confided to the investigators that he was voluntarily surrendering and PEOPLE VS. ROLDAN: the accused surrendered only after the
also surrendering the fatal gun used in the shooting of the victim. warrant of arrest was served upon him.
These acts of the accused were held strongly indicative of his intent or
desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities.
PEOPLE VS. VELEZ: where the accused was actually arrested by his
own admission or that he yielded because of the warrant of arrest,
PEOPLE VS. MAGPANTAY: the accused left the scene of the crime there is no voluntary surrender although the police blotter
but made several attempts to surrender to various local officials which euphemistically used the word “surrender.”
somehow did not materialize for one reason or another. It was already
a week after when they were finally able to surrender.
- Voluntary surrender avails.

- After committing the crime, the accused defied no law or agent PEOPLE VS. MATIONG: the accused went into hiding and
of the authority, and when they surrendered, they did so with surrendered only when they realized that the forces of the law were
meekness and repentance. closing in on them.
PEOPLE VS. TORRES: tempered justice suggests that appellants be PEOPLE VS. SAVILLA, PEOPLE VS. SIGAYAN: where the accused
credited with voluntary surrender in mitigation. That they had no were asked to surrender by the police and military authorities but they
opportunity to surrender because the peace officers came, could not refused until only must later when they could no longer do otherwise by
be charged against them. force of circumstances when they knew they were completely
surrounded and there was no chance of escape. Their surrender was
- For one thing is certain – they yielded their weapons at the not spontaneous as it was motivated more by an intent to insure their
time. Not only that. They voluntarily went with the peace safety.
officers to the municipal building. These acts, in legal effect,
amount to voluntary surrender.
PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ: where the search for the accused had
lasted 4 years which belies the spontaneity of the surrender.
PEOPLE VS. RADOMES: the accused did not offer any resistance nor
try to hid when a policeman ordered him to come down his house. He
even brought his bolo used to commit the crime and voluntarily gave PEOPLE VS. GARCIA: where other than the accused’s version in
himself up to the authorities before he could be arrested. These court that he went to a police officer in Dagupan City and asked the
circumstances are sufficient to consider the mitigating circumstance of latter t accompany him to Olangapo City after he was told by someone
voluntary surrender in his favor. that his picture was seen posted in the municipal building, no other
evidence was presented to establish indubitably that he deliberately
surrendered to the police.
PEOPLE VS. JEREZA: all the records reveal is that the accused
trooped to the police headquarters to surrender the firearm used in
committing the crime. It is not clear whether or not he also sought to PEOPLE VS. TRIGO: the accused only went to the police station to
submit his very person to the authorities. The accused is given the report that his wife was stabbed by another person and to seek
benefit of the doubt and his arrival at the police station is considered as protection as he feared that the same assailant would also stab him.
an act of surrender.
PEOPLE VS. ROGALES: where the accused went to the PC

PEOPLE VS. BRANA: where there is nothing on record to show that headquarters not to surrender but merely to report the incident which
the warrant for the arrest of the accused had actually been served on does not evince any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of
him, or that it had been returned unserved for failure of the server to the deceased.
locate said accused, and there is direct evidence to show that he
voluntarily presented himself to the police when he was taken into
custody.
PEOPLE VS. CANOY: where the Chief of Police placed the accused
under arrest in his employer’s home to which hat officer was
o Cases NOT constituting voluntary surrender:
summoned and it does not appear that it was the idea of the accused
to send for the police for the purpose of giving himself up.
EL PUEBLO CONTRA CONWI: the warrant of arrest showed that the - Where the accused accompanied the Chief of Police to the
accused was in fact arrested. scene of the crimes and he was not yet charged with, or
suspected of having taking part in, said crimes, and the
authorities were not looking for him, and would not have looked
for him if he had not been present at the investigation by the

Chief of Police. circumstance.
 When the accused surrender only after the

PEOPLE VS. RUBINAL: where the accused was arrested in his warrant of arrest had been served upon him, it
boarding house and upon being caught, pretended to say that he was is NOT mitigating.
on his way to the municipal building to surrender to the authorities, for
that is not the nature of voluntary surrender that may serve to mitigate
one’s liability in contemplation on law.
PEOPLE VS. ROLDAN: it appears that the appellant surrendered only
after the warrant of arrest was served upon him, which cannot be
considered as a “voluntary surrender.”
o NOT mitigating when defendant was in fact arrested:
o When the warrant of arrest had not been served or not

PEOPLE VS. CONWI: there was no voluntary surrender if the warrant returned unserved because the accused cannot be
of arrest showed that the defendant was in fact arrested.
located, the surrender is mitigating.
PEOPLE VS. BRANA: while it is true that the warrant for the arrest of
the accused was dated MAR. 7, 1967, and the police authorities were
PEOPLE VS. PARANA: BUT where a person, after committing the
able to take custody of the accused only on MAR. 31, 1967, there is
offense and having opportunity to escape, voluntarily waited for the
nothing in the record to show that the warrant had actually been served
agents of the authorities and voluntarily gave himself up, he is entitled
on him, or that it had been returned unserved for failure of the server to
to the benefit of this circumstance, even if he was placed under arrest
locate the accused. Upon the other hand, there is direct evidence that
by a policeman then and there.
the accused voluntarily presented himself to the police on MAR. 31,
1967. And the fact that it was effected sometime after the warrant of
arrest had been issued does not in the least detract from the voluntary
character of the surrender in the absence of proof to the contrary.
PEOPLE VS. BABIERA: and when the accused helped in carrying his
victim to the hospital where he was disarmed and arrested, it is
tantamount to voluntary surrender.
o The law does not require that the surrender be prior to
- The facts of CONWI case, supra, should be distinguished from the order of arrest.
the fats of the cases of PEOPLE VS. PARANA and PEOPLE
VS. BABIERA, supra, where the arrest of the offender was after
his voluntary surrender or after his doing an act amounting to a RIVERA VS. CA: in PEOPLE VS. YEDA and PEOPLE VS. TURALBA,
voluntary surrender to the agent of a person in authority. it was held that when after the commission of the crime and the
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused presented himself in the
municipal building to post the bond for temporary release, voluntary
surrender is mitigating. The fact that the order of arrest had already
 The accused who ran to the municipal building been issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstance
because the law does not require that the surrender be prior to the
after the commission of the crime had the order of arrest.
intention or desire to surrender.
PEOPLE VS. TENORIO: if the accused wanted to run away or escape,

he would not have run to the municipal building. The fact that on DE VERA VS. DE VERA: the mere filing of an information and/or the
seeing a patrolman, the accused threw away his bolo, raised his two issuance of a warrant of arrest will not automatically make surrender
hands, and admitted having stabbed the injured party, is indicative of “involuntary.” In PEOPLE VS. OCO, the Court appreciated the
his intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities. mitigating circumstance because immediately upon learning that a
warrant for his arrest was issued, and without the same having been
served on him, the accused surrendered to the police.
 The accused who fled and hid himself to avoid - Thus, it is clear that notwithstanding the pendency of a warrant
reprisals from the companions of the deceased, for his arrest, the accused may still be entitled to the mitigating
but upon meeting a policeman voluntarily went circumstance in case he surrenders, depending on the natural
with him to the jail, is ENTITLED to the benefit facts surrounding the very act of giving himself up.
of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
o “VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSELF.”
PEOPLE VS. DAYRIT: thus, when the accused, after the commission PEOPLE VS. JOSE DE RAMOS: after the incident, the accused
of the crime, fled to the Imperial Hotel for security purposes, as there
reported it to the councilor, that he stayed in the councilor’s place for
was no policeman around and the companions of the deceased were
about an hour; and that thereafter he went to the chief of police to
pursing him to that place, and once inside he hid himself there, his whom he related what had happened between him and the injured
going voluntarily to the jail with the policeman who had gone to the
party and surrendered the bolo – not his person – to said chief of
hotel to investigate the incident, was held to be a mitigating

police.
PEOPLE VS. CASALME: an accused who surrendered first to the
- The foregoing facts do not constitute voluntary surrender. The Justice of Peace (now MC), with whom he posted a bond, and then to
law requires that the offender must have “voluntary the Constabulary headquarters of the province, is entitled to the
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents.” mitigation of voluntary surrender.
o Voluntary surrender does NOT simply mean non-flight:

PEOPLE VS. VERGES: surrender of weapons cannot be equated with
voluntary surrender.
QUIAL VS. CA, PEOPLE VS. RADOMES: voluntary surrender does
not simply mean non-flight. As a matter of law, it does not matter if the
accused never avoided arrest and never hid or fled. What the law
considers as mitigating s the voluntary surrender of an accused before
PEOPLE VS. PALO: where the accused merely surrendered the gun his arrest, showing either acknowledgement of his guilt or an intention
used in the killing, without surrendering his own person to the to save the authorities from the trouble and expense that his search
authorities, such act of the accused does not constitute voluntary and capture would require.
surrender.
PEOPLE VS. CANOY and PEOPLE VS. RUBINAL, supra: the fact
PEOPLE VS. CANOY, PEOPLE VS. RUBINAL: the fact that the that the accused did not escape or g into hiding after the commission
accused did not escape or go in hiding after the commission of the of the murder and in fact he accompanied the chief of police to the
murder and in fact he accompanied the chief of police to the scene of scene of the crime without surrendering to him and admitting complicity
the crime without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing did NOT amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities
in the killing did not amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities and this circumstance would not be extenuating in that case.
and this circumstance would not be extenuating in the case.
o Time and place of surrender:
PEOPLE VS. ROGALES: appellant did not go to the PC headquarters

after the shooting to surrender but merely to report the incident. PEOPLE VS. YECLA, PEOPLE VS. BRANA, PEOPLE VS.
Indeed, he ever evinced any desire to own the responsibility for the TURALBA: the RPC does not make any distinction among the various
killing of the deceased. moments when the surrender may occur.
- Five days after the commission of the crime of homicide and

two days after the issuance of the order of his arrest, the
o The surrender must be made to a person in authority or accused presented himself in the municipal building to post the
his agent. bond for his temporary release.
- This is VOLUNTARY surrender constituting a mitigating
circumstance. The law does not require that the surrender be
prior to the issuance of the order of arrest. Moreover, the
PERSON IN AUTHORITY AGENT OF A PERSON IN surrender of the accused to post a bond for his temporary
AUTHORITY release was in obedience to the order of arrest and was
tantamount to the delivery of his person to the authorities to
answer for the crime for which his arrest was ordered.
On directly vested with A person, who, by direct provision
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer of the law, or by election or by NOTE: in these cases there is nothing in the record to show that the
who has the power to govern and appointment by competent warrant had actually been served to the accused, or that it had been
execute the laws whether as an authority, is charged with the returned unserved for failure of the server to locate the accused. The
individual or as a member of maintenance of public order and implication is that is the accused cannot be located by the server of the
some court or governmental the protection and security of life warrant, the ruling should be different.
corporation, board or and property and any person who
commission. A barrio captain and comes to the aid of persons in
a barangay chairman are also authority.
persons in authority.
PEOPLE VS. CORONEL: the accused committed robbery with
homicide on SEPT. 7, 1947, and surrendered on JUN. 2, 1954.
- The surrender was VOLUNTARY and a mitigating

MITIGATING NOT MITIGATING circumstance.
Voluntary surrender to Voluntary surrender to the chief

commanding offer because the clerk of a district engineer
commanding officer is an agent of because such chief clerk is
a person in authority. neither a person in authority nor
his agent.
PEOPLE VS. SABATER: BUT is the appellants surrendered because,
after having been fugitives from justice for more than 7 years, they

found it impossible to live in hostility and resistance to the authorities,
martial law having been declared, The surrender was not spontaneous.
PEOPLE VS. LAUREL: if none of these two reasons impelled the

accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated
more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable,
PEOPLE VS. VALERA.: likewise, an accused was held entitled to the the surrender is not spontaneous and therefore not voluntary.
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender where it appeared that
he posted the bond for his provisional liberty18 days after the
commission of the crime and 14 and 16 days, respectively, after the
first and second warrants for his arrest were issued, the court declaring o Surrender must be spontaneous:
that the fact that the warrant for his arrest had already been issued is
NO BAR to the consideration of this mitigating circumstance because
the law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of
PEOPLE VS. GERVACIO: the word “SPONTANEOUS” emphasizes
arrest.
the idea of an inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The
conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of
the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender.
- The circumstances surrounding the surrender of Simplicio

PEOPLE VS. DIVA, ET AL.: by parity of reasoning, therefore, Gervacio do not meet this standard, because immediately after
appellant Maximo Diva’s voluntary surrender to the chief of police of the commission of the robbery-slaying attributed to him and
the municipality of Pro should be considered to mitigate his criminal Atanacio Mocorro, they fled together to the province of Leyte
liability because the law does not require him to surrender to the which necessitated the authorities of QC to go to the place and
authorities of the municipality of San Francisco where the offense was search for the. In fact, Simplicio Gervacio surrendered to the
committed. Mayor of Biliran 12 days after the commission of the crime, and
only after Luzviminda had been discovered in a far away sitio
which led to the arrest of Atanacio Mocorro.
PEOPLE VS. COGULIO: in a homicide case where after the killing of

the deceased which took place in Janiuay, Iloilo, the two accused fled,
took refuge in the house of a lawyer, and surrendered to the PEOPLE VS. SIOJO, PEOPLE VS. YUMAN: the circumstance that the
constabulary in Iloilo City, after passing three municipalities, it was held accused did not resist arrest or struggle to free himself after he was
that there was voluntary surrender. taken to custody by the authorities cannot amount to voluntary
surrender.
o The surrender must be by reason of the commission of

the crime for which defendant is prosecuted:
PEOPLE VS. DIMDIMAN: and while it is claimed that the accused
intended to surrender, the fact is that he did not, despite several
PEOPLE VS. SEMANADA, ETC: defendant cannot claim the opportunities to do so, and was in fact arrested.
circumstance of voluntary surrender because he did not surrender to
the authority or its agents by reason of the commission of the crime for
which he was prosecuted, but for being a Huk who wanted to come
within the pale of the law.
PEOPLE VS. RODRIGUEZ: voluntary surrender cannot be
- Thus, if the defendant surrendered as a Huk to take advantage appreciated in favor of an accused who surrenders only after a warrant
of the amnesty, but the crime for which he was prosecuted was of arrest is issued and he finds it futile to continue being a fugitive from
distinct and separate from rebellion, his surrender is not justice.
mitigating.
o Surrender through an intermediary: PEOPLE VS. LINGATONG: for voluntary surrender to be appreciated,
it is necessary that the same be spontaneous in such manner that it
shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the
PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ: the accused surrendered through the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilty or because he
mediation of his father before any arrant of arrest had been issued. His wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in
surrender was appreciated as mitigating. his search and capture.
o When is SURRENDER VOLUNTARY?

PEOPLE VS. MABUYO: the surrender is not spontaneous where the
accused took almost nine months after the issuance of the warrant of
PEOPLE VS. LAGRANA: a surrender to be voluntary must be arrest against him before he presented himself to the police authorities.
spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either (1) because he acknowledges
his guilt, or (2) because he wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
PEOPLE VS. ABLAO: neither is voluntary surrender spontaneous

where the accused had gone hiding for 2 ½ years before surrendering. o REQUISITES OF A PLEA OF GUILTY: in order that the
plea of guilty may be mitigating, the three requisites
must be present:
A. That the offender spontaneously confessed his
 Intention to surrender, without actually guilt.
surrendering, is NOT mitigating. B. That the confession of guilt was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that is
to try the case.
PEOPLE VS. DIMDIMAN, supra: the mitigating circumstance of C. That the confession of guilt was made prior to
voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in favor of the accused who
claims to have intended to surrender but did not, despite several the presentation of evidence for the
opportunities to do so, and was in fact arrested. prosecution.
o The plea must be made before trial begins:
NOTE: the law requires that the accused must surrender himself.
PEOPLE VS. LUNGBOS, PEOPLE VS. VERANO: the trial on the

merits had commenced and the prosecution had already presented
 There is spontaneity even if the surrender is evidence proving the guilt of the accused when he manifested that he
induced by fear or retaliation by the victim’s would change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty. He was properly
re-arraigned.
relatives.
- As ruled in PEOPLE VS. KAYANAN, a plea of guilty made
after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the
PEOPLE VS. CLEMENTE: the fact that the accused gave himself up accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating
to the police immediately after the incident was not considered in his circumstance.
favor, because during the trial, he declared that he did so out of fear of
retaliatory action from the relatives of the deceased. This, according to
the trial Judge, is not the kind of surrender that entitles the accused t
the benefit of voluntary surrender.
o Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating:
- That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation by the
victim’s relatives does not gainsay the spontaneity of the
surrender, not alter the fact that by giving himself up, this PEOPLE VS. HERMUNO: plea of guilty in the RTC in a case appealed
accuse saved the State the time and trouble of searching for hi from the MC is not mitigating because the plea of guilty must be made
until arrested. at the first opportunity, that is, in the MC.
- It cannot be properly stated that the appeal taken by the

accused from the MC to the RTC again restored the case to its
original state for the reason that the law requires a trial de
 When the offender imposed a condition or acted
novo, because a trial de novo necessarily implies the existence
with external stimulus, his surrender is not of a previous trial where evidence was presented by the
voluntary. prosecution.
PEOPLE VS. MUTYA: there could have been no voluntary surrender

because the accused went into hiding after having committed the o Philosophy behind the rule:
crimes and refused to surrender without having first conferred with the
town councilor.
PEOPLE VS. OANDASAN: if an accused, charged with an offense
cognizable by the MC, pleads NOT guilty therein, and on appeal to the
RTC, changes his plea to that of guilty upon re-arraignment, he should
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of confession of guilt.
PEOPLE VS. SAKAM: a surrender is not voluntary when forced by
circumstances, as when the culprits “considered it impossible to live in - PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THIS RULE: for the spontaneous
hostility and resistance to the constituted authorities and their agents in willingness of the accused to admit the commission of the
view of the fact that the said authorities had neither given them rest nor offense charged, which is rewarded by the mitigating
left them in peace for a moment.” circumstance is ABSENT.
- Indeed, if the rule were otherwise, an accused, who naturally
nourishes the hope of acquittal, could deliberately plead not
guilty in the MC, and upon conviction and on appeal to the
RTC, plead guilty just so he can avail himself of the benefit of a
PEOPLE VS. TIMBOL: when they started negotiations for their mitigating circumstance. This cannot be countenanced. The
surrender, the roads through which their escape could be attempted accused should not be allowed to speculate.
were blocked and the house where they were hiding was surrounded
by the Constabulary forces. They surrendered, because of their belief
that their escape was impossible under the circumstances. The
surrender was NOT voluntary. o Plea of not guilty at the preliminary investigation is NO
PLEA at all.
2) VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT before the court prior

to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. PEOPLE VS. OANDASAN, supra: if an accused is charged with an
offense cognizable by the RTC, the pleads not guilty before he MC at
its preliminary investigation, and after the elevation of the case to the

RTC – the court of competent jurisdiction – he pleads guilty upon first opportunity when his arraignment was first set.
arraignment before this latter court, the plea of not guilty upon
arraignment at the preliminary investigation in the MC is no plea at all.
- Hence, the accused could claim his plea of guilty in the RTC as  A conditional plea of guilty is not a mitigating
mitigating circumstance, pursuant to ART. 13 (7) of the RPC.
circumstance:
PEOPLE VS. MORO SABILUL: the plea of guilty was conditioned

o The confession of guilt must be made in open court: upon the allegation that the killing was done when the appellant
(not finished page. 327). surprised his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with the deceased
Moro Latio. The Court already pointed out that “an accused may not
enter a conditional plea of guilty in the sense that he admits his guilt
PEOPLE VS. PARDO: the extrajudicial confession made by the provided that a certain penalty be imposed upon him.” The Court is,
accused is not the voluntary confession which the Code contemplates. therefore, constrained to hold that the appellant in this case must be
Such confession was made outside of the court. The confession of considered as having entered a plea of not guilty.
guilt must be made in open court.
o Death penalty changed to life imprisonment because of

 The confession of guilt must be made prior to plea of guilty, even if done during the presentation of
the presentation of the evidence for the evidence.
prosecution.
PEOPLE VS. CORONEL: while the accused entered a plea of guilty,

PEOPLE VS. CO CHANG: plea of guilty after the fiscal had presented he did it only during the continuation of the trial so that this
evidence is NOT mitigating because the third requisite is lacking. circumstance may not, under the law, be considered to mitigate the
liability of the accused. However, such an admission of guilt indicates
his submission to the law and a moral disposition on his part to reform,
hence, the death penalty imposed is changed to life imprisonment.
PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ, PEOPLE VS. LAMBINO: the benefit of

plea of guilty is not deserved by the accused who submits to the law
only after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution, o Plea of guilty to amended information.
believing that in the and the trial will result in his conviction by virtue
thereof.
PEOPLE VS. ORTIZ: trial had already begun on the original
information for murder and frustrated murder. However, in view of the
willingness of the accused to plead guilty for a lesser offense, the
prosecution, with leave of court, amended said information to make it
PEOPLE VS. LAMBINO: it is not necessary that all evidence of the one for homicide and frustrated homicide, and the accused pleaded
prosecution have been presented. Even if the first witness presented guilty thereto. That was an entirely new information and no evidence
by the prosecution had not finished testifying during the direct was presented in connection with the charges made therein before the
examination when the accused withdrew his former plea of “not guilty” accused entered his plea of guilty. The accused is entitled to the
and substituted it with the plea of “guilty,” the plea of guilty is not mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
mitigating.
o Plea of guilty to lesser offense than that charged, not

o Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty mitigating.
before presentation of evidence by prosecution is still
mitigating: all that the law requires is voluntary plea of
guilty prior to the presentation of the evidence by the PEOPLE VS. NOBLE: plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not a
prosecution. Thus, even if during the arraignment, the mitigating circumstance, because to be voluntary, the plea of guilty
accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled to this must be to the offense charged.
mitigating circumstance as long as he withdraws his
plea of not guilty and thereafter pleads guilty to the
charge before the fiscal could present his evidence.
 The change of plea should be made at first PEOPLE VS. GANO: for voluntary confession to be appreciated as an
opportunity: extenuating circumstance, the same must not only be mad
unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e.
robbery with homicide in the present case, and not to either robbery or
homicide only. Hence, if the voluntary confession is conditional or
PEOPLE VS. QUESADA: but in a case where the accused committed qualified, it is not mitigating.
the crime on PAR. 22, 1956, and when arraigned on MAY 14, 1956, he
pleaded not guilty, and it was only on AUG. 11, 1957, or about 1 year,
3 months and 7 days that he felt contrite and repentant by changing his
former plea of guilty to that of guilty, his plea of guilty was obviously not
spontaneous, and as apparently done not because of his sincere PEOPLE VS. YTURRIAGA, PEOPLE VS. ONG: but when the
desire to repent and reform, he could have pleaded guilty at the very defendant pleaded guilty, only manifesting that evident premeditation

alleged in the information did not attend the commission of the crime, (2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he
and when the court required the presentation of evidence on had conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused
premeditation that prosecution failed to prove it, the plea of guilty is the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
mitigating, because although the confession was qualified and (3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused,
introduction of evidence becomes necessary, the qualification did not
deny the defendant’s guilt and, what is more, was subsequently such as his age, socio-economic status, and educational
justified. It was not the defendant’s fault that aggravating background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his
circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information. capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
(4) Inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment or
nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will
serve such sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads
o Plea of guilty to the offense charged in the amended guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon had advice or
information, lesser than that charged in the original because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter
information, is mitigating. penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty
of the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor under
these mistaken impressions because a plea of guilty carries
PEOPLE VS. INTAL: charged with double murder, the accused moved with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper
the Court to permit him to withdraw his former plea of not guilty to be
but also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that
substituted with that of guilty to the lesser crime of double homicide.
The prosecution moved to amend the information so as to change the increase punishment.
crime from double murder to double homicide. Both motions were (5) Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is
granted by the court. charged and to fully explain to him the elements of the crime
which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so
- The plea of guilty to the lesser offense charged in the amended would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be
information is mitigating. informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him
and a denial of his right to due process.
(6) All questions posed to the accused should be in a language
known and understood by the latter.
 When the accused is charged with a grave
(7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in
offense, the court should take his testimony I
pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to
spite of his plea of guilty.
narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing
details (PEOPLE VS. GUMIMBA).
PEOPLE VS. LACSON: the trial court should “determine whether the
accused really and truly comprehended the meaning, full significance REASONS WHY A PLEA OF GUILTY IS MITIGATING:
and consequences of his plea and that the same was voluntarily and
intelligently entered or given by the accused.
PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ: it is an act of repentance and respect for
the law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused, favorable to his
reform.
PEOPLE VS. SALIGAN, PEOPLE VS. DOMINGO:
- BASIS OF PAR. 7: lesser perversity of the offender.

- Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable in culpable felonies
o Mandatory presentation of evidence in plea of guilty to and in crimes punished by special laws:
capital offense: the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure
(Rule 116, SEC. 3) provides that where the accused
pleads guilty to a capital offense, that court shall PEOPLE VS. AGITO: ART. 365, PAR 5, of the Revised Penal Code,
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and which prescribes the penalties for culpable felonies, provides that “in
the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and
discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in ART. 64.” This last
shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the mentioned article states, among other rules, that when there is a
precise degree of culpability. The accused may present mitigating circumstance without any aggravating circumstance, the
evidence in his behalf. penalty to be imposed is the minimum period of the divisible penalty.
SEARCHING INQUIRY: the guidelines in the conduct of a searching - When the crime is punished by a special law, the court shall
inquiry are as follows: also exercise its sound discretion, as ART. 64 is not applicable.
The penalty prescribed by special laws is usually not divisible
into three periods. ART. 64 is applicable only when the penalty
(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought
has three periods.
into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had assistance of a
competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary
investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained
and interrogated during the investigations. This intended to rule PAR. 8: DEAF AND DUMB:
out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed
under a state of duress either b actual threats of physical harm
coming from malevolent quarters or simply because of the PEOPLE VS NAZARIO: in a criminal case charging robbery in an
judge’s intimidating robes. inhabited house, the accused is deaf and dumb.
- HELD: he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of being

deaf and dumb under ART. 13, PAR. 8. amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation.
- Physical defect must restrict means of action, defense or - Illness of the offender considered mitigating.
communication with fellow beings.
PEOPLE VS. BALNEG: the mistaken belief of the accused that the
Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such as being armless, killing of a witch was for the public good may be considered a
cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or mitigating circumstance for the reason that those who have obsession
communicate with his fellow beings are limited. (Albert) that witches are to be eliminated are in the same condition as one who,
attacked with a morbid infirmity but still retaining consciousness of his
QUESTION: Does this paragraph apply when the deaf-mute or the acts, does not have real control over his will.
blind is educated?
This paragraph does not distinguish between educated and

uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons.
PEOPLE VS. AMIT: example of illness of the nerves or moral faculty.
The Code considers them as being on equal footing.
- “Although she is mentally sane, we, however, are inclined to
extend our sympathy to the appellant because of her
misfortunes and weak character. According to the report she is
- BASIS OF PAR. 8: considers the fat that one suffering from suffering from a mild behavior disorder as a consequence of
physical defect, which restricts one’s means of action, defense, the illness she had in early life. [The Court] [is] willing to regard
or communication with one’s fellow beings, does not have this as a mitigating circumstance under ART. 13, Revised
Penal Code, either in PAR. 9 or in paragraph 10.”
complete freedom of action and, therefore, there is a diminution
of that element of voluntariness.
PAR. 9:
PEOPLE VS. CARPENTER: one who was suffering from acute
- REQUISITES: neurosis which made him ill-tempered and easily angered is entitled to
1) That the illness of the offender must diminish the this mitigating circumstance, because such illness diminished his
exercise of his will-power. exercise of will power.
2) That such illness should not deprive he offender of
consciousness of his acts.
- When the offender completely lost the exercise of will-power, it
may be an exempting circumstance.
PEOPLE VS. FORMIGONES: the fact that the accused is
feebleminded warrants the finding in his favor of the mitigating
circumstance either under PAR. 8 or under PAR. 9 of ART. 13.
PEOPLE VS. BONOAN: when a person becomes affected either by
dementia praecox or by manic depressive psychosis, during the period
of excitement, he has no control whatsoever of his acts.
- In such case, the person affected, acted upon an irresistible

homicidal impulse. PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO: the evidence of accused-appellant shows
- In the BONOAN case, the Supreme Court found the accused that while there was some impairment of his mental faculties, since he
demented at the time he perpetrated the crime of murder and was shown to suffer from the chronic mental disease called schizo-
acquitted the accused. affective disorder or psychosis, such impairment was not so complete
as to deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts.
The schizo-affective disorder or psychosis of accused-appellant may
be classified as an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-
power but without depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. He
- Does this circumstance include illness of the mind? may thus be credited with this mitigating circumstance but will not
exempt him from his criminal liability.
QUESTION: does this paragraph refer to the mental condition more or

less disturbed? - BASIS OF PAR. 9: there is diminution of intelligence and intent.
It is said that the foregoing legal provision refers only to diseases of

PAR. 10:
pathological state that trouble the conscience or will (Albert).
Thus, this paragraph was applied to a mother who, under the influence - Must be of similar nature and analogous to those mentioned in
of a puerperal fever, killed her child the day following her delivery. PARs. 1 to 9 of ART. 13: this paragraph authorizes the court to
consider in favor of the accused “any other circumstance of a
But in the case of PEOPLE VS. FRANCISCO, it was held that this similar nature and analogous to those mentioned” in PARs. 1 to
paragraph applies to defendant who committed the crime while 9 of ART. 13.
suffering from some illness (of the body, the mind, the nerves, or the
- Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to over 70 years of
moral faculty.
age mentioned in PAR. 2:
NOTE: in accordance with the ruling in the above-mentioned case,
illness of the mind is included. It would seem that a diseased mind, not
considered as a mitigating factor.
PEOPLE VS. REANTILLO AND RUIZ: the fact that the defendant was
over 60 years and with failing sight, is analogous to circumstances No.
2 of ART. 13, as similar to the case of one over 70 years of age.
- ESPIRIT DE CORPS, similar to passion and obfuscation:
- Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom PEOPLE VS. VILLAMORA: mass psychology and appeal to esprit de
analogous to vindication of a grave offense: corps is similar to passion or obfuscation. In this case, many of the
soldiers who took part in the killing of the deceased responded to the
call and appeal of their lieutenant who urged them to avenge the
PEOPLE VS. MONAGA: the accused is entitled to the mitigating outrage committed by the deceased who had summarily ejected
circumstance of analogous to, if not the same, vindication of a grave certain soldiers from the dance hall. They considered the act of the
offense committed by the deceased where the latter took away the deceased a grave insult against their organization.
carabao of the accused and held it for random, and thereafter failed to
fulfil his promise to pay its value after the carabao had died.
- Voluntary restitution of stolen property, similar to voluntary

surrender mentioned in PAR. 7:
- Outraged feeling of creditor, similar to passion and obfuscation
mentioned in PAR. 6:
PEOPLE VS. LUNTAO: on the other hand, voluntary restitution of the
property stolen by the accused or immediately reimbursing the amount
PEOPLE VS. MERENILLO: a person who killed his debtor who had malversed is a mitigating circumstance as analogous to voluntary
tried to escape and refused to pay his debt is entitled to mitigating surrender.
circumstance similar to passion and obfuscation.
- Impulse of jealousy feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation: PEOPLE VS. NAVASCA: the act of testifying for the prosecution,
without previous discharge, by Lorenzo Soberano (one of the accused)
should be considered in his favor as a mitigating circumstance
PEOPLE VS. UBENGEN: the fact that the accused committed slander analogous to a plea of guilty.
by charging the offended party with being the concubine of the
husband of the accused under the impulse of a jealous feeling
apparently justified, though later discovered to be unfounded, because
the complainant, as verified by physical examination, was a virgin, may - Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to incomplete
be taken, under ART. 13, PAR. 10, of the Revised Penal Code, as a justification on state of necessity:
mitigating circumstance similar to passion and obfuscation.
PEOPLE VS. MACBUL: the accused, on account of extreme poverty

and of the economic difficulties then prevailing, was forced to pilfer two
sacks of paper valued at P10.00 from the Custornhouse. He sold the
PEOPLE VS. LIBRIA: it is not difficult to see that Idloy’s boxing two sacks of paper for P2.50.
appellant during a dance and in the presence of so many people, and
he, an ex-soldier and ex-member of a military organization and unit, - HELD: the right to life is more sacred than a mere property
well-known and respected, undoubtedly produced rancour in the breast right. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft, but
of Libria who must have felt deeply insulted; and to vindicate himself merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of
and appease his self-respect, he committed the crime. The mitigation the stark realities of life.
may well be found under PAR. 10 of the same article.
- Manifestations of Battered Wife Syndrome, analogous to an PEOPLE VS. AGUSTIN: extreme poverty may mitigate a crime against
illness that diminishes the exercise of will power: property, such as theft, but not a crime of violence such as murder.
PEOPLE VS. GENOSA: the cyclical nature and the severity of the
violence inflicted upon appellant resulted in “cumulative provocation PEOPLE VS. PUJINO: but it is not mitigating where the accused had
which broke down her psychological resistance and natural self- impoverished himself and lost his gainful occupation by committing
control,” “psychological paralysis,” and “difficulty in concentrating or crimes and not driven to crime due to want and poverty.
impairment of memory.”
- Based on the explanations of the expert witness, such

manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the - Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty:
exercise by appellant of her will power without, however,
depriving her of consciousness of her acts. There was, thus, a
resulting diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or
intent. Pursuant to PARs. 9 and 10 of ART. 13 of the Revised
PEOPLE VS. NAVASCA: the act of the accused of testifying for the
Penal Code, this circumstance should be taken in her favor and
prosecution, without previous discharge, is a mitigating circumstance

analogous to a plea of guilty.
PEOPLE VS. SALAZAR: the Revised Penal Code enumerates the
circumstances which mitigate criminal liability, and the condition of
running amuck is not one of them, or one by analogy. The defense
- Restitution in malversation case is only a mitigating contended that running amuck is a cult among the Moros that is ,age-
old and deeply rooted. lnsofar as they are applicable, mitigating
circumstance:
circumstances must be applied alike to all criminals be they Christians,
Moros or Pagans.
US VE. REYES: payment or reimbursement is not a defense for
exoneration in malversation; it may only be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. This is because damage is not an element of
malversation. - Mitigating circumstances which are personal to the offenders:
mitigating circumstances which arise:
- It bears stressing that the full restitution of the amount (1) From the moral attributes of the offender, or
malversed will not in any way exonerate an accused, as
payment is not one of the elements of extinction of criminal
liability. Under the law, the refund of the sum misappropriated, A and B killed C, A acting under an impulse which produced
even before the commencement of the criminal prosecution, obfuscation. The circumstance of obfuscation arose from the moral
does not exempt the guilty person from liability for the crime. attribute of A and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. lt shall not
mitigate the liability of B.
PEREZ VS. PEOPLE: at most, then, payment of the amount (2) From his private relations with the offended party, or
malversed will only serve as a mitigating circumstance akin to
voluntary surrender, as provided for in PAR. 7 of ART. 3 in relation to
PAR. 10 of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code. A, son of B, committed robbery against the latter, while C, a stranger,
bought the property taken by A from B, knowing that the property was
the effect of the crime of robbery. The circumstance of relationship
(ART. 15) arose from the private relation of A with B and it shall
- Killing the wrong man is not mitigating. mitigate the liability of A only. It shall not mitigate the liability of C, an
accessory. (ART. 19)
PEOPLE VS. GONA: neither does the Court believe the fact that he
made a mistake in killing the wrong man should be considered as a
mitigating circumstance. (3) From any other personal cause, shall only serve to
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
- NOT analogous mitigating circumstance:
A, 16 years old and acting with discernment, inflicted serious physical

In parricide, the fact that the husband of the accused was unworthy or injuries on C. B, seeing what A had done to C, kicked the latter,
was a rascal and a bully and was bad (PEOPLE VS. CANJA), or that thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A and cooperating with
the victim was a bad or quarrelsome person (PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO), him by simultaneous act. (ART. 18) The circumstance of minority arose
is not a circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to any of those from other personal cause and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. It
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of ART. 13. shall not mitigate the liability of B, an accomplice.
NOTE: It seems that all mitigating circumstances are personal to the

offenders
PEOPLE VS. DY POL: the accused, who was charged with the crime
of falsification, pleaded guilty and invoked as mitigating circumstance
the lack of irreparable material damage. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER EXEMPTING NOT
MITIATING:
- HELD: this is not recognized as a mitigating circumstance in
the Revised Penal Code. Neither is it among those which may
be considered as similar in nature and analogous to those 1) Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus, for under ART. 48, there
expressly prescribed as mitigating circumstances. is a complex crime committed. The penalty is even higher.
2) Mistake in the identity of the victim, for under ART. 4, PAR. 1,
the accused is criminally liable even if the wrong done is
different from that which is intended. See ART. 49 as to its
- Not resisting arrest, not analogous to voluntary surrender: effect on the penalty.
3) Entrapment of the accused.
4) The accused if over 18 years of age.
PEOPLE VS. RABUYA: yielding to arrest without the slightest attempt
to resist is not analogous to voluntary surrender.
PEOPLE VS. MARASIGAN: if the offender is over 18 years of age, his
age is neither exempting nor mitigating.
- The condition of running amuck is not mitigating:

5) Performance of righteous action:
PEOPLE VS. VICTORIA: the performance of righteous action, no

matter how meritorious it may be, is not justifying, exempting, or
mitigating circumstance in the commission of wrongs, and although the
accused had saved the lives of a thousand and one persons, if he
caused the killing of a single human being, he is, nonetheless,
criminally liable.

The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Luis B. Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Luis B. Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Luis B. Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE REVISED PENAL CODE o Essence: the substitution of a legislative act for a

CRIMINAL LAW judicial determination of guilt.

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL

1. Must be general in application.

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 1 | Bantay

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 2 | Bantay

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 3 | Bantay

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

WHEN THE REPEALING LAW FAILS TO PENALIZE THE OFFENSE

A PERSON ERRONEOUSLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED UNDER

SELF-REPEALING LAW: where an act expires by its own limitation,

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 4 | Bantay

- Although some provisions of eminently positivistic tendencies SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 5 | Bantay

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 6 | Bantay

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 7 | Bantay

INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE

By means of deceit. By means of fault. Deficiency of action. Deficiency of perception.

Murder, treason, robbery, and

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 8 | Bantay

1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 9 | Bantay

There was an innocent mistake The accused found no

2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should

PEOPLE VS. OANIS PEOPLE VS. DE FERNANDO

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 10 | Bantay

MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY OF THE INTENDED VICTIM IS NOT

- Catangay’s gun was accidentally discharged, killing his

WHEN THE ACCUSED IS CHARGED WITH INTENTIONAL

- PEOPLE VS. ORQUIJO: mere unlicensed possession is

REASONS WHY CRIMINAL INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY IN

- If the gun was discharged intentionally, with the purpose of

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 12 | Bantay

PEOPLE VS. RAMIREZ

- There were two suffocating smokes noticed during the

The moving power which impels The purpose to use a particular

BUT PROOF OF MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO

LACK OF MOTIVE MAY BE AN AID IN SHOWING THE INNOCENCE

PEOPLE VS. TANEO

When there is doubt as to the Immaterial when the accused

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 13 | Bantay

DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND DISCERNMENT

The determination to do a certain The mental capacity to tell right

DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE

Demonstrated by the use of a Implies motion. It is the moving

NOTE: If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent.

2. BY MEANS OF FAULT (CULPA) – there is fault when the

The CONCEPT OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is the inexcusable lack

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 14 | Bantay

- Abberratio ictus. PEOPLE VS. BINDOY

- The accused offered tuba to Pacas’ wife. She refused as she

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 15 | Bantay

- The accused in his inebriated state had no intent to kill his

***PEOPLE VS. MABUGAT

- B is not criminally liable for the death of D.

PEOPLE VS. TOMOTORGO

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | REYES | AUF – SOL 2014 Page 16 | Bantay