Mang Canotes CRIM1 MT Reviewer

CRIMINAL LAW 1 MIDTERM REVIEWER (Mang Canotes)
CRIMINAL LAW DEFINED

branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
and provides for punishment ● General, Territorial, Prospective
● Crime: committed or omitted violation of public law
General
SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW binding on all in Philippine territory
1. RPC - Felonies
2. Special Penal Laws - Offenses CIVIL COURT VS MILITARY COURT
3. Penal Presidential Decrees -Civil Courts have jurisdiction over murder cases subject to military
court
POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES -Civil courts have jurisdiction over Malversation committed by an
State has the authority to define and punish crimes and to lay down army finance officer
rules of criminal procedure -Civil court have jurisdiction in times of war provided that no hostilities
in place during that time of crime
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO -Revised Penal Code is not applicable when military court takes case
ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION -Military court has jurisdiction when offense is service connected
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder
2. Due process of law VFA TREATY
● Philippine authorities have jurisdiction over US personnel with
ex post facto law respect to offenses committed within Philippines punishable
1. Makes criminal an act done before passage of law under the laws of the Philippines
2. Aggravates a crime ● US authorities have jurisdication over US personnel who commit
3. Inflicts a greater punishment US offenses
4. Alters legal rules of evidence ● Philippines have exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel who
5. Imposes penalty or deprivation of right commit offenses relating to security of the Philippines
6. Deprives lawful protection ● US have exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel who commit
offenses relating to security of US
bill of attainder ● US authority have primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US
punishment without trial personnel in relation to:
o Offenses solely against property or security of US
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED o Offenses arising out of omission in performance of
1. Speedy disposition before judicial, quasi-judicial, or official duty
administrative bodies
2. Due process of law LAW OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION
3. Bailable (except reclusion perpetua) -law to penalize acts which would impair the proper observance and
4. Presumption of innocence inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities rights and privileges
5. a)Cannot be compelled to witness against himself of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representative in the Philippines
b) right to remain silent
c)cannot be waived except in writing and presence of EXEMPTION OF CRIMINAL LAW BY VIRTUE OF PUBLIC
counsel (rights that cannot be waived are those that involve INTERNATIONAL LAW
public interest) 1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state
d) no torture or illegal detentions 2. Ambassadors, Ministers plenipotentiary, Ministers resident,
e) Any violation of sec 17 is inadmissible evidence and charges d’affaires
6. Excessive fines not imposed -consul is not entitled to privileges and immunities of an ambassador
7. Double Jeopardy or minister, but is subject to laws of country to which he is accredited
STATUTORY RIGHTS OF ACCUSED Territorial

1. Presumption of innocence criminal laws undertake to punish crimes within Philippine territory.
2. Informed of accusation
3. Present at every stage of proceeding NATIONAL TERRITORY
4. Witness in his own behalf ● The National Territory comprises of the Philippine Archipelago,
5. Exempt from witness against himself with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
6. Cross examine witnesses against him territories which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
7. Compulsary process to secure attendance of witnesses consisting of its Terrestrial, Fluvial and Aerial Domain, Including
8. Speedy, impartial, and public trial the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
9. Right to apeal submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting
1
Made by: Mico Suarez
the islands of the archipelago form part of the internal waters of HISTORY OF REVISED PENAL CODE
the Philippines. -Did not take codification of all penal laws in Philippines.
● ARTICLE II RPC defines territory application -Does not embody latest progress of criminal science
Prospective “ART 1. Time when act takes effect - This Code shall take effect on
cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.”
punishable when commited
TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
EXCEPTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION 1. Classical
more lenient or favorable to accused ● free will to choose between good and evil
● Exception has no application: ● purpose is retribution
1. Expressly made inapplicable ● mechanical and direct proportion between crime
2. Habitual criminal and penalty
● scant regard to human element
DIFFERENT EFFECTS ON REPEAL OF PENAL LAW 2. Positivist
1. Penalty lighter = new law applied ● social and natural phenomenon
2. Heavier = law in force at time of commission is applied ● subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
3. Repeals = crime is obliterated phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong
*repeal of penal law by its reenactment would not destroy criminal 3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory – Combination of both
liability
*erroneous convicted under a repealed statute does not prevent “Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the
conviction because accused has chance to defend himself treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
*new law which omits anything contained in old law operates as Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
repeal including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
*self repealing laws expires by own limitations also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
-Penal laws are strictly construed against Government and liberally in Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
favor of accused Government of the Philippine Islands
-Spanish text is controlling over English text 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding
CASES OF INCORRECT TRANSLATION OF SPANISH TEXT TO number;
ENGLISH TEXT 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
SPANISH ENGLISH ART
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code”
Sosteniendo Engaging in war ART 135
APPLICABLE IN CASES OUTSIDE PHILIPPINES
combate
1. Philippine ship or airship
Sufriendo imprisonment ART 157 -even beyond three miles from seashore
privacion de -if in territory of foreign country (laws of foreign country)
libertad -ship must registered in MARINA/CAB
2. Forge or counterfeit coin currency security
Nuevo delito Another crime ART 160 -even if from a foreign country
3. Introduction of obligation in #2
Semilla cereal ART 303 -even if from foreign country
alimenticia 4. Public officer in exercise of functions
● Direct Bribery
N/A filed ART 344 par ● Indirect Bribery
3 ● Fraud against public treasury
● Malversation of public funds
● Illegal use of public funds
● Failure to deliver public funds
REVISED PENAL CODE ● Failure to render accounts
Consist of two books (Book one , Book two) ● Falsification
-even if committed abroad
2
5. National Security and Laws of Nations
● Treason IMPORTANT WORDS IN ART 3
● Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason 1. ACT - movement to produce effect in external world
● Espionage -must be external
● Inciting to war -possibility of production is sufficient
● Violation of neutrality -defined by RPC
● Correspondence with hostile country 2. OMISSION
● Piracy and mutiny in high seas a. Abandonment of persons in danger
b. Illegal exaction
CRIMES COMMITTED OUTSIDE PHILIPPINES ARE PUNISHABLE c. Misprision of treason
-court where the charge was first filed -there is law requiring act to be performed
3. PUNISHABLE BY LAW - there is no crime when there is no law
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ARTICLE 2 punishing it
1. “Except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential -must be punishable by RPC
applications”
2. “Its atmosphere” - sovereignty extend to all airspace CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
3. “Interior waters” - all waters within three mile limit 1. Intentional Felonies - with intent
4. “Maritime zone” - threemiles from coastline starting from low water 2. Culpable Felonies - without intent
mark
FELONIES WITH DOLO/MALICE
RULES OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN Dolus - intent to do injury
MERCHANT VESSELS
1. French Rule - not triable in country unless affects peace and FELONIES BY CULPA/FAULT
security Performed without malice
2. English Rule - crimes triable in country unless only affects things 1. Negligence = lack of foresight
within vessel (followed by Philippines) 2. Imprudence = lack of skill
-Act should also be voluntary but without malice
SITUATIONS OF FOREIGN VESSELS
1. Possession of Opium - not a breach of Public Order REQUISITES OF DOLO
2. Opium reaches port - breach of public order 1. Freedom - no freedom (irresistible force, uncontrollable fear of an
3. Smoking Opium in vessel - breach of public order equal or greater injury)
4. Warships - cannot be subjected to laws of another state 2. Intelligence - without intelligence (imbecile, insane, infant under 9
years, minor over 9 but less than 15)
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT 3. Intent - presumed and shown by overt acts
1. Within terrestrial domain *No felony by dolo if there is no intent
2. Physically outside but commit or conspire of plot any crime
3. On board Philippine ship or airship MISTAKE OF FACT
4. Within embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises Relieved accused from criminal liability
5. Commit crimes where citizenship or ethnicity is a factor Requisites:
6. Crimes directly against Philippine Government 1. Lawful act had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be
“Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are 2. Lawful intent
felonies (delitos) 3. Without fault or carelessness
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also Example
by means of fault (culpa 1. Ah Chong - valid self defense
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and 2. Oanis - violation of instruction and carelessness in not verifying
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, identity
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.”
REQUISITES OF CULPA
FELONIES DEFINED 1. Freedom
-acts or omissions punishable by RPC 2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence/Negligence
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES - act performed must be lawful
1. Act or omission
2. Punishable by RPC SPECIAL LAWS
3. Incurred by means of deceit or fault ● Intent to commit crime is not necessary
3
● Intent to commit crime - there must be criminal intent 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
● Intent to perpetrate act - act should be done freely and act done be different from that which he intended
conciously 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
● Acts injurious to public welfare and doing of prohibited act is against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility
crime itself of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
● Exception to special law of prohibition of firearm (temporary, inadequate or ineffectual means.”
incidental, casual or harmless possession or control of a firearm
is not a violation LATIN TERMS
● Actus non facit reum nisi mens sitrea
o Act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
MA LA IN SE intention were so
acts punishable by RPC ● Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
acts inherently immoral even if punished by special law o Act done by me against my will is not my act
MA LA PROHIBITA PARAGRAPH ONE ARTICLE 4 “WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE

acts punishable by special law DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED”
-he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil cause
INTENT
● Purpose to use a particular means to effect such result IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART4 PAR1
● Proved by overt acts 1. “Committing a felony”
● 2 Kinds -must be punishable by RPC
o General – presumed by law -must be commited by dolo
o Specific – specific cases 2. “Although wrongful act done be different from that which he
▪ Homicide, Forcible abduction = Intent to kill intended”
▪ Robbery, Theft = Intent to gain a. Mistake in identity
-wanted to kill A but mistook B for A
MOTIVE b. Mistake in blow
● Moving power which impels one to action for a definite result - wanted to kill A but lack of precision hit B
● not an essential element of a crime c. Injurious result is greater than intended
● proved with acts or statements of accused before or after -punched A, fell on the floor and died
commission of offense
● REQUISITES OF ART4 PAR1
RELEVANCE OF MOTIVE 1. Intentional Felony
1. IDENTITY OF ACCUSED 2. Wrong done is direct and natural consequence committed by the
offender
NO evidence of identification is convincing
THAT A FELONY HAS BEEN COMMITTED
Must be punishable by RPC, if not punishable by RPC no felony is
YE Identity is in dispute
committed
S
-attempting to commit suicide is not punishable by RPC
YE Doubt in identity -mistake in blow because of self defense
S
WRONG DONE MUST BE DIRECT NATURAL AND LOGICAL
NO Defendant admits killing CONSEQUENCE OF FELONIOUS ACT
-criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of law
YE Identification proceeds from unreliable and for all natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom
S source Examples:
1. A threatened or chased with knife B so B jumped into the water. B
doesnt know how to swim and died
2. ANTAGONISTIC THEORIES - yes 2. Removed from drainage from wound which causes death. Wound
3. NO EYEWITNESS - yes was caused by accused and effected to extreme pain which made
4. CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE - yes victim remove drainage
5. SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - no 3. Unskillful surgical treatment of wound from knife stab
4. Victim was suffering from internal malady
a. Blow was efficient cause of death
“Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: b. Blow accelerated death
4
c. Blow was proximate cause of death ● Swindling
5. Offended party refused to submit to surgical operation does not ● Culpable insolvency
remove criminal liability ● Chattel Mortgage
6. Resulting injury was aggravated by infection ● Arson and other crimes f destruction
● Malicious Mischief
PROXIMATE CAUSE 2. Evil Intent
“Cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by A knew B was already dead and still stabbed him
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which 3. Inherently impossible / inadequate or ineffectual means
the result would not have occured” a. Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
-legal impossibility or physical impossibility
Natural - occurence in the ordinary course of human life Examples:
Logical - rational connection - tries to kill by putting salt in soup that is thought to be arsenic
Cause - felonious act -tries to murder a corpse
Effect - injury/death -stole watch that was already his
-opens safe to steal but then theres nothing inside
NOT PROXIMATE CAUSE OF RESULTING INJURY WHEN: b. Employment of inadequate means
1. Active force intervened - distinct act absolutely foreign from -if means is adequate but result is not produces it is not an
felonious act done by accused impossible crime but a frustrated felony
2. Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim Examples:
Small quantity of poison
NOT EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSES: c. Employment of ineffectual means
1. Weak or diseased physical condition - Atio hazing case Examples:
2. Nervousness or temperament - die of internal hemorrhage brought -tries to shoot with revolver not knowing it was empty
on by moving against doctor’s orders because nervous condition is
due to wound inflicted by accused PURPOSE OF LAW TO PUNISH IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
3. Causes which are inherent to victim - lack of ability to swim Suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies
4. Neglect of the victim or third person - failure of doctor to give anti
tetanus injection Article 5: Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
6. Delay in medical treatment excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by
WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED AS NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF law. It shall render the proper decision and shall report to the chief
INJURY INFLICTED executive through the department of justice the reasons which induce
1. Victim was in normal health the court to believe the the act should be made the subject of penal
2. Expected from injury inflicted legislation.
3. Within reasonable time In the same way, the court shall submit to the chief executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
Indicative of criminal tendency when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result
Requisites: in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
1. Offense against person or property consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
Act performed must be against persons or properties offense.
A. Felonies against persons are:
● Parricide “In connection with acts which should be repressed but which
● Physical injuries are not covered by law”
● Rape 1. Act committed is not punishable by law
● Abortion 2. Court deem it proper to repress act
● Duel 3. Court must render proper decision
● Homicide 4. Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the
● Infanticide Department of Justice stating reasons inducing him to believe that
● Murder act should be subject to penal legislation.
B. Felonies against property are:
● Brigandage “In cases of excessive penalties”
● Robbery 1. Court finds accused guilty
● Usurpation 2. Penalty provided by law appears to be excessive because:
● Theft ● Accused acted with lesser degree of malice
5
● No injury or injury caused is lesser gravity unremitted premium contributions. Accused paid delinquent
3. Court should not suspend execution of sentence contribution during pendency of appeal.
4. Judge should submit statement to Chief Executive through Court asked for executive clemency
Secretary of Justice recommending executive clemency
Art. 6, Consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies. -
Examples of accused acting with lesser degree of malice: Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and
(People vs Monleon) Accused maltreated his wide in his inebriated attempted are punishable
state because she prevented him from whipping negligent son and A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
maltreatment inflicted by accused is proximate cause for death of execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
wife. Reclusion Perpetua is excessive the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce
Example of injury caused is of lesser gravity: it by reason of causes independent from the will of the perpetrator.
(People vs Acbangin) Accused brought child to house of Niu. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
Accused denied knowing where child is but told victim’s grandmother of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
where child was. Child was found well dressed and smiling. Accused execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
was convicted for kidnapping and sentenced reclusion perpetua. or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Recommended downgrade to Prision coreccional to prision mayor or
executive clemency Three kinds of Felonies
1. Consummated - all elements necessary for its execution and
Example of total absence of injury: accomplishment are present
(People v. Cabagsan and Motano) Defendant chief of police falsified 2. Frustrated - offender performs all the acts of execution which
police blotter, record arrests, return warrant arrest, bail bond of a would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless
person charged with qualified seduction to make them show person do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
was arrested. Falsification were committed to make it appear that perpetrator.
there was no delay in preliminary investigation. 3. Attempt - when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
Executive Clemency recommended for wife who killed her execution other than his own spontaneous desistance.
husband
(People v Canja) battered woman case Development of crime
Stages of crime:
Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public 1. Internal acts - mere ideas in the mind of a person (not punishable)
policy 2. External acts
1. Promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily they not punishable unless law
2. Fine of P5000 for profiteering. Selling klim milk for 2.20 when provides it. (ex: possession of picklocks)
selling price is 1.80 during critical conditions b. Acts of execution - they are punishable under RPC
- stages of execution: attempted, frustrated, consummated are
Court have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law punishable
(People v. Olaes) Phases:
Judge sentenced accused to life imprisonment for crime of robbery 1. Subjective – could still be controlled. Attempted to Frustrated
with homicide aggravated by nocturnity and ban even though death Stage
penalty dapat. 2. Objective – cannot be controlled. Consummated Stage
Art 5 par 1,2 applied in relation to penalty that the court believes Attempted Felony
should be the subject of amendment by legislature Elements:
(Corpuz v People) Estafa under Article 315 questions continued 1. Offender commences the commission of the felony directly
validity of penlaties imposed on persons convicted of crimes involving by overt acts
property. Penalties were pegged to value of money and property in 2. Does not perform all the acts of execution which should
1930 when RPC was enacted. produce the felony
3. Offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
“When a strict enforcement of the provisions of this code” desistance
Also applicable to special laws 4. Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
Article 5, applied to violation of special law
(Mendoza v People) Convicted of violation of RA8282 Social Security “Commences the commission of a felony directly by over acts”
Act of 1997 for failure to remit premium contribution amounting - external acts related in first requisite must be related to the overt
P421,151.09 of which P239,756.80 was the actual amount of acts of the crime the offender intended to commit.
6
- should not be mere prepatory acts
“Other than his own spontaneous desistance”
Over Act - desistance is rewarded
-physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a - could be through fear or remorse
particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if
carried to its complete termination following its natural course, The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary reference to crime intended to be committed, and has no
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into reference to crime actually committed by offender becore
a concrete offense desistance
(People v Lizada)
Preparatory acts and overt acts, distinguished A with intent to kill fired pistol at B but did not hit. A desisted from
Buying poison = preparatory act firing again. A is liable not for attempted homicide because he
Mixed poison with food = overt act desisted but for grave threats which was already committed before
desisting
Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homicide
(People v. Tabago) Subjective phase
Tabago was talking with Chief of Police, he made a motion to draw - attempt never passess subjective phase
pistol. Latter embraced him and prevented him from drawing his - beginning of commencement of acts and till when offender has
pistol. Tabago told two companions to fire but no one aimed at body. control
Accused cannot be convicted of attempted homicide.
● Attempted homicide = must fire with intent to kill at Frustrated Felony
offended party without inflicting mortal wound 1. Offender performs all acts of execution
2. All acts performed would produce felony as a consequence
Raising bolo as if to strike the offended with it is not an overt act 3. Felony is not produced
of homicide 4. Reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
(US v Simeon)
All that the accused did was to raise his bolo as if to strike but no “Performs all acts of execution”
blow was struck. If bolo was struck and there is intent to kill then that Nothing is left to be done
would be an overt act. Murder = dead means consummated alive means frustrated
The Supreme Court in certain cases has emphasized the belief
Overt act may not be by physical activity of the accused
Proposal consisting in making an offer of money to a public officer for (People v Sy Pio)
the purpose of corrupting him is the overt act in the crime of Accused went into store and fired at Sy who was hit fatally. Kiap was
corruption of public officer in store and asked why fire and accused fired at Kiap hitting in
shoulder. Kiap ran behind store to hide and accused fired more shots
The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime in different directions before running away. The wound of Kiap
intended to be committed by the offender healed in 20 days. Accused is only guilty of attempted murder
(People v Lamahang) because he did not perform all the acts of execution that the purpose
A was surprised by policeman while in the act of making opening at and intention to kill was not evident.
store of cheap goods. Owner of the store was sleeping inside. A was
only successful in opening one board. For robbery to take place frustrated because wound inflicted was mortal cases
intent to get things must be shown. Crime committed was attempted 1. (People v Honrada) stabbed in abdomen penetrating liver
trespass. and chest
2. (People v Mercado) left abdomen with shar weapon wound
Indeterminate offense in peritonial cavity
- purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. 3. (People v David) Firing revolver peforating lungs
“Directly by overt acts” Attempted because no mortal wound cases

Offender must personally commit act 1. (US v Bien) threw chinaman to deep water and man didnt
know how to swim and struck oar but was struck down by
“Does not perform all the acts of execution” people
There is more to be done 2. (People v Kalalo) Accused filed four shots to offended party
without hitting them
“By reason of some cause or accident” 3. (People v Domingo) 2 different doctors and 1 claimed
1. Cause - A pickpocket B but B grab A hand wounds are not serious enough to produce death
2. Accident - A shot B but gun was jammed 4. (People v Somera) head is merely grazed
7
Consummated Theft
“Would produce the felony as a consequence” (people v espiritu) accused removed from pile nine pieces of hospital
In murder, mortal wound is needed for frustrated and death is linen and took them to truck where found by MP guards when trying
needed for consummated to pass checkpoint
“Do not produce it” Frustrated Theft

Frustrated felonies acts performed do not produce felony (People v dino) truck loaded with stolen boxes of rifles was on the
way out of the checkpoint when MP guard discovered boxes on
“Independent of the will of the perpetrator” truck. Frustrated because of timely discovery of boxes
Third person intervention *because bulky*
Difference of frustrated and attempted
- both achieved criminal purpose Espiritu vs Dino cases distinguished
- frustrated: performed all acts of execution; attempted: merely 1. Espiritu - consummated because they were able to get hold of
commences commission by over acts linen
- frustrated: objective; attempted: subjective 2. Dino - frustrated because offender cannot dispose freely of articles
stolen
Difference from impossible crime *determinant factor - ability of offender to dispose freely of the
- Impossible crime: evil intent cannot be accomplished ; A or F: articles stolen, even if it were more or less mentarily
possible of accomplishment
- Impossible crime: inherently impossible or inadequate or ineffectual THERE IS NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED THEFT
means ; A or F: intervention of certain cause or accident (People v Obillo) Sigthed by security guard outside market hailing
pushcar with cases of detergent loading into taxi. Taxi was stopped
Consummated Felony by security guard and asked for receipt, accused fled on foot and
All elements necessary for execution and accomplishment are was caught. SC ruled consummated theft. Theft is produced when
present there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with
intent to gain. Free disposal does not matter.
When not all elements are proved
Homicide - death is essential Example of attempted theft
Taking personal property - intent to gain is essential (People v Dela Cruz) Accused found inside parked jeep of Captain
Estafa - deceit or abuse of confidence is required Parker an American MP. Jeeps padlock is forced open and lying
Robbery with violence against person - intent to gain is needed between the front seats and the gearshift was an iron bar. Accused
Forcible Abduction - lewd designs needed already commenced to carry felony it was timely arrival of MP that
stopped it.
3 Key determinants on what crime is
1. Nature of offense Example of attempted estafa
2. Elements constituting felony (US v Villanueva) accused fraudulently assumed authority to demand
3. Manner of committing felony for Bureau of Forestry when he noticed timber was cut in forest
without permit and used it for complainant’s house. Accused tried to
Nature of crime college P6.00 but complainant refused
Arson - Attempted when trying to light match, frustrated when there is
a blaze but house isnt burned, consummated when even a small part Examples of frustrated estafa
is burned (People v Gutierrez) Accused offered to give compainant a job as
office boy with salary of P25 but asked for P3.80 for xray exan.
Elements Constituting Felony Amount for Xray exam was false (P3.75) and police caught him
Theft - when thief is able to get hold of thing belonging to another (People v Castillo) accused made false pretenses apprehended
even if not carried away immediately after receiving money from complainant inside
-actual taking with intent to gain is enough compound of latter’s employer.
(US v Adiao) customs inspector abstracted leather belt from baggage
of japanese and placed it in his drawer. Lower court said frustrated Mere removal of personal property, not sufficient to
but SC said consummated consummate the crime of robbery by the use of force upon
Estafa - there must be damage or prejudice to offended party things
(US v Dominguez) salesman of education company. Recieved P7.50 (people v del rosario) culprits broke floor of bodega entered and
and put in his pocket. Frustrated estafa. No damage was caused removed sack of sugar from pile, but were caught while taking it out.
which is why its only frustrated
Estafa elements: 1) abuse of confidence 2) damage to offended party - In robbery with force upon things offender must also be able to take
it out to consummate crime.
8
- In robbery with violence offender must merely get hold of thing
Light Felonies
Element of intent to kill Infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto
(US Joven) stabbing and saying “Until i can kill you” is proof of intent menor (imprisonment of 1 day - 30 days) or a fine not exceeding
to kill P40,000, or both
(US v Maghirang) accused strook shoulder, injuries only because no
fatal part Examples
(Mondragon v People) fist blows signifies no intent to kill. 1. Slight Physical Injuries
(Pentecostes, Jr vs People) shooting once damaging non vital part 2. Theft
and not shooting again proves no intent to kill 3. Alteration of boundary marks
4. Malicious Mischief
Manner of committing crimes 5. Intriguing against honor
1. Formal crimes -consummated matic
a. Slander General Rule
b. False testimony Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
c. Marijuana sale (mere act of selling consummates crime) consummated
2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or overt act *Exception: committed against person or property even if attempted
a. Flight to enemy’s country - attempt to flee is consummated or frustrated
b. Corruption of minors - mere proposal consummates
offense Reason for General Rule
c. Treason - overt act itself consummates crime Light felonies produce such insignificant moral and material injuries
3. Felony by omission - no attempted stage that if not consummated, wrong done is so slight that there is no
4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them need for penalty
are consummated by mere agreement
a. Betting in sports contests Reason for Exception
b. Corruption of public officer Commission of felonies against person or property presupposes in
*(People v Quin) if money is returned by the offender moral depravity
official, frustrated bribery.
*(US v Te Tong) officer got it for Light felonies against Person/Property
evidence, attempted bribery 1. Slight physical Injury and maltreatment
5. Material Crimes - not consummated by one act (crimes with 3 2. Theft by hunting, fishing, or farming in closed estate or field where
stages) trespass is forbidden and value of thing stolen does not exceed P500
a. Consummated rape - accused lay on top of girl and there 3. Theft where value does not exceed P500 and offender was
was partial penetration of male organ in private part. Entry of labia or prompted by hunger, poverty, or difficulty earning livelihood
lips of female organ without rupture of hymen is generally sufficient to 4. Alteration of boundary marks
consummate crime (People v Hernandez) 5. Malicious Mischief (damage not more P40,000 or cannot be
b. Frustrated Rape - (people v erina) there was doubt whether estimated)
vagina was penetrated.
c. Attempted Rape - (Tibong v People) woman was “Art 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit felony - Conspiracy and
awakened when accused pulled out pajamas and mashed her proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases which the
breast. Woman escaped law specially provides a penalty therefor.
d. Consummated Homicide - (People v Sazon) Accused shot A conspiracy exists when two or more person come to an agreement
victim on forearm. Co accused stabbed victim in chest while accused concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
and victim grappling for gun. Consummated even if no mortal wound There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a
because there is conspiracy. felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons”
e. Attempted Homicide - (People vs Ramolete) wounds did
not affect vital organs and not mortal. He also warned victim before “Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony”
shooting 1. Conspiracy to commit felony
f. Frustrated Murder - (People v Mision) accused stabbed two 2. Proposal to commit felony
victims when about to close store. One died other recovered. Assault
on surviving victim was frustrated murder and Act was qualified by “Only in cases which the law specially provides a penalty
treachery. therefor”
Unless specific provision in RPC, conspiracy and proposal to commit
“Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable - light felonies are a felony is not a felony
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.” General Rule
9
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy
Exception: when law provides penalty - Elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Reason: conspiracy and proposal are preparatory acts - evidence of actual cooperation is needed
(People v Comadre) Comadre and Lozano did not have participation
Penalty in RPC for Conspiracy in commission of crime. Mere presence at scene of crime as well as
1. Treason: prision mayor + fine not exceeding 2M close relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish
2. Coup d’etat: prision mayor minimum period + fine not exceeding conspiracy. They performed no positive act in furtherance of crime.
1M Their act of running away with Antonio was not proven to be an act of
3. Rebellion or Insurrection: prision correccional maximum period + moral assistance to criminal act.
fine not exceeding 1M
4. Sedition: prision mayor medium period + fine not exceeding 400k Penalty in RPC for Proposal
1. Treason: prision correcional + fine not exceeding 1M
Indications of Conspiracy 2. Coup d’etat: prision mayor minimum period + fine not exceeding
There must be unity of purpose and unity in execution of unlawful 1M
objective 3. Rebellion or insurrection: prision correccional medium period + fine
note exceeding P400,000
People v Pugay
Facts: On the evening of the town fiesta in public plaza, the group of Requisites of Proposal
accused Pugay and Samson saw Miranda walking nearby and 1. Person has decided to commit a felony
started making fun of him. Pugay took can of gasoline and poured it 2. Proposes its execution to some other person or persons
to Miranda. Samson set Miranda on fire.
Held: nothing shows that there is previous conspiracy or unity of No Criminal Proposal when:
criminal purpose between two accused. Pugay merely wanted to 1. Person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony
make fun of Miranda. Each of the accused is liable for only the acts 2. No decided, concrete and formal proposal
committed by him. 3. Not the execution of felony that is proposed
Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and Proposal as an over act of corruption of public officer
reflection, not required in conspiracy One who offers money to a public officer to induce him not to perform
Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or his duties but offer is rejected is attempted bribery
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.
Crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are
Art 186 RPC punishing conspiracy against security
Penalty: prision correccional minimum period or fine P200,000 - Treason: external security
P600,000 Coup d’etat, rebellion and sedition: internal security
1. Any person enter into contract or take part in any conspiracy in the Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade: economic security
form of trust, in restraint of trade or commerce to prevent artifical
means of free competition in the market. Reason why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is
2. Any person being a manufacturer, producer shall conspire with any punishable in crimes against external and internal security of
person for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to unlawful State
commerce or increase market price of such merchandise. If culprit succeeds, he would obtain power and impunity from crime
committed
Requisites of Conspiracy
1. two or more persons agreed “Art 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies - Grave
2. Agreement concerned commission of felony felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment
3. Execution of felony be decided upon or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance
with Article 25 of this Code.
1st element - agreement presupposes meeting of the minds Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
2nd element - agreement must refer to commission of crime. which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with
Agreement to act, effect, bring about what has been conceived and the above mentioned article.
determined. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which
3rd element - Conspirators have made up their mind to commit crime the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 or both is
provided.”
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, and may be Classification of felonies
inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and According to their gravity. Gravity is determined by penalties attached
after commission of crime to them by law.
10
be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially
“To which the law attaches the capital punishment” provide the contrary.”
Capital punishment = death penalty
Not Applicable
“Or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive” (Grave Consummated, Frustrated, Attempted Felonies
Felonies) Accomplices
- When penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or Graduation of penalties
more distinct penalties, the higher must be an afflictive penalty Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
- If penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or maximum Applicable
period must be that of an afflictive penalty Subsidiary Imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay fine
- If penalty is composed of two periods of an afflictive penalty or two Principals (Art. 17)
periods corresponding to different afflictive penalties, the offense for Retroactive effect of Penal Laws (Art. 22)
which it is prescribed is a grave felony. Subsidiary Penalty (Art. 39)
Confiscation and forfeiture of proceeds or instruments of crime (Art.
Afflictive Penalties 45)
Reclusion Perpetua (20yrs1day -> 40 yrs)
Reclusion Temporal (12yrs1day -> 20 yrs) “Lex specialis derogant generali”
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification Special legal provisions prevail over general ones
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
Prision mayor (6yrs1day -> 12 yrs) “Special Laws”
- Penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by RPC
“Penalties in which their maximum period are correctional” - Statute enacted by the legislative branch, penal in character, which
(Less Grave Felonies) is not an amendment to the RPC
- When penalty prescribed for offense is composed of two or more - Special Laws usually follow the form of American Penal Law
distinct penalties, the higher of penalties must be correctional penalty
- If the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods RPC not suppletory when penalties under special laws are
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or maximum different from those under RPC
period must be that of correctional penalty When penalties under special law are different from the RPC. There
- If penalty prescribed is composed of two periods of a correctional can be no suppletory effect
penalty or two periods corresponding to different correctional
penalties, like destierro and arresto mayor, the offense for which it is People v Panida
prescribed is a less grave felony Crime of carnapping and penalty is 14 years and 8 months as
minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum. Court did not apply
Correctional penalties provisions of RPC as the anti carnapping law provides for its own
Prision correccional (6mos1day -> 6yrs) penalties which are distinct and without reference to RPC. Penalty
Arresto Mayor (1mos1day -> 6mos) imposed is indeterminate sentence.
Suspension
Destierro Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions of
this code related to attempted and frustrated crimes
“The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200” Attempted and frustrated stages are not applicable to offenses
(Light Felonies) governed by special laws.
- The Code provides a fine of exactly P40,000 for a commission of a
light felony. US v Basa
- If more than P40,000, it is a less grave felony. Supreme court held section 28 of municipal code “does not punish an
- Fine not exceeding P1,200,000 is a correctional penalty attempt to commit this crime” the attempted or frustrated stage of
- If fine is above P1,200,000 it is grave felony because fine execution of an offense penalized by a special law is not punishable
exceeding P1,200,000 is afflictive penalty unless special law provides punishment therefor.
*although article 26 provides fine not less than P40,000 is a People v Ngan Te
correctional penalty, article 9 which defines light felonies should “No merit for contention that appellant can be sentenced for a
prevail. frustrated violation of the Act of Congress by applying RPC”
“Art 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Article 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special special law.
laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall
11
Offense involved is punished by CA 466. Penalty imposed is clearly
intended only for the person who is found in possession of the Subsidiary Imprisonment for violation of BP 22
prohibited article. No punishment for a mere accomplice is provided. Accused is unable to pay fine imposed by trial court for violation of
BP 22, there is no obstacle to application of RPC provisions on
Special Law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated subsidiary imprisonment
crime
Special law has to fix attempt and penalty for attempt and penalty for Suppletory Application of RPC
frustration of the crime defined by it in order that the crime may be 1. Subsidiary Penalty - Revised Motor Vehicle Law
punished in case its commission reached only the attempted or 2. Civil Liability - Revised Motor Vehicle Law
frustrated stage of execution. 3. Rules on Service of Sentence - Dangerous Drugs Act
4. Definition on Principals, Accomplices and Accessories - Migrant
When special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime workers and Overseas Filipino Act
defined by it, attempted stage is punishable by penalty provided 5. Principle of Conspiracy - BP 22
by law
(People v Jollilife) Gold was found in accused body when he was Article 12, par 3 RPC applied to minor over nine but less 15
about to board plane. Any person desiring to export gold in any form years who violated special law
must obtain license from Central Bank. Desiring means attempting (People V. Navarro)
Girl 13 years 11 months and three days was prosecuted for selling
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances, not applied to offenses cocoa for P0.11 more than selling price fixed by government. State
punishable under special laws has burden to prove minor acted with discernment otherwise minor
- plea of guilty as mitigating circumstance is not available to offenses shall be criminally irresponsible because lack of intelligence. Intent is
punishable by special law not needed in mala prohibita but intelligence is needed.
- provision of RPC relative to application of circumstances modifying
the criminal liability of accused are not applicable to special laws Special Law amending RPC are subject to its provisions
- three periods when mitigating and aggravating circumstances PD 533 amendment to RPC in respect to offense of theft of large
attended the commission of crime, was held inapplicable to offenses cattle
penalized by special law
“Unless the latter should specially provide contrary”
No accessory penalty unless special law provided therefor BP 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of
Refused to impose accessory penalty because law does not provide provisions of RPC this in absence of contrary provision the general
for any provisions of RPC may be applied suppletorily
Special Law adopts penalties from RPC The circumstances affecting criminal liability
Indeterminate Sentence Law 1. Justifying Circumstance
Cases of illegal drugs 2. Exempting Circumstance
Illegal possession of firearm 3. Mitigating Circumstance
Sexual abuse of a child 4. Aggravating Circumstance
5. Alternative Circumstance
“Supplementary”
Supplying what is lacking Imputability
-quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or
Penal Code Provision that are perfectly applicable to special owner (act as his own done freely and conciously)
laws
1. Retroactive effect of laws Responsiblity
2. Participation of principals in commission of crime -obligation of suffering consequences of crime
3. Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay fine
4. Confiscation of instruments used in commission of a crime Guilt
-element of responsibility for a man cannot be made to answer for the
Indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment in PRC applied to consequences of a crime unless guilty
violation of Motor Vehicle Law
(People v Moreno) Justifying Circumstances
Accused drove a car in a reckless manner around curve leading to -act of a person that is in accordance with law
concrete bridge. He violentyl struck railing of bridge and crushed left -free from criminal and civil liability (except par 4)
side of car. Passenger on left side died. Special law has no provision
regarding indmnity to heirs of deceased and subsidiary imprisonment Art. 11 Justifying circumstances – The following do not incure any
in case of insolvency and RPC is applied. criminal liability:
12
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that
the following circumstances concur: Unlawful Aggression
First. Unlfawful agression; Second. Reasonable necessity of means -assualt or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent
employed to prevent or repel it kind
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person -peril to life, limb, right
defending himself. -cannot consist of oral threats or threatening stance
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person of rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers Peril to one’s life
or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and 1. actual – danger must be present
those by consaguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the (US v Laurel)
first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding Facts: Concepcion Lat was walking otw to house of Castillo
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the accompanied by several people. Laurel kissed her and ran off.
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making Concepcion’s companions including Castillo pursued Laurel but failed
defense had no part therein. to overtake him. 2 nights after Laurel was at an entertainment ath the
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, second floor of the parochial building and was invited to come out of
provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first the yard. He was asked why he kissed Concepcion. Castillo
circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending immediately struck a blow on the head with a cane and made which
be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. made Laurel dizzy and fall to the ground. Laurel feared his aggressor
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury does an act would continue to assault him, he took pocket knife and stabbed
which causes damage to another provided that the following Castillo and the mortal wound was to the left side of breast
requisites are present: penetrating lungs.
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Held: complete self defense of self with three requisites
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of 2. Imminent- Danger is on point of happening
preventing it. (People v Cabungcal)
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful Facts: Accused was on boat with 9 people most of which women.
exercise of a right or office. Juan Loquenario rocked the boat. Cabungcal asked Juan not to do it
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior but Juan disregarded and continued rocking boat. Cabungcal struck
for some lawful purpose. him with an oar and Juan fell in water. Juan then was trying to
capsize the boat and was threatening to so Cabungcal struck him
Burden of proof again. Juan died.
Incumbent upon accused Held: due to condition of river passengers would risk losing lives if it
capsized. Conduct of juan rocking boat and his insistence despite
Self defense accused warning him justifies accused separating him and first hit
-Defense of person or body or rights was only to disable him.
-right to life, property, honor
Peril to one’s limb
Reason why self defense lawful -if with deadly weapon and aimed at vital part (danger to life)
Classical: impossiblity on part of state to protect person unlawfully -if with less deadly weapon that causes minor physical injuries aimed
attacked at other parts of the body (danger to limb)
Positivist: an act of social justice to repel attack of aggression - peril to limb is peril to safety from physical injuries
Self defense requisites: There must be actual physical force or use of weapon
1. Unlawful aggression (sine qua non) -insulting words = not physical aggression
2. Reasonable neccessity of means employed to prevent or repel it -light push on head with hand = not physcial aggression
3. lack of sufficient provocation on part of the person defending -mere push or shove = not physical aggression
himself -slap on face = unlawful aggression because face represents dignity
- foot kicking greeting = not unlawful aggression (people v Sabio)
Kind of aggression
1.Lawful: exercise of a right or fulfillment of duty Retaliation is not self-defense
2.Unlawful: type of aggression needed Retaliation: aggression that was begun by injured party already
ceased to exist when accused attacked him
Article 249 New Civil Code -when lawful aggression ceases the defender no longer has right to
-owner of thing has right to exclude any person by using force kill or wound aggressor
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an unlawful physical - it must be simultaneous or else its considered retaliation
invasion of his property.
13
Public officer exceeding authority may become unlawful *Article 429 – defense of property can be invoked only when it is
aggressor coupled with an attack on the person
-provincial sheriff exceeded authority taking against will of debtor 3. Defense of home
personal property with sentimental value even if other personal *entering to one house armed is unlawful agression
property were available
-resist using force to officer without order There is self defense even if aggressor used toy pistol provided
accused believed it was real gun
Nature, character, location, and extend of wound of the accused
allegedly inflicted by injured party may belie claim of self Unlawful aggression need to have outward and material
defense agression
1.The accused claiming small scar: not meet requirement Not merely threatening or intimidating attitude
2. Location, number of seriousness of stab wounds inflicted on
victimes belie claim of self defense Examples of threats to inflict real injury
3. nature, character, location and extent of wounds suffered by 1. aims revolver with intention to shoot
deceased belie supposition that it was deceased who was unlawful 2. placing hands in pocket with a motion indicating assault with
aggressor. weapon
4. Appellant’s theory of self defense is negatived by the nature and 3. opening a knife and making motion to attack
location of the victims wounds
5. Number of wounds of deceased When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is
6. accused was only eyewitness to crime sufficient unlawful aggression
-Improbability of deceased being aggressor belies the claim of self
defense Second Requisite: Reasonable necessity of means employed to
-accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a prevent or repel it.
policeman is inconsistent with plea of self defense
-physical fact may determind whether accused acted in self defense Circumstances
1. Necessity of course of action taken
When aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists 1a Place and occassion of the assault
(People v Alongca) 1b Darkness of night and surprise
Facts: deceased was banker in blackjack game. Accused posted
himself behind deceased acting as spotter. Deceased gave a blow When aggressor is disarmed
with a pinggahan to accused. Accused fired with revolver. Hand to If fight continues = valid
hand combat ensued with deceased dagger and accused bolo. If refusal to fight = not justifiable
Deceased ran away but was follow by accused slashing a mortal
blow to cranium of deceased. When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after unlawful
Held: Alongca was no longer acting in self defense when he went aggression ceased to exist there is still self defense if mortal wounds
after deceased. were inflicted
Retreat to take more advantegeous position Person defending is not expected to control his blow
Unlawful aggression is still continuing
2. Necessity of means used – must be rationably necessary
No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight No rational necessity to employ means used
1. No unlawful aggression in concerted fight 2a. Sleeping woman woken up and stabbed person
2. There is agreement to fight 2b. Attacked with fist blows then retaliate with dagger
3. Challenge to fight must be accepted 2c. Placed thigh on upper thigh in churce
*Agression which is ahead of stipulated time and place is unlawful
*One who voluntarily joined fight cannot claim self defense Test of reasonableness of means used
*Rule now is “stand ground when in right” 1. nature and quality of weapon
Ancient common law rule = retreat to wall 1a. Knife against club – allowed
New rule = “stand ground when in right” 1b. Firearm against knife – allowed
1c. Pocketknife v cane - allowed
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights 1d. Gun against bolo - allowed
1. Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to chastity 1e. Bolo against stick - allowed
*embracing touching private and throwing 1f. Fist blows – with fists also
* holding hand on upper thigh 2. physcial condition, character, size
2. Defense of property 2.a cornered by bigger men
2b. Aggressor was bully
14
3. Place of occassion of assault “That evil sought to be avoided actually exists”
If merely anticipated then it is not applicable
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
unlawful aggression is liberally construed in favor of law abiding “That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it”
citizens The instinct of self preservation will always prevail
Peace officer rule “greater evil should not be brought about by negligence or
Requires him to overcome opponent imprudence of the actor”
Cases in which third requisite of self defense is present Examples of damage to property under paragraph 4
1. No provocation at all 1. Fire breaks out in nipa houses and to prevent it nipa house is
2. Provocation was not sufficient taken down
3. Provocation was not given by person defending himself 2. Burning truck was moved to another house to prevent exploding in
4. Provocation was not proximate and immediate act of aggression gas station
3. ship heavily loaded with goods was in danger of sinking so goods
Battered woman syndrome were thrown into ocean
VAWC
1. Tension building phase “evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a
2. Acute battering incident violation of law by actor”
3. Tranquil loving phase
“there is civil liability under paragraph 4 of justifying
Flight is incompatible with self defense circumstances”
Relatives that can be defended Par 5 – Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
Spouse, Ascendants, desscendants, legitimate natural or adopted
brotehrs and sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degree, Requisites:
relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree 1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office
Affinity = by marriage 2. Injury caused or the offense commited be the necessary
Consaguinity = blood consequence of the due performance of duty or lawful exercise of
right or office
Requisites of unlawful aggression in defense of relatives
1. Unlawful aggression Fullfillment of Duty
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it (People v Felipe Delima)
3. In case provocation was given by person attacked, that the one Facts: Napilon escaped from jail where he was serving sentence.
making defense had no part therein. Policeman Delima found him in the house of Alegria armed with a
pointed piece of bamboo and stroked at him. Policeman dodged it
Requisites of defense of stranger and fired his revolver. Napilon ran away without parting with this
1. Unlawful aggression weapon and peace officer ran after him then shot.
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it Held: killing was done in performance of duty so act of De Lima was
3. Person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other justified.
evil motive
Shooting of prisoner by guard must be in self defense or be
absolutely necessary to avoid his escape
Par 4 – avoidance fo greater evil or injury (People v Lagata)
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or unjury, does an act Facts: guard called his order to assemble, one of the prisoners was
which causes damage to another, provided that the following missing so he ordered others to look for him. Prisoners scampered
requisites are present: and guard fired at two of the prisoners wounding one and killing the
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists other.
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it Held: Prisoner who was killid was not escaping or running away
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of when he was shot by the guard. A guard is only justified in shooting
preventing it an escaping prisoner.
“Damage to another” *Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified

Covers injury to person or property *Shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified
15
*Fulfillment of duty to prevent the escape of a prisoner is different 3. Intent
from self-defense, because they are based on different principles
Art 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability – The
Lawful exercise of right or office following are exempt from criminal liability:
Of right – owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. He a lucid interval.
may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or When the imbecile or an insane person has committed and act which
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
usurpation of his property. confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
Doctrine of self help without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
(People v Depante) 2. A person under 15 years of age
Facts: Depante was in Chinese store holding 5 peso bill. Paciencia 3. A person over 15 years of age and under 18 unless he has acted
his querida saw him and tried to grab 5 peso bill. Mariano gave her with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded
fist blows on forehead knowcking her down against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code
Held: Act of Paciencia in grabbing 5 peso bill an attempted robbery. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the
Only theft swindling and malicious mischief cannot be commited by a court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding
wife against her husband. However fist blows were not reasonable paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
necessity of means employed to prevent or repel. who shall be charged with his surveillance and education; otherwise,
he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person
Mere disturbance of possession mentioned in said Article 80.
Force may be used against it at any time as long as it continues even 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
beyond prescriptive period for an action of forcible entry causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it
Invasion, however, consists of real dispossession 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
Delay even if excusable such as when due to the ignorance of the 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
dispossession will bar the right to the use of force of an equal of greater injury
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
Par 6 – obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
Requisites: Exempting circumstances

1. Order has been issued by a superior Commits a crime but no criminal liability arises
2. order must be for some lawful purpose *burden of proof lies in defendant
3. means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
Imbecility distinguished from insanity
*Both person who gives the order and person who executes it must Imbecile – exempt in all cases
be acting within limitations prescribed by law Insane – not so exempt if acted in lucid interval
Imbecile – has mental development comparable to that of children
When order is not for lawful purpose, the subordinate who between two and seven years of age.
obeyed it is criminally liable
1. One who prepared a falsified document with full knowledge of How much evidence necessary to overthrow presumption of
falsity sanity
2. Solider tortured to death deceased. Torture is illegal Circumstantial evidence if clear and convincing
*subordinate is not liable for carrying out illegal order if he is not Insanity at time of commission – exempt
aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent. Insanity at time of trial but sane at commission – not
Exempting circumstances Evidence of insanity

Refer to time preceding act under prosecution or to the very moment
Definition: grounds for exemption from punishment because there is of its execution
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make
the act voluntary or negligent *insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature
*show that the defendant had lucid intervals – presumption that
Basis: based on complete absence of offense was committed in one of them
1. Intelligence *adjudged insane or committed to a hospital or asylum – presumed
2. Freedom of action to continue to be insane
16
- exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from
When defense of insanity is not credible civil liability
1. Appellant was able to recall incidents
2. Remembered a week before of specific acts done Periods of criminal responsibility
3. Exhibited remorse 1. Age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below (infancy)
4. could distinguish between right and wrong 2. Age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
5. recalled taking medicine 3. Age of full responsibility - 18 years or over to 70
4. Age of mitigated responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
Dementia praecox is covered by insanity offender acting with discernment; over 70
Form of psychosis *Senility – age over 70 years is only a mitigated responsibility
Schizophrenia: chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy and reality Child in conflict of law
At the time of the commission of the offense is below 18 years but
Kleptomania not the less than 15 years and one day.
-must be investigated by competent alienist or psychiatrist to
determine whether impulse to steal is irresistible or not Discernment
Capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to
Epilepsy understand the differences between right and wrong and the
Chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals, consequences of the wrongful act
attended by convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of
consciousness. Determination of discernment
*if under epileptic fit = exempt from criminal liability Ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the
Feeblemindedness wrongful act
Not exempting because offender could still distinguish between right
and wrong Discernment and Intent distinguished
Intent: desired act of person
Pedophilia Discernment: moral significance that a person ascribes to the said
Not exempting act
Amnesia Discernment may be shown by:

No defense to criminal charge unless proof that the accused did not 1. Manner of committing crime
know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong 2. Conduct of offender
Other cases of lack of intelligence Presumption of minority

1. Committing a crime while in a dream Child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority
*somnambulism or sleepwalking
2. Hypnotism – still debatable Determination of age
3. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria 1. Original or certified true copy of birth certificate
2. Baptismal certificates or school records
Basis of paragraph 1 3. testimony of child, member of family
Complete absence of intelligence 4. physical appearance of child and other relevant evidence shall
suffice
Par 2 – a person under 15 years of age
Burden of proof of age
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 Person alleging the age of child in conflict with law has burden of
Raised age of absolute irresponsibility from 9 years to 15 years. proving the age of such child
*child shall be subject to an intervention program
*Intent to kill is a sufficient allegation of discernment
Basis of paragraph 2
Complete absence of intelligence Basis of paragraph 3
Complete absence of intelligence
Paragraph 3 impliedly repealed by RA 9344
- child above 15 but below 18 exempt from criminal liability and Par 4 – any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
subjected to intervention program unless acted with discernment. causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it
17
Elements:
Elements: 1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
1. Person is performing Lawful Act 2. Physical force must be irresistible
2. With due care 3. Physical force must come from a third person
3. Causes injury by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it Irresistible: must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in
spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as
Striking another with a gun in self defense even if it fired and such, incapable of committing a crime.
seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act
No compulsion of irresistible force
*act of drawing weapon in course of quarrel not being in self defense - pretension of accused that he was threatened with a gun by the
is unlawful – light threat mastermind is not credible when he himself is armed with a rifle
*irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion or
Examples of accident obsfuscation
(US v Tañedo)
Facts: accused while hunting saw wild chickens and fired a shot. The Basis of paragraph 5
slug recoiled and struct tenant who was relative of accused Complete absence of freedom
Held: if life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the
performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without Par. 6 – any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable
intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. fear of an equal or greater injury
Accident Elements:
Something that happens outside the sway of our will 1. threat which causes fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal
*if consequences are foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence to that which he is required to commit
2. Promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong man would have succumbed to it
done
Uncontrollable fear requisites:
Accident and negligence, intrinsically contradictory 1. Existence of uncontrollable fear
Accident: fortuitive circumstance, event or happening and event 2. Fear must be real and imminent
happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or 3. fear of injury is greater than or equal to committed
partly through human agency, an event which under the
circumstance is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it Nature of Duress as valid defense
happens Duress: based on real imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or
Negligence: failure to observe for the protection of the interest of limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
the circumstances justly demand without which such other person Accused must not have opportunity threat of future injury is not
suffers injury. enough
- compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to
*accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory the accused for escape or self defense in equal combat
-Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run
When claim of accident not appreciated away if he had wanted to or to resist any possible aggression
1. Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by mere accident because he was also armed
2. Accidental shooting is negated by threatening words preceding it - Command of Hukbalahap killers as cause of uncontrollable fear
and aiming gun at prostrate body of victim instead of immediately - In treason: nothing will excuse the act of joining an enemy but fear
helping him of immediate death
3. 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 Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear
distance - fear of a member of the Huk movement to disobey or refuse to carry
out orders of the organization, in the absence of proof of actual,
Basis of paragraph 4 physical or moral compulsion to act, is not sufficient to exempt the
Lack of negligence and intent accused from criminal liability.
Par. 5 – any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible Real, imminent or reasonable fear
force -Duress as valid defense: threat of future injury is not enough.
18
Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
Irresistible force: offender uses violence or physical force to compel immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
another person to commit a crime injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Uncontrollable fear: offender employs intimidation or threat in *if he shall inflict physical injuries, he shall be exempt from
compelling another to commit a crime punishment
5. Art. 280, par 3 – (on trespass to dwelling) not applicable to any
Basis of paragraph 6. person who shall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose of
“actus me invite factus non est meus actus”: an act done by me preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the
against my will is not my act dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person
- complete absence of freedom who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service
to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns,
Par 7. – Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, inns and other public houses while the same are open.
when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause 6. Art. 332 – Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal but
only civil, liability shall result from the commission of the crime of
Elements: theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually
1. Act is required by law to be done by the following persons:
2. Person fails to perform such act a. Spouses, ascendants, descendants, or relatives by affinity in the
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable same line
cause b. Widowed spouse with respect to property which belonged to
deceased spouse before same shall have passed into possession of
When prevented by some lawful cause examples: another
1. Municipal president detained offended party for three days to take c. Brothers and sisters and in B and S in Laws if living together
him to nearest justice of the peace required a journey of three days 7. Art. 344, par 4 – Cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
2. Mother who at time of childbirth was overcome by severe dizziness lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the
and extreme debility and left the child in a thicket where child died offended party shall extinguish criminal action or remit the penalty
already imposed upon him. Provisions of this paragraph shall also be
Basis of paragraph 7. applicable to co principals, accomplices and accessories after the
Acts without intent fact of the above mentioned crimes
8. Instigation is an absolutory cause
Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstance *entrapment is not
1. justifying circumstance: does not transgress the law, he doest not
commit any crime Entrapment and Instigation distinguished
2. Exempting circumstance: there is a crime but no criminal liability Instigation: public officer or private detective induces an innocent
*there is civil liability except in paragraph 4 and 7 person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the
commission of the crime by the latter
Absolutory Causes Entrapment: person has planned, or is about to commit, a crime and
- Acts committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch
sentiment there is no penalty imposed. the criminal
1. Art 6 – spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced *instigation must be made by public officers or private detectives, if
the commission of a felony before he could perform all acts of made by private individual (both are liable)
execution *assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person
2. Art 20 - accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. from criminal liability
Penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, Complete defenses in criminal cases
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, 1. any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single by the prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any
exception of accessories falling with to provisions of “by profiting crime
themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the 2. act of accused fall under justifying circumstances
crime” 3. case falls exempting circumstance
3. Art. 124, last paragraph – The commission of a crime, or violent 4. case covered by absolutory causes
insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of a. spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art 6)
the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against
detention of any person persons or property (Art 7)
4. Art 247, pars 1 and 2 – Death or physical injuries inflicted under c. Accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20)
exceptional circumstances. Any legally married person who, having d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Art 124)
surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with e. Legal grounds for trespass (Art 280)
19
f. Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against Not offset by an aggravating Produces the effect of
relative (Art 332) circumstance, produces only the imposing upon the offender
g. When only slight or less serious physical injury are inflicted by the effect of applying the penalty the penalty lower by one or
persons who surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of sexual
provided by law for the crime in its two degrees than that
intercourse with another person (art 247)
minimum period (in case of divisible provided by law for the crime
h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime
committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness penalty)
(Art 344) *Mitigating Circumstance reduces penalty but does not change
i. Instigation nature of crime
5. Guilt of accused not established beyond reasonable doubt
6. Prescription of crimes ART 13 Mitigating Circumstances. – the following are mitigating
7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal circumstances
action in crime against chastity.
Par 1. – Those mentioned in the preceding chapter when all the
Mitigating Circumstances requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal
- Do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to liability in their respective cases are not attendant
reduce the penalty
- Based on diminution of either freedom, intelligence, intent, lesser “Those mentioned in the preceding chapter”
perversity of offender In reference to 1. Justifying circumstance 2. Exempting Circumstance
Classes of mitigating circumstances Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give

1. Ordinary Mitigating – those enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 of place to mitigating
Art 13 1. Self Defense (Art. 11 par 1)
2. Privileged Mitigating 2. Defense of relatives (Art 11 par 2)
a. Art 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of 3. Defense of stranger (Art 11 par 3)
age. 4. State of Necessity (Art 11 par 4)
- person under 15, and person over 15 but less than 18 5. Performance of duty (Art 11 par 5)
who acts without discernment are exempt from criminal liability 6. Obedience to order (Art 11 par 6)
- person over 15 and under 18 who acted with discernment, 7. Minority above 15 but below 18 (RA 9344)
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law is imposed 8. Causing injury by mere accident (Art 12 par 4)
b. Art 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not 9. Uncontrollable fear (Art 12 par 6)
wholly excusable – penalty lower by one or two degrees than that *Art 12 Par 1,2 = no mitigation because condition of person is
prescribed by law if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of indivisible
lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability (provided that majority of such When all the requisites necessary to justify the act are not
conditions are present) attendant
c. Art 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three 1. Incomplete self defense, defense of relatives, defense of stranger
periods – when there are two or more mitigating circumstances and - unlawful aggression must be present and either of other two are not
no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the - If two of three requisites are present (privileged mitigating
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may circumstance)
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such 2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or
circumstance injury
- justifying circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in
Privileged mitigating circumstance applicable only to particular paragraph 4 are present but any of last two is absent then mitigating
crimes 3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty
1. voluntary release of the person illegally detained within three days - Ordinary mitigating when has two requisites only
without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of 4. Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order
criminal action (penalty is one degree lower)
2. Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed When all the requisites necessary to exempt from criminal
adultery (penalty is one degree lower) liability are not attendant
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and under
Distinction 18
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING - minor over 15 and under 18 acting with discernment
Susceptible of being offset by any Cannot be offset by 2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident
- if 2nd requisite and the 1st part of the 4th requisite are absent, falls
aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance
under article 365 punishes felony by negligence or imprudence
20
- if 1st requisite and 2nd part of 4th requisite are absent, it will be Duty of the Punong Barangay or Law Enforcement Officer when
intentional felony there is no diversion
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear 1. Punong Barangay – within 3 days forward to law enforcement
- if only one is present, only a mitigating circumstance officer or prosecutor or appropriate courts
2. Law enforcement Officer – forward to prosecutor or judge
Par 2. – That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over (document shall display word “CHILD” in bold letters)
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic
mitigating circumstance
Right of a Minor 1. Committed an offense punishable by death (penalty shall not be
1. Right to Bail imposed)
2. Automatic Suspension of Sentence 2. Death sentence already imposed (shall be suspended and
3. Credit in Service commuted)
4. Probation as an alternative to imprisonment
5. No Death Sentence Basis of Paragraph 2
6. Release on Recognizance Diminution of intelligence
7. Diversion Program
Par. 3 – That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a
Par 2, Art 13 of RPC impliedly repealed by RA 9344 wrong as that committed
- child above 15 years but below 18 shall be exempt from criminal
liability unless acted with discernment Rule for the application of this paragraph
- child will undergo diversion programs Notable and evident disproportion between means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences
Diversion
Alternative, child appropriate process of determining the Intention must be judged by external acts
responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the - Intention is an internal act
basis of his/her social, culture, economic, psychological, or - Judged if blow is on a vital part of body
educational background without resulting to formal court proceedings - if allowed victim to secure medical treatment
1. Weapon used
Diversion Program 2. Injury inflicted
Program that child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after 3. Attitude of mind
he/she is found responsibly for an offense without resorting to formal *applicable to intention of offender at particular moment when he
court proceedings executes or commits the criminal act; not to his intention during
planning stage
System of Diversion
1. Penalty for crime committed is not more than 6 years Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, mitigating in
imprisonment – law enforcement office shall conduct mediation, robbery with homicide
family conferencing and conciliation and, adopt indigenous modes of
conflict resolution in accordance with the best interest of the child. Murder is based on manner of commission not on state of mind
Childs family shall be present in all activities - no incompatibility between evident premeditation or treachery,
2. Victimless crimes where imposable penalty is not more than six which refers to manner of committing the crime, and this mitigating
years of imprisonment – local social welfare shall meet with child and circumstance
parents for development of appropriate diversion and rehabilitation
program, in coordination with Brgy Council for Protection of Children Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery
3. Imposable penalty for crime exceed six years imprisonment – - lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is not appreciated
Diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court where the offense committed is characterized by treachery
Conferencing, Mediation, and Conciliation Lack of intent to kill, not mitigating in physical injuries
A child in conflict with the law may undergo conferencing, mediation - if victim dies, fact that physical injuries he inflicted on victim could
or conciliation outside the criminal justice system or prior to his entry not have resulted naturally and logically in the actual death of victim
into the said system mitigates it.
Where Diversion may be conducted Not applicable to felonies by negligence

KatarungangPambarangay - felonies through negligence, offender acts without intent
21
Not applicable to felonies where intention of offender is -threat should not be offensive and positively strong
immaterial - Vague threats not sufficient
Unintentional Abortion Sufficient Not sufficient
“follow us if you darte and we will kill “If you do not agree,
Applicable only to offenses resulting in physical injuries or you” beware”
material harm
- not appreciated in defamation or slander
Basis of par 4
- Applied to malversation of public funds
Diminution of intelligence and intent
Basis of paragraph 3
Par. 5. – That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of
Intent is diminished
a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
Par. 4. – That sufficient provation or threat on the part of the offended
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
party immediately preceded the act
Requisites:
Provocation
1. Grave offense done to above mentioned persons
Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable
2. Felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense (lapse of
of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one
time is allowed)
1. must be sufficient
*affinity survives death of spouse
*sufficient: adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and
A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the
must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity
vindication
2. originate from offended party
- immediate is not correct translation (proxima is)
3. must be immediate to the act
Interval of time negating vindication
Examples of sufficient provocation
1. 9 months before the killing, deceased boxed the accused
1. aggression is in retaliation for an insult
2. “nagiistambaypala ditto angmagnanakaw” 11:00 in the morning.
2. deceasedill treated accused by kicking and cursing latter
Killed at 5pm
3. accused saw an unknown person jump out the window and wife
3. accused stabbed victim 2 monhs after he said daughter is a flirt
begged for his pardon
4. there was no unlawful aggression because challenge was
Provocation vs Vindication
accepted but there is immediate provocation
5. sufficient provocation on part of the victim PROVOCATION VINDICATION
Made directly to the person Grave offense may be committed
*provocation must come from offended party committing the felony also against the offender’s
relatives
Provocation held not sufficient Cause that brought about the Offended party must have done a
1. injured party asked accused for explanation for derogatory provocation need not be grave grave offense to the offender or
remarks
offense his relatives
2. “don’t you know we are watching for honeymooners here?”
3. public officer ordered arrest of accused Necessary that immediately Proximate: admits interval of time
4. Blowing of horns, cutting of lanes, and overtaking preceded the act
*difference in vindication is because it concerns honor of person
Difference between sufficient provocation as requisite of *killing a relative is a grave offense
incomplete self defense and as mitigating circumstance *Provocation should be proportionate to the damage cause by act
Element of Self Defense Mitigating Circumstance and adequate to stir one to its commission
Absence on part of the person Presence on part of the *Vindication of grave offense and passion and obfuscation cannot be
defending himself offended party counted separately and independently
*provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not a
Basis to determine gravity of offense in vindication
mitigating circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled
1. Social Standing
2. Place
Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime
3. Time
Between the provocation by the offended party and the commission
of the crime by the person provoked, there should not be any interval
Considered Grave offense:
of time
1. Place: remark of injured party before the guests that accused lived
at expense of his wife
Threat immediately preceded the act
22
2. Time: “you are a Japanese spy” Passion and obfuscation need not be felt only in the seconds before
3. Attempt against wife (vindication of wifes honor) the commission of the crime
4. killing relative
5. Elopement Passion and obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments
1. US v Hicks: mitigating cannot be considered in his favour because
Basis of par 5 the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self
Diminution of the condition of voluntariness control re such which originate from legitimate feelings and not those
which arise from immoral passions. (Accused and deceased lived
illicitly)
Par. 6. – That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as 2. Accused killed common law wife after discovering in carnal
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation communication with common acquaintance. Accused was entitled to
mitigating because the impulse was caused by the sudden revelation
Requirements: that she was untrue to him and his discovery of her in flagrante in the
1. Accused acted upon an impulse arms of another
2. impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or 3. People v engay: common law wife lived with deceased for 15
obfuscation years. Later deceased married another woman. Mitigating was
considered
Why passion and obfuscation is mitigating 4. Mitigating applied to woman was abandoned and abused by
Loses self control, diminishing exercise of will power husband
5. Rejection of proposal cannot be properly qualified as arising from
Rule for application of paragraph immoral and unworthy passions
Must arise from lawful sentiments 6. Parents objected to them getting married (not mitigating)
*circumstance of passion and obfuscation not mitigating when
No mitigating circumstance when accused acted in spirit of lawlessness or revenge
1. committed in spirit of lawlessness *rape is not considered as passion
2. committed in spirit of revenge *Excitement in persons engaged in fight is not considered so
powerful to produce obfuscation
Requisites: *Passion or obfuscation could rise from honest belief of offender
1. unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind
2.act was not far removed for a considerable length of time which the Obfuscation arising from jealousy
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity - cannot be invoked in favour of accused whose relationship with
woman was illegitimate
Act of offended party must be unlawful or unjust by deceased - mitigating when arising out of rivalry for the hand of a woman
MITIGATING NOT MITIGATING
Wife refused to go home Common law wife refused to go home
with accused with accused Basis of par 6
diminution of intelligence and intent
Shooting person who Taking carabao because of exercise of
stole carabao right Provocation and obfuscation arising from same cause should be
Creating trouble during Mother reprimanding accused for treated as one mitigating circumstance
wake indecently converting bedroom to sex den
Boxing 4 year old son Policeman came to arrest Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and
*self control was trivial and slight = not mitigating obfuscation
*except when there are other facts closely connected
No passion or obfuscation after considerable length of time Elopement = grave offense
- defense must prove that the act which produced passion or Refusal to deal with him = passion and obfuscation
obfuscation took place at a time not far removed from the
commission of the crime Passion and obfuscation compatible with lack of intention to
- The crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of commit so grave a wrong
natural and uncontrollable fury
*Obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which was planned and Passion or obfuscation incompatible with treachery
calmly meditated or if the impulse upon which the accused acted was
deliberately formented by him for a considerable period of time Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with evident
*Vengeance is not a lawful sentiment premeditation
Passion and obfuscation may build up Passion and obfuscation distinguished from irresistible force
23
Passion or Obfuscation Irresistible Force *Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for
Mitigating Exempting which defendant is prosecuted
*Surrender could be through intermediary
Cannot give rise to irresistible force Requires physical force
Is in offender himself Must come from third person Cases not constituting voluntary surrender
Must arise from lawful sentiment Is unlawful 1. warrant of arrest shows accused is arrested
2. Surrendered only after warrant was served upon him
Passion and obfuscation distinguished from provocation 3. Arrested by own admission or he yielded because of warrant
Passion or Obfuscation Provocation 4. Accused went into hiding and surrendered only when realized that
Produced by an impulse which may be Comes from injured the forces were closing in on him
caused by provocation party 5. When they knew they were completely surrounded and there was
no chance of escape
need not be immediate Immediate
6. Search for accused lasted four years
Effect is loss of reason and self control 7. No other evidence other than accused version in court of voluntary
surrender
Par. 7 – That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a 8. accused only went to police station to report another incident
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed 9. Accused did not send for police to give himself up
his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the 10. Accused pretended to be otw to municipal building when caught
prosecution *Surrender of weapons cannot be equated to voluntary surrender
*Surrender is not voluntary when forced by circumstances
Two mitigating circumstances provided:
1. Voluntary surrender to person in authority or his agents Person in authority
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the - one directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern
presentation of evidence for prosecution and to execute laws, whether as an individual, or as a member of
*effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances some court or governmental corporation, board or commission
- barrio captain and brgy chairman
Requisites of voluntary surrender:
1. Offender had not been actually arrested Agent of authority
2. Offender surrendered to a person person in authority or agent - one who, by direct provision of the law, or by election, or by
3. Surrender was voluntary appointment by competent authority is charged with maintenance of
public order and protection and security of life and property and any
Requisites for voluntariness person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
* Spontaneous
- acknowledged guilt Time and Place of surrender
- save trouble and expenses necessarily incurred - RPC does not make any distinction among the various moments
in his search and capture when the surrender may occur
Cases of voluntary surrender Requisites of plea of guilty

1. Ran toward municipal building “Here is my bolo i stabbed the 1. Spontaneously confessed guilt
victim” 2. Confession of guilt was made in open court
2. Fled to hotel not to hid from authorities but from companions of 3. Confession of guilt was made prior to presentation of evidence for
deceased. When policeman came he readily admitted ownership of prosecution
weapon and went with them *plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating
3. accused having all the opportunity to escape, did not and called *Plea of guilty at preliminary investigation is no plea at all
police. Voluntarily approached them without revealing identity *Conditional plea is not mitigating
4. Left scene of crime but made several attempts to surrender to *Death penalty changed to life imprisonment because plea of guilty
local officials (was able to surrender after a week) even if done during presentation of evidence
5. Accused did not offer any resistance or try to hid when policeman *accused is entitled to plea of guilty on amended information
ordered him to come to his house *Plea of guilt to lesser offense is not mitigating
6. Accused trooped to police headquarter to surrender the firearm *not mitigating in culpable felonies and crimes punished by special
used in committing crime law
7. Nothing on record to show warrant of arrest had been served and
there was evidence he voluntarily went to police. Competent Court
*Law does not require that surrender be prior to order of arrest One with jurisdiction over offense
*Voluntary surrender does not mean non flight
Guidelines of Searching Inquiry
24
1. Ascertain from accused himself
a. how he was brought into custody of law Par 10 – and finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and
b. whether he had assistance of competent council during custodial analogous to those abovementioned
and preliminary investigation
c. under what condition he was detained and interrogated during 1. Over 60 years with failing sight, similar to over 70 years in par 2
investigation 2. Outraged feeling of animal taken for ransom analogous to
2. ask defense counsel if he had conferred with and explained to vindication of grave offense
accused the meaning and consequences of plea of guilt 3. Impulse of jealous feeling similar to passion and obfuscation
3. Elicit information about personality profile of accused 4. Manifestations of battered wife syndrome, analogous to illness that
4. Inform accused of exact length of imprisonment or nature of diminishes exercise of willpower
penalty under the law and certainty that he will serve such sentence. 5. Esprit de corps, similar to passion and obfuscation
5. Inquire if accused knows the crime which he is charged to and full 6. Voluntary restitution of stolen property, similar to voluntary
explain the element of the crime which is the basis of indictment surrender
6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language 7. Extreme poverty, incomplete justification on state of necessity
understood 8. Testifying for prosecution, analogous to plea of guilt
7. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or re-enact
crime or furnish its missing details Not analogous mitigating
1. killing wrong man
Reason why plea of guilty is mitigating 2. Parricide
Indicates moral disposition favourable to reform 3. Not resisting arrest
4. Condition of running amuck
Basis of par 7
Lesser perversity of offender Mitigating circumstances which are personal to offenders
1. From moral attributes of offender
Par. 8. – That the offender is deaf, and dumb, blind or othwerwise 2. Private relations with offended party
suffering from some physical defect which thus restricts his means of 3. Any other personal cause
action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings *only serve to mitigate liability of person whom such circumstance is
attendant
Physical defect
Armless, cripple, stutterer Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating
Means to act, defend himself, or communicate with fellow beings are 1. Mistake in blow
limited 2. Mistake in identity
*law does not distinguish between educated and uneducated 3. Entrapment
4. Over 18 years
Basis of par 8 5. Performance of righteous action (killing one to save thousand)
Diminution of voluntariness
Par. 9. – Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise Aggravating Circumstances
of willpower of the offender without however depriving him of Definition: serve to increase penalty wihtout exceeding the maximum
consciousness of his acts. of the penalty provided by law for the offense
Basis: greater perversity of offender
Requisites: Shown by: 1) motivating power 2) place of commission 3)means and
1. Illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will power ways employed 4) time 5) personal circumstances of offender or
2. Illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his act offended party
*refers only to diseases of pathological state that trouble conscience
or will Four kinds of aggravating circumstances
*illness of mind is included 1. Generic – applicable to all
Ex: dewilling, nighttime, recidivism
Illness of the offender considered mitigating 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19,20, except “by means of motor vehicles”
1. belief of witches 2. Specific – apply only to particular crimes
2. Mild behaviour disorder Ex: 1) ignominy in crimes against chasity 2) treachery in crimes
3. Feeble mindedness against persons
4. Schizo – affective disorder 15,16,17,21
3. Qualifying – change the nature of crime
Basis of par 9 Ex: Alevosia or evident premeditation
Diminution of intelligence and intent
25
4. Inhenrent – those must of necessirt accompany the commission
of the crime “advantage to be taken by offender of his public position”
Ex: evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafe, Public officer must use influence, prestige or ascendancy which his
adultery, and concubinage office gives him as the means by which he realizes person
*not present when Congressman offerered resistance to peace
Qualifying distinguished from generic officer
QUALIFYING GENERIC *there must be proof that accused took advantage of public position
Not only give the crime its proper Not offset by any mitigating, - aggravating circumstance is present when councilor collects fines
and exclusive name but also palce is to increase the penalty and misappropriates them
- not present when public officer did not take advantage of position
the author thereof in such a situation which should be imposed
*wearing of uniform is immaterial
as to deserve no other penalty than upon the accused to the *failure of duties is tantamount to abusing office
that specially prescribed by law maximum period - not aggravating when it is an intergral element or inherent in
Cannot be offset by mitigating May be compensated by offense
mitigating Ex: malversation, falsification of document
Must be alleged in information Not alleged - not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated crime without
police position
*Generic aggravating even if not alleged may be proved during trial
*if not alleged, treachery is treated as generic aggravating
Par. 2. – that the crime be committed in contempt of or with
insult to public authorities
Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of
increasing penalty
Basis
1. aggravating circumstance in themselves constitute a crime
Greater perversity of offender
specially punishable by law
2. which are included by law in defining a crime
Requisites:
Ex: arson or crime involving destruction
1. public authority is engaged in exercise of his functions
Dwelling in robbery
2. engaged in exercise of public functions is not the person against
2. Inherent in crime
whom the crime is committed
Ex: evident premeditation in theft, robbery, estafa, adultery,
3. Offender knows him to be public authority
concubinage
4. Presence has not prevented offender from committing the act
Advantage of public position in bribery and malversation
Public authority
Aggravating circumstances which are personal to offenders
Public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, who has the
1. moral attributes of offender
power to govern and execute laws
2. Private relations with offended party
*Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of an agent
3. Any other personal cause
only
*knowledge that a public authority is present is essential
Aggravating circumstance’s application which depend upon
knowledge of defender
Par. 3. – that the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard
1. Material execution of act
of the respect due the offended party on account of his (a) rank,
2. Means employed to accomplish it (shall serve to aggravate the
(b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling of
liability of those persons only had knowledge)
the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation
Aggravating circumstance not presumed
*applicable only to crimes against persons or honor
Should be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the
penalty
When all 4 are present
They have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Complaint or information must state not only qualifying bust also
Basis
aggravating circumstance
*if not alleged, may be considered in award of damages
“with insult or in disregard”
Par. 1. – Advantage be taken by the offender of his public
There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the
position
accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the
offended party
Basis
1. rank of offended party
26
- there must be a difference in social condition of offender and *dwelling is not aggravating where deceased was called down from
offender party house and was murdered in vicinity
Ex:
a. Private citizen who attacked person in authority Dwelling includes:
b. Pupil to teacher 1. dependencies
c. Killing a judge 2. Foot of staircase
d. Attempt upon life of general 3. Enclosure under house
Meaning of rank: high social position or standing -if deceased have 2 houses then any of them is applicable
2. age of offended party
- when the offended person, by reason of his age, could be the father Dwelling is not aggravating in following circumstances
of the offender 1. both offender and offender party occupy same house
- deliberate intent to offend or insult required 2.
*disregard of old age not aggravating in robbery with homicide Robbery with force upon things Robbery with violence against or
- applicable to tender age as well in inhabited house intimidation of persons
3. Sex of the offender party Not aggravating Aggravating
- refers to female sex not male
3. Trespass to dwelling
Ex:
4. owner of dwelling gave sufficient provocation
a. Compels woman to go to his house against will
5. Dwelling where crime was committed did not belong to offended
b. Killed gemale relative of killers in retaliation
party
c. Direct assault upon lady teacher
6. crime committed in lower floor used as shop
- no diesragard of respect due to sex (killing lover)
*dwelling not included in treachery
*killing woman is not attended by aggravating circumstance if the
offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards her
Dwelling was found aggravating althought crimes were
sex
committed not in the dwelling of victims
1. boarding house where bedspacer
Not applicable in certain cases
2. paternal home
1. when offender acted in passion or obfuscation
3. house of aunt where she was living
2. When there exists a relationship between offender party and
4. while sleeping as guests in house of another
offender
*aggravating when husband killed wife in house solely occupied by
3. Condition of being a woman is indespensable in crime
her
Ex: parricide, rape, abduction, seduction
*adultery even if both live in the same house (not aggravating in
*Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery
adultery where paramour also lives there)
Dwelling
Par. 4. – that the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence,
Building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort
or (2) obvious ungratefulness
*combination of house and store, market stall where victim sleeps =
not dwelling
Basis
Greater perversity shown by means and ways employed
What aggravates the commission of crime in one’s dwelling:
1. abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the
Abuse of Confidence
offender by opening the door to him
Exists only when offended party has trusted the offender who later
2. Violation of sanctity of home by respassing therein
abuses such trust by committing the crime.
● Must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime
Offended party must not give provation
*housemade lost confidence in him when he made indecent proposal
Meaning of provocation in aggravating circumstance of dwelling:
and offended her with a kiss
a. Given by owner of dwelling
*no abuse of confidence when they were together for business
b. Sufficient
*no abuse of confidence when they were together to go nightclubbing
c. Emmediate to commision of crime
and to bring money which latter owed
*if all are present, offended party is deemed to have given
* betrayal of confidence is not aggravating
provocation and dwelling is not aggravating circumstance
- killing of child by an amah is aggravated by abuse of confidence
- prosection must prove that no provation was given by offended
- inherent in:
party
a. Malversation
- even if ofender did not enter dwelling, circumstance applies
b. Qualified theft
- even if killing took place outside, aggravating when commission of
c. estafa by conversion or misappropriation
crime began in dwelling
d. qualified seduction
- aggravating in abduction or illegal detention
27
Requisites As one or separately
1. offended party had trusted the offender - as one if they concur in the commission of the felony
2. offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the - elements are distinctly perceived and can subsits independently
offended party
3. abuse of confidence faicilitated the commission of the crime Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating:
1. facilitated the commission of the crime
Obvious ungratefulness 2. Especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of
- must be obvious and clear the crime or for the purpose of impunity
*mere fact that accused and offended party live in the same house is 3. Offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
not in itself enough to hold that there was present abuse of
confidence where the house was not the property of the offended “Whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of
party the offense”
Nighttime may facilitate the commission of the crime when because
Par. 5. – That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief of the darkness of the night the crime can be perpetrated with greater
Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are certainty
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated
to religous worship “For the purpose of impunity”
Prevent being recognized
Basis
Greater perversity shown by place of the commission of crime which “Especially sought for”
must be respected ● Not applicable when notion to commit crime was conceived
shortly before its commission
Distinguishment of “place where public authorities are engaged ● Committed at night upon a mere casual encounter
in the discharge of their duties” Par 5 and 2
Paragraph 5 Paragraph 2 Two test for nocturnity
Public authorities who are in the Public authorities are 1. Objective – nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates
performance of their duties must be performing duties outside of commission of the offense
2. Subjective – nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely
in their office their office
sought by offender
He may be the offended party Public authority should not
be the offended party
Public authorities are in the performance of their duties Nighttime
- period of darkness beginning at end of dusk and ending at dawn
Malacañang / Church - from sunset to sunrise
- aggravating regardless State or official religous function are being - nighttime by and of itself is not aggravating
held *darkness of the night was merely incidental to collission between
two vehicles which caused heated argument and eventual stabbing
Chief Executive of victime, nighttime is not aggravating
- presence alone in any place where crime is committed is enough to *not aggravating when crime began at daytime
constitute the aggravating circumstance - offense must actually be committed in the darkness of night
*other public authorities must be engaged in the discharge of their *if place of crime is illuminated by light,nighttime is not aggravating
duties, there must be some performance of public function - lighting of matchstick or use of flashlight does not negate
- electoral precinct during election day is a place “where public aggravating circumstance of nighttime
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties”
*cemeteries are not considered to be a place of religous worhip Uninhabited place
- offender must have intention to commit crime when he entered the - one where there are no house at all, a place at a considerable
place distance from town or where the houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other
Par. 6. – That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) *not considered when place of the crime could be seen and voice of
in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such the deceased could be heard from a nearby house
circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense - should be determined: wheter or not in the place of the commission
of the offense there was a reasonable possibility of the victim
Basis receiving some help
Time and place of the commission of the crime and means and ways - boat in open sea in considered uninhabited place
employed - solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose
sy and uninterrupted accomplishment of criminal design
28
b. insure concealment of the offense b. accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan for the same
Band purpose
More than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in
commission of offense Band vs Armed men
*even if 20 persons but only three are armed = not aggravating BAND ARMED MEN
- stone is counted as “arms” More than three armed men Present even if one of the
- all armed men atleast 4 in number must take direct part in the shall have acted together offenders merely relied on their aid
execution of act constitutiing the crime
- armend men absorbs band
- considered in:
a. crimes against property
Par. 9. – That the accused is a recidivist
b. crimes against persons
c. treason
Basis
*not applicable to crimes against chastity
Greater perversity shown by inclination to crimes
- abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in band
- inherent in brigandage
Recidivist
- aggravating in robbery with homicide
One who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgement of another crime
Par. 7. – That the crime committed on the occassion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other
Requisites:
calamity or misfortune
1. Offender is on trial for an offense
2. Previously convicted by final judgement of another crime
Basis
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title
Time of the commission of the crime
of this code
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense
Reason for existence
Midst of great calamity, instead of lending aid, adds to their suffering
“at the time of his trial for one crime”
by taking advantage of their misfortune
- time of trial is controlling not time of commission
Ex: fireman robbed burning house, theif steals property after typhoon
- from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in
open court
Chaotic condition
*No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense
After liberation is not included
committed before the offense involved in the prior conviction
*but chaotic condition resulting from liberation of san pablo was
-lapse of time does not matter.
considered a calamity
“previously convicted by final judgement”
Par. 8. – That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed
Judgement becomes final when:
men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity
a. After lapse of period for perfecting appeal
b. when sentence has been partially or totally
Basis
served
Means and ways of committing the crime
cused has waived in writing his right to appeal
cused has applied for probation
Requisites
peal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of
1. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
judgement
directly or indirectly
2. Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the
“Embraced in same title”
crime was committed
- RPC and Special Law = diff title
- Theft and Robbery = Title 10
Rule
- Homicide Physical injuries = title 8
*Casual presence of armed men near the place does not constitute
an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused did
Amnesty
not avail himself of their aid or rely upon them to commit the crime
Extinguishes penalty and all its effects
- armed men must take part directly or indirectly
*exceptions
Pardon
a. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally
Does not prevent a former conviction from being considered as an
armed
aggravating circumstance
29
Par. 10 – That the offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or Par. 11. – That the crime be committed in consideration of a
for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty price, reward or promise.
Basis Basis
Greater perversity shown by inclination to crimes Greater perversity of the offender as shown by motivating power itself
Requisites: Presupposes concurrence of two or more offenders

1. Accused is on trial for an offense
2. Previously served sentence for another offense to which the law Affects not only person who received price but also person who
attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to gave it
which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense.
3. Convicted of the new offense Price reward promise must be for the purpose of inducing
another to perform the deed
Reitiracion or Habituality ● Show of appreciation price not counted
Essential that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has
served sentence for an offense in which the law attaches or provides Par. 12. – That the crime be committed by means of inundation,
for an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional
second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any
attaches a lighter penalty other artifice involving great waste and ruin
“Has been previously punished” Basis

Accused previously served sentence Means and ways employed
Second requisite is present: When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the
a. penalty provided by law for previous offense is equal to that for the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
new offense considered as generic aggravating circumstance only
b. penalty provided by law for previous offense is greater
c. accused served at least two sentences, even if penalties provided Intent to kill is essential, if not intent then arson only (even if
by law for the crimes are lighter someone is killed)
*it is penalty attached to offense not penalty actually imposed
*in murder, death not aggravating if previously convicted are against When used as means to kill another person, the crime is murder
property and not directly against persons 1. By means of fire
- there should be an actual design to kill
Four forms of repetition - if house was set on fire after killing then its a separate crime
1. Recidivism 2. By means of explosion
2. Reiteracion - offense is a crime involving destruction
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency 3. By means of derailment of locomotive
4. Quasi- recidivism Situation Judgement
- first two: generic aggravating Only property is Damage to means of communication under
- third: extraordinary aggravating damaged Art 330
- fourth: special aggravating
Death of person Complex crime of damage to means of
Habitual delinquency without intent to kill communication with homicide
Person within a period of 10 years from his release or last conviction Death of person with Murder
of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, intent to kill
theft, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a *aggravating circumstance will not be considered if it already qualifies
third time crime to murder
● The offender is either a recidivist or one who has been
previously punished for two or more offenses Par. 12 and 7 difference
Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7
Quasi Recidivism
Crime is committed by means of Crime is committed on the
Person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by
acts involving great waste or ruin occasion of a calamity or
final judgement, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the misfortune
penalty prescribed by law for new felony
30

Mang Canotes CRIM1 MT Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mang Canotes CRIM1 MT Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Mang Canotes CRIM1 MT Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW 1 MIDTERM REVIEWER (Mang Canotes)

CRIMINAL LAW DEFINED

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF ACCUSED Territorial

MA LA PROHIBITA PARAGRAPH ONE ARTICLE 4 “WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE

“Directly by overt acts” Attempted because no mortal wound cases

“Do not produce it” Frustrated Theft

“Damage to another” *Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified

Requisites: Exempting circumstances

Exempting circumstances Evidence of insanity

Amnesia Discernment may be shown by:

Other cases of lack of intelligence Presumption of minority

Classes of mitigating circumstances Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give

Where Diversion may be conducted Not applicable to felonies by negligence

Cases of voluntary surrender Requisites of plea of guilty

Requisites: Presupposes concurrence of two or more offenders

“Has been previously punished” Basis

You might also like