Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:

CRIMINAL LAW – branch of division of law which defines crimes,

1. Penal law must be General in application otherwise it
treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause;
2. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law – ex
CRIME – act committed or omitted in violation of the law.
post facto law makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was innocent when done,
2 injuries are committed;
and punishes such an act;
1. Injury committed against a person;
3. Not a Bill of Attainder – A bill of attainder is a legislative
2. Injury committed against the state;
act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial;
4. Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or punishments
Injury committed against a person
- e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by
Personal injury against the private offended party. Civil indemnity is
saying that henceforth that any who commit theft will be
awarded to the offended party on the heirs.
given death. This is unusual punishment so it is prohibited.
Injury committed against the state - Punishment is imprisonment.
Characteristics of Penal Laws
Social injury against the state for the disturbance of peace.
The following are the characteristics of penal laws;
1. Generality - Persons to whom criminal law shall apply;
Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense against the
2. Territoriality - Place where penal law shall be applied;
state rather than against the private offended party.
3. Prospectivity - Time when it shall apply
Example:
GENERALITY
A hit B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, B filed
 Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the
frustrated homicide. The fiscal found probable cause. In the Philippine territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or
information filed by the fiscal, the title is People of the Philippines vs foreigners regardless of any of their personal circumstances;
A. The trial continued and the judge found the accused guilty  Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines;
beyond reasonable doubt. The first penalty of the judge is  Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the
imprisonment due to social injury. Aside from this, B will pay a civil Philippines, they are given protection in the same way that the
indemnity. government protects its own citizen;
 Article 14 of the Civil Code – penal laws shall be binding on all
Definition of Terms those who live or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizen or
There are three kinds of Crime; not;
1. Felony – Acts or omissions punished by the Revised Penal
Code (RPC);
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
2. Offense – punished by a special law; 1. Generally Accepted Principles of International Law;
3. Acts/Infractions – punished by ordinances, local legislation; 2. Laws of Preferential Application;
*Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime. Generally Accepted Principles of PIL;
Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic heads such as
Q: Who has the power to enact Penal Laws? ambassadors and public ministers enjoys blanket immunity from the
A: As a general Rule the Legislative Department has the power to criminal jurisdiction of the country where they are assigned. Since
enact Laws. However, in case of emergency, president may issue a they are immune, they cannot be arrested, prosecuted or punished.
Penal Issuance Order provided that there is a law granting it to the (Diplomatic Immunity from Suit);
president.
Laws of Preferential Application;
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute? Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution
A: No, there are limitations. such as members of Congress are immune from libel, slander and
defamation for every speech made in the House of Congress during
a regular or special session.

Example;
X, the head of state Japan, went to the Philippines for a working
visit. X was summoned to Malacañang. However, the driver of X was
not feeling well so instead, X drove himself to Malacañang. X drove
the vehicle in a reckless manner. As a result, he hit and killed an
innocent pedestrian.

Q: May X be prosecuted?
A: No. As a head of state, X enjoys blanket immunity from
prosecution.

*Consuls – not among those who enjoy the diplomatic immunity

from suit
Generally, consuls are subject to penal laws of the country where  …on the offense and not on the offender
they are assigned unless there is a treaty or an agreement between POSITIVIST/REALISTIC PHILOSOPHY
the home country of the consul and the country where he is
designated stating that the consul is immune from the criminal
jurisdiction of the host country.

Example;
A is an employee in ADB, a foreigner economist. A Filipino filed an
oral defamation against the foreigner economist. The DFA issued a
letter and protocol to the court which states that ADB and PH has an
agreement that the ADB economist is immune from suit. The SC held
that it was erroneous that there was a decision immediately to
dismiss the case without adducing any evidence, without informing
the fiscal. SC ruled that diplomatic immunity is only applied in the
exercise of one’s function, but in this defamation case, it
immunity will not lie. Evidence first must be gathered to determine
if the act was done in the exercise of one’s functions. (Liang v.
People, G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 2000)

TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws shall be applicable only within the Philippine jurisdiction
including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc;

General Rule
Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction cannot be
under Philippine courts.

Exception;
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides situations where the extra-
territorial jurisdiction of the Revised Penal Code may be applied.

PROSPECTIVITY
Penal laws Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of
effectivity. It be given retroactive application unless;
1. If penal laws are favorable to the accused provided that
the is not a habitual criminal; and
2. If the penal laws allow retroactivity;

Philosophies under the Criminal Law System

1. Classical/ Juristic Philosophy;
2. Positivist/ Realistic Philosophy;
3. Mixed/Eclectic;

CLASSICAL/JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY
3.1 Basis of criminal activity is human free will;
 Man is a moral creature which understands right from
wrong;
 When he commits a wrong, he voluntarily does the same,
therefore, he shall be ready for the consequences of his
acts

1.2 Purpose of penalty is Retribution;

 Evolves from the maxim “an eye for an eye.”
therefore, for every crime committed, there is a
corresponding penalty based on the injury inflicted on the
victim;

1.3. Determination of penalty is done mechanically;

 Done mechanically since the punishment is proportionate
to the severity sustained by the victim;

1.4. Emphasis is on the crime and not on the criminal;

 2.1 Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment;
 “All men are born good, they only become evil due
to the influence of the community.”
 Crimes are a social phenomenon;

2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of rehabilitation;

 Offender is a socially sick individual who need to be
corrected not to be punished;

2.3. Determination of penalty is done on the case to case basis

2.4. Emphasis of the law is on the offender and not to the

offense;
 ...on the criminal not on the crime;
 great regard to the human element of the crime;
 takes into consideration why the offender committed
the crime;

CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY POSITIVIST PHILOSOPHY

Basis of criminal activity is Basis of criminal liability is
human free will; man’s social environment;
Purpose of penalty is Purpose of penalty is for
Retribution; purposes of rehabilitation;
Determination of penalty is Determination of penalty is
done mechanically; done on the case to case basis;
Emphasis is on the crime and Emphasis of the law is on the
not on the criminal; offender and not to the
offense;

4. MIXED/ECCLECTIC PHILOSOPHY
 Crimes which are heinous/obnoxious in nature-classical
 Crimes which are social/economic – positivist

* The Revised Penal Code adheres to Classical philosophy;

 Merely copied from Spanish...French espoused classical;

Although RPC is molded with classical philosophy, the

amendments are geared toward the positivist philosophy;

Example;
 Indeterminate Sentence Law – once served the minimum of
his penalty, eligible for parole (rehabilitation);
 Probation Law – 6 years and below, probation report to
probation officer;
 RA 9346 –abolished death penalty;

THEORIES/RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW;

The following are the theories concerned with Criminal Law;
1. Utilitarian. Protective theory;
2. Doctrine of Pro Reo;
3. Lenity Rule;
4. Equipoise Rule;

Utilitarian/ Protective Theory;

Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from
actual/potential wrong doing;

Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent does not

matter, courts should see to it that punishment shall only be
imposed to actual/potential wrongdoers;
Magno v. CA (G.R. No. 96132)
Potential wrongdoer was not Magno rather it was Mrs. Teng. She which the community considers as condemnable even if there’s no law
should not have deposited the check upon withdrawing the that punishes it;
machineries. She was the one who acted in bad faith.

Q: Should Magno should be convicted of violation of B.P. 22?

A: NO. If Magno will be the one to be punished, then it will bring
about opportunism. Magno was acquitted on the ground of good
faith.

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the
accused and strictly against the state.

Lenity Rule
Whenever a penal law or a provision of penal law is susceptible of 2
interpretations, the one lenient to the accused which will bring
about acquittal and the other one strictly against the accused which
will bring about conviction, the lenient interpretation shall prevail.

Maxim: In case of doubt, rule always for the accused;

Constitution: Unless proven guilty, deemed innocent. “Guilt must

be proven.”

Equipoise Rule
Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with
the evidence of the defense, the scales of justice shall be titled
towards the accused;

Reason: Presumption of innocence;

Prosecution has the burden of proving conviction beyond

reasonable doubt. Conviction based on the strength of the evidence
of the accused.

Example;
Police officers received a tip from a credible source that a person
wearing white shirt and blue shorts will arrive at bus terminal in
Cubao at 10pm carrying shabu. Acting thereon, the police officers
arrived at the bus station and waited. When a man wearing white
shirt and blue shorts came out of the bus, the police immediately
frisked and searched the man. A white crystalline substance was
found in his possession which was identified as shabu by the crime
lab. During the trial, the defense presented two witnesses who were
passengers of the same bus with the accused, and seated beside
him. The witnesses said that they did not see the police officer
frisked and searched the accused. Furthermore, they did not see any
drugs apprehended from the accused. How should the judge rule the
case?

The Judge should rule in favor of the accused. Under the equipoise
rule, when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense is
equally balanced, justice should be tilted in favor of the accused.

Q: What if what has performed was a perverted/immoral act but

there is no law which punishes the said act. Can the person be
prosecuted in court?
A: No, “nullem crimen nulla poena sine lege” there is no crime
when there is no law which punishes it.

Q: Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?

A: NO. Common law crimes are principles, usages and use of action
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines since the perhaps are better than prison facilities here.
Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws are enacted. They do
not evolve through time;

--xXx--

Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take
effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-
two.

RPC took effect on January 1, 1932 passed into law on

December 8, 1930.

--xXx--

Article 2.Application of its provisions. - Except as provided

in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number;
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 law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code.

Art. 2 of the RPC has 2 scopes of application ;

1. Intraterritorial application – Intraterritorial application
provides that the RPC shall enforced within the Philippine
archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone;
2. Extraterritorial application;

Q: What does the phrase ‘Except as provided in the treaties and

laws of preferential application’ mean?
A: This phrase means treaties entered with other countries, laws
of preferential palliation takes preference over the provision of
the RPC.
 Therefore, if there is any conflict between any agreements
entered into by the Philippines with another country, if it is in
conflict with any provisions of the RPC, the said agreement shall
prevail over the provision of RPC.

*Remember the Larranaga case, based on the RPC, a person who

is convicted of a crime shall serve his sentence in the New Bilibid
prison, that is the national penitentiary. However, the Philippines
entered into an agreement with Spain. This agreement was
ratified by the Senate. As a result thereof, after Larranaga has
been convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
rape and homicide, considering that he has 2 citizenship – both
Filipino and Spanish. He was brought to Spain, and there he is
serving his sentence. Because based on that agreement, Spanish
citizens who are serving their sentence in the Philippines can be
brought to Spain and they are to serve their sentence there.
Larranaga took advantage because definitely, the facilities
Example; that is the Intraterritorial application of the RPC because it is as the
Many heads of state arrived here for the 2017 Ms. Universe. Among crime is committed within the Philippine territory;
these was Pres. X, of X state. He found Ms Portugal very attractive
and invited her to a date in a hotel. Afterwards, Pres. X raped her. Jurisdictional Rules for Merchant Vessels
There are two jurisdictional rules for merchant vessels;
Q: Can Pres. X be prosecuted for rape? 1. French Rule;
A: YES. Immunity is NOT absolute, limited only to official functions. 2. British Rule;
As rape is outside of the functions of the head of state, Pres. X may
be prosecuted here. French Rule
The French Rule states that crimes committed on board while the
Example; foreign vessel is on the water of another country is within the
Pres. X was driving his car on his way to the pageant, and he hit a jurisdiction of the flag country. That is the country where the
pedestrian, who died. country is registered;

Q: May Pres. X be prosecuted? Exception;

A: No. This time he is performing official functions, thus he cannot when the crime committed affects the public order, the peace and
be prosecuted in Philippine courts. security of the host country, then the host country will have
jurisdiction over the said crime. Therefore, the French Rule
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION: recognizes the jurisdiction of the country where the vessel is
There are 5 instances where the Revised Penal Code shall take effect registered.
outside the Philippine Territory;
French Rule = flag country
1st: Those who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
or airship. English Rule
The English Rule states that when a crime is committed on board a
Q: When is it a Philippine ship or airship? foreign merchant vessel while on the waters of another country it is
A: If it’s registered in the Philippines and under the Philippine the host country which will have jurisdiction over the said crime;
laws. Even if totally or wholly owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not
registered in the Philippines it cannot be considered as a Philippine Exception;
ship/airship. It is only upon registration that this aircraft/vessel can When the crime merely affects the internal management of the
fly the Philippine flag. Therefore, it is registration which is the vessel, then it is the flag country which will have jurisdiction. In
operative act which makes it a Philippine ship/airship. effect, the English Rule is territorial in nature.

This is a situation where a crime is committed on board a Philippine *Philippines adhere to the English Rule which is strictly territorial in
vessel while it is outside Philippine territory but not in the territory nature.
of another country.
Example;
Q: If a Philippine vessel is on waters of the Philippines, and a crime A foreign merchant vessel is on Manila Bay. A crime was committed
was committed on board. What country will have jurisdiction? on board, the Philippines will have jurisdiction over the said crime
A: Obviously, the Philippines. and criminal because we follow the English Rule.

Q: What if that Philippine Vessel is on the high seas or international 2nd: Those who should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
waters and a crime was committed on board the said Philippine of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Vessel. What country will have jurisdiction over the said crime? Government of the Philippine Islands.
A: Still the Philippines. Because of the extraterritorial application of
the RPC. It is the situation referred to as the 1st circumstance under 3rd: Those who should be liable for acts connected with the
paragraph 2 of Art. 2. It is the situation where the Philippine ship is introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities
outside the Philippine territory but not in the territory of another mentioned in the presiding number.
country.
Example;
Q: What if the Philippine Vessel is on the waters on Malaysia and a So X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He then
crime was committed on board. What country will have introduced these coins in to the Philippine Islands. Although the
jurisdiction? A: Malaysian courts will have the jurisdiction because crime has been committed in Japan, he can be held liable before
of the territoriality characteristic of criminal law. Philippine courts. This is necessary in order to maintain and preserve
the financial circulation and financial stability of the Philippines.
Exceptions; Otherwise, no other country would be interested in prosecuting him
If the vessel is a Philippine war vessel or warship or it is a Philippine except the Philippines because it is only the Philippines will be
warplane. A Philippine warship or war aircraft is considered an affected by the said counterfeiting of coins.
extension of the Philippine sovereignty.
Wherever they may be, when a crime is committed on board a 4th: Those who while being public officers or employees should
Philippine war vessel or warplane, the Philippines will always have commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
jurisdiction and the reason is the 1st paragraph of Art. 2 of the RPC –
This refers to public officers or employees who are working in Philippine sovereignty, then it is as if the crime was committed within
another country, while they are working, they committed a crime.
The crime committed by this public officers or employees must be in
connection with the exercise of their functions.

If the crime they committed is not connected with the exercise of

their functions, then they should be prosecuted in the courts of the
country where they are assigned;

Example;
OFW who lost his passport, he went to the Philippine Embassy in
Japan applying for a new passport. He has been going there back
and forth that it has not it was not yet approved or it was not yet
released. On his way out, he saw the approving authority (AA). He
talked to AA requesting and begging him that it be immediately
approved and released. He was invited to a coffee shop, while
having coffee, AA asked $500 from him and promised on that same
afternoon, his passport would be released. So the poor OFW gave
the $500.

Q: Where may this AA be prosecuted? Before Philippine courts or

before the courts of Japan?
A: AA may be prosecuted before the Philippine courts. He did not
commit in effect a crime in approving the said passport because it
his obligation to approve the said passport. However, he would not
perform his obligation without a bribe. He would not perform his
function without the money given by the said OFW. So in effect, he
committed bribery in its 2nd form – he performs an act not
constituting a crime in connection with the exercise of his function in
consideration of the bribe money. So here, he committed bribery, he
can be prosecuted before Philippine courts. His act is in connection
with the exercise of his functions.

What if instead of the AA, here comes a Filipino filing clerk (FC)
inside the Philippine Embassy. The FC followed the OFW, the FC told
him that he can facilitate the release of his passport if he will him
$50. Desperate, the OFW gave him the money. However, that
afternoon, the passport was still not released. He wanted to file a
case against the FC.

Q: Where can he file a case? Before courts of Japan or Philippines?

A: It should be filed before the courts of Japan because the act
performed by FC has nothing to do with the exercise of his official
functions. In effect, what he has committed is estafa because he
made this OFW believe that he has the authority to facilitate the
release of the said passport but he did not have such qualification.
He committed estafa under Art.315 (2)(a). Therefore, he should be
prosecuted before the courts of Japan.

Example;
There is this Philippine consul (PC). The PC told his secretary to work
overtime. So S followed PC. In the evening, PC gave coffee to S.
Unknown to S, there was something mixed in the coffee to make her
unconscious. So after drinking the coffee, she became unconscious
and she was raped by PC. S now wanted to file a case against PC.

Q: Where may she file the case?

A: The act of rape committed has nothing to do with the exercise of
PC’s functions. Therefore, it should be filed before the courts of
Japan. However, it was committed inside the Philippine Embassy.

The Philippine Embassy which is considered an extension of the

the Philippine territory. Therefore, S should file the case before
the Philippine courts because it is as if the crime was committed
within the Philippine archipelago. The reason for this is the
Intraterritorial application of the RPC. But if the rape was
committed at any other place outside the Philippine Embassy,
then PC should be prosecuted before the courts of Japan because
rape is in no way connected with the exercise of his functions and
a consul does not enjoy diplomatic immunity.

5th: Those who should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two
of this Code.

Crimes against National Security includes the following;

1. Treason;
2. Conspiracy/proposal to commit treason;
3. Misprision of treason;
4. Espionage;
5. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals;

If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside the

Philippine archipelago the offender can be prosecuted before the
Philippine courts.

Crime committed against the Law of Nations include the following;

1. Piracy;
2. Qualified piracy;
3. Mutiny; and
4. Qualified mutiny

Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of Nations the

said offender can also be prosecuted before the Philippine courts;

Example;
A, B, C, D, and E are in America. They decided to over throw the
government of the Philippines. In preparation for their plan, they
bought guns, ammos, and grenades. However, before they can
proceed with their plan, thy got caught.

Q: Can A, B, C, D, and E be tried in the Philippines?

A: NO. Their crime is conspiracy to commit rebellion which is a
crime against public order, Title Three of the Revised Penal Code,
thus they are outside the scope of extra-territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines under Article 2 of the RPC.

Example;
Accused A, B, C, D, and E were in America. At that time, America is
at war with the Philippines. The accused decided to over throw
the government of the Philippines. However, before they can
overthrow the government, all the accused were caught.

Q: Can A, B, C, D, and E be tried in the Philippines?

A: YES. All the accused committed conspiracy to commit treason
which is penalized under Title One, Book two of the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, it is within the scope of extra-territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines under Article 2 of the RPC.

--xXx--

Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are

felonies (delitos).
 Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but FAULT (CULPA)
also by means of fault (culpa). Fault (culpa) or culpable felony exist when the wrongful act results
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;
and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Elements;
1. Criminal negligence;
Felonies 2. Freedom of action;
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC. When the law 3. Intelligence;
says ‘by law’, it means the RPC.
Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein the
Acts offender, although without malice or deliberate intent caused an
Acts refer to any body movement which has a direct connection to injury to another by the means of negligence or imprudence.
the felony intended to be committed. Therefore, even a culpable felony is a voluntary act;
It is an external act, an overt act in connection with the felony
intended to be committed. Internal acts or mere criminal thoughts Voluntariness
will never give rise to a crime; In so far as criminal law is concerned, voluntariness is actually the
concurrence of the 3 elements of intentional felony and the
Example; concurrence of the 3 elements of culpable felony;
A lust for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass by going
to work, A would always look at the neighbor. And for the whole In other words, in so far as voluntariness of intentional felony is
day, he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No matter concerned, it is the concurrence of criminal intent, freedom of
how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a crime action and intelligence;
because it is merely an internal unless he performs an external act
or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape or Therefore, without voluntariness, there can neither be an intentional
rape. The law requires an act. felony nor a culpable felony;

Omission Freedom
Omission is the failure of a person to perform an act or to do a duty There is freedom of action when the offender performs the act on his
which is required by law. own free will, without force, duress, uncontrollable fear.

Example; So note if the offender performs the criminal act but he did the act
If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any because there was this compulsion and irresistible fear or under the
place and he failed to deliver the same to the owner or to the local impulse of an uncontrollable fear. There is no criminal liability. They
authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft. Or if a person are exempting circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC because there
was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And is no freedom of action, an element of voluntariness. There is
instead of helping that person, he increased his speed and left. It is a neither an intentional felony nor culpable felony because there is
hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he failed to lend help and wanting of freedom of action, an element of voluntariness.
assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal liability under
Art. Intelligence
365. So here, for failing to perform an act which is required by law to Intelligence is the mental capacity of a person to know wrong from
be done. He commits a felony. So felonies are acts or omissions right and to appreciate the consequences of one’s act.
punishable by the RPC.
If the person acted without intelligence, there is no criminal liability.
Kinds of Felonies So if the criminal act has been committed by an insane, an imbecile
2 kinds of felonies that are may be committed under Art. 3; or a minor, the said offender is said to be exempted from criminal
1. Deceit (dolo); liability.
2. Fault;
Under Art. 12, they are exempting circumstances, he is free of both
DECEIT (DOLO) intentional and culpable felony because he acted without
Deceit (Dolo) or intentional felony exist when the act is done with intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
deliberate intent;
INTENT
Elements: Intent is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result;
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender;
2. Freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the * You cannot see intent. It is an internal state of the mind;
offender;
3. Intelligence of the offender; Factors to Determine Intent
In the case of Rivera v. People (G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006),
An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against
means of deliberate intent. persons may consist of the following;
1. The means used by the malefactors;
 2. The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by Therefore, it must be proven
the victim; The prosecution does not have
by the prosecution beyond
3. The conduct of the malefactors before, during, or the burden to prove it;
reasonable doubt;
immediately after the killing of the victim; and
4. The circumstances under which the crime was committed
and the motives of the accused; Example;
Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted homicide. A
Example; and B were fighting. A was losing and so A shot B. B was hit on the
A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and hit the head left arm. He was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, after B’s
of A with it. B hit it hard and thereafter ran away. A went to the release from the hospital, he filed a case against A for attempted
hospital, however, based on the medical certificate no injury homicide. Since the case filed is attempted homicide. The
whatsoever was sustained by the head of A. So there was no injury. prosecution has the burden of proving intent to kill on the part of A
Nevertheless, A filed a case for attempted homicide against B. when he shot B and hit him on the left arm. Otherwise, if the
Therefore, intent to kill is incumbent to be proven by the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A can
prosecution because the case filed is attempted homicide. only be convicted of serious/less serious/slight physical injuries
depending on the date required for medical intervention or he
Q: Will B be held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent should be acquitted of the crime. Intent to kill must be proven.
to kill?
A: There was NO intent to kill. Let us apply in this case the factors to But what if in the course of their fight, A was losing and so A took
determine whether intent is present; out his pistol and he shot B. B was shot on the heart, a fatal wound,
a mortal wound was sustained because it was a vital organ which
Q: Was there motive? was hit. A immediately bought B to the hospital. However, upon
A: NO. In the problem, there was no motive. arrival, he was pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B filed a
case for homicide against A. A’s defense, I have no intention to
Q: What was the nature and number of weapon used? kill B. According to him, he only intended to threaten B because
A: B used a lead pipe. they were fighting.

Q: What is the nature, number and location of wound inflicted on Q: Will A’s defense stand in court?
the victim? A: NO. A’s defense that he has not intent to kill B will not lie.
A: The victim did not sustain any wound despite the fact that it was The reason is since the victim died, intent to kill becomes a General
hit with a lead pipe. Criminal Intent which is presumed by law. Prosecution need not
prove intent to kill in homicide, parricide, murder, infanticide
Q: What was the manner of committing the crime? because the victim died. It is only in the attempted and frustrated
A: After hitting A once, B ran away. If he had intended to kill the stages of the HPMI wherein intent to kill is considered an element.
victim, he would have hit A several times.
Q: Why is it only in the consummated stage of Homicide, Patricide,
Q: What were the act, deeds and words made by the offender Murder, Infacnticide that intent to kill is presumed?
before, during or after the commission of the crime? A: Because the best evidence to prove intent to kill is that the victim
A: He just saw the victim, hit the victim thereafter ran away. All of died. So it is presumed by law.
these would show there was no intent to kill on the part of said
offender. Q: Is there a defense to negate criminal intent?
A: YES. The accused may plead mistake of fact
Therefore, B should not be convicted of attempted homicide.
MOTIVE
Example; Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act to
The use of a lethal weapon would show intent to kill on the part of achieve the desired result
the offender although death did not arise. Taking the personal
property of another without the consent of the owner would show General Rule: Motive is not material in determining the criminal
intent to gain on the part of the offender. liability of the offender is identified, admits to the commission to the
crime, if the prosecution has direct evidence or eyewitness to the
Kinds of Intent commission of the crime, if crime committed is a culpable felony,
There are 2 kinds of intent: crime committed is not a special penal law.
1. General Criminal Intent (GCI);
2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI); Exceptions;
Motive becomes material in determining the criminal liability of the
GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT offender;
Specific Criminal Intent is just 1. When the act of the offender would result to variant crimes (to
General Criminal Intent is
like an element, an ingredient know what crime should be charged);
conclusively presumed by law
of the commission of the 2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful;
by the mere doing of an act;
crime; 3. When the prosecution only has circumstantial evidence to
prove the commission of the crime;
Example; immediately after the
City mayor (CM) was jogging near the seashore. Here comes X who commission of the crime;
went to CM and him. CM was not in the performance of his official
duty when he was shot. Therefore, the act of X in killing and MISTAKE OF FACT
shooting CM may result to variant crimes depending on the motive, Mistake of Fact is the misapprehension of facts on the person who
depending on the reason of X of killing. If the reason is a personal caused injury to another.
grudge/vendetta, murder is committed. But if the reason is because
of CM’s past performance of his duty, then the crime If a person acted under mistake of fact, he is absolved of criminal
committed is direct assault with homicide. liability because he acted without criminal intent. That is, had the
facts been as he believed them to be, his act done would have been
Example;
lawful and justifiable.
There are so many suspects, A, B, C, D and E. There’s doubt as to
who among the committed the crime. Then motive will become
Elements of Mistake of Fact
material in determining the criminal liability of the offender.
Before one may be absolved of criminal liability for having acted
under mistake of fact, the following are elements:
Example;
1. That the act done would have been lawful and justifiable
Who was the last person seen together with the victim before he
had the facts been what the accused believed them to be -
was killed? Why was he with the victim at that time? What could be
Had it been as he believed, the act performed
the motive behind the kill? All of these must be taken into
would’ve amounted to a justifying or exempting
consideration because there was no eyewitness, no direct evidence
circumstance;
in the commission of the crime.
2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act must be
lawful - The must be ignited by a noble or lawful or
*Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about conviction.
justifiable intent
But motive and circumstantial evidence, or motive and supporting
3. That the mistake must be without fault, negligence,
evidence is necessary for conviction.
careless on the part of the offender - The offender cannot
be negligent in ascertaining the true facts of the case and
People v. Mapalo (G.R. No.172608, February 6, 2007)
at the same time invoke mistake of fact;
SC convicted him only of ill treatment of another by deed, a form of
slight physical injury. Ill treatment of another by deed is the
Q: Can a mistake of fact be used as a defense against culpable
circumstance wherein a person was hit or there was injury caused to
felony?
the person but there was no intent.
A: NO. One of the elements of Mistake of Fact is that the intent
must be lawful. Since intent is not an element in culpable felonies,
Q: How do you prove Motive? then mistake of fact cannot be used as a efense.
A: Motive is proved by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts
or statements made by the accused before or immediately after the
US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910.)
commission of the crime.
Ah Chong was acquitted because he acted under mistake of fact.
[M’Garcia: BUT that was because the case was decided a long
Example; time ago. If the case is decided now, I doubt if there will be an
Before the killing of A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A. acquittal. Let’s go by the elements: 2nd and 3rd elements are
Therefore, B would have the motive because of his acts prior to the present.
commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a witness saw
B running away from the scene of the crime laughing saying However, the 1st element is wanting - that the act done would have
“finally, I have my revenge” there is the motive. been lawful and justifiable had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be - the victim was only trying to enter.
So here motive is established by the acts or statements made by the
accused prior to or after the commission of the crime but NOT Q: Will that act already constitute unlawful aggression?
DURING because in motive, there is no direct evidence. The witness A: NO. There is no unlawful aggression because there was no
did not see how the crime was committed. imminent or immediate danger on the life and property of the said
offender. 1st element is wanting.]
INTENT MOTIVE
It is the moving power which Example;
impels a person to do a specific The police officers A, B and C were dining in a restaurant when they
Use of a particular means to
act to achieve the desired noticed a group of men who are so noisy. And so A looked at them
achieve a desired result;
result, therefore, it is the and noticed that one of them, X had a gun tucked on his waist. So A
reason behind intent;
went on the back of X and told him “I can see that you have a
A material element in Immaterial to determine the gun tucked on your waist. Do you have a license? I’m a police
determining the criminal criminal liability of the officer.” X said “Yes sir, I have a license.” And A said “Show me
liability of the accused; offender; your license.” So X stood up and he tried to get his wallet from his
Established/proven by the Established by the pocket in order to show his license as requested by A. As he was
overt act of the offender or by acts/statements made by the picking his wallet, he was turning around to look at A. The moment
the means employed; accused prior to or he faced A, A shot him. X died. Prosecuted for homicide, A said he
acted under mistake of facts. He thought, what X was picking was his
gun and that he would be shot by X. Therefore, in self-defense he
shot X first.
Q: Will his defense of mistake of facts lie in his favor? Example;
A: NO. The 1st element is wanting. Granting for argument that what Killing another, taking the thing of another;
X was picking was the gun, it will not constitute unlawful aggression
because the gun was not yet pointed at A. it will not yet bring an MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
immediate danger on the life of A. Also, the 3 rd element is wanting. A Inherently evil, wrong per se; Not inherently evil
was negligent, there was fault or carelessness on his part in or wrong;
ascertaining the true facts of the case. He was asking for the license Criminal liability is based on the Criminal liability is based on the
and X said he has one. Definitely, what would be shown to him intent or morality of the mere doing of the prohibited
would be the license not the gun. offender; act;
Good faith or lack of criminal Good faith or lack of criminal
Yapyucu v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 120744-46, June 25, 2012) intent is a valid defense; intent is not a valid defense;
Yapyucu were members of the Police stationed in Pampanga. They Modifying circumstances such Modifying circumstances such
received a tip that NPA were spotted near their vicinity. Thus, as mitigating and aggravating as mitigating and aggravating
Yapyucu and his men convened in a nearby road to wait for the are considered by the court in are NOT considered by the
alleged vehicle of the NPA. Upon seeing a Tamaraw Jeep reportedly the imposition of penalty; court in the imposition of
containing NPA soldiers, Yapyucu and his men immediately open penalty UNLESS otherwise
shot the jeep. As a result, Licup, one of the passengers of the jeep, provided by Special Penal Law;
died, and another one, Villanueva, was injured. Upon closer Degree of participation of the Degree of participation by the
inspection of the jeep, it was later found out that the passengers offender (principal, offender is NOT considered. All
were not members of the NPA, and that they were not armed. An accomplice, or accessory) is perpetrators of the act are
information for homicide was filed against Yapyuco. Yapyucu on the considered in the imposition of equally punished UNLESS
other hand, pleaded mistake of facts. He argued that had the the penalty; otherwise provided by the
passengers been members of the NPA, he would have been justified Special Penal Law;
in firing at them. Stage (attempted, frustrated, The only stage considered is
or consummated) is taken into the consummated stage. No
Q: Is the contention Yapyucu justified? consideration in the imposition attempted or frustrated stage
A: NO. The 1st element of Mistake of fact is that the act done would of the penalty; UNLESS otherwise provided by
have been lawful had they been what the offender believed them to the Special Penal Law;
be. In this case, even if the passengers were members of the NPA,
the accused was not justified in firing at them absent of any reason **Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala prohibita!!
to believe that their lives were in danger. Also, the 3 rd element of There are some special penal laws which punish acts mala in se, e.g.
Mistake of fact is that the mistake must be without fault, negligence, plunder is a special penal law yet the SC said plunder is malum in se.
or carelessness of the offender. In this case, the accused could have criminal intent matters.
been more prudent in the exercise of his functions. He could have
stopped the jeep to ascertain the passengers. Likewise, even if the Garcia v. CA (G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006)
jeep did not stop, they could have pursued the jeep seeing as they Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of
have an available car and the jeep was moving in a slow speed due votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In decreasing the number of
to the potholes in the road. votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. So it did not
favor any candidate. So according to him, he acted in good faith, no
The Supreme Court convicted the accused of homicide and denied criminal intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal
their defense of mistake of fact. law, therefore they should be held criminally liable.

Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal intent? Q: Should Garcia’s defense of good faith be appreciated in violation
A: YES. There are 2 instances wherein intent is not an essential of the Omnibus Election Code (Special Law)?
element of a crime; A: YES. The act of decreasing or increasing a candidate’s vote
1. Culpable Felony although punished by special penal law is a malum in se. it is
2. When the crime is in violation of special penal laws (Acts inherently evil or wrong.
Mala prohibita)
What about in this case, it is a malum in se. And Garcia and company
ACTS MALA PROHIBITA said, they acted in good faith, they were already so tired, because of
Acts mala prohibita are acts which are only wrong because there is a the counting. So how come they were still convicted?
law that prohibits and penalizes it;
According to the SC: They should exercise extraordinary diligence in
They are not inherently wrong; the counting of the votes. Hence, they are still held criminally liable.
The defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board of
Example; canvassers.
Illegal possession of unlicensed firearms;
Q: Can an act mala in se absorb an act mala prohibita? And vice
ACTS MALA IN SE versa?
Acts mala in se are acts which are inherently evil or wrong per se,
even if there’s not law, it is evil;
A: NO. In the case of Loney v. People the Supreme Court held that Proximate Cause - Proximate cause is the cause that sets in to
intent is a material element in acts mala prohibita, on the other motion all other causes and which unbroken by efficient intervening
hand intent is immaterial in acts mala prohibita. cause produces the felony without which the felony would have not
been committed.
Lonely v. People (G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006)
Lonely and company, the head of marcopper company were charged For one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause doctrine, it
4 cases – violation of the water code of the Philippines, violation of is necessary that the felonious act and the resulting felony must not
the Philippine mining act, violation of national pollution control be broken by any efficient intervening cause.
degree – all three are acts mala prohibita and one act malum in se –
that is violation of Art.365 reckless imprudence resulting to damage No efficient or supervening intervening cause must have broken the
to property. Their contention was that the 3 other information causal connection between the felonious act of the offender and the
involving violation of special penal law should already be quashed resulting felony.
because they are absorb by Art. 365. Anyway, the incident resulted
from the same act of polluting. Elements;
In the case of Garcia v. People (G.R. No. 171951, August 28, 2009),
Q: Should reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property The Supreme Court enumerated the following elements of
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code absorb the violation of proximate cause:
special penal laws? 1. The intended act is a felonious act;
A: NO. Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita. What 2. The resulting act is a felony;
makes an act malum in se is the presence of intent, deceit or dolo or 3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical
fault or culpa. On the other hand, what makes an act malum consequence of the felonious act of the offender;
prohibitum is the fact that it’s in violation of a special penal law.
Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. So they have to be Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause
prosecuted on all 4 cases. doctrine, it is necessary that the offender is performing a felonious
Example; act and since he is performing a felonious act, he becomes liable for
X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and bumped B. X was all the resulting crime although different from that which he
charged with murder. So the information charges an intentional intended. Provided that the resulting felony is the direct, natural and
felony of murder. Trial on merits ensued, after the prosecution logical consequence of his felonious act. Otherwise stated, his
presented evidence, the defense presented evidence. The defense felonious act must be the proximate cause of the resulting felony.
was able to show, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
reason for the said act of killing B was because X lost control of his For one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause doctrine, it
brake. Therefore, according to them, there was only imprudence is not necessary that the offender should have even touch the body
and so X should only be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting of the victim. It suffices that the felonious act performed by the
in homicide. The judge believed the defense. So in an information offender has generated in the mind of the victim, fear for his life. By
for an intentional felony of murder, the said court convicted X only reason of that fear for his life the victim performed acts, made risk
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a culpable felony. that injured himself. The accused will become criminally liable.

Q: Is the judge correct? Can the judge convict a person of a Example;

culpable felony in an information that charges him of intentional B and G were boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. During their
felony? relationship, B promised G that he would marry her. One day, B told
A: Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is necessarily included in G that she should wait for him outside the church at 7pm that night
an intentional felony because a culpable felony is of lesser offense so they could get married. However, instead of showing up, B sent G
than that of intentional felony. a letter saying that he couldn’t marry her because B already has a
wife and children. G was so heartbroken. She couldn’t live with
*A malum prohibitum is not necessarily included in malum in se. the pain so she ended her life and committed suicide.
Therefore, one cannot absorb the other.
Q: Is B liable for the death of G through the Proximate Cause
--xXx-- Doctrine?
A: No. The first element of Proximate Cause is absent. Under the
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be Family Code, breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong.
incurred: Thus, although the death of G is considered a felony, the intention of
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the B is not a felonious act.
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
By any person performing an act which would be an Example;
offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent B and G were boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. B promised G
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the that he will marry her. However, B changed his mind. G was so
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. heartbroken, she went to the top floor of the nearest building. At
the top, G jumped over the ledge and committed suicide. G died. On
Proximate Cause Doctrine her way down, G landed over a pedestrian. The pedestrian was
Proximate Cause Doctrine states that criminal liability shall be squashed by G resulting to the death of the pedestrian.
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Q: Is G liable for the death of the pedestrian by virtue of the Q: Is X criminally liable for the death of the boy?
proximate cause? A: YES. First element, the intended act is a felonious act. He was not
A: NO. Under the Revised Penal Code, committing suicide is not committing a felonious act. He was just acting his right when he said
considered a felony. he will call the police considering that the boys were taking his
mangoes, they were committing theft. Therefore, he was just acting
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE (EIC) within his right. Since X was not committing a felonious act, he
Efficient Intervening Force is an active force which is a distinct act cannot be held criminally liable for the resulting felony.
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
* So if you are given a problem, the first thing you should do is to
In order that an act is considered an Efficient Intervening Cause, it is determine if the person is committing a felonious act. If not, a
necessary that it is totally foreign from the felonious act that is person cannot be held liable for the resulting felony. If he is, then he
performed by the offender; is liable for the resulting felony.

Proximate Cause is not always the immediate cause. At times it may Example;
be a remote cause; In the same case, X told the boys, if you will not come down I have
here my shotgun, I will shoot each one of you and he fired shots in
Example; the air. The boys were so afraid and hurriedly went down, one of
A was driving his car along SLEX followed by B, by C, by D, by E. them jumped, fell and suffered serious physical injuries because of
When A reached the tollgate, he stopped to pay the toll, so B his broken legs.
stopped as well as C and D. E however was very sleepy, he did not
put to stop so he hit D, D hit C, C hit B, B hit A. Because of the impact Q: Is X criminally liable for the injuries sustained by the boy?
the car of A sustained serious damage. A: NO. Because this time he was committing a felonious act. He was
threatening to shoot the children. It is a felonious act amounting to
Q: What is the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the car grave threats. Therefore, this time he is criminally liable for the
of A? resulting felony although different from that which he intended.
A: The Proximate Cause was E because it was the car of E which sets
into motion all other cars to bump each other. It was not the * For one to be criminally liable under the Proximate Cause Doctrine,
immediate cause because the immediate cause was the car of B it is necessary that there is no efficient intervening cause that has
because it is the car of B which hit the car of A. So a PC is not always broken the chain between the felonious act and the resulting felony.
the immediate cause, at times it may be the remote cause.
Example;
Example; A and B, they are boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. The A
A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a bus, 2 man promised to marry B that night. B waited in vain, however, A did not
seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at back. While they arrive. Instead B received a text message saying that A would not be
were traversing a zigzag portion on the road, the 4 men stood up able to come, and could not marry B because A is already a married
and announced a hold up. One passenger was so afraid of the robber man with 5 children. So B became so sad. Frustrated, she began
as he had a previous experience of robbers. He was so afraid that he crying terribly and went out of the house, walked on the streets, not
opened a window and he jumped out of a window, he fell on a cliff on her own rightful self. She fell on a canal and she died.
and he died.
Q: Is A the boyfriend, liable for the death of B?
Q: Are the robbers liable for the death of the passenger? A: NO. It is a settled rule that breach of promise to marry is not a
A: Yes. The robbers in announcing a holdup are committing a felonious act. Since B was not committing a felony, therefore, he
felonious act. cannot be liable for the death of A.

The resulting act was a felony, the resulting felony was the direct, Example;
natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of the In the same problem, when the girl learned that the man could not
offenders. Were it not for the robbers announcing a hold up, there marry her. She went on the top most portion of the building,
would be no fear on the mind of the passenger. But because of the decided to commit suicide to take her own life. She jumped.
announcement, there was fear on the mind of passenger and by However, as she was falling, she fell on a child. The girl survived but
reason of that fear, he made risk that caused his death. The robbers the child was pinned down and died.
are liable for robbery with homicide because they are liable for the
death of the passenger. Q: Is A, the boyfriend, liable for the death of the child?
A: NO. Again, breach of promise to is not a felony. Since A was not
Example; performing a felonious act, he is not liable for any resulting felony.
X was having a siesta on the terrace of their house on a rocking
chair. Suddenly he was awakened by the noise of the children. He Q: is B, the girlfriend, liable for the death of the baby?
found out that it was coming from the backyard of their house, saw A: NO. Committing suicide is not a felony either the RPC or any
4 boys harvesting his mango tree. So he told the boys to come down special Penal law in PH jurisdiction. It is not a felonious act.
the tree, otherwise, he will be calling the police and let them be However, in performing said lawful act, she did not do so with due
arrested. The boys hurriedly went down the tree. One boy from the care. Since she did not do so with due care, she becomes liable for a
top most portion of the tree jumped down and his head hit a big CULPABLE FELONY. So here there is a simple negligence on the part
stone. He suffered hemorrhage, thereafter he died. of the said
woman, therefore, the said woman may be held liable for simple Because
negligence resulting to homicide for the death of the said child.

People vs. Villacorta (G.R. No. 186412, August 28, 2009)

January 23, 2002, there was a stabbing incident. Cruz was stabbed
by Villacorta on the left side of his body with a sharpened bamboo
stick. He was brought to the Tondo Medical Center. He was released
on the very same day as out patient because his wound was not
fatal. February 14, 2002 he was brought to San Lazaro Hospital. He
was already suffering from tetanus infection. A day after February 15
he died. The cause of his death was tetanus infection. Villacorta was
prosecuted for the crime of homicide for the death of Cruz. The
lower court convicted him.

Q: Is the accused liable for homicide?

A: NO. Supreme Court: Citing Urbano case, he cannot be convicted
of the crime of homicide. Based on the expert testimony of the
doctor, the incubation period of the tetanus virus is within 14 days.
In the case, it took the victim 22 days before he died. Therefore the
stab wound was without tetanus virus. Cruz may have performed
acts which brought about the tetanus virus. The stabbing was only a
remote cause and the tetanus infection was the proximate infection
which brought about the death of the victim.

So Villacorta was only convicted of slight physical injuries because

they were not able to prove intent to kill. First, no evidence of motif.
Second nature and number of weapon used. A sharpened bamboo
stick, not even a little weapon made of metal. Third, the nature,
number and location of wound. It was only on the left side of the
body. Fourth, manner of committing the crime. After one stabbing,
there was no more. So from homicide, he was only convicted of
slight physical injury punished by the lowest penalty arresto menor,
1- 30days or fine of not more than P200.

Urbano vs. IAC (G.R. NO. 72964, September 7, 2011)

Javier was hacked by Urbano on his right palm. Javier suffered an
incised wound and brought to the hospital. There was settlement.
Thereafter he was released. However, after 22 days he was brought
to the hospital, he was already suffering from tetanus poisoning. The
next day he died.

Q: Is the accused liable for homicide?

A: NO. SC: same reasoning by the SC. The act committed by Javier
after he was released from the hospital, the fishing, going to the
farm was considered as the proximate cause that brought about the
tetanus virus on his incised wound. Therefore he was not convicted
of the crime of homicide but only physical injuries.

Example;
A and B were fighting. A stabbed B. B sustained a less serious
physical injuries. B was brought to the hospital, it was not a serious
wound, however, because of the negligence or careless treatment of
the doctor, this not serious wound became a very serious wound
which later on caused the death of B. The relatives of B filed a case
of homicide against A.

Q: Is A liable of homicide for the death of B? Or would you consider

the careless treatment of the doctor as an EIC?
A: A is liable for the death of B. The negligence or careless treatment
of the doctor cannot be considered as an EIC. The negligent
treatment of the doctor was an active force but it is not a distinct act
or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
precisely he needed medical intervention, he needed treatment under Art. 48. Under Art. 48 when a single act constitutes two or
of the doctor because he sustained a stab wound from A. more grave
Therefore, there is a connection between the felonious act and
the medical treatment. It there for cannot be considered as an
EIC. The doctors negligence would only make him liable
administratively but not criminally.

Example;
A and B were friends. After farming while they were having a
drinking spree, they had a political discussion, A was pro Pnoy and
B was pro GMA. Their agreement heated, B stood up and broke a
bottle of beer, stabbed A. A was wounded. They parted ways. A
was on his way home when suddenly it rained. After it rained
there was lightning and A was hit by lightning. A died. The heirs of
A filed a case of homicide against B.

Q: Is B criminally liable for the death of A?

A: NO. Under the proximate cause doctrine, B is not criminally
liable for the death of A because there was an EIC that is the
lightning. The lightning was an active force which is a distinct act
or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender
which was the stabbing of the victim. Therefore he cannot be held
liable for the death of A but only physical injuries sustained by the
victim.

3 SITUATIONS WHEREIN A PERSON BECOMES CRIMINALLY

LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT
FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED:
1. Abberatio Ictus (Mistake in the blow)
2. Error in Personae (Mistake in the identity);
3. Praeter intentionem;

ABERRATIO ICTUS
Aberratio Ictus is a situation wherein the offender directed a blow
at his intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed
on another victim.

Example;
X and Y had a fist fight. X lost. However, X vowed to Y that he will
have his revenge. One day, X saw Y riding in a tricycle. In that
instance, X pulled out his gun and with intent to kill, shot Y.
However, due to poor aim, X hit the tricycle driver instead. The
tricycle driver died.

Q: What crime may X be convicted in so far as Y is concerned?

A: In so far as Y is concerned, X is liable for attempted murder
because he intended to kill Y. He already performed an overt act
when he fired the gun with intent to kill against B. There was
treachery because the victim was totally defenseless. However,
because of poor aim, it was the tricycle driver who died.

Q: What crime may X be convicted in so far as the tricycle driver

is concer?
In so far as the tricycle driver is concerned, X is liable for murder.
In the case of People v. Flora (G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000), the
Supreme Court held that treachery is appreciated in Aberratio
Ictus. The Flora doctrine was likewise adopted by the court in
People v. Adrian (G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015).

Q: Therefore, of what crime will you charge and convict X?

A: There are two crimes committed. Against Y attempted murder,
against the tricycle driver is murder. But since this 2 crimes were
brought about by a single act, it will give rise to a complex crime
or less grave felonies, we have compound crime or a complex crime. ERROR IN PERSONAE
Thus, the crime committed by X is Murder with attempted murder Error in Personae is a situation wherein the victim actually received
because it results from the single act of the crime. the bullet but he was mistaken to be the intended victim. The
intended victim was not at the scene of the crime.
Q: In the same case as mentioned above, the tricycle driver
survived but sustained a mortal wound. What crime may be Effects
charged to X? A: As to Y, X is liable for attempted murder. As to the The effect of error in personae depends on the variance between the
tricycle driver, X is liable for serious Physical injuries only because intended crime and the actual crime committed;
there is no intent to kill on his part.
Mitigating - If there is variance between the penalty of the intended
Q: What if when the tricycle driver was hit by the bullet, he only crime and the penalty of the actual crime committed, the lesser
sustained a slight physical injury which is a light felony, are you penalty between the two shall apply;
going to complex?
A: NO. This time you cannot complex because under Art. 48, you can If there is no variance between the penalty of the intended crime
only complex grave and less grave felonies. You cannot complex a and the crime actually committed, then it will not affect the criminal
light felony. Therefore, there would be 2 cases filed separately. liability of the offender;
Attempted murder in so far as B is concerned. Slight physical injury
in so far as C is concerned. So 2 informations, 2 cases must be filed Example;
in the court. A and B were fighting. A punched B so hard, he fell on the ground,
his face facing the ground. A left the scene of the crime. At that
People v. Flora (G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000). precise moment when A left, here comes the father of B who saw his
Hermogenes Flora and his brother Edwin Flora were in a party. In poor son boxed by A so he came to the rescue of his son and went
that party, they saw Ireneo Gallarte, the uncle of their enemy near him. To retaliate, B took out his balisong and stabbed the
Villanueva. As a revenge against Villanueva, the brothers shot person next to him thinking that it was still his opponent A but in
Gallarte, but because of poor aim, they hit Flor Espinas and killed truth it was already his father. Let's say the father died.
Emerita Roma. However, the brothers succeeded in killing Gallarte.
Q: What was the intended crime committed by B?
Q: What is the liability of the brothers to the deceased Gallarte and A: B intended to commit homicide because he intended to kill A, the
Roma? person who boxed him.
A: As to Gallarte and Roma, the Supreme Court held that the
brothers were guilty of murder because the killing was qualified by Q: What crime did B actually commit?
treachery. Treachery is present when the deceased was not given a A: B actually committedparricide because he killed his own father.
chance to defend themselves. Since neither Gallarte and Roma were
given a chance to defend themselves, both accused were guilty of Q: Of what crime will you prosecute B?
murder. A: B should be prosecuted for Parricide because that is the crime he
actually committed.
Q: What is the liability of the brothers to the Espinas?
A: As to Flor Espinas, the brothers were guilty of attempted murder. Let's say that he is now charged of parricide. Trial on the merits
proceeded. The Judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
People v. Adriano (G.R. 205228, July 15, 2015) parricide.
Police Officers Garabiles and Santos were on patrolling the streets of
Pampanga when they saw a Toyota Corolla overtook them. The Q: What penalty as a Judge would you impose on him?
Corolla reached alongside a SUV. The Corolla cut the lane of the SUV A: The judge should impose the penalty for homicide. The penalty
leading the latter to swerve and fall into a canal. 4 men alighted the for parricide under Art. 246 is reclusion perpetua to death whereas
Corolla and thereafter peppered the SUV with gunshots resulting to the penalty for homicide under Art. 249 is reclusion temporal.
the death of the driver. A stray bullet hit a bystander identified as Although he committed parricide. You have to impose upon him the
Bulanan. Further investigation showed that the accused Cabiedes penalty which is lesser and that is reclusion temporal but in its
was one of those men who participated in the killing of the driver of maximum period.
the SUV.
Under Art. 49, in case of Error in Personae or Mistake in the Identity,
Q: What is the liability of the accused to the driver of the SUV? when there is a variance between the intended crime and the actual
A: As to the driver of the SUV, the accused is guilty of murder crime committed, you have to compare the 2. Whichever has a
because the killing was coupled by treachery. The accused lesser penalty, that penalty has to be imposed.
ambushed the SUV giving the driver no chance to defend himself.
In the case the intended felony is homicide but the actual felony is
Q: What is the liability of the accused to Bulanan? parricide. Compare the penalty of the 2, although B should be
A: As to Bulanan, the accused is likewise guilty of murder. The Court convicted of the crime of parricide, the penalty will be that of the
held that treachery is appreciated in aberration ictus applying the crime with a lesser penalty. That is reclusion temporal for homicide.
Flora doctrine.
Example;
In the same problem, instead of the father coming to the rescue of B,
it was the friend of B who came to his rescue. So when A left, the
friend of B arrived and was the one stabbed by B and died. Q: Should H be given the benefit of Praeter intentionem?
Therefore, B killed his own best friend. The crime committed is
homicide.

Q: What was B’s intended crime?

A: B intended to commit homicide.

Q: What crime did B actually commit?

A: B actually committed homicide because he killed his own best
friend.

Q: What crime would you charge him of?

A: B should be charged of Homicide because that was his actual
crime.

Q: After trial on the merits what penalty will you impose?

A: The penalty to be imposed against B is the penalty for homicide
because there is no variance between the intended felony and the
felony actually committed. In this case, Error in Personae will not
mitigate the liability of the offender. Art. 49 will not apply.

PRATER INTENTIONEM
Praeter intentionem occurs when the consequence went beyond the
intention or when the injurious result is greater than that intended.

Praeter Intetionem is a situation wherein the offender directed the

blow at his actual victim, the victim received the blow. However, the
injurious result is far greater than what is intended by the victim.

Effect
Praeter Interionem it is always a mitigating circumstance because of
Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code;

The offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that

committed.

Elements;
1. That the offender committed a Felony;
2. There must be a notable or notorious disparity between
the means employed by the offender and the result of the
felony;

For Praeter intentionem to be considered as a mitigating

circumstance, the prime element or requisite is that there must be a
notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and
the resulting felony.

* Out of the means employed by the offender, no one could have

anticipated or foreseen that injurious result.

Example;
H arrived home and asked W what was their dinner and the W
answered that she has not yet cooked because she was watching
teleserye. Since the H was so tired, he got mad and elbowed the W.
The W fell on floor and her head hit the edge of the table and so she
suffered hemorrhage. Thereafter, she died. H said he had no
intention of killing his W, he only elbowed her. However, since death
is the result, it is a general criminal intent which is presumed by law.

Q: What crime should H be prosecuted?

A: H should be prosecuted for the crime of Parricide
A: YES. because no one could have foreseen that the mere act of
elbowing the W, death would result. There was a notable
disparity between the means employed, the act of elbowing the
W, and the resulting felony which is death or parricide. Therefore,
he should be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance.

Garcia vs. People (G.R. No. 171951)

Accused Garcia was having a karaoke with his friends late at night
when deceased Chy requested the accused to quiet down.
Thereafter, accused vowed to kill Chy one day. On one instance,
the accused saw the deceased in a sari-sari store. Suddenly, the
accused hit the victim in the nape with a bottle of beer and
thereafter mauled him. The deceased was able to escape and
called his wife to call for police. When his wife returned, the Chy
was already lying in the floor lifeless. Autopsy report concludes
that Chy died from a heart attack brought about by emotional
stress. The accused was charged with the crime of homicide.

Q: Should the accused be convicted for the crime of homicide?

A: YES. His act of mauling him was the proximate cause of his
heart attack. However, he was given the benefit of Praeter
intentionem. Who would have anticipated that the mere act of
mauling or boxing him, death would result. Therefore, there was
Praeter intentionem.

People vs. Noel Sales (G.R. No. 177218).

The accused Noel Sales beat his sons because they went out of
the house for two days without permission. The accused tied one
of his sons to a coconut tree and thereafter hit him with a thick
piece of wood. Thereafter, the son experienced a difficulty in
breathing, and his eyes were moving up and down. The son
collapsed, and died. Autopsy report suggest that the son died.
According to the accused, he cannot be held liable for parricide.
He claimed that he has no intention to kill the child, he only
intended to discipline his children. However, since the victim died,
death is considered a general criminal intent which is presumed
by law. Therefore, he should be held liable of parricide.

Q: Does the Proximate Cause Doctrine Apply?

A: Yes. The father in beating the son with a thick piece of wood
while the child was tied on a coconut tree was already a felonious
act. Therefore the father should be liable for the resulting felony
although different from that which he intended.

Q: Should the father be given the benefit of Praeter

intentionem? A: No. According to the SC, there was no notable
disparity between the act of the father hitting the said son with a
thick piece of wood while being tied on a coconut tree and the
resulting felony which is death. Considering the age of the child,
such act of the father would produce and indeed produce the
death of the child. Therefore it cannot b said that there is no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE

Impossible Crime is committed by any person performing an act
which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

It is not really a crime in the legal sense of the word because a

crime requires a substantive change in the outside world. Here
the act dis not ripen into a crime. It was not accomplished into a
crime because of its inherent impossibility.
The offender is being punished because of his criminality and KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
dangerousness. So although objectively, no crime is committed, still According to jurisprudence, there are two kinds of inherent
the offender shall be punished that is why he is convicted only of impossibility;
Impossible Crime. 1. Legal Impossibility;
2. Physical Impossibility;
The penalty of IC is only arresto mayor or a fine of P200-P500
depending on the criminality or dangerousness of the offender. Legal Impossibility
There is legal impossibility when all the intended acts even if
Elements; committed would not have amounted to a crime.
For a person to be liable of Impossible Crime, the following requisites
must concur; Example;
1. That the act done would have been an offense against X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed Y 10
persons or property; times not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hours
2. That the act was done with evil intent; due to a heart attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to
3. That the act was not accomplished because of its inherent murder, still murder would not arise which is a crime against persons
impossibility or the employment of inadequate or because the victim is already deceased. He is no longer a person in
ineffectual means; the eyes of criminal law. Therefore there is Impossible Cime and
4. That the act done should not constitute any other violation what we have is legal impossibility.
of the Revised Penal Code;
Physical Impossibility
CRIMES AGAINST PERSON OR PROPERTY Physical or Factual Impossibility exist when an extraneous
Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes against person includes the circumstance unknown to the offender prevented the consignation
following; of the crime. Here, there are circumstances unknown to the
1. Parricide; offender, the inadequate control of the offender which prevented
2. Murder; the consignation of the crime.
3. Homicide;
4. Abortion; Example;
5. Infanticide; A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of another,
6. Duel; intended to get the wallet of the said person but the pocket was
7. Physical injuries; empty. It is an IC. Extraneous Circumstances unknown to the
8. Rape; offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Unknown to him
the wallet was not inside his pocket. S it is an IC because it would
Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes against property include; have amounted to theft, a crime against property.
1. Robbery;
2. Brigandage; MUST NOT CONSTITUTE ANY OTHER VIOLATION OF THE REVISED
3. Theft; PENAL CODE
4. Usurpation or occupation of real property; It is necessary that the act done must not be a violation of any crime
5. Estafa or swindling; under the RPC otherwise that person would be held liable of that
6. Malicious mischief; crime and not of an Impossible crime.
7. Arson.
Intod vs. CA (G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992)
*Only crimes against persons and property would an IC Intod, accompanied by other men, wanted to kill Palampangan.
Thus, the accused peppered Palampangan’s room with bullets.
Example; However, the intended victim was not there. Only the son-in-law
H and W were lawfully married. During the subsistence of their and children were present but they were not hit. Intod and his
marriage, H caught W having sexual intercourse with another man. company were charged with the crime of attempted murder up to
As a result, H filed a complaint of adultery against W. As a defense, the CA.
W argued that she cannot be held liable for adultery because she
was born a man and merely changed her sexual organ. Q: Should Intod be convicted for attempted murder?
A: NO. The Supreme Court held that an impossible crime was
Q: Is W liable for an impossible crime of adultery? committed. It was unknown to the offenders that the intended
A: NO. For a person to be held liable for impossible crime, the act victim was not at the scene of the crime. It could have amounted to
committed would have been a crime against person or property a crime against persons which is murder. But it was inherently
were it not for the inherent impossibility of the crime or the impossible because the victim was not there.
inadequate and ineffective means employed. In this case, adultery is
a crime against chastity. Thus, the first requisite of an impossible This decision of the SC were criticized because under the 4th
crime is absent. element, the act must not constitute any other violation of the RPC.
When this accused peppered the house of Palampangan with
INTENT bullets, they did peppered the house with bullets. So they said, they
It is necessary that the offender in doing the act must be incited by should be liable with malicious mischief because damage was done
an evil intent. to the house and not IC. SC retained its decision that it is an IC and
this case of Intod vs. CA was cited in the case of Jacinto vs. People.
Jacinto vs. People (G.R. No. 162540. July 13, 2009) of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
A check which was supposed to be remitted was not remitted by the desistance.
offender to Megafoam. Instead the check was depositedto her own
account. Since the check was not remitted, Megafoam filed a case of 2 Phases in the Commission of the crime
qualified theft against the employee. She was convicted before the There are always 2 phases in the commission of the crime;
lower court up to the CA. 1. Subjective phase;
2. Objective phase;
Q: Should the accused be convicted of theft if the check she stole
was dishonored due to lack of funds? Subjective Phase
A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the crime committed was an The subjective phase is the portion in the commission of the act
Impossible Crime citing the case of Intod vs. CA. The act amounted wherein the offender commences the commission of the crime after
to qualified theft. However, unknown to the said offender the check the time that he still has control over his acts.
was not funded. Therefore, she was not able to get the face value of
the said check. Hence, physical circumstances unknown to the He may or may not proceed in the commission of the crime. He still
offender prevented the consummation of the crime. We have has control over his acts
physical or factual impossibility.
Objective Phase
Q: What about the fact that the check was taken and was not From the moment the offender loses control over his acts, it is
remitted to Megafoam? already in the objective phase of the commission of the crime.
A: According to the Supreme Court, theft has been defined under
Art. 308 as the taking of a property with intent to gain the personal Stages in the Development of the Crime
property of another. Therefore it is necessary that the property The following are the stages in the development of a crime;
taken must have value because the taking must be with intent to 1. Internal Acts;
gain. The mere taking of a check without value would not amount to 2. External Act;
theft because the check without value is a worthless check. Hence,
the SC said that the crime committed is only an IC. Internal Acts
Internal acts are not punishable. Mere criminal thoughts will never
--xXx-- give rise to criminal liability. There must be an external act.

Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which External Act
should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in External Act are acts which includes preparatory acts and acts of
cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge execution. As a rule, preparatory Acts are not yet punishable
of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not because they are not yet connected to a particular felony.
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, Example;
the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should Conspiracy to commit a crime, proposal to commit a crime -> merely
be made the subject of legislation. preparatory acts. Hence, as a rule they are not punishable
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as ACTS OF EXECUTION
may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the Acts of Execution is the actual act of committing the crime. We have
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code 3 stages;
would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking 1. Attempted;
into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by 2. Frustrated; and
the offense. 3. Consummated;

There are no common law crimes in the Philippines. ATTEMPTED STAGE

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
--xXx-- of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
— Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable. The offender is still in the subjective phase, the offender has still
A felony is consummated when all the elements control over his acts, he may proceed in the commission of the crime
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it or he may desist.
is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, The moment he desist on his own spontaneous desistance then he
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of will no longer be held criminally liable.
the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the Elements;
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform The following are the elements of attempted felony;
all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt act;
 2. That he does not perform all acts of execution that would Baleros vs. People (G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006)
have produced the felony; The woman was awakened by a man pressing a cloth soaked with
3. That his act was not stopped by his own spontaneous chemical on her face. The man was on top of her, she struggled, she
desistance; was able to kick the man, the man jumped out of the window. She
4. That he was not able to perform all acts of execution by called on the guard and then everyone came up to her. The case
reason of some cause or accident other than his own filed against the man was attempted rape. The man was convicted
spontaneous desistance; up to the CA of attempted rape.

Overt Act Q: Was there attempted rape?

Overt Act refers to any external act which if allowed to continue will A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the overt act of pressing a cloth
naturally and logically ripen into a crime. soaked with chemical on the face of a woman is not an overt act
directly connected to rape. The obvious intent was to make the
What the law requires is that the overt act must be directly woman unconscious but once the woman is made unconscious, the
connected to the intended felony. The offender commences the man may rape, may touch the private parts of the woman, or he
commission of the crime directly by overt act. may injure the woman, or may rob the property of the woman.
Therefore he cannot be held liable for attempted rape.
Directly By Overt Acts
Directly by Overt Acts means that the Overt Acts performed by the When the overt act of a person is ambiguous in so far as the
offender must be directly connected to the intended felony. intended felony is committed, what we have is an attempt to
commit an indeterminate offense which is a juridical standpoint
The attempted felony that is punished by law is one which is directly insofar as the RPC is concerned
connected to the overt act performed by the offender although he
has admitted the crime. Indeterminate Offense
In indeterminate offense, the overt act of a person in relation to the
Example; intended felony is ambiguous. It is necessary that the overt act must
X won the lottery. X put the lottery money in a safe in his house. Y be necessarily connected to the felony. Only then he will be
wanted to steal the lottery money in X’s house. On that night, Y punished of the said attempted felony.
went to the house of X. In order to enter the house, Y removed the
jalousies of the window of X’s house. When Y was about to Rivera vs. People (G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006)
enter the house of X, a barangay tanod saw Y. Thereafter, Y was The victim was mauled, hit with hollow blocks, Rivera brothers were
apprehended by the barangay tanod before he could enter X’s able to pin him down on the ground. Suddenly there was the siren of
house. Y was charged with attempted robbery. the police, so the Rivera brothers fled. The medical certificate
showed that the victim only suffered superficial injuries, only slight
Q: Should X be convicted of attempted robbery? physical injuries, yet they were charged of attempted murder.
A: NO. The act of Y in removing the jalousie window of X is not
directly connected to the act of robbery. The act of removing the Q: What is the criminal liability of the Rivera brother, if any?
jalousies of the window will not necessarily ripen in to the crime of A: The Rivera Brothers are liable for attempted murder. The first
robbery because once inside, Y may rape, may kill, may rob, etc. element was present, they boxed the victim, they mauled him, their
intention was to kill him. Second, they were not able to perform all
Q: What is the liability of X, if any? acts of execution because of the arrival of the police. Therefore, the
A: X is liable only for attempted trespass to dwelling. Removing the non-consummation of the crime was because of a cause or accident
jalousie of the window is an overt act directly connected to trespass other than the accused's own spontaneous desistance.
to dwelling. It will necessarily ripen into the crime of trespass to
dwelling. However, because the barangay tanod apprehended Y Q: Why attempted murder? Why not slight physical injuries?
before he could enter the house of X, he did not perform all the acts A: Because there was intent to kill.
of execution by reason or some accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Determining Intent to Kill
The following are the factors to determine whether or not there is
Poeple vs. Lamahag (G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935) intent to kill;
A person intending to rob a store made an opening on the wall of 1. Evidence of motive;
the store sufficient for his body to enter. His intention was to rob. 2. The nature and number of weapons used by the offender;
Before he could enter, he was already apprehended. 3. The nature, number and location of the wounds inflicted
on the victim;
Q: Can he be liable of attempted robbery? 4. Manner of committing the crime;
A: NO. Because his OA of making an opening on the wall of the store 5. Acts and statements made by the offender before, during
is not an overt act directly connected to robbery. It is only an overt and after the commission of the crime;
act directly connected to trespassing. Hence, he can only be held
liable for attempted trespassing. Example;
X and Y were fighting. In the course of the fight, X pulled out a gun.
Although his intention was to commit robbery, once inside he may Upon seeing this, Y ran away from X. With intent to kill, X aimed the
rob, he may rape, he may kill, he may injure the owner of the store. gun towards Y and pulled the trigger. At the last minute, Y evaded
Therefore, it is not an act directly connected to robbery. the bullet.
Q: Is X liable for any crime? Example;
A: YES. The crime committed was attempted homicide or murder as X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y walking in the streets.
the case may be. Even if the victim was not hit, since the act of X took out his gun from his house with the purpose of killing Y. X
discharging the firearm was with intent to kill the victim, it was aimed the gun at Y. At that very moment, Y’s son ran towards Y.
already in the attempted stage. Such act of firing the fire arm was Upon seeing the son, X did not shoot Y.
already an OA directly connected to the act of homicide or murder
as the case may be. Q: What crime did X commit, if any?
A: Nothing. Although X commenced the commission of killing Y
Example; through overt acts, X did not perform all the acts of execution which
In the same problem, X aimed the gun towards Y and pulled the should produce the felony. Upon seeing the son of Y ran towards
trigger. Y was hit in the right shoulder. Y safely got away. Upon him, he voluntary and spontaneously desisted.
medical examination, the doctor said that Y’s wound will heal
within 5 days. Attempted Felony v. Impossible Crime
ATTEMPTED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Q: What crime was committed by X against Y? In attempted felony, the crime In impossible crime, the felony
A: X is liable for attempted homicide or murder as the case may be. may be accomplished; cannot be accomplishment;
The wound sustained was not fatal or not mortal. It requires another It is inherently impossible, or
act for the crime to be consummated. No one would die by a non- It is not accomplished by
the means employed is
mortal or non-fatal wound. spontaneous desistance;
inadequate or ineffective;

Example; Example;
A shot B with intent to kill. B was hit on a vital organ. So he X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house.
sustained a fatal, mortal wound. However, he survived due to
Angered, X took his gun out of his house. X took aim at Y and pulled
immediate medical intervention.
the trigger of the gun. However, the gun did not fire the shot. X
pulled the trigger again, yet no bullet came out. Upon inspection, X
Q: What crime was committed by A against B?
found out that the gun was not loaded with bullets.
A: It is already frustrated homicide or murder as the case may be.
Q: What crime did X commit, if any?
People v. Labiaga (G.R. No. 02867, July 15, 2013)
A: X is liable for an impossible crime. Had the gun been loaded with
Accused Labiaga was in the house of Gregorio Conde when suddenly
bullets, X would have committed the crime of murder. However,
he shot Gregorio in the forearm. Gregorio shouted for help. One of
because the gun had no bullets, it is inherently impossible to commit
his daughters, Judy Conde, came to his rescue. However, the
the crime of murder in any circumstance.
accused shot Judy to the stomach. Accused was charged with
murder and frustrated murder.
FRUSTRATED STAGE
There is frustrated felony when the offender performs all the acts of
Q: Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated murder
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
against Gregorio Conde?
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
A: NO. Gregorio Conde failed to present prove that the wound he
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
sustained was fatal. If the wound sustained by the victim is a not
fatal or not mortal, the crime is only in the attempted stage. The
Elements:
reason is that it is only when the wound sustained is mortal or fatal
In the case of People v. Badriago (G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009) the
that it can be said that the said offender has already performed all
Supreme Court gave the elements of frustrated homicide;
the acts of execution which would produce the felony. However, the
1. The offender performs all the acts of executions;
felony was not produced by reason of a cause independent of his
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
will that is the immediate medical intervention.
consequence;
3. Felony is not produced;
Example;
4. By reason of cause or accident other than the will of the
X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house.
perpetrator;
Angered, X took his father’s gun. The gun was not used for a long
time. Thereafter, X took aim and, with intent to kill, pulled the
Example;
trigger of the gun. However, the gun did not fire the shot. X pulled
A wanted to kill his own father to get his inheritance immediately
the trigger four times, yet no bullet came out. The gun was jammed.
and wanted to be rich. Went to drug store and bought poison.
Before going home, he went to the house of his friend and told his
Q: What is the liability of X, if any?
friend "tonight I will be rich, I will be poisoning my father, I will be a
A: X is liable for homicide. The overt act of pointing the gun to Y is
millionaire." After telling that to his friend, A ran to his house. Upon
directly connected to the crime of homicide. However, the gun
reaching his house, he took the poison out of the plastic.
jammed. X was prevented from performing all the acts of execution
Meanwhile, the friend went to the police and told plan of A to kill
by some reason or accident other than his own spontaneous
the father. The friend and the police went to the house of A and the
desistance.
father. Upon reaching the house, they saw A in the act of taking out
the said poison from the plastic bag. A was arrested.
Q: Is A liable of attempted parricide? A: The son is liable of physical injuries depending on the required
A: NO. He is not yet liable of attempted parricide. The act of buying medical intervention. 1-9 days slight physical injuries. 10-30 days less
poison, taking out of the plastic are only preparatory act. It is not yet serious physical injuries, more than 30 days serious physical injuries.
an overt act directly connected to parricide. He may use the poison
not really to kill the father, he may use it to kill insects or pests. NO FRSUTRATED THEFT
Therefore, he cannot be liable of attempted parricide. In the case of People vs. Valenzuela (G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007)
the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as frustrated
Example; theft. Under Art. 308, theft is committed when the person takes the
A mixed the poison to the juice of the father and then he gave it to personal property of another with intent to gain without violence,
his father. The father was about to drink the juice with poison. force or intimidation upon persons or things without the consent of
However, since the father was clumsy, the glass fell from the hands the owner.
of the father.
Theft can admit only either an attempted and consummated stage
Q: Is A liable of attempted parricide? because the moment the offender gains possession of the personal
A: YES. He already liable. The moment he poured the poison in the property of another, unlawful taking is already committed.
juice of the father and he gave it to the father for him to drink, he
already performed an overt act directly connected to parricide. Even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the property and the
However, parricide was not consummated and he was not able to moment the unlawful taking is complete, theft is already
perform all the acts of execution by reason of an accident. It was consummated. Hence, there can be no instance of frustrated theft.
purely accidental because the father was clumsy and the glass
slipped from his hands. Example;
A woman went to Rustans and bought perfume. While she was
Example; sitting and the saleslady was taking the perfume in the counter, she
In the same problem, after mixing the poison in the juice, he gave it saw a new line of lipsticks on a glass shelf. She went there but it was
to his father. The father was about to drink the juice with a poison locked. Saw the key on the table and opened it, took one and
when A took pity on his father and had a change of heart. He slipped in inside her bag, closed the glass, placed the key back on the
immediately grabbed the juice and threw it on the garden. table. The saleslady arrived and gave her the perfume. She was
about to leave Rustans when suddenly this certain device detected
Q: Is A liable of attempted parricide? and made a sound, so the unpaid lipstick was discovered.
A: NO. He is not liable of attempted parricide. The act of mixing of
the poison with the juice is an overt act directly connected to Q: What crime was committed by the woman?
parricide, however, he was not able to perform all acts of execution A: The woman committed consummated Theft. Even if she has not
by reason of his own spontaneous desistance. Therefore, he is yet left Rustans, the moment she took the lipstick from the glass
absolved of criminal liability. Because for one to be liable in the shelf, taking is already complete, theft is already consummated.
attempted stage, the reason for the non-consummation of the crime
must not be his own spontaneous desistance. In the same problem, woman took a lipstick and slipped it inside her
bag. Suddenly she has a change of heart. She took the lipstick from
Example; her back and placed it back on the glass shelf and the closed the
In the same problem, A mixed the poison with a juice and gave it to glass and locked it.
his father. The father drank the juice and was poisoned. Suddenly,
he was already showing signs of being poisoned, he was chilling. Q: Did the woman commit any crime?
Upon seeing his father in that condition, A immediately A: YES. She is already liable of consummated theft. The moment she
administered an antidote to his father, after that he immediately took the lipstick from the glass shelf and placed it inside her bag,
rushed his father to the hospital. The father survived. The doctor taking is already complete, therefore, theft is already consummated.
said, were it not for the antidote given by the son, the father would Her change of heart would not amount to desistance. Too late.
have died. Desistance will only lie in the attempted stage but never in the
consummated nor in the frustrated stage.
Q: Is the son liable of attempted parricide?
A: NO. The moment the father drank the juice, all the acts for the Q: What is the effect of returning back the lipstick?
performance of the crime has already been done. The offender has A: There will only be NO civil liability. She will not be made to pay
already performed all acts of execution necessary to consummate the lipstick because she returned it but nevertheless, she is already
the crime. However, the crime was not consummated. liable for consummated theft because unlawful taking is already
committed.
Q: Is the son liable of frustrated parricide?
A: NO. In frustrated parricide although the offender has already Example;
performed all the acts of execution, the reason for the non- In the same case, the woman opened the glass shelf. She was about
consummation of the crime must be a cause independent of his will. to take the lipstick when suddenly there was this hand placed on top
The reason for the non-consummation of the crime is the own will of of her hand before she could even get the lipstick. Unknown to her,
the son. Therefore, the son is not liable of frustrated homicide. her acts were being seen on a CCTV camera and the head of the
administrative office immediately went to her upon seeing that she
Q: What is the liability of the son? was about to take the lipstick.
Q: Is the woman liable of any crime? Intent to have carnal
A: Yes. She is already liable of attempted theft. A note was posted There is no intent to have
knowledge with the girl is
on the glass shelf saying, do not open, ask for assistance. The carnal knowledge of the girl;
evident;
moment she opened it with use of the key, it shows her intent to
gain. It is on the attempted stage because she has not yet taken MATERIAL CRIMES
possession of the personal property of another. Material crimes are crimes which admits stages of attempted,
frustrated, and consummated.
NO FRUSTRATED RAPE
In the case of People v. Pareja (G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012) FORMAL CRIMES
the Supreme Court held that rape is consummated by the slightest Formal crimes are crimes which does not admit any stages. It only
penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female punishes a consummated stage.
organ. Without any showing of such penetration, there can be no
consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape or acts of The following are considered formal crimes;
lasciviousness.” 1. Physical injuries;
2. Slander;
Example; 3. Adultery;
A woman was raped. She filed a case of rape against the man. In her
open court testimony, she said she was not sure if the penetration --xXx--
was complete. Likewise in the medical certificate it shows that her
hymen was not lacerated, it was intact. Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated,
Q: Can the said man be liable of consummated rape? with the exception of those committed against person or property.
A: YES. According to the Supreme Court, rape does not admit of any
frustrated stage. Rape is consummated the moment the penis has The following are light felonies;
touched the lips or the labia of the pudendum of a woman's 1. Slight Physical Injuries; (Art. 266)
genitalia. It is not necessary that there is full or complete 2. Theft; (Art. 309, Par. 7 and 8)
penetration nor a hymenal laceration. The hymen may remain intact 3. Alteration of boundary marks; (Art. 313)
yet rape can be committed because what is required is the penis 4. Malicious Mischief; (Art. 328, par. 3, Art. 329, par. 3)
must touch lips or the labia. 5. Intriguing against honor;

People vs. Lizada (G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003) As a rule, light felonies are punishable only when they are on their
The man was still in his shorts. His penis has not yet even touch the consummated stage. Unless the crime is committed against person
genitalia of the girl. He only touched the private parts of the girl. or property

Q: How come the conviction was for attempted rape and not mere Q: Why are attempted and frustrated felonies not punishable?
acts of lasciviousness? A: Light felonies produces such light, such insignificant, moral and
A: The Supreme Court convicted the accused of attempted rape material injuries. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so
taking into consideration the 3 other consummated rape that has slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.
been done by the stepfather on the daughter. Considering that in
these 3 former acts rape had been consummated, the obvious intent Q: What is the reason for the exception?
of the stepfather is to rape the girl. It just so happen that he saw the A: The commission of felonies against persons or property
son peeping and so he went out of the room. That is the reason presupposes in the offender moral depravity.
given.
--xXx--
* If that is the reason given without the said facts that there has
been consummated rape for the past 3 acts, it should only be acts of Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. —
lasciviousness or at least attempted rape if there in an intent to lie. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in
In the case, the stepfather was still in his shorts, the penis has not the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
yet touched even the outer portion of a woman's genitalia. Absent A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
the facts that there were 3 former consummated rape, it should only an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
be acts of lasciviousness. Because to amount to at least attempted commit it.
stage, it is necessary that the penis must touch at least the outer There is proposal when the person who has decided to
portion to show intent to lie. The man was still in his shorts, how can commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
you know that there was intent to lie. It is only a different ruling persons.
because there were 3 previous consummated rape and the SC
considered all these saying that the obvious intent of the stepfather Conspiracy v. Proposal.
was also to rape the daughter. CONPIRACY PROPOSAL
A bilateral act – there must be
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape Unilateral act – only one
at least two persons who
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ATTEMPTED RAPE person who decide to commit
agreed to the commission of
a felony is sufficient;
the crime;
 Likewise, the penis only
The penis only touched the
touched the outer portion of
outer portion of the vagina;
the vagina;
 General Rule – not punishable as an act; Direct or Express Conspiracy
Exception – unless the law especially provides for their penalty; There is direct or express conspiracy when the offenders or
conspirators met, planned, agreed, decided to commit a crime.
CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME There is a preconceived plan prior to the commission of the crime.
If conspiracy or proposal to commit a crime are provided in penalties
by law, it is not necessary that there be an overt act committed. The For one to be criminally liable of direct or express conspiracy, the
mere act of conspiring or proposing will already give rise to a crime. following elements must be present;
1. There is a prior agreement or preconceived plan;
The following are conspiracies as a crime; 2. Presence at the time of the commission of the crime;
1. Conspiracy to commit treason;
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion; Even if he is part of the agreement if at the time of the commission
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition; of the crime he failed to appear, such failure on his part to appear at
4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; (Special Penal Laws) the scene of the crime would be construed by law as a desistance.
Therefore, even if he part of the agreement he will not be liable as a
It is not necessary that there be overt acts. They are punishable acts conspirator.
by themselves.
Example;
Example; A, B and C decided to kill X on a particular date and time. On the said
A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to take up arms and date and time, A and B arrived and killed X. However, C failed to
overthrow the government and stir public uprising. They already appear.
bought guns and other pieces of equipment. However, before they
could execute their plan, they were apprehended. Q: Is C liable for the death of X?
A: NO. Although C was part of the agreement, he cannot be held
Q: Are A, B, C, D, and E criminally liable? criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder because he
A: YES. They were liable for the crime of conspiracy to commit failed to appear at the scene of the crime. His failure to appear is
rebellion. Even though they were not able to execute their plan, construed by law as a desistance on his part.
conspiring to overthrow the government is already a felony which
makes them criminally liable. Example;
In the same problem but all were present. A and B were about to kill
Example; X but C performed acts preventing A and B from committing the
A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to kidnap X and thereafter crime.
exchange him for ransom. However, before they could execute their
plan, all of them were arrested. Q: Is C criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder?
A: NO. Since C performed acts trying to prevent A and B from
Q: Did A, B, C, D, and E incur criminal liability? committing the crime, he cannot be held criminally liable as a
A: NO. There is no crime of conspiracy to commit kidnapping for conspirator for the crime of murder in the said case.
ransom. A, B, C, D, and E di not incur criminal liability.
General Rule;
OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY Conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed upon. They are not
1. Active participation in the crime itself; liable for any crime which is not agreed upon.
2. Lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the commission of the crime; Exceptions;
3. Exerting moral ascendancy on the other co-conspirators; 1. When the other crime was committed in the presence of
the other conspirators and they did not perform acts to
CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A CRIME prevent its commission;
If conspiracy is only a means of committing a crime it is not yet a 2. When the other crime committed was the natural
punishable act. The mere act of conspiring will make the offenders consequence of the crime agreed upon; and
co- conspirators but they are not yet punishable, they are not yet 3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or a special
criminally liable. complex crime or a single indivisible complex crime;

Elements Example;
In the case of People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004) A, B and C decided to kill X. Went to the place where X will be
conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors; passing at night time. When they saw X, A B and C surrounded X and
1. Singularity of intent; they all stabbed X. When X was lying on the ground, A and B left. C
2. Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective; remained and took the valuables of X.

2 kinds of Conspiracy as a means of committing a crime Q: What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C?
1. Direct or express conspiracy; A: A, B and C are all liable for the crime of murder as conspirators
2. Implied or Inferred Conspiracy; because it is the crime agreed upon. However, only C will be liable
for the crime of theft. A and B cannot be held liable for the crime of
theft because theft was not a crime agreed upon by all of them.
Also, theft was committed in the absence of A and B. There was no In People vs. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 131357, August 28, 2009), the
opportunity for A and B to stop C in theft. Therefore, only C will be Supreme Court held that direct proof is not necessary for one to
held liable for theft. become a conspirator because conspiracy can be proven from the
acts done or performed prior, during or subsequent to the
Example; commission of the crime.
In the same problem, C took the valuables of X in the presence of A
and B. While he was taking them, A said what about the cellphone, B Example;
what about the ring, here take it also. A, B and C alighted in the house of X, they were all armed with
armalites. They all went in front of the door. A knocked at the door.
Q: What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? When X opened the door, B fired at X. X fell on the floor. C kicked his
A: Although theft was not a crime agreed upon, all of them will be body inside and closed the door. All of them left still armed.
held liable of the crime of theft because although theft was not
agreed upon, it was committed in the presence of A and B and they Q: Are they all conspirators for the murder of X?
did not perform acts to prevent C from committing theft. A: YES. It is evident here that there is a pre conceived plan prior to
the commission of the crime. Although the only participation of A
Example; was to knock at the door and the only participation of C was to close
A, B and C decided to injure X to teach him a lesson. When X arrived, the door, it was obvious, there was a pre conceived plan. All of the,
they surrounded him, boxed, punched, hit X. While X was lying on arrived at the same time armed with armalites. They went in front of
the ground, seriously wounded, A inflicted a fatal wound by kicking the door, one knocked, one fired, one closed the door, left together
the neck of X. X died. still armed. All of these showed that there was a pre conceived plan
to kill X. As such they are all liable as conspirators regardless of the
Q: Who is liable for the death of X? quantity and quality of their participation.
A:All of them are criminally liable for the death of X. They all agreed
to injure X. That was their agreement. The death of X however was Implied or Inferred Conspiracy
the natural consequence of their agreement to injure X. Therefore, Implied or inferred conspiracy is deduced from the mode and
even if it is not their intended act, since it is the natural consequence manner of committing the crime, there is no pre-conceived plan but
of the crime, they are all criminally liable for the death of X. the offenders acted simultaneously in a synchronized and
coordinated manner, their acts complimenting one another towards
Example; a common criminal objective or design. T
A, B and C decided to rob the house of X. They went inside the house
of X. They have already taken the valuables. On their way out It may happen that the conspirators do not know each other. Since
however, C pushed a chair. The chair fell on floor and created a the offenders acted in a synchronized and coordinated manner, a
noise. The owner of the house was awakened and began shouting conspiracy was established instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the
upon seeing A, B and C. C shot the owner of the house. The owner moment.
died.
Example;
Q: What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? X was trying to stab Y. Y evaded all the blows. Z saw that X was
A: The crime agreed upon was robbery. However, by reason or on having a hard time stabbing Y. Z was an enemy of Y. So Z went at the
the occasion of robbery, homicide was committed. Therefore, the back of Y and held both hands of Y at the back and told X to stab Y
resulting felony is a special complex crime. which X did.

Under Art. 294 it is robbery with homicide. Since the resulting felony Q: Was there conspiracy between Z and X?
is a special complex crime, which cannot be separated from each A: YES. An implied conspiracy was established, instantly, impulsively,
other, all of them can be held criminally liable of the special complex at the spur of the moment. There was no pre conceived plan but the
crime of robbery with homicide. act of Z of holding the hands of Y is a direct and positive overt act
showing that he has the same criminal design as That of X which is to
People vs. Carandang, Milan and Chua (G.R. No. 175926, July 6, kill Y.
2011) All of them were charged of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of
frustrated murder. The only participation of Milan was to close the In case of implied conspiracy, for one to be considered as a
door. It was only Carandang who shot the 3 police officers. Chua conspirator, it is necessary that the offender have an active
instructed Milan to finish the 3rd police officer and Milan followed participation in the commission of the crime.
him.
Mere presence at the scene of the crime, mere approval, mere
Q: Is there conspiracy among the accused? acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the crime will
A: YES. The Supreme Court held that although the participation of not make one a conspirator absent any active participation. Because
Milan was only to close the door, Chua was only to order Milan to the basis is on the acts performed by the offender. Unlike a
shoot the 3rd police officer, such act of Chua showed that he preconceived plan there was a prior agreement, therefore mere
exercised moral ascendancy over Milan. Therefore, since what is presence or exercise of moral ascendancy will make one a
present here is a prior agreement to kill the police officers, mere conspirator. In implied the conspiracy is established based on the
exercise of moral ascendancy will already make one a conspirator. It acts performed. Therefore, if you do not perform an act, if you are
is not necessary that they actually participate in the execution of the merely present then you cannot be held a conspirator.
crime. Thus, all of them are held criminally liable.
Example; 2KINDS OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY
X was trying to stab Y. When Z saw that X was stabbing Y he shouted There are two kinds of multiple conspiracy;
"sige tirahin mo pa, sa kaliwa sa kanan..." X kept on stabbing Y. 1. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy;
2. Chain Conspiracy;
Q: Was there conspiracy between Z and X?
A: NO. Absent any active participation, mere approval, mere Wheel or Circle Conspiracy
acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the crime will Wheel or Circle Conspiracy exist when a single person or group of
not make one a conspirator in case of implied or inferred conspiracy. persons known as a hub, deals individually with another person or
group of persons known as the spokes.
PENALTY BETWEEN CONSPIRATORS
When conspiracy is established whether direct or express, implied or Chain Conspiracy
inferred, the act of one is the act of all. Therefore, all the Chain Conspiracy usually involving the distribution of narcotics or
perpetrators in the crime will have one and the same penalty. The other contraband, in which there is successive communication and
same penalty will be imposed regardless of the quantity and quality cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business
of the participation. The moment conspiracy is established, it is operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler
immaterial to determine who inflicted because all of them will have and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.
the same penalty.
In Fernan vs. People (G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007) The
If however, conspiracy is not established, the penalty will be Supreme Court held that what is present is a wheel or circle
individual in nature depending on the act that they performed. conspiracy. 4 persons headed by the chief accountant acted as the
hub. They enticed all other 36 employees of the DPWH to be one
Example; with them in committing fraud against the government. They
X and Y were fighting. X punched Y so hard, he fell down. Thereafter, falsified LAA's and would negotiate it at a certain percentage, then
X pulled out a knife with intent to kill Y. However, instead of stabing one of them would compute the general voucher, funds then will be
Y, X stabbed the ground instead. Afterwards, X left. Not long issued as if materials will be delivered for the construction. Fernan
after, X’s brother came out of nowhere and stabbed Y to death. and Torevillas were civil engineers of the DPWH, they signed tally
sheets, saying that there were deliveries when in fact these were
Q: Was there conspiracy between X and his brothers? ghost deliveries. No actual deliveries of the materials.
A: NO. In the problem, there was no prior agreement between X and
his brothers. Furthermore, X already left when his brothers CONSPIRACY IN SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
appeared and repeatedly stabbed Y. Conspiracy may be appreciated in Special Penal Laws if the law
specifically provides therein.
Q: What is the criminal liability of X and his brothers?
A: X is guilty of physical injuries because he had no intent to kill Y. Morillo v. People (G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014)
However, X’s brothers being conspirators of each other, are Mayor Mitra was traversing a road in his starex when he
equally guilty for themurder of Y. encountered a check point. He was allowed to pass without
undergoing a checkpoint. Mayor Mitra was followed by an
People vs. Bokingco (G.R. No. 187356, August 10, 2011) ambulance driven by Morilla. Morilla was flagged down in the
Bokingco killed Pasyon inside the apartment. At the time that he was checkpoint and upon inspection, bags of shabu were found in his
killing, Reynante was inside the main house, he was asking the wife possession. Morilla said he is with Mayor Mitra. The police officers
to open the vault of the pawnshop. After killing the husband, then pursued the vehicle of Mayor Mitra and upon inspection, bags
Bokingco called Reynante and said "tara na, patay na siya!" They fled of shabu were found in the starex.
at the same time. They were both charged for the crime of murder.
Convicted both of murder in the CA. Q: Was there a conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla?
A: YES. The Supreme Court held that the accused Mitra and Morilla
Q: Was there conspiracy between Bokingco and Reynante? committed the crime of transportation of illegal substance through
A: NO. The Supreme Court held that there was no conspiracy conspiracy. Morilla himself admitted that he was with Mayor Mitra.
between Bokingco and Reynante in killing the husband. While one is This admission was enough to establish conspiracy between them.
killing the victim the other was trying to commit another crime. They
did not act in a synchronized and coordinated manner. There was no Go Tan v. Tan (G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
evidence that there was a pre conceived plan because one was Sharica and Steven were lawfully married. However, during their
committing another crime different from the other. marriage, Sharica filed a temporary protection order against Steven
and her in-laws. She argued that Steven and her in-laws were acting
They are one in escaping but not in the commission of the crime. in conspiracy in causing her physical and psychological abuse in
Since conspiracy was not established, the most that is established is violation of R.A. 9262 known as the Anti-Violence Against Women
that they planned to commit 2 crimes simultaneously at the same and Children Act. The in-laws argued that they are not proper party
time. But the charge was only murder, there was no charge for to the case because R.A. 9262 is filed only against the husband,
robbery. Therefore, Bokingco was convicted, Reynante was boyfriend, or intimate partner of the woman.
acquitted of the crime of murder. So absent any evidence of
conspiracy, the liability is individual. Q: Whether or not R.A. 9262 may be filed against the in-laws?
A: YES. R.A. 9262 allows suppletory application of the Revised Penal will now be applied
Code. Hence. The i-laws may likewise be charged of violation of R.A.
9262 if they acted in conspiracy with the husband or the man.

--xXx--

Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light

felonies.
— Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive,
in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.

Less Grave Felonies

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with
the above-mentioned Article

Light Felonies
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of
which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or
both; is provided.

3 kinds of felonies according to severity

1. Grave felonies;
2. Less grave felonies;
3. Light felonies;

--xXx--

Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this

Code.
— Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary.

Example;
What if a person convicted of a violation of a SPL? A issued a check
to B for payment of an obligation. B deposited but the check
bounced. Notice of dishonor was sent. After the trial on the merits,
A was found guilty of the violation of BP 22 beyond reasonable
doubt. Fine and payment of the value of the check. The court said in
case of non payment of the fine, the said convict shall suffer
subsidiary imprisonment.

Q: Can a person who violated a SPL and was imposed with fine be
made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non payment of
fine?
A: YES. There is no provision in B.P. 22 prohibiting the application of
the Revised Penal Code, then the RPC shall apply suppletorily or
supplementarily to the provisions of Special Penal Law unless the
Special Penal Law provides otherwise.

Example of "unless"
Sec. 98 of RA 9165. It is expressly provided that the provisions of the
RPC shall not apply to the violations RA 9165 or the 2002
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The law uses the word shall.

Exception;
If the offender is a minor. In that case if the minor is penalized with
life imprisonment to death, it will be considered as reclusion
perpetua to death and the nomenclature of the penalties in the RPC
 --xXx--

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not

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

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER

The following circumstances affects the criminal liability of the
offender;
1. Justifying circumstances; (Art. 11)
2. Exempting circumstances; (Art. 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances; (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances; (Art. 14)

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying circumstances are those where the acts of the actor are
in accordance with the law, thus he incurs no criminal liability.
Since there is no crime, there is no criminal and civil liability.

Effect of Invoking Justifying Circumstance

The moment the offender or the accused invokes any of the acts
amounting to justifying circumstance, he is in effect admitting the
commission of the crime. But he wanted to evade criminal liability
by invoking justifying circumstances.

Example;
A killed B. A case of homicide was filed against A. A pleaded not
guilty during the arraignment. During the pre-trial, the counsel of
A invoked self-defense. The moment the counsel said that their
defense is self- defense, a kind of justifying circumstance, the
procedure in trial would be inverted.
Inverted Trial Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or
As a rule it is the prosecution that must first present evidence, it is at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening
only after the prosecution has presented evidence that the defense attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and
would present evidence. positively strong

If however the defense invoke any of the justifying circumstances, Test for unlawful aggression
the trial will be inverted. It is the defense that must first present In the same case of People v. Dulin, the Supreme Court held that
evidence. Because he in effect admits the commission of the crime. that the test for unlawful aggression under the circumstance is
He only wanted to avoid liability by saying that his act was justifying. whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or
personal safety of the person defending himself. The peril must not
Burden to Prove Justifying Circumstance be an imaginary threat.
Therefore the burden of evidence is upon the defense to prove all
the elements, all the requisites of the justifying circumstance that he Example;
is invoking. X was walking along the street. Suddenly, Y went up to him. Y
pointed a gun towards X. Y commanded X to give him his wallet,
If the defense failed to prove the evidence or requisites of justifying watch, and cellphone otherwise he will stab him. X gave his
circumstance that he is invoking, that will amount to conviction cellphone and his wallet. When X was about to give his watch, he
because he already admitted to the commission of the crime. suddenly grabbed the gun from Y. Now with the possession of the
gun, X ordered Y to give him back his cellphone and wallet. Instead
SELF-DEFENSE of giving X back his belongings, Y ran away. Thereafter, X fired a shot
Self-defense is not limited to one’s life. The following is the against Y, hitting Y in his knee. Unable to run, X approached Y and
scope of self-defense; thereafter took his belongings. X left. Thereafter, X was charged with
1. Defense of life; physical injury. X argued self-defense.
2. Defense of honor or chastity;
3. Defense of property provided that it is coupled with an Q: Is X liable for physical injury
attack on the person entrusted with the said property; A: NO. Although X already gained possession of the gun, the
unlawful aggression did not cease. The unlawful aggression
Elements of Self-defense continued because Y still had the property of X. Had X not shot Y in
The following are the elements of self-defense; the knee, Y would have gotten away with the property of X.
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR
or repel it; REPEL IT.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person When you say reasonable necessity, what the law requires is rational
defending himself; equality or rational equivalence as determined by the emergency.
Rational is the means employed. Rationally necessary to prevent or
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION repel it.
Unlawful Aggression is an attack with physical force or with a
weapon as to cause injury or danger to life or personal safety. Reasonable necessity does not necessarily mean that when the
Unlawful aggression must come from the victim. aggressor makes use of a bolo, the person defending must also make
use of a bolo.
Unlawful aggression I the primordial requisite which must at all
times be present. When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no Factors of Reasonable Necessity
self- defense whether complete or incomplete. Factors to be considered in order to be said that the means
employed is rationally necessary are the following;
Elements of unlawful aggression 1. Nature and the number of the weapon used by the
In the case of People v. Dulin (G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015), the aggressor;
Supreme Court provided the elements of unlawful aggression; 2. Physical condition, size, weight and other personal
1. There must be physical or material attack or assault; circumstances of the aggressor versus that of the person
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent; defending himself;
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful; 3. Place and location of the assault;

Kinds of Unlawful Aggression All of these would determine if the means employed of the person
In the case of People v. Fontanilla (G.R. No. 177743, January 25, defending himself is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the
2012), the Supreme Court held that there are two kinds of unlawful aggression.
aggression;
1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression; LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression; There must be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
Actual or material unlawful Aggression means an attack with
physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively Provocation
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Provocation refers to any immoral act or conduct, unjustified act or
conduct which stirs a person to do wrong.
Sufficient Provocation A: NO. There was no self-defense. The unlawful aggression already
Sufficient Provocation refers to an act which is adequate to stir a ceased to exist because the sexual congress was already finished.
person to do the wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the There was no more honor to protect.
gravity of the act.
Q: If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit the accused?
No Sufficient Provocation A: YES, I would convict the accused for the crime of homicide, but I
The following circumstances show that there is no sufficient will give the said victim the mitigating circumstances of immediate
provocation on the part of the person defending himself; vindication of a grave offense and sudden impulse of passion and
1. When no provocation at all was given; obfuscation. This to lower the imposable penalty.
2. When although provocation was given, it was not
sufficient; Example;
3. When although the provocation was sufficient, it did come A tried to stab B. B evaded the blow. In the course of said struggle, B
from the person defending himself; and gained possession of the bolo or gun and fired at A. A died.
4. Although provocation came from the person defending
himself, it is not immediate or imminent to the aggression; Q: Was there self-defense?
A: NO. Even if the unlawful aggression was started by A, the
Example; moment B gained possession of the bolo or gun, the unlawful
A saw his enemy B. B was fast approaching to A with a gun on his aggression has already ceased to exist. There was no more danger
hand. Upon seeing that B was about 10 feet away, A immediately on the life of B. so when B fired, it was not an act of retaliation
pulled out his balisong and he spin B who was hit on the neck and which is justifying circumstance.
died.
Example;
Q: Was there unlawful aggression? A woman was on her way home. Suddenly a man appeared, boxed
A: NO. There was no unlawful aggression. The mere act of holding a her, dragged her on a portion of a vacant lot, boxed her again,
gun will not constitute imminent and immediate danger on the life pinned her down, undressed her. When the man stood up to
of the person unless the said gun is aimed at the said person. Same undressed himself, the woman took the moment to get the balisong
with bolo or any weapon. If it is just being held by a person, it will in her bag. When the man placed himself on top of the woman, the
not yet produce any imminent or immediate danger. woman stabbed the man. The man died. Prosecuted for homicide.
The woman invoked self-defense particularly defense of one’s honor
For a bolo to produce imminent and immediate danger, it must be and chastity.
held in a hacking position. Only then that it will produce unlawful
aggression. Q: Is there self-defense?
A: YES. There was unlawful aggression since the man boxed the
In the example, B was only walking with a gun on his hand and it was woman, dragged her, undressed her, pinned her down. This is
not yet pointed or aimed to the offender. Therefore, there was no unlawful aggression sufficient to mean that she would be raped. 2 nd,
unlawful aggression. Therefore, A should be convicted of homicide. it is reasonably necessary for the woman to make use of the balisong
Self-defense would not lie in his favor. because although the said man has no arms, you must take into
consideration of the personal circumstances of the woman versus
People v. Regalario (G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009) that of the man, the physical circumstances. Likewise, you must take
The offended party or the victim, Roland shot allegedly the barangay into consideration the place and the occasion. It was 3 o'clock in the
official Ramon. Ramon hit the back of the head of Roland with an ice morning, nobody could give help to the woman. The only means she
pick and continued hitting him so he would not gain balance. When could do to help herself and prevent the act of rape would be to stab
the accused hit the victim whatever inceptive unlawful aggression the man. Lastly, there was lack sufficient provocation because the
has been started by the victim, it has already ceased to exist. woman was merely walking on her way home. Absolutely there was
Therefore, the accused has no more right to wound or kill the victim. no sufficient provocation coming from the woman. Therefore, the
woman was justified in killing the man. She acted in self-defense.
The Supreme Court held that the moment the inceptive unlawful
aggression cease to exist, the person defending himself must not kill Example;
or wound the aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. When the father went home, his son was crying. When he was asked
by his father why he was crying, he said he was slapped by the
Example; neighbor. When he was asked why he was slapped, the son did not
W and H are husband and wife. One early morning, the husband left answer. The father decided to inquire from the neighbor why he
the house to go fishing. N, the neighbor, upon seeing that the slapped his son. Such inquiry angered the neighbor. The neighbor
husband left, snuck into the house of H and W. N proceeded to the who was at that time was gardening tried to hit the father with a
bedroom and found W still sleeping. N proceeded to have carnal rake that he was using for gardening. The first blow and the second
knowledge of W. Thinking that it was the husband, W allowed N to blow were evaded. The neighbor tried to hit again the father for the
finish. When N finished, he dressedhimself up and he told the W, third time, the father saw a pointed stick on the ground, took it and
"salamat! ". Upon hearing the voice, the W realized that he is not stabbed the neighbor. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound, brought
the husband. W immediately jumped out of the bed, took the bolo to the hospital and survived. The father was prosecuted for
and hacked N. N died. W was prosecuted for homicide. She invoked frustrated homicide. He invoked self-defense.
self- defense, particularly defense of honor and chastity.

Q: Was there self-defense?

Q: may the father invoke self-defense in order to be exempt from Q: is H’s argument of defense of relative tenable?
the criminal liability frustrated homicide? A: NO. The law says that a person may defend the person or rights of
A: YES. There was unlawful aggression because the neighbor tried to his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted
hit him with a rake 3 times. There was an image of danger from his
life. 2nd, the means was reasonable and necessary because tThe
father went to the house of the neighbor without any arms and at
the time he was attacked, he just saw a pointed stick. That is the
only means that he could avail at the moment to protect himself.
Lastly, there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
father. The act of the father inquiring from the neighbor why he
slapped his son was an act within his right. It cannot be considered
as sufficient provocation. It is the right of the father to know why his
son was hurt or injured by the neighbor.

Toledo vs. People (G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004)

The Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as accidental
self- defense. You cannot invoke self-defense and accident at the
same time. Because in self-defense it is direct and positive overt act
in the name of self-preservation. The offender killed the victim so as
to preserve his own life. It is direct and positive. It cannot be done
out of accident imminence. Therefore, it is inconsistent with
accident.

Stand Ground When in the Right

The reason behind self-defense stand ground when in the right.
Stand ground in the right means that where the said accused is
where he should be and his assailant is fast approaching, the law
does not require him to retreat because the moment he retreats he
runs the risk of being stabbed at the back.

DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein.

Elements
The following are the elements of defense of a relative;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked,
the one making the defense had no part therein;

Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one
provoked the offended party, the offender should took no part in
the provocation in said situation so as to justify the defense of a
relative.

Example;
H and W are husband and wife. C is the first cousin of W. In one
instance, H saw C arguing with D. During that argument, D was about
to stab C. Thereafter, H immediately grabbed a stone and
approached
D. H hit D with a stone. D sustained a fatal wound however he
survived. H was charged with frustrated homicide. H argues defense
of relative.
brothers and sisters, or relative by affinity within the same received.
degree. Although C is the first cousin of W and thus related to H
by affinity, C is not of the same degree mentioned by the
provision. C is neither the ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister of W. Thus, the defense of
relative is untenable.

Q: Are there other defenses which H can use?

A: YES. Although, C is not of the same degree as that mentioned
by law, H can still argue defense of a stranger since C in this case
is a stranger.

DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the
first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.

Elements
The following are the elements of defense of a stranger;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the attack;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or motive;

The 3rd element requires that the said offender must be

disinterested and not induced by any other motive, otherwise,
defense of a stranger will not lie.

Example;
What if one night, A and B were on board a jeepney. Said jeepney
was flagged down by X. Upon reaching a dark portion of the
street, X pulled a balisong and declared a hold-up. X poked A with
his balisong and said “give me your cellphone”. A did not want
to give her cellphone to X. X was about to stab A when B, upon
seeing that the latter was about to stab B, immediately kicked X
out of the jeepney. X, who fell from the jeepney suffered physical
injuries. B was prosecuted for serious physical injuries. B invoked
defense of a stranger.

Q: Is B be criminally liable for serious physical injuries?

A: NO. The elements of defense of a stranger is present. 1st, there
was unlawful aggression because X was about to stab A because A
did not want to give her Cellphone. 2nd, there was reasonable
necessity of the means employed because B was unarmed. All
that he did was he kicked X out of the jeepney. It was necessary
for him to do said act in order for him to prevent the aggression.
Lastly, in the problem, there was no showing that B knows X, so it
cannot be said that B is induced by any motive.

STATE OF NECESSITY
As a rule, it is noted that justifying circumstances are exempt from
criminal as well as civil liability. However, this paragraph of Article
11 is an exception when it comes to civil liability. Although he is
not criminally liable, he is civilly liable;

Civil liability is born not only by the accused, but all those people
who benefitted in this state of emergence. Under Art. 101 of
the RPC, “In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Art 11, the
persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be
civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
Elements exercise of such right or office;
The following are the elements of state of necessity;
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it;

Example;
A pregnant woman met an accident. She was immediately brought
to the hospital. Because of the said dire situation, the doctor who
was in charge of the pregnant woman has to make a decision, that is
to save only one life, either the life of the woman or the baby that
she is carrying. The doctor chose to save the life of the woman.
Because of that, the fetus died. Prosecuted for abortion, the doctor
invoked the doctrine of state of necessity.

Q: Is the doctor liable for abortion?

A: NO. The elements of state of necessity are all present. The evil
sought to be avoided actually exist because the life of the baby and
the mother is in danger. 2ND, the injury (death of the pregnant
woman) is greater than that of the death of the fetus. Lastly, there
was no other less practical or harmful means of preventing it. The
situation was an emergency. The woman had no relatives with her
so the doctor has to decide immediately—either to save the life of
the mother or the fetus. Therefore, the doctor should be absolved
from criminal liability.

Example;
What if on a taxi a family was on board. Said taxi was traversing
ESDA during night time. Suddenly, without any warning, a truck
appeared in front of him. If he would go forward, he would be
hitting the buses. If he swerved to the right, he would be hitting
bystanders. If he swerved to the left, he would hit a store. So, the
taxi driver chose to swerve to the left, hit the store thereby causing
damage. Prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property, the taxi driver invoked the 4th justifying circumstances.

Q: Is the taxi criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting to

damage to property?
A: NO. The elements are all present. 1st, the evil sought to be
avoided actually exist because there was a collision. 2 nd, the injury
feared (death) was greater than that done. Lastly, there was no
other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Aside from
these 3 requisites stated by the law, it should be added that the
necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of the law
by the actor. In this case, there was a warning to the taxi driver not
to enter the street, yet he proceeded. It is through his negligence
that caused the state of necessity; therefore, he is criminally and
civilly liable.

FULFILMENT OF A DUTY OR IN A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR

OFFICE
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.

Elements:
The following are the elements of fulfillment of a duty or in a lawful
exercise of office;
1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful
It is important to note that the injury is the necessary consequence officer, Y acted in the performance of his duty in pursing X, an
of the lawful exercise of duty. escaped

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME

LAWFUL PURPOSE.
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior
for some lawful purpose.

Elements
The following are the elements;
1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order
is lawful;

Example;
What if a warrant of arrest was issued by the court against X. The
chief of police handed the warrant to a group of police and
instructed them to arrest X, and if X would refuse to be arrested,
they can immobilize
X. So the group headed by Police Officer Y received an
information that X lived in a certain province. Police Officer Y,
together with his group went to said province and was able to
verify that X actually lived there. Police Officer Y thereafter went
to the location of X. Police Officer Y, upon seeing X who was at
that time was cultivating the soil, immediately fired at X.
Thereafter, X dies. Prosecuted for murder, Police Officer Y
invoked two justifying circumstances: lawful duty and acted in
obedience to a lawful order.

Q: Can police officer Y invoke the justifying circumstance of

lawful exercise of duty?
A: NO. Although the accused acted in the performance of his duty
by obeying the orders of his officer to arrest X by the chief of
police by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by the court, the
injury committed was not the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such right because at that time, X was just
cultivating his soil.

Q: Can the accused use the defense of obedience to a lawful

order? A: NO. Although there was a lawful order by his superior
to was arrest and immobilize X if he refuses to be arrested and
the purpose was lawful, the means employed by Police Officer Y,
where his order was arrest and in case of resistance is to
immobilize X was not performed. X was merely cultivating his soil
and was not resisting arrest at that time.

Example;
X was convicted by final judgment for the crime of homicide.
When X was about to be transferred to a maximum security
prison, he suddenly escaped. Police officer Y was ordered by the
jail warden to retrieve X. Y thereafter pursued X. Knowing that he
was being pursued, X went to a market and grabbed a 5 year old
child as hostage. X pointed a knife towards the neck of the child,
and he told Y not to pursue him, otherwise he will kill the child.
However the child cried. The crying child started to annoy X to the
point that he was about to kill the child. However, sensing that X
was about to stab the child. X fired a shot towards X. X suffered a
mortal wound and thereafter died. Y was charged with homicide.

Q: What defenses can Y utilize?

A: Y can make us of the justifying circumstance of performance of
fulfillment of a duty or in a lawful exercise of office. As a police
convict. Likewise, the injury caused to X was the necessary On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince
consequence of the fulfillment of Y’s duties, otherwise X will kill herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner
the child. Y can also use the justifying circumstance of defense of will change for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man
stranger. is the real person whom she loves.

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME No Criminal Liability and Civil Liability

Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern Battered Woman Syndrome is akin to akin to justifying. It is even
of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in better that self-defense because in self-defense, you have to prove
battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. that the elements are present. However, in battered woman
syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is suffering from
Battered Woman battered woman syndrome. It is through the expert testimony of the
Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering from battered
9262) defines battered woman as a battered woman has been woman syndrome. If this is proven, she is absolved from criminal
defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful and civil liability.
physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to --xXx--
do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal
Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter
battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at has acted during a lucid interval.
least twice. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an
act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order
Cycle of violence his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
In the case of People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004) persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
the Supreme Court held that the battered woman syndrome is without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three 2. A person under nine years of age.
phases; 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
1. The tension-building phase; unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
2. The acute battering incident; and shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
3. The tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase; Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
Tension Building Phase irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and
be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance
behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of
show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. some institution or person mentioned in said Article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
All the woman wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double- intention of causing it.
edged, because her placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of
belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place. irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
Acute Battering Incident uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the woman law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain,
although she may later clearly remember every detail. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Exempting Circumstance are those grounds for exemption from
Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any
rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger of the conditions which makes the act voluntary or negligent.
physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is
futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage INSANITY AND IMBECILITY
and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are In this paragraph there are two exempting circumstances;
likely to get hurt. 1. Imbecility;
2. Insanity;
Tranquil or Loving Phase
During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. Just like exempting circumstance, imbecility and insanity are both
On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing admission and avoidance. In effect, invoking insanity and imbecility
behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously is tantamount to admitting the crime. But in order to avoid criminal
cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and liability, he invokes that he is either insane or imbecile
promising never to beat her again.
Imbecile Criminal Liability
An imbecile is one who is already advanced in age but only have a R.A. 9344, if a child committed a felony when he is 15 or below, he is
thinking of a child between 2 and 7. There is no intelligence, an exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15 but below 18, but
element of voluntariness. he did not act with discernment, he is exempted from criminal
liability. If he is over 15 but below 18 and he acted with discernment,
Imbecility is exempting under any circumstance. he is not exempted from criminal liability and he will be prosecuted
just like any other criminal.
Insanity
Insanity refers to the mental aberrational background or disease of So, if the offender is 16, therefore he is over 15 but below 18, and he
the mind and must completely impair the intelligence of the accused. committed a crime and acted with discernment. During the trial, it
was established and proven that he is guilty beyond reasonable
Insanity is not exempting under any circumstance. If it can be shown doubt. There is already a pronouncement of a judgment of civil
that he committed the crime in lucid interval, he is liable. liability.

Presumption of Sanity Suspension of Sentence

In your civil code, it is presumed that the person is sane. Therefore Under Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344, once the child who is under 18 years of
the burden of evidence is on the defense. Therefore, all the accused age at the time of the commission of the crime was found guilty of
has to do is to prove that he was insane when he committed the the offense charged the court shall determine and ascertain any civil
crime. liability which may have resulted from the offense committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
Example; court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
A killed B and stabbed him many times. A was prosecuted for sentence, without need of application. Provided however, that the
murder. The defense tried to prove that was he was insane. To suspension of the sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
prove insanity, the defense presented the father of A, who testified already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
that his son would go out of their home naked and thereafter return. of his guilt. Therefore, as long as he is 18 years and below at the
Second, his son was in and out of the mental institution. Third, his time of the commission of the crime, even if he is above 18 at the
son would steal the jewelries of his mother and would sell it at an promulgation of the judgment, he can still benefit from the
extreme low price. These were the evidence presented by the suspended sentence.
defense.
Under Section 40 of R.A. 9344, if a child is under suspended
Q: Can the son be acquitted because of insanity? sentence, the court shall decide to discharge or to extend the
A: NO. The father’s testimony, instead of proving that A was sentence for a specific period of time or until the child attains the
insane, established otherwise. First, an insane person would not maximum age of
know where his house is. Second, A was in and out of the mental 21. Although there is automatic suspension, it is tempered by Section
institution. Third, an insane person would not know that a thing has 40. Therefore, the maximum limit is 21 years old.
a value (considering the evidence that the son sold the jewelries of
the mother at a low price) People v. Sarcia (G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009)
The accused was convicted of statutory rape. In this case, the SC
Example; ruled that the law should be given a retroactive application. Section
A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the killing, he could not sleep 36 of the act provided that persons who have been convicted and
and there was a voice that kept nagging him, “Kill B, kill B.” are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of the act and who
And so he killed B, so he followed the voice. He pleaded guilty but were below 18 at the time of the commission of the offense for
his defense was insanity. which they were convicted and are serving sentence shall be given a
retroactive application of the act.
Q: Will A be acquitted due to insanity?
A: NO. In the case of People v. Antonio (G.R. No. 14426, November The SC also ruled that although the crime committed is a heinous
27, 2002) the Supreme Court held that mere mental disturbance, crime, the accused can still be given a suspension of the sentence.
mere craziness is not the insanity contemplated by the law. It is the Section 38 does not distinguish the nature of the crime, be it
insanity which would deprive the offender the capacity to distinguish heinous, capital, or light offense, the child is entitled to suspension
right from wrong and the consequences of his act. of sentence.

In the case of People v. Gimena (G.R. No. L-3387, February 6, 1931), However, the SC ruled that considering the age of Sarcia (already
an old case, sleep walking or somnambulism is also considered as 31), he cannot be given anymore the benefit of suspension.
akin to insanity. He did not know what he was doing at that time Although he committed the crime when he was 17 years old, the
when he killed the victim. Therefore, there is no criminal liability. maximum age is 21.

MINORITY The only benefit that was available to him was that he shall serve his
The second and third circumstance was already amended by R.A. sentence in an agricultural camp and other training facilities.
9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This refers to a
child in conflict of the law. A child in conflict with the law is a child People v. Mantalaba (G.R. No. 186227, July20, 2011)
who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an The same case was applied in People vs Mantalaba. They have the
offense under Philippine laws. very same issues. The case is about the sale of illegal drugs involving
minors. In this case, the SC remanded the CA. The CA should have
suspended the sentence because at that time the law was enacted Q: Is the police officer liable for homicide?
and was on appeal to the CA, the accused was 20 years of age,
hence he is entitled to the automatic suspension of his sentence.

ACT OF DISCERNMENT
In the case of Madali v. People (G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009),
there is an act of discernment when the minor knows the
consequences and circumstances of his act. Discernment is that
mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of
his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances.

In this case, the accused who was 16 years old at the time of the
commission of the crime, warned the witness not to reveal their
hideous act, otherwise, he (accused) and his co-accused would kill
him. Therefore, he knew that killing the victim was a condemnable
act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the
consequences for his unlawful act.

ACCIDENT
In the case of People v. Del Cruz (G.R. No. 187683, February 11,
2010) An accident is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of
our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, it
lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

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

Note that although exempting, as a rule, there is no criminal liability

but there is civil liability. However, paragraph 4 (accident) is an
exception. There are no criminal liability and civil liability. Accident is
akin to justifying circumstance because the offender was performing
a lawful act with due care.

Example;
A is a prisoner. He was about to be investigated and was escorted to
the investigation room. Before reaching the investigating room, A
grabbed the service pistol of the officer who was accompanying him
to the investigating room. The police tried to get back his pistol, and
in the course of the fight, the pistol was fired accidentally and A was
hit. Thereafter, A died. The police officer was prosecuted for
homicide.

Q: Is the officer liable for homicide?

A: YES. The police was performing a lawful act in trying to get back
his property, and that is his pistol. He caused an injury by accident.
He was performing an act with due care because there’s no other
way to get back the pistol. He causes an injury through accident
because there was no intention on his part to kill A.

Example;
A police officer saw two men fighting on a street. They were hitting
each other. The police tried to pacify the two men, but they won’t
stop. So what the police officer did was that he fired shots to pacify
the men. However, one of the stray bullets landed on the child.
Unfortunately the child died. The police officer was prosecuted for
homicide. As a defense, the police officer invoked accident
A: NO. Although the police officer is performing a lawful act in
pacifying the two men are fighting on the street, he did not
perform it with due care. Considering that it was a community, he
knew that a stray bullet would have landed on any person. He
should not have fired shots. The police officer is liable for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, a culpable felony.

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Elements;
1. There must be Compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. Physical force must be irresistible;
3. Physical force must come from a third person;

In irresistible force, the offender must be reduced as a mere

instrument, that he is not acting in his will. Therefore, if he is
acting against his will, voluntariness is absent.

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.

Elements;
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2. Fear must be real and imminent;
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that
committed;

It is necessary by the means employed by the third person, it

would cause a person to suffer uncontrollable fear. Again, he is
reduced as a mere instrument such that he acted against his will.
It is necessary that such fear must be of imminence that an
ordinary man cannot stand. When there is an existence of
uncontrollable force or fear there is lack of freedom of action—an
element of voluntariness. Therefore, the person totally has no
free will.

Even if there was force employed but the person has a choice to
do the act or not, this exempting provision will not lie.

Example;
A farmer and his carabao was on his way home. On his way home,
he heard gun shots, so he went to the place where he heard the
gun shots. He hid behind a tree and saw two men shooting X. X
way already lying on the ground. The farmer was so shocked and
afraid that he tried to leave the place. However, when he was
about to leave, he stepped on the dried leaves and caused a
noise. The two men saw him. One of the men pointed the gun at
the farmer and told him to come near them. Afraid for his life, the
farmer obeyed. The men, pointing the gun at the farmer told him
to bury X lying on the ground. The farmer said, “No, I don’t
want to.” “If you will not bury X, we will shoot you”, said one
of the men. The farmer was so afraid and so he dug the ground
and buried X.

Q: Is the farmer criminally liable together with the two men?

A: YES. There was an uncontrollable fear when the farmer saw
that the two men shot X. If the two men can shoot X, they can
also shoot him. Therefore, there was an uncontrollable fear and it
was real and imminent. The farmer’s fear is of an injury is
greater than or equal to that committed because his life is more
important. Therefore all the elements are present, he is not liable
Example; Example;
I the same problem, the farmer was told that If he will not bury X, For example, there is a war in which the Philippines is involved. A, B,
they will shoot and kill his carabao. The farmer was so afraid. His and C conspired to commit treason against the government. A, one
carabao was his only means of living. And so, he buried X. of the conspirators went to the priest and confided to the priest that
there was conspiracy between B and C to commit treason against
Q: Is the farmer criminally liable together with the two men? the government. Despite knowledge on the conspiracy to commit
A: YES. There was an uncontrollable fear and it is real and imminent treason, the priest did not immediately divulge it to the police.
because the farmer saw that the two men shot X. If the two men can Under Art 116, the priest is criminally liable for misprision of
shoot X, they can also shoot the carabao. However, the third treason, for not divulging the conspiracy to commit treason.
element is wanting. The death of the carabao is not equal to or However, the priest failed to perform such act due to a lawful cause.
greater than the life of the human. Under your rules on evidence, a confession made to a priest is
considered as a privileged communication. Therefore the priest does
Example; not incur any criminal liability.
In the same problem, the two men told the farmer that if the farmer
will not bury X, they will go to his house, rape his wife, thereafter kill EXEMPTING V. JUSTIFYING
her and his children and burn his house. His family is the most EXEMPTING JUSTIFYING
important people in his life. Therefore, he was constrained to bury X. The act is legal; The act is criminal;
There is no crime, hence there There is a crime, hence there is
Q: Is the farmer criminally liable? is no criminal; a criminal;
A: NO. Although there is an existence of an uncontrollable fear Since there is a crime, there is
because, his wife would be raped, his children would be killed and Since there is no crime, there is criminal liability, although he is
his house would be burned, the 2nd element is not present. The fear no criminal and civil liabilities; exempted therefrom, and
is not present. It is in the future, speculative. Imagine, the two men there are civil liabilities.
would still have to go to the house of the farmer and look for his The emphasis of the law is on The emphasis of the law is on
wife and children. By that time, the farmer had already gone to his the act; i.e. self-defense. the actor;
house and warned his family. He could also have reported the killing Cannot be invoked in Quasi-
of X. So his fear is not real imminent. Imaginative not present. Can be invoked in quasi-
offenses, i.e. reckless
offenses;
imprudence;
Ty v. People (G.R. No. 149275, September 27, 2004)
In the case of Vicky Ty, she was accused of issuing bouncing checks. --xXx--
Vicky Ty’s defense was that she feared that her ailing mother who
was confined in the hospital would commit suicide because of the Article 13.Mitigating circumstances. - The following are
hospital’s ill treatment. So she was compelled to issue mitigating circumstances;
unfunded checks for her mother to be discharged. In this case, yes
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
there is an uncontrollable fear. However, her fear was not real and
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability
imminent. It is mere imaginative, speculative. It is not now, or not
in the respective cases are not attendant.
present.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded
Q: How about state of necessity?
against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
A: NO. The threat of the mother does not actually exist because the
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a
threat is in the future. Therefore state of necessity is not present.
wrong as that committed.
The Supreme Court ruled that she was not in state of necessity.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
Because she has several jewelries. She could have sold the jewelries
offended party immediately preceded the act.
to pay for the hospital expenses
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication
of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CASUE spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when degrees.
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Elements; 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
1. An act is required by law to be done; a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
2. A person fails to perform such act; confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or evidence for the prosecution;
insuperable cause; 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
No Civil Liability action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
Note that it is one of the instances in exempting circumstances that 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the
the actor is exempt from both criminal and civil liability. It is akin to a exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
justifying circumstance because what prevented the offender from depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
performing a lawful act is a lawful cause. 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature
and analogous to those above mentioned.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances which if present Incomplete Justifying or exempting circumstances are those
or attendant in the commission of a felony would reduce the mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
imposable penalty because it shows lesser perversity or criminality necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the
of the offender. respective cases are not attendant.

Mitigating circumstances need not be alleged in the information in Privilege Mitigating or Ordinary Mitigating
order to be appreciated by the court provided that such The following are the rules to determine whether an incomplete
circumstance is shown and proven during the trial. justifying or incomplete exempting circumstance should be treated
as privilege or ordinary mitigating;
There is a lesser criminality on the part of the offender because the 1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or
offender acted with the diminution of any of the elements of to exempt from liability are present, then it’s treated as
voluntariness. privilege mitigating circumstance;
2. If less than the majority is present, then it is an ordinary
There is a diminution on the following; mitigating circumstance which can be offset by a generic
1. Criminal intent; aggravating circumstance;
2. Freedom of action; or 3. If the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt
3. Intelligence. from criminal liability is only 2, the presence of 1 element
is already a privilege mitigating circumstance .
Kinds of mitigating Circumstance
There are 2 kinds of mitigating circumstance; Incomplete Self-Defense
1. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance; In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a relative,
2. Privilege Mitigating Circumstance; incomplete defense of a stranger, there must always be unlawful
aggression in order for the mc to mitigate.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance
An Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance is one which may be offset by a It is only ordinary mitigating if only the element of unlawful
generic aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance. If an aggression is present, the incomplete self-defense should be treated
ordinary mitigating circumstance is not offset by a generic ac it as an Ordinary.
would reduce the imposable penalty to its minimum period.
It is privilege mitigating circumstance if aside from unlawful
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance aggression, another element but not all is present, it is to be treated
A Privilege Mitigating Circumstance is one which cannot be offset by as a privilege mitigating circumstance .
any ac and the effect of privilege mitigating circumstance is to
reduce the imposable penalty not only to its period but by one or Example;
more degrees A was running in a subdivision with a bolo, he was hacking all those
he passed by. So the residents called for police assistance. The police
*If in the computation of penalties there’re aggravating arrived headed by police officer X. They called on A to put down his
circumstances, mitigating circumstances, if there is a privilege weapon but A instead of laying down his weapon, advanced towards
mitigating circumstance, that presence of privilege mitigating the police with the bolo in his hands in a hacking position in the act
circumstance takes preference over all other things. Before you can of hacking the police officers. So X immediately fired at A. He hit the
even the appropriate penalty, you still have to first consider the hands and legs of A. non-fatal wounds. A slam on the ground face
presence of the privilege mitigating circumstance. That is how facing the ground. At that particular moment, X went to A, got his
important that is why it’s privileged. bolo and then fired shot at the head of A and A died. X was
prosecuted for murder, police officer invoked 2 justifying
Ordinary Mitigating v. Privilege Mitigating circumstance. We have self-defense and fulfillment of duty.
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGE MITIGATING
Can be offset by generic Cannot be offset by any kind of Q: Is there self-defense or at least incomplete self-defense?
aggravating circumstance; aggravating circumstance;
A: NO. There’s no self-defense because at the time X shot the head
Lowers the penalty to the of A, A was already lying on the ground. Whatever inceptive
minimum period except when unlawful aggression he has commenced, it has ceased to exist from
there are two ordinary Lowers the penalty by one or the time the fatal blow was inflicted on him. Therefore, there was no
mitigating circumstance in two degrees; unlawful aggression. Since unlawful aggression is the element that is
which case the penalty is wanting. There’s no self-defense, neither is there incomplete self-
lowered by one degree only; defense.
Not considered in the
determination of the proper Q: Is there fulfillment of duty?
penalty when the penalty Always considered regardless A: NO. There are only 2 elements in fulfillment of duty, 1stelement -
prescribed by law for the single of the penalty imposed’ that the accused acted in the due performance of his duty or in
crime is a single indivisible lawful exercise of his proper office. It is present right because the
penalty;
police officer went there because the residents asked for police
assistance. They went there to maintain peace and order. The 1st
element is present. The 2nd element – that the injury caused is an
unavoidable consequence of the due performance of a duty. The
2nd element is
absent. The act of X in shooting the head of A is not a necessary Example;
consequence of the due performance of his duty. Therefore, based A and B were fighting, A boxed B, B boxed A, A retaliated and boxed
on the rule that if there are only 2 elements necessary to justify the B again. When A boxed B, B’s head hit a cemented wall and
act and the presence of 1 is already considered as the majority and it so he suffered cerebral hemorrhage and thereafter caused his
is considered as a privilege mitigating circumstance . Therefore, in death.
this case, there is an incomplete fulfillment of duty which is a
privilege mitigating circumstance which may lower the imposable Q: Is A criminally liable for the death of B?
penalty by degrees not only by period. A: YES. When A boxed B, he was committing a felonious act.
Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although it
MINORITY/SENILITY be different from which he intended.
That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy
years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in Q: But can he be given the benefit of praeter intentionem that he
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed?
A: YES. There was a notable disparity between the means employed
There are 2 mitigating circumstance here; by the offender and the resulting felony. Who could have
1. Minority; anticipated that by the mere act of boxing death would result.
2. Seniority; Therefore, he should be given the benefit of prater intentionem.

Minority Example;
Remember that if minority is not exempting, it is always and always In the same problem A and B were fighting by means of fist, the
a privilege mitigating circumstance. Never an ordinary mitigating suddenly, A who was losing pulled out a balisong or a fan knife and
circumstance stabbed B on the neck, a fatal wound. B died. A was prosecuted for
homicide. He said he had no intention to commit a wrong so grave
So if the offender is over 15 but below 18, and he acted with as that committed, no intention to kill B.
discernment, it is not exempting but it is a privilege mitigating
circumstance . Q: Can A benefit from praeter intentionem that he has no intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed?
Senility A: No, because there was no notable disparity in the between means
Senility (a person over age70) is generally an ordinary mitigating employed – stabbing on the neck using a balisong or fan knife
circumstance. resulting to death. In fact, the act of the victim of stabbing would
produce, and did produce the death of the victim. Therefore, praeter
[Prosecutor Garcia: In your book there are instances wherein intentionem would not lie in favor of the accused.
seniority shall be considered as a privilege mitigating circumstance ,
when the crime committed by the person over 70 year old is SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
punishable by death, death shall not be imposed on him. Or when he That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
has already been convicted it shall be computed to reclusion party immediately preceded the act.
perpetua. These provisions of the RPC are no longer applicable at
the moment. At the moment because we have RA 9346 which There must be a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
prohibits the imposition of death penalty on whoever be the offended party and it must immediately precede the commission of
offender. Then senility, at the moment is only an omc. I am the crime.
emphasizing ‘at the moment’ because at the moment the reign
of P.Noy ends, the new president may bring back death penalty. The following are the elements of sufficient provocation;
Then there will now be again a circumstance where seniority will be 1. The provocation must be sufficient;
a privilege mitigating circumstance . But at the moment, we have no 2. It must be immediate to the commission of the crime;
death penalty that may be imposed.] 3. it must originate from the offended party;

PRAETER INTENTIONEM Provocation

That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as Provocation is any unjust or immoral act or conduct on the part of
that committed. the offended party which is capable of inciting, exciting or
inflating(?) another.
We have already studied this in Art. 4. This is praeter intentionem.
Q: When is provocation is sufficient?
Elements; A: For provocation to be sufficient, there must be 2 elements;
1. The offender committed a felony;
2. There must be a notable or notorious disparity between 1. It must be adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful
the means employed by offender and the result felony. act;
2. It must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime;
So for praeter intentionem, for this mitigating circumstance to lie, it
is necessary that there must be a notable or notorious disparity Immediate
between the means employed and the resulting felony. That is, out The 2nd element requires that the provocation must be immediate to
of the means employed by the offender, no one could have the commission of the crime.
anticipated that the resulting felony would come.
The word immediate here does not allow a lapse of time. There 1. That there be a grave offense to the one committing the
must be no lapse of time between the provocation and the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
commission of the crime. natural, or adopted brothers or sister, or relatives by
affinity within the same degree;
Example; 2. It requires that the said act or grave offense must be the
There was this long line of evacuees, victims of Pablo who are to be proximate cause of the commission of the crime.
given reliefs. A was 5th on the line, suddenly, X inserted himself in
front of A. This angered A, A told X to place himself at the end of the It is necessary that the commission of the crime was in immediate
line but X didn’t want because he was so hungry. This angered A, vindication of the grave offense done to the one committing the
and so A pulled out his bolo and hacked X at the back. A was felony.
prosecuted for homicide.
Q: Is it necessary that the grave offense need be a punishable act?
Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the A: NO. It suffices that it be any act unjust act, immoral act which
part of the offended party justified? cause the offender sleepless nights and move him to vindicate
A: NO. Although the act of X in inserting himself to the line is an act himself.
adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act, the 2nd element
is absent – it is not proportionate to the gravity of the act. The act of Immediate
killing is not proportionate to the act of X of placing himself in front The 2nd element requires that the commission of crime was in
of A in a long line. Therefore, sufficient provocation as a mc is not immediate vindication of the grave offense. This time the word
present so as to reduce the imposable penalty. immediate allows a lapse of time.

Urbano v. People (G.R. No. 182750, January 20, 2009) According to the Supreme Court, very funny reasoning, there was an
The victim has always been calling and teasing on the accused erroneous Spanish translation. Our RPC was copied from the Spanish
Urbano. So there was a confrontation because whenever the victim Codigo Penal, in there, the word used there was proximate. Yet
was drunk, he would defame Urbano. So there was a verbal when it was translated in the RPC, the word used was immediate.
confrontation and ensued into a fight. In the said fight, Urbano was Supreme Court said wrong translation. It is sufficient that the said
losing because he was just a small man. However, he was able to grave offense must be the proximate cause of the commission of the
land one lucky punch on the face of the victim (parangsiPacquiao). crime.
Because of the said lucky punch, the said victim was about to fall
unconscious on the ground. However, the other employees were Immediate allows an interval of time between the commission of the
able to prevent him from falling on the ground. Nevertheless, he offense and its vindication as long as the offender is still suffering
became unconscious and later on regained consciousness. In and out from the mental agony brought about by the offense.
of the hospital, later on he died.
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
Q: Is Urbano criminally liable for the death of the victim? That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
A: YES. Under Art. 4, because he was committing a felonious act. have produced passion or obfuscation.
Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although
different from that which he intend. In the case of People v. Lobino (G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999),
the Supreme Court held that there is passion and obfuscation when
But there are 2 mitigating circumstance considered by the court to the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion
reduce the imposable penalty. 1st according to the court, there was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate
sufficient provocation. 2nd, that the offender has no intention to stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.
commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Who could have
anticipated that out of one lucky punch, death would result. There Paragraphs 4 and 5 are related to each other. They are collectively
was a total disparity on the means employed by the offender and known as sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation.
the resulting felony.
Elements;
Q: How about sufficient provocation, is it present? 1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce
A: YES. The provocation was on the part of the victim. He would passion and obfuscation;
always call names and defame Urbano. Is it sufficient? Yes, because 2. The act that must produce passion and obfuscation must
what Urbano only did was to confront the victim verbally. That was not be far removed from the commission of the crime by
his first act, later on only did it ensue to a fight. the considerable length of time during which the offender
might have recovered his normal equanimity;
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave * Passion and obfuscation on the part of the accused must arise
offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, from lawful sentiments because an unlawful act was committed
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. against him.

Elements; Immediate
The following are the elements of immediate vindication of a 2nd element requires also the immediateness. It is necessary that it
criminal offense. must be done immediately because the law says the commission of
the act which produced the passion and obfuscation must not be far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time.
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018] 3

Example; A: Yes. It is also present. The act of the neighbor trying to hack the
What if A attempted on the virtue of the wife of B, B learned about wife and his act of continuously hacking the wooden door and walls.
this from a neighbor. When B learned about this, 4 days after, he
went to A and hacked A to death. Q; Since both mitigating circumstance are present, should you
consider both in the computation of the penalty?
Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of passion and A: NO. Since both mitigating circumstance arises from only one act,
obfuscation and immediate vindication of grave offense present? you should only consider mitigating circumstance.
A: NO. 4 days had already lapsed. According to the SC, 4 days is
already a long time for the said offender to have recovered from his VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT
normal equanimity. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
More so in the case of People v. Ignas (G.R. No. 140514-15, before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
September 30, 2003), in this case, from the time of the discovery of prosecution;
the adultery of the wife, to the time of the killing, 2 weeks had
already lapsed, the SC said such 2 weeks is too long a time for such There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;
offender to have recovered already his normal equanimity. 1. Voluntary surrender;
2. Voluntary plea of guilt;
In the case of People v. Romera, the Supreme Court said par.4 -
sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, par.5 - If both are present, you have to consider always 2 mitigating
immediate vindication of grave offense, par.6 – sudden impulse of circumstance. They have different elements and would always arise
passion and obfuscation are related to each other such that in the from different set of facts and circumstances. Therefore, they are
commission of the crime, all three present, or any 2 are present, if always separate and distinct from each other.
they are based on the same facts and circumstances they should be
appreciated only as 1 mitigating circumstance, not 2 or 3. Voluntary Surrender
The elements of Voluntary surrender are the following;
Q: Why is this important? 1. The offender had not actually arrested; T
A: It is important because in the computation of the penalties, if you 2. The offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
consider them as 3, you will be wrong in the penalties. person in authority or his agent;
3. Such surrender must be voluntary;
*So again note, if 4, 5 and 6 are all present or if any 2 is present and
they are all based on the same facts and circumstances, they should So it is necessary that the offender has not yet been arrested. It is
only be treated as 1 mc. necessary that he surrender to a person in authority or his agent.
The surrender must be voluntary.
Example;
Husband and wife were about to have dinner. Then someone was Q: When is surrender voluntary?
calling the name of the husband outside their house. The wife A: Surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done spontaneously
opened the door, upon opening, the neighbor who was calling the and unconditionally either because he has this feeling of remorse
name tried to hack the wife. Good enough, the wife was able to and wanted to admit his guilt or he wanted to save the government
reach and close the door and the wife was not hacked. The neighbor that much needed time or effort which will be incurred in looking for
however with a use of a bolo continuously hacked the wooden or him.
the bamboo door and walls of the house. And so, considering that
his house was being damaged, the husband was forced to go outside Example;
to confront the neighbor. He used the kitchen door. He called the A case was found against B in the fiscal’s office. A warrant of
neighbor and asked what was the reason why he was hacking. The arrest was requested, the fiscal found probable cause. The
neighbor instead of answering tried to hack the husband. They information filed in court, the court agreed with the fiscal, a warrant
struggled for the possession of the bolo, and in the course the of arrest was issued. B got a tip from the court employee that a
husband gained possession of the bolo. Once in the possession of warrant of arrest was now in possession of the police officers. And
the bolo, the husband hacked the neighbor. The neighbor suffered a so B upon learning that there was already an issued warrant of
fatal wound but was brought to the hospital by the husband and so arrest, immediately went to the police station and surrendered
he survived. Husband was prosecuted for frustrated homicide, the himself to the authorities. Then trial against him proceeded, and
husband as a defense invoked 2 mitigating circumstance – 1st, there after trial on the merits, he was convicted. But the judge did not
was sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation, 2nd that there was consider voluntary surrender in reducing his imposable penalty.
sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the action. Q: Is the judge correct?
A: The judge is wrong because voluntary surrender is present as a
Q: Is sufficient provocation present? mitigating circumstance. Although there is already a warrant of
A: YES. Both are present. There is sufficient provocation because of arrest issued. The police officers have not yet gone out looking for
the act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife. And his act of him. Therefore, any surrender would still be considered as voluntary
continuously hacking the wooden door and walls of the house – that surrender even if there is already a warrant of arrest against the said
is sufficient provocation. offender.

Q: Is sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation present? In the case of De Vera v. De Vera (G.R. No. 172832, April 7, 2009), the
Supreme Court held that mere filing of an information and/or the
issuance of a warrant of arrest will not automatically make the Q: If the offender voluntary confessed his guilt to a court which has
surrender involuntary. The accused may still be entitled to the no jurisdiction and later on pleaded guilty before the proper court,
mitigating circumstance in case he surrenders, depending on the will the voluntary plea of guilt still be appreciated?
actual facts surrounding the very fact of giving himself up. A: YES. Since the proceedings before the former court was void, the
voluntary plea of guilt may still be appreciated in the court with
Voluntary Plea of Guilt proper jurisdiction.
The elements of voluntary plea of guilt are the following;
1. That guilt tendered is confessed spontaneously and PHYSICAL DEFECT
unconditionally; That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
2. That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action,
court tried his case; defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
3. The confession that was made before the presentation of
the evidence for the prosecution; For this mitigating circumstance to lie in favor of the accused, it is
necessary that there must be a connection, a relation between the
Example; physical defect and the crime committed. It is necessary that the
A was charged with the crime of frustrated murder. During the plea said physical defect must have restricted his use of action, defense
bargaining, with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the or communication with his fellow being.
offended party, he said that he had plead guilty to attempted
murder. And so he pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The judge Example;
rendered judgment without considering voluntary plead of guilt so A is a cripple, he has no legs, he always position himself near the
as to reduce his penalty. Quiapo church. He was on board a skateboard. So he often stays
there, and his work was to snatch the handbags of any churchgoers.
Q: Is the judge correct? And so one time, he snatched the handbag of a churchgoer and
A: YES. For said plea of guilty to be considered voluntary, it must be thereafter, he sped away on board his skateboard. He was
done spontaneously. Spontaneously, it must be the original crime thereafter arrested.
charged.
Q: Will his physical defect of being crippled, a man with no legs, be
Example; mitigating?
A was charged as a principal in the crime of robbery. He pleaded A: NO. His physical defect has no relation at all to the crime he has
guilty with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and the offended committed.
party to the crime of robbery but merely as an accomplice. The
judge rendered judgment because of the plea of guilt. The judge did Example;
not consider the said plea of guilt as mitigating. A is a blind man, blind beggar, near the Quiapo church. One time he
was begging for alms, suddenly, he was scraped on his head with a
Q: Is the judge correct? wound, it was so strong that he fell on the ground wounded. Angry,
A: Yes, the judge is correct because when he pleaded guilt as an he stood up, took his cane and retaliated by hitting the person next
accomplice, his plea of guilt was not done unconditionally. to him, not knowing that it was not the person but an innocent
passerby. The innocent passerby suffered less physical injuries. So
Example; the blind beggar was prosecuted for less serious physical injuries.
A was prosecuted for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and multiple physical injuries. He was driving his vehicle, Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of physical defect present so as to
bumped a person and injured several others. During arraignment, he reduce the imposable penalty?
immediately pleaded guilty. The judge rendered judgment. In A: YES. His being blind restricted his means of action, defense or
rendering judgment, the judge did not consider the voluntary plea of communication with his fellow being. His intention was to hit the
guilt as mitigating. person who scraped him with the wound. But because of he could
not see, he hit an innocent passerby. There was a relation between
Q: Is the judge correct? the physical defect and the crime committed. Therefore, it will
A: YES. In Mariano v. People (G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014) the mitigate his criminal liability.
Supreme Court held that in the case of a culpable felony, in case of
quasi-offenses, under Art. 365 the judge may or may not consider ILLNESS
these mitigating circumstance in the imposition of penalty. If the Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the
judge consider it or if the judge did not consider it, that is the will- power of the offender without however depriving him of the
decision of the judge. Under Art. 365, the court is not mandated to consciousness of his acts.
consider the rules, the decision is based on the sound discretion
whether or not to consider the mitigating circumstance. So this is illness. It is necessary that the said illness must diminish the
exercise of the will-power of the offender. But it must not deprive
Q: May the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilt be him of his consciousness of his act because if it will deprive him of
appreciated in confessions before the media? consciousness of his act, then it is exempting not merely mitigating.
A: NO. Confessions before the media are considered extra-judicial
confessions. For voluntary plea of guilt be appreciated, the Example;
confession must be made before the court. A is a kleptomaniac, he has this urge to steal. Now, his urge is to steal
diamonds. So one time he was in a party, he was talking to a lady with
diamond earrings, diamond necklace, diamond watch, diamond 10. That the offender has been previously punished by an
bracelet. Then after the conversation, the lady went to the offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or
restroom. Upon looking at the mirror, she shouted, she was for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
shocked, the diamond earring, necklace, watch and bracelet were all 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
gone. It was already taken by the said accused. A was prosecuted for reward, or promise.
theft. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation,
fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international
Q: Will his illness mitigate his criminal liability? damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
A: Yes. It diminishes his exercise of his will-power without however other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
depriving him of consciousness. He knew that he was committing 13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
theft, he knew that he was taking the personal property of another 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
but he cannot control, he has a diminished self-control to prevent 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means
the commission of the crime. It will only mitigate, reduce the be employed to weaken the defense.
imposable penalty but it will not exempt from criminal liability. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
analogous to those above mentioned. execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
Any other circumstance which is similar in nature from the 1st to the 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
9th paragraph, then it is also considered as a mc. which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
Example; There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall,
A public officer who has malversed public funds, voluntarily, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
voluntary returned the public funds, it is akin to voluntary surrender. 19. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons
Or what if a person is already of 65 years of age, sickly, suffering under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
from a disease it can be said to be akin or similar to seniority. It will motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As
mitigate his criminal liability. amended by RA 5438).
20. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
--xXx-- deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
its commissions.
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are
aggravating circumstances: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public Aggravating Circumstance are those which, if attendant in the
position. commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without,
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law
to the public authorities. for the offense.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or Kinds of aggravating Circumstances:
sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, 1. Generic Aggravating;
if the latter has not given provocation. 2. Specific Aggravating;
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or 3. Inherent Aggravating;
obvious ungratefulness. 4. Qualifying Aggravating;
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief 5. Special Aggravating;
Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to In order for aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, all the
religious worship. aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information and
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an must be proven during the trial.
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
may facilitate the commission of the offense. Unlike justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances, which are
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have not stated or alleged in the information, aggravating circumstances
acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed must be alleged in the information. Even if they are proven in trial
to have been committed by a band. but they are not alleged in the information, they cannot be
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a considered against the person. They must be both alleged and
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity likewise proven during trial, so as not to deprive the accused of right
or misfortune. to know the nature of the accusation against him.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men
or persons who insure or afford impunity. Generic Aggravating Circumstance
9. That the accused is a recidivist. Generic Aggravating Circumstance are those that applies generally to
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, all crimes.
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
Example: for example, homicide qualified to murder, only one will qualify the
Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19, and 20 of the Revised Penal Code;
Nightime - it can be applied to crimes against persons, crimes
against property, crimes against chastity and applied to all other
crimes; Recidivism.

Specific Aggravating Circumstance

Specific Aggravating Circumstance are those that apply only to
certain or particular crimes.

Example:
Treachery (Par.16 Art. 14) can only be considered or appreciated in
crimes against persons.

Inherent Aggravating Circumstance

Inherent Aggravating Circumstance are those which of necessity
follow the commission of the crime because they are considered as
elements in the commission of the crime, therefore they are
considered inherent in the commission of the crime.

If inherent aggravating circumstance are present in the commission

of the crime, they are no longer considered so as to increase the
penalty because they are considered as elements

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance are those which either change
the nature of the crime to bring about a more serious for a higher
penalty or even without changing the nature of the crime it would
impose a higher penalty.

Example:
In Art. 248 of the RPC, the circumstances therein present would
qualify the killing of a person from homicide to murder. The
presence of treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty in killing
would make a crime not of homicide but would be qualified to
murder

Special Aggravating Circumstance

In the case of People of the Philippines v. De Leon (G.R. No. 179943,
June 26, 2009) the Supreme Court defined Special Aggravating
Circumstances as circumstances which arise under special conditions
to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but
the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree.

In the case of special aggravating circumstance, it CANNOT be offset

by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Example;
The following are examples of Special Aggravating Circumstance;
1. Quasi-recidivism under Article 60 of the Revised Penal
Code;
2. Complex Crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code; and
3. When homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm under P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A.
8294;
4. When in the omission of the crime, advantage was taken
by the offender of his public position under Article 62 of
the RPC;

Effect of more than one Qualifying Circumstance

If there are more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance as
felony to murder and the others shall be considered as a generic A: taking advantage of public position should be appreciated as a
aggravating circumstance. special aggravating circumstance. Article 62 of the RPC states that
the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offender took
Example; advantage of
In case of qualifying aggravating circumstance, for example, A
killed B there was treachery, it was done in consideration of a
price, reward or promise, there was also cruelty, so there are
three qualifying aggravating circumstances present. Only one of
them will qualify the killing to murder. So if treachery is already
proven, the crime committed is already murder. Cruelty and the
other circumstance of in consideration of a price, reward or
promise shall only be considered as generic aggravating
circumstances.

THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC

POSITION.
This aggravating circumstance can be applied only if the offender
is a public officer.

Taking Advantage of Public Position

Taking advantage of public position means that the offender use
the prestige, influence or ascendency of his office in the
commission of the crime or to facilitate the commission of the
crime.

Example;
Police officer A was having a drinking spree with his friends
outside his house. In the course thereof, they were discussing
about the alleged shoot out in Quezon. According to the police
officer, since he was a police officer, it was a shoot out. But
according to his friend it was a rub-out. They were arguing,
exchanging views until the police officer got mad. At that time, he
had with him his pistol. He used his service pistol and shot his
friend who thereafter died.

Q: Is the said act of killing done by taking advantage of his

public position?
A: NO. The said offender, public officer, did not use or misuse his
public office. He did not use the influence, the ascendency or the
prestige of his office in order to commit the crime. Even not being
a public officer he could have killed his friend in the same
situation . He could even have used another weapon, not
necessarily his service pistol.

Special Aggravating Circumstance

Under Art. 14, taking advantage of his public position is a generic
aggravating circumstance. However, under Art. 62 (as amended
by RA 7659), the fact the crime was committed by taking
advantage of his public position is a special aggravating
circumstance because the maximum penalty prescribed by law
shall be the one imposed.

Example;
Police officer X was assigned as a traffic enforcer. X was always
demanding toll in the amount of fifty pesos from jeepney drivers
otherwise he would not let them enter a certain street. One day,
jeepney driver Y got mad at X for extorting toll on him because Y
had no earning that day. He filed a case for robbery against X. the
information alleged that in order to perpetrate the crime of
robbery, X took advantage of his public position.

Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of

taking advantage of public position in this case?
his public position as a means to facilitate the commission of the disrespected the said person as a public authority if he has no
crime. knowledge that he is a public authority.

Example; That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the
W is a woman who drives a jeepney for a living. While she was offender from the commission of the crime.
driving her route, police officer X flagged her down and demanded An offense may be said to have been committed in contempt of
for her to pay a toll in the amount of fifty pesos. However W refused public authority when his presence, made known to the offender,
to give money to X. Thus, X arrested W and brought her to the police has not prevented the latte from committing the criminal act.
station. W was detained in the investigation room. Thereafter, X
entered in the investigation room. While there, X had carnal Example;
knowledge of W. an information for rape was filed with the The barangay chairman was in a restaurant having dinner with his
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. wife because it was there wedding anniversary. Suddenly here
comes A, B and C who are constituents of the barangay chairman.
Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of taking Upon seeing the chairman, they greeted him and even
advantage of public position in this case? congratulated him and his wife upon learning that they were
A: Taking advantage of public position should be appreciated as a celebrating their wedding anniversary. They seated next to the table
qualifying circumstance in this case. Article 266-B (3) of the Revised of the chairman and ordered food. In the giving of the food, there
Penal Code states that Death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of was an argument between A and the waiter. The argument
rape is committed when the victim is under the custody of the police immediately became a heated one. A took the table knife and stab
or the military or any law enforcement or penal institution. In this the waiter. The waiter suffered serious physical injuries. Prosecuted
case, the charge against X should qualified rape. Since death penalty for frustrated homicide.
is suspended, X shall suffer the penalty of Reclusion perpetua.
Q: In the prosecution for said crime, is the aggravating
CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public authority
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by present?
his lack of respect for the public authorities. A: NO. The first element is absent. The first element is that the
public officer or public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
Elements: function. At the time of the commission of the crime, yes he was
1. That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the there but he was in a private act. He was not engaged in the exercise
exercise of his function; of his function, hence it cannot be said that the said offender
2. That the public authority is not the person against whom the insulted the said public authority.
crime is committed;
3. That the offender knows him to be a public authority; Example;
4. That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the The public authority was the city mayor who was inside his office.
offender from the commission of the crime. Suddenly he heard commotion on the ground floor. He looked out
his window, he saw his two supporters having an argument. A and B
That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the exercise were having an argument over a parking space. The mayor went
of his function. down the building and talked to both A and B. He told them to shake
Public authority refers to Justice of the peace, persons in authority, hands and forget everything. Then he told A to just allow B to park
or any person directly vested with jurisdiction whether an individual his car anyway there was another parking space available. This
or some members of court or governmental commissioner. It is angered A because he thought that the mayor was siding with B. A
necessary that he has the duty to govern and execute the laws. took out his balisong and stabbed the mayor.

Example; Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult

Mayors, barangay chairman police officer is merely an agent of a to public authority present?
person in authority. A: YES. It is present but it is not an aggravating circumstance but an
element of the crime because the crime committed is direct assault.
Agents of public authority are not included. Police officers are agents It is direct assault because the public authority at the time of the
of public authority. attack was engaged in the performance of his functions. Since the
crime committed was against the public authority himself, the fact
That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime that it was committed in contempt of or with insult to the said public
is committed. authority is an ingredient of the crime.
If the offender is the person against whom the crime is committed,
such fact that the crime was committed in contempt of the public Example;
authority is an element because the crime committed would be hat if in the same problem instead of stabbing the said mayor, A felt
direct assault. In direct assault, in contempt of or with insult to insulted with the mayor’s words that he is giving the parking space
public authority is an element, no longer an aggravating to B so this angered A. A stabbed B. B died.
circumstance.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult
That the offender knows him to be a public authority. to public authority present?
There must be knowledge on the part of the offender that the said A: YES. The mayor’s act of pacifying A and B was engaged in his
person is a public authority. Otherwise, it cannot be said that he official functions. He was not the person against whom the crime
was committed. A was a supporter, therefore he knew mayor was
a person in authority. Yet, the presence of the mayor did not
prevent A
from committing the crime against B. Hence, the second aggravating offended party was inside his dwelling at the time of the commission
circumstance is present. of the crime and he has not given any provocation.

DISRESPECT OF RANK, AGE OR SEX, OR DWELLING OF THE If the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, it
OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION. is as an aggravating circumstance because it shows the greater
perversity of the offender than when the crime is committed in any
There are four aggravating circumstances under this paragraph; other place.
1. Disregard of rank;
2. Disregard of age; The constitution itself provides that a man’s abode must be
3. Disregard of sex; respected and therefore when a crime is committed inside the
4. Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party; house dwelling it shows the greater criminality on the part of the
offender.
These four aggravating circumstances can be appreciated singly or
collectively if present in the commission of the crime. There must be Even if a crime is committed inside dwelling, it cannot be considered
deliberate intent on the part of the offender to disrespect the as aggravating if the following circumstances are present;
offended party on account of the latter’s age, sex, or rank. 1. offended has given provocation;
2. If the offender and the offended party are living in the
Disregard of rank, disregard of age and disregard of sex can only be same dwelling;
considered in crimes against persons and crimes against chastity. 3. Dwelling is inherent in the commission of the crime.
You do not consider these in crimes against property; you do not
consider these in crimes against public interest. They can only be Example;
considered in crimes against persons and crimes against chastity. X and Y are roommates in a rented apartment. One night, when X
was studying for his exam, Y arrived from work. Y was so tired, he
Disregard of rank went directly straight to bed and turned off the lights. However, X
Rank refers to a high social standing, a high position in the society. turned on the lights and told Y that he was still studying. On the
For this to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it is other hand, Y turned off the lights because he can’t sleep with
necessary that the offender be of lower rank than that of the the lights. X turned off the lights, and Y turned it on again. An
offended party. altercation ensued between X and Y. Suddenly, X stabbed Y with a
ballpen in the eye. Y was blinded. X was charged with serious
Example; physical injury.
A student attacking a professor. There was a disregard of rank of the
said professor. An employee attacking his employer. There was a Q: May the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated in
disregard of rank of the said employer. this case?
A: NO. One of the exceptions for dwelling to be appreciated is that
Disregard of age when the offender and the offended party are both living together in
Age here refers to both minority and senority. the same dwelling. In this case, X and Y are roommates. They are
living in the same dwelling together. Thus, the aggravating
Example; circumstance of dwelling cannot be appreciated.
The offended party is 95 years old. A killed him by hitting his head
for 25 times with a lead pipe. Obviously, there was disregard of his Example;
age. Considering his age, whereas even one hit of the lead pipe X and Y were fighting in the streets. In the course of their fight, X
could have already killed the said old man but he was hit 25 times lost. Thereafter, X went home and left the gate and door open.
showing disregard of the age of the old man. Sometime later, X saw Y walking in the street in front of his
home. X told Y “kung matapang ka, pumasok ka dito”. Y entered
Example; the house of X. Without any warning, Y stabbed X multiple times. Y
A child is 4 years old. He was stabbed 25 times, thereafter his body was charged with the information of homicide.
was placed inside a dram filled with water and then the dram was
covered. There was disregard of age. The victim was a minor and Q: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should
therefore any attack, just 1 stab, could have killed the minor. But he be appreciated?
was stabbed 25 times; not only that, he was also submerged and the A: NO. In order for dwelling to be appreciated, there must be no
drum was covered, which shows disrespect of age. provocation on the part of the owner of the house who is also the
*If there was disrespect of age and there was also treachery, the offended party. In this case, were it not for X taunting Y to come into
aggravating circumstance to be considered is treachery because it his house if Y is brave, Y would not have had the opportunity to stab
absorbs disrespect of age. X.

Disrespect of sex *Dwelling includes the dependencies, the staircase and the
Disrespect of sex refers to the female sex. This is inherent in the enclosures therein.
crime of rape and in certain crimes involving chastity.
*The dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. It suffices
Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party that the offended party uses it for rest and comfort. E.g., a room
Dwelling is considered as aggravating circumstance if the crime is being rented by the lessee or a tenant; room where a person is living
committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, that is, the as a bedspacer.
Example; ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.
A who lives in a nipa hut was sitting at the staircase when B came There are two aggravating circumstances;
and forcibly drag her to another house, 1 kilometer away from A’s 1. Abuse of confidence;
house, where she was raped by B. 2. Obvious ungratefulness;

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present? Abuse of Confidence

A: YES. The aggravating circumstance is present even if the crime The circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted
was committed in another place far from the dwelling, the the offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime.
aggression started in the dwelling of the offended party. The The abuse of confidence must be a means of facilitating the
aggression that started in the dwelling of the offended party when commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the
she was dragged from the said staircase, that aggression cannot be offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said
divided from the commission of said crim. So even if it grounds were confidence.
consummated in another place for as long as aggression started in
the dwelling, still dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. Elements of abuse of confidence;
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
Example; 2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime
X woke up 6:00 in the morning. He got up from bed, and looked out against the offended party;
the window wanting to get fresh morning air. Suddenly and without 3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of
any warning, Y shot X. X died. The information charges Y with the crime
murder qualified by treachery and with the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. Example;
H and W were husband and wife living here in Manila for 4 years.
Q: Should the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be Suddenly here comes X. X was their former neighbor in Batangas. He
appreciated? A: YES. Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. It is told H and W “I am looking for work here in Manila, can I live in
not necessary for dwelling to be aggravating that the perpetrator of your house while I am looking for work?” Since X was a good
the crime was able to get in. It suffices that the offended party or neighbor back then, H and W trusted X and allowed X to live inside
the victim is inside his house. The assailant may device ways and their house. X now sleeps in the house of H and W while he was
means to commit the crime from the outside. looking for work here in manila. One time H was out of the house.
The house helpers and the drivers were also away. The only person
Q: Will the treachery absorb the aggravating circumstance of left in the house was X and W. While H was out, X went to the
dwelling? master’s bedroom and had carnal knowledge of W against the
A: NO. Treachery does not absorb dwelling. In this case, murder was latter’s will.
qualified by treachery, and dwelling will be treated as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance. Q: Is the aggravating circumstance abuse of confidence present in
this case?
Example; A: YES. X was there because A and B trusted him, yet he abused such
W is 95 years old; a woman of high standing in the society. She was a trust and confidence and instead facilitated the commission of the
former department secretary. She is living alone in her house. One crime. Therefore this aggravating circumstance is present.
time here comes X. X wanted to rob the valuables inside the house
of the said old woman. X entered the said house and he was able to Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present in the case?
get the valuables from the vault of the house. He was about to leave A: NO. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling in this case cannot
the house when accidentally pushed the chair. By reason thereof, be considered because at the time of the incident, H and W allowed
the woman was awaken. The woman upon seeing X begun X to live with them even though it was only in a temporary basis.
screaming. X then fired at the woman 50 times. The woman died. Ownership of the house is irrelevant in dwelling.

Q: Are the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank, Obvious Ungratefulness

disregard of age, disregard of sex present? Ungratefulness means the offender has no gratitude, does not even
A: NO. The crime committed is robbery with homicide, under article know how to say thank you.
10 which is a crime against property. Disregard of rank, age and sex
are not applicable to any other crimes but only to crimes against The elements of obvious ungratefulness are the following;
person and crimes against chastity. Since the crime committed is a 1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
crime against property, therefore, disregard of rank, age and sex 2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime
cannot be considered against the accused. against the offended party;
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present?
A: YES. The crime committed robbery with homicide is a form of Example;
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Dwelling is A was selling kettles and other kitchen wares on the street under the
only inherent in robbery with use of force upon things but dwelling heat of the sun. A goes from one house to another under the heat of
is not inherent in case of robbery with violence against or the sun. He was so thirsty already so he knocked on the gate of the
intimidation of persons just like robbery with homicide. So in this house of X. X opened the gate and A told X that he was so thirsty. X
case, only dwelling should be considered as an aggravating being a good person, allowed A to go inside their house and asked
circumstance. him to take a sit while he get him a glass of water. When he came
back, he was not only holding a glass of water but also brought
some
biscuits. However A suddenly, brought out his knife and stabbed X rally around 6am, it is now 8pm, they were still there. The officials and
and thereafter robbed him.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance obvious ungratefulness

present? A: YES. Instead of showing gratitude for having been
allowed to enter the house and given a glass of water with biscuits,
he instead took advantage of the goodness of the man and
committed the crime of killing and robbery. There was obvious
ungratefulness on the part of the offender.

THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR

WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF
THEIR DUTIES OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
If the crime is committed in any of these places it is considered as an
aggravating circumstance because it shows on the part of the
offender lack of respect on these places.

There are four aggravating circumstances in this case;

1. In the Palace of the chief executive;
2. In the presence of the chief executive;
3. Public authorities engaged in the discharge of their duties;
4. Place dedicated to religious worship;

In order however for these aggravating circumstances to be

considered, it is necessary that the offender deliberately sought the
said place to commit the crime because otherwise it cannot be said
that he disrespected the place.

In the Palace of the Chief Executive

This aggravating circumstance may be committed regardless of
whether there is a public affair or official affair going on, if a crime is
committed it is aggravating.

Example:
A and B are chefs in Malacanang. They are outdoing each other in
trying to prepare the best meal for P-noy. One time, both of them
were preparing lunch for the president. Suddenly they had an
argument. In the course thereof, A stabbed B. B suffered a fatal
wound but he survived. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed

in the palace of the Chief Executive present?
A: NO. Because he works there, he lives there. It cannot be said that
he sought the said place in order to commit the crime. It cannot be
said that he went to said place in order to commit the crime or can it
be said that he disrespected the said place.

In the presence of the Chief Executive

Even if the Chief Executive is not engaged in his official duty, still it is
considered as aggravating because of the lack of respect to the chief
executive.

Where the Public Authorities are engaged in the discharge of their

duties
It is not only necessary that the said places are where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, it is also
necessary that at the time of the commission of the crime, the
public authorities are actually engaged in the performance of their
duties.

Example;
Many farmers were having a rally outside the DAR. They started the
employees had already left, so the farmers were there still having the crime has been illuminated by any light, rule out nighttime as an
their rally. They set tents and prepared to sleep there. In the aggravating circumstance.
course thereof, 2 farmers argued at each other. In the course of
their argument one farmer jumped into the fence and went inside
the DAR. The second farmer followed him and when the second
farmer was able to catch up with the first farmer, he killed the
latter.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime was

committed in a place where the Public Authorities are engaged
in the discharge of their duties present?
A: NO. Although DAR is a place where the Public Authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, at the time of the
commission of the crime, the officials and employees are not in
the actual performance of their duties. Under this aggravating
circumstance, it is not only necessary that the said places are
where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of
the crime, the public authorities are actually engaged in the
performance of their duties.

In a place dedicated to religious worship

Even if there is no religious ceremony on going, for as long as the
said crime is committed in said place dedicated to religious
worship it is aggravating because of lack of respect on said place.

Example;
X was in a church praying to kill Y. X saw Y at the back of the
church. X went out of the church. X entered the church in the
back door and suddenly, he stabbed Y. Y died. X was charged with
homicide.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of place of religious worship

present?
A: YES. In order for the aggravating circumstance of religious
worship to be appreciated, the offender must especially sought
the place to facilitate the commission of the crime. In this case,
when X saw Y, he went out of the church and entered in the back
so that he could stab
Y. X deliberately sought the place of religious worship to facilitate
the commission of the crime.

NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, OR BY A BAND

There are three aggravating circumstances in this case;
1. Nighttime;
2. Uninhabited place;
3. Band;

Nighttime
Nighttime is from sunset to sunrise. In order for these aggravating
circumstances to be considered, it is necessary that the offender
deliberately sought the darkness of the night either to facilitate
the commission of the crime or to insure or afford impunity.

Elelements;
The following are the elements of Nighttime;
1. The darkness or silence of the night was especially
sought by the offender;
2. That night time was taken advantage of by the offender
to facilitate the commission of the crime;
3. The purpose is to insure his immunity from capture;

Even if the offender sought nighttime, the moment the scene of

Example; According to the counsel,
In the commission of the crime, A decided to kill B, his enemy. A
knew that B would pass by the place wherein there were no light
posts. A waited for B in the said place. Upon the moment B arrived A
left his post and was about to stab B when suddenly a tricycle passed
by and the light coming from the tricycle illuminated the scene of
the crime. Even if A deliberately sought nighttime, nighttime is not
aggravating because a light illuminated the scene of the crime.
Whenever any light has illuminated the scene of the crime, rule out
nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. Light coming from the
tricycle, from any vehicle, nearby house, light posts or even from the
moon, for as long as the scene of the crime has been illuminated,
nighttime is not aggravating.

An uninhabited place
Means a place which is isolated from the others or located far from
others. However this is not the requirement for it to be considered
aggravating.

Requisites;
1. That in the place where the crime was committed there
was a remote possibility for the victim to receive some
help;
2. That the offender deliberately sought the uninhabited
place in order to facilitate the commission of the crime;

Example;
A, B and C are fishermen. Around 3 am, they all went out fishing on
their respective boats. They were sailing 5 meters away from each
other. Suddenly X sprung out of the water and he stabbed A.

Q: In the prosecution for killing of A, is the aggravating

circumstance of uninhabited place present?
A: YES. First, in the place where the crime was committed, there was
very little, remote possibility for A to receive some help. Because B
and C must still swim before they could render help or assistance to
A. Before they could have swum and reached A, A is already dead.
Therefore there was very litter or remote possibility for the victim to
be saved. The said accused X deliberately sought the place in order
to facilitate in the commission of the crime because he suddenly
appeared from the water. Therefore the aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place is present.

By a band
For the aggravating circumstance of by a band to be present, the law
says where more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of the offense, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band. Therefore, there must be at least 4
armed men in the commission of the crime or they must have acted
together in the commission of the crime.

Example;
A, B, C, D and E all armed with knives, killed X. The information
stated that A, B, C, D and E conspired with one another and as a
band they committed the crime of murder against X. during the
presentation of evidence, conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Likewise, band as an aggravating circumstance was proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the judge convicted A, B, C, D and E
for the crime of murder as conspirators. The judge also considered
the aggravating circumstance of by a band. The counsel for the
accused filed a motion for the consideration, questioning the
consideration of the aggravating circumstance of by a band.
conspiracy has already been considered therefore by a band can
no longer be considered by the court.

Q: Is the counsel’s contention correct?

A: NO. Even if the court already considered conspiracy, by a band
may still be considered by the court because conspiracy is a
means of committing a crime. It means they have the same
criminal liability. On the other hand, by a band is an aggravating
circumstance. One does not absorb the other, therefore, both
maybe considered and appreciated by the court.

Example;
A induced B, C, and D wanted to kill W. A, B, C, and D planned to
commit the crime at 11pm so that the community is fast asleep.
At 11pm, B, C, and D entered the house of W. They directly
proceeded to his room. W’s room was fully lighted. Thereafter,
B, C, and D stabbed W. W died. A, B, C, and D was charged murder
qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime, uninhabited place, and by a band.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of nighttime present?

A: YES. Although the room of W was fully lighted, the accused
deliberately sought the darkness and silence of the night in order
to facilitate the commission of the crime.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of by a band present?

A: NO. A band is present whenever more than three armed
malefactors come together in the commission of the crime. All of
the armed malefactors must be a principal by direct participation.
In this case A is a principal by inducement.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place

present? A: NO. In order for an uninhabited place to be present,
the offender deliberately sought a place isolated from the others
or located far from others so that there is a remote possibility
that the victim may receive help.

ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,

EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
It is considered as an aggravating circumstance because on
occasion of these calamities, the offender took advantage of the
said occasion in order to commit the crime.

Example;
X and Y were fighting. X lost the fight. Suddenly, there was an
earthquake and all the people panicked and went outside their
house. X went out of his house and saw Y also panicking. X saw
this as an opportunity to kill Y and get his revenge. X approached
Y and stabbed him multiple times. X was charged with homicide
committed on the occasion of earthquake as an aggravating
circumstance.

Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance that the

crime was committed on the occasion of an earthquake?
A: The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in
the occasion of an earthquake must be appreciated as a qualifying
aggravating circumstance. Article 248 states that when a person
kills another on the occasion of a calamity such as an earthquake,
the person is liable for murder. In this case, since X killed Y on the
occasion of an earthquake, such aggravating circumstance shall
qualify the crime into murder.
Example; the code. The fact that 25 years had lapsed from the time of the first
An earthquake occurred. All of the persons in the community crime to the second crime is immaterial because recidivism is
panicked and went outside their house. Upon Seeing this, X saw an
opportunity to commit theft and take the belongings of other person
who are out of their house. However, X was apprehended and
charged for the crime of theft with the aggravating circumstance
that the crime was committed on the occasion of an earthquake.

Q: How do we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of

earthquake in relation to the crime of theft?
A: The aggravating circumstance of earthquake should be
considered as a qualifying circumstance. Article 310 of the RPC
states that when theft was committed on the occasion of an
earthquake, the crime committed is qualified theft. In this case,
since X committed the crime of theft in the occasion of an
earthquake, he is liable for qualified theft.

AID OF ARMED MEN

Aid of armed men means that the armed men aided the offender in
the commission of the crime. The aid given by the armed men
maybe a direct or indirect participation in the commission of the
crime.

The armed men who gives aid to the offender are merely
accomplices because they may give material or moral aid to the
offender.

Armed men v. By a band

BY A BAND AID OF ARMED MEN
There must be at least 4 armed There is no requisite as to the
malefactors; number of armed men;
The armed men may have
Must have acted together in
direct or indirect participation.
the actual commission of the
They are mere accomplices of
crime; (conspiracy) the offender.

RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have previously been convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.

The following are the elements of recidivism;

1. The offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the
same title of the code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense
charged.

Example:
A has been convicted of the crime of attempted homicide. The judge
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he was
convicted. The judgment became final and executory, therefore he
was behind bars. He served out his sentence. Once out of prison cell,
he lived a good life. However, after 25 years, he engaged in a fight
and killed the other man. By reasonable doubt he was charged with
and convicted of the crime of murder.

Q: Can the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating

circumstance in imposing the penalty for murder?
A: YES. Both homicide and murder are embraced in the same title of
imprescriptible. There is no time limit between the first crime for
which he has been convicted by final judgment and the second
crime for which he is also convicted.

Example;
X was a convicted murder. While serving his sentence, he was
granted an absolute pardon by President Duterte. X was released
from prison. After a few weeks, X was engaged in a fight and killed
Y. X was convicted with homicide with the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism present in this

case? A: YES. The fact that X was granted with pardon does not
erase the effects of the prior conviction of murder.

Example;
X was a military man. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit
rebellion. While he was serving his sentence, an amnesty
proclamation was executed by the president for all those who
conspired to commit rebellion. X applied for amnesty and was
granted. X was able to get out of prison. Sometime later, X joined
some military men and participated in their coup d’état. X, long
with the other military men, were apprehended and convicted.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism present in this

case? A: NO. Amnesty erases the effects of the crime as if no
crime happened and no crime was committed by the accused. It
totally obliterates and erase the former conviction. In this case,
since X was granted amnesty in the conspiracy to commit to
commit rebellion, recidivism was not present.

REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
The offender has been previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

The following are the elements of reiteracion;

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another crime to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or
for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty;
3. That he is also convicted of the new offense.

The first situation is that, he has already served out the sentence,
he has already been punished for a crime.

Under the second element there are two situations;

1. If it is only one crime it is necessary that the said crime
must carry a penalty equal to or greater than the
second crime;
2. If there are two crimes for which he had been
previously punished, it is necessary that they carry a
lighter penalties than the new crime for which he is
convicted.

There are four forms of habituality;

1. Recidivism; (Article 14, par. 9)
2. Riteracion; (Article 14, par. 10)
3. Habitual Delinquency; (Article 62, no. 5)
4. Quasi-recidivism; (Article 160)
Recidivism v. Reiteracion A: NO. Slight physical injuries which carries with it the penalty of
RECIDIVISM REITERACION arresto menor is lighter than malicious mischief which carries with it
Requires conviction by final the penalty of arresto mayor. Therefore the judge cannot consider
Requires service of sentence;
judgment; reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance. He was convicted of
May be felonies or offenses malicious mischief and placed behind bars.
Crimes must be felonies;
punishable by special law;
Offenses are under the same Offenses may or may not be in Example;
title of the RPC; the same title of the RPC; In the same problem, after service of sentence, A is now out of
prison. Once out of prison, he was still mad at B. Therefore he made
Example: sworn affidavits stating false statements against B. B filed a case of
A has been convicted of the crime of homicide. Convicted by final perjury against A. he is now on trial for the crime of perjury. The
judgment, he was placed behind bars. He served out his sentence. judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Once out of prison, he committed forcible abduction. Homicide is
punished by reclusion temporal. Forcible abduction is now on trial. Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating
The penalty prescribed by law for forcible abduction is also reclusion circumstance?
temporal. The judge found him guilty for forcible abduction. A: YES. The first two crimes, the penalties of which were already
served out, carry lighter penalties than the third crime: slight
Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating physical injuries, arresto menor; malicious mischief arresto mayor.
circumstance in imposing the penalty for forcible abduction? Therefore reiteracion can be considered.
A: YES. The penalty for the crime of homicide where he has already
served out his sentence is equal to the penalty for forcible Example;
abduction, both reclusion temporal. Therefore, reiteracion or X was convicted of homicide with the privilege mitigating
habituality can be considered. circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The judge imposed upon
him the penalty of Prision coreccional (6 years). X applied for
Example; probation and it was granted. While under probation, X forcibly
B committed forcible abduction. He was convicted by final judgment. abducted his neighbor. As a result, an information for forcible
He served out his sentence. He is now out of prison. Once out of abduction was charged against X with the aggravating circumstance
prison, he committed falsification of public document. He is on trial of reiteracion.
for the said falsification of public document. The judge found him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Q: is the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion present in this
case?
Q: In imposing the penalty for falsification of public document, can A: NO. In order for reiteracion to be appreciated as an aggravating
judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance? circumstance, the offender must have previously served his
A: YES. The penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion temporal, sentence. By applying probation, the accused admitted to the
which commission of
is higher than the penalty for falsification of public document the crime, however, he avoided serving sentence. The Supreme Court
committed by a private individual which is only prision correccional. held that probation is not the same as serving once sentence. In this
Therefore, reiteracion or habituality should be considered by the case, there was no reiteracion.
court in imposing the penalty for falsification of public document.
IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE.
Example; If the price, reward or promise, as a circumstance is present in the
B committed falsification of public document. Convicted, served out killing of a person, it is not considered as a generic aggravating
the sentence. After service of sentence, he is out of prison, he person but a qualifying aggravating circumstance. It is one of the
engaged in a fight and killed his opponent. His now on trial for qualifying circumstances under Art.248.
homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
This aggravating circumstance should be considered both against the
Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating person who made the offer and the person who accepted the price,
circumstance? reward or promise. Therefore, it is to be considered both against the
A: NO. The crime for which he has served out his sentence carries a principal by inducement and the principal by direct participation.
penalty lighter than that of the second crime. The law requires that
if it is only one crime, it must carry a penalty equal to or greater than To be considered against the principal by inducement, it is necessary
the second crime he committed. that the price, reward or promise must be the prime reason for the
principal by direct participation committed the crime. That without
Example; the price, reward or promise, the principal by direct participation
A slapped B. B filed a case for slight physical injuries against A. He would not have committed the crime.
was convicted and served out his sentence for slight physical injuries
which is arresto menor. Once out of prison, he was still mad at B. He BY MEANS OF GREAT WASTE AND RUIN
deliberately caused damage to the property of B. B now filed a case That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
of malicious mischief against A. The judge found him guilty beyond explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto,
reasonable doubt for malicious mischief. derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.
Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating The offender makes use of inundation, fire or explosion in order to
circumstance? commit the crime. It is a means to commit the crime. If these means

[Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
Updated by Anonymous Lawyer (https://www.facebook.com/Anonymouslawer/)
are used in killing a person, it is not a generic aggravating Fraud
circumstance, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance under Fraud or deceit is manifested by the use of insidious words or
article machinations resorted to by the accused so that the offended party
248. It qualifies the killing to murder. will perform an act that will make the offender do the crime easily.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION Example;

Evident premeditation is the stubborn adherence to a decision to The offended party was about to sleep on the upper portion of the
commit a crime. house because the lower portion is a store. The offender called over
the owner, saying that he was going to buy something. The owner
It implies a deliberate plans before or after the commission of the went down the house and opened the store. However, upon
crime. opening the store, he was stabbed and robbery was committed.
There was fraud as manifested by the insidious words or
The following are the requisites of evident premeditation; machinations, resorted to by the offender.
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the
crime; Disguise
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to Disguise are ways and means resorted to by the accused to conceal
his determination; his identity.
3. Sufficient lapse time between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences This include stockings, bonnet or anything that could be used so that
of his acts; one could not be recognized.

Example; If despite disguise he is recognized, rule out disguise as an

A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so humiliated so aggravating circumstance, it did not serve its purpose.
he told A “the next time I see you, I will kill you!” B went home
and searched for his gun. He found the same and kept it under his ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
pillow, waiting for the time to kill A. A month has lapsed. B while Abuse of superior strength is intentionally employing excessive force
walking saw out of proportion to the means of defense available to the offended
A. upon seeing A, he immediately run to his house, went to his party.
bedroom and took the gun under his pillow. He raised back to A and
shot him. The requisites for abuse of superior strength are the following;
1. That there be a notorious inequality of forces between the
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation offender and the offended party in terms of their age, size
present? and strength;
A: YES. First, the time when the offender determined to commit the 2. That the offender took advantage of this inequality of
crime. That is the time when B told A “the next time I see you, I forces to facilitate the commission of the crime.
will kill you!” Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he has
clung to his determination. He brought a gun. It is an overt act Inequality of forces
showing that he has clung to his determination. Third, a sufficient Inequality of forces includes the following;
lapse time between the determination and execution. A month has 1. Offender uses weapon to tak advantage;
passed. That is sufficient for him to cool off, to reflect upon the 2. Numerical Superiority;
consequences of his acts. Therefore, evident premeditation was 3. Difference in physical characteristics such as age strength
present in the commission of the crime. and size.

THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED. The mere fact that there was numerical superiority does not
There are three aggravating circumstances; automatically mean that there is abuse of superior strength. Under
1. Craft; the second element, evidence must show that the offender
2. Fraud; deliberately took advantage of their strength to facilitate the
3. Disguise commission of the crime.

Craft TRERACHERY
Craft means intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by the There is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the
accused crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
Example; execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the maid was offended party might make.
at home. He told the maid that he was a relative of the owners of
the house who came from the province. He was allowed to enter the The following are the elements of treachery;
house, thereafter he committed a crime of robbery. There was 1. That the offender deliberately adopted the particular
cunning or intellectual trickery resorted to by the accused for he means, method or form of attack employed by him;
tricked the maid to consummate the crime of robbery. 2. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself.
The essence of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of old, then there is treachery.
the act to unexpecting and unarmed victim who has not even the
slightest provocation. The victim must be totally without defense.

If the victim was able to put out any defense, no matter how minor,
treachery is not present.

Example;
A was about to stab B but he was able to parry the blow, that is
already a defense on his part. He was able to run away, that is
already considered as a defense. Treachery is no longer present. It is
necessary that the offended party or the victim must be totally
without defense.

Q: What if the attack is a frontal attack?

A: Even if it is a frontal attack, if it is so sudden, unexpected, such
that the offended party would not be aware of it and was not able to
put up any defense, there is still treachery.

Example;
A and B were walking towards each other. When near enough, B
suddenly stabbed A. It was a frontal attack yet obviously there was
treachery. A was totally defenseless and B deliberately and
consciously adopted the means in the commission of the crime.

People v. Matibag (G.R. No. 206381, March 15, 2015)

Deceased Duhan was walking along the road when the accused
Matibag confronted him and asked “ano bang pinagsasabi
mo?”, Duhan replied “wala”. Matibag thereafter hit Duahan and
pulled out a gun and shot him. Matibag was charged with the
murder qualified by treachery.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present in this

case? A: YES. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack. A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out
treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the
attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no
time to prepare for his or her defense. In this case, Although the
attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it
was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself,
adding too that he was unarmed.

When Victim is a Minor

Whenever the offended party is a minor, there is always treachery
because the minor is always defenseless.

Example;
Victim is 17 years of age, but a big, macho man, full of muscles.

Q: Is there treachery?
A: The Supreme Court held that whenever the offended party is a
minor, there is always treachery.

Minority Appreciated in Treachery

Minority here does not refer to the statutory definition of minority,
that is, being below 18 years of age. Minority here is with reference
to the sense of helplessness of the victim. So it is necessary that the
victim is helpless.

Example;
If the victim is 17 years old with a masculine physique and was able
to put up a defense, there is no treachery. But if the victim is 6 years
The Offender Adopted Particular Means
The offender must have deliberately adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.

Example;
A prisoner arrived at the police station. Upon removal of his
handcuffs, he immediately grab the pistol of the arresting officer.
Thereafter he went out pointing the said gun. Upon seeing a
woman who was getting inside the PNP station, he shot the
woman.

Q: The woman died. Is the aggravating circumstance of

treachery present?
A: NO. It is a mere chance encounter. The first element is
wanting. There is no showing the offender deliberately adopted
the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him
in killing the woman.

People v. Vilbar (G.R. No. 186541, February 1, 2012)

Guilbert Patricia and his wife Maria Liza owns a sari-sari store.
One night, when Guilbert arrived home from work, he saw the
accused who was drunk, urinating in one of the table in their
store. Guilbert reprimanded the accused, but the accused merely
ignored Guilbert. Suddenly, the accused approached Guilbert,
drew out a knife, and stabbed him repeatedly. The accused was
charged with murder qualified by treachery.

Q: Was treachery present as an aggravating circumstance?

A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution in the instant
case merely showed that accused-appellant attacked Guilbert
suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to prove that accused-
appellant consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate
the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.

Treachery must be present at the commencement of the attack

For treachery to arise it is necessary that he must be present at
the commencement of the attack in order to know whether the
offended party was totally defenseless.

People v. Bokingco (G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011)

The witness saw the deceased Pasion enter the room of Bokingco.
The witness peeped through the window of Bokingco who was
seen hitting something in the floor. Bokingco was charged with
murder qualified by treachery.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?

A: NO. For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must
prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself, and that the offender consciously
adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.Nobody witnessed the commencement and the
manner of the attack. While the witness Vitalicio managed to see
Bokingco hitting something on the floor, he failed to see the
victim at that time.

People v. Tabarnero (G.R. No. 68169, February 24, 2010)

The witness Emerito testified that he saw the deceased Ernesto
bing held by two persons whil accused Gary and Alberto
Tabarnero were stabbing the deceased. The witness did not see
how the attack commenced but only that he was attacked by both
the accused while his hands were held by another person.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present in this IGNOMINY
case? A: YES. The Supreme Court held that there was treachery. Ignominy is a moral circumstance which adds disgrace or humiliation
What the witness saw was that the hands of the victim were being to the injury suffered by the victim.
held at the back while he was being attacked. That is sufficient
because there was restraint on the person of the victim. Even the People v. Bumidang (G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000)
witness did not observe the commencement of the attack, since Accused Bumidang went into the house of Melencio Imbat in the
there was restraint on his person, he was totally defenseless, middle night. Accused threatened to kill Melencio and her
treachery is present according to the Supreme Court. unmarried daughter Gloria if the door was not opened. When
Melencio opened the door, the accused asked where the room of
Treachery absorbs Craft Gloria is. Melencio thereafter pointed to the room of Gloria. The
If craft was used to insure the commission of the crime without risk accused went inside the room of Gloria. The accused threatened to
to the accused, it is absorbed as treachery. kill her with a spear if she resisted. The accused removed the
garments of Gloria, inspected her genitals with a flashlight and
Example; proceeded to have carnal knowledge in front of Melencio.
A, B, C, and D wanted to kill X. Thus, they procured the uniform of
military en and knocked on the door of X. Upon seeing the military Q: Was there ignominy in this case?
uniform, X allowed A, B, C, and D to enter his house. Once inside, A, A: YES. The Supreme Court held that it was established that
B, C, and D, shot X. They were charged with murder qualified by BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria
treachery and with the aggravating circumstance of craft. before he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the
presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show that
Q: Was craft absorbed by treachery in this case? BALIWANG deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby
A: NO. Although, the all the accused dressed up as military men, aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings.
such did not facilitate the commission of the crime. The uniform of
military men was merely used as a means to gain entry into the People v. Saylan (G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984)
house of X. Accused Saylan raped Eutropia Agno five times. In one of those time,
Saylan gained entry to the genitals of the Eutropia from behind in
Example; dog- style position. Eutropia filed a complaint for rape against
X wanted to kill Y. Thus, X took his gun and hid it in the pocket of his Saylan.
jacket so that it could be concealed. Thereafter, X approached Y and
started talking. While Y was talking, X shot Y with the gun concealed Q: Does the dog-style position adds ignominy to rape?
in his jacket. Y died. A: YES. The entry of the penis was from behind. Although this
position was not novel and in fact normal in case of two consenting
Q: Was craft used to facilitate the commission of the crime? partners, such act adds ignominy in rape cases.
A: YES. Since X hid the gun in his jacket to conceal it from the
eyesight of Y, such means facilitated the crime of murder through People v. Fernandez (G.R. No. L-62116, March 22, 1990)
craft. Rebecca Soriano is employed as a house helper. Rebecca had just
taken a shower in the house of her master when suddenly, accused
Treachery Absorbs Abuse Superior Strength went inside the house and raped her. She added that after the ape,
When both abuse of superior strength and treachery is present, only the accused grab a handful of mud and smeared it on her vagina.
treachery will be appreciated because abuse of superior strength is
absorbed by treachery. Q: Is there ignominy in this case?
A: YES. The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right after
Fantastico v. Malicse (G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015) she was raped, is adequately and properly described as "ignominy".
Elpidio Malicse got into a heated argument with his sister Isabela
Iguiron. However, they were pacified by the Barangay Chairman. UNLAWFUL ENTRY
Victim Malicse returned to the house of Isabela to apologize, There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not
however, accused Fantastico (the son-in law of Isabela) along with intended for the purpose
Rolly Villanueva, suddenly attacked victim with a stick and lead pipe,
respectively. Malicse almost died were it not for the intervention of In correlation to this, paragraph 19 states that as a means to the
the barangay tanod. The accused was charged with attempted commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. broken.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of Abuse of superior strength Example;

present in this case? A was on vacation. B knew that A was on vacation. He saw that the
A: YES. The victim in this case was unarmed, while the accused was window on the third floor of the house was open. He got a ladder
armed with a stick and a lead pipe. However, there was no treachery and placed it in the window, climbed it and entered the house. Then
in this case. From the facts proven by the prosecution, the incident he took the valuables, got out through the window.
was spontaneous, thus, the second element of treachery is wanting.
The incident, which happened at the spur of the moment, negates Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry present?
the possibility that the petitioners consciously adopted means to A: NO. The reason is that, the fact that a crime was committed after
execute the crime committed. an unlawful entry is inherent in the commission of the crime because
the crime committed is robbery under Art.299, robbery with use of
force upon things. The essence of robbery, is in the act of
unlawful entry. The entry was done through a means not
intended for anything
that is to a window. Thus, the fact that a crime was committed after Example;
an unlawful entry is not an aggravating circumstance. A person was found dead with several wounds all over his body. The
fact that there was 25-50 wounds cannot immediately mean that
Example; there was cruelty in the commission of the crime. It is necessary to
A was passing by the house of B. Suddenly he saw through the determine, whether first, he was still alive at the time the physical
window, two cellphones being charged. Interested on the pain was inflicted; second, did the offender enjoy and delight in
cellphones, he broke the window entered his hand and took the seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical
cellphones. pain. If there were defense wounds, cruelty cannot be appreciated.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that as a means to the Ignominy vs. Cruelty

commission of the crime the window was broken present? IGNOMINY CRUELTY
A: YES. The crime committed is theft only and not robbery because The victim suffered moral pain; The victim suffered physical
the offender did not enter the house. In the case of People v. pain or physical suffering;
Jaranilla (G.R. No. L-28547 February 22, 1974) One essential The victim may either be alive It is necessary that the victim is
requisite of robbery with force upon things is that the malefactor or dead; alive;
should enter the building or dependency, where the object to be
taken is found. If the culprit did not enter the building, there would USE OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM
be no robbery with force upon things. The crime committed is only Under section 1 of P.D. 1866 as amended by. R.A. 8294, If homicide
theft. In this case, the offender only broke the window, entered his or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
hand and took the cellphones. Therefore the crime committed is use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
theft. In theft, the fact that a window was broken is not inherent it is circumstance.
an aggravating circumstance.
Special Aggravating Circumstance
AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS In the case of People v. Palaganas (G.R. No. 165483, September 12,
If the crime committed makes use of minors under 15 years of age, it 2006) The Supreme Court held that the passage of Republic Act. No.
shows the greater perversity of the offender because he knows that 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or
minors cannot be arrested. Persons below 15 years of age cannot be homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance
prosecuted, it is among the exempting circumstances. Therefore, it and not a generic aggravating circumstance.
shows greater perversity.
Thus, if the use of unlicensed firearm is inherent in the crime
BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE committed, it shall not constitute as another offense but will be
If the crime is committed with the use of motor vehicle in killing a considered as a special aggravating circumstance.
person, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance under article 248.
If the motor vehicle is used in the commission of any other crime, it Example;
is a mere generic aggravating circumstance. A killed B by means of an unlicensed firearm. B died and A was
arrested. The firearm was recovered. Two cases were filed against A;
Example; murder or homicide as the case maybe and illegal possession of
X was walking along the road. Suddenly two men riding in tandem in unlicensed firearm under PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294.
a motorcycle snatched the handbag of X. X was able to identify the
plate number of the motorcycle and reported the matter to the Q: Are the charges correct?
police. The police made an investigation which resulted to the arrest A: NO. Under section 1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294 if
of the two men. homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
Q: Is the use of motor vehicle an aggravating circumstance? aggravating circumstance. Therefore, there shall only be one charge
A: YES. The two men used the motor vehicle to snatch the handbag of murder or homicide as the case maybe. The use of the unlicensed
of firearm shall be alleged in the information as an aggravating
X. Thereafter, the two men utilized the motor vehicle to facilitate circumstance.
their escape. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of use of motor
vehicle is present because it facilitated the commission of the crime. Example;
A father and son had an argument. The son shot his father with an
CRUELTY unlicensed firearm. The father died. Two cases were filed against the
Cruelty is the additional physical pain aside from the material injury son: parricide and illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. The fiscal
which is not necessary to the commission of the crime. opined that under section 1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294 if
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
The following are the elements of cruelty; firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
1. That at the time of the infliction of the physical pain, the aggravating circumstance. It did not provide for parricide, therefore
offended party is still alive; two cases should be filed.
2. That the offender enjoys and delights in seeing his victim
suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical pain; Q: Is the fiscal correct?
A: NO. SC has already ruled, that the words homicide and murder in
* The victim must be alive because a corpse cannot feel pain. the said law is used in its generic sense. Therefore it includes all
kinds of killing where the penalty prescribed by law is the same as
murder
which is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty prescribed by law is The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into
reclusion perpetua to death. consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has
committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not
Example; habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when
X wanted to carnap the vehicle of Y. In doing so, X approached Y and the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as
intimidated him with an unlicensed firearm. X told Y to surrender his an aggravating circumstance.
vehicle otherwise he will be killed. Y, being terrified for his life,
surrendered the keys to his vehicle. X drove away. Thereafter, Y ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
reported the incident to the police. An investigation ensued which Alternative circumstances are those circumstances which can either
lead to the arrest of X. X was charged with the information of be aggravating or mitigating, depending on their effect in
carnapping and use of an unlicensed firearm. commission of the crime.

Q: Is the charge correct? There are three alternative Circumstances in Article 15

A: Yes. The use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an 1. Relationship;
aggravating circumstance only if such use is inherent in the 2. Intoxication;
commission of the crime. In this case, since the use of an unlicensed 3. Degree of Instruction or Education
firearm was not inherent in the commission of the crime of robbery,
it shall be a separate offense. RELATIONSHIP
Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance when the
Example; offender is related to the offended party as his spouse, ascendants,
X and Y had a fight. X stabbed Y with a knife. Thereafter, the police descendants, legitimate, illegitimate, natural, adopted brothers,
arrived to arrest X. Upon his arrest, X was body searched by the sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
police and found in his possession an unlicensed firearm. X was
charged with homicide and illegal possession. Relationship as mitigating
Relationship is considered as mitigating in crimes against property.
Q: Is the charge correct?
A: YES. Use of an unlicensed firearm will only be appreciated as a Relationship as an Absolutory Cause
special aggravating circumstance if such was inherent in the In certain crimes against property, relationship of the offender with
commission of the crime. In this case, although the crime committed the offended party is exempting.
was homicide, the unlicensed firearm was not used as a means to
facilitate the commission of the crime. Hence the proper charge Example;
against X was the use of an unlicensed firearm and homicide. 1. Theft;
2. Estafa or swindling; and
DANGEROUS DRUGS 3. Malicious mischief;
A killed B. thereafter he chopped the body of B. because of the
manner employed by the accused in killing the victim, the police Under article 332 if the crime committed is theft, estafa or swindling,
suspected that he was under the influence of prohibited drugs. He and malicious mischief, relationship exempts the offender from
was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for forensic examination. criminal liability.
the results provided that he was under the influence of prohibited
drugs. Relationship in crimes against Persons
In crimes against persons, relationship is mitigating if the following
Q: What is the effect of the positive result of the said examination circumstances are present;
on the commission of the crime of the said accused? 1. The offender is of a higher degree than that of the
A: Under Section 25 of RA 9165, when a crime is committed by an offended party; and
offender under the influence of dangerous drugs, such state shall be 2. The crime committed is less physical injury, or slight
considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it physical injury.
will bring about a change in the nature of the crime to a more
serious crime with a higher penalty. Relationship is aggravating if the crime committed by the offender
who is of higher degree than that of the offended party is serious
--xXx-- physical injury

Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide.
those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the INTOXICATION
other conditions attending its commission. They are the There is intoxication when the offender has taken such amount of
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and liquor of sufficient quantity as to affect his mental capacity to
education of the offender. determine the consequences of his act.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be
taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, Intoxication as mitigating
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or Intoxication is considered as a mitigating circumstance if it is not
sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony
Intoxication as aggravating On other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause because
Intoxication is considered as an aggravating circumstance if it is entrapment refers to ways and means resorted to by the public
habitual and it is done subsequent to the commission of a crime. officer in order to trap and capture a criminal in flagrante delicto.
Here, the mens rea originated from the mind of the offender
Example;
X wanted to commit a crime. Since he had no courage, he In People vs Naelga (G.R. No. 171018, September 11, 2009) The
deliberately takes liquor as a stimulant for him to commit the crime. Supreme Court differentiated instigaton and entrapment.
He was so nervous he cannot commit the crime, so he takes liquor
form him to have the strength to commit the crime. INSTIGATION ENTAPMENT
The mens rea (evil intent) The mens rea (evil intent)
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION originated from the mind of the originated from the mind of the
As a rule a low degree of education or instruction is considered as a public officer; offender;
mitigating circumstance. An absolutory cause by reason Not an absolutory cause;
of public policy;
Exception: if the crime committed is inherently evil or wrong. The public officer is liable as The public officer is not
principal by inducement; criminally liable;
Exemption;
Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking the personal property of --xXx--
another. Such is as wrong as to a learned man as it is to an ignorant
man. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

As Aggravating Circumstance Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are
A high degree of education is considered as an aggravating criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
circumstance if the offended makes use of his high degree of Principals.
education in facilitating the commission of the crime. Accomplices.
Accessories.
Example;
A lawyer committing estafa by falsifying a deed of absolute sale. The The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
lawyer makes use of his high degree of education in order to commit Principals
the crime. Accomplices

However, in a case where a lawyer kills another person in the course --xXx--
of an argument, his high degree of education has nothing to do with
the commission of the crime. Therefore in this case, it cannot be Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:
considered as an aggravating circumstance. 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
Absolutory Causes are those circumstance which have the effect in another act without which it would not have been
Article 12. Absolutory causes exempts a person from criminal accomplished.
liability but not from civil liability.
Kinds
Examples; There are three kinds of Principals;
1. Mistake of fact; 1. Principal by direct participation;
2. Instigation; 2. Principal by inducement;
3. Accessories in Light felonies; 3. Principal by direct participation;

EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Extenuating circumstances are those which have the same effect as Principal by direct participation are those who take direct part in the
mitigating circumstance but not included in Article 13, to lower the execution of the act.
imposable penalty
The principal by direct participation must necessarily be present in
Example; the scene of the crime because he is the one who actually executed
A mother killed her own child less than 3 days old in order to the crime. Without him, the crime will not be committed.
conceal her dishonor. The penalty here will be lowered by 2 degrees,
from reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty will be prision mayor. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Principal by direct participation are those who directly force or induce
INSTIGATION other to commit it.
I mentioned Instigation, as an absolutory cause. In instigation, the
mens rea originated from the mind of the public officer who only The principal may or may not be present in the scene of the crime.
lured the offender to commit the crime.
Elements; Q: What are the liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E?
1. Inducement be made with the intention of procuring the A: All of them are liable as principals by direct participation, because
commission of the crime; all of them are authors of the criminal design.
2. The inducement is the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material executor; Example;
What if, A, B and C decided to rob the bank. On the agreed time and
Forms of inducement place, they were already about to go to the bank, but suddenly they
Inducement may come in different forms; realized they have no vehicle. So they flagged down a taxi. They
1. Giving of price, reward or promise; informed the taxi driver of their criminal design, to which the taxi
2. By employing force, command or ascendancy which is driver agreed for his car to be used as a getaway vehicle. While on
being followed by the principal by direct participation. their way to the bank, they realized that they needed a lookout.
They saw a balut vendor and asked him, “Can you be our
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION lookout? The moment you see a police coming, shout baluuuuut!”
Principal by indispensable cooperation are those who cooperate in The said vendor agreed to the said criminal design. After robbing
the commission of the offense by another act without which it the bank, A B C and the balut vendor boarded the taxi.
would not have been accomplished.
Q: What is the criminal liability of each?
Elements; A: A, B, and C, are liable as principal by direct participation, while the
1. The accused participated in the criminal resolution; taxi driver and the balut vendor are liable as accomplices. They are
2. Performance by him of another act indispensable to the accomplices since A, B, and C already agreed on the criminal design
accomplishment of the crime; before they informed the two of the same and the latter concurred
by performing simultaneous acts or subsequent to the commission
The principal by indispensable cooperation must be at the scene of of the crime.
the crime because he must perform another act without the crime
would not have been. * So no matter how minor the participation is of an offender, if he is
an author of the criminal design, even if he only acted as a lookout,
--xXx-- still he is liable as a principal by direct participation

Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons Example;

who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of X wanted to kill Y. X knows that Y is living in a dorm. In order to
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. execute his plan, X contacted W who is also living in the same dorm
as Y. X told W of his plan to kill Y. X asked W to open the gate of the
The accomplice merely cooperate in the commission of the crime by dorm at exactly 1 am so that X could enter. At exactly 1am, W
previous of simultaneous acts. The participation is only minor in opened the door to the dorm allowing X to enter. Upon entering, X
character. It only provides material and moral aide in an efficacious immediately went to the room of Y. Thereafter, X stabbed Y. Y died.
manner but not in an indispensable manner.
Q: What is the liability of X?
If the act performed by the offender facilitated the commission of A: X is liable as a principal by direct participation in the crime of
the crime, but it is not indispensable in the commission of the crime, homicide regarding the death of Y. X is the one who performed all
with or without said act nevertheless, the crime had been the acts of execution by stabbing Y resulting to the death of the
committed, the offender is merely an accomplice. latter.

Requisites to be an accomplice; Q: What is the liability of W?

1. There must be a community of design; A: W is liable as an accomplice. Although W knew of the plan to kill
2. That he performs the acts previous or simultaneous to the X, he did not participate the criminal resolution thereof. X merely
commission of the crime; and informed W of the plan, and W merely concurred. Likewise, the acts
3. That the acts performed by the principal is related to the of W in opening the gate for X is not an indispensable act in order to
acts performed by the accomplice. consummate the homicide of Y. X could have easily asked another
person to open the gate of the dorm for him.
Community of design
The accomplice had been informed of the criminal design of the --xXx--
offender and having been informed, he concurs with the said
criminal design. He’s not part of the conspiracy but he knows and Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having
concurs with the design because he was informed of the same only knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
after the principal had come up with agreement. participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
Example; 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their agreement, profit by the effects of the crime;
A.B, and C will be the ones to enter the bank. D will serve as lookout. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
E will serve as the driver of the vehicle. They committed the crime the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
on the date agreed upon. discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the
crime is guilty
of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the own house. However, W is a principal by direct participation in the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other; crime

Knowledge of the Crime

The accessory does not know the criminal design. What he knows is
the commission of the crime. Despite knowledge that the crime has
been committed, he take part subsequent to its commission.

BY PROFITING FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.

The accomplice profited themselves or assisted the offender to
profit from the effects of the crime.

Example;
A, by means of deceit, was able to take the diamond ring of his
friend. So A swindled his friend by means of deceit. After taking the
ring, she went to B. A told B “B, I have here a diamond ring, I
swindled it from my friend and I’m selling it to you for only 10k.
B bought the said ring and displayed it to his shop to have it sold.
Later B was found in possession of the said ring.

Q: Is B liable as an accessory?
A: YES. B assisted A, the principal of the crime of swindling, in
profiting from the effects of the crime by buying the stolen diamond
ring. Furthermore, B slater sold the diamond ring for profit. Thus, B
is considered as an accomplice.

DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY

2nd act of an accomplice is by concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent
its discovery.

Body of the crime

The body of the crime does not mean the corpse of a deceased
person in murder, or the item stolen in case of robbery or theft. It
means that a fact has been committed by someone.

Elements of body of the crime;

1. Proof of occurrence of a certain event;
2. Proof of person’s criminal liability;

Example;
X and Y were engaged in a fight. In the course of the said fight, X
killed
Y. Thereafter, X told his friend W to bring the body of Y to the house
of Y and burn it to conceal and destroy the body of Y in exchange for
100k. Needing the money, W took the body of Y and brought it in
the house Y. Thereafter, W burned down the house of Y. Thereafter,
the relatives of Y reported to the police that he has been missing for
a long time. The police made an investigation which lead to the
arrest of X and W.

Q: What is the liability of X?

A: X is a principal by direct participation in the crime of homicide of
Y, because it was X who executed the acts of execution which lead to
the death of Y. Likewise, X, is a principal by inducement in the crime
of arson. Were it not for the consideration given by X to W, the
latter would not have burned the house of Y with the body of Y
inside for the purpose of concealing the crime of homicide.

Q: What is the liability of W?

A: W is an accessory of the crime of homicide of Y. W assisted in the
concealing and destroying the corpse of Y by burning it in Y’s
of arson. W executed the acts of execution of arson in burning the despite knowing the latter committed estafa. X cannot be considered
house of Y with the body of Y inside.

Example;
X and Y were fighting. Y kicked and punched X. X lost the fight and
fell down. W, who saw the fight, gave X a gun and ordered to
shoot Y. S, another bystander, also told X to shoot Y. X shot Y who
died immediately. X went home. Feeling guilty of the crime that
he committed, confessed to his father what he had done. X gave
the gun that he used to his father. The father hid the gun to
prevent its discovery by the police.

Q: What is the liability of X?

A: X is guilty of homicide as a principal by direct participation. X
completed all the acts of execution for homicide by pulling the
trigger of the gun which immediately resulted to the death of Y.

Q: What is the liability of W?

A: W is considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation in
the crime of homicide. W gave a gun to X which the latter used to
shoot and kill Y. Were it not for the gun which W gave, X would
not have used said gun to kill Y therby committing homicide.

Q: What is the liability of S?

A: S is not criminally liable. Even though S also told X to shoot Y,
he did not provide the gun to complete the acts of the execution.
Likewise, absence of any finding of conspiracy, or that S
participated in the criminal resolution of homicide, such words of
encouragement does not make him criminally liable.

Q: What is the liability of the father?

A: The father is liable as an accessory. By concealing the gun
which X, his son, used to commit the crime of homicide, he
assisted by concealing the effects or the instrument of the crime
of homicide in order to prevent its discovery. However, by virtue
of Article 20, the father is exempted from the criminal liability
because X was his son. However, he is liable for obstruction of
justice because he assisted in preventing the discovery of the
crime of homicide.

ASSISTING THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL

The 3rd act of the accessory is by harboring, concealing, or
assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided
that he either;
1. Acts with abuse of his public functions; or
2. The author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other offense;

* If the accessory who harbored and concealed or assisted in the

escape of the of the principal is a private individual, the law
specifies the crime committed, which is PD 1829, otherwise
known as Obstruction of Justice.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Obstruction of Justice is committed by any person who willfully
and lawfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases.

Example;
The principal committed swindling or estafa. X harbored the principal
as an accessory because estafa or swindling is not among the crimes came home, he found the jewelries and cash missing. The master
mentioned in the second part of the 3rd act. reported

Q: What is the criminal liability of the friend?

A: He is liable for obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829.

Example;
What if A and B sisters. They had a housemaid, X. A and B were cruel
to X, for a minor mistake they would slap, boxed or injure her. One
time, A went to work. When she arrived home, she saw the
deceased body of X. A and B placed the deceased body in a sack and
placed it on the trunk of their car. However, someone witnessed
their act who immediately called the police, reporting that he saw 2
women putting a sack in the truck wherein 2 feet were protruding
from the said sack. A and B were prosecuted and both convicted for
murder.

Q: Are both A and B liable for murder?

A: NO. The Supreme Court said that only B is liable, not for murder
but only for homicide. When A arrived, the housemaid was already
dead.

Q: Does A have no criminal liability?

A: A is considered as an accessory. Her act of trying to place the
deceased body inside the trunk of the car in order to prevent the
discovery of the crime her act constitutes that of an accessory. But
she falls under Article 20 since she is related to the offender.

FENCING
Under P.D. 1612, a fence includes any person, firm, association
corporation or partnership or other organization who/which
commits the act of fencing.

“Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which
he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Elements
In the case of Dimat v. People (G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012)
The Supreme Court held the following as elements of fencing;
1. A robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells
or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
any article or object taken during that robbery or theft;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the thing
derived from that crime; and
4. He intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for
another.

Example;
X was a house helper. One night, when the master was not home, X
went to the room of his master and took the jewelries worth 500k
and cash worth 1M from the cabinet. X went to his mother and told
her that she stole the jewelries and cash from the master. The
mother deposited the cash to a bank. The mother sold the jewelries
to a jewelry store in a discounted amount of 100k. When the master
the incident to the police. Upon investigation, the police
apprehended X, the mother, and the jewelry store owner.

Q: What is the liability of X?

A: X is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of
qualified theft. X used his occupation as a house help as a means
to facilitate the commission of the crime of theft.

Q: What is the liability of the mother?

The mother is liable as an accessory because she assisted X from
profiting from the effects of the crime. Despite having knowledge
of the commission of the crime, the mother deposited the money
to a bank in order to gain interest therefrom. Likewise by selling
the jewelries to the jewelry store, the mother enriched herself
from the stolen jewelries.

Q: What is the liability of the Jewelry store owner?

A: The Jewelry store owner is liable as a fence. The jewelry store
owner, knowing that the said jewels were sold to him at an
extremely low price, should have known that the same were
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Q: If you were the fiscal, what case would you prefer to file
against the jewelry store owner? a fence or an accessory?
A: You can only file either of the two. It’s better to file fencing.
Because it is easier to prove. While in accessory, he must first
know that the crime has been committed. In fencing, it is not
necessary that he knows.

Section 5 of PD 1612 provided a prima facie presumption of

fencing. The burden of evidence is shifted on the accused

--xXx--

Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal

liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be
imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within
the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

An accessory is exempted from criminal liability in the following

instances;
1. When the crime committed is a light felony;
2. When the said accessory is the spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees;

--xXx--
 Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.

Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.

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

PENALTIES --xXx--
Penalties refers to punishment, imposed by lawful authority upon a
person who has committed an intentional felony or a culpable felony CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

2 kinds of penalties; DEATH

1. Principal; and Under RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed.
2. Accessory
SEC. 2 of RA 9346: in lieu of death penalty it shall be reclusion
Principal penalties perpetua in case of violation of the RPC and life imprisonment in
Principal penalties are penalties prescribed by law or precribed by case of violation of Special Penal Laws.
the court.
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
Accessory penalties perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
Accessory penalties are those which are necessarily included in the by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
imposition of principal penalties. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
--xXx--
--xXx--
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The
penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
different classes, are those included in the following:
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
SCALE Reclusion perpetua is imposed in case the offender violated the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, life
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES imprisonment is imposed in case the offender violate the provisions
Capital punishment: of the special penal laws.
Death.
Reclusion perpetua v. Life Imprisonment
Afflictive penalties: The following are the distinctions reclusion perpetua and life
Reclusion perpetua, imprisonment;
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT
disqualification, Penalty is imposed in case of Penalty is imposed in case of
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, violation of the Revised Penal violation of special penal laws;
Prision mayor. Code;
Carries a duration of 20 to 40 No fixe duration;
Correctional penalties: years;
Prision correccional, Carries with it an accessory Does not carry an accessory
Arresto mayor, penalty; penalty’
Suspension,
Destierro. Q: Is Reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty?
A: NO. In People v. Lucas (G.R. Nos. 108172-73, January 9, 1995) had
the Congress intended that Reclusion perpetua be a divisible
penalty,
the application of two indivisible penalties under Article 63 of the CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
Revised Penal Code will be meaningless and there would be no
statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or PRISION CORRECCIONAL AND DESTIERRO
death should be the imposable penalty Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the
penalties of prision correccional shall be from six (6) months and one
Q: If reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, then what is the (1) day to six (6) years.
reason for fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua?
A: In the same case as mentioned above, the Supreme Court held DESTIERRO
that the duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua is Under Article 87 of the Revised Penal Code, any person sentenced to
necessary to serve as the basis for determining the convict's destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified,
the service of multiple penalties. which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers
from the place designated.
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of reclusion Destierro is a principal penalty and has a duration of six (6) months
temporal is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. and one (1) day to six(6) years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal
Code,
PRISION MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of Prision SUSPENSION
mayor shall be from six (6) year and one day to twelve (12) years. Suspension may either be a principal penalty or an accessory penalty.

DISQUALIFICATION Suspension as principal penalty

Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification Perpetual or Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the
Temporary Special Disqualification may be either a principal penalty penalties of destierro shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to
or an accessory penalty. six(6) years.

Principal Penalty Suspension as accessory penalty

As a principal penalty, the duration of temporary absolute or special Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of
disqualification shall be from six (6) year and one day to twelve (12) destierro is imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall be
years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code. that of the principal penalty.

Accessory Penalty ARRESTO MAYOR

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, The duration of the
temporary special or absolute disqualification is imposed as an penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one (1) month and one (1)
accessory penalty, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. day to six (6) months.

The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual absolute --xXx--

disqualification are the following;
1. Death; (thirty years following the date of sentence) LIGHT PENALTIES
2. Reclusion perpetua;
3. Reclusion temporal; ARRESTO MENOR

The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual special --xXx--

disqualification of the right of suffrage are the following;
1. Prision mayor;
2. Prision correccional ;

Perpetual Absolute v. Temporary Absolute

PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE TENMPORARY ABSOLUTE
Effective during the lifetime of Disqualification lasts during the
the convict and even after the term of the sentence, and is
service of the sentence; removed after the service of
the sentence, except:
1. Deprivation of the
Public
office/employment;
2. Loss of all rights to
retirement pay or
pension for any office
formerly held.
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the
penalty of arresto menor shall be from one (1) day to thirty (30)
days.

PUBLIC CENSURE
A principal and indivisible penalty that has no fixed duration.

--xXx--

PENALTIES COMMON TO THE THREE

CLASSESS

FINE
A pecuniary penalty which is imposed by the court in case of the
judgment of conviction. Instead of imprisonment, the penalty
imposed is fine.

BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE

Under Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code, It shall be the duty of
any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present
two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will
not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case
such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined
by the
 court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and
office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking. forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third
person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject
Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty. of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

Bond for Good Behavior PAYMENT OF COST

Bond to keep the peace is different from bond for good behavior. Cost means the expenses of litigation.

Under Article 284 of the Revised Penal Code, in cases of grave Cost Includes
threats and light threats, the person making the threats may also be Under Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code, costs shall include fees
required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether
shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro. they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law
or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
Bond to keep the peace v. Bond for good behavior
BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR Q: Who shall pay the cost?
May be applied to all cases; Applicable only to cases of A: If an accused is convicted of a crime, cost shall be adjudged against
grave threats and light threats; him. However, in case of acquittal, each party must bear his own lost.
Failure to post a bond to keep If a person fails to post a bond --xXx--
the peace results to for good behavior , he shall be
imprisonment either for six (6) sentenced to destierro; PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
months or thirty (30) days Preventive Imprisonment is the detention of accused while the case
depending on whether the against him is on going trial either because;
felony committed is grave or 1. The crime he committed is a non-bailable offense and
less grave on one hand, or a evidence of guilt is strong; or
light felony on the other; 2. The crime committed is a bailable offense but he does not
have the funds.
--xXx--
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment undergone by the
ACCESSORY PENALTIES accused be credited to his final sentence?
A: YES. As a general rule, Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code states
CIVIL INTERDICTION that offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall
Under Article 34 of the Revised penal Code, Civil interdiction shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation
deprive the offender during the time of his sentence the following of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone
rights; preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees
1. Rights of parental authority; voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
2. Guardianship, either as to the person or property of any upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases;
ward; 1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted
3. Marital authority, previously twice or more times of any crime; and
4. The right to manage his property; and 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their
5. The right to dispose of such property by any act or any sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily;
conveyance inter vivos.
Q: What is the effect if the detention prisoner does not abide by the
The offender sentenced to civil interdiction ma make a last will and same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners?
testament because the prohibition to dispose property extends only A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, if the detention
to inter vivos and not to mortis causa. prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the
Donation may also be made by the offender provided that it shall service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
take effect after death or mortis causa. has undergone preventive imprisonment.

An accessory penalty Q: What is the effect if the accused has undergone imprisonment
Civil Interdiction is always an accessory penalty in case of the for a period equal to or more than the maximum imprisonment for
following principal penalties; the offense charged?
1. Death; A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever an accused
2. Reclusion perpetua; has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
3. Reclusion temporal; more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense
charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
FORFEITURE AND CONFISCATION terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to
Under Article 45 of the Revised penal Code, every penalty imposed the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if
for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the the same is under review.
proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed.
Preventive imprisonment for Destierro Q: Will the pardon of X in the crime of acts lasciviousness against Y
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be operate to dismiss the case already instituted?
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of A: NO. Although the crime committed by Y is a private crime under
preventive imprisonment. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the case will not be dismissed
because it was given after the institution of the criminal prosecution.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment be deducted in case
of destierro? Q: What is the effect of pardon given by X?
A: YES. Because destierro also involves deprivation of liberty and has A: The pardon of X will only serve as to extinguish the civil liability of
a fixed duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Y in the complaint for acts of lasciviousness.

NOTE: If detention has already exceeded the possible maximum Regardless of whether private or public crimes, the pardon given by
imprisonment of the offense charged but his case is not yet the private complainant must be prior to the institution of the
terminated, file a case for Habeas Corpus for the immediate release criminal case.
of the accused.
Marital Rape
--xXx-- Although the general rule is that pardon must be given prior to the
institution of the criminal case, Article 266-C of the Revised Penal
PARDON Code, the subsequent valid marriage between the offended party
There are two kinds of pardon; shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
1. Pardon by the offended party; (Article 23)
2. Pardon by the President; (Article 36) Under Article 266-C of the revised penal Code, in case it is the legal
husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
Pardon by the offended party wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
Under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon of the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the
offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to
the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express Pardon by the President
waiver. Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work
the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
Example; suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the
X killed Y. The relatives of Y filed a complaint for homicide against X. pardon.
thereafter, X asked forgiveness from the relatives of Y. The relatives
of Y accepted the apology of X and thereby granted him a pardon. Just like amnesty and parol, the pardon by the president does not
extinguish civil liability because the same is personal to the victim.
Q: Will the pardon of the offended party extinguish the criminal
liability of the offender in homicide? 2 kinds of pardon by the president;
A: NO. In the crime of homicide, pardon by the offended party will 1. Absolute pardon; (Article 89)
not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. Homicide is a 2. Conditional Pardon; (Article 94)
public crime and it is essentially more of an offense against the state
rather than the offended party because it causes disturbance or In addition, Presidential Pardon does not automatically restore the
public disorder. following rights, unless they are specifically stated by the terms of
the pardon;
Private Crimes 1. To hold public office;
Pardon by the offended party does will only operate to extinguish 2. To vote and be voted; and
the criminal liability in private crimes as mentioned under under 3. To exercise his right of suffrage;
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code;
1. Adultery; Pardon by the President v. Pardon by the Offended party
2. Concubinage; PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT PARDON BY THE OFFENDED
3. Seduction; PARTY
4. Abduction; Extinguishes criminal liability; Does not extinguish criminal
5. Rape; and liability whether public or
6. Acts of lasciviousness; private crime with the
exception of Marital Rape
Example; under Article 266-C;
X filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Y. during the Does not extinguish civil liability Extinguish civil liability as it is
trial, Y asked for forgiveness from X. X accepted the apology of Y. of the offender; deemed as a waiver;
Thereafter, X granted Y a pardon. Pardon must be made before Pardon may only be made after
the institution of the criminal conviction by final judgment
Pardon prior to Criminal proceedings case; only in private crimes;
For pardon to extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, it must
be given prior to the institution of the criminal action. --xXx--
 Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case Rate of Subsidiary Penalty
the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the Under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, if the convict has no
payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of
following order: Article 38 of the Revised Penal Code, he shall be subject to a
The reparation of the damage caused. subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
Indemnification of consequential damages equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the
The fine. Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by
The cost of the proceedings. the trial court subject to the following rules;
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES PECUNIARY PENALITIES arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until
(ARTICLE 38) (ARTICLE 25) his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied,
Imposed by the court in case of Imposed by the court in case of but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third
conviction but not as penalty; conviction as a penalty; of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it
continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of
--xXx-- a day shall be counted against the prisoner;
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the convict has no subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light
personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, felony;
subject to the following rules: 3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his upon the culprit;
fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer
prisoner. the same deprivations as those of which the principal
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the penalty consists;
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may
shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the culprit. Limitations of Subsidiary Penalty
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed on the following instances;
by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed 1. If the judgment of the court did not impose fine as a
duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the penalty;
preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as 2. If the judgment of the court did not expressly state that in
those of which the principal penalty consists. case of nonpayment of fine, the convict shall suffer
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may subsidiary penalty;
have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, 3. If the principal penalty that goes with fine exceeds prision
from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. correccional or higher than 6 years;
(As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969). 4. If the principal penalty that goes with fine does not have
fixed duration;
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY 5. If what the convict thinks to pay is not fine but damages
Subsidiary Penalty is a substitute penalty for fine in case of and cost;
insolvency by the accused.
Example;
Q: If the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine, may he be X was convicted of reckless imprudence causing damage to property.
imposed of a subsidiary penalty of imprisonment? Penalty imposed on him is fine and public censure. Lower portion of
A: NO. Absent any express statement of subsidiary penalty by the the decision “in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall
court, subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed even if the accused is suffer subsidiary penalty”.
insolvent and cannot pay the fine.
Q: Is the court correct?
Q: Why must there be an express statement by the court imposing A: NO. The principal penalty that goes with fine is public censure is
subsidiary penalty? not to be executed in a penal institution and is an indivisible penalty.
A: Because it is only a substitute penalty. A subsidiary penalty is not
a principal penalty nor an accessory penalty, but only a substitute Example;
penalty for fine. Accused was convicted of prision mayor and fine. The decision of the
court includes a statement that in case of insolvency to pay the fine,
he shall suffer subsidiary penalty.
Q: Is the court correct? Example; aberratio ictus
A: NO. Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed if the principal penalty A aimed the gun at B. But because of poor aim, it shot C a pedestrian
is higher than the prision correccional. Since prision mayor is more walking. Treachery was attended. As to B, crime committed is
than 6 years, subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed. attempted murder. As to C, murder. Crime committed is attempted
murder.
Example;
X was convicted of a felony. The penalty imposed on him is fine Example;
alone. The judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution A political rival placed a bomb on B’s car. A person died,
was issued by the court, however such writ was unsatisfied. The several persons injured. A single act placing the bomb produces two
judge ordered for his arrest to suffer subsidiary penalty. or more less grave felonies. Crime is murder with multiple frustrated
murder.
Q: Is the court correct?
A: NO. Failure to state that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, If two persons died, the charge is double murder. If three or more
convict cannot be made to suffer subsidiary penalty. persons died, the crime is multiple murder. There is no complex
crime of triple murder.
Example;
X was convicted of a fine with a subsidiary penalty. However, X was Example;
insolvent so he was imprisoned. When he was released he bought X wanted to kill Y. to kill Y, X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When
lottery tickets and won the lottery. X is now a multimillionaire. Y and wife and 3 children opened the car, the bomb exploded. As a
Thereafter, the court issued a writ of execution against him. X argues result, Y and his wife died. However, the children survived due to
that his fine is now satisfied because he was subsidiarily imprisoned medical treatment.
in lieu thereof.
Q: Is X liable for a complex crime?
Q: Can the court issue a writ of execution against X despite serving A: YES. The single act of X in placing the bomb in the car of Y
the subsidiary penalty of imprisonment? resulted to 5 grave felonies; the murder of Y and his wife, and the
A: YES. Even if X already served the prison term for subsidiary frustrated murder of the children. The charge should be double
imprisonment, the court may still hold him liable for the fine murder with multiple frustrated murder.
unsatisfied.
Q: In the same problem, what is the crime committed if all of them
--xXx-- died?
A: X will be liable for multiple murder because the single act of
* Memorize the Rules in Articles 50 – 57. placing a bomb resulting to 5 grave felonies. There should only be
* Exception to Articles 50 – 57 is Article 60. one charge or one information filed in court.

--xXx-- Example;
X is armed with M-16 high powered rifle, machine gun. He went
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single inside the conference room. One pull of trigger, many bullets came
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when out hitting 5 persons.
an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to Q: is X liable for the complex crime of multiple murder?
be applied in its maximum period. A: NO. If the weapon used is a high powered machine gun, the factor
to be considered is the number of bullets which came from the
2 Kinds of Complex Crime machine gun and the number of people wounded or killed rather
There are 2 kinds of complex crime; than the single act of pulling the trigger. Thus, X is liable for 5 counts
1. Compound Crime; of murder.
2. Complex Crime Proper;
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
In both kinds, only one (1) information is filed and the accused shall Complex crime proper is present when the offense is a necessary
suffer the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period. means commit the another offense.

COMPOUND CRIME Elements

Compound Crime is present when the offender performs a single act The following are the elements of complex crime proper;
which constitutes to two or more grave or less grave felonies. 1. Two offenses committed;
2. Offenses necessary means to commit the other;
Basis 3. Both crimes are punished by the same statute
Basis of compound crime is the singularity of act of the offender.
Example
Elements The following are examples of complex crime proper;
The elements of compound crime are the following; 1. Rape with forcible abduction - A was on the ladder of the
1. Offender performs single act; house, B a woman abducted her against her will and with
2. Resulted to two or more less grave felonies Basis: lewd design;
Singularity of act 2. Estafa thru falsification of public document. Person
falsifies a public document – Falsification used to
defraud another;
Estafa through falsification of private document A: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled by a single
There is no estafa by falsification of private document. In estafa and impulse committed overt acts leading to theft.
falsification of private document, there is only and the same damage
contemplated by both felonies. Thus, only charge can be made, Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993)
either falsification or estafa, otherwise the prohibition against the Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged in the
twice recovery for damages will be violated. Sandiganbayan with the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act for
favoring 32 “unqualified” aliens with the benefits of the Alien
If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, the correct Legalization Program. Defender-Santiago moved for a bill of
charge is falsification. Estafa is merely a consequence. particulars, contending that unless she be provided with the names
and identities of the “aliens” she would not be able to adequately
If estafa can be committed without falsifying, the proper charge is prepare for trial. Initially, the public prosecutors stated that they
estafa. Falsification is merely an incident of estafa. would file only one amended complaint, but they later filed 32
amended informations, separately naming each of the aliens in each
On the other hand, in falsification of public document, damage is not of the informations. The Sandiganbayan admitted the 32 amended
an element of the offense. Thus, the charge of estafa thru informations.
falsification of public document may exist.
Q: Was it correct to admit the 32 amended informations?
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME A: NO. For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of
Special complex crimes exist when, in reality, two or more crimes are acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision
committed but in the eyes of law only one. violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that
two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in
It is the law which provides what crimes would be complexed and one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of
what crimes go together; the same criminal purpose or aim. In this case, the 32 Amended
1. Robbery with homicide; (Article 294) Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same
2. Kidnapping with homicide; (Article 267 as amended by R.A. period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
7659) probability even exists that the approval of the application or the
3. Rape with homicide; (Article 266-B) legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke
of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same
Special Complex Crime v. Compound Crime document.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME COMPOUND CRIME
The law specifies the crimes Crimes are general; CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSE.
which are combined; In Continuing crime, the offender may be prosecuted in any courts of
Law provides for the penalty; The penalty for the most the place where any of the crime has been committed. This is more
serious crime is imposed in the on remedial law not in criminal law.
maximum period;
Light felonies are absorbed; Light felonies committed is a Example;
separate and distinct charge; X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated check to Y in
Manila, on the maturity date, Y deposited the check to his
DELITO CONTINUADO. depositary bank in Quezon City. The check however was dishonored
Delicto continuado or continuous crime is present when the offender by the drawee bank in Caloocan City. Notice of dishonor was sent. X
is impelled by a single criminal impulse commits a series of overt failed to make good the check. A complaint was filed against X for
acts in about the same time and about the same place violating one violation of
and the same provision of law. Basis is singularity of impulse. B.P. 22.

Basis Q: Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22?

The basis is the singularity of impulse of the offender. A: The complaint may be filed in any of the court where the elements
of the crime occurred.
Elements
In the case of Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December If the BP 22 case has already been filed in the MTC of Manila, the
2, 1993) the Supreme Court established the elements of delito said case can no longer be filed before the MTC of Quezon City or
continuado; Caloocan City.
1. Plurality of acts performed during a period of time;
2. Unity of penal provisions violated; --xXx--
3. Unity of criminal purpose or aim;
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general.
Example; — The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony
A, B, C,D lives in one compound. All engaged in the business of shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such
selling rooster. One night, 11:00 in the evening here comes X. While felony.
they were sleeping, X took the rooster of A, then of B, then of C, Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is
then of D. general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the
consummated felony.
Q: How many crimes will you file against X?
 Penalty Imposed shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
Under Article 46, when the law prescribes a penalty for a felony, it penalty.
shall be understood to mean that such penalty shall be imposed
upon principals of a consummated felony. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree
--xXx-- that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

PENALTY IMPOSED UPON ACCESSORIES AND ACCOMPLICES 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise
(Articles 50-57) from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
Articles 50-57 provides for penalties if the offender is a principal, relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
accomplice or accessory whether or not the felony is consummated, cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
frustrated, attempted. principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
Penalty The penalty A penalty lower 4. The circumstances which consist in the material
prescribed by lower by one by two degrees execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it,
law for the degree than than that shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons
offense; that prescribed by law only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
prescribed for principal of a the act or their cooperation therein.
PRINCIPALS by law for consummated
the principal felony; 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
of a (Art. 51)
consummate (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced
d felony; to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be
(Art. 50) found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in
A penalty lower The penalty A penalty lower its medium and maximum periods;
by one degree lower by one by one degree
than that degree than than that (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
prescribed by prescribed prescribed by law sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
law for principal by law for for principals of found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
ACCOMPLICES
of a the principal an attempted minimum and medium periods; and
consummated of a felony;
felony; frustrated (Art. 56) (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall
(Art. 52) felony; be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he
(Art. 54) be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
A penalty lower The penalty The penalty lower maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
by two degrees lower by two by two degrees
than that degrees than than that Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of
prescribed by prescribed prescribed by law the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity
law for principal by law for for principals of herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
ACCESSORIES
of a the an attempted
consummated principals of felony; (Art. 57) PARAGRAPH 1.
felony; a frustrated The following aggravating circumstance shall not be taken into
(Art. 53) felony; account for the purpose of increasing penalty;
(Art. 55 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute
a crime specially punishable by law; or
Exception 2. Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law
Under Article 60, the provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor;
inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the 3. Aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a
law
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories. therefor

--xXx--

Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or

aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. -
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency
shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
 degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission
thereof (Par. 2);

Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime

especially punishable by law.

Example;
1. That the crime be committed by means of fire is not
considered as aggravating in arson; (Art. 14, par. 2)
2. The crime be committed by means of derailment of a
locomotive shall not be considered in damages and
obstruction to means of communication; (Art. 330)
Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in Example;
defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor; A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill D. B and C killed D
with treachery, which mode of committing the offense had not been
Example; previously agreed upon by them with A. A was not present when B
1. The crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended and C killed D with treachery.
party is not aggravating in robbery with force upon things;
(Art. 299) Q: How should the aggravating circumstance in this case be
2. Abuse of confidence is not qualified theft committed with appreciated?
grave abuse of confidence; (Art. 310) A: The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not be taken
into account against A, but against B and C only. But if A was present
PARAGRAPH 2. and had knowledge of the treachery with which the crime was
The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating committed by B and C, he is also liable for murder, qualified by
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of treachery.
necessity accompany the commission thereof.
In the means employed to accomplish it
Example; A ordered B to kill C. B invited C to eat with him. B mixed poison
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and theft; with the food of C, who died after he had eaten the food. A did not
know that B used poison to kill C.
PARAGRAPH 3.
The following aggravating or mitigating circumstance shall serve to Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime that the crime be
aggravate for mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and committed by means of poison applicable to A?
accessories; A: NO. The aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed
1. Those which arise from the moral attributes of the by means of poison is not applicable to A.
offender; or
2. From his private relations with the offended party; or ORGANIZED OR SYNDICATED CRIME GROUP.
3. From any other personal cause; An organized or syndicate crime group consists of two or more
persons collaborating, confederating and mutually helping another
for purposes of gain in the commission of the crime.
Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was
Example; committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated
A and B killed C. A acted with evident premeditation, and B with crime group.
passion and obfuscation.
The information charges A, B, C, D as collaborating, confederating
Q: How should the aggravating circumstance be appreciated? and mutually helping another for purposes of gain in the commission
A: Evident premeditation should affect and aggravate only the of the crime. This is what the information alleges. Trial found this so.
penalty for A, while passion and obfuscation will benefit B only The judge considered conspiracy and considered this special
mitigate his liability. aggravating circumstance.

From his private relations with the offended party. Q: Is the court correct?
A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. A is the son of B. C is A: NO. Before the special aggravating circumstance be considered
the father of B. the court, evidence must show was held to commit crimes involving
gain.
Q: How does A and C’s relationship with B affect their criminal
liability? HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
A: The alternative circumstance of relationship, as aggravating shall A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a
be taken into account against A only, because he is a relative of a
period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of
lower degree than the offended party, B.
the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto,
estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
From any other personal cause In the material execution of the act
A and B committed a crime. A was under 16 years of age and B was a time or oftener.
recidivist.
Elements;
1. The crime is specified should be serious physical injuries,
PARAGRAPH 4
The following circumstance shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa;
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the 2. There should be at least three convictions;
time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein; 3. Each convictions must come within ten year from date of
1. In the material execution of the act; or release or last conviction of the previous crime;
2. In the means employed to accomplish it;
Effect
Additional penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period being an
aggravating circumstance.
 NUMBER OF CONVICTION PENALTY PRESCRIBED No prescriptive period on the Prescribes in ten years;
The penalty for the last crime commission of the offense;
of which he be found guilty. No additional penalty; Provides additional penalty;

QUASIThird Conviction;
RECIDIVISM ADDITIONAL PENALTY;
Under Article 160, a person is said to be prision correccional
a quasi-recidivist in its having been convicted by a final judgment, he shall commit a felony before serving out
if after
his sentence or while service of sentence.medium and maximum
The maximum period shall be imposed.
periods;
The penalty provided for the Again it is a special aggravating circumstance.
last crime of which he be
found guilty. * The first crime may be any crime. The second crime must be a
Fourth Conviction; felony.
ADDITIONAL PENALTY;
Prision mayor in its minimum Example;
and medium periods; A, while serving a final judgment, he was found in possession of illegal
The culprit shall be sentenced drugs.
to the penalty provided for the
last crime of which he be found Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
guilty. A: NO. The second crime is not a felony, it is a special law.
Fifth Conviction;
ADDITIONAL PENALTY; Example;
prision mayor in its maximum If A was was serving sentence for possession of illegal drugs and then
period to reclusion temporal in inside a crime he killed a co-inmate.
its minimum period.
Limitation Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
The penalty committed for the crime plus additional penalty should A: YES. Maximum period prescribed by law shall be imposed.
not exceed thirty years.
--xXx--
Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency
Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency may be simultaneously Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.
considered because they have different effects on criminal liability of - In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty,
the offender. Recidivism effect is on the theft committed. It may be it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
offset by mitigating circumstances. Habitual delinquency will give aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission
him additional penalty. of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
Example; composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
A was charged and convicted of robbery he served his sentence. observed in the application thereof;
Within 10 years from date of release he committed theft. He served 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present
sentence and again released. Within 10 years he committed another only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
theft. The judgment become final and executory. He served again applied.
and out of prison. Within 10 years against he committed another 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
theft. He is now in trial. circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied;
Q: Can the judge impose both recidivism and habitual delinquency? A: 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
YES. He is recidivist because at the time he served theft he was mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance,
previously convicted of a final judgment of robbery embraced within the the lesser penalty shall be applied;
same title of the code. He is also habitual delinquent, because within the 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
ten years from the date of his last release he committed a theft the third attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably
time. allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number
and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
RECIDIVISM HABITUAL DELINQUENCY accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of
Generic aggravating Cannot be offset by ordinary such compensation;
circumstance - Can be offset; mitigating circumstance;
Requires at least two Requires at least three Outline of the rules.
conviction; convictions; 1. When the penalty is single indivisible, it shall be applied
Felony violated must be within The felony violated are serious regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
the same title of the code; physical injuries, less serious 2. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties,
physical injuries, robbery, the following rules shall be observed;
theft,
estafa, falsification;
 a. When there is only one aggravating circumstance. Since only one mitigating circumstance is left, the
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;
imposed;
b. When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating PRIVELEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, apply it first
imposed; before computing the penalties.
c. When there is a mitigating circumstance and no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty Example;
shall be imposed. A was charged with the information of Rape. At the time of the
d. When both mitigating and aggravating commission of the offense, A was only 16 years old. After trial, he
circumstances are present, the court shall allow was sentenced to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. In his
them to offset one another; motion for reconsideration, A argues that his penalty should be
lowered by one degree because he is a minor. The judge denied the
Example; motion on the ground that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible
penalty
The penalty for Rape is reclusion perpetua. If the penalty is single and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance.
and indivisible, it shall be imposed as is, without consideration of
any Aggravating or Mitigating circumstance Q: Is the judge correct?
A: NO. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance which lowers
Example; the penalty by one degree. Indivisible penalties shall be imposed as
The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death - is regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstance. However,
two indivisible penalties. privilege mitigating circumstance takes preference over prior to the
computation of penalties. In this case, since A was a minor at the
Only one aggravating circumstance. time of the commission of the offense, his penalty should be
If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstance of lowered by one degree to reclusion temporal.
trespass to dwelling, the greater penalty of death shall be applied;
--xXx--
Two or more aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties prescribed
trespass to dwelling and recidivism, the greater penalty of death by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible
shall be applied; penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of
which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles
No mitigating nor aggravating circumstance 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty
If there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in attendant, the following rules, according to whether there are or are not
apply the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua; mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
One mitigating and no aggravating circumstance circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in
If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstance of its medium period.
passion and obfuscation, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the
shall apply; commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
Two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the
circumstance commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of maximum period.
passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation on the part of 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
the offended party, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against
apply; the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
If there are two aggravating circumstance and one mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
circumstance impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and
trespass to dwelling and recidivism, and the mitigating circumstance nature of such circumstances.
of passion and obfuscation, one mitigating circumstance will offset 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the
one aggravating circumstance. Since only one aggravating aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater
circumstance is left, the greater penalty of death shall apply; penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall
If there are two mitigating circumstance and one aggravating determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and
circumstance nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the
If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation on the part of
the offended party, and the aggravating circumstance of trespass to
dwelling, one mitigating circumstance will offset another aggravating
Degree of penalty previous rules. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
Degree of penalty is a penalty prescribed by law for every crime minimum period.
committed whether divisible or indivisible.
Four mitigating circumstance.
Period of penalty X committed homicide with passion and obfuscation when he was
A period of penalty refers to the subdivision of every said divisible suffering from an illness which would diminish the exercise of his
penalty into three portion, the first portion is minimum, second is will- power, and thereafter voluntary surrendered and there is a
medium, third is maximum voluntary plea of guilt. The penalty imposed upon him cannot be
lowered by two degrees. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision
Indivisible penalty mayor in its minimum period.
Indivisible penalties are penalties without fixed duration, death,
reclusion perpetua, perpetual absolute disqualification, perpetual * In order that the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree, it is
special disqualification, public censure, fine. necessary that there absolutely is NO aggravating circumstance.

Divisible penalty Even if there are many Mitigating circumstances, as long as there is 1
Divisible Penalties are penalties with fixed duration and therefore aggravating circumstance, you will cannot lower the penalty by
can be divided into three period. the first portion is minimum, degrees, it is only by periods.
second is medium, third is maximum
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance
*Memorize the rules under Article 64. If present, Privilege Mitigating Circumstance must be applied first
prior to the application of penalties under the Rules of Articles 63
Example; and 64.
X and Y had a fight. In the course of the fight, X killed Y. X was
charged and convicted of homicide. The penalty for homicide is Example;
Reclusion temporal. X committed the crime of homicide. The penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal.
No aggravating and no mitigating.
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period. One privilege mitigating circumstance.
X was a minor at the time he committed homicide. Minority is a
One mitigating and no aggravating. privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable
If there is voluntary surrender in the part of X, reclusion temporal penalty by one degree. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision
shall be imposed in its minimum period. mayor in its medium period.

One aggravating and no mitigating. Two privilege mitigating circumstances.

If X was a recidivist, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide. He argues
maximum period. incomplete self-defense. Minority and Incomplete self-defense are
both privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the
Both mitigating and aggravating are present. imposable penalty by two degrees. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of
If the homicide was committed in the dwelling of Y and X acted on prision correccional in its medium period.
passion and obfuscation, the aggravating and mitigating
circumstance will offset one another and reclusion temporal shall be Two privilege mitigating circumstance and one ordinary mitigating
imposed in its medium period. circumstance.
X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide with
Two mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. incomplete self-defense. He voluntarily surrendered to the persons
The homicide was committed with passion and obfuscation and X in authority. Minority and Incomplete self-defense are both privilege
voluntary surrendered. A penalty one degree lower than reclusion mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty by
temporal shall be imposed upon X. X shall suffer the penalty of two degrees. The remaining ordinary mitigating circumstance shall
prision mayor in its medium period. operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. Thus, X will
suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period.
Two or more aggravating circumstance.
X committed the crime of homicide with trespass to dwelling and 2 privilege mitigating circumstance and 3 ordinary mitigating
disregard of the age of Y. regardless of the number of aggravating circumstance.
circumstance present, the court cannot impose a penalty higher X was a minor who was suffering an illness which diminishes the
than the maximum period prescribed by law. Thus, X will suffer the exercise of his will-power at the time he committed the homicide
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. with incomplete self-defense on his part. He voluntarily surrendered
to the persons in authority and thereafter voluntarily plead guilty.
Three mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. Minority and Incomplete self-defense will lower the imposable
If there is sufficient provocation on the part of Y, and voluntarily penalty by two degrees. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances
surrendered and there voluntary plea of guilt, X shall suffer the will operate to lower the penalty imposed after the application of
penalty lower by one degree than reclusion temporal. Thereafter, we the two privilege mitigating circumstance. The remaining ordinary
apply the remaining mitigating circumstance in accordance with the mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its
minimum
period. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its In the concurring opinion of Justice Tinga in the case of (People v.
minimum period. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, August 31, 2006) Parole is extended
only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Under Section 5 of the
--xXx--

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. 4103)

Indeterminate Sentence Law modifies the imposition of penalty. It is
applied both to the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. It
provides for a minimum and max term, such that the moment the
offender serves the minimum of the sentence, he shall be eligible for
parole. If granted, he will serve the remainder of the sentence out of
prison, but subject to the supervision of the parole officer

OBJECTIVES
The following are the objectives of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
1. Uplift and redeem valuable human material;
2. Avoid unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty;

These objectives are achieved when the moment the offender

becomes eligible to apply for parole and he may be able to serve
sentence out of jail.

PAROLE
Parole is the conditional release of the offender form the
correctional institution after serving minimum sentence after
showing that he has reformed. Note it does not extinguish criminal
and civil liability.

Requisites;
1. He must be placed in prison jail to serve an indeterminate
sentence penalty which exceeds 1 year;
2. Served minimum term of sentence;
3. Board of pardons and parole found that his released is for
greater interest of society

DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW.

The general rule is that everyone is entitled to the Indeterminate
Sentence law. However, this act shall not apply to the following
persons;
1. Convicted crime punished by death or life imprisonment;
(Reclusion perpetua ias held by the Supreme Court in
People
v. Enriquez G.R. No.158797, July 29, 2005)
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to
commit treason, misprision of treason;
3. Those convicted of rebellion, sedition, or espionage;
4. Those convicted piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; (In People v. Jaranilla,
G.R. No. 28547, Feb. 22, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled
that Recidivist are entitled to an indeterminate sentence
law)
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence; (In People v. Perez, 44 OG 3884, a minor who
escaped from confinement in the reformatory is entitled
to the benefits of the law because confinement is not
considered imprisonment).
7. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the
President shall have violated the terms thereof;
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not
exceed one year;

Reclusion perpetua cannot Avail Indeterminate Sentence Law

Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is after 'any prisoner shall have
served the minimum penalty imposed on him, that the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may
be granted parole. There being no 'minimum penalty imposable
on those convicted to reclusion perpetua, it follows that persons
sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have
availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Q: is the indeterminate sentence law applicable if the penalty

imposed is destierro?
A: NO. Destierro does not involve imprisonment.

Effect of disqualification
If the offender is disqualified for the application of the
indeterminate sentence law, he shall be given a straight penalty.
The offender must serve the entire term of his sentence and he is
not eligible for parole.

Example;
A final judgment was rendered against X. He was granted
conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. He violated the terms
and conditions of the said pardon. He was charged with evasion of
service of sentence. He was found guilty by the court.

Q: Can the court impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?

A: NO. X is among those disqualified under the law. By violating
the condition of his pardon he cannot avail of an indeterminate
sentence law.

Example;
X has been convicted of final judgment of serious physical injuries,
thereafter he committed homicide and the judge found him guilty
of homicide.

Q: Can the judge impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?

A: YES. X is a recidivist. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
only habitual delinquents are disqualified from availing
indeterminate sentence. A recidivist is qualified under the law
from availing the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Example;
X is a minor who was charged and convicted for kidnapping with
ransom, the penalty of which is reclusion perpetua to death. Since
minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance, we will lower the
imposable penalty by one degree.

Q: is X qualified under for indeterminate sentence?

A: YES. In applying the indeterminate sentence law, we should
consider the imposable penalty rather than the penalty
prescribed by law. In this case, since the penalty of reclusion
perpetua was lowered to reclusion temporal, then X is qualified
for indeterminate sentence.

Computation for Indeterminate Sentence Law

In order to arrive at an indeterminate sentence in the violation of
the RPC, the following rules must be considered;
1. Get first the maximum term of sentence with all the
attendant circumstance in accordance with Article 64 of
the RPC;
2. Lower it the one degree. Do NOT consider anymore the
attendant circumstance. The minimum term of sentence
depends upon the sound discretion of the court.
VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Q: What if there is only one aggravating circumstance is present?
If the offense is punished by special laws, the court shall sentence A: The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in its maximum
the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of period and the minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the according to the sound discretion of the court.
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same. Q: What if both aggravating and mitigating circumstance are
present?
Example; A: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
X committed was charged and convicted of the anti-carnapping law. period because under article 64 you should offset the circumstances.
Section 14 of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping law) provides a penalty for The minimum term will be one degree lower than reclusion temporal
17 years and 4 months to 30 years if a person committed carnapping which is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound
by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force discretion of the court.
upon things.
Q: What if there are 2 aggravating circumstance and 1 ordinary
Q: Under the indeterminate sentence law, what is the duration of mitigating circumstance present?
the penalty for the violation of the anti-carnapping law? A: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum
A: Under the indeterminate sentence law, if a special law is violated, period applying the last aggravating circumstance after offsetting the
the courts may sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence aggravating circumstance and mitigating circumstance. The
provided that it shall not be less than the minimum or more than the minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the
maximum according to the sound discretion of the judge. Thus, sound discretion of the court.
anywhere from 17 years and 4 months to 30 years may be imposed
upon X. Q: What if there are two mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance present?
Argoncillo v. CA, G.R. No. 118816, July 10, 1998 A: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its medium period.
The crime committed is illegal fishing with the use of explosives. The Since there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances, we lower the
penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment. The judge imposable penalty by one degree. The minimum term is prision
imposed him the penalty of straight 30 years. correccional in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of
the court.
Q: Is the judge correct?
A: NO. The Indeterminate sentence law states that a violation of Q: What if there are three mitigating circumstance with no
special penal law and the said special penal law does not use the aggravating circumstance present?
enumeration of penalties in the RPC, the maximum term of the A: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its minimum period.
sentence shall not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by law The two ordinary mitigating circumstances shall operate to lower
and the minimum term of sentence shall not be less than the the imposable penalty by one degree, the remaining ordinary
minimum penalty prescribed by law. In this case, since the penalty mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its
prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment, it means that the minimum period. The minimum term is prision correccional in any of
penalty to be imposed upon the convict must be an indeterminate its periods according to the sound discretion of the court.
sentence. SC said the penalty must be 20 years (minimum term) to
25 years (maximum term) Q: What if there are four mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance?
Article 64 and Indeterminate Sentence law A: The maximum term shall still be prision mayor in its minimum
The indeterminate sentence law did not repeal Article 34 of the period. In case of ordinary mitigating circumstance, you can only
Revised Penal Code. On the contrary, they are related. lower the penalty by one degree. You cannot lower the penalty by
two degrees. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances shall
Example; operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. The minimum
A abducted B with lewd design. His intention was rape. But before A term is prision correccional in any of its periods according to the
raped B, A was arrested. A was charged with the crime of forcible sound discretion of the court.
abduction punishable by reclusion temporal.
* In order that the penalty will be lowered by one degree, it is
Q: What is the penalty imposed if there is no mitigating or necessary that there is NO aggravating circumstance.
aggravating circumstance?
A: The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in medium period Even if there are many mitigating circumstances, for as long as there
since there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. The is one aggravating circumstance, you cannot lower the penalty by
minimum term is 1 degree lower in any of its periods according to degrees. Only by periods.
the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the imposable penalty is
prsion mayor in any of its period to reclusion temporal. Example;
A was charged with the information of rape with mitigating
Q: What if there is only one ordinary mitigating circumstance is circumstance of passion and obfuscation, against B. thereafter, A
present? voluntarily surrendered. A convicted of rape and was punished with
A: Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in minimum period and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
the minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period according to
the sound discretion of the court.
Q: since there are two mitigating circumstance, should the judge 3. To prevent further commission of crimes because the
lower his penalty by one degree? offender is placed under an individualized treatment;
A: NO. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 4. To decongest cases;
of the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty prescribe by law is a single 5. To save the Government from spending much-needed
invisible penalty you shall impose it as it is regardless of any funds when the offender will be placed behind bars
aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
The first three objectives are based on P.D. 968. The last two
Q: What is the penalty of A if, in a addition to the 2 mitigating purposes are jurisprudential.
circumstances above mentioned, A is a minor at the time of the
offense? Probation as a Privilege
A: privilege mitigating circumstance must first be applied prior to the Probation is not a right but a privilege. Thus, even if a convict is not
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Since minority is a privilege among those disqualified of probation, the judge can still deny the
mitigating circumstance which lowers the penalty by one degree, the application. This denial is not appealable. The grant or denial of
maximum term is prision mayor in its medium period and the application is dependent solely on the sound discretion of the judge.
minimum term prision correccional in any of its range according to
the sound discretion of the court. DISQUALIFICATIONS
The following are disqualified to avail probation;
*Only circumstance that can defeat an indivisible penalty is a 1. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment is more
privilege mitigating circumstance. than 6 years;
2. Those who have been convicted of subversion and crimes
Example; against national security;
X was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. X voluntarily 3. Those who have previously been convicted by final
surrendered to the authorities. In the trial, the mitigating judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of
circumstance of immediate vindication to a grave offense was in more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of
attendant. more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
4. Those who have already availed the benefit of probation;
Q: What should be the penalty imposed to X? 5. Those who have perfected an appeal from judgment of
A: Since the penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor and conviction;
there are two other ordinary mitigating circumstance present, the 6. Those convicted of an election offense under the Omnibus
maxium term of sentence is Prision correccional in its medium Election Code;
period while the mimimum term of sentence. Arresto mayor within 7. Those convicted of drug trafficking or drug pushing;
the range or. 8. Those who filed a malicious report that a person is
committing a violation of Anti-money laundering law and
Q: What is the penalty if, in addition to the facts above mentioned, was convicted because of such malicious filing
X is minor committing without discernment?
A: Since the penalty already imposed upon X is prision correccional, Example;
we lower it by one degree more because minority is a privilege X was charged and convicted for alarms and scandals. He was
mitigating circumstance. Thus, according to Article 64, the maximum sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor.
term is Arresto mayor in its medium period. Indeterminate sentence
law is not applicable if the penalty imposed upon the offender does Q: Can X avail probation?
not exceed one year. In this instance we cannot give him an A: If the felony was committed prior to the amendment of the
indeterminate sentence because the duration of arresto mayor is 1 probation law, X cannot avail probation. Under P.D. 968, a person
month to 6 months. who is convicted of a crime involving public disorder cannot avail
probation. The felony of Alarm and Scandal is a crime against public
If the maximum term of sentence does not exceed one year, a disorder. Thus X cannot avail probation. However, if the crime was
straight penalty shall be imposed upon him. convicted after the amendment, X may avail probation. Under R.A.
1070, crimes against public disorder is removed from the
--xXx-- disqualifications. Thus, X may avail probations

PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A. 10707) Q: May probation be availed even if the penalty imposed upon the
Probation is a disposition by which a convict after conviction and offender is only a fine?
sentence is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court A: YES. Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A. 10707,
under the supervision of a probation officer. Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of
imprisonment or a fine only.
Objectives
The following are the objectives of probation law; APPEAL AND PROBATION
1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of the Generally, under P.D 968, appeal and probation are mutually
offender because he is placed under a personalized exclusive remedies. This is because the reason behind appeal and the
treatment; reason behind probation are diametrically opposed.
2. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of penitent
offender; If a person appeals, it means that he is questioning the decision of the
court. He is insisting on his innocence. On the other hand, if a person
applies for probation, it means that he is accepting the judgment of A: A grant of probation is applied before the Trial Court which heard
the court. He, however, does not want to serve his sentence behind the case within the period of perfecting an appeal or within 15 days
bars. from promulgation of judgment.

Exceptions; CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON OFFENDER UNDER PROBATION

1. However, Section 4 of R.A. 10707 which amended the There are two conditions imposed upon a person seeking probation;
probation law, states that when a judgment of conviction 1. Mandatory/ Ordinary;
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or 2. Discretionary/ Special;
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the
imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall Mandatory
be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified The following are mandatory conditions imposed by the court to the
decision before such decision becomes final. The probationer;
application for probation based on the modified decision 1. Appear before the probationary officer within 72 hours
shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of from the receipt of the order;
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was 2. Report once a month;
rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since
been re-raffled. Discretionary
Discretionary or special conditions are dependent upon the sound
This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of discretion of the court. Usually involves engaging in a vocation, not
probation should he seek a review of the modified drinking alcohol, not going to house of ill-reputes.
decision which already imposes a probationable penalty.
2. Section 42 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare act provides The only limitation on the discretionary conditions is that they must
that the court may, after it shall have convicted and not be so restrictive to the rights of the accused such that they will
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon no longer be in consonance with his freedom.
application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu
of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best Example;
interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of In the case of Baclayon v. Mutia (G.R. No. L-59298, April 30, 1984)
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the the trial court prohibited the offender, who is a teacher by
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly. profession, to teach as a condition during the period of probation.
This is a restrictive condition. It deprives the offender his means of
Colinares v. People (G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011) livelihood.
Colinares hit Rufino twice in the head with a stone. Thereafter,
Colinares was charged and convicted for frustrated homicide in the PERIOD OF PROBATION:
regional trial court. He was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months of SENTENCE PERIOD OF PROBATION
prision correcional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor. Colinares Imprisonment of not more
appealed to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of modifying his Will not exceed two years;
than 1 year;
conviction from frustrated homicide to attempted homicide thereby All other cases of
lowering the penalty so that he can avail probation. The Court of Will not exceed 6 years;
imprisonment;
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Thus, Colinares elevated Not less than nor be more than
the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that 2x than the total number of
Colinares is only liable for attempted homicide because the days of subsidiary
prosecution failed to prove that the wound of Rufino is fatal. Thus Fine subsidiary imprisonment
imprisonment, taking into
the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of in case of insolvency;
account the highest minimum
four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four wage rate at the time of the
months of prision correccional, as maximum. rendition of the judgment.

Q: Can Colinares avail probation after the perfection of appeal to EFFECT OF PROBATION
modify his conviction? Probation will suspend the execution of the sentence. However, it will
A: YES. Colinares did not appeal from a judgment that would have not extinguish civil liability.
allowed him to apply for probation. He did not have a choice
between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, "By Under Section 16 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707, the final
taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The stiff discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil
penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally
Besides, in appealing his case, Colinares raised the issue of extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation
correctness of the penalty imposed on him. He claimed that the was granted.
evidence at best warranted his conviction only for attempted, not
frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a probationable penalty. Moreno v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)
In a way, therefore, Colinares sought from the beginning to bring Moreno ran for the public office of punong barangay. However, a
down the penalty to the level where the law would allow him to petition for disqualification was filed against him because he was
apply for probation. convicted by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and
was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One
Q: When and where do you apply for probation? (1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months. Moreno argues that
the disqualification under the Local Government Code is for
those ho
have served sentence for more than 1 year. Since Moreno applied Factors to consider in imposing fines;
and was granted of probation, he did not serve his sentence because 1. Aggravating and mitigating circumstance;
probation suspends the service of the offender. 2. Wealth and means of the offender

Q: Can a person who was convicted by final judgment but was Scale of Penalty in case of Fine
granted probation run for public office? Article 26 of the Revised Penal determines whether a fine is afflictive,
A: YES. The phrase service of sentence, understood in its general and correctional, or light penalty.
common sense, means the confinement of a convicted person in a SCALE OF PENALTY AMOUNT OF FINE
penal facility for the period adjudged by the court. During the period Afflictive Penalty; Exceeds P6,000.00
of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed Correctional Penalty From P200.00 to P6,000.00
upon him by the court but is merely required to comply with all the Light Penalty; Less than P200.00
conditions prescribed in the probation order. Furthermore, he
accessory penalties of suspension from public office, from the right --xXx--
to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or
minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be
upon the grant of probation. increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth
of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however,
Example; changing the minimum.
Lindsay Lohan, after conviction, applied for probation and was
granted the same. Thereafter, she filed an appeal questioning the If a fine is imposed to an accomplice or an accessory, the fine shall
civil indemnity imposed upon her. The judge denied the appeal on be reduced or increased, respectively for e each degree, by one
the ground that Lindsay already applied for probation. Therefore, fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
the appeal cannot be granted.
Example;
Q: Is the judge correct? If A prevented the meetings of congress by means of fraud, the
A: NO. The only effect of probation is to suspend the execution of penalty imposed upon him is P200 – P2000. If he is merely an
the sentence. It has nothing to do with the civil aspect of the case. accomplice, the fine will be lowered by one degree and a decrease
Insofar as the civil aspect is concerned, the convict can still appeal it. of
¼ of the maximum amount prescribed by law. Since ¼ of P2,000.00 is
Example; P500.00, the penalty imposed upon the accomplice is P200.00 to
D, under the probation for two years, was imposed the condition P,500.00.
that he could not change his residence. For two years, he complied
with this condition. After the lapse of two years, D now changed his Example;
residence. The probation officer learned about this and filed for a A, B, and C, was charged and convicted of an impossible crime. A as
Motion to Revoke the probation. D contended that the period of the principal, B as the accomplice, and C as the accessory. The court
probation (2 years) has already been completed, so he is already imposed upon them a fine of P200.00 to P500.00 as prescribed by
allowed to change residence. The trial court granted the revocation. law.

Q: Is the trial court correct? Q: How much would A, B, and C, pay?

A: YES. The expiration of the period of probation does not ipso facto A: A, as the principal, is liable for a fine ranging from P200.00 –
mean the termination of probation. Probation is only terminated P500.00. To get the liability of B as an accomplice we take ¼ of the
upon the issuance of the court of a final discharge of probation. This maximum amount of fine and deduct it therefrom. So the maximum
happens when after the lapse of the period of probation, the amount of fine is P500.00 ¼ of P500.00 is 125. Deduct P125.00 from
probation officer will file a Motion before the court with a P500.00. This will now be P375.00 Thus, B, as an accomplice, is liable
recommendation stating that the convict has complied with the for P200-P375. Let us say the offender is a mere accessory, deduct ¼
conditions imposed and therefore, he should be discharged. The or P125.00 from the maximum fine. The sum is P250.00. Thus, C as
court will then issue a final discharge of probation. Only then will the accomplice is liable for P200.00 - P250.00
probation be terminated.
--xXx--
--xXx--
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit
fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their
particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have
FINE been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should
Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed by court in case of judgment of they have been served out.
conviction.
 For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next 12-20 years of reclusion temporal for the second count of homicide.
preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall
be determined in accordance with the following scale:

1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional,

6. Arresto mayor,

7. Arresto menor,

8. Destierro,

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

10 Temporal absolute

disqualification.

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and

be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and

12. Public censure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next

preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall
not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to
the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum
total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual
penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended).

SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Under Article 70, as a rule, when the convict has to serve two or
more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of
the penalties will so permit.

Penalties that allow simultaneous service of sentence;

1. Improvement and fine;
2. Imprisonment and suspension;
3. Imprisonment and public censure;
Q: What penalties cannot be served at the same time?
A: All forms of imprisonment.

SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE

All forms of imprisonment cannot be served simultaneously.

Example;
X was convicted of two counts of homicide. A penalty of reclusion
temporal was imposed upon him for each count of homicide.
Reclusion temporal has a duration of 12-20 years. X will satisfy the
first 12-20 years of imprisonment. Thereafter, he shall serve another
Order of Severity.
In the imposition of penalties, the convict shall first serve the
most severe penalty imposed upon him in accordance with the
scale provided for in Article 70.

THREE-FOLD RULE
The three-fold rule provides that when multiple successive
penalties are imposed upon the offender, the maximum duration
of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. However, such maximum period shall in no
case exceed forty years.

Example;
X raped her daughter 5 times. He was charged and convicted of 5
counts of rape. The penalty for 1 count of rape is reclusion
perpetua.

Q: What penalty shall the court impose on him?

A: 5 counts of reclusion perpetua.

Q: Since reclusion perpetua is 20-40 years, does that mean X will

serve 200 years in prison?
A: NO. Under the three-fold rule the when the offender is serving
multiple successive sentences, the maximum duration of the
offender’s sentence shall not exceed three folds of the
length of the most severe penalty, provided that such penalty
will not be more than 40 years. In this case, since the penalty
imposed upon X is 5 reclusion perpetua, his service of sentence
will not be more than three-folds of the length of reclusion
perpetua which is the most severe penalty imposed upon him.
However, since three counts of reclusion perpetua is 120 years
which exceeds the maximum penalty of 40 years, X will serve the
maximum sentence of 40 years.

Example;
X was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape punishable by
reclusion perpetua and a civil liability of P50,000.00. The judge,
applying the three-fold rule, sentenced X of 40 years of
imprisonment and a civil liability of P50,000.00.

Q: Is the judge correct?

A: NO. The three-fold rule is not for the judge to impose. The 40
years imprisonment in accordance to three-fold rule refers to
service of sentence, NOT to the imposition of penalties.

Q: If the judge will not impose the three-fold rule? Who will
impose it?
A: The three-fold rule is for the Director of Prisons to apply and
compute, and not for the judge to impose.

Q: How should the judge impose 5 counts of rape?

A: The judge shall impose upon him a penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count of rape, the penalty prescribed by law for
the crime of rape. Likewise, the judge shall impose upon the
convict the civil liability of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.

Q: does the three-fold rule also apply to civil liabilities of the

offender?
A: NO. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim
therefore, civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the
criminal offense of rape. The civil indemnity shall be the number
of times the victim was raped.
In answering questions regarding penalties, you need not state the SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES
equivalent duration. It suffices that you state the designation, i.e. Subsidiary penalties are deemed imposed.
prision mayor, prision correcional, etc.
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
--xXx-- Unlike subsidiary penalties, the subsidiary imprisonment must be
expressly stated in the decision.
Article 71. Graduated scales. - In the case in which the
law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees --xXx--
than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall
be observed in graduating such penalty. Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than
graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. another given penalty, without specially designating the name of
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall the former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the
observe the following graduated scales: same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty.
SCALE NO. 1
If the decision or law says higher than Reclusion perpetua or 2
1. Death, degrees than Reclusion temporal, then the penalty imposed is
2. Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion perpetua or Reclusion temporal as the case may be.
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor, Death must be designated by name. However, for the other
5. Prision correccional, penalties, this does not apply.
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro, Example;
8. Arresto menor, The penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than RP. The penalty
9. Public censure, imposed is prision mayor.
10. Fine.
--xXx--
SCALE NO. 2
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or
2. Temporal absolute disqualification reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however,
4. Public censure, changing the minimum.
5. Fine.
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines
Q: What is the importance of 1 day in the duration of the period (6 that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.
yrs and 1 DAY -12 years)?
A: The 1 day separates the different degrees of the penalty. It also --xXx--
separates a divisible penalty from an indivisible penalty. It also
determines whether subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed on Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. —
the offender. The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be
considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the
--xXx-- minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in
the following table:
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities.
— The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more --xXx--
offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of
the dates of the judgments rendered against him, beginning with three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a
the first in order of time. penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a
period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the
The penalties shall be satisfied according to the scale of Art 70 medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

--xXx-- Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of

the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty
which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, --xXx--
according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this
Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also
imposed upon the convict.
 EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES death penalty. But for heinous crimes, the penalty shall still be death.
Only that it cannot be imposed.
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No
penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than
that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or
incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special
regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in
which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with
regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of its
performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the
relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the
relief which they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of
the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different
departments and also for the correction and reform of the
convicts.

--xXx--

Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the

penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict shall become
insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced,
the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard
to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of
circumstance number 1 of article 12 being observed in the
corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his
sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have
prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be
observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is
serving his sentence.

INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR AFTER THE CONVICTION OF

THE ACCUSED BY FINAL JUDGMENT
There will be a suspension of sentence. The accused cannot be made
to suffer the sentence.

The moment he regains his sanity he is required to serve his

sentence. Provided, that the period of penalty has not yet
prescribed.

--xXx--

Art 80 (as amended by PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code)

Note: refer to R.A. 9344 (Minority)

--xXx--

Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed.

Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance
to the culprit.
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same.
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed
and its burial.

As of writing, the death penalty is suspended by virtue of R.A. 9346.

Under RA 9346, the prohibition pertains only to the imposition of

 --xXx--

Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision

mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties
of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision
correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in
the places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in
the future.

--xXx--

Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to

destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25
kilometers from the place designated.

DESTIERRO
Destierro is considered as a principal correctional and divisible
penalty. Therefore, jurisdiction over crimes punishable with
destierro lies with the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Destierro shall be imposed in the following cases;

1. Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are
inflicted under exceptional circumstance;
2. Person fails to give bond for good behavior in grave and
light threats;
3. Concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage;
4. When after reducing the penalty by one or more
degree, destierro is the proper penalty

Execution of Destierro
1. Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place
designated in the sentence nor within the radius
specified, which shall not be more than 250 and not less
than 25 km from the place designated;
2. If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits
evasion of sentence

--xXx--

Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto

menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of
the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the
law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other reasons
which may seem satisfactory to it.

--xXx--
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018] 7

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction

extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — based solely thereon;
Criminal liability is totally extinguished; 2. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these
final judgment; other sources of obligation from which the civil liability
2. By service of the sentence; may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the a. Law;
penalty and all its effects; b. Contracts;
4. By absolute pardon; c. Quasi-contracts;
5. By prescription of the crime; d. (delict);
6. By prescription of the penalty; e. Quasi-delicts;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in
Art 344 of this Code; 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2
above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but
MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to
Article 89 is incomplete. The following are the modes ofextinguishing Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
criminal liability; Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be
1. Death; enforced either against the executor/administrator or the
2. Service of Sentence; estate of the accused, depending on the source of
3. Amnesty; obligation upon which the same is based as explained
4. Absolute pardon; above.
5. Prescription of crime; 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
6. Prescription of penalty; forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
7. Valid marriage of the offended with the offender; prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
8. Express repeal of the penal law; (Decriminalization of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
act) offended party instituted together therewith the civil
9. Probation under PD. 986 as amended by R.A. 10707; action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
DEATH criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155
Death is the permanent cessation of life. of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible privation of right by
Q: When does death extinguish criminal liability? prescription. (Citations omitted.)
A: Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the
proceedings, be it before or after conviction. This is because the SERVICE OF SENTENCE
moment the offender dies, there is no one to serve the personal Service of sentence means satisfaction of the penalty imposed. If it is
penalty. imprisonment, it means that he has served his sentence behind bars.
If it is fine, it means that he has paid the amount.
Extinguishment of Civil liability through Death
In People v. Amistoso (G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013) the AMNESTY
Supreme Court laid down rules in case the accused dies prior to final Amnesty is an act of grace from the power entrusted with the
judgment; execution of the law which does not only exempt the offender from
the service of penalty for the crime committed, but also obliterates
the effects of the crime. It does not only suspend the execution of
the sentence. It also obliterates the effects of the crime.

ABSOLUTE PARDON
Absolute Pardon is an act of grace received from the power entrusted
with the execution of the law which exempts the offender from the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed.

PARDON AMNEST
Merely suspends the execution Obliterates all effects of crime
of sentence, erases the penalty as if no crime was committed;
to be imposed;
Granted only after conviction Granted at any stage of
by final judgment; proceedings, before during or
after final judgment;
Private act of President. As Public act of President. Granted
such, the person pardoned with the concurrence of
PRESCRIPTION
must plead OFand
CRIME
prove it before Congress. Courts take judicial
Prescription of Crime
the courts. is thenotice
No judicial loss or
of forfeiture
notice ofofit;the right of State to prosecute an act prohibited by law. The moment that a crime has already
Pardon;
prescribed, the court has to dismiss the case even if the accused has not moved for its dismissal. The courts lose their jurisdiction to try the case.
May be given to all kinds of Generally granted to a class or
offenders;
VALID MARRIAGE group of persons who have Period of Prescription of Crimes
A valid marriage between the offender committed
and political offenses;
the offended party PENALTY OF CRIMES PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
extinguishes criminal liability only in relation to private crimes; i.e. Death, Reclusion perpetua, 20 years;
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and one public crime reclusion temporal;
which is rape. Other afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties; 10 years;
* Under Art 266, the valid marriage of the offended with the Arresto mayor; 5 years;
offender extinguishes criminal liability as well as the penalty. Libel and other similar offenses; 1 year
Oral defamation and slander by 6 months;
Example; deed
Jack raped Rose. Rose filed a case of rape against Jack. Trial on the Light felonies; 2 month.
merits ensued. During trial, Jack and Rose would often see each
other and because of this, they fell in love with each other. Later on, COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
they got married. This valid marriage will extinguish the criminal The running of the prescriptive period shall be from the time of the
liability of Jack. commission of the crime, if known. If not known, from discovery by
offended party, authorities and agents.
Q: IS the criminal liability extinguished if the marriage took place
after the offender was convicted by final judgment? Example;
A: YES. Even if there is already a final and executory judgment, such X and Y had a quarrel. In the course thereof, X killed Y. Thereafter, X
as when the offender is already behind bars, a valid marriage buried the body of Y in his backyard. Unknown to X, neighbor A
between the offender and the offended will still extinguish criminal witnesses A burry the body in his backyard. After 25 years from the
liability and the penalty imposed. commission of the crime, the neighbor became old and sickly. He
then told the police what he witnessed 25 years ago. The police then
--xXx-- went to the backyard, dug the ground and saw the bones of Y.

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by Q: Can the State still prosecute H for parricide?
death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The authorities and their
twenty years. agents only came to know the crime 25 years from its commission.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall This is the only time when the prescriptive period for the crime shall
prescribe in fifteen years. commence to run. Also, the neighbor who knew the commission of
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe the crime is not the person required by law to discover the crime in
in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto order to start the running of the prescriptive period. Therefore, the
mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. State can still file the case of parricide.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe
in one year. Example;
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall Niki and Mariah were friends. Niki, before going to Mindanao, left
prescribe in six months. the titles of her properties to Mariah for safekeeping. Mariah
Light offenses prescribe in two months. became interested in one of the properties. While Niki was in
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the Mindanao, Mariah falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale forging the
highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the signature of Niki, making it appear that Niki sold the property to her.
rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this Mariah then registered the Deed before the Registry of Deeds. The
article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966.) title was thereafter transferred to the name of Mariah. 20 years
thereafter, Niki came back to Manila and acquired the titles she left
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The to Mariah. Niki noticed that one title was missing. She eventually
period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on discovered that the property covered by such missing title was
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the already transferred to the name of Mariah.
authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of
the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again Q: Can Niki file case of falsification of public document punishable
when such proceedings terminate without the accused being by Prision mayor, against Mariah?
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason A: NO. The crime has already prescribed. If a document or
not imputable to him. transaction involves real properties (sale, lease, attachment), the
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender moment the document is registered before the Registry of Deeds,
is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. such registration constitutes constructive notice. As such, the law
presumes that the whole world, including Niki, knows about the
registration. The period
of prescription commences to run from that time. Since 20 years The Prescriptive period shall be suspended upon filing of complaint or
have already lapsed in this case, the crime has already prescribed. info before the fiscal’s office or before the court/public prosecutor
This concerns only criminal liability. But Niki can still file a civil case for
for damages or any civil action to recover the property.

VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

In the case of People v. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012),
the Supreme Court said whether it is a violation of a special penal
law like the BP 22 or a violation of the RPC, the filing of a complaint
before the office of the public prosecutor suspends or interrupts the
running of the prescriptive period. It remains suspended until the
case has been decided the accused being acquitted or convicted or
the case has been dismissed for any reason not imputable to him.

Here the checks were issued, and the notice of dishonor was
received by the maker in 1995. The cases were filed before the
prosecutors in 1997, and they filed the information in the MTC in
2000. The MTC and RTC ruled that the crime did not prescribe. The
CA held that the crime had prescribed, and that the filing of the
complaint before the prosecutors did not suspend the running of the
prescriptive period.

The CA cited the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes and ruled that the violation
of BP 22 has already prescribed because according to the CA, in case
of violation of special penal laws, the running of the prescriptive
period is only interrupted upon the filing of the case before the
appropriate court because the Supreme Court interpreted the word
“proceedings” as judicial proceedings in Zaldivia v. Reyes.

The SC said that the interpretation of the CA is erroneous. SC said it

is now settled in jurisprudence that whether it is a violation of a
special penal law or a violation of the RPC, the filing of the complaint
with the public prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive
period.

Violation of Municipal Ordinance

In Zaldivia v. Reyes (G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992), what is involved
is a violation of a municipal ordinance. It is only in case of violation
of municipal ordinance wherein the running of the prescriptive
period is interrupted upon the filing of the complaint before the
proper court. The filing of the information in 1997 suspended the
prescriptive period and the same remains suspended; thus the crime
has not yet prescribed

Example;
Gerald and Kim were spouses. Gerald, as a medical representative,
was assigned in Visayas leaving his wife, Kim, in Manila. 20 years
thereafter, Kim while watching TV saw Gerald presenting another
woman, Maja, as his wife. Furious, Kim went to Visayas and therein
discovered that there was a registered marriage certificate between
Gerald and Maja, the woman she saw on TV.

Q: Can Kim file a case of bigamy?

A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The rule on constructive
notice by registration is applicable only if the transaction involves
real properties. Registration as to other documents or transactions
with the Office of the Civil Registry does not constitute constructive
notice to the whole world. Since the wife herein discovered the
bigamous marriage only 20 years thereafter, this shall be the starting
point for the running of the prescriptive period of the crime.

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SUSPENDED

purposes of preliminary investigation. It remains suspended until find him. It
the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is terminated
without the fault of accused.

The term shall not run when the offender is absent from the
Philippine Archipelago.

Situations which do not follow Art. 91;

1. In continuing crimes-prescriptive period will start to run
only at the termination of the intended result;
2. In crimes against false testimony, prescriptive period is
reckoned from the day final judgment is rendered in the
proceeding where such false testimony is utilized not
when the false testimony is made;
3. In Election offenses;
a. if discovery of the offense is incidental to
judicial proceedings, prescription begins when
such proceedings terminate; or
b. From the date of the commission of the offense.

--xXx--

Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties

imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows;
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception
of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in
five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.

Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. —

The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run
from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his
sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give
himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with
which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should
commit another crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription.

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Prescription of penalty is the loss of the right of the State to
execute the sentence.

Prescription Period
PENALTY PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
Death, Reclusion perpetua; 20 years;
Afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Light penalties; 1 year

COMMENCEMENT PERIOD
The running of the period shall commence from the time the
convict evaded the service of his sentence. It is necessary
therefore that the convict is serving his sentence and while
serving, he escaped. It is from the time of escape that the
prescriptive period runs.

Example;
Garcia was convicted of homicide. The judgment became final
and executory. He was brought to serve sentence in Muntinlupa.
While serving sentence, he escaped. Police failed to capture and
was only after 20 years that Garcia was located and brought behind 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn
bars. Garcia’s counsel filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus while he is serving his sentence.
contending that the penalty prescribed and therefore, Garcia could
not be imprisoned. MODES FOR PARTIALLY EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The following are the modes for extinguishing criminal liability;
Q: Is the counsel correct? 1. Conditional Pardon;
A: YES. The penalty has prescribed. Homicide prescribes in 15 years. 2. Commutation of sentence;
Here, Garcia was captured 20 years from escape. 3. Good conduct of allowance;
4. Special Time Allowance for Loyalty;
Example; 5. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
Cuenca was charged with homicide. Being a bailable offense, Cuenca 6. Implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the
posted bail. During the arraignment and pre trial, Cuenca appeared penalty;
before the court. However, during the trial proper, he did not
appear. Trial in absentia ensued. Judgment was for conviction. CONDITIONAL PARDON
Warrant of arrest was issued against Cuenca. It was only 20 years Conditional Pardon is an act of grace received from a power
thereafter that the police were able to arrest Cuenca and bring him entrusted with the authority to execute the law, but the pardon
behind bars. Cuenca’s counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus herein is subject to strict conditions.
contending that the penalty has prescribed.
Because of this strict conditions, there must be acceptance on the
Q: Is the counsel correct? part of the offender. The moment he accepts, it becomes incumbent
A: NO. The penalty has not prescribed. In fact, prescription has not upon him to comply with the strict terms and conditions of the
even commenced to run. For the period to run, it is necessary that pardon.
the offender is serving sentence and while serving sentence, he
escaped. The running of prescriptive period only starts from the Failure to comply with any of the strict conditions, the State can file
escape of offender. In this case, the offender has not even served his a criminal case under Art 159- evasion of service of sentence. In
sentence. addition, the Chief Executive can order the immediate incarceration
of the offender under the Administrative Code.
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF PENALTY
The following are the grounds when the prescriptive period of COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
penalty is suspended; In commutation of sentence, a new sentence imposed shall be in lieu
1. When offender surrenders; of the original sentence.
2. When offender went to a country which has no extradition
treaty with the Philippines; Example;
3. When convict commits a crime before the expiration of Death penalty commuted to Reclusion perpetua.
period of prescription;
4. When the offender is captured; --xXx--
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct
Prescription of Crimes v. Prescription of Penalty of any offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in
Loss or forfeiture of the right Loss or forfeiture of the right any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any
of the State to prosecute; of the State to enforce final other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from
judgment; the period of his sentence;
Starts counting upon the Starts counting upon the 1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be
discovery of the commission of escape or evasion of service of allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good
the crime. sentence. behavior during detention;
Mere absence from the Absence from the Philippines 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his
Philippines interrupts the interrupts the period only imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three
running of the prescription; when the convict goes to a days for each month of good behavior during detention;
foreign country without an 3. During the following years until the tenth year,
extradition treaty with the inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
Philippines; twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during
Commission of another crime Commission of another crime detention;
before the expiration of the before the expiration of the 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his
prescriptive period does not period interrupts the imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for
interrupt prescription. prescription. each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he
--xXx-- shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to
numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is mentoring service time rendered. (As amended by R.A. 10592)
extinguished partially;
1. By conditional pardon; An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
2. By commutation of the sentence; and entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE
Good conduct allowance is awarded to the offender if he has been
behaving properly in prison. The Director of Prisons shall compute
the good conduct allowance in favor of the offender so that he will
be immediately released.

PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT DEDUCTION

First two years; 20 days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
Third to fifth year, inclusive, of 23 days for each month of good
his imprisonment; behavior during detention;
Sixth until the tenth year, 25 days for each month
inclusive, of his imprisonment; of good behavior during
detention;
Eleventh and successive years 30 days for each month
of his Imprisonment; of good behavior during
detention;
At any time during the another deduction of 15 days,
period of imprisonment; in addition to numbers one to Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every
four hereof for each month of person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
service time rendered for;
1. Study; CIVIL LIABILITY
2. Teaching; or As a general rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
3. Mentoring; For every criminal action filed in court, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted.
--xXx--
Reason
ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction The commission of a crime, 2 injuries are inflicted;
of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any 1. Social injury against the State for the disturbance of social
prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the order; and
service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in 2. Personal Injury against the offended party and his heirs;
Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within
48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the The social injury against the state will be answered by reparation. The
passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said personal injury will be answered by the civil indemnity.
article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall
be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his Exceptions to Implied Institution of Civil Action
confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or The following are the exemption to the general that a civil action is
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code. (As amended impliedly instituted in a criminal case;
by 1. When offended party waives the civil action;
R.A. 10592) 2. When the offended party reserves the right to file a
separate civil action, which must be made prior to the
Example; presentation of evidence of the prosecution;
During the time Bin Laden was serving his sentence behind bars, an 3. When the offended party files the civil action prior to the
8.9 magnitude earthquake suddenly occurred prompting Bin Laden criminal action
to escape. He then went to the house of his mother. While Bin Laden
was watching TV in the house of his mother, he saw the President ACQUITTAL; EFFECT ON CIVIL LIABILITY:
announcing that the earthquake subsided. Within 48 hours from In the following cases, acquittal in a criminal action bars recovery in a
announcement, Bin Laden surrendered. Because of this surrender, civil action;
Bin Laden is entitled to the special allowance for loyalty for being so 1. If the judgment of acquittal states that the alleged criminal
loyal to the government. acts of the offender were not committed by him;
2. If the judgment of acquittal states that the accused is not
If Bin Laden remained in prison despite the 8.9 magnitude guilty of criminal or civil damages;
earthquake, he is entitled to a deduction of 2/5 from the period of
his sentence. In the following cases, the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case
is not a bar to recover civil liability;
However, if Bin Laden did not return, there will be an additional 1/5 1. When judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
to the term of his sentence. If Bin Laden merely remained in prison, - This is because civil actions require mere preponderance
there will be neither deduction nor addition to his sentence. of evidence;
2. When judgment of acquittal states that the liability of
--xXx-- accused is not criminal but civil in nature - This usually
happens when the case is estafa and there is a contract
between the accused and complainant, upon which the
 accused failed to comply with the terms of the contract. is the one who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or
There is breach of contract; uncontrollable fear.
3. When the judgment of acquittal states that the civil
liability does not arise from the crime but from other --xXx--
sources of obligations;
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
--xXx-- tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of
the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation
Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be shall have been committed by them or their employees.
enforced subject to the following rules: Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests
civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided
and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper
under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such
shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have
negligence on their part. given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or
or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall employees.
respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from
execution, in accordance with the civil law. Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
received. servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the discharge of their duties.
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY
determined, even approximately, or when the liability also Parents, teacher, employers, and proprietors shall be subsidiarily
attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants liable for the crimes committed by their children, students,
of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been employees, servants.
caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents,
indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special Subsidiary Liability of employers
laws or regulations. Employers may be held subsidiarily liable for the acts of their
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of employees provided the following requisites are present;
Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be 1. Employer must be engaged in some kind of industry;
primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, 2. Employer and employee relationship;
those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that 3. Employee committed a crime in the exercise of his duties
part of their property exempt from execution. as employee;
4. There must be conviction of the crime and the employee
INSANE, IMBECILE, MINOR was found insolvent to pay civil indemnity;
In case the offender is insane, imbecile or minor, the civil liability
arising from their acts shall be shouldered by the persons who have The moment the employee was found insolvent, the liability of the
custody of the insane, imbecile or minor. employer now becomes absolute. A motion for the issuance of a
subsidiary writ of execution must then be filed by the complainant
Secondary liability falls on the property of the insane, imbecile or
minor, except those properties which are prohibited from being Example;
attached. Paris Hilton, a guest in a hotel, told the representative of the hotel
that she carries valuables. The representative of the hotel told Paris
STATE OF NECESSITY about the rules regarding the care and vigilance of the valuables.
All persons who have been benefitted during the state of necessity However, during nighttime, a robbery occurred inside the hotel.
shall bear the civil liability. If there are many persons benefitted, the Among those taken were the valuables of Paris. The offender was
liability shall be divided by the court proportionately. arrested, convicted and civil liability was imposed upon him.

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR Q: In case of insolvency of the offender, does the proprietor of the
Borne by the person who enforced the threats to the offender. hotel or establishment have subsidiary civil liability?
Secondary liability falls upon the principal by direct participation,
who
A: YES. The guest complied with the rules and regulations as to the Q: Is the proprietor of the establishment liable?
care and vigilance of the goods. He also informed the representative A: YES. There was a violation of the ordinance. Any crimes
of the hotel of the presence of his valuables. committed in the establishment will make the proprietor subsidiarily
liable for civil liability only, not for criminal liability.
Example;
Same situation as above. The guard of the hotel tried to fight the Example;
robbers. One of the robbers shot the guard. Prosecuted for robbery Vin Diesel was a driver of XYZ Corporation engaged in the business
with homicide and was convicted. of distributing goods to supermarkets. Vin Diesel was driving
recklessly as he was headed to one supermarket. In the course
Q: In case of insolvency, is the proprietor of the hotel subsidiarily thereof, Vin Diesel hit a car. The car was damaged. Because of this, a
liable? crime for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property was
A: NO. The crime committed is robbery with homicide, which is a filed against Vin Diesel. Court found him guilty. The penalties
crime under robbery with violence against or intimidation of imposed were fine and payment of damage caused. When the
persons. If the crime committed is robbery with violence against or judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution was
intimidation of persons, the proprietor is not liable, except if the issued but was returned unsatisfied due to the insolvency of Vin
offender is the employee of the hotel or establishment. Diesel.

Q: Is there need to file a separate civil action?

Solidum v. People (G.r. No. 192123, March 10, 2014) A: NO. There is no need to file a separate civil action. In the very
Gerald Gercayo was born with an imperforated anus. Two days after same action for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring property, the moment the employee is found to be insolvent, the
one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal wall, liability of the employer becomes absolute. However, even if it is
enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the absolute, it is not automatic. The complainant has to file a Motion
side of his body. When Gerald was three years old, he was admitted for the Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of Execution. This is not an ex
at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. Dr. Leandro parte motion, but a litigated one. Thus, the other party (XYZ COrpo)
Resurreccion headed the surgical team along with the must be informed for due process.
anesthesiologists which includes petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum.
During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia, and went --xXx--
into a coma. His coma lasted for two weeks,9 but he regained
consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see, hear or Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability
move. Thus, the mother lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes;
resulting in serious physical injuries against the attending physicians 1. Restitution;
and Ospital ng Maynila. 2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Q: Is Dr. Solidum civilly or criminally liable?
A: NO. The Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution of
qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance
what standard of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the
difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the first three court.
elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant. The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found
in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful
Q: Is Ospital ng Maynila subsidiarily liable? means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person,
A: NO. For one, Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the who may be liable to him.
proceedings. Hence, its fundamental right to be heard was not This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing
respected from the outset. Second, granting for the sake of has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the
argument that Ospital ng Maynila was impleaded, still it cannot be requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
subsidiarily liable because the requisites for the subsidiary liability of
the employers are not present. First, there is no employer-employee RESTITUTION
relationship because based on the evidence, Dr. Solidum is a Restitution is the return of the very thing taken.
consultant and not an employee of OM. Second, OM is not engaged
in some kind of industry, it is a charitable institution that caters Exception
hospital services to poor patients; there is no profit. Also, Dr. Exception: if the innocent purchaser acquired the said property in a
Solidum was not criminally liable. Lastly, granting that Dr. Solidum public sale. Then, it can no longer be taken away from him.
was held liable for civil liability, there was no proof that Dr. Solidum
was insolvent such that OM will be subsidiarily liable. Q: What is the remedy of the offended party if the thing can no
longer be returned?
Example; A: The remedy of the offended party is reparation.
A municipal ordinance provides that Establishment XYZ should only
be open during weekdays. However, this establishment violated the --xXx--
ordinance as it opened on a Sunday. A crime was committed during
the Sunday it opened. Art. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court shall
determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration the
price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability
value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made
accordingly.

Reparation
In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay
the value of the property stolen. The court shall determine the value
of the thing taken including its sentimental value.

--xXx--

Art. 107. Indemnification — What is included. —

Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only
those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his
family or by a third person by reason of the crime.

INDEMNIFICATION
Indemnification includes moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary
damages.

Moral Damages
Moral damages in case of rape or murder need not be proved. It
suffices that the crime has been committed. The law presumes that
the victim suffered moral indemnity because of the crime
committed.

Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages can only be granted if there are aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the crime.

--xXx--

Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation

for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The
obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and
indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the
heirs of the person liable.

The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification

likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.

Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there

are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall
determine the amount for which each must respond.

If there were 2 accused convicted, insofar as the civil liability is

concerned, it is the court which shall determine the civil liability of
the 2 accused

--xXx--

Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals,

accomplices and accessories of a felony — Preference in payment.
— Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article,
the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other
persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the
property of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices,
and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
 shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of
their respective shares.

Example;
X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery. They were all
charged as principals. But the judge ruled that X is a principal, Y is
an accomplice and Z is a mere accessory. The judge divided the
civil liability proportionately. Their liabilities among themselves are
in solidum.

Q: Against whom can the private complainant recover said civil

liability?
A: The private complainant can recover the entire civil liability
from X, the principal but X now has a right of action against Y and
Z insofar as their respective civil liabilities are concerned. If X
cannot pay, the private complainant can go against Y. Y can now
go against X and Z because their liabilities are in solidum but
subsidiary insofar as the private complainant is concerned

--xXx--

Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain

cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the
proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an
amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.

Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability

established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall
be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY:

Civil Liability shall be extinguished by the following acts;
1. By pardon of the offended party;
2. Other modes for extinguishing civil liability under Civil
Code; (payment, Condonation, etc)

Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by pardon,

amnesty, probation, commutation of sentence, etc. Civil liability
can only be extinguished in the same manner as in Civil Law, by the
extinguishment of obligations, i.e., payment, loss of the thing,
remuneration, compensation, etc.

--xXx--

Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in

case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next
preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to
satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by
him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other reason.

--END--

Special Acknowledgement to the (2017) Garcia Notes Transcribers:

Bongalon, David, Garvida, Liwanag, Maranan, Melosantos, Mina,
Navarez, Santos.