CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEW

By:
JOHN MARK N. PARACAD
Legal Officer, DENR Region II
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
• When did it take effect? February 1, 1932

• Criminal law is that branch or division of

municipal law which
- defines crimes,
- treats of their nature and
- provides for their punishment
• Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. General – binding on all persons who reside or
sojourn in the Philippines
Exceptions:
a. Treaty Stipulation
b. Laws of Preferential Application
c. Principles of Public International Law
Example
(1). sovereigns and other chiefs of state
(2). Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, minister
resident and charges d’affaires (BUT consuls, vice-
consuls and other foreign commercial representatives
CANNOT claim the privileges and immunities accorded
to ambassadors and ministers.)
• 2. Territorial – penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory
Exceptions: (Art. 2 of RPC – binding even on crimes
committed outside the Philippines)
a. offense committed while on a Philippine ship or
airship
b. forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency note of
the Philippines or obligations and the securities issued
by the Government
c. introduction into the country of the above-mentioned
obligations and securities
d. while being public officers and employees, an offense
committed in the exercise of their functions
e. crimes against national security and the law of the
nations defined in Title One of Book Two
• 3. Prospective – the law does not have any
retroactive effect.

Exception: when the law is favorable to the

accused

Exceptions to the Exception:

a. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing causes of action
b. Offender is a habitual criminal
Theories in Criminal Law:
1. Classical Theory – basis is man’s free will to choose
between good and evil, that is why more stress is placed upon
the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The RPC is generally
governed by this theory.
2. Positivist Theory – basis is the sum of social and economic
phenomena which conditions man to do wrong in spite of or
contrary to his volition. This is exemplified in the provisions on
impossible crimes and habitual delinquency.
3. Mixed Theory – combination of the classical and positivist
theories wherein crimes that are economic and social in nature
should be dealt in a positive manner. The law is thus more
compassionate.
Construction of Penal Laws:
• 1. Liberally construed in favor of offender;

Examples:
a. the offender must clearly fall within the terms of the
law
b. an act is criminal only when made so by the statute

2. In cases of conflict with official translation,

original Spanish text is controlling;

3. No interpretation by analogy.
LIMITATIONS ON POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS:
1. Ex post facto law

2. Bill of attainder

3. Law that violates the equal protection clause

of the constitution.

4. Law which imposes cruel and unusual

punishments nor excessive fines.
Application of RPC Provisions (Art.2)
• Application of its provisions. — Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship
RULES:

1. Philippine vessel or airship – Philippine law shall apply

to offenses committed in vessels registered with the Philippine
Bureau of Customs. It is the registration, not the citizenship of
the owner which matters.
2. Foreign vessel

a. French Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel within
the territorial waters of a country are NOT triable in the courts
of such country.
Exception: commission affects the peace and security of the
territory, or the safety of the state is endangered.
• b. English Rule

General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign

vessel within the territorial waters of a country
are triable in the courts of such country.

Exception: When the crime merely affects things

within the vessel or it refers to the internal
management thereof.

This is applicable in the Philippines.

NOTE:

When the crime is committed in a WAR VESSEL of a

foreign country, the NATIONALITY of the vessel
will ALWAYS determine jurisdiction because
war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the
country to whose naval force they belong.
These rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the
high seas when the crime was committed, in these
cases, the laws of the nationality of the ship will
always apply.
The country of registry determines the nationality of
the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned
vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
Extraterritorial refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code outside the Philippines
territory:
• Three International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
a. Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction
of the subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and
public order.
b. Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the
extent that it can effectively
exercise control thereof.
c. Absolute Theory

i. The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it
subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country.
NOTE: The Philippines adopts this theory.
• ii. Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an
aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere,
Philippine criminal law will govern.

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;
a. The forgery is committed abroad
b. And it refers to Philippine coin, currency note,
obligation and security

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the

introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding
number;
• 4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
a) Those having to do with the discharge of their
duties in a foreign country.
b) The functions contemplated are those, which are,
under the law:
i) to be performed by the public officer
ii) in the Foreign Service of the Philippine
government
iii) in a foreign country.
NOTE:
The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime (whether
or not in relation to the exercise of public functions)
was committed within the Philippine Embassy or
within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This
is because embassy grounds are considered an
extension of sovereignty. Thus the crime is deemed to
have been committed in Philippine soil.
Illustration:

A Philippine consulate official who is validly married

here in the Philippines and who marries again in a
foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy
because this is a crime not connected with his official
duties. However, if the second marriage was
celebrated within the Philippine embassy, he may be
prosecuted here, since it is as if he contracted the
marriage here in the Philippines.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.

1. Rebellion is not included.

2. Any crime against public order is under the

jurisdiction of the host country
Felonies (Article 3)
Definitions - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means
of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law.
Act – an overt or external act.
Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law.
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES:

a. There must be an act or omission

b. That the act or omission must be punishable by the
RPC
c. That the act is performed or the commission
incurred by means of dolo or culpa
Dolo - deliberate intent.Must be coupled with
freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the
offender as to the act done by him.
Actus Reus - Physical act
Mens rea - a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful
purpose or criminal intent. Gravamen of the offense
Omission is:
a. the failure to perform a duty
b. required by law.
c. It is important that there is a law requiring the
performance of an act, if there is no positive duty,
there is no liability.

Examples: Omission
1. Failure to render assistance
2. Failure to issue receipt
3. Non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy against
the government.
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE
LEGE – “There is no crime when there is no law
punishing it.”
Classification Of Felonies According To The Means By
Which They Are Committed:

1. Intentional Felonies- by means of deceit (dolo)

Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent.
MISTAKE OF FACT – (Ignorantia Facti
Excusat)misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
Requisites:
a. the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be
b. intention is lawful
c. mistake must be without fault or carelessness by the
accused
• Example:

People v. Ah Chong (1910)

A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark,

honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area,
and after crying out sufficient warnings and
believing himself to be under attack, cannot be
held criminally liable for homicide.
2. Culpable Felonies- by means of fault (culpa)

Requisites:

a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. negligence (lack of foresight) and
imprudence (lack of skill)
Criminal Liability (Article 4)

• Par.1 Criminal liability for a felony

committed different from that intended
to be committed
• Requisites:
1. felony has been committed intentionally
2. injury or damage done to the other party is the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony
• Hence, since he is still motivated by criminal
intent, the offender is criminally liable in:

1. Error in personae – mistake in identity

2. Abberatio ictus – mistake in blow
3. Praetor intentionem - lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong

PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which in the

natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
without which the result would not have occurred
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the
blow
-occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his
intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed
on an unintended victim. The situation generally brings
about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more
grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt
against the intended victim and the consequence on the
unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the
more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the
maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are
only light that complex crimes do not result and the
penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting
crime.
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error
in personae.
• Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a
felonious act missed the person against whom it was
directed and hit instead somebody who was not the
intended victim.
Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the
felonious act was directed at the person intended, but
who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus
brings about at least two (2) felonious consequence, ie.
the attempted felony on the intended victim who was not
hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit.
A complex crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC
generally result. In error in personae only one crime is
committed.
ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in
identity
-occurs when the offender actually hit the person to
whom the blow was directed but turned out to be
different from and not the victim intended. The
criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless
the mistake in identity resulted to a crime different
from what the offender intended to commit, in which
case the lesser penalty between the crime intended
and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the
maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
- where the consequence went beyond that
intended or expected. This is a mitigating
circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when there is a
notorious disparity between the act or means
employed by the offender and the resulting felony,
i,e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably
anticipated or foreseen by the of fender from the
act or means employed by him.
Par. 2 Impossible Crime
Requisites:
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or
property.
2. There was criminal intent.
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or
inadequate or ineffectual means are employed.
4. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of
the Code or of special law.
Impossible crime occurs when there is:
1. inherent impossibility to commit the crime
2. inadequate means to consummate the crime
3. ineffectual means to consummate the crime
ART.6
STAGES OF EXECUTION:

• 1. CONSUMMATED – when all the elements necessary for its execution

and accomplishment are present
2. FRUSTRATED
Elements:
a. offender performs all acts of execution
b. all these acts would produce the felony as a consequence
c. BUT the felony is NOT produced
d. by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
3. ATTEMPTED
Elements:
a. offender commences the felony directly by overt acts
b. does not perform all acts which would produce the felony
c. his acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
Crimes, which do not admit of
Frustrated and Attempted Stages:
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the
law
provides otherwise
2. Formal crimes – consummated in one instance
(Ex: slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt
(Ex: attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason,
corruption of minors)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (Ex: betting in
sports: “ending,” corruption of public officers)
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage:
1. Rape
2. Bribery
3. Corruption of Public Officers
4. Adultery
5. Physical Injury
Two (2) stages in the development of a
crime:
1. Internal acts
- e.g. mere ideas of the mind
- not punishable
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable
except when considered by law as independent
crimes (e.g. Art. 304,Possession of picklocks and
similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC
ART.7
General Rule: Punishable only when they have been
consummated

Exception:
Even if not consummated, if committed against persons
or property.

Ex: slight physical injuries, theft, alteration of boundary

marks, malicious mischief, and intriguingagainst honor.

Note: Only principals and accomplices are liable;

*ACCESSORIES are NOT liable even if committed

against persons or property.
Conspiracy (Article 8)
Requisites:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement
2. For the commission of a felony
3. And they decide to commit it
Concepts of Conspiracy:
1. As a crime in itself
Ex: conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection, treason, sedition, coup d’
etat
2. Merely as a means to commit a crime
Requisites:
a. a prior and express agreement
b. participants acted in concert or simultaneously, which is indicative of a
meeting of the minds towards a common criminal objective
Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from conspiracy as a manner
of incurring criminal liability.
General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not
punishable since it is merely a preparatory act.
Exception: when the law specifically provides for a penalty
Ex: rebellion, insurrection, sedition, coup d’ etat
General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators
committed some other crime which is not part of the intended
crime.
Exception to the exception: When the act constitutes an
indivisible offense.
People v. Abut, et al. (GR No. 137601,
April 24, 2003)
OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST
OF:
1. Active participation in the actual commission of
the crime itself, or
2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the time of the commission of the
crime, or
3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-
conspirators by moving them to execute or
implement the criminal plan
• PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY
Requisites:
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. And proposes its execution to some other person
or persons
People vs. Nierra
• If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the
commission of the crime with insignificant or
minimal acts, such co-conspirator should be
punished as an accomplice only. The common
notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the
participants are punished as principals. This notion
is no longer absolute. The reason given is that penal
laws always favor a milder form of responsibility
upon and offender.
Illustration:
• There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the
planning. The taxi driver agreed for the use of his cab but said, “I will bring
you there, and after committing the robbery I will return later.” The taxi
driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed.
After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and
brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an
accomplice. His cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers
could have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during
the commission of the robbery. At most, what he only extended was his
cooperation.
A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each
other. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously
attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of
injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences.
Do not think that participants are always known to each other.
The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable.
As pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before
this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the
preparatory stage.
Illustration:
A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was
maltreating her. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed
at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband and started
mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop
but the goons continued. The wife ran away. The wife was
prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court said that there
was desistance so she is not criminally liable.

Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they

acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention,
conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider
the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act of
one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal
responsibility.
Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and
Light Felonies (ART.9)
• Importance of Classification
1. To determine whether the felonies can be complexed or not.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and of the penalty.
Penalties (imprisonment):
1. Grave felonies – afflictive penalties: 6 yrs. and 1 day to reclusion perpetua
(life)
2. Less grave felonies – correctional penalties: 1 month and 1 day to 6 years
3. Light felonies - arresto menor (1 day to 30 days)
As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are criminally
liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and the accomplice
are liable. The accessory is not.
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons or property that
criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice, even though the
felony is only attempted or frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light
felonies.
Article 10
General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.
Exceptions:
1. when special law provides otherwise
2. when provision of RPC are impossible of application, either
by express provision or by necessary implication
Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:
- Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
- Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
- Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime
Note: When the special law adopts the penalties
imposed in the RPC i.e. penalties as reclusion
perpetua, prision correccional, etc. the provisions of
the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stages
of execution, degree of participation and attendance
of mitigating and aggravating circumstance may be
applied by necessary implication
Article 11
• Justifying Circumstances – where the act of
a person is in accordance with law such that said
person is deemed not to have violated the law.

General Rule: No criminal and civil liability

incurred.

Exception: There is civil liability with respect to

par. 4 where the liability is borne by persons
benefited by the act.
Par. 1 Self-defense
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression
- indispensable requirement
- There must be actual physical assault or aggression or an
immediate and imminent threat, which must be offensive
and positively strong.
- The defense must have been made during the existence of
aggression, otherwise, it is no longer justifying.
- While generally an agreement to fight does not constitute
unlawful aggression, violation of the terms of the
agreement to fight is considered an exception.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it
Test of reasonableness depends on:
(1) weapon used by aggressor
(2) physical condition, character, size and other
circumstances of aggressor
(3) physical condition, character, size and
circumstances of person defending himself
(4) place and occasion of assault
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself

NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used, nor material

commensurability between the means of attack and defense by
the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not
required
REASON: the person assaulted does not have sufficient
opportunity or time to think and calculate.
Rights included in self-defense:
1. defense of person
2. defense of rights protected by law
3. defense of property (only if there is also an actual and
imminent danger on the person of the one defending)
4. defense of chastity
Kinds of Self-Defense:
1. self-defense of chastity – there must be an attempt to rape the
victim
2. defense of property – must be coupled with an attack on the person
of the owner, or on one entrusted with the care of such property.
People v. Narvaez, (GR No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983) Attack on
property alone was deemed sufficient to comply with element of
unlawful aggression.
3. self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s
good name.
“Stand ground when in the right” - the law does not require a person
to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a
deadly weapon.
• When A arrived home, he found B raping his
daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his
gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with
Homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his
daughter's honor.

Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of

any mitigating circumstance or circumstances?
• NO. A cannot validly invoke defense of his
daughter's honor in having killed B since rape was
already consummated; moreover, B already ran
away, hence, there was no aggression to defend
against and no defense to speak of.

A may, however, invoked the benefit of the

mitigating circumstance of having acted in
immediate vindication of a grave offense to a
descendant, his daughter, under par.5,
article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
NOTE:
Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004), victim-
survivors who are found by the Courts to be
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)
do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite
absence of the necessary elements for the
justifying circumstance of self-defense in the RPC.
BWS is a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result
of cumulative abuse.
• The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood
that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At
one time, past midnight, the accused went
downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he
thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After
seeing what appeared to him as an armed stranger
looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his
gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights
were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to
be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get
some light snacks. The accused was indicted for
serious physical injuries.

Should the accused, given the circumstances,

be convicted or acquitted? Why?
The accused should be convicted because, even
assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act
of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful
aggression on his person is not justified. Defense
of property or property right does not justify the
act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and
limb of the accused is already in imminent and
immediate danger. Although the accused acted
out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not
absolved from criminal liability.
Another illustration:
• Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping
on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore
when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her.
Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned
from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed
the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have
sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he
said "salamat osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did
Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to
death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of
honor.
Should the claim be sustained? Why?
• NO. Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be
sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased
when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under
paragraph 1, Article 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that
there be 1.Unlawful aggression and 2.Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to to prevent or repel it. The unlawful
aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was
injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled
party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him,
as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the code does not govern.
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual
intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an
immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against
her, which is only mitigating.
Par. 2 Defense of Relative
• Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one
making the defense had no part in such provocation.
Relative entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
5. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
NOTE: The relative defended may be the original aggressor. All that
is required to justify the act of the relative defending is that he takes
no part in such provocation.
Par. 3 Defense of Stranger
• Elements:
1. unlawful aggression (indispensable
requirement)
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
• A chanced upon three men who were attacking B
with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to
stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was
actually the aggressor because he had earlier
challenged the three men to a fight. A shot C as
the latter was about to stab B.

May A invoked the defense of a stranger as a

justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?
• Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of
defense of stranger since he was not involved in
the fight and he shot C, when the latter was
about to stab B. There being no indication that A
was induced by revenged, resentment or any
other evil motive in shooting C, his act is
justified under paragraph 3, Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended.
Par. 4 State of Necessity (Avoidance
of Greater Evil or Injury)
• Elements:
1. evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it
3. no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it

NOTE: The necessity must not be due to the

negligence or violation of any law by the actor.
Par. 5 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
Exercise of a Right or Office
• Elements:
1. accused acted in the performance of duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office
2. the injury caused or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of the
duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
NOTE: The accused must prove that he was duly
appointed to the position claimed he was discharging at
the time of the commission of the offense. It must also be
shown that the offense committed was the necessary
consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful
exercise of a right or office.
• Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The
following day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-
year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her
store to buy bottles of beer.Lucresia noticed her bracelet around the
right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to the
nearby police stationand sought the help of a policeman on duty,
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. Jun-Jun
continued to run and when he was about seven meters away, 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 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? Explain.

• No, the defense of Pat.Reyes is not tenable. 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 duty (People
vs. Oanis, et. al, 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that
the accused acted in the 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.
Par. 6 Obedience to a Superior Order
• Elements:
1. an order has been issued
2. order has a lawful purpose (not patently illegal)
3. means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
NOTE: The superior officer giving the order cannot invoke this
justifying circumstance. Good faith is
material, as the subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal
order if he is not aware of its illegality and he is not negligent.
General Rule: Subordinate cannot invoke this circumstance when
order is patently illegal.
Exception: When there is compulsion of an irresistible force, or
under impulse of uncontrollable fear.
ART.12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
• -grounds for exemption from punishment because there
is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions
which make the act voluntary or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or
intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the
accused.
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of
defense and must be proved by the defendant to the
satisfaction of the court.
Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity
• IMBECILE – one while advanced in age has a mental
development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7
years old. He is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
INSANE – one who acts with complete deprivation of
intelligence/reason or without the least discernment or with
total deprivation of freedom of will. Mere abnormality of the
mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability
Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval.
NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was insane at the
time of the commission of the crime because the presumption
is always in favor of sanity.
Par. 2 Under Nine Years of Age

• Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the

time of the commission of the crime. There is
absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a
minor under 9 years of age.

NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice

And Welfare Act a minor 15 years and below is
exempt from criminal liability
Par. 3 Person Over 9 and Under 15
Acting Without Discernment
• NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but but
below 18 who acted without discernment is
exempt from criminal liability
Par. 4 Accident without fault or
intention of causing it
• Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. with due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Par. 5 Irresistible Force
• IRRESISTIBLE FORCE – offender uses violence or
physical force to compel another person to commit a
crime.
Elements:
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. The physical force must be irresistible.
3. The physical force must come from a third
person
NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce
the individual to a mere instrument
Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
• UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – offender employs intimidation or threat in
compelling another to commit a crime.
DURESS – use of violence or physical force
Elements:
1. The 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 an ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.
NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or
reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It should not be inspired by
speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A threat of future injury is not enough.
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS – Any act
done by me against my will is not my act.
PAR 7. Insuperable Cause
• INSUPERABLE CAUSE – some motive, which has lawfully, morally
or physically prevented a person to do what the law commands
Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause.
Ex:
1. A priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him.
2. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary
detention
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme
debility, leaving child to die – not liable for infanticide (People v.
Bandian, 63 Phil 530)
• ABSOLUTORY CAUSES – where the act committed is a
crime but for some reason of public policy and
sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Exempting and
justifying circumstances are absolutory causes.
Examples of such other circumstances are:
1. spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
2. accessories exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247)
4. persons exempt from criminal liability from theft,
swindling, malicious mischief (Art 332)
5. instigation
NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-
bust operation conducted in connection with illegal
drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment
• Entrapment from Instigation
1. The ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
while The Instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the
offense and himself becomes a co-principal
2. In Entrapment, not a bar to accused
prosecution and conviction while in Instigation,
Accused will be acquitted.
3. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause while
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Article
13)
• those which if present in the commission of the
crime reduces the penalty of the crime but does
not erase criminal liability nor change the nature
of the crime.

NOTE: A mitigating circumstance arising from a

single fact absorbs all the other mitigating
circumstances arising from that same fact.
Par. 1 Incomplete Justifying or
Exempting Circumstances
• NOTE: This applies when not all the requisites
are present. If two requisites are present, it is
considered a privileged mitigating circumstance.
However, in reference to Art.11(4) if any of the
last two requisites is absent, there is only an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Remember
though, that in self-defense, defense of relative
or stranger, unlawful aggression must always be
present as it is an indispensable requirement
Par. 2 Under 18 or Over 70 Years Old
• NOTE: Age of accused is determined by his age
at the date of commission of crime, not date of
trial.
Par. 3 No Intention to Commit so
Grave a Wrong
• NOTE: Can be used only when the proven facts show that there is a
notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences.
Factors that can be considered are:
1. weapon used
2. injury inflicted
3. part of the body injured
4. mindset of offender at the time of commission of crime
This provision addresses the intention of the offender at the
particular moment when the offender executes or commits the
criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage
• NOTE: In crimes against persons – if victim does
not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the
felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered
as mitigating. It is mitigating only when the victim
dies.

NOTE: It is not applicable to felonies by negligence

because in felonies through negligence, the offender
acts without intent. The intent in intentional
felonies is replaced by negligence or imprudence.
There is no intent on the part of the offender, which
may be considered as diminished
Par. 4 Provocation or Threat
• Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
anyone.
Requisites:
1. provocation must be sufficient
2. it must originate from the offended party
3. must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked
NOTE: Threat should not be offensive and positively strong.
Otherwise, it would be an unlawful aggression, which may
give rise to self-defense and thus no longer a mitigating
circumstance.
Par. 5 Vindication of Grave Offense

• Requisites:
1. a grave offense 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 degrees
2. the felony is committed in immediate vindication
of such grave offense
NOTE: “Immediate” allows for a lapse of time, as
long as the offender is still suffering from the mental
agony brought about by the offense to him.
(proximate time, not just immediately after)
Par. 6 Passion or Obfuscation
• Requisites:
1. offender acted upon an impulse
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced
passion or obfuscation in him
NOTE: Act must have been committed not in the spirit of
lawlessness or revenge; act must come from lawful sentiments.
Act, Which Gave Rise To Passion And Obfuscation:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
2. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
3. That the act was proximate to the criminal act, not admitting of
time during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity
4. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or
obfuscation
NOTE: Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with
treachery since this means that the offender had time
to ponder his course of action.

Passion or Obfuscation from Irresistable Force

1. Passion or obfuscation is mitigating while
Irresistable force is exempting
2. Passion or Obfuscation, no physical force needed
while irresistable force requires physical force.
3. Passion and Obfuscation must come from the
offender himself while Irresistable Force must come
from 3rd peson
4. Paasion or Obfuscation must come from lawful
sentiments while Irresistable force is unlawful
Par. 7 Surrender and Confession of
Guilt
• WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY
- must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either
because:
1. he acknowledges his guilt; or
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture.
NOTE: If both are present, considered as two independent
mitigating circumstances. Further mitigates penalty
NOTES:
Plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does
not entitle accused to the mitigating circumstance.
• If accused pleaded not guilty, even if during
arraignment, he is entitled to mitigating
circumstance as long as he withdraws his plea of not
guilty to the charge before the fiscal could present
his evidence.
Plea to a lesser charge is not a Mitigating
Circumstance because to be such, the plea of guilt
must be to the offense charged.
Plea to the offense charged in the amended info,
lesser than that charged in the original info, is
Mitigating Circumstance.
• An accused charged with the crime of homicide
pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary
investigation before the municipal court. Upon the
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court of
competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and
voluntarily upon arraignment.
Can his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court
be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to
the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of
guilty under Art.13(7), RPC?
• Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial
Court can be considered spontaneous, for which
he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the
Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made
during the preliminary investigation only and
before a court not competent to render
judgment.
• Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with
Rene, stabbed and killed and latter. After the stabbing,
he brought his son home. The Chief of police of the town,
accompanied by several policemen, went to hilario's
house, Hilario, upon seeing the approaching policemen,
came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily
went with them to the police station to be investigated in
connection with the killing. When eventually charged
with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal,
faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance?

• Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. The crux of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went
home after the incident, but came down and met the police officers
and went with them is considered "voluntary surrender". The
voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous
showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally
to the authorities. This must be either (a) because he acknowledges
his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Thus, the act of the
accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily
went with the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to
investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.(People vs.
Dayrit)
Par. 8 Physical Defect of Offender

• The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or

otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
restricting his means of action, defense or
communication with others.

NOTE: The physical defect must relate to the

offense committed.
Par. 9 Illness of the Offender

• Requisites:
1. The illness of the offender must diminish the
exercise of his will-power.
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
Par. 10 Similar and Analogous
Circumstances

• Example:
1. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing
eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70 years old.
2. Outraged feeling of an owner of an animal taken
for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave
offense.
3. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and
obfuscation.
4. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to
voluntary surrender.
5. Extreme poverty, similar to incomplete
justification based on state necessity.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Article
14)
• Those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime,
serve to have the penalty imposed in its maximum period
provided by law for the offense or those that change the
nature of the crime.
BASIS: The greater perversity of the offender manifested in
the commission of the felony as shown by:
1. the motivating power itself,
2. the place of the commission,
3. the means and ways employed
4. the time, or
5. the personal circumstances of the offender, or the offended
party.
• KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Generic - those which apply to all crimes
2. Specific - those which apply only to specific
crimes,
3. Qualifying - those that change the nature of the
crime
4. Inherent - which of necessity accompany the
commission of the crime, therefore not considered
in increasing the penalty to be imposed
5. Special - those which arise under special
conditions to increase the penalty of the offense and
cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances
Par. 1. That advantage be taken by
the offender of his public position
• Requisites:
1. Offender is public officer
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or
ascendancy which his office gives him as means to realize
criminal purpose
It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where
taking advantage of official position is made by law an integral
element of the crime or inherent in the offense,
Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a document
committed by public officers (Art. 171).

• When the public officer did not take advantage of the

influence of his position, this aggravating circumstance is not
present.
• NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position is
also inherent in the case of accessories under
Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or
assisting in the escape of the principal of the
crime), and in crimes committed by public
officers (Arts. 204-245).
Par. 2. That the crime be committed
in contempt of or with insult to
public authorities
• Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the
exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of
said functions is not the person against whom
the crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public
authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender
from committing the criminal act.
PERSON IN AUTHORITY
• PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person who is
directly vested with jurisdiction and has the power to govern and
execute the laws
Ex:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or recognized private
school is not a “public authority within the contemplation of this
paragraph. While he is a person in authority under Art. 152, that
status is only for purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.152
(resistance and disobedience)
• The crime should not be committed against the
public authority (otherwise it will constitute direct
assault under Art.148) This is NOT applicable when
committed in the presence of a mere agent.

AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/ the

maintenance of public order and protection and
security of life and property
Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
• Par. 3. That the act be committed:
(1) with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account
of his
(a)rank,
(b) age, or
(c) sex or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation
• Rules regarding par 3(1):
1. These circumstances shall only be considered as
one aggravating circumstance.
2. Rank, age, sex may be taken into account only in
crimes against persons or honor, they cannot be
invoked in crimes against property.
3. It must be shown that in the commission of the
crime the offender deliberately intended to offend or
insult the sex, age and rank of the offended party.
RANK – 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 – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
SEX– refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
•
The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not applicable in the
following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and
the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the
commission of the crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)
People vs. Lapaz, March 31, 1989
Disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery because
treachery refers to the manner of the commission of the crime, while
disregard of sex and age pertains to the relationship of the victim.
• DWELLING – must be a building or structure
exclusively used for rest and comfort (combination of
house and store not included), may be temporary as in
the case of guests in a house or bedspacers. It includes
dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure
under the house
NOTES:
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that
the crime be wholly or partly committed therein or in
any integral part thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or
domicile of the offended party or that he must be the
owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or
dwelling therein even for a temporary duration or
purpose.
• It is not necessary that the accused should have actually
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is
enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from without.
What aggravates the commission of the crime in one’s
dwelling:
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed
in the offender by opening the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing
therein with violence or against the will of the owner.
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling:
The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
• NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the offended party
is deemed to have given the provocation, and the fact that the
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is
NOT an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked the
incident, he loses his right to the respect and consideration
due him in his own house
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:
1. When both the offender and the offended party are
occupants of the same house, and this is true even if offender
is a servant in the house.
exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the
same is aggravating.
However, if the paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling,
the applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse of
confidence.
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things,
dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent.
• However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons because
this class of robbery can be committed without the
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended
party’s house.
3. In the crime needed to see this picture. dwelling, it is
inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and
immediate provocation.
There must exist a close relation between the
provocation made by the victim and the commission of
the crime by the accused.
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.
Par. 4. That the act be committed with: (1)
abuse of confidence or (2) obvious
ungratefulness
• Requisites Of Abuse Of Confidence:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended
party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft

(Art. 310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified
seduction (Art. 337).

Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended
party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.

NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be such clear and manifest
ingratitude on the part of the accused.
• Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the
palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
•
Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime is committed in
the palace or in the presence of the Chief Executive.
Requisites Regarding Public Authorities:
1. crime occurred in the public office
2. public authorities are actually performing their public duties
Requisites (Place Dedicated To Religious Worship):
1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless
of religion
2. The offender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered
the place of worship
Except for the third which requires that official functions are being
performed at the time of the
commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per se
even if no official duties or acts of religious worship are being conducted
there.
Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as place
dedicated to the worship of God.
Par. 6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in
an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such
circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense

• NOTE: When present in the same case and their element

are distinctly palpable and can subsist
independently, they shall be considered separately.

When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:

1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure
the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity
• NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness
beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn.
Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in
the nighttime. When the place of the crime is illuminated by
light, nighttime is not aggravating. It is not considered
aggravating when the crime began at daytime.
Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to
commit the crime was conceived of shortly before commission
or when crime was committed at night upon a casual
encounter
However, nighttime need not be specifically sought for when
(1) it facilitated the commission of the offense, or
(2) the offender took advantage of the same to commit the
crime
• GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and
nocturnity were deliberately decided upon in the same case, they
can be considered separately if such circumstances have different
factual bases. Thus:
In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966),
- nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought, and
treachery was further appreciated because the victim’s hands and
arms were tied together before he was beaten up by the accused.
In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was treachery as the
victim was stabbed while lying face up and defenseless, and
nighttime was considered upon proof that it facilitated the
commission of the offense and was taken advantage of by the
accused.
• UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where
there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, where the houses are scattered
at a great distance from each other.

Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal

purpose.

What should be considered here is whether in the

place of the commission of the offense, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help.
• BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3 armed
malefactors that shall have acted together in the commission
of an offense
NOTE: There must be four or more armed men
If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by
inducement, they do not form a band because it is
undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation.
“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or
against persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason
but does not apply to crimes against chastity
“By a band” is inherent in brigandage
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength
• At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy
were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila,
Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the
back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
Steve, Danny, and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then
Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and
Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks.
As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy,
and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Can the court appreciate the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and band?
• No, nighttime can not be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance because there is no
indication that the offenders deliberately sought
the cover of darkness to facilitate the
commission of the crime or that they took
advantage of nighttime.(People vs. De los Reyes,
203 SCRA 707).
• Note:
Band should be considered as the crime was
committed by more than three armed malefactors.
In a recent Supreme Court Decision, stones or
rocks are considered deadly weapons
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of
a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
• Requisites:
1. The crime was committed when there was a
calamity or misfortune
2. The offender took advantage of the state of
confusion or chaotic condition from such misfortune
If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended
party during the calamity/misfortune, this
aggravating circumstance may not be taken into
consideration.
Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of
(1) armed men or
(2) persons who insure or afford impunity
• Requisites:
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 was committed
NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed men
are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity directly or
indirectly, and not when they were merely present at the crime
scene. Neither should they constitute a band, for then the proper
aggravating circumstance would be cuadrilla.
When This Aggravating Circumstance Shall Not Be Considered:
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed.
• 2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with
him in the commission of the crime acted under the same plan
and for the same purpose.
3. When the others were only “casually present” and the
offender did not avail himself of any of their aid or when he
did not knowingly count upon their assistance in the
commission of the crime
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in
employment of a band. If there are three armed men or less,
aid of armed men may be the aggravating circumstance.
“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”
Par. 9. That the accused is a
recidivist
• RECIDIVIST is one convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the
same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.” It is employed
in its general sense, including the rendering of the judgment. It is
meant to include everything that is done in the course of the trial,
from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in
open court.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty.

• Requisites Of Reiteracion Or Habituality:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
• Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender
shall shall have served out his sentence for the
first offense.
Recidivism - It is enough that a final
judgment has been rendered in the first offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent
offenses must not be embraced in the same title
of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be
included in the same title of the code.
THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:
1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – Where a person, on separate
occasions, is convicted of two offenses
embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a generic aggravating
circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) – Where the offender
has been previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
two crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art.62, par, 5) – Where a
person within a period of ten
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification, is found guilty of the said crimes a third time or oftener.
This is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person commits felony
before beginning to serve or while
serving sentence on a previous conviction for a felony. This is a special
aggravating circumstance.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in
consideration of price, reward or promise.
• Requisites:
1. There are at least 2 principals:
- The principal by inducement (one who offers)
- The principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
and in consideration of the commission of the
criminal act
NOTE: The circumstance is applicable to both principals.
It affects the person who received the price / reward as
well as the person who gave it.
If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after
the crime had been committed asan expression of his
appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other
accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation,
fire, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any artifice
involving great waste and ruin
• The circumstances under this paragraph will only be
considered
as aggravating if and when they are used by the offender as
a
means to accomplish a criminal purpose
When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies
the
crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance only
When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is
qualified to murder.
Par. 13. That the act be committed
with evident premeditation
• Requisites:
The prosecution must prove –
1. The time when the offender determined to commit
the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to
his determination; and
3. 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.
*Premeditation is absorbed by reward or
promise.
Par. 14. That (1) craft,(2) fraud, or
(3) disguise be employed.
• Requisite
The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or
disguise
to facilitate the commission of the crime.
CRAFT (astucia) – involved the use of intellectual trickery or
cunning on the part of the accused. A chicanery resorted to
by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design.
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime
FRAUD (fraude) – insidious words or machinations used to
induce
the victim to act in a manner which would enable the
offender
to carry out his design
• Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery ifthey have been
deliberately adopted as the 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.
Ex:
In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980),
where the accused pretended to hire the driver in order to
get his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed
to the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless
driver.
In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986)
there was also craft where after hitching a ride, the accused
requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody,
when in fact they had already planned to kill the driver.
• DISGUISE (disfraz) – resorting to any device to conceal
identity
The test of disguise is 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.
The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel
constitutes disguise.
Par. 15. That (1) advantage be taken
of superior strength, or (2) means be
employed to weaken the defense.
• Par. 15 contemplates two aggravating
circumstances, either of
which qualifies a killing to murder.
MEANING OF “advantage be taken”:To
deliberately use excessive
force that is out of proportion to the means for
self-defense
available to the person attacked. (PEOPLE vs.
LOBRIGAS, et.
al., GR No. 147649, December 17, 2002)
• No Advantage Of Superior Strength In The
Following:
1. One who attacks another with passion and
obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength.
2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the
fatal blow was
struck at a time when the aggressor and his
victim were
engaged against each other as man to man.
• NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (“band”).
MEANING OF “Means employed to weaken defense” - the
offender
employs means that materially weaken the resisting power of
the offended party.
Ex:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latter’s resisting power.
Par. 16. That the act be committed
with treachery (alevosia)
• TREACHERY – when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
Requisites:
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
TEST: It 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 need not insure accomplishment of
crime.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
Treachery is taken into account even if the crime against the
person is complexed with another felony involving a different
classification in the Code. Accordingly, in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, treachery but can be
appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.
The suddenness of attack in itself does not constitute treachery,
even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was
accidental.
Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if the manner
of attack is not shown.
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act
• IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused
by the crime.
MEANING OF “which add ignominy to the natural effects thereof”
The means employed or the circumstances brought about must
tend
to make the effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or
to put the offended party to shame, or add to his moral
suffering. Thus it is incorrect to appreciate ignominy where
the victim was already dead when his body was dismembered, for
such act may not be considered to have added to the victim’s
moral suffering or humiliation. (People vs. Carmina,
G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991)
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical
injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder.
Par. 18. That the crime be
committed after an unlawful entry.
• UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected
by a way not intended for the purpose.

NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect

entrance and not for escape.

REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not

respecting the walls erected by men to guard their
property and provide for their personal safety,
shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity;
hence, the law punishes him with more severity.
• Par. 19. That as a means to the
commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor,
door, or window be broken.
• Par. 20. That the crime be committed
(1) with the aid of persons under
fifteen (15) years of age, or
(2) by means of motor vehicles,
airships, or other similar means.
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the
crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission
• CRUELTY – there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys
and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in the
consummation of the criminal act.
Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased
by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the
execution of the purpose of the offender.
Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against persons.
Alternative Circumstances (Article
15)
• Alternative Circumstances – 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. (Art.15)
Basis
The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission.
The Alternative Circumstances Are:
1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.
• Relationship
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be
taken into consideration when the offended party is
the –
1. Spouse,
2. Ascendant,
3. Descendant,
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister,
or
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender.
• Other Relatives Included (By Analogy):
1. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and
stepson or stepdaughter.
REASON: It is the duty of the step-parents to bestow
upon their stepchildren a mother’s/father’s affection,
care and protection.
2. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child.
NOTE: But the relationship of uncle and niece is not
covered by any of the relationship mentioned.
• When Relationship Mitigating And When
Aggravating:
1. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes
against property, by analogy to the provisions of
Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of
robbery (Arts. 294-302), usurpation (Art. 312),
fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts.
321-322, 325-326).
• 2. In crimes against persons –
a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of
(1). a higher degree than the offender, or
(2). when the offender and the offended party are relatives of
the same level (e.g. brothers)
b) But when it comes to physical injuries:
(1). It is aggravating when the crime involves serious physical
injuries (Art.263), even if the offended
party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious physical
injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
(2). It is mitigating when the offense committed is less serious
physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the offended
party is a relative of a lower degree.
(3). It is aggravating if the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree of the offender.
• c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is
aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a relative of
a lower degree.
d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather
raped his stepdaughter or in a case where a father raped
his own daughter.
3. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness
(Art. 336), relationship is always aggravating, regardless
of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower
degree of the offended party. When the qualification
given to the crime is derived from the relationship
between the offender and the offended party, it is neither
mitigating nor aggravating, because it is inseparable
from and inherent in the offense. (e.g. parricide, adultery
and concubinage).
• Intoxication - When Intoxication Mitigating And
When Aggravating:
1. Mitigating –
a. If intoxication is not habitual, or
b. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony.
2. Aggravating –
a. If intoxication is habitual, or
b. If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony).
• To Be Entitled To The Mitigating Circumstance Of
Intoxication, It Must Be Shown:
1. That at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the
accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur
his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
control, and
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the
plan to commit the felony.
To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be
proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory
evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is
presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional.
• A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having
had a drink too many, A and B had a heated argument,
during which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious
physical injuries.
May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
mitigating?
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered
mitigating since it was merely incidental to the
commission of the crime. It may not be considered
aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts
of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part
of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed;
they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Instruction or Education
As an alternative circumstance it does not refer only
to literacy but more to the level of intelligence of the
accused.
Refers to the lack or presence of sufficient
intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of
one’s acts.
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it
is generally mitigating. High degree of instruction
and education is aggravating, when the offender
took advantage of his learning
in committing the crime.
• GENERAL RULE: Lack of sufficient
education is mitigating
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa,
theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity, and
3. Treason – because love of country should be a
natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be.
• ART.17.PRINCIPALS
THREE TYPES OF PRINCIPALS:
1. Principal by DIRECT PARTICIPATION (par.1)
2. Principal by INDUCTION (par.2)
3. Principal by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (par.3)
Par. 1 – Principals by direct participation
Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and
(conspiracy
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in
its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
• Art.17 Par 2. Principal By Induction
Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the
crime by the material executor.
One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of the crime
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).
Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction:
1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by :
a) Using irresistible force.
b) Causing uncontrollable fear.
Illustrations
• While in the course of a quarrel, a person shouted to
A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed the other person. Is
the person who shouted criminally liable? Is that
inducement?
- No. The shouting must be an irresistible force for
the one shouting to be liable.
There was a quarrel between two families. One of
the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. His
mother then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed
someone. Is the mother liable?
- No
• Principal By Indispensable Cooperation
Art.17 Par. 3 – Principal by indispensable cooperation
Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is
either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose
and intention immediately before the commission of the
crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act, without which it would not have
been accomplished.
• MEANING OF “cooperation in the commission of
the offense”
- To desire or wish in common a 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: If the cooperation is not indispensable, the

offender is only an accomplice.
• ART.18

ACCOMPLICES - Persons who do not act as principals but

cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous and
simultaneous acts, which are not indispensable to the commission
of the crime. They
act as mere instruments that perform acts not essential to the
perpetration of the offense.

Requisites: (the following must concur)

1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter his purpose;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral
aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal
and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.
• NOTES:
Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a
principal by direct participation.
The person charged as an accomplice should not
have inflicted a mortal wound. If he inflicted a
mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct
participation.
In case of doubt, the participation of the offender
will be considered that of an accomplice rather than
that of a principal.
• When is one regarded as an accomplice:
Determine if there is a conspiracy.
- If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability of all
will be the same, because the act of one is the act of all.
Exception:
- If the participation of one is so insignificant
- such that even without his cooperation,
- the crime would be committed just as well,
- then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy,
such offender will be regarded only as an
accomplice.
• What are the other traits of an accomplice
- does not have a previous agreement or
understanding; or
- is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct
participation
In Principal by Cooperation - Cooperation is
indispensable in the commission of the act.
Accomplice - Cooperation is not indispensable in the
commission of the act.
Who are Accessories ?
ART.19
Accessories are those who:
1. having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
2. without having participated therein either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following acts:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
c. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery.
In profiting by the effects of the crime, 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.
• AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS HIS :
1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
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 by the effects of the
crime.
REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by
affection but by a detestable greed.
Prescription of Offenses
• 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.
• 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