1

CRIMINAL LAW 1

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES:

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which 1) defines crimes, 2) treats of their nature and
3) provides for their punishment.

Crime defined – it is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or

commanding it.

PRINCIPLE: NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law
countries, but not to common law countries.

Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how
wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a
crime.

CONCEPTS OF MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means,
that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special
laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.

Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita

Mala in se Mala Prohibita

1.Those so serious in their effects on 1. Those violations of mere rules of

society as to call for almost a convenience designed to secure a unanimous
condemnation of its more orderly regulation of the affairs
members. of society.

2. Criminal intent is necessary. 2. Criminal intent is not necessary

Good faith is a valid defense. Good faith is not a valid defense. It
is enough that the prohibition is
voluntarily violated.

3. Refers generally to felonies defined 3. Refers generally to acts made

and penalized by the RPC. criminal by special laws.

4. Criminal liability is incurred even 4. Criminal liability is generally

when the crime is attempted or incurred only when the crime is
frustrated. consummated.

5. Mitigating & Aggravating circums- 5. Such circumstances are not

tances are appreciated in imposing the appreciated unless the special
penalties. law has adopted the scheme or
scale of penalties under the RPC.

Note: Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are
always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are
always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is
 2

one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack
of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

Examples of violation of special laws which are considered mala in se.

1. Violations of PD 532 (a) piracy in Philippine waters (b) Brigandage in the highways.

2. Plunder – inasmuch as the predicate crimes are mala in se.

II. CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

Q: What is the general rule with respect to the construction of penal laws?
A: Criminal laws are to be strictly construed against the Government and liberally
construed in favor of the accused. (People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 725)

III. GENERAL CHARACTERISCTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW - GTP

1. GENERAL – the law is binding to all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines
regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. It applies to every person within the territory of the
Philippines.
EXCEPTIONS to the rule of “Generality” in the Philippines

EXCEPTIONS:

a) Treaty Stipulations or International Agreements e.g. RP-US VFA;

b) Laws of Preferential Application e.g. RA 75-diplomatic representative-it

penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the RP and its
inhabitants of the immunities, rights, & privileges of duly accredited foreign
diplomatic representatives in the Philippines;

c) The Principles of Public International Law e.g. Sovereigns and other Chief of
States, Ambassadors, ministers, charges d’ affairs etc.;

d) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander in connection with any
speech delivered on the floor of the house during a regular or special session (Art.
IV, Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution)

Note: Only the heads of the diplomatic mission, as well as members of the diplomatic staff,
excluding the members of the administrative, technical and service staff, are accorded diplomatic
rank. Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nation are not
diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where they are assigned.
(Minucher vs CA, February 11, 2003)

2. TERRITORIAL – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National
Territory of the Philippines. Meaning, penal laws only have effect “within” or “inside” the
Philippine territorial jurisdiction. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. The
extent of the enforcement or effect of a penal law is only within the Philippine territory. Beyond
such, the law has no effect to the person or his act. Otherwise, it would result to territorial
encroachment.

Note: This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and
practice.
 3

Q: What comprises the Philippine Archipelago? Or What is the Archipelagic

Rule?

A: The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters Around, Between, and Connecting
the islands of the archipelago regardless of their Breadth and Dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (ABC-BD — ARCHIPELAGIC
DOCTRINE; Article 1, 1987 Constitution)

Q: What is the principle of territoriality?

A: General Rule --- penal laws can only be enforced within the Phil territory. They
cannot be enforced outside.

Territorial application of the RPC:

(1) Intra-territorial – refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine territory
(Art. I, 1987 Constitution)

(2) Extra-territorial – refers to the application of the RPC outside of the Philippine
territory

Q: What are the instances where the provisions of the RPC shall
have EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION (Art. 2, RPC):
A:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the

exercise of their functions; or (Some of these crimes are bribery, fraud against
national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public
funds)

5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (These crimes include treason,
espionage, piracy, mutiny, inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals,
correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy’s country and violation of
neutrality)

In addition to the above-enumerated exceptions, the following shall have extra-

territorial application by express provision of the law:

6. Should commit an offense within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic premises

belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity
(Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9372-Human Security Act of 2007 more popularly
known as the ANTI-TERRORISM LAW)
 4

7. Should commit any crime even if committed outside the Philippines and whether
or not such act or acts constitute an offense at the place of commission, the crime
being a continuing offense, having been commenced in the Philippines and other
elements having been committed in another country, if the suspect or accused (a) is
a Filipino citizen; or (b) is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or (c) Has
committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines (Section 26-A of RA 10364
amending RA 9208-Anti-Human Trafficking Law).

Rules on jurisdiction in case of a merchant vessel:

(1) The French Rule recognizes the jurisdiction of the flag of the country for crimes
committed on board the vessel except if the crime disturbs the peace and order and
security of the host country.

(2) The English Rule recognizes that the host country has jurisdiction over crimes
committed on board the vessel unless they involve the internal management of the vessel.

3. PROSPECTIVE (Prospectivity) – penal laws do not have any retroactive effect.

Q: When we say penal laws cannot have any retroactive effect, what does this mean?
A: What is meant is whether or not a law can apply: (1) which makes an action done before the
passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action; (2)
which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; (3) which changes
the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was
committed.

Q: What Articles in the RPC that deal on the characteristics of “prospectivity”?

A: Arts. 21 & 22

Art. 21 states: “ No felony shall be punishable by any

penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission”.

Art. 22 states: “Penal laws shall have a retroactive

effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, etc.”

Exception to Prospective Application: when the new law is favorable to the accused.

Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to
the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

Case: Jerwin Dorado vs People, G.R. No. 216671, October 3, 2016

Dorado was only 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime in 2002. RA 9344 came
into law in 2006. Since it is favorable to the accused, it should be given a retroactive application. xxxxxx
favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda - penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given
retroactive effect.

But this exception has no application:

1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions

or existing causes of action. (Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471)
 5

2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62,

Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)

IV. REPEAL/AMENDMENT OF PENAL LAWS

EFFECTS OF REPEAL/AMENDMENTS OF PENAL LAWS

(1) When the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied,
except when:

a) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing

causes of actions, or

b) Where the offender is a habitual criminal.

(2) When repeal imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission
shall be applied.

(3) When repeal totally repeals the existing law so that the act is no longer punishable, the
crime is therefore obliterated. All existing actions are to be dismissed. (Example: The
repeal of par. 2 of Art. 202 – vagrancy is no longer a crime – RA 10158-An Act
Decriminalizing Vagrancy.)

V. LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL

LAWS

Q: What are the limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws?
A: (1) Must be general in application; (2) Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law;
(3) Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder; ( 4) Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines; (5) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.

Q: What is an ex post facto law?

A: An ex post facto law has been defined as one: (1) which makes an action done before the
passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action; (2)
which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; (3) which changes the
punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was
committed. (Article III, Sec. 1, par. 12 of the Constitution)

Q: What is a Bill of Attainder?

A: It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.

VI. FELONIES (Art. 3)

Q: What are felonies?

A: Felonies (delitos) are acts or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
Crimes involving special laws are properly called offenses while those acts violating
municipal or city ordinances are called Infractions.
Q: How are felonies committed?
A: Felonies (delitos) are committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of
fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. There is
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or
lack of skills.
 6

Elements of Felonies

1. There is an act or omission;

2. IT must be punishable by the RPC;
3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Offense- crimes punished under special law
Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law

Q: Is there a difference between a crime and a felony?

A: The word crime is generic, because it refers to all acts or omissions punishable by any
law. The acts or omissions punished by the RPC are called felonies. Those punished by
special laws are called crimes or offenses.

Q: If there are many crimes where there is no deceit, how come the law says that felonies are
committed by means of deceit or fault?
A: Because “deceit” is a wrong translation of the word “dolo”. Deceit is a form of dolo but
not every dolo constitutes deceit. The better translation for the Spanish word “dolo” is
INTENT. So there must be intent, instead of deceit.

Kinds of Felonies:

(1) INTENTIONAL FELONIES (dolo)

(2) CULPABLE FELONIES (culpa)

Requisites of Dolo:

(1) Criminal Intent – the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Intent to
commit an act with malice being purely a mental process is presumed. Such presumption
arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act. A mental state, hence, its
existence is shown by overt acts. But if there is no criminal intent, the act is justified,
hence the accused is not liable.

Intent - refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired result. It is a mental state, the
existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a person.

(2) Freedom of Action – voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the act or
omission. But if there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability.

(3) Intelligence – the capacity to know and understand the consequence of one’s act. But if
there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability.

Requisites of Culpa:

(1) Criminal Negligence on the part of the offender, the crime was the result of negligence,
reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

(2) Freedom of Action on the part of the offender. He was not acting under duress.

(3) Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Q: What is motive? Is it determinant of criminal liability?

A: Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired result.
Generally, motive is immaterial in the commission of a felony; it is intent which is
material.
 7

Motive alone will not bring about criminal liability because the RPC requires that there must be
an overt act or an omission. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes
before the intent.

Distinguish Motive from Intent

Motive Intent
> in the mind >in the mind
> moving power that impels a person > the purpose to use a particular
to commit a crime means to achieve a particular r
result
>Not an element of a felony > an element of a felony

Fault can either be: 1) imprudence –(deficiency of action or lack of skill) or 2) negligence –
(deficiency of perception or lack of foresight)

Q: Why does the law penalize people who commit culpable felonies, when actually
there was no criminal intent on the part of the offender?
A: SC said it is very dangerous if a person can get away with a criminal act simply
because he did not have the intent. Society will be at great risk if people can be
careless at anytime. Here, he is penalized for his lack of foresight/lack of skill.

In the commission of an intentional or culpable felony - it means that the act must be committed
VOLUNTARILY.

Elements of voluntariness in intentional felonies: (a) freedom (b)

Intelligence (c) Intent

Elements of voluntariness in culpable felonies: (a) freedom (b)

Intelligence (c) Fault or Negligence

Q: What do you mean by “voluntary act in a felony”?

A: It is an act which is free, there is intelligence and it intentional

MISTAKE OF FACT - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury
to another. He is not criminally liable.

Requisites:

1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;
3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.

Note: Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through
dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss
mistake of fact

Let us analyze the requisite according to the Ah Chong Case:

VI. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ART. 4)

 8

Q: Can a person be held criminally liable even if there is no criminal intent?

A: Yes in 2 instances: (1) when the felony is classified as culpable felony (2) crimes
malum prohibitum.

Q: What do you understand by the so called “extra-ordinary manner” of incurring

criminal liability?
A: This is covered under Article 4, RPC.

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act

done be different from that which he intended.

2. 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.

Problem:

A kills B. A aims his gun at B and shoots B. A’s intent is to kill B and B is killed.
Does A incur criminal liability?

Ans: Yes.---but this is not what is contemplated under par. 1 because the law says
“although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended”. Here, it
was really the intention of A to kill B.

Q: What is the relevance of this problem to Art. 4?

A: This section covers only the EXTRA-ORDINARY MEANS of committing a
crime or incurring criminal liability.

Ordinarily, you commit a felony & the wrongful act done was precisely what you intended. But
in par. 1, the wrongful act done is different from you have intended-unsual.

NOTE: Article 4 refers only to the EXTRA-ORDINARY manner of incurring criminal liability

Q: How many clauses are there in paragraph 1?

A: There are two clauses in this paragraph:

1) "By any person committing a felony (delito)," and

2) "Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended."

Q: Does the first clause refer only to intentional felony?

A: No, because the provision specified "delito" and under Article 3, delitos are
committed either by dolo or by culpa. Therefore, even if the wrongful act done be
different from what should have been the result of the culpable or negligent act
committed, a felony is still committed. Thus, the first clause refers to both dolo and
culpa.

PRINCIPLE: A person committing a felony is liable for the DIRECT, LOGICAL AND
NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF HIS CRIMINAL ACT.
 9

DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE: The cause which in the natural and continuous
sequence of event, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, results in a particular felony and
without which the result would not have occurred.

Requisites:

a. the direct, natural, and logical cause

b. produces the injury or damage
c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
d. without which the result would not have occurred

Let’s take the Cagoco Case: --- the victim did not die because of the punch but because his head
hit the pavement.

Q: Does the hitting of the head on the pavement which caused his death was something
absolutely foreign which broke the relation between the cause and effect between the punching
and death?

A: No. The immediate cause of death was the fractured skull, but the punching was the
proximate cause --- without the punching ---there is no falling down--- without falling down,
there is no head hitting the pavement --- if it did not happen then there will be no death.

Principle: He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused

Case: Garcia vs. People. G.R.# 171951, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 392

Facts: Amado Garcia and his friends were having a drinking spree adjacent to the house of
Manuel Chy. Chy appealed to the group to quiet down as the noise was blaring. Amado suddenly
punched Chy on the face and continuously assaulted him. Chy escaped by running home and told
his wife about the mauling. Wife went to the police and when they arrived they found Chy lying
unconscious on the kitchen floor. He was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The
autopsy report disclosed that Chy suffered a heart attack.
During trial, the doctor testified that the immediate cause of Chy's myocardial infarction was the
occlusion of the blood vessels. In short, because of the emotional crisis brought about by the
mauling, Chy's heart palpitated so fast such that there was less oxygen being pumped by the
heart.
Convicted of Homicide, Amado appealed, contending that he could be held liable only for slight
physical injuries because none of the blows he inflicted on Chy was fatal.
Issue: Is Amado criminally liable for the death of Chy?
Held: YES. It can be reasonably inferred from the foregoing statements that the emotional strain
from the beating aggravated Chy's delicate constitution and led to his death. The inevitable
conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial infarction suffered by the victim was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony that petitioner had intended-to commit.

Q: What do you mean by “efficient intervening cause”?

A: An “efficient intervening cause” is something absolutely foreign and totally
unexpected which intervened and which broke the relation of cause and effect,
between the original felonious act and the result.

Generally, infections are all considered as continuations or natural effects of what happened to
the victim. They are not efficient intervening cause.

The rule is: you are not liable if there is an efficient intervening cause .. meaning, there is
something which happened in between which is absolutely foreign between the victim’s death
 10

and the original act. There is a break in the relation of cause and effect then one is liable only
up to that point. Beyond that, there is no liability.

Rule: You are liable for all the DIRECT, LOGICAL and NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the
criminal act. The SC decisions do not tell us that you are liable for all the possible & probable
consequences of his act.

Case: US vs Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524

Facts: A had the intention of inflicting physical injuries upon the person of B. A approached B
and hit him with his fist. Because of A’s fist blows, B fell down and B’s head hit the pavement.
It fractured his skull and thus caused his death. Here, A had no intention of killing B. His
intention was merely to inflict physical injuries upon. But B died.

Issue: Is A liable for the death of B when his intention was only to inflict physical injuries?

Held: Yes. A is liable for homicide, although his intention was merely to inflict upon B physical
injuries, though under Art. 13, A is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that the offender did
not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Case: PP vs Quiamson, 62 Phil. 162

Facts: The accused inflicted wounds upon B because the accused stabbed B. So, B was brought
to the hospital so he was saved. In the hospital, there were many instruments attached to him, B
was restless while in bed. B removed the bandages on his wounds. Eventually, B died. The
accused was prosecuted for the death of B. He said that B’s death was not due to his fault but it
was the fault of B.

Held: No, the accused is liable—the wrong done was the direct, natural & logical consequence
of the felony committed.

Case: US vs Marasigan, 27 Phil. 504

Facts: A stabbed B. Because of B’s refusal to submit to medical treatment, the wound infected
and the injury became worse. So, slight physical injuries lang nagging serious physical injuries
na. A was charged for Serious Physical Injuries. A claimed that he should be liable only for
slight physical injuries because B’s serious physical injuries arose from B’s refusal to see a
doctor.

Issue: Is A liable for Serious Physical Injuries?

Held: Yes. The accused is still liable for Serious Physical Injuries although it was not intended.
The victim was not obliged to submit to medical treatment to relieve the accused from the
natural and ordinary result of his crime.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Q: What is an impossible crime?

A: An impossible crime is one where the acts performed would have been a crime
against persons or property but which is not accomplished because of its inherent
impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

There is intent (subjective) to commit a crime but actually no crime is committed (objective).

Q: Why is it that in Art. 4 (2), it states: “performing an act”, whereas Art. 4(1), it
says, “committing a felony”?
A: Because in Art. 4 (2), there is no known felony. Unlike in Art. 4 (1) where there is
a known felony which he committed. In par 2, the offender did not actually commit a
 11

felony as defined in the RPC, but he performed an act which would be an offense
against person or property. In other words: There is no such thing as impossible crime
by omission

Under Article 4(2), the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons
or property because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual. (Intod vs.
CA, October 1992)

Q: Are all impossible attempts to commit a crime punishable?

A: No. To be considered an impossible crime, it would have been an offense against
person or property.
Problem:

A wanted to kill B. A plan to stab him in his room at 12:00 midnite while B would be
sleeping --- A saw B lying on bed, then A started stabbing B without him knowing
that B is already dead 1 hour ago.

Q: Is A liable for crime of murder?

A: No. Impossible. You cannot kill somebody who is already dead. There is a
physical impossibility. But had B been alive, then it would have been murder.
Impossible crime.
Problem:
Example: A wants to steal B’s sunglasses. A stole it. It turned out that the sunglasses
was his. Did A commit the crime of theft? Ans: No---in theft, the personal property
taken belongs to another but here sunglasses was his. There is legal impossibility
Q: Is there a crime committed?
A: Yes, impossible crime

Requisites of impossible crime:

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed
is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

PRINCIPLE: There is no frustrated or attempted felony in impossible crime. It is always

consummated and applies only to grave or less grave felonies.

PRINCIPLE: There must be criminal intent on the part of the offender.----the offender
believes that he was committing a crime at that very moment.

PRINCIPLE: A person could be liable for an impossible crime only if the act performed
does not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. --- crime of last resort.
Impossible crime is a provision of last resort, if there is no other provision under which a
certain set of facts may be prosecuted.

Q: What is the penalty for an Impossible Crime?

A: Art. 59 --- arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.
 12

Q: How can a person commit a felony and the wrongful done is different from that which
he intended?

A: There are 3 situations contemplated under Art. 4 (1). They are:

1. Error in personae (error in identity)

2. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the blow)
3. Praeter Intentionem (the result exceeded the intention)

Note: The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional felony or dolo.
These situations do not arise out of criminal negligence.

1.Error in personae (error in identity)

— there is only one offended party but the offender committed a mistake in ascertaining the
identity of the victim.

2. ABERRATIO ICTUS

Q: What is aberratio ictus? How does it affect the offender's criminal liability?
A: In aberratio ictus, there is no mistake in the identity of the victim but mistake in the blow.
The offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. There are three
persons present: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim. Consequently, the act
may result in a complex crime (Article 48) or in two felonies, but there is only one intent that
characterized the crimes.

In error in personae, there is a correct aim but the actual victim

turned out to be a person different from the intended victim.

In aberratio ictus, on the other hand, because of faulty aim, the

intended victim is not the person hit

3.Praeter Intentionem (the result exceeded the intention)

In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is so
grave a wrong than what was intended. There should be a great disparity between the intended
felony and the actual felony committed.

Q: Explain and illustrate aberratio ictus. (2015, 1993) What do you understand by
aberration ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem? Do they alter the
criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (1999, 1994, 1989) A: Aberatio ictus, error
in personae and praeter intentionem are the three ways by which a person may
commit a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he
intended.

A: In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in blow whereby an offender intending to

cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another because of lack of
precision. Illustration: A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at the latter but because of
poor aim or lack of precision, he hits C instead, who suffers serious physical injury.

In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim. The offender
intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. The intended victim
was not at the scene of the crime. Illustration: A intending to kill B, his enemy, lay in
ambush for the latter to pass along a dark alley. Because of the darkness, A fired his
gun at a person passing by, thinking him to be B. It turned out that the person shot
was C, A's father.
 13

In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by the
offender. Here, there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the
act of the offender and the felony which resulted. Illustration: A, without intent to
kill, struck the victim on the back, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head on
the pavement.

Yes, the presence of these circumstances will alter the criminal liability of the
accused. Thus:

1. In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually committed by the offender, that which
he intended to commit and that which he actually committed. But if these two
offenses are both either grave or less grave, since they are produced by one single act,
a complex crime will result upon which the penalty for the most serious crime shall
be imposed in its maximum period;

2. In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be guilty of the crime actually
committed by him, but the penalty to be imposed shall either be the penalty for the
crime actually committed or that for the crime intended to be committed whichever is
lower, but the same will be imposed in its maximum period;

3. In praeter intentionem, the offender, will incur criminal liability for the felony
actually committed by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed under
Art. 13 [3] of the Revised Penal Code.

VII. STAGES IN THE EXECUTION OF A FELONY – Art. 6

Q: What are the stages in the execution of a felony?

A: Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies

Q: What is a consummated felony?

A: A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.

Q: What is a frustrated felony?

A: When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Q: What is an attempted felony?

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

PREPARATORY ACTS

Q: Are preparatory acts punishable?

A: Generally, No, because the act of buying a knife is not the act of killing your wife
or the act of practicing shooting is not preparatory to the act of shooting your enemy.

PRINCIPLE: Preparatory external acts are not punishable EXCEPT when the law
specifically provides for a penalty for such preparatory acts.

Example: Art. 304 – possession of picklocks – these are gadgets used to open doors, robbers
possessed this kind of instrument. But the possession of a false key or pick lock is not the actual
 14

act of robbery. It is only in preparation of robbery. Preparatory acts to commit robbery is not
punishable but Art. 304 states that mere possession of these objects which are preparatory to the
crime of robbery with force upon things is also punishable.

ACTS OF EXECUTION: ---this is the implementation of the plan. The offender now executes
the commission of the act and there are 3 possibilities: It could either be ATTEMPTED,
FRUSTRATED & CONSUMMATED.

Attempted Stage - There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts ------ overt acts: therefore, there is no attempted stage in felony by
omission. Take note: the attempted stage refers only to “felony by act”.

"Overt acts" or external acts — those which if allowed to continue will logically result in a
felony; it is the start of criminal liability.

"Directly" — The attempted felony is that directly linked to the overt act no matter what the
intention is.

PRINCIPLE: in order to convict a person for an attempted felony, the overt act must have
a direct relation to the felony for which he is charged.

Case: Pp vs Lamahong, 61 Phil. 707

Facts: One night a group of policemen while patrolling saw a figure in the dark. They stopped
and observed what the guy was doing. The guy did not know that he was being watched by the
policemen. What the guy did was he was trying to create an opening to enter the house. When he
was able to create an opening and the accused was already in the act of entering the house, that
was the time when the policemen caught him. The guy was charged for the crime of Attempted
Robbery because according to the prosecution, the guy commenced the commission of robbery
directly by overt acts by trying to enter the house in the middle of the night.

SC: No attempted robbery – there is no connection on what he was doing and the elements of
robbery. How do you commit the crime of robbery? – it is committed by taking personal
property belonging to another by violence against or intimidation of person. In this case, he has
not yet commenced the act of taking anything. They caught him in the act of entering but
robbery is not committed by entering but by taking. There is no connection between the act &
the crime for which he is charged. So it was premature to charge him with attempted robbery.
He was in the act of entering a house while all occupants are asleep. When one enters a house
against the will of the occupants, he commits the crime of trespass to dwelling – the crime that
is committed is attempted trespass to dwelling and not attempted robbery. But he may be
charged with attempted trespass because that act is directly related to the purpose of entering the
store or consummated malicious mischief because of the destruction of property.
PRINCIPLE: One must commence the felony by overt act and the overt act must be
related to the crime for which he is charged.

Q: A person enters the dwelling of another. However, at the very moment of his entry
and before he could do anything, he is already apprehended by the household
members, can he be charged with attempted robbery?
A: No. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be
what he may have planned to commit. He may be held liable for trespassing.
 15

PRINCIPLE: The desistance must come before the commission of the crime. The
desistance must not come after you have executed all the acts of execution on the theory
that you cannot desist something that you have already accomplished.
Problem

A stole the wallet of B. He went out but came back and return the wallet.

Q: Is there an attempted theft or there is no theft because A desisted?

A: No. There is no attempted theft here but a consummated theft---the moment A
took the wallet and left --- the crime of theft has already been accomplished. When A
return the wallet ---- we cannot say that there is desistance – you cannot desist when
the crime is already consummated --- but you may avail yourself in Art. 13,
mitigating circumstance.

FRUSTRATED STAGE: when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Distinguish between the attempted and frustrated felonies.

a. As to acts of execution, in attempted, not all acts of execution had been done
whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had been performed.

b. As to causes of non-accomplishment, in attempted, the felony was not produced

by reason of cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous
desistance; in frustrated the reason for the frustration is some cause independent
of the will of the perpetrator.

c. In attempted stage, the offender is still in the subjective phase as he still has
control of his acts; whereas in the frustrated stage, he is already in the objective
phase because all the acts of execution are already there and the cause of its non-
accomplishment is other than the offender's own will. Hence, if the felony was
not produced by the will of the offender, such as his giving the antidote for the
poison he administered on the victim, there is no frustrated homicide, but some
other crime, e.g., physical injuries. Example: In attempted homicide, the wound is
not mortal, hence, the offender should still need to deal another blow on the
victim which he was not able to do because of some cause or accident like his
being apprehended. In frustrated homicide, the wound is mortal, already sufficient
to bring about death, hence, there is no more need of another blow from the
offender. But death nevertheless did not supervene because of timely medical
attendance.

Note: The similarity of these stages is that the felony is not accomplished, it is not produced or
consummated but the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is different.

What crimes that do not admit of frustrated stage?

They are those which, by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender cannot possibly
perform all the acts of execution to bring the desired result without consummating the offense.
Examples:

(1) Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, no matter how
slight is the penetration, the felony is consummated. If the male organ failed to touch the
pudenda, by some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the
felony is merely attempted. If he desisted spontaneously, he is not liable for attempted
rape, following Article 6, but he is liable for some other crime such as acts of
lasciviousness. (PP vs Orande, November 12, 2003)
 16

(2) Arson, because this is punished as to its result, hence, the moment burning of the
property occurs, even if slight, the offense is consummated.
(3) Corruption of public officers, because the offense requires the concurrence of the will
of both parties, such that when the offer is accepted, the offense is consummated. But
when the offer is rejected, the offense is merely attempted.
(4) Adultery because the essence of the crime is sexual congress.
(5) Physical injury since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less
serious, or serious unless and until consummated.
(6) Indirect Bribery because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public officer
by reason of his office. If he does not accept, he does not commit the crime. If he accepts,
it is consummated.
(7) Theft because the unlawful taking immediately consummates the offense and the
disposition of the thing is not an element of the crime.

CONSUMMATED STAGE: when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.

To convict a person of a particular crime, you have to prove all the elements to establish the
crime. If all the elements of a crime are present, then the felony is consummated.

Is there an instance that there is difficulty in determining the stage of execution? YES.

>there is no distinction between Attempted and Frustrated Felony --- special crimes.
--- where you attempt to do it, but your attempt constitutes the consummation of the crime.
Example: Crimes against National Security --Art. 121. Flight to Enemy’s Country. The penalty
of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegiance to the government,
attempts to flee or to go an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority.

>consummated or nothing --- there are crimes where there is no attempted or

frustrated. It is either consummated or nothing.

a) Felony by omission --- you failed to perform an act which the law commands you to
do as a duty.----- If you do the act --- you don’t commit the crime. But if you do not
do it ---- there is a crime, So it is either you do or you do not do.
b) False testimony in court
c) Slander or Oral Defamation ---
d) Arson ----

IX. CONSPIRACY/PROPOSAL - Art. 8.

Q: When is there proposal to commit a felony?

A: There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes
its execution to some other person or persons.

Q: When is there conspiracy to commit a felony?

A: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Q: How do we define conspiracy?

A: when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.

Q: Is conspiracy a felony?
 17

A: As a general rule, a conspiracy does not constitute a felony; it is merely a

preparatory act in the execution of a felony. And as we already learned from Art. 6, a
preparatory act is generally not punishable.

Q: When is conspiracy punishable as a felony?

A: A conspiracy, as expressly stated in par. 1, is punishable only in cases where the
law specially provides a penalty therefore. In other words, a conspiracy is not a
felony. Conspiracy only becomes a felony if it is made so by specific provision of
law.

Note: Once the proposal is accepted –------ it now reaches the stage of conspiracy.
GEN. RULE: Proposal or conspiracy to commit a felony is not
punishable.
EXCEPT: when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore.
PRINCIPLE: Proposal or conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable unless the law
makes the proposal or conspiracy punishable.

Q: Example of Proposal or Conspiracy as a Crime or are there instances when mere

conspiracy or mere proposal becomes a crime?
A: Yes, when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. There are many
crimes in the RPC which can be consummated by mere proposal or conspiracy:

a) machinations in public auctions

b) monopoly or combination in restraint of trade
c) when a public officer or a warden makes unchaste proposal to a woman
prisoner who is under his custody --- abuse against chastity
d) conspiracy to commit treason – Art. 115
e) conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection – Art. 136
f) conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat – Art. 136 as amended by RA 6968
g) conspiracy to commit sedition – Art. 141

How about Proposals?

a) Proposal to commit treason – Art. 115

b) Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection –Art 136
c) Proposal to commit coup d’ etat – Art. 136-A

Q: What is the effect of a conspiracy?

A: A conspiracy merely creates co-responsibility between or among the accused.
Once a conspiracy has been established, then each and everyone accused of being a
conspirator, who joined in the conspiracy, becomes liable as a principal for the crime
committed. As the saying goes, the act of one becomes the act of all. (Pp vs Gallo,
318 SCRA 157 and Pp vs Recones, 310 SCRA 809)

X. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Articles 11, 12, 13,

14 & 15)

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:

1. Justifying circumstances under Article 11;

2. Exempting circumstances provided for under Article 12;
3. Mitigating circumstances prescribed in Article 13;
 18

4. Aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14;

5. Alternative circumstances classified under Article 15 as either mitigating or aggravating.

Offenders falling under either Article 11 or 12 are without criminal liability; those
benefited by the circumstances in Article 13 have reduced criminal liability; those proved to
be more perverse by committing the felony with any of the circumstances in Article 14 have
increased criminal liability; and those who act while under the circumstances stated in Article
15 will have their liability either increased or reduced depending upon the situation obtaining
in the commission of the felony.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

The act of the person is said to be in accordance with law --- he is considered not to have
transgressed the law thus, he incurs no criminal liability.

Important Points:

Self-defense applies only to crimes against persons --- like homicide or murder or physical
injuries

Note: Art. 11 is a matter of defense. The defense of self-defense should be proved by clear &
convincing evidence which is approximately proof beyond reasonable doubt --- the burden of
proof rest on the accused.

Why? --- because when one invokes self-defense – the accused automatically admit that he killed
the victim.

Rule: Since there is no crime, necessarily there is no civil liability ex delicto.

Except: In paragraph 4, wherein civil liability may be adjudged against those who benefited from
the act which caused damage to the property of the victim but spared their own properties from
consequent damages. The civil liability in Par. 4 is provided for in Art. 101, and is commendably
in line with the rule against unjust enrichment.

Q: What are the rights included in self-defense?

A: Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also
that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes:

(1) Defense of the person's home

(2) Defense of rights protected by law
(3) The right to honor (Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since
the face represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious, personal attack (Rugas v.
People, G.R. No. 147789, Jan. 14, 2004).
(4) The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property
although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises.
All the elements for justification must however be present (People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos.
L- 33466-67, Apr. 20,1983).

Requisites of self-defense

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

Q: What are the effects of self-defense?

 19

A: (1) When all the elements are present - the person defending himself is free from
criminal liability and civil liability and (2) When only a majority of the elements are
present - privileged mitigating circumstance provided there is unlawful aggression.

Q: What is the nature of an unlawful aggression?

A: For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an "actual, sudden and
unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude" and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of
real aggression.

Elements of unlawful aggression

(1) There must be a physical or material attack or assault;

(2) The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
(3) The attack or assault must be unlawful

Two kinds of unlawful aggression

(1) Actual or material unlawful aggression which means an attack with physical force or
with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to
cause the injury;

(2) Imminent unlawful aggression which is an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude (People v. Mapait, G.R. No.
172606, November 23, 2011

Q: May a person act in defense of his property?

Example: A, thief, tries to run away with your wallet. In order to stop him from
running. You shoot him. Can you claim self-defense by invoking that there was an
unlawful aggression on your property right because he was taking your wallet. Are
you justified in saying: “I have to shoot him because there was an unlawful
aggression on my property rights.

A: NO. Defense of property can give rise to self-defense only if the attack on one’s
property is coupled with an attack on his person.

Q: Can there be self-defense when what is involved is property?

A: If what is to be saved is property ONLY, killing is not justified. To justify killing,
it must be necessary to do it in order to save another life.
If the aggression is on the property, even if there was no attack on the defender or
owner or possessor, defense is proper but not to the extent of taking life. Killing the
aggressor will not be justified because the means used to repel or prevent the
aggression will not then be reasonable.

REASON: The value of property can never be equated to human life which is supposed to
be priceless.

SECOND ELEMENT: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
aggression.

“prevent” --- actual aggression

“repel” ------ a threatened aggression
 20

Note: In preventing or repelling --- you must use reasonable means.

Q: What do you mean by “reasonable means”?

A: (1) the course of action taken is reasonable and (2) the weapon used to defend
must also be reasonable.

Q: What is “course of action taken is reasonable?

A: The offender’s conduct and response to the occasion

Q: When is there reasonable necessity of the means employed?

A: It depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of
the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal. IT CANNOT BE
MEASURED BY MATHEMATICAL EQUATION.

Factors taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of means employed by the
person defending himself:

(1) Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor.

(2) Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of both the offender and
defender.
(3) Place and occasion of the assault.

Rule: When a person is attacked – a person will instinctively used the first available means
at his disposal to defend himself – when a person is under attack --- he is not expected to
think cooly and to choose what kind of weapon he is going to use.

“Reasonableness of the weapon” ---- is not only measured by using a knife against a fist; a club
as against a chaco.

Note: “Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability
between the means of attack & defense. What the law requires is “rational equivalence” (Pp vs
Gutual, 254 SCRA 37).

Note: you have to consider the 1) size or power of the weapon, 2) the character of the
parties & 3) their relative standing.

THIRD ELEMENT: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

If you were the one who cause the aggression – no self-defense because you gave provocation.
You cannot say that you are totally faultless because you are partly to be blamed.

Ex: A provokes B, by reason of the provocation, B attacks A, a defends himself with reasonable
means. A cannot claim self-defense.

PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER:

1. No provocation at all was given to aggressor by person defending himself.

2. Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient.
3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.
4. Even if provocation was given by person defending himself, it was not the proximate and
immediate to the act of aggression.
 21

5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one
to its commission.

Q: How do you determine whether or not the provocation is sufficient?

A: The provocation that was given in such that it is normal and natural for a person to
react by becoming an unlawful aggressor. For provocation to be considered serious
by the court, the degree must be sufficient and must at all times be immediate to the
unlawful aggression. (Castanares vs. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 567)

Q: A, unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then took out his gun which caused A to
run away. B, after treating his wounds, pursued A and shot him. Can B invoke self-
defense?

A: No. The unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists. When the
aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even to
wound the former aggressor. In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-
defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be
simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded
each other without appreciable interval of time.

RULE: The person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his
blow. The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified as long as the mortal
wounds are inflicted at a time when the elements of complete self-defense are still present

NOTE: The aggression ceases except when retreat is made to take a more advantageous
position to insure the success of the attack begun, unlawful aggression continues.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

Requisites of defense of relatives

1. Unlawful aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. Relative being defended gave no provocation.

NOTE: The law gives a leeway on the third requisite, even if the relative being defended gave
the provocation, if the relative making the defense had no part therein, he can successfully
invoke the defense of relative.

Relatives covered under defense of relatives:

1) Spouse;
2) Ascendants;
3) Descendants;
4) Legitimate, adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity in the same degrees
(namely: ascendants-in-law; descendants-in-law, and siblings-in-law)
5) Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Requisites of defense of strangers:

(1) Unlawful aggression

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
(3) Person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive
 22

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

In defense of relatives, even In defense of strangers, if the
though the person making the person making the defense acted
defense acted out of some evil out of revenge, resentment or
motive, he can still invoke the some evil motive in killing the
justifying circumstance, as long as aggressor, he cannot invoke the
he did not contribute to the justifying circumstance.
unlawful aggression

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

Requisites of state of necessity (El-PC)

a) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists.

b) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
c) There be no other Practical and less harmful means of preventing it, and
d) There must be no Contribution on the part of the accused what caused the
evil to arise.

NOTE: The state of necessity must not have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence by the one invoking the justifying circumstances.

NOTE: Generally, there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances. The civil liability
referred to herein is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of
necessity. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the
state of necessity. On the other hand, persons who did not participate in the damage or injury
would be civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity.

Case: People vs Punzalan, December 10, 2012

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

Requisites of fulfillment of duty

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 exercise of such right or office.

Problem:

A: Lucresia was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, Lucresia,
while in her store, noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-iun. As
soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought the help of
Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the
latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-jun
who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the
air but Jun-Jun continued to run. Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit
and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an
opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot
at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the
 23

hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat. Reyes was
subsequently charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat. Reyes raised the defense,
by way of exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense
tenable? (2000 BQ)

A: No. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a

condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or
necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People v. Oanis, G.R. No.
L-47722, July 27, 1943). It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a
duty. After Jun-Jun was shot In the right leg and was already crawling, there was no
need for Pat Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of
duty, which brought about the cause of death of the victim.

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Requisites of obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose (OLM)

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

NOTE: Both the person who gives the order, and the person who executes it, must be acting
within the limitations prescribed by law.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Exempted from criminal liability

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

2. A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. 9344.

3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has acted with discernment in
which case, such child shall be subject to appropriate proceedings in accordance with R.A. 9344.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without the fault or intention causing it.

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

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

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.

Q: In case of exempting circumstances, is there a crime committed?

A: Yes. There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because of
the complete absence any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness
of the act.

Distinctions between Justifying & Exempting:

Justifying Exempting
 24

>the act is within the bound of the law >the act is criminal

>there is no crime, hence no criminal >there is a crime & a criminal

>since there is no crime, there is no >since there is a crime, there is

Criminal liability & no civil liability a criminal (but exempted) &
Except par. 4 there is a civil liability

>the emphasis of the law is on the >the emphasis is on the actor.

act

Basis: Complete absence of intelligence

Q: What is imbecility? What is insanity?

A: It is a condition of the mind where the offender might be advance in age but the
mental development is comparable to that of a child between two to seven years old.

Insanity – exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing

the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is a
total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will
not exclude imputability (Pp vs Danao, November 1992)

Note: The burden rests on the accused to establish that fact, for the law presumes every man to
be sane. Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove insanity, the legal presumption of
one’s sanity stands. (Zosa vs CA, March 1994)

Note: Art. 800 NCC – presumes every person to be of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary.

Presumption is in favor of sanity --- The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the
time of the commission of the crime.

NOTE: Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities are not enough.

Two Test:

1. Cognition test or complete deprivation in committing the act

2. Volition test or a total deprivation of the freedom of the will

Q: What is the nature of insanity as a defense?

A: Insanity is a defense in nature of confession and avoidance and as such must be

adequately proved. The law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and that acts
are done consciously. xxxxx In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Proof of the existence of
some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability, if it can be
shown that the offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence
(People vs Belonio, May 27, 2004)

Q: What are effects of insanity of the accused?

A: The following are the effects:

(1) At the time of the commission of the crime - exempted

(2) During trial - proceedings suspended until the mental capacity of the accused
is restored to afford him fair trial, accused is committed to a hospital.
 25

(3) After judgment or while serving sentence - execution of judgment is

suspended, the accused is committed to a hospital. The period of confinement in the
hospital is counted for the purpose of the prescription of the penalty.

MINORITY

Note: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code have been amended by RA 9344
(a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1402 and House Bill No. 5065) which was finally passed by
the Senate and House of Representatives on March 22, 2006. RA 9344 took effect on May 21,
2006. Hence, the amendments above stated.

Q: What is discernment?
A: Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Such capacity may be known and be determined by taking into consideration all the
facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the manner the crime
was committed, and the conduct of the offender after its commission.

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 - RA 9344

Child in conflict with the law — refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws.

NOTE: The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/she shall
enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be 18 years old or
older.

MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TREATMENT OF CHILD BELOW AGE OF

RESPONSIBILITY

AGE BRACKET CRIMINAL LIABILITY TREATMENT

15 years old or below Exempt The child shall be subjected to an

intervention program.

Above 15 but blow 18, who acted Exempt The child shall be subjected to an
without discernment intervention program.

Above 15 but below 18, who Not exempted Such child shall be subjected to the
acted with discernment. appropriate proceedings in accordance with
RA 9344.

Note: The exemption from criminal liability in the cases describe above does not include exemption from civil liability , which shall be
enforced in accordance with existing laws.
 26

Note: Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a child, fifteen (15) years and one (1) day
old or above but below eighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense with discernment
(Revised Rules on Children in Conflict with the Law –A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)

Note: The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority until he/she is
proven to be 18 years old or older. (Section 7, par. 1)

Discernment — mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of an unlawful act. It can
be shown by the manner the crime was committed and the conduct or utterances of the offender
after the commission of the offense.

Status Offenses — Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an
adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child. (Sec.
57, RA 9344)

EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY: STATUS OFFENSES AND OFFENSES

NOT APPLICABLE TO CHILDREN

Exempting provisions under this act

1) Status offenses (Sec. 57) - Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if
committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if
committed by a child. Example: Curfews for minors

2) Offenses not applicable to children (Sec. 58) - Persons below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of:

Vagrancy and prostitution under Sec. 202 of RPC

Sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619

NOTE: Under R.A. 10158, Vagrancy has been decriminalized but

prostitution is still a crime.

3) Under Sec 59 with regard to exemption from the application of death penalty.

NOTE: R.A. 9344 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in

the Philippines

ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR

INTENTION OF CAUSING IT
(DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.

Conditions necessary to exempt a person from liability under subsection 4 of Article 12 of RPC
1. That the act causing the injury be lawful; that is, permitted not only by law but also by
regulations.
2. That it be performed with due care.
3. That the injury be caused by mere accident, i.e., by an unforeseen event.
4. That there be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
Note: If not all the conditions necessary are present to exempt from liability, the act should be
considered as: Reckless imprudence, if the act is executed without taking those precautions of
measures which the most common prudence would require; or Simple imprudence, if it is a
 27

mere lack of precaution in those cases where either the threatened harm is not imminent or the
danger is not openly visible.

Accident

An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. It
presupposes a lack of intention to commit the wrong done.

Problem:

Q: A and B are both security guards. A turned-over to 3 a service firearm who held it
with both hands, with the muzzle pointed at A and the butt towards B. At that
moment, B held opposite the muzzle of the gun where the trigger is, and almost slip
with it while in the act of gripping and then immediately the gun went off and
accidentally shot A. A was able to recover from the shot. B was then charged with
frustrated homicide. Can B raised the defense of accident to mitigate his liability?

A: No. It is axiomatic that a person who invokes accident must prove that he acted
with due care. This was belied by the conduct of the accused when he allegedly
received the shotgun from the private complainant. As he himself admitted, he
received the shotgun by placing his pointer finger, also known as trigger finger
because it is used to squeeze the trigger, inside the trigger guard and over the trigger
itself. Worse, he did so while the barrel of the gun was pointed at the private
complainant. According to him, he knew that it was not proper for a person to
receive a firearm from another by immediately inserting a finger inside the trigger
guard. Likewise, he knew that the hand-over of a firearm with its barrel pointed the
giver or any other person was not proper. That he did these improper acts despite his
training and experience as a security guard undermines any notion that he had acted
with due c a r e d u r i n g t h e subject incident (People v. Lanuza G. R. No. 188562,
August 17, 2011)

COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Irresistible Force - It is a degree of force which is external or physical which reduces the person
to a mere instrument and the acts produced are done without and against his will.

Requisites of compulsion of irresistible force

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

Nature of physical force required by par. 5

The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without
will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act is done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat (People of the Philippines v. Loreno, 130 SCRA 311).

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Requisites of uncontrollable fear

 28

(1) Threat, which causes the fear, is of an evil greater than or at least equal to that
which he is required to commit.

(2) It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.

Elements of uncontrollable fear

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

NOTE: A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

In case of uncontrollable fear, it is necessary that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear on
the offender must be present, clear and personal. It must not only be/merely an imagined threat
or court Interfered threat.

IRRESISTIBLE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

FORCE
A person is A person is compelled by another to
compelled by commit a crime by means of intimidation
another to commit or threat.
a crime by means
of violence or
physical force.
The irresistible The uncontrollable fear may be
force must have generated by a threatened act directed to
been made to a third person such as the wife of the
operate directly accused who was kidnapped, but the evil
upon the person of feared must be greater or at least equal
the accused and to the damage caused to avoid it.
the injury feared
may be of a lesser
degree than the
damage caused by
the accused.

NOTE: The person who used the force or created the fear is criminally and primarily civilly liable, but the accused who
performed the act involuntarily and under duress is still secondarily civilly liable (Art. 101).

Distinction between Irresistible force vs Uncontrollable fear.

PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE

Insuperable cause ---- Some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically prevented a
person to do what the law commands.

Requisites under this exempting circumstance

1. An act is required by law to be done.

2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

XI. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

 29

Q: What are mitigating circumstances?

A: They are those which if present in the commission of a crime, do not entirely free
the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty.

Note: Mitigating circumstances serve to reduce the penalty in terms of degree or period. But,
does not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the crime

NOTE: Mitigating circumstances must be present prior to or simultaneously with the

commission of the offense, except voluntary surrender or confession of guilt by the accused (Par.
7)

Classes of Mitigating Circumstances:

a) Ordinary mitigating
b) Privileged mitigating

Distinctions between Ordinary and Privileged Mitigating circumstances.

Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by a generic aggravating

circumstance. A privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset by
any aggravating circumstance;

One ordinary mitigating circumstance if not offset by a generic

aggravating circumstance has the effect of imposing the minimum
penalty. A privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of lowering
the penalty by one or two degrees lower than that prescribed by law.

The presence of two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances without

any aggravating circumstance partake of the nature of a privileged
mitigating as the penalty to be imposed is one degree lower to that
prescribed by law. The rule applies only if the penalty imposable is
divisible. (Art. 64, par, 5, RPC)

Ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances are generally

applicable to all felonies

Read: Pp vs Geronimo, 290 SCRA 146, Pp vs Lising, 285 SCRA 595, Pp vs Valles, 267 SCRA
103 (Gensan case)

Privileged mitigating circumstances under the RPC

1) When the offender is a minor under 18 years of age (Art. 68)

2) When the crime committed is not wholly excusable {Art. 69)
3) When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance,
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according the number and nature of such circumstances (Art. 64, par. 5)
4) Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within 3 days without the offender
attaining his purpose and before the institution of the criminal action [Art. 268, par. 3)
5) Abandonment without justification by the offended spouse in case of adultery (Art. 333,
par. 3)
6) Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide (Art. 255, par. 2)

INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

Incomplete justifying/ exempting circumstance means that not all the requisites to justify the act
are present or not all the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present.
 30

Effect on criminal liability of the offender of

incomplete justifying circumstances or incomplete
exempting circumstances

If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal
liability are present, the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are
present, the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. The
penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees. When there are only two conditions to justify the
act or to exempt from criminal liability, the presence of one shall be regarded as the majority.

Condition necessary before incomplete self-

defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger
may be invoked

The offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. Without unlawful aggression, there
can be no incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, or defense of stranger.

Effect on the criminal liability of the offender of

incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or
defense of stranger

If only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the other requisites being absent, the
offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

However, if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite, but not all, is
present, the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In such a
case, the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the
court regards the importance of the requisites present or absent.

Not applicable to exempting circumstance of accident

Under Art. 12, par. 4, there are four requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident. First,
a person must be performing a lawful act. Second, such must be done with due care. Third, an
injury was caused to another by mere accident. Fourth, there is no fault or intention of causing
such injury.

If the act was performed with due care but there was fault in causing an injury, the case will fall
under Article 365, felonies by negligence or imprudence. The effect would be like a mitigating
circumstance since said article states that the penalty will be lower than if the felony was
committed intentionally.

If the person is performing a lawful act but has the intention to cause an injury, it will be an
intentional felony, the second and third requisite will no longer apply.

Legal effects of the various age brackets of the offender with respect to his
criminal liability
AGE EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BRACKE
T

15 and Exempting circumstance

 31

under
Over 15 Exempting circumstance, if he acted without
under 18 discernment. Mitigating circumstance, if he acted
with discernment

18 to 70 Full criminal responsibility

Over 70 Mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death
penalty; execution of death sentence if already
imposed is suspended and commuted.

NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A

WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)

Application if the resulting felony could be

expected from the means employed

It is necessary that there be a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed by
the offender compared to that of the resulting felony, if the resulting felony could be expected
from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem cannot be availed.

Not applicable to felonies by negligence

It Is not applicable because the offender acts without intent The intent in intentional felonies is
replaced by negligence or imprudence.

Factors in order to ascertain the intention

1) The weapon used

2) The part of the body injured
3) The injury inflicted
4) The manner it is inflicted

Not applicable when the offender employed brute force

Example: If the rapist choked the victim, the choking contradicts the claim that he had no
intention to kill the girl.
Mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated

The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually
perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably
sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim

NOTE: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be raised as a mitigating

circumstance under the Anti-Hazing Law.

SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION

Threat need not be offensive and positively strong

Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat to inflict real
injury is an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and thus, no longer a
mitigating circumstance.

Provocation
 32

Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting,
inciting or irritating anyone.

Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation

1) Provocation must be sufficient.

2) It must originate from the offended party.
3) It must be immediate to the act.

Sufficient threat or provocation as a mitigating circumstance

v. Threat or provocation as an element of self- defense

As an element of self-defense it pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending
himself while as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended
party (People v. CA, G.R No. 103613, Feb. 23, 2001).

Sufficiency depends on:

(1) The act constituting the provocation

(2) The social standing of the person provoked
(3) Time and place provocation took place

Q: L's mother insulted M. M kills N because of the insults. Can M avail of the
mitigating circumstance?
A: No. There is no mitigating circumstance because it was the mother who insulted
her, not L.

NOTE: The liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar as it concerns the harm Inflicted on
the person who made the provocation, but not with regard to the other victims who did not
participate in the provocation (US v. Malabanan, 9 Phil 262).
Reason why the law require that "provocation must be immediate to the
act” (i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked)

If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited the
accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise
self-control. Moreover, the law presupposes that during that interval, whatever anger or
diminished self-control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or
diminished.

NOTE: As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence
of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is acting under a diminished self-control.
This is the reason why it is mitigating. However, there are two criteria that must be taken into
consideration:

(1) If from the element of time, there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and
there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had
prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime, then the
criterion to be used is based on time element.

(2) However, if there is that time element and at the same time, facts are given indicating
that at the time the offender committed the crime, he is still suffering from outrage of
the threat or provocation done to him, then, he will still get the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.

VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

 33

NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person. It concerns the good names and reputation
of the individual (People v. Ampar, 37 Phil. 201).

Requisites of vindication of a grave offense

1) Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree.
2) A felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

NOTE: The vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was
committed or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party.

"Offense" contemplated

The word offense should not be construed as equivalent to crime. It is enough that what was
done was wrong.

Factors to be considered in determining whether the wrong is grave or not

1. Age
2. Education
3. Social status

Lapse of time allowed between the vindication and

the doing of the grave offense

The word "immediate" in par. 5 is not an accurate translation of the Spanish text which uses the
term "proximo." A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave
offense. It is enough that:

(1) The offender committed the crime;

(2) The grave offense was done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or descendant or to his
brother or sister, whether natural, adopted or legitimate
(3) The grave offense is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime

SUFFICIENT VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

THREAT OR
PROVOCATION
It is made directly The grave offense may be committed also against the
only to the person offender's relatives mentioned in the law.
committing the
felony.
The cause that The offended party must have done a grave offense
brought about the against the offender or his relatives mentioned in the law.
provocation need
not be a grave
offense.
It is necessary that The vindication of the grave offense may be proximate
the provocation or which admits of interval of time between the grave offense
threat immediately committed by the offended party and the commission of
preceded the act. the crime of the accused.
There must be no
interval of time
between the
provocation and the
commission of the
crime.
 34

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feeling which produces excitement so powerful as to
overcome reason and self-control. It must come from prior unjust or improper acts. The passion
and obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.

Elements of passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance

(1) Accused acted upon an impulse

(2) Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him.

NOTE: The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order to be
mitigating.

Requisites of passion or obfuscation

1) That there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a

condition of mind.

2) That the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which
the perpetrator might recover his natural equanimity.

Appreciation of passion and obfuscation as a litigating circumstance

It may be appreciated even if the reported acts causing obfuscation was not true, as long as it was
honestly and reasonably believed by the accused to be true (People v. Guhiting, 88 Phil. 672)

PASSION/OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION
The provocation comes from the injured party
It is produced by an impulse
which may cause provocation
It must immediately precede the commission of the
The offense need not be crime.
immediate. It is only required that
the influence thereof lasts until
the moment the crime is
committed

PASSION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

OBFUSCATION
Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance

- ...
It cannot give rise to It requires physical force.
irresistible force because
passion or obfuscation
has no physical force.
The passion or It must come from a third person.
obfuscation is on the
offender himself

It must arise from The force used is unlawful

lawful sentiments.

Invocation of passion or obfuscation

 35

As a rule, passion or obfuscation can only be used as a mitigating circumstance. However, under
Art. 247 (Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional Circumstances), it may be used as an
exempting circumstance, if an injury is inflicted other than serious physical injuries and killing.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

Q: What are the elements of voluntary surrender?

A: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, as a mitigating circumstance, the
following elements should be present:

a)The offender has not been actually arrested whether or not a warrant of arrest had
been issued;
b)He surrendered himself to a person in authority; and,
c)The surrender must be voluntary, i.e., spontaneous and not forced by circumstances.
There must be an intent to submit oneself to the authorities, either because he wishes
to save them from the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search or
capture or to show remorse on his part.

Surrender must be spontaneous – shows his interest to surrender unconditionally to the

authorities.

Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The
conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines
the spontaneity of the surrender.

Example: Surrendered after 5 years, not spontaneous anymore.

Case: The policemen looked for him. When the police saw him, he did not resist arrest or deny
his criminal act SC: this cannot be equated to VS (Pp vs Rebamonta, en banc, April 1999)

The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be considered in favor of the accused
where he was actually arrested by the police and he merely submitted himself to their authority.
(People vs. Ospig, 416 SCRA 32) If the accused gave himself up to the police when he was
served the warrant of arrest, such surrender is not mitigating.

Note: Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the accused fled immediately after the
killing and took him more than a month- and-a-half to surrender to the authorities. (People vs.
Almendras, 372 SCRA 737)

TO WHOM VOLUNTARY SURRENDER SHOULD BE MADE:

Person in authority — one who is directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern
and to execute the laws, whether as an individual or a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board or commission. (Art. 152 RPC)

Agent of a person in authority — one who by direct provision of the law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property and any private person who comes to the aid of a
person in authority (art. 152 as amended by RA 1978)

Q: A killed a man. A sent the murder weapon to the police. Is this surrender?
A: No. A should surrender himself not the weapon.
 36

Q: A committed a crime. The relatives of the victim were out there looking for him.
No warrant of arrest was issued. He surrendered to a kagawad who in turn turned
over to him the police.
A: SC: Whether the accused’ reason for surrendering either for fear of reprisal from
victim’s relatives or his knowledge that he was already a suspect does not gainsay the
spontaneity of the surrender nor alter the fact that by giving himself up, he saved the
State the time & trouble of searching for him until arrested. ---SB Members,
kagawads and even members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa are now considered as
person in authority not merely agents of persons in authority.
(Pp vs Sion, 277 SCRA 127)

Case: Ruben del Castillo vs People, January 30, 2013

Voluntary surrender may be done in another municipality

The law does not require that the perpetrator of an offense, to be entitled to the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender, must give himself up to the authorities in the municipality
where the offense was committed. (People vs. Magallanes, July 9, 1997, 275 SCRA 222)

VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT

Q: What are the elements of voluntary plea of guilt? It must be:

A: (1) Made in open court; (2) spontaneously and unconditionally; and (3) prior to the
presentation of the evidence of the prosecution.

Q: Why mitigating?
A: Voluntary plea of guilt is mitigating because it is an act of repentance and respect
for the law. It indicates a moral disposition in the accused favorable to his reform.

Q: May voluntary plea of guilt and voluntary surrender be both considered in one
case?
A: Yes. These two circumstances are separate and distinct from each other. They do
not arise out of the same facts and circumstances, hence, will entitle the offender to
two mitigating circumstances when both are present.

Plea of guilty not applicable to all crimes ----- A plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable
felonies and in crimes punished by special laws.

PHYSICAL DEFEECT

Physical defect --- A person's physical condition, such as being deaf and dumb, blind, armless,
cripple, or stutterer, whereby his means of action, defense or communication with others are
restricted or limited. The physical defect a person may have must have a relation to the mission
of the crime.

Requisites of physical defect

(1) The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some
physical defect
(2) Such physical defect restricts his means of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow beings
 37

Problem:

Q: Supposed X is deaf and dumb and he has been angered, he cannot talk so what he
did was, he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. X was charged
with physical injuries. Is X entitled to a mitigating circumstance by reason of his
physical defect?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating because the
only way to vindicate himself is to use his force because he cannot strike back by
words.

ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

Requisites of illness of the offender

(1) Illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of will power;
(2) Such illness should not deprive the offender the : consciousness of his acts.

Note: If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the offender’s will power but deprives
him of the consciousness of his acts, it becomes an exempting circumstance to be classified as
insanity or imbecility.

SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE

Examples of analogous circumstances

1) The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the
instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender.

2) Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as

analogous to incomplete state of necessity (People v. Macbul, 74 Phil. 436), unless he
became impoverished because of his own way of living his life, i.e. he had so many vices.

3) Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of a person over
70 years of age (People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A. G.R. No. 301, July 27,1938).

4) Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation.

5) Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender.

6) Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of
grave offense.

XII. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Q: What are AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES?

A: They are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to
increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty
provided by law for the offense.

Basis of aggravating circumstances.

In contrast to mitigating circumstances which are based on the diminution of the elements of
dolo or the lesser degree of perversity of the offender, aggravating circumstances are based on
the greater perversity of the offender as manifested by the time of the commission of the offense,
 38

the place, the means, ways or methods used in the commission of the felony, his relationship
with the offended party or other personal circumstances.

Four kinds of aggravating circumstances.

1) Generic — Those that can generally apply to all crimes. Example — Dwelling,
nighttime, or recidivism.

In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs NOS. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19,
and 20, except "by means of motor vehicles," are generic aggravating circumstances.

2) Specific — Those that apply only to particular crimes. Example — Ignominy in crimes
against chastity or cruelty and treachery in crimes against persons.

In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15,16,17 and 21 are
specific aggravating circumstances.

3) Qualifying — Those that change the nature of the crime. Example — Alevosia
(treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder or abuse
of confidence (par 4) makes the crime of theft qualified (Art. 310)

Article 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of
person to murder.

4) Inherent — Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime or
those that are already a part of the commission of the felony and do not have the effect of
increasing the penalty. Example: Abuse of public office (par. 1) in crime of bribery in
Art. 210; breaking a wall (par 19) or unlawful entry (par 18) in robbery committed by
force upon things (Art. 299 and Art. 302); evident premeditation in robbery, theft, estafa,
adultery and concubinage.

5) Special or those that cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance and has the
result of imposing the penalty in the maximum period.

Examples: Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160); Complex crime (Art. 48); Error in personae (Art.
49); Taking advantage of public position and membership in an organized or syndicated crime
group

Qualifying aggravating circumstance distinguished from generic aggravating circumstance.

1) The effect of a generic aggravating circumstance, not offset by any mitigating

circumstance, is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the
maximum period, but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that of a
qualifying circumstance is not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive name but
also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that
specially prescribed by law for said crime. (People v. Bayot, 64 Phil. 269, 273)

2) A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance; a

generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance.

DISREGARD OF RANK, SEX, AGE OR DWELLING

Par. 3 provides for four aggravating circumstances which, if present in the same case, should be
considered independently of each other and numerically reckoned accordingly (People v. Santos,
et al., 91 Phil. 320).
 39

Ways in committing the aggravating circumstance under this paragraph

The act be committed:

(1) With insult or In disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his:
Rank, Age, Sex (RAS)

(2) That it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
sufficient provocation.

"With insult or in disregard "

In the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or
age of the offended party.

Rank

It refers to official, civil, or social position or standing. The designation or title of distinction
used to fix the relative position of the offended party in reference to others. There must be a
difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party.

Age

Age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age or is of old age. It applies when the
offender is the father, mother, son or daughter of the offended party.

Sex

Sex refers to female sex, not to male sex.

DWELLING

Dwelling is a building or structure exclusively used for rest or comfort includes temporary
dwelling, dependencies, foot of the staircase and enclosure of the house. It does not mean the
permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or that he must be owner thereof. He
must, however, be actually living or dwelling therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.

When dwelling is not aggravating

1. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.

2. When the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house.

2. In the crime of robbery by use of force upon things.

3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling.

4. The victim is not a dweller of the house.

5. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house except in
case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating; however, if one of the
dwellers therein becomes a paramour, the applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse of
confidence.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

NOTE: These are two separate aggravating circumstances.

 40

Abuse of confidence

This circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender who later abuses
such trust by committing the crime.

Requisites of abuse of confidence

(1) The offended party had trusted the offender.

(2) The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party
(3) The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime

NOTE: The confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal, as would give the
accused the advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime. The confidence must be a
means of facilitating the commission of a crime.

Abuse of confidence is inherent in the following crimes

(1) Malversation (Art. 217)

(2) Qualified Theft (Art. 310)
(3) Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art 315)
(4) Qualified Seduction (Art. 337)

NOTE: The ungratefulness must be such clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of the
accused.

NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR BY A BAND

Consideration of the circumstances

These circumstances should be considered separately.

Instances when nighttime, uninhabited place or band are considered aggravating

When:

1) It facilitated the commission of the crime.

2) It especially sought for by the offender to ensure the commission of the crime or for
the purpose of impunity.
3) The offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

NOTE: "Especially sought" means that the offender sought it in order to realize the crime with
more ease.

"Impunity" means to prevent the offender from being recognized or to secure himself against
detection and punishment.

Night time

Nigh time or nocturnity is a period from after sunset to sunrise, from dusk to dawn. It is
necessary that the commission of the crime was commenced and completed at night time.

Darkness of the night makes nighttime an aggravating circumstance. Hence when the place of
the crime is illuminated or sufficiently lighted, nighttime is not aggravating. It is also necessary
 41

that the commission of the crime was begun and completed at nighttime. Hence, where the series
of acts necessary for its commission was begun at daytime and was completed that night (People
v. Luchico, 49 Phil. 689), or was begun at night and consummated the following day (U.S. v.
Dowdell, Jr., et a!., 11 Phil 4), the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not applied.

NOTE: Lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not negate the aggravating
circumstance of night time. It must be shown that the offender purposely sought the cover of the
darkness to commit the crime, or that the nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime.

Reasons why night time is considered aggravating:

(1) During night time, recognition of the accused is harder.

(2) Harder for the victim to defend himself.
(3) Night time provides security for the accused.
(4) Mere presence of darkness gives others anxiety or fear.

Uninhabited place (despoblado)

It is where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town or where the
houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. It is not determined by the distance of
the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission of
the offense there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.

Instances when uninhabited place is aggravating

To be aggravating, it is necessary that the offender took advantage of the place and purposely
availed of it as to make it easier to commit the crime. The offender must choose the place as an
aid either:

1) To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs; or

2) To insure concealment of the offense

BAND

It means that there are at least four armed malefactors acting together in the commission of the
offense.

The RPC does not require any particular arms or weapons, so any instrument or implement
which, by reason of intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was made or used by the accused,
is capable of inflicting serious injuries.

The aggravating circumstance of by a band is considered in crimes against property and in

crimes against persons. This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes against
chastity.

AID OF ARMED MEN

When such circumstance is present

It is present when the crime it is attached to is committed with the aid of:

1) Armed men , or
2) Persons who insure or afford impunity

Requisites
 42

1) That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or
indirectly

2) That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime is
committed,

NOTE: Arms is not limited to firearms. Bolos, knives, sticks and stones are included. Aid of
armed men includes armed women.

RECIDIVISM

Q: What are the different forms of Habituality?

A: (1) Recidivism (Par. 9); (2) Reiteracion (Par. 10); (3) Habitual Delinquency
(Par. 5, Art. 62); and, (4) Quasi-Recidivism (Art. 160)

Q: Who is a recidivist?
A: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.

Requisites:

1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;

2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
2. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title
of the Code;
3. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

Effect of pardon to recidivism

Rule: Pardon does not obliterate recidivism, even if it is absolute because it only excuse the
service of the penalty not the conviction.

Except: If the offender had already served out his sentence and was subsequently extended
pardon.

NOTE: If The President extends pardon to someone who already served out the principal
penalty, there is a presumed intention to remove recidivism.

Effect of amnesty to recidivism

Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects, thus it obliterates recidivism.
Recidivism not subject to prescription

No matter how long ago the offender was convicted, if he is subsequently convicted of a crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC, it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the
penalty.

REITERACION

Q: What is reiteracion?
A: It is a circumstance where the offender has been previously punished (has served
sentence). The first offense must have been punished with an equal or greater penalty;
or he has committed two or more crimes previously to which the law attaches a
lighter penalty. It does not require that the offenses be covered under the same title of
the Code.
 43

Requisites of reiteracion or habituality:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense.

2. That the accused previously served sentence for another offense to which
the law attaches an: equal, or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which
the law attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense.

Problem:

Q: A was convicted before & punished for theft (a crime against property) for which
he was sentenced to the penalty of Reclusion Temporal. Now, A is found guilty of
homicide ( a crime against person---- it is not embraced in the same title of the RPC).
Is there reiteracion?

A: Here Reiteracion applies because he has been previously punished for another
crime for which the law attaches a higher penalty.

Q: Suppose the penalty for the first felony is prision mayor and the penalty for the
new felony is prision mayor also. Is there reiteracion?

A: Reiteracion applies because the law says he has been punished for a crime to
which the law attaches an equal penalty. Either higher or the same.

Problem:

Q: X in some years ago was found guilty of slight physical injuries – a light felony
and he was sentenced to One day of Arresto Menor. Two Years later, X was found
guilty of Slight Oral Defamation (Crimes Against Honor). He was sentenced to a
penalty of Arresto Menor also. Now, he is found guilty of Estafa (crimes against
property) and he is punished with the penalty of Reclusion Temporal. Is there
reiteracion?

A: Absolutely, he is not a recidivist because the crimes are not embraced in the same
title of the RPC. But is there Reiteracion here? Ans: Yes, because he has been
previously punished for 2 offenses to which the law attaches a lesser penalty.

Note: The accused must have been previously punished. If pardon, there is no reiteracion.

Distinguish between recidivism and reiteracion.

RECIDIVISM REITERACION

Antecedent: Previous conviction by final Service of sentence.

judgment.

Offenses: Under the same title of the Code Need not be under the
same Title

Q: What is QUASI RECIDIVISM?

A: It takes place when a person before serving sentence or while serving sentence,
shall commit another felony.

This is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the maximum of the

penalty for the new offense. It cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
 44

Do not be misled by the word "another" felony.

It makes no difference for the purpose of the effect of quasi- recidivism under Art. 160 of the
RPC, whether the crime for which the accused is serving sentence or about to serve sentence at
the time of the commission of the offense charged, falls under the Code or under a special law.
What is important is that before serving or while serving sentence, the convict commits a
felony (not a crime).

IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE REWARD OR PROMISE

Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself.

Requisites of "in consideration of a price, reward, or promise"

1. There are at least two principals

a. Principal by inducement
b. Principal by direct participation
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of
the commission of the criminal act.

NOTE: The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer to material things, or that the
same were actually delivered, it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal by
inducement be accepted by the principal by direct participation before the commission of the
offense.

Note: It is appreciated against both the principal by inducement and principal by direct
participation.

BY MEANS OF INNUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION ETC.

Rules as to the use of fire

1. Intent was only to burn but somebody died - The crime is arson, the penalty is
higher because somebody, died.
2. If fire was used as means to kill - the crime is murder not arson and fire cannot
be appreciated as aggravating circumstance.
3. There was an intention to kill and fire was used to conceal the crime -there
are two separate crimes: arson and murder.

EVIDENT PREMIDITATION

The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
thought and upon reflection to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment.

Requisites

1) Determination - the time when the offender determined to commit the

crime.

2) Preparation - an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination; and

3) Time - a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution,

to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

Reason for requiring sufficient time

 45

The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the
meaning and the consequences what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his conscience
and better judgment to overcome his evil desire.

Appreciation of evident premeditation in error In personae and aberratio ictus

General Rule: Evident premeditation is not appreciated in error in personae and aberratio ictus.

NOTE: However, it is not necessary to have the intent to kill a particular person.

Except:

1) When there is no particular intended victim or particular person to kill.

2) Where the victim belonged to the same class or family designated by the accused.
3)
GR: Conspiracy generally denotes premeditation.

CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE

To be appreciated, these circumstances must have facilitated or be taken advantage of by the

offender in the commission of a crime

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused in order not to arouse
the suspicion of the victim.
Fraud is insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which
enables the offender to carry out his design.

NOTE: Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have been deliberately adopted as
means, methods or forms for the treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist independently where
they are adopted for a different purpose in the commission of the crime.

Disguise means resorting to any device to conceal identity.

NOTE: The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance, or even the assumed name
resorted to by the offender was intended to make identification more difficult.

Necessity that the accused be able to hide his

identity all throughout the commission of the
crime

It is not necessary that the accused be able to hide his identity all throughout the commission of
the crime. The accused must be able to hide his identity during the initial stage if not all
throughout the commission of the crime and his identity must have been discovered only later on
to consider this aggravating circumstance.

Q: What is the test in order to determine if disguise exist?

A: Whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the offender was intended to or

did make identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair or
beard. If in spite of the disguise, the offender was recognized, disguise cannot be
aggravating.

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE

DEFENSE.
 46

Abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces

between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of in the commission of the
crime (People vs. Bongadillo, 234 SCRA233 [1994]).

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and
strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor.
"Means to weaken the defense"

It exists when the offended party's resisting power is materially weakened

NOTE: Means to weaken the defense may be absorbed in treachery.

TREACHERY

Treachery (aleviosa) refers to the employment of means, method, or form in the commission of
the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. It means that the offended party was not
given the opportunity to defend himself.

The essence of the qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of
expectation that the attack will take place, thus, depriving the victim of any real opportunity for
self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. Likewise,
even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be
appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate (People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7,
2011)

Elements of treachery

a) The employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the accused from
retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leaving the latter without an opportunity to
defend himself

b) The means employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender (People of
the Philippines v. Wenceslao Nelmida, et al, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)

Test of treachery : The test of treachery is not only the relative position of the parties but more
specifically whether or not the victim was forewarned or afforded the opportunity to make a
defense or to ward off the attack.

Rules regarding treachery

(1) Applicable only to crimes against persons.

(2) Means, methods, or forms insure its execution but need not insure accomplishment of
crime.
(3) The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender, and must not spring from the
unexpected turns of events

Q: Is there treachery when the attack is frontal?

A: Although frontal, if the attack was unexpected, and the unarmed victim was in
no position to repel the attack, treachery can still be appreciated (People v. Pelis,
G.R. No. 189328, February 21, 2011).
IGNOMINY
 47

Ignominy --- It pertains to the moral order, which adds disgrace to the material injury caused by
the crime. Ignominy adds insult to injury or adds shame to the natural effects of :he crime.
Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man.

Application

Ignominy is applicable in:

a) Crimes against chastity,

b) Less serious physical injuries,
c) Light or grave coercion, and
d) Murder.
No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his wife

The circumstance of ignominy was not present because no means employed nor did any
circumstance surround the act tending to make the effects of crime more humiliating.

Ignominy when a woman is raped in the presence of her husband

Ignominy can be appreciated. Rape is now a crime is now a crime against persons (R.A. 8353).
Presence of the husband qualifies the crime of rape under Art. 266.

Ignominy vs Cruelty

IGNOMINY CRUELTY
ignominy refers to the Refers to the physical suffering of the victim
moral effect of a crime purposely intended by the offender
and it pertains to the
moral order, whether
or not the victim is
dead or alive.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

Unlawful entry is aggravating when one who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to
guard their property and provided for their personal safety, shows greater perversity, a greater
audacity and hence the law punishes him with more severity.

There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

NOTE: This circumstance is inherent in the crimes of trespass to dwelling and robbery with
force upon things. But it is aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons.

BREAKING WALL
Requisites
1. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
2. They were broken to effect entrance

NOTE: It is aggravating only where the offender resorted to any of said means to enter the
house.

Instances where breaking is lawful

 48

1) An officer in order to make an arrest may break open door or window of any building in
which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be (Sec. 11, Rule 133 of
Rules of Court);
2) An officer if refused admittance may break open any door or window to execute the
search warrant or liberate himself (Sec. 7, Rule 126 of Rules of Court);
3) Replevin {Sec. 4, Rule 60 of Rules of Court)

Aid of minors

The use of a minor in the commission of the crime shows the greater perversity of the offender
because he is educating the innocent minor in committing a crime. It is intended to discourage
the exploitation of minors by criminals taking advantage of their irresponsibility and the leniency
of the law for the youthful offender.

Use of motor vehicle considered

The use of motor vehicles in the commission of a crime poses difficulties to the authorities in
apprehending the offenders. This circumstance is aggravating only when used to facilitate the
commission of the offense.

NOTE; If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender, motor vehicle is not
aggravating as the law says that "the crime was committed by means of motor vehicle."

"Other similar means"

it should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient means of

transportation similar to automobile or airplane.

CRUELTY

Q: When is there cruelty?

A: There is cruelty when the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of
the victim, causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain.

Requisites:

(1) The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong.

(2) The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the
offender.

Cruelty not inherent in crimes against persons

In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that the wounds found on the body
of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive to unnecessarily prolong physical suffering.

NOTE: In mutilation, outraging 6f a corpse is considered as an aggravating circumstance, if the

victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed, this would qualify
the killing to murder due to outraging of his corpse.

Other aggravating circumstances

1) Organized or syndicated crime group

2) Under influence of dangerous drugs

 49

3) Use of unlicensed firearm

XIII. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Q: What are ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES?

A: Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication
and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

RELATIONSHIP – taken into consideration when offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same
degree (2nd)of the offender

* The relationship of step-daughter and step father is included (Pp vs. Tan, 264 SCRA425) But
not of uncle and niece. (People vs. Cabresos, 244 SCRA 362)

But if relationship is already inherent in the crime or that relationship is part of the element of the
crime, Art. 15 will not apply. Example: Parricide, adultery and concubinage.

In crimes of Rape or acts of lasciviousness --- relationship is always aggravating.

In crimes against Persons. .brother killing his own brother – the crime here is either murder or
homicide aggravated by relationship.

INTOXICATION – mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the said felony.
Aggravating if habitual or intentional

It is mitigating if it is not habitual or not intentional. It is aggravating if it is habitual or

subsequent to the plan to commit a crime or intentional.

When we say “habitual” it means a confirmed habit, like he is drunk everyday. Drinking has
already become part of his system---habit ba.

PP vs Fontillas, G.R. No. 184177, December 15, 2010, the accused raped his own daughter—he
drank 8 bottles of gin.

“Accused appellant did not present any evidence that his intoxication was not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit the rape. The person pleading intoxication must likewise prove
that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would
blur his reason.1[24] Accused-appellant utterly failed to present clear and convincing proof of
the extent of his intoxication on the night of December 8, 2001 and that the amount of liquor he
had taken was of such quantity as to affect his mental faculties. Not one of accused-appellant’s
drinking buddies testified that they, in fact, consumed eight bottles of gin prior to the rape
incident.”

Read: Pp vs Patelan, et.al. 182918, June 6, 2011

Read: People vs Victoriano dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010.

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER

1
 50

GR: Lack or low degree of instruction is mitigating in all crimes.

XPN: Not mitigating in:

1) Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa, threat)

2) Theft and robbery (P. Macatanda, 109 SCRA 40) or assault upon the persons of another
(P. v. Enot, 6 SCRA 325).
3) Crimes against chastity
4) Murder or homicide
5) Rape
6) Treason - because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be. (People v. Lansanas, 82 Phil. 193)

NOTE: Test of Lack of Instruction as a mitigating circumstance is not illiteracy alone, but rather
lack of sufficient intelligence.

If the offender is a lawyer who committed rape, the fact that he has knowledge of the law will
not aggravate his liability. But if a lawyer committed falsification, that will aggravate his
criminal liability because he used his special knowledge as a lawyer. He took advantage of his
learning in committing the crime.

Degree of instruction and education

are two distinct circumstances

One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated.

Except for the circumstance of intoxication, the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be
taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. So the
court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply because the circumstance has no
relevance to the crime that was committed.

* It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating, is automatically aggravating.

But the other circumstances, even if they are present, but if they do not influence the crime, the
court will not consider it at all. Relationship may not be considered at all, especially if it is not
inherent in the commission of the crime. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the
crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSE

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public
policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Examples of absolutory causes

1) Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies (Art. 6, par. 3).

2) Light felonies in the attempted or frustrated stage except in crimes against persons or property
(Art. 7).

3) Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16).

4) Accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20).

5) Discovering secrets of ward through seizure of correspondence by their guardian (Art. 290).

6) When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his/her
spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person (Art. 247).
 51

INSTIGATION

Instigation happens when a public officer induces an innocent person to commit a crime and
would arrest i upon or after the commission.

Instigation absolve the offender from criminal liability

In Instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting
without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would have not have done the
criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

NOTE: This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal.

Persons who may commit instigation

Only public officers or private detectives may commit instigation. If the one who made the
Instigation is a private individual, not performing a public function, both he and the one
induced are criminally liable, the former as principal by inducement and the latter as principal
by direct participation

ENTRAPMENT

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It does not exempt the offender, nor mitigate his criminal
liability.

Distinguish Entrapment from Instigation

As to Intent:

E-The criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even
before entrapment

I – The idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated &
developed in mind of the law enforcers.

Means and Ways:

E – The law enforcer resorts to ways & means for the purpose of capturing the
lawbreaker in flagranti delicto

I – The law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a
crime & would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime.

As to Criminal Liability:

E – The circumstance is no bar to prosecution & conviction of the lawbreaker

I – The circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability.

XV-PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE – Art. 16

Art 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less
grave felonies:
 52

1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices.

What are the principles:

Principle 1 – For Grave or Less Grave Felonies --- all participants are liable

Principle 2 – For Light Felonies – only the principals and accomplices are liable

Principle 3 – Accessories are EXEMPT from criminal liability in Light Felonies –

remember Art. 7 -- what is the general rule in Art. 7 – light felonies are only punishable
when they are consummated –why? Because the role of the accessories in light felonies are
very minor. ---- not liable for light felonies because the individual prejudice is so small that
penal sanction is not necessary

PRINCIPALS

Q: Who are considered as Principals?

A: The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished. (Article 17, RPC)

Take note: If there is no principal by direct participation, there would be no principal by

inducement and principal by indispensable cooperation.

Important: When 2 or more persons commit a crime together each performing an act in harmony
w/ each other & everything is veered towards the same criminal objective, then their action
betrays conspiracy. The conspiracy is proven by their own actions.

What is the importance of establishing the presence of conspiracy?

A: When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. All of them are
equally liable for the crime. This is what we call COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY.

Different classification of criminal responsibility

(1) INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY - when there is no conspiracy, each

of the offenders is liable only for his personal act.

(2) QUASI - COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY - some offenders in the

crime are principals and the others are accomplices.
 53

(3) COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY - Where there is conspiracy, the act

of one is the act of all. All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent
and character of their participation.

INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Problem:

A has an enemy Y. B has an enemy Y. A decided to kill Y. B decided to maul Y.

One day, both of them, acting independently started looking for Y. B saw Y,
immediately approached Y and started to maul Y. At that precise moment, A
arrived. During the fray, A stabbed Y and Y died.

Q: Is there a conspiracy?
A: Based on the evidence established, there is no conspiracy. Since B intention was
to inflict physical injuries and he merely mauled Y, B is only liable as a principal by
direct participation for Physical Injuries. A who stabbed Y is liable as principal by
direct participation for the crime of Homicide. --- 2 separate crimes---2 criminals
acting independently – this is what we call independent criminal responsibility.

Problem:

A, B, C and D conspired to commit robbery. At the point of a gun they divested Y

of his belongings. And then A stabbed Y who died (robbery with homicide).

Q: Who is liable for the crime of robbery with homicide?

A: All of them are liable because according. to Art. 296, in Robbery in Band, all of them
are liable for any result committed by their companions UNLESS one can show that he
TRIED TO PREVENT it.

Problem:

Q: A, B and C are robbers & they conspired to commit robbery only and then A killed Y.
Will all of them be liable for the assault that A made on Y?

A: Here the conspirators are only liable for the crime contemplated in the conspiracy if
there is no direct provision on that. Therefore, B and C are liable for robbery only and A
would be liable for Robbery with Homicide. This is the ruling in Pp vs Federico, 247
SCRA 246.

Note: Art. 296 applies only when the robbery is committed by a “band”.

What are the principles:

>in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

>the conspirators are NOT liable for any act of another conspirator NOT contemplated in the
conspiracy EXCEPT (all of them are liable) when: (a) there is a particular provision of the law that says
so (b) the acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators are necessary and logical
consequences of the intended act.

Problem:

Q: A, B and C conspired to inflict physical injuries to Y. In the course of the mauling, A

killed Y. Are they liable? Why?
A: Here the contemplated victim is Y and the one who was killed was also Y (same victim).
In crimes against persons, when the victim is killed, the physical injuries are absorbed. The
conspirators are not separately liable. The physical injuries are absorbed in the killing.

Q: A, B and C conspired to kill X. But in the course of the killing, A also killed Y. Who are
liable for the death of Y?
 54

A: Only A is liable for the death of Y. There are 2 crimes here because there are 2 victims.
The killing of X is separate from the killing of Y. It cannot be said that the killing of Y is
absorbed in the killing of X.

PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Q: Who are principals by direct participation?

A: They are those who materially execute the crime.

Example: One who with intent to kill, personally shoots another is liable as principal by direct
participation.

Q: What do you mean by the phrase: "personally took part in the execution"?
A: That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the commission
of the crime personally taking part in its execution.

Two or more persons may take direct part in the execution of the act, in which case they may be
principals by direct participation, provided, the following requisites are present:

(1) That they participated in the criminal resolution. Absent, this requisite, the offender
cannot be made liable as principal.

(2) That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts,
which directly tended to the same end.

They must appear at the scene of the crime and perform acts necessary in the commission of the
offense to be liable.

Thus, a conspirator who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable. His non-
appearance is deemed a desistance on his part.

In the conspiracy by prior agreement, if the principal by direct participation does not appear at
the scene of the crime, they are not liable because:

a) Their non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encouraged;

b) Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
(Article 8) Thus, by merely conspiring, the would be participator has not yet committed
any crime unless he would appear at the scene of the crime and perform any act directly
or indirectly in the accomplishment of the conspiracy;

c) There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation.

Q: A, B, C and D conspired to kill Y. Then, while the crime was on progress, A left
the scene of the crime. Is A liable?
A: Yes. To extricate him from criminal liability, A must have performed an overt act
to disassociate or detach himself from the unlawful plant to commit the crime. While
A left the scene of the crime while it was on progress, such abandonment came too
late. In legal contemplation, there was no longer a conspiracy to be repudiated
because A had already participated in it (Pp vs delos Reyes, 215 SCRA 680)

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION

Q: Who is a PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION?

A: He directly (1) induces, or (2) forces another to commit a criminal act.
 55

The inducement may come in the form of giving price, reward or promise. It may also be
through words constitutive of command.

For inducement to spell criminal liability, it must be made directly for the purpose of procuring
the commission of the crime or be the determinative cause of the commission of the crime by the
one induced. (People vs. de la Cruz, 97 SCRA 985)

Note: The inducement should precede the commission.

Q: A induced B to kill X by giving him Php 500,000. For his part, B induced C to kill
for Php300,000. C induced D to kill X for Php200,000. D killed X. Are A, B and C
principals by inducement?

A: A and B are not principals by inducement because they did not directly induce D
to kill X. However, C is a principal by inducement because he directly induced D to
kill X.

Inducement must be strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. This is
tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the execution of
the crime. Thoughtless expression without intention to produce the result is not an inducement to
commit a crime.

He becomes liable only as such when the principal by direct participation committed the act
induced.
Two ways of becoming a Principal by Induction:
1. by directly forcing another to commit a crime, either
1. by using irresistible force, or
2. by causing uncontrollable fear.
2. by directly inducing another to commit a crime, either
1. by giving price, or offering reward or promise, or
2. by using words of command.

One cannot be held guilty as principal by induction without first being shown that the crime was
actually committed (or attempted) by another.

Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) unless there is a
principal by direct participation. But there can be a principal by direct participation without a
principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation).

Discussion on “by directly forcing another to commit a crime” which can either be: (1) by
using irresistible force, or (2) by causing uncontrollable fear

When one is forced by another to commit a crime through the use of irresistible force or causing
an uncontrollable fear, only the person from whom such force or fear came from is criminally
liable and not the executor.

The executor acts against his will hence, the act is involuntary.

Problem:

Q: A and his gang of robbers threatened to kill all the bank employees if the bank manager
refuses to open the vault of the bank. The manager was constrained to open the vault and the
robbers emptied the vault. Is manager liable?
 56

A: The bank manager is not criminally liable because he acted under the compulsion of an
uncontrollable fear. A and company are liable.

Q: How do you induce others or convince others to commit a crime?

A: By words of inducement or by promise of price or reward.

Q: How do you become a PBI?

A: (1) The PBI made the inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime. (2) The inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the crime without
which the crime would not have been committed.

Q: Maria confided to her friend Petra that her marital life had been miserable because she
married an irresponsible and philandering husband. Petra remarked: "A husband like that
deserves to be killed." Maria killed her husband. Is Petra a principal by inducement?
A: No. A thoughtless expression is not an inducement to kill.

The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the
criminal act that without it the act would not have been performed.

Q: A asked B to kill C because of grave Injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was

willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because he also had his
own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B,
would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (2002 BQ)

A: No, A would not be liable as principal by inducement because the reward he promised B is
not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-
principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the
person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not have been
committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own
reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.

When the criminal liability of the

principal by inducement arise

The criminal liability of the principal by inducement arises only when the crime is committed by
the principal by direct participation.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

Cooperates with the principal by direct participation and without whose participation the crime
would not have been committed. He cooperates after coming to know the criminal intent of the
principal by direct participation.

Cooperation in the commission of the offense

Cooperation in the commission of the offense means to desire or wish a common thing. But that
common will or purpose does not necessarily mean previous understanding, for it can be
explained or inferred from the circumstances of each case.

NOTE: A principal by indispensable cooperation may be a co-conspirator under the doctrine of

implied conspiracy. He becomes a co-conspirator by indispensable cooperation, although the
common design or purpose was not previously agreed upon.

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution by way of conspiracy; or
 57

2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which
the crime would not have been accomplished.

Note: What binds a PDP with a PIC is that there is again the existence of a conspiracy.

Q: X wanted to kill Y who resides in an island. The only means to reach the island is to ride on
the motorboat owned by A. X told A to bring him to the island because he is going to kill Y. A
brought X to the island where X killed Y. What is the liability of A?
A: A is a principal by indispensable cooperation. His motorboat is the only means to reach the
island where Y resides. Without his cooperation X would not have killed Y.

Principal by indispensable cooperation distinguished from an accomplice

The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the
crime. The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime . If the
crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation, then such cooperation would bring
about a principal. But if the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the
crime, this would make the cooperator merely an accomplice.

* Where both accused conspired and confederated to commit rape, and one had sex with the
offended party while the other was holding her hands, and thereafter the latter was the one who
raped the victim, both are principals by direct participation and by indispensable cooperation in
the two (2) crimes of rape committed. (People vs. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511)

An accused may be a principal by direct participation

and a principal by indispensable cooperation at the
same time

Illustration: When Sergio had sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will
by employing force and intimidation, the crime committed is rape through direct
participation. When he aided Berto and made it possible for the latter to have carnal
knowledge of complainant also against her will and through force and intimidation,
accused committed another crime of rape through indispensable cooperation. Thus,
Sergio is guilty of two crimes of consummated rape (People v. Simba, 117 SCR A 243

ACCOMPLICES

Q: Who are Accomplices.

A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. (Article 18)

Requisites:

a. there be a community of design (principal originates the design, accomplice only concurs)

b. he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, intending to give material

and moral aid (cooperation must be knowingly done, it must also be necessary and not
indispensable.

c. There be a relation between the acts of the principal and the alleged accomplice

* The accomplice does not conspire with the principal although he cooperated in the execution of
the criminal act.

There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person
charged as an accomplice.
 58

Note: In homicide or murder, the accomplice must not have inflicted the mortal wound.

Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation.

Other examples of cooperation by an Accomplice

1. By previous act — Lending of a knife or a gun to the murderer, knowing the latter's
criminal purpose.
2. By simultaneous act — The defendant who held one of the hands of the victim and tried to
take away the latter's revolver, while his co-defendant was attacking him, is an accomplice
for he cooperates in the execution of the crime by simultaneous act without any previous
agreement or understanding.

Note: An accomplice is not a part of the plan or conspiracy.

An accomplice is neither a principal nor an accessory but who cooperates with the principal by
direct participation after coming to know about the conspiracy or after witnessing the
commission of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts.
An accomplice concurs or approves the act of the principal by direct participation and performs
other acts showing his conformity to the act of the principal by direct participation.

The act or acts of the accomplice must be lesser than the act or acts done by the principal by
direct participation, that is, they must not be equal to or graver than the act or acts of the
principal by direct participation.

The cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary, not indispensable.

Problem:

Q: A stabbed C. Upon seeing what A did, B also attacked C and stabbed him. C died because of
the stab wounds. What are the criminal liabilities of A and B?
A: A and B are both liable as principals by direct participation. While it is true that B concurred
and cooperated in the execution of the crime, his act was equal to the act performed by A. This
makes him equally liable as principal by direct participation. He cannot be an accomplice
because under the law, the participation of an accomplice should be lesser than the act of the
principal by direct participation.
Problem:

Q: A stabbed C. Upon seeing what A did, B rained C with fist blows. C died because of the stab
wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?

A: A is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of Homicide. B concurred with the
act of A by boxing C. B is liable as accomplice because he performed a lesser act.

Problem:

Q: A boxed C. Upon seeing what A did, B attacked C and stabbed him. C suffered contusion and
died because of the stab wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?

A: A is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of Slight Physical Injuries for
inflicting contusion on C. B is also liable as a principal by direct participation for the crime of
Homicide. While B concurred with the act of A, B's participation was greater than the act
performed by A. Thus, B cannot be liable only as an accomplice.
 59

Q: A and B agreed and decided to commit Robbery at the house of X on May 5, 2007. On the
following day, A and B told C about their plan and asked C to drive for them. C drove A and B
to the house of X where the two committed Robbery. What are the liabilities of A, B, and C?

A: A and B are liable as principals by direct participation in the crime of Robbery. C is liable as
an accomplice. He cooperated by a previous act of showing his concurrence to the conspiracy.

Quasi-collective responsibility is one where some offenders in the crime are principals and the
others are accomplices.

>In case of doubt as to the responsibility of the offender as a principal or accomplice, the court
should apply the milder form of liability. (People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335)

>The wound inflicted by the accomplice in crimes against persons should not have caused the
death of the victim as then he becomes a principal by direct participation .

How does an accomplice acquire knowledge of the criminal design of the principal?
1. When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of his (former's) criminal purpose.
2. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal and concurs with it.

Q: A, wanting to kidnap B while playing at a park, forced B to come with him at a nearby wharf.
There, he saw C and D ready to leave, with their boats. C, without putting any resistance and
fully acquiescing to the acts of A allowed him, to transport the kidnapped victim, thereby
facilitating the commission of the crime. Is C liable as an accomplice or a principal by
indispensable cooperation?

A: C is liable as an accomplice. His act was not indispensable to the commission of the crime
because A may also use the boat of D in order to accomplish his criminal design. His
simultaneous act cooperated in the execution of the crime. If C was the only one who is present
in the wharf, and A could not have accomplished the crime except with the participation of C,
then C would be a principal by indispensable cooperation.

NOTE: In determining whether the offender is a principal or accomplice, the basis is the
importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime.

ACCESSORIES

Q: Who are Accessories?

A: Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects

of the crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments

thereof, in order to prevent its 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 Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.
 60

The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is already consummated, not before the
consummation of the crime.

NOTE: One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime; however,
he must not have participated in its commission.

If the offender has already involved himself as a principal or accomplice, he cannot be an

accessory any further even though he performs acts pertaining to an accessory

Note: (1) To be liable as an accessory, the felony committed by the principal should be LESS
GRAVE or GRAVE FELONY; (2) The felony is NOT a LIGHT FELONY because under Art.
16, accessories are NOT LIABLE for a light felony.

Requisites:

4) He has KNOWLEDGE of the commission of the crime

5) He did not PARTICIPATE therein, either as principals or accomplices
6) He took part SUBSEQUENT to the commission of the crime.

Instances when accessories are not criminally liable

1) When the felony committed is a light felony.

2) When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse, or as an ascendant, or

descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate, natural or adopted or where the
accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree, unless the accessory
himself profited from the effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to
profit therefrom (Art. 20, RPC)

By PROFITING himself or ASSISTING the offender to PROFIT by the effects of the

crime.

Problem:

Q: A stole the money of B. A later gave X Php 5,000 pesos out of the stolen money. Is X an
accessory?
A: No, because he did not know that the money given to him by A was stolen.

Q: Suppose A told X that the Php5,000 is part of the money he stole from B, is X an accessory?
A: Yes, because he knew that the money was stolen and he profited from it.

Q: A stole the cellphone of B. A went to X and told him that he stole the cellphone because he
is in dire need of money. A asked X to pawn the cellphone for him which X did and gave the
proceeds to A. Is X an accessory? A: Yes, X is an accessory. Despite his knowledge that the
cellphone was stolen he assisted A to profit from it.

Note: If the act of an accessory however is punished as a principal by another law, then he may
be charged as a principal.

Q: When will an accessory in a crime be liable as a principal in another crime?

A: When he is an accessory whose act or omission is also penalized in a special law. In crimes
under special laws or crimes mala prohibita, the offenders generally are penalized as principals
unless otherwise provided.
 61

Illustration: If a person not having participated as principal or accomplice in robbery or theft but
knowing that the property being offered to him is the proceeds or subject matter of the said
crime, bought or purchased or dealt in any manner with which such property, obtaining benefit
from said transaction or helping the thief or robber to profit therefrom.

NOTE: The accessory must receive the property from the principal. He should not take it without
the consent of the principal. If he took it without the consent of the principal, he is not an
accessory but a principal in the crime of theft

FENCING

Q: What is Fencing?
A: "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. (PD
1612)

Elements of Fencing:

1) The crimes of robbery or theft has been committed;

2) The accused, who is not the principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possesses, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in
any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value which has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime.

3) The accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;

4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

Distinctions:

Accessory PD 1612

> To be held liable, he must know that To be held liable, it is enough that he
the property is stolen should have known that the property is
stolen

>Penalty is lower than the principal Punished as a principal – so penalty is

higher than accessory

Q: Can a person be considered as an accessory thus liable under the RPC and at the same time,
he is also a fence? Can there be double jeopardy?
A: One person can be liable both as an accessory under the RPC and as a Fence under PD 1612.
There is no double jeopardy.

Note: The crime of fencing involves moral turpitude.

Presumption of Fencing: (Sec. 5, PD 1612)

MERE POSSESSION of any goods, article, item or anything of value, which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery, shall be PRIMA FACIE evidence of fencing.
---this presumption can be rebutted --- that you did not know or it could not have been
known. The presumption here is that you are liable for fencing in that you have in your
possession the stolen property.
 62

One who is charged as an accessory under Art.

19(1) may be likewise charged under P.D. 1612 for
the same act

What is prohibited under the Constitution is the prosecution of the accused twice for the same
offense.

NOTE: The State may choose to prosecute the offender either under the RPC or P.D. 1612
although preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a crime
malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher
penalty based on the value of the property (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People,).

By CONCEALING or DESTROYING the (a) body of the crime or (b) effect or instruments
thereof. (the murder weapon or instruments used in the commission of the crime)

Q: What is the "body of the crime"?

A: The body of the crime refers to the corpus delicti and not necessarily to the corpse. Corpus
delicti means the body or substance of the crime and in its primary sense refers to the fact that a
crime has actually been committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact made up of two
things: (1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and (2)
the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. Otherwise stated, its elements
are: a) the proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and b) some person's criminal
responsibility. (People vs. Boco, June 1999) For instance, in the case of a prosecution for drug
sale, it must be established that an illegal sale of the regulated drug took place; and the accused
were the authors thereof.

Elements of corpus delicti

a) The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge

b) The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.

NOTE: The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, not necessarily the corpse. Thus, even if the
corpse is not recovered, as long as that killing is established beyond reasonable doubt, criminal
liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the corpus delicti to prevent discovery,
he becomes an accessory

Misleading the investigating police officer to prevent the discovery of the crime or to help the
offender escape is also to destroy the corpus delicti.

Example:

A killed B with a .45 caliber gun. A was pursued by the authorities. A went to his friend C and
after telling him about the crime that he committed asked C to hide the gun that he used in the
commission thereof. C hid the gun. C is liable as an accessory. He concealed the instrument of
the crime.

Example:

A stole the laptop computer of B. Thereafter, A went to his friend C and after informing him that
he stole the item, asked C to hide the laptop computer for him which C did. C is liable as an
accessory because he concealed the effects of the crime.
 63

Case: Pp vs Ortega, 276 SCRA 166

Case: Padiernos et.al. vs People, G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015

By HARBORING, CONCEALING or ASSISTING in the ESCAPE of the principal of the

crime by a) providing the accessory act with abuse of his public functions (b) whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of 1) treason, 2) parricide, 3) murder or 4) an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive.

Two kinds of accessories under par. 3 of Art. 19

1. Public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal of any crime
(except for light felony) with abuse of his public functions.

Requisites:
(a) The accessory is a public officer;
(b) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal;
(c) The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions;
(d) The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.

Q: X with intent to kill stabbed Y. The latter was medically attended for 5 days. X was pursued
by policemen. X went to SPO 2 Joseph and after apprising him of the crime that he has just
committed, asked his policeman friend to assist in his escape. SP02 Joseph assisted in the escape
of Y. Is SP02 Joseph an accessory?

A: Yes, SP02 Joseph is an accessory. The crime committed by X is Attempted Homicide

because there was intent to kill and no mortal wound was inflicted. Medical attendance for 5
days indicates that the wound inflicted is slight. Attempted Homicide is not a light felony
because it is punishable with Prision Correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years).

Q: What if the crime committed by X is Slight Physical Injuries, will your answer be the same?
A: No. If that were the case, SP02 Joseph is not an accessory. Slight Physical Injuries is a light
felony. He can be an accessory only if the crime committed by the principal is not a light felony.

2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime or
the principal:

a. Who is guilty of treason, (b) parricide, (c) murder, or (d) an attempt against the life of
the Chief Executive;
Keyword: (TPMA-H)
b. Who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crimes.

Q: For accessories by assisting the principal to escape, who should be the offender assisted to
escape?
A: The offender to be assisted must be a principal; assisting an accomplice is not included.

Those who assist the principal to escape may be prosecuted under P.D. No. 1829 on obstruction
of justice not as accessory but as a principal, provided that a separate Information shall be
prepared for the crime of obstruction. When he is convicted thereunder, the penalty to be
imposed is the higher penalty under P.D. No. 1829 or any other law, including the Revised Penal
Code. (Sec. 1, last paragraph)
 64

If the principal committed robbery — which is not one of the offenses enumerated in Art. 19 par.
3 — the private person is not an accessory.

A civilian who harbors a principal who committed kidnapping may not be held as an accessory
because kidnapping is not one of the crimes enumerated by law.

Problem:

Q: A killed B with treachery. A was chased by policemen. A went to his friend X and sought
refuge in the latter's house. X kept him from the authorities. Is X an accessory?

A: It depends. If X knew that A committed a crime then he is an accessory. The crime committed
by A is Murder, the killing being attended by the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery. However, if X did not know that A committed a crime then he is not liable.

Q: What if X knew that A committed the crime of murder and yet he assisted in his escape, is X
an accessory?

A: Yes, X is an accessory. The law uses the word "guilty" which implies conviction first of the
principal before the accessory could be adjudged guilty as such.

Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable:

(1) When the felony committed is a light felony;

(2) When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse, or as an ascendant, or descendant or
as brother or sister whether legitimate, natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by
affinity within the same degree, unless the accessory himself profited from the effects or
proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom.
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability – Art. 20

Basis: Ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name which compels one to
conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned. Nephew and niece are not
included

Rule: A n accessory is exempt from criminal liability, when the principal is his:
1) Spouse
2) Ascendant
3) Descendant
4) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same
degree.

Except: Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the principal is related to him, if
such accessory:

(1) Profited by the effects of the crime; or

(2) Assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the crime.

Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told
him to hide in the maid's quarter until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days,
Jake transferred to his aunt s house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police. Can
Jake's mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? (2010
Bar Question)

A: The mother is exempt from criminal liability under Art. 20 of the RPC as a result of her
relationship to her son; however, the aunt is liable as accessory under Art. 19 paragraph 3 of the
RPC if the author of the crime is guilty of murder. The relationship between an aunt and a
nephew does not fall within the classification for exemption
 65

XVI - PENALTY

Penalty — is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of the law.

Purpose of punishment:
The law is a rule or norm of conduct prescribed by the State for in orderly management of its affairs and
for the protection of the rights of its inhabitants. It is meant to be followed and obeyed, not o be violated.
Transgression of the law is an affront or defiance to the State. To enforce the law, penal sanctions must be
imposed in accordance with the police power of the State.

THEORIES JUSTIFYING PENALTY:

1. Justice — a crime must be punished to vindicate the right violated by the offender.
2. Exemplarity — to serve as an example for the public good and to deter others from violating
the law.
3. Reformation — Man is basically good. Penalty is imposed upon him to correct and reform
him.
4. Prevention — Criminal acts pose danger to the State. Penalty is inflicted to suppress this
danger.
5. Self-defense — The State has a right to exist. This existence is imperiled by lawlessness. It
must impose penalties to protect itself from the threat and wrong caused by criminals.

The three-fold purpose of penalties under the Revised Penal Code:

1) Retribution or Expiation — the penalty is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the
crime.
2) Correction or reformation — penalties are imposed to reform a criminal.
3) Social defense — A society has an existence to maintain and assert.

Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of article 62 of this code, although at
the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced
and the convict is serving the same.( ART. 22)

General Rule: Penal laws shall have no retroactive effect

Exception: Penal laws may be given retroactive effect when FAVORABLE to the accused. ------
Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused, it can be given a proactive effect.

Examples:
1. When the act is decriminalized (e.g. PD 827, Anti-Squatting Law)
2. When the law is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual criminal.

Q: What is the effect of pardon by the offended party?

A: A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344
of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his
express waiver.

As a general rule, an offended party cannot pardon an accused, because the case is not against him but
against the People of the Philippines. --- he is only a witness.

Q: What are the effects of Pardon by Offended Party:

A: General Rule: Civil liabilities are extinguished by his express waiver BUT criminal liability is not
extinguished.

Exception: Art. 344 par (3) of the RPC

 66

These are: Abduction, seduction, Acts of lasciviousness, Adultery and Concubinage

These are the crimes which cannot be prosecuted de officio. –if the victim does not want to testify, the
law gives respect to her wishes because she may opt to suffer in silence rather than go public..----in these
crimes…pardon is a BAR to criminal liability.

Q: When must pardon be given?

A: BEFORE the institution of the action.

Q: What if the case has already been filed in Court and in the middle of the trial, the complainant says I
have already pardoned the accused. What is the effect of her pardon given to the accused?
A: No, more, because the criminal action has already been instituted and it is no longer within her control.
(PP vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176)

Note: That pardon by the offended party under Art. 344 DOES NOT EXTINGUISH
criminal liability. It merely constitutes A BAR TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Q: Why does the law specify that the preventive measures are not considered penalties under Article 29?
A: It is because if they are considered penalties, they will violate the constitutional provision on
presumption of innocence. However, Article 29 provides that the period of preventive imprisonment will
be deducted from the term of imprisonment which seems to negate the above rationale. It appears that
upon conviction and commitment to prison, the preventive detention in prison of the accused is imme -
diately transformed into a penalty.

CORRELATING ARTICLE 24 WITH ARTICLE 29

Although under Article 24, the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case
against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty, yet the law considers this as
part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentence.

When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty.
Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit

Under Article 24, preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted is
not a penalty. Yet Article 29, if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty
imposed involves deprivation of liberty, provides that the period during which he had
undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the sentence, unless he is one of
those disqualified under the law.

If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, then the next thing to determine is whether he
signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts.
If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing
convicts, then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment, he is
suffering like a convict, that is why the credit is full.

But if the offender did not sign an undertaking, then he will only be subjected to
the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. As such, he will only be given
80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention.

Q: What is now the status of the death penalty?

A: RA 9346 PROHIBITS THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY.

Distinctions between Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment:

1. Life imprisonment is not the same as Reclusion Perpetua. Hence, they cannot be used
interchangeably;

2. Life imprisonment does not have accessory penalties. Reclusion Perpetua has accessory
penalties.
 67

3. Life imprisonment is a penalty under special laws. Reclusion Perpetua is a penalty under
the Revised Penal Code.

4. Life imprisonment has no fixed duration. After serving 30 years, the convict may be
pardoned.

Q: What is the legal duration of Reclusion Perpetual?

A: Under RA 7659, the legal duration of Reclusion Perpetua is 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.

DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES

Q: What is civil interdiction?

A: Under Article 38 of the New Civil Code, civil interdiction is one of the restrictions on capacity to act
but does not exempt the offender from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his act or from
property relations. It is an accessory penalty imposed upon person sentenced to the principal penalties of
reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal.

Q: What are the effects of civil interdiction?

A: Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of:
1. parental authority
2. guardianship, either as to the person or property of the ward
3. marital authority
4. the right to manage his property and;
5. the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

Civil interdiction is imposable when the penalty is: a) Death when not executed; b)Reclusion Perpetua
and c) Reclusion Temporal

Distinctions between pardon granted by the

offended party and pardon granted by the
President

Pardon by the offended party applies only to crimes against chastity under the
RPC and rape, while pardon by the Chief Executive applies to any crime.

Pardon by the offended party in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness

benefits the co-principals, accomplices and accessories. In adultery and
concubinage, the pardon must include both offenders. Pardon by the Chief
Executive can be granted to any or all of the accused.

Pardon by the offended party cannot be made subject to a condition while pardon
by the Chief Executive may be absolute or conditional.

General rule: Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalties.

Exceptions:

a. If the absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes all that is left of
the consequences of conviction. However, if the penalty is life
imprisonment and after the service of 30 years, a pardon is granted, the pardon does not remove the
accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification

b. if the facts and circumstances of the case show that the purpose of the President is to precisely restore
the rights i.e., granting absolute pardon after election to a post (mayor) but before the date fixed by law
for assuming office to enable him to assume the position in deference to the popular will
 68

Pardon must be accepted

Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the Chief Executive, which exempts the individual
upon whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed. It is a private, though official, act of the Chief Executive delivered to the individual
for whose benefit it is not intended. It is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and
delivery is not complete without acceptance. Until delivery, all that may have been done is a
matter of intended favor, and the pardon may be cancelled to accord with the change of intention.
If cancelled before acceptance, it has no effect.

Effects of Pardon

There are two kinds of pardon that may be extended by the President. The first one is
known as conditional pardon. This pardon contemplates of a situation wherein the offender is
granted temporary liberty under certain conditions. If he violates the conditions of this pardon, he
commits a crime known as evasion of service of sentence.

Absolute pardon – when an absolute pardon is granted, it releases the offender from the
punishment imposed by the court on him, so that in the eyes of the law, the offender is innocent
as if he had never committed the offense. It removes the penalties and disabilities and restores
him to all his civil rights. It makes him a new man and gives him a new credit and capacity.

* Pardon relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense for which he has
been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, subject to exceptions mentioned in Art.
36.

Q: What is subsidiary penalty?

A: It is a penalty that takes the place of the fine for insolvent convicts. It is neither a principal nor
accessory penalty, but a substitute penalty for fine only. The subsidiary penalty may be in the form of
imprisonment or deprivation of right depending upon the principal penalty imposed on the convict.
(Article 39)

Q: When is subsidiary penalty served?

A: Subsidiary penalty is proper when the penalty imposed upon the convict includes fine but he cannot
pay the same. The court must expressly state that subsidiary penalty shall be served in case of insolvency
because this is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. Also, the
penalty imposed must be susceptible of subsidiary penalty.

Note: Subsidiary penalty is proper only if the accused has no property with which to pay the fine and not
as a matter of choice on his part by opting to go to jail instead of paying.

Q: Is subsidiary penalty deemed imposed in case the convict could not pay the fine imposed by
reason of insolvency? Explain.
A: No. Subsidiary penalty must be expressly imposed by the Court in order that the convict may
be required to serve it. It is not an accessory penalty. It is imposed upon the accused and served
by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to pay on account of insolvency.

Subsidiary penalty is possible only when any of the following penalties is imposed.
(1) prision correccional;
(2) suspension and fine;
(3) destierro;
(4) arresto mayor;
(5) arresto menor; and
(6) fine only.
 69

Note: When the penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed by
the court not the penalty provided for by the Code which shall be considered in determining whether or
not subsidiary penalty should be imposed.

Q: In what cases does the subsidiary penalty not consist of imprisonment?

A: Subsidiary penalty does not always consist of imprisonment. If the penalty imposed is prision
correccional or arresto mayor and fine, the subsidiary penalty shall consist in imprisonment. If
the penalty imposed is destierro, the subsidiary penalty is also destierro.

Q: If the penalty imposed is suspension, the subsidiary penalty is also suspension.

After the culprit has served subsidiary penalty and his finances improved, is he still liable to pay
the fine?
A: Yes. Art. 39, Par. (5) states that the subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have
suffered shall not relieve him from paying the fine in case his financial circumstance improve.

CONFISCATION & FORFEITURE OF THE PROCEEDS OR

INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME

Every penalty imposed shall carry with it the confiscation of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was committed.

Such proceeds, instruments or tools would be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government:

(1) Unless they are properties belonging to a third person who is not liable for the offense.

(2) Articles which are not subject to lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CRIMES:

1. Simple crimes — These are the simple crimes which the Revised Penal Code defines and
prescribes the penalty in a single article.
Example: Art. 249, Homicide, is punished with Reclusion Temporal.
2. Plurality of crimes — when an offender commits many crimes, each with a corresponding
penalty distinct and separate from those of the others.

3. Special complex crimes — these are two simple crimes but which the RPC has defined as
a single offense with a single penalty.
Examples: Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Homicide, Robbery with Homicide,
Robbery with Rape, Kidnapping with Rape and Robbery with Arson.

4. Complex crimes — although more than one (1) crime has been committed, they constitute
only one crime not explicitly prescribed by the RPC and only one penalty is imposed
pursuant to Art. 48.

Two types of plurality of crimes:

a) Real or material plurality — when each act arises from distinct criminal impulses, in
which case, there will be as many crimes as there are acts.

b) Ideal plurality — where the acts arise from a single criminal impulse, in which case, they
would form a series of acts constituting a single continuing crime.

In crime against persons, each act constitutes a distinct act of execution and thus is a distinct offense.
There is no continuing crime against several persons.
 70

Q: What is a COMPLEX CRIME?

A: A complex crime is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies or where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

Two Kinds of Complex Crimes:

Art. 48 speaks of two (2) kinds of plurality of crimes:

(1) Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) — when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies.
(2) Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo) — when an offense is a necessary means for
committing another offense.

A complex crime is only one crime as contemplated by law because the offender has only one
criminal intent.

RULE: Both or all the offenses must be punished under the Revised Penal Code.

There is no complex crime of Estafa with Violation of BP 22

Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) - There is compound crime when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Requisites: (1) That only a single act is performed by the offender and (2) That the single act
produces two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Examples:
Double Homicide/Murder, Multiple Homicide, Homicide with Frustrated Homicide
and Homicide with Attempted Homicide.
Illustrations:

1. A with intent to kill, fired his gun at B. The bullet hit B. After hitting B, the same
bullet hit C. Both B and C died.

Although two (2) Homicide resulted from the act, A cannot be charged with 2 separate crimes of
Homicide. He is liable for the single offense of Double Homicide because the 2 Homicide
resulted from a single act. Homicide is a grave offense. The single act resulted in 2 grave
felonies.

Q: A throws a hand grenade. 10 people were killed and 10 almost got killed. Question: Are there
10 crimes of murder and 10 crimes of frustrated murder?

A: No., there is only one complex crime of multiple murder with multiple frustrated murder. ---
Why? – there is only one act of throwing the hand grenade, although as a result of that act,
several grave or less grave felonies result.

Q: Suppose in the same problem, the same bullet hit B, C, and D who all died as a result. What
crime or crimes did A commit?
A: He is liable for the complex crime of Multiple Homicide. There is no such crime as Triple
Homicide, Quadruple Homicide or Quintuple Homicide. If a single act causes 3 or more deaths,
it is Multiple Homicide or Multiple Murder as the case may be.

Q: In the same problem, suppose B and C were hit by the same bullet. B was seriously wounded
but survived. C died as a result of the gun shot wound.
 71

A: In this case, A is liable for the complex crime of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide. The
single act resulted in 2 grave felonies of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. In complex crimes,
the designation of the offense always starts with the more serious felony.

Q: What if B was hit but was only slightly injured but C died as a result, what crime or crimes
did A commit?
A: A is liable for Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act resulted to one grave
felony of Homicide and one less grave felony of Attempted Homicide. Although B sustained a
slight injury, it is still Attempted Homicide because there was intent to kill on the part of A.

RULE: in order for complex crime to exist, a single must must constitute either grave or less grave
felonies or 2 grave felonies or 2 less grave felonies.

Rule: A light felony cannot be complexed with a Grave or Less Grave felony

What happens of a single act produces a LESS GRAVE and a LIGHT FELONY? There are 2
possibilities: (1) the light felony will be ABSORBED by the less grave felony and (2) there are as many
light felonies as there are victims --- they are to be prosecuted separately.

Absorbed:

Q: A, policeman was engaged in the discharge of his functions. X approached A and hit him in his face. It
caused A, slight physical injury (light felony). Under Art. 148, the crime is Direct Assault. But what
happens to the slight physical injuries (light felony) that A sustained when X hit A?
A: It is absorbed by the element of attacking or employing force. We cannot say that the crime is Direct
Assault with Slight Physical Injuries.

As many light felonies: A threw stone at B. The stone hit C. The same stone hit D, E and F. We cannot
say that the slight physical injuries committed against B is absorbed in the crime of C and so on and so
forth----Art. 49 does not apply to light felonies. Here----there will be as many slight physical injuries
cases as there are victims.

In the case of Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 87, a grave or less grave felony cannot
be complexed with a light felony. The light felony should be separated, no to be complexed.

Thus, it is wrong for the prosecutor to file a criminal case if Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Slight Physical Injuries. He should file a complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide and another complaint for reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries.

2. Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)---- RULE: ONE OFFENSE IS A NECESSARY

MEANS FOR COMMITTING ANOTHER OFFENSE.

----there are 2 acts—you commit the crimes one after the other – the 1 st felony is not the ultimate objective, it
is only a stepping stone to commit another offense…you commit one in order to commit the other—one
is the means to commit the other.

Requisites:

a) That at least two offenses are committed.

b) That one of the offenses must be a necessary means for committing the other.
c) That both of the offenses must be punished under the same statute.

Examples: Estafa through falsification of commercial documents and Malversation through

falsification of a public document.
Problem:

Q: A found a lost check payable to B. He endorsed the check by falsifying the signature of B.
The drawee bank gave him the equivalent of the check. What crime/crimes did A commit? Why?
 72

A: A committed Estafa as regards the bank because it was deceived by A into believing that he
was B. He was able to commit Estafa because of his act of falsifying the signature of B. The
falsification was a necessary means of committing Estafa. Therefore, A committed the complex
crime of Estafa through Falsification.

Note: One offense is a NECESSARY mean to commit the other. The law does not say one
offense is committed as: an INDISPENSABLE means to commit another; a means to
CONCEAL the other; a DIRECT means to commit the other.

INDISPENSABLE: What happens if the 1st offense is indispensable to commit the second? Is
there a complex crime? Ans: NO. The 2nd crime is the real crime. The 1st crime which is
indispensable, is only an element of the 2 nd crime. This is what we call the doctrine of
ABSORPTION.

Problem:

Hernandez and others were charged with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
arsons and robberies. Can they be guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murder? Was
the charge correct?

Issue: Can rebellion be complexed with common crimes?

Held: No. "Murder, arson and robbery are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion, as a means
'necessary' for the perpetration of the offense. Such common offenses are absorbed or inherent in
the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art. 135 constitute one single crime, it
follows that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Art. 48, which requires therefore
the commission of at least two crimes."
That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that without either
of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty
attached to Art. 134. It follows therefore that any or all of the acts described in Art. 135, when
committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends become absorbed in the crimes
in themselves. Not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely
because it happens to be committed simultaneously with rebellion. But a rebel who for some
independent or personal motives, commits murder or other motives, is liable for murder or other
common offenses. (People vs. Geronimo); PP vs Hernandez 99 Phil. 515)

CONCEAL: RULE: No complex crime when one of the offenses was committed for the
purpose of concealing the commission of the other.

Example:

After committing homicide the accused in order to conceal the crime, set fire to the house where
it had been perpetrated. Setting fire to the house is Arson (Art 321). But in this case, neither
homicide nor arson was necessary to commit the other. The arson was not a necessary means of
committing Homicide. The Arson was resorted to conceal the crime of Homicide already
committed. Hence, the offender committed two separate crimes of Homicide and Arson.

Q: What is the penalty for complex crimes under Article 48? Why is there such a provision?
A: It is the penalty for the most serious crime in the maximum period. Such penalty is beneficial
to the accused because of the fact that he is given a single penalty, whereas if the crime is
considered separate, the offender shall be given as many penalties as there are crimes committed.
The reason for the single penalty is that the basis of the felony is the singularity of the act. For
instance, in the single act of pulling the trigger of a machine gun where 3 persons are killed,
without Article 48, the offender would have been penalized with 3 reclusion temporal in the
proper period. But with the provision on complex crimes, the penalty would be 1 reclusion
temporal in the maximum period.
 73

Q: What is the Single Larceny doctrine?

A: It is a doctrine in Theft or Robbery cases which is very popular in the United States and other
countries where the taking of a property or properties belonging to the same or different persons
by a series of acts or acts arising from a single criminal intent or resolution constitutes only one
crime.

Q: saw two (2) goats in his backyard. He decided to get both of them regardless of who is the
owner. With the left hand, he got one goat and with the right hand, he took the other goat. How
many crimes did A commit?
A: A committed two acts of getting the 2 goats. But he took them as a result of a single intent or
criminal resolution. Hence, he is liable for the single offense of Theft applying the single larceny
doctrine.

Q: A and B peeped through the glass window of a classroom. They saw 30 students inside. They
resolved to rob them all of their belongings. By a series of acts, they divested the students of
their personal properties by means of threat and intimidation. How many crimes did A and B
commit?
A: A and B are liable for the single offense of Multiple Robbery. The series of acts of
dispossession of the personal properties of the 30 students arose from a single criminal intent.

Exception to the Single Larceny doctrine.

USE OF SUBMACHINE GUN: NOT A COMPLEX CRIME

Does the number of the crimes committed depend upon how many times the trigger of an
automatic gun was pressed or does it depend how many bullets are emitted? In People v. Mario
Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, our Supreme Court declared that it is not the act of pressing the trigger
which should produce the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced
them. Hence, where the accused pressed the trigger of a submachine gun (Thompson) and the
gun fired continually and several persons were killed or injured, there are as many crimes as
are persons killed or injured. (People v. Sanchez, G. R. No. 131116, August 29, 1999)

Q: What is a continuing crime?

A: It is one where any of the elements of the offense is committed in different localities such that
the accused may be charged in any place where an essential element of the crime was committed.
It is not a complex crime because the offender does not perform a single act but a series of acts
and one offense is not a necessary means of committing the other.
Examples:
1. Conrado kidnapped Jenna and illegally detained her in Baguio City. On the following day he
brought her to Dagupan City. The next day, he brought her to Tarlac and then to Manila. All the
while, Jenna was deprived of her liberty. Conrado cannot be charged for four (4) separate crimes
of illegal detention. His bringing of Jenna to four (4) different places does not constitute separate
crimes of illegal detention. He committed the continuing offense of Illegal Detention.

2. X negotiated with Y regarding the purchase of the latter's car in Manila. After the conclusion
of the contract X and Y met in Angeles City where X paid Y a post dated check. The check was
deposited by Y in his account at the Banco de Oro bank in Baguio City. The drawee bank
dishonored the check for the reason "drawn against insufficient funds." Where can Y file a
complaint for Violation of BP 22 against X? Why explain?

Answer: Y can file a case for Violation of BP 22 in Angeles City, or Baguio City. Under the
law, a person can be charged in any place where an essential part of the offense was committed.
Violation of BP 22 is a continuing crime. Venue in a continuing crime is determined by the place
where any of the elements of the crime was committed.
 74

Q: What is the three-fold rule?

A: It means that if the convict were to suffer several penalties, the maximum duration of his
sentence shall not be more than three times the length of time corresponding to the most severe
penalty.

Art. 70 refers to service of sentence. It is therefore addressed to the jail warden or to the director
of prisons. The court or the judge has no power to implement Article 70 because the provision is
not for the imposition of penalties. If the penalty by their very nature can be served
simultaneously, then it must be so served.

Illustration: A was sentenced to suffer four penalties; 6 yrs, 5 yrs, 5 yrs and 7 yrs. The total of the
penalties is 23 years. Applying the 3fold rule, multiply 7 yrs. by 3 and we have 21 yrs. A shall
serve a total of 21 years only.

The three fold rule applies only if the convict were to suffer at least four (4)
penalties. If the convict were to suffer three (3) penalties only, the three fold rule doesn't
apply

Maximum duration of the convict’s sentence: 3 times the most severe penalty

Max period shall not exceed 40 years

Subsidiary imprisonment – this shall be excluded in computing for the maximum duration

Example: Juan has 10 sentences of 6 months and 1 day each and a fine of 1000. He was not able
to pay the fine. Therefore, he must serve subsidiary penalty after 18 months and 3 days in jail.

Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve the
penalties imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be
multiplied by three and the period will be the only term of the penalty to be served by him.
However, in no case should the penalty exceed 40 years.

>>> If the sentences would be served simultaneously, the Three-Fold rule does not govern.

>>> Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule, you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to
serve only three successive penalties. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve
four or more sentences successively.

>>> The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be
followed.

>>> It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the Three-Fold
rule is to be applied. The three-Fold rule will apply whether the sentences are the product of one
information in one court, whether the sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the
sentences are promulgated by different courts on different days. What is material is that the
convict shall serve more than three successive sentences.

For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule, even perpetual penalties are taken into account. So not
only penalties with fixed duration, even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible
penalties are taken into account. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule, indivisible penalties are
given equivalent of 30 years. If the penalty is perpetual disqualification, it will be given and
equivalent duration of 30 years, so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification,
under the Three-Fold rule, you take the most severe and multiply it by three. The Three-Fold rule
does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court.
 75

>>> Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. Even if you add the
penalties, you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by
three.

>>> The common mistake is, if given a situation, whether the Three-Fold Rule could be
applied. If asked, if you were the judge, what penalty would you impose, for purposes of
imposing the penalty, the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule, whatever the sum
total of penalty for each crime committed, even if it would amount to 1,000 years or more. It is
only when the convict is serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how
long he should stay in jail.

Q: When and how a penalty is to be executed?

A: 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. (Article 78)

Q: What are the effects of insanity?

A: If the offender was insane during the commission of the offense, he is exempt from criminal
liability. If the accused becomes insane during the trial, insanity shall suspend the proceedings.
(Article 79)

If the convict becomes insane after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of
the sentence shall be suspended only with regard to his personal liability.

The execution of his pecuniary liabilities shall not be suspended.

If the convict recovers his reason, the sentence is to be executed except if the penalty has
already prescribed

PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
Pecuniary liabilities of persons criminally liable
1. Reparation of damage caused
2. indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine

4. Costs of proceedings

NOTE: The court CANNOT disregard the order of payment, pecuniary liabilities in this article
must be observed.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is

totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its

effects;

4. By absolute pardon;
 76

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of

this Code.

Q: What is the effect of death on the criminal liabilities of a convict?

A: Death extinguishes the criminal liability of the convict. With respect to his pecuniary liabilities the
answer is it depends. If the convict dies before final judgment, his pecuniary liability is extinguished. If
he dies after final judgment, his pecuniary liability survives.

If the accused dies while the case is pending trial, the case will be dismissed. No
substitution. Or where the accused is serving his sentence, no substitution. There is
no such a thing as criminal liability by substitution. ------ THE DEATH OF THE
CONVICT EXTINGUISHES HIS CRIMINAL LIABILIITIES AS TO THE PECUNIARY
PENALTIES,

Prescription of crime — refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to prosecute the offender
because of the lapse of time.

Prescription of penalty — refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right to the State to execute the penalty
because of the lapse of time.

Marriage -- between the accused and the victim extinguishes criminal liability. The law
contemplates a valid marriage. There must be no legal impediment to the marriage.

Note: by marriage – this only applies to crimes of rape and crimes against Chastity like
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness. The victim of rape marries the accused, the criminal
liability is extinguished.

Problem:

A, B and C raped Susan. The 3 were arrested and charged with rape. B who is single, offered to
marry Susan. The latter accepted the offer and they got married. What is the effect of the
marriage to the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? Explain.

Answer:

This is a case of multiple rape. The marriage shall extinguish the criminal liability of B
alone. The marriage shall not extinguish the criminal liability of A and C because the rape that
they committed are separate and distinct from the rape committed by B.

>>>>Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good
faith. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marriage and
therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after the marriage, otherwise,
notwithstanding such marriage, the offended woman, although already his wife can still
prosecute him again, although the marriage remains a valid marriage. Do not think that the
marriage is avoided or annulled. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may
re-file the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real
marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed
because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed.

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or

reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.

 77

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception
of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the
basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of
this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966).

>>> the case should be filed within a certain period of time. When should you file it?

Period of Prescription of Crimes:

1) Death, reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal — 20 years.
2) Other afflictive penalties — 15 years.
3) Correctional penalties — 10 years except arresto mayor which prescribes in 5 years.
4) Libel or similar offense — 1 year.
5) Grave oral defamation and slander by deed — 6 months. Light offenses — 2 months.

When does the period of prescription start to run?

The running of the period starts from the discovery of the crime by the offended or the
authorities or their agents This list is exclusive; hence, discovery by other than them will not
make the period start to run. For instance, the discovery of the crime by a neighbor of the victim,
not being an agent of the offended party will not commence the running of the period.

What causes the interruption and the resumption of the running of the period?

The running of the period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information or when the
offender is out of the country. The period runs again when the proceedings are terminated
without acquittal or conviction for reasons not attributable to the offender.

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.
 78

>>>>it is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the final sentence after the lapse
of a certain time fixed by law.

>>>if the sentence is not yet final, the period of prescription will not run because Art. 93 refers to the
accused who shall “evade the service of sentence.” It does not start to run where despite his final
conviction the accused is not arrested to serve his sentence.

>>>>>Prescription of the penalty presupposes that the accused has been convicted by final judgment and
he evades the service of the penalty. From that time on, the prescriptive period of the penalty commences
to run.

Prescription of penalty begins to run from the date the culprit evades the service of
sentence. It is interrupted:

1. If the accused surrenders.

2. if he is captured.
3. If he should go to a foreign country with which the Philippines has no
extradition treaty.
4. If he should commit another crime before the expiration of the prescriptive
period.

Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is

extinguished partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is
serving his sentence.

What cause the partial extinction of criminal liabilities?

a. Conditional pardon;
b. Commutation of sentence;
c. Good conduct allowance;
d. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
e. Probation under P.D. No. 968; (Note: Under the new
law, probation now constitutes total extinction)
f. Partial repeal of penal law. (supra)

ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner
in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
 79

(1) During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five
days for each month of good behavior;

(2) During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior;
(3) During the following years until the tenth year inclusive of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and;
(4) During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior.

Good Conduct Allowance

For good behavior, a convict earns good conduct allowances deductible from his sentence.
It can be given only to prisoners by final conviction and not to detention prisoners. It cannot be
granted to those on conditional pardon, parole, or those sentenced to destierro.
>>>>It should be remembered that good conduct allowance may be earned only while the
accused is serving sentence.

Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his
sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence under
the circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within
48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity
or catastrophe to in said article. (Note: affected by the new amendatory law)

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons
shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked

Q: When is good conduct allowance given?

A: There must be the following requisites:
1. The occurrence of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake,
explosion or similar catastrophe or a mutiny in which the prisoner did not
participate;
2. The convict must evade the service of his sentence;
3. He must give himself up within 48 hours after the issuance of a proclamation
by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.

The offender who shall give himself up under the conditions specified above shall be given a
loyalty award equivalent to 1/5 of the period of his sentence by the Director of Prisons.

The provisions of this article apply only to cases falling under Article 158 of the Code, that is to
say, to convicts who, during any of the calamities mentioned in Article 158, leave the penal
institution but give themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours after the proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity.

In Summary, the following circumstances reduce the sentence being served by the convict:

1) Conditional pardon (Art. 95)

2) Commutation of sentence (Art. 96)
3) Good conduct allowances (Art. 97)
4) Special conduct
5) Loyalty allowance (Art. 98)
 80

What is the basic principle in civil liability ex-delicto?

That every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, crime being one of the five sources of
obligation under the Civil Code. However, if a person is acquitted from a criminal charge, it does
not mean that he is civilly free also because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecu-
tion is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas, in civil liability the quantum of proof required is
merely preponderance of evidence. When a person is acquitted therefor, his acquittal must be
based on the fact that he did not commit the offense to be free from liability. For, if his acquittal
is based merely on reasonable doubt, he may still be liable. In this case, it does not mean that he
did not do the act complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the
offense charged.

Note: Civil liability may be expressly waived by the offended

General rule: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil aspect arising from the crime is
deemed instituted. ---that is why there are 2 aggrieved parties in a criminal action, the state and
offended party.

Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors

of establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for
crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have
been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by
robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the
payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of
such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to
the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by
the innkeeper's employees.

ART. 105. Restitution. How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must he
made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of
value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the
latter his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been
acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which,
by law, bar an action for its recovery.

>>>Restitution is the return/restoration of the thing itself with allowance for any deterioration or
diminution of value.
>>>Restitution can be made even from third persons who lawfully acquired the thing. He can however
file an action against the person from whom he acquired it, unless he acquired it in a manner where the
law bars an action for recovery like acquisition from a public auction.

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 value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made
accordingly.
 81

Reparation requires the culprit in case of inability to return the stolen property to pay the value of
the property or to pay for the damaged property.

How do you determine the value> --- market value including other factors like the sentimental
value of the property.

Example:

A attacked B with a piece of wood and hit him several times. B was injured and his
watch valued at Php 6,000 was destroyed. In addition to his criminal liability if found
guilty, A shall also pay for the destroyed watch. This is reparation of the damage
caused.

In cases of physical injuries, the accused shall pay the hospital bills and doctor's fees
to the offended party.

>>>Reparation can be required only from the accused.

ART. 107. Indemnification. — What is included. — Indemnification for the

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 for consequential damages which is generally payment of lost or unrealized salary or
earning and includes not only those of the offended party but his family and even by a third person by
reason of the crime.

In homicide, the accused is ordered to pay the family of the victim, actual or compensatory damages. ---
cost of life –SC’s policy: P75 (People vs Jugueta 2015)

Read: Pp vs Magat, 332 SCRA; PP vs More, December 1999.

Awardable damages in cases of death:

1) The death indemnity by judicial fiat is presently Php75,000.00; (People vs. Jugueta2015)

2) Loss of earning capacity of the deceased; (Art. 2202 par. 1 of the New Civil Code)

3) Moral damages in favor of the spouse, descendents and ascendants of the deceased. (Art. 2206,
New Civil Code)

Moral damages to be recoverable must be the proximate result of the wrongful act or omission the factual
basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. (Philippine National Bank vs. Court
of Appeals, 395 SCRA 272)

As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and
necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.
(People vs. Rubiso, 399 SCRA 267)

4) Exemplary damages. (Art. 2230, New Civil Code)

ART. 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.

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 subsidiarily
for those of the other persons liable.

>>>>Liability of the principals of a felony is in solidum. The accomplice is solidarily liable for
1/2 of the amount imposed on the principal as his share and he is subsidiarily liable for the
other half in case the principal in insolvent.
 82

The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals, next the accomplice
and against that of the accessories.

Subsidiary liability is enforced:

(a) First, against the property of the principals;
(b) Second, against that of the accomplices; and
(c) Third, against that of the accessories.

Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by
whom payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of
their respective shares.

The person who made the payment when liability has been enforced, will have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their respective shares.

Damages unaffected by the Anti-Death Penalty Law

“We would like to stress that even if the death penalty is not to be imposed on the appellant
because of the prohibition in RA No. 9346, the award of damages under prevailing jurisprudence
is not affected. This award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on
the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended
the commission of the offense. (People vs Filomeno Villanueva, April 13, 2007)

Q: When do you award exemplary damages?

A: It is awarded when qualifying aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the
crime i.e. relationship (People vs Michael Palanay, G.R. No. 224583, February 1, 2017)

Q: Why exemplary damages are awarded?

A: To deter others from committing similar acts or for correction for the public good. (People vs
Michael Palanay, G.R. No. 224583, February 1, 2017)

*References: Discussions and citations are based from the book of JBL Reyes,
Criminal Law Book 1; Criminal Law Book 1 by Abelardo Estrada, 2014 Golden Notes-
UST; Criminal Law Review by Ambrosio Padilla III; ADDU transcription from the
lectures of Dean Iñigo; Criminal Law Reviewer by Boado; and Supreme Court
decisions.