CRIM 1 Transcript EH410

CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 1
CRIMINAL LAW I (Teacher: Fiscal RodulphCarilllo)
--- FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY ----
SOURCES
- Revised Penal Code (Book I)

- Jurisprudence
Tips in answering Fiscal Carillo’s Exam: PRINCIPLES(s), APPLICATION OF THE LAW
REQUIREMENTS: 3 Major Examinations, Oral Examinations/Quiz
Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He left her and joined the Mormons. He became a dedicated missionary spreading the gospel of Brigham
Young. One day he arrived in a town to do missionary work and met Clara. They fell in love with each other. Timothy honestly believed that his
conversion to the Mormon religion allowed him to have more than one wife. Without his first marriage to Maria dissolved, Timothy married Clara.
Timothy was charged with bigamy.
Timothy is: Criminally liable because his mistake in the interpretation of the law does not excuse him from its effects.
Criminally because his misapprehension of the facts caused an injury that would result in criminal liability
Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a culpable felony
Criminally liable because good faith is not a defense in the case of felonies
ANSWER:
PRINCIPLE OF LAW: “One who commits an intentional felony is liable for all the natural and logical consequences that may result therefrom, whether
foreseen, intended or not.”
APPLICATION:
How does one incur criminal liability? Give an example.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
What if you want to kill your classmate because he would not allow you to copy his answers in an exam? You see this classmate walking with his
girlfriend. You say: “This is my chance. I will shoot my classmate”. You shoot your classmate but you missed in shooting him. Instead, you shot his
girlfriend. Are you liable? Will you be liable for an intentional or culpable felony? If the act is an intentional felony, why? It was not the girlfriend whom
you wanted to kill. It was her boyfriend. In this case, your classmate. Would that not amount to a culpable felony?
In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF BATANGAS, what did De Joya asked from the Supreme Court?
PP vs. GONZALES?
QUESTION: If I bought a gun with the intent of killing a person without actually killing him, will I be liable for an attempted murder?
WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?
-Defines crimes
-Treats of their nature
-Provides for penalties
Primary Purpose
Prevent harm to society by:
a. Declaring what conduct is criminal
b. Describing the punishment to be imposed for such conduct
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
-Revised Penal Code
-Special Laws passed by the Legislature
-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

There are no common law crimes.
No law = no crime.
Are court decisions and circulars sources of criminal law?
“SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. This is just a clarification of our
decision.” (NORMA DE JOYA vs. THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003)
State’s power to define and punish crimes.
“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivision of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be
carried into execution, would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be
understood by the public.”
A state must be able to define and punish crimes. If you place the penalties for crimes in the Constitution, it will tarnish its characteristic. It will not be
brief, broad and definite anymore. If you do that, that will be making our Constitution a broad one.
Limits (1987 Constitution)
-Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)
-Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])
-Speedy disposition of cases
-Right to bail
-Presumption of innocence
-Self-incrimination
-Double jeopardy

The power of the state to define and punish crimes has a limitation. These are more or less included in our laws. We can find some of these in the
Revised Rules of Court.
LIMITS (Statutory)
-Presumption of innocence
-Informed of the nature and cause of accusation
-To be present and defend in person
-To testify in his own behalf
-Self-incrimination
-To confront / cross-examine
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.
In criminal cases:
Place / Venue
Nature of the crime – if penalty is 6 years and 1 day above (RTC); if drug related case, the RTC specially designated as drug court; if the case consists of
a minor?
Person committing the crime
WHEN DOES A COURT ATTAIN JURISDICTION?When the offender surrenders himself; during arraignment; the person surrendering must do it
personally, you cannot send a messenger
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

(1) General (refers to the subject of criminal law; ANYONE WHO LIVES OR SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY WILL BE SUBJECT TO PHILIPPINE
CRIMINAL LAW
(2) Territorial
(3) Prospective
JURISDICTION
-Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over military personnel with Courts martial even in times of war as long as the civil courts are still functioning
GONZALES vs. ABAYA, GR No. 164007, August 10, 2006
RA #7055
GENERAL RULE – AFP, persons subject to military law, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal
laws, or local ordinances – civil court.
EXCEPTION – Service-connected offenses – military court
EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION – President, interest of justice – civil court
EXCEPTIONS (These are for purposes of international comity)
- Treaties
- Laws of preferential application;
- Sovereigns, Chiefs of State, Ambassadors, Ministers plenipotentiary, ministers residents and charges d’affaires.
- Consuls being commercial representatives have no such immunity. They do not enjoy the same immunity enjoyed by the above-mentioned
political agencies
2. TERRITORIAL
Criminal law is applicable only with respect to acts committed within Philippine territory.

Philippine Territory – Archipelagic doctrine
EXCEPTIONS
Article 2 of the RPC:
1. Philippine ship / airship
2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities (maskipagnaakagawassaPilipinas, liable gihaponka!)
3. Introduction of items no. 2 into the Philippines
4. Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their functions
5. Crimes against national security / law of nations (EVEN IF YOU COMMIT REBELLION OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES, TENDING TO INDUCE FOREIGNERS TO
COMMIT SUCH CRIME, YOU WILL STILL BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ; Piracy)
3. PROSPECTIVE
-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in…….
EXCEPTION
When the new law is favourable to the accused
NOT APPLICABLE (Exception to the exception):
Express prohibition;
Habitual criminal
REPEAL
If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be applied. (Exception, retroactive, favourable)

If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall be applied. (General law, no retroactive effect, not favorable)
If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favourable) ; THOSE WHO ARE SERVING SENTENCE, YOU
RELEASE THEM ; Anti-Subversion Act was totally repealed; Just becoming a member of an organization that is subversive, you can be prosecuted,
however, this was already repealed so their cases were DISMISSED
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
Against the Government and in favor of the accused.
Spanish text is controlling (OLD CODIGO PENAL)
As in all rules of statutory construction, these rules are applicable only when there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of the criminal statute
PP vs. GONZALES – What was the crime involved in this case? What particular principle in law would you use if you were the justice in this case? So
what if you can establish that the accused did not commit a felonious act punishable by Article 4 of the RPC? Would it be correct to say that a felony
cannot be punished merely because it is not proven that such felony existed?
ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION
(REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship
Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities;
Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;
Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their functions;
National security / law of nations
FISCAL CARILLO: Airplane sir, walailabot? Walailabotnohkywala man dha? Yes or no? (The term “AIRSHIP” is found in the OLD CODIGO PENAL so the
answer is YES, LABOT)
WHEN COMMITTED ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP.

A person who commits an offense on board a Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside Philippine territory can be tried by our courts.
Ship or airship must be in international waters.
FORGES OR COUNTERFEITS ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES
Making false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163)
A PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEE, OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTIONS.
- Direct bribery (Art. 210)

- Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
- Frauds against the public treasure (Art. 213)
- Malversation (Art. 217)
- Falsification (Art. 171)
- Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
CRIMES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
- Treason (Art. 114)

- Espionage (Art. 117)
- Piracy (Art. 122)
FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIPS
An extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs.
In the case of US vs. BULL, a continuing crime on board a foreign merchant ship sailing to the Philippines is triable by our courts. The condition was still
existing when the ship was within territorial waters.
WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN MERCHANT SHP
International Waters – NOT triable in our courts, an extension of the territory of the country to which the ship belongs.
Territorial Waters – TRIABLE in our courts unless – merely affect things (1) within the vessel or they refer to the (2) internal management thereof.
(ENGLISH RULE)
ENGLISH RULE vs. FRENCH RULE
Crimes committed on board FMV within territorial waters.
FRENCH RULE – NOT triable unless it affects peace and security of the territory
ENGLISH RULE – TRIABLE unless they merely affect things within vessel or refer to internal management thereof. (Take note: THE MOMENT WE GET AN
INFORMATION THAT A FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL / AIRSHIP POSSESSES A PROHIBITED ARTICLE, THE PHILIPPINE COURTS WILL HAVE JURISDICTION)
EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH RULE
Possession of opium.
If FMV is in transit – NOT TRIABLE
If Philippines is destination – TRIABLE
SMOKING OPIUM –triable regardless
OPIUM IS LANDED ON PHILIPPINE SOIL- triable regardless
(See PP vs. WONG CHENG, PP vs. LOOK CHAW & PP vs. AH SING)
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED TODAY. WHAT IS CONTROLLING AT PRESENT IS R.A. 9165
ART. 3. FELONIES
FELONY is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
ELEMENTS:

Act or omission;
Punishable by the RPC;
There is dolo or culpa
ACT OR OMISSION
- Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.” (PP vs. GONZALES)
ACTS
OVERT – done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct connection with the felony committed.
Is the act of buying a gun a crime? You bought a gun because you are going to commit a crime. You bought it for the purpose of self-defense. You
bought it because you want to join a shooting competition. Even when you draw pistol (loaded) or you just want to threaten a person, IT IS STILL AN
EQUIVOCAL ACT.
OMISSION
Omission refers to inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty. There must be a law punishing such inaction or failure.
“Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do
not constitute the cooperation…” The only evidence of the state was that SILVESTRE was with her husband and failure on the part of SILVESTRE to give
an alarm. (PP vs. SILVESTRE)
You see somebody in a remote area in danger of dying. Nadasmagansiyaug truck and you failed to give assistance, you will be LIABLE under the above
rule. (OMISSION)
FELONIES
DOLO – deceit / malice; deliberate intent
CULPA – fault; no deliberate intent but there is:

Imprudence – lack of skill, or
Negligence – lack of foresight
*WHETHER IT BE IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE, IT MUST BE VOLUNTARY.
Recall the illustrative case given by Fiscal Carillo (HOUSEBOY & HOUSEMAID / “Ti-uniko, ti-uniko, Sir”)
Houseboy was only used as an instrument
Why was AH CHONG brought to court? Was he relieved from criminal liability merely because of his belief that he was under attack? Is there any
principle involved in the case of AH CHONG that the Supreme Court used in acquitting him? Was it not an intentional act on the part of AH CHONG in
killing his victim? So, can you say that “GOOD FAITH” is a defense for the crime of homicide?
OANIS Case
PP vs. VILLACORTA
DIEGO vs. CASTILLO
REQUISITES OF DOLO
- FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary

- INTELLIGENCE – discern morality of act (your ability to know what is right from wrong; a clinically insane person cannot be held liable for a
criminal act as this is an exempting circumstance; you may not know what is right and wrong but you may know who is handsome or not)
- INTENT – to commit the felony
INTENT
Being in a state of mind, intent is hard to prove.
Criminal intent is PRESUMED from the commission of an unlawful act. The decision to adopt a means to arrive at a result is INTENT. You must look at all
the circumstances.

The act of stabbing is an intentional act but there is no criminal intent because the person thought he was defending himself. (AH CHONG Case)
Because we do not have psychics, we look at all the factors; the circumstances before, during and after the act. So in another case, you don’t look at the
results only. A small scratch on the forehead does not mean that there is an attempted murder on the person. Look at the weapon used; the part of the
body to which the blow was directed and the circumstances attendant to the felonious act. WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS READILY OBSERVABLE.
Spouses, brothers and sisters, there is no theft. BECAUSE THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP.
GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT
Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent.
Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and robbery, intent to kill in homicide and murder.
MISTAKE OF FACT
Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury to another.
No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there is no criminal intent.
Whenever there is good faith, it SUPPLANTS the criminal act. You cannot deny your basic instincts.
MISTAKE OF FACT; Requisites
Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
INTENTION of accused is lawful.
NO fault or carelessness.
Good faith happens when mistake of fact is present.
US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No. 5272

“In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a
necessary ingredient of the offense charged (e.g., in larceny, animus furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes and misdemeanors generally some degree of
criminal intent) “cancel the presumption of intent,” and works an acquittal except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under
the penal provisions touching criminal negligence.”
The circumstances will indicate the intention of the person.
PP vs. OANIS, July 27, 1943, GR No. 47722
In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate
action. The person in the room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves,
and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea.
And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.
The accused were given the benefit of mitigating circumstances
MISTAKE OF FACT vs. MISTAKE OF LAW
This Court, in People vs. Bitdu, carefully distinguished between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a bigamy case,
from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused, who had obtained a
divorce under the Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage, she was not omitting any violation of the law, and
that she had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act. (DIEGO vs. CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, August 11, 2004)
GOOD FAITH IS A GOOD DEFENSE.
REQUISITES OF CULPA
- Freedom;
- Intelligence;
- Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of foresight or Lack of skill.
CULPA – no intent to cause injury

The offender in culpable felonies must perform an act without intention to cause injury to another.
If the offender intended to cause injury but the result is different from that intended, he is liable for an intentional felony under Article 4.
(INTENTIONAL FELONY = mangligisniCarillotungodkycgesiyaugpamusil)
Shooting a person in a running mode is UNLAWFUL. It is wrong for a law enforcer to shoot a running suspect TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE MUST BE
ARRESTED OR NOT.
If the person is an ESCAPE PRISONER, killing him MAY be justified.
CRIMES OR OFFENSES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS
Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is sufficient if the accused had intent to perpetrate the act.
It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or voluntarily.
IF IT IS WRONG BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT IS MALA IN SE (Good Faith). IF IT IS WRONG BECAUSE THE ACT COMMITTED IS PROHIBITED BY LAW, IT IS MALA
PROHIBITA (Special Penal Laws; Good faith is NOT a defense). As long as you possess the prohibited articles, you are liable.
MALA PROHIBITA – there must be knowledge that the article in possession is prohibited by law
MOTIVE and INTENT
- Motive is the moving power that impels one to action for a definite result
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
MOTIVE IS NOT A REQUISITE
Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is, therefore, not necessary for the conviction of the accused.
EXCEPT:
- There is doubt as to the identity of the accused

- There are 2 antagonistic versions
DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
A punches B and B falls to the ground with an improvised stove sustaining an injury. 12 days later, B died. Is A liable?
I have a swiss-knife and then somebody grabs it and then I injure your hand because I was trying to get back my swiss-knife. Am I liable? Does this not
fall within the principle that I should be liable for the consequences of my own actions?
You are a member of the 13 Judas gang. Your mortal enemies are the 14 Banal gang. The latter ganged up on you. You are an expert of MMA. So you
defend yourself against their blades. You hurt your own finger. Back to your house, you were hiding. When you looked at it, that finger was already
hanging. 4 days after, the finger starts to blacken. So you go to court and file a case against the 14-Banal. The contention of the counsel for the 14-Banal
was that the victim DID NOT IMMEDIATELY SEEK FOR MEDICAL ATTENDANCE. Hence, because of his decision not to seek for medical assistance, the
accused-defendants should not be liable. Is the counsel for the 14-Banal correct?
When does an action result to criminal liability and when does an action not result to criminal liability?
ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Criminal liability is incurred:
Committing a felony although the wrongful act done is different from what he intended;
Impossible crime (KILLING AN ALREADY DEAD PERSON)
RULE ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences that may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen
or intended or not.
INTENTIONAL FELONY
For this article to apply, the offender must be committing an intentional felony (dolo)
“… different from that which he intended.”

If the offender was committing a culpable felony this article does NOT apply
COMMITTING A FELONY (Acts with criminal intent)
If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not applicable.
BINDOY Case– trying to retain a bolo that was taken from the owner.
VILLANUEVA Case – snatching a bolo because of curiosity.
“Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”
MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY – error in personae
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW –aberratio ictus
INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED –praeterintentionem
In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the natural and logical consequence that may result from the unlawful act, whether foreseen or not.
MISTAKE IN INDENTITY – error in personae
A intended to kill B;
A mistakes C for B (darkness);
A shoots C, killing him.
A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting).
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus
X intends to kill Y;
X shoots at Y;
X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.
X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting Z) X is also liable for the attempt
on Y.
INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – Praeterintentionem
A punches B once (no intent to kill);
B falls to the ground hitting his head on the pavement;
B dies as a result of the injuries to his head.
A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his
felonious act (punching).
PP vs. CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October 6, 1933
“There is nothing to indicate that it was due to some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of defendants’ felonious act, and the fact
that the defendant did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating
circumstance.“
“Direct, natural and logical”
“A person who threatens or pursues another with a knife and causes the latter to jump to the river in order to avoid him and drowns as he did not
know how to swim, is liable for the intentional death of that person.” (US vs. VALDEZ , 41 Phil. 497)
“If the victim had a delicate constitution as he was suffering from tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist-blows, the person who delivered the
said blows is liable for the death.” (PP vs. ILLUSTRE, 54 Phil 594)
If the death was accelerated by fist blows delivered because the victim was suffering from some internal condition, the person who delivered the blows
is liable for the death. (PP vs. RODRIGUEZ)

SEGURITAN vs. PP
REFUSAL OF OR UNSKLLFUL MEDICAL TREATMENT
Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical operation, the person who caused the injuries is still liable as a person is not obliged to submit to a
surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural or ordinary results of his crime. (US vs. MARASIGAN)
REFUSAL
“…that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, even
though the immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment…” (PP vs. MOLDES, GR No. 42122, December 1,
1934)
PROXIMATE CAUSE
“that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. The remote cause is not necessarily the proximate cause. It was the negligence of the bus company that was the proximate
cause.” (VDA.DE BATACLAN vs. MEDINA, GR No. L-10126, October 22, 1957)
A person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences of his act.
“And there is authority that if the consequences resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is not
responsible for such consequences.” (PP vs. MARCO, GR Nos. L-28324-5)
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
Active force that intervenes between the felony and the resulting injury;
The active force must be a distinct act; or
A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act;
The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE VICTIM
“Malicious act or omission of the victim” (That particular act now becomes the efficient intervening cause)
PP vs. VILLACORTA (GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011)
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. X XX The
medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to:
Inherent impossibility
Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
IS THIS PUNISHABLE? Yes. Because you are intending to commit a crime. There is a criminal propensity on the part of offender.
REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
- Persons / Property
- Evil Intent
- Inherently impossible / means employed is inadequate or ineffectual.
Should not constitute another violation of the RPC (The act of pseudomizing a person is a crime of acts of lasciviousness; Any person can be a victim of
rape as long as you insert penis or an object into the mouth)
What is the difference between a finger and a canister? The moral depravity and the criminal intent is the SAME.
AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY
Crimes against persons:

- Murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape, etc.
Crimes against property:
- Robbery, Theft, Estafa, etc.
Kidnapping / serious illegal detention is a crime against liberty
Q: Kidnapping a dead body?
A: No criminal liability.
EVIL INTENT
There must be intent to injure another.
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
Our laws do not distinguish between legal and physical impossibility.
FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY = opening a safe without money inside
INTOD vs. PP
Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is found in Article 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility
and legal impossibility. The case of INTOD vs. PP was an impossible crime. Shooting a space where the intended victim is not present is an impossible
crime.
There is no need to distinguish factual from physical impossibility because Philippine law is clear, “INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE”.
PP vs. ENOJA
In another case where the accused who claimed that since they shot the victim after the first shooter had already shot the victim, they were in effect
shooting a person already dead, the Supreme Court called their argument merely speculative.
ART. 5 – DUTY OF JUDGE WHEN SITUATION NOT COVERED BY LAW.
Act is not punished by law – must render a decision according to the law.
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – must not suspend the execution of sentence
*report to the President through the Department of Justice (DOJ)
ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES NOT ALLOWED
“[s]entences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative.” While a judge
has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative. “He must fix positively and with certainty the
particular penalty.” (ABELLANA vs. PP, GR No. 174654, August 17, 2011)
ART. 6 – STAGES OF EXECUTION
- Consummated
- Frustrated
- Attempted
CONSUMMATED
All elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
MURDER.It is necessary that you kill the victim for there to become a consummated felony.
THEFT. It is necessary that you take possession of the objects you intend to gain.
FACTORS:
- The nature of the offense.

- The elements constituting the felony.
- The manner of committing the same.

ARSON
If any part of the structure is burned (CONSUMMATED)
If the fire is started but no part of the structure is burned (FRUSTRATED)
If no fire has been even started (ATTEMPTED)
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
THEFT – gaining possession of the item consummates the felony.
There is no frustrated theft. (VALENZUELA vs. PP, GR No. 1160188, June 21, 2007; Rule of VALENZUELA case is similar to the ruling of ADIAO case)
MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
FORMAL CRIMES – slander and false testimony
MERE ATTEMPT OR PROPOSAL – flight to enemy’s country (ATTEMPT) and corruption of minor (PROPOSAL)
MATERIAL CRIMES – rape, homicide or murder
“In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the accused intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he
inflicted, but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim’s wounds
are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.” (COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011)
FRUSTRATED
- Offender commences the act, by overt acts, necessary to produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
ATTEMPTED
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
1st Internal Acts – not punishable
2nd External Acts:
a.) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable;
b.) Acts of Execution – punishable
ATTEMPTED STAGE, Elements
Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.
Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.
Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
Due to a cause of accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
OVERT ACTS
External Acts;
Direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
“The overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.” –VIADA
EQUIVOCAL vs. UNEQUIVOCAL
-drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts.
-drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim and, with intent to kill, discharge the firearm at the victim can we say that the acts are not overt acts of
homicide/murder.
PP vs. LAMAHANG

“Directly by overt acts”
This element requires that the offender personally execute the commission of the crime.
Inducing another to commit a crime, when the person induced does not accede will not result in criminal liability for the inducer as the general rule is
mere proposal to commit a crime is not punishable.
PP vs. LIZADA
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning
or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.”
DOES NOT PERFORM ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
If the offender has performed all acts of execution – consummated stage or frustrated stage
If there is still something else to be done – attempted stage
“By reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.”
Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous desistance – NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness.”
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT from the crime actually committed before the desistance.
PERFORMS ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
Nothing is left to be done by the offense because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime.
In attempted crime, offender never passes the subjective phase.

BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER
“…this Court has held that is not necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his victim, but
that it is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said acts. PP vs. SY PIO
US vs. EDUAVE GR No. 12155, February 02, 1917
“A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will,
by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should produce the crime.”
DESISTANCE AFTER PERFORMING ALL ACTS
“If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be
an attempt.” (Ai.Kaluo-oyniyaoi.Molakawnalangko.)
PP vs. DAGMAN, GR No. 23133
The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the offenders performed all of the acts of execution which should precede the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrators; in this instance, the playing
possum by Magbual.
BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF THE PERPETRATOR
Felony NOT produced – causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
PP vs. LIZADA
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning
or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a crime.”

A woman filed a case against a man charging the man with rape. While the complaint was under investigation, they meet each other in a dark alley just
the 2 of them and the man immediately draws his bolo and says to the girl: “I will kill you, SALAMAMETS”. Then starts hacking at the woman. Woman
tries to go away but was still slashed at her back. Woman falls down and the man says: “I have killed the worst enemy”. The man throws the woman to
the garbage. Thereafter, the man goes home and announced it publicly that he killed someone. Not knowing, the woman was able to crawl from the
place of incident to the hospital. Woman files a case against the man. The man contends as a defense that he was liable only for attempted murder.
What is the liability of the man? Will he be liable for attempted murder or frustrated murder?
Let’s say you and two of your friends are having a drinking session. One of them suddenly says that I am not satisfied with the government and then
you say let us overthrow P-Noy and replace him. The two agree. Is there any criminal liability in this particular situation? Yes or no? If their plan was to
rob? Is there conspiracy? Punishable?Mere conspiracy to commit robbery? Is this punishable? So you have now decided that you are going to commit
rebellion and the 3 of you go to Malacanang. You parked your car and alighted and said: “ATTACK”. When you reached the gate,
didtorakanakibawngaimongmgakauban bag-o ranahuwasan.Waclanikuyognimo. Nagpabilinraclasa auto. What is the criminal liability of the three?
Ikawunsaimong liability? How about the two who remained in the car?
What if the 2nd person who went with you did not shoot his gun but just kept on giving you bullets. So the one who remained in the car? Must
conspiracy be coupled with an external act? What if that person who is left at the car gets out of the car and starts saying: “Go. Go. Go. Go. Attack.”?
PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact
part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.
Let’s say you are a member of band of robbers. Five of you decide to rob a bank. The first says: I am the only one who has a driver license. The other
one says I have a gun and walkie-talkie. That leaves 3, including you to get inside the bank and to get the money from the bank. As the plan was made
out, the 2 of you played your roles. You are told by your 2 companions to watch the employees and the 2 of them will go inside the vault. You noticed
that the teller is beautiful and you say: Lugosonnalangninako”. You took with you the teller and bought her inside an office of the bank. You raped her.
After, you left. Then, 5 of you got arrested. Nahibongang 4 nimongakaubanngaang title sa case ky “ROBBERY WITH RAPE”. Tutokclanimo.
What is the liability of the other four? Let’s say, they all saw you drag the girl into the office. Ingonmonga: “Mao bitaw naang tripping gyudniya.
Walapaman sad nacyakasuway. Pasagdaaannanato, padayon ta driugkawat”. The other four did not participate in the rape. Will they still be liable?

ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES
Punishable only when consummated.
EXCEPT: crimes against persons (SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY, MALTREATMENT) or property
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
“…are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.” (ART. 8, Par. 1, RPC)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection.
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (this is not so much of overthrowing the government. This is more of a tumultuous uprising; mere civil
disobedience)
CRIME vs. MANNER OF INCURRING LIABILITY
Treason, coup d’etat, sedition is actually committed – conspiracy is NOT a crime but a manner of incurring criminal liability.
PD No. 1866 vs. PD No. 8294
CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of
conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.” (QUIDET vs. PP, GR No. 179289, April 8, 2010)
REQUISITES?
INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY
When two or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment,
conspiracy may be inferred. And where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all. (PP vs. ALETA, GR No. 179708, April 16, 2009)
*ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE
DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its existence. (PP vs. AMODIA, GR No. 173791,
April 7, 2009)
PP vs. LAGAT
Direct proof that the two accused conspired is not essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after the commission of the
crime that they acted with a common purpose and design.
AMODIA Case
An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime
planned to be committed.
- Active participation
- Moral assistance by being present
- Exercising moral ascendancy
(PP vs. MUIT, GR No. 181043, October 8, 2008)

Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. Where a conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of
participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in the
commission of the crime is immaterial.
“even if not all the parties committed the same act,”
A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the same act, but the participants performed specific acts that indicated unity of purpose in
accomplishing a criminal design. Moreover, direct proof
of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy – conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence. (PP vs.
MALIBIRAN, GR No. 178301, April 24, 2009)
PP vs. REYES
PP vs. EVANGELIO
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact
part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.
NO CONSPIRACY – separate and individual responsibility
In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants are separate and individual, each is liable for his own acts, the damage caused thereby, and
the consequences thereof. While the evidence shows that the appellant boxed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the extent of the injuries, in
which case, the appellant should be held liable only for slight physical injuries.
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES
“Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their moves were not
coordinated because while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.” (PP vs. BOKINGCO)
THE CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED
If the crime is actually committed, proposal becomes a manner of incurring liability, i.e., principal by inducement.
Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.
ART. 9 – GRAVITY OF FELONIES
- Grave
- Less Grave
- Light
GRAVE FELONIES
- Capital Punishment (death)

- Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive.
AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)
- Reclusion Perpetua
- Reclusion Temporal
- Permanent / Temporary Absolute Disqualification
- Permanent / Temporary Special Disqualification
- Prision Mayor
Divisible- minimum, medium, maximum
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
- Punishment which in their maximum is correctional.
CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)
- PrisionCorrecional
- Arresto Mayor
- Suspension
- Destierro (maximum radius of 25 kilometers)
LIGHT FELONIES
- ArrestoMenor
- Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both
FELONY – Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.
*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if it is less than P200.00)
ART. 10.
1st Clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede special penal laws
2nd Clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law provides otherwise.
(GO TAN vs. SPS. TAN, GR No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A.
No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not applicable
Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code – SCALE OF PENALTIES
- Special laws.
- Punishes only consummated acts.
- No definition of accessories or accomplices.
- No formula for graduation of penalties.
Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
Mitigating / Aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no graduation of penalties.
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

- Justifying (Art. 11)

- Exempting (Art. 12)
- Mitigating (Art. 13)
- Aggravating (Art. 14)
- Alternative (Art. 15)
- Absolutory causes (Minority, Art. 280 last par., violent insanity, Art. 332, Art. 344)
IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY
IMPUTABILITY – quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as the author.
RESPONSIBILITY – obligation of suffering the consequences of crime.
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the same.
ART. 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
In accordance with the law.
The actor is not considered to have violated the law.
No criminal OR civil liability
No crime committed (Just like in the case of AH CHONG. There was no crime committed.)
COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011
“When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing that he was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to him. The
accused must establish the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. When successful, the otherwise felonious deed would be
excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused.”
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

- Self-defense
- Defense of relatives
- Defense of strangers
- Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
- Fulfillment of duty / lawful exercise of right or office
- Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
SELF-DEFENSE
- In defense of his person or rights.
DEFENSE OF PERSON OR RIGHTS
Person includes danger to one’s:
- Life
- Limb
RIGHTS INCLUDES:
- Right to property
SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites
- Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);

- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
- Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
- This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensable requisite.

- No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete or incomplete.
- The aggression must be unlawful and actual.
PP vs. CONCILLADO
COLINARES vs. PP
PP vs. GAYRAMA, GR No. 39270, 39271, October 30, 1934
“It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression…”
“….taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so doing was to succeed in capturing and arresting the appellant…”
PP vs. MERCED, GR No. 14170, November 23, 1918
“…that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and rights by
punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the other defendant, he would have exercised a lawful right,…”
Let’s say, 2 persons. Let’s call them Mr. X and Mr. Y. They are playing cards. X is angry because Y is cheating. That is why Y is winning. So, after the
game, X goes home, gets his knife and then he goes on looking for Y. He sees Y spending his winnings buying an adobo. Aso2 pa ang adobo ron!
Nagkurog2 pa angtambok! X attacks. He swoops down with a knife but nasangit man at the back of the chair so si Y, hinanaw man ug sine, also gets out
a knife. Turns out that Y is better in using the knife so he starts slashing X. But si X ingoncya: “Murag, alkansikoani da”. So he runs away. So si Y niingon,
“Kani.Hinaymodagan”. X falls down. Y kills X. Y is charged. Y says self-defense. If you were the judge, can self-defense be invoked? Who is the
aggressor?
AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL
An actual assault, or
Threat of an assault of an:
-immediate and imminent;
-offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.
ACTUAL AGGRESSION

“Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not
be sufficient.” (BAXINELA vs. PP, GR No. 149652, March 24, 2006)
ACTUAL OR IMMINENT
ACTUAL – assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL)
IMMINENT – rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing the same. (PP vs. CABUNGCAL)
PP vs. MACASO
US vs. FERRER, GR No. 60, November 8, 1901
The unlawful aggression and the defense must be simultaneous / without appreciable interval of time.
“If any time intervened between the supposed attack of the deceased and the firing of the revolver by the defendant, the latter’s actions would cease
to have the true character of a real defense, which, in order to be legally sufficient, requires primarily and as an essential condition that the attack be
immediately present.”
THE NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF WOUND / INJURIES.
Wounds / injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-defense is credible or not.
Wound / injuries on the accused are not as determinative as the injuries on the victim.
CANO vs. PP, GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
“…the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted on the accused does not, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove self-defense, the actual
wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary.”
AGE AND CONDITION OF ALLEGED AGGRESSOR
Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian (Diaz)

The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right hand (Ardiza)
BEHAVIOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT
Failure to interpose self-defense after:
Surrendering – Manansala
Confession – De la Cruz
PHYSICAL FINDINGS
Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were facing each other. The factual findings establish that the wounds were in the back of the
victim.
The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of the pants and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez)
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE ACT CONSTITUTING SELF-DEFENSE.
“a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he flees.”
“…it is because this Court considered that the requisites of self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and indispensable among these being the
unlawful aggression of the opponent.” (PP vs. ALCONGA, April 30, 1947, GR No. L-162)
PP vs. ACOSTA
PP vs. ALETA
If a person is attacked with bare hands, how should that person defend himself? What is the rule as far as reasonable means is concerned? If he uses a
knife or a samurai? If that person has a knife, can you use a gun? What if that person is super black-belt ninja who can kill with his bare hands? Still, you
defense yourself with bare hands?
If you defend yourself by way of shooting the aggressor in his chest? Would that be reasonable? Why? Shoot him three times? BUNGYAO
BUNGYAOBUNGYAO! Or shoot him just once, BUNGYAO? What if the bolo used by the aggressor is dull and rusty, would you be still justified in killing
the person? What is the rule on reasonable necessity? What does the law require? What is the rule? If it is not mathematical equality or perfect
equality, what is sufficient?
“The moment the aggressor ceases, the person defending himself is not anymore justified in killing the said aggressor. There is no more unlawful
aggression.” *Refer to PP vs. ALCONGA (78 Phil. 366)
PP vs. JUARIGUE
If angpaasalalakihikaponsababae? This cannot be. Crimes against chastity is limited only to women.
She could not have expected that the aggressor would have actually raped her. Kutobragyudcguro to anglalakiughikap-hikap. There was here a lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of accused Juarigue.
Provocation must come from an unjust conduct. Only reasonable necessity was lacking in this case. The Supreme Court gave JUARIGUE a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
PP vs. DE LA CRUZ (GR No. 411487, May 2, 1935)
“In order that legitimate self-defense may be taken into account and sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above all, that the aggression be real, or at
least, imminent, and not merely imaginary.”
US vs. GUY-SAYCO
REASONABLE NECESSITY
ELEMENTS:
- There must be reasonable necessity in both:

- Course of action taken by the person defending;
- Means used;
Determined by:

- Existence of unlawful aggression and

- The nature and extent of the aggression
If you are attacked with a weapon, circumstances dictate that you find a weapon, whatever said weapon may be.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF AGGRESSION
Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing death – mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocana)
Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place was dark and uninhabited, “Lie down and give me your money”.
PP vs. LARA (GR No. 24014, October 16, 1925)
It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct
of self-preservation and when it is apparent as in this case, that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction
the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences.”
PP vs. MACASAET
“Having concluded, however, that under all the circumstances the accused was justified in making use of his knife to repel the unprovoked assault as
best he could, it would be impossible to say that a second or third blow was unnecessary under all the circumstances of the case, it appearing that the
accused instantly and without hesitation inflicted all the wounds at or about the same time.” (BLOWS MUST BE DELIVERED RAPIDLY.)
REASONABLE NECESSITY IN THE MEANS USED.
- Rational necessity to employ the means used.

- Perfect equality is not required.
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE is what is required.
US vs. APEGO

“…since there was no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm.”
“…there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in the center of the body, whether the principal vital organs are seated, of the
man who had not performed any act which might be considered as an actual attempt against her honor.”
PP vs. MONTALBO, GR No. 34750, December 31, 1931
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
- Nature and quality of the weapon used

- Physical condition, character and size
- Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending himself
- Place and occasion of assault
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, RATIONALE.
Because this justifying circumstance is born by necessity and is resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person defending himself is not
expected to think coolly and clearly. The person defending is, therefore, not expected to control his blow or draw a distinction as to the injury that
would result after he delivers his blow.
PP vs. ONAS
US vs. MENDOZA
US vs. MACK (GR No. L-3515, October 3, 1907)
“…court not reasonably be expected to take the chance that mere ordinary force would be used in striking, or that the blow would be given upon some
protected part of his body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen enough to give him his death blow.”
“The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life.”
PHYSICAL CONDITION, CHARACTER AND SIZE OF THE OPPOSING PARTIES.

“One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinction as to the extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably
inflict upon him…” (PP vs. IGNACIO, GR NO. 40140, November 27, 1933)
WHEN ATTACKED BY AN UNARMED ASSAILANT/S
“…there may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack or a great disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which give
deceased (accused) reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death or great bodily harm and justify him in employing a deadly weapon in self-
defense.” (Ignacio)
CANO vs. PEOPLE GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL – prevent or repel aggression.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER – overcome his opponent.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct provoked the aggression sought to be repelled or prevented.
THERE ARE 4 SITUATIONS WHERE THE 3rd REQUISITE IS CONSIDERED PRESENT:
- No provocation
- Provocation was not sufficient
- Was not given by the person defending himself
- Was not immediate or proximate
NEED NOT BE AN ACT OF VIOLENCE
Challenging one to come out of the house to fight.
(US vs. McCRAY, 2 Phil 5454, PP vs. VALENCIA, L-58426, October 31, 1984)

Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar language. (PP vs. SOTELO, 55 Phil 403) But a petty question of pride does not justify wounding or
killing an opponent. (“Why are you calling me?” PP vs. DOLFO)
Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased. (GETIDA, CA)
ADMITS TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED
*Read the case of (PP vs. NUGAS)
PP vs. GENOSA (GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
“First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimate partner.
Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an
imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to the accused, based on
the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter.”
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
In 27 March 2004 of R.A. 9262 took effect.
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
- Spouse
- Ascendant
- Descendant
- Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister

- Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
-parents-in-law
-son / daughter-in-law
-brother / sister-in-law
- Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree (2nd degree nga cousin)
The same in self-defense:
- Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity
“In case there is sufficient provocation, the person defending himself had no part therein”
(US vs. ESMEDIA GR No. L-5749, October 21, 1910)
“…inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon him in defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They
honestly believed, and had good ground upon which to found their belief, that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father.”
PP vs. TORING
“it cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence of the lawful desire to avenge the
immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin.
PP vs. CAABAY (GR Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003)
Considering the nature, location and number of the wounds sustained by the victims, the appellants’ plea of self-defense and defense of a relative will
not hold.
BALUNUECO vs. CA

The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the accused belie his testimony
The accused failed to present himself to the authorities
Accused recollection of events
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
- Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity
“The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.”CABUSLAY vs. PP
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF SANITY.
“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him, has been
adopted in a series of decisions by this court.” (PEOPLE vs. BASCOS)
Article 11, Paragraph 4: Avoidance of Greater Evil or injury
Requisites:
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists.

2. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it.
3. There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Cannot be invoked (Avoidance of Greater Evil or injury)
- Negligence,
- No evil to be avoided, or
- Violation of law by the actor.

No criminal liability but there is civil liability
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.-
Second: in cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion
to the benefit in which they may have received.
Pp vs. Ricohermoso, GR Nos. L-30527-28, March 29, 1974
“… was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his assailants.”
“Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.”
Tan vs. Standard Vacuum, GR No. L-4160, July 29, 1952
“…the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly because of the desire of driver JulitoSto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm…”
“It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented, and as such it comes within the purview
of said penal provision.”
Ty vsPp, GR No. 149275, Sept. 27, 2004
“…the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in
the future, this defense is not applicable.”
Art. 11, Paragraph 5: Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
Requisites:
1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
Fulfillment of duty
The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and guards who shoot prisoners who attempt to escape (Delima, Valcorza, Lagata, Magno).
Self-defense vs. Fulfillment of duty
“Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm, while
fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of duty.” Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148431, July 28, 2005.
Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan
A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm.
Article 11, Paragraph 6: Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
Requisites:
1. An order has been issued by a superior.

2. The order must be for some lawful purpose
3. The means used to carry out the order must be lawful.
Illegal orders, the subordinate is liableEXCEPT when:
- He is not aware that the order is illegal;

- He is not negligent.
Pp vs. Beronilla, GR No. L-4445, February 29, 1955
It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder, and that the accused-appellants acted upon orders, of superior officers that they, as
military subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on their
part, we cannot say that criminal intent has been established.
Art. 12. Exempting Circumstances

In exempting circumstances the act does not result in criminal liability because the act is not voluntary or negligent.
There is absence of:
- Intelligence,
- Freedom of action,
- Intent, or
- Negligence
Exempting Circumstances
1. Insanity or imbecility
2. Minority (15 yrs. of age or under, RA 9344)
3. Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting without discernment)
4. Performance of a lawful act with due care (accident)
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force (physical force)
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury (moral or psychological compulsion)
7. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Article 12, Paragraph 1: An imbecile or an insane person
1. An imbecile or an insane person
An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while an insane person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers from a mental disorder (pp vs.
ambal, oct. 17, 1980)
An insane person may have lucid interval while imbecile does not have.
Rule on imbeciles and insane persons
Imbecile – “…he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime”
Insanity – “there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will.”
Crazy vs. Insane
“there is a vast difference between an insane person and one who has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good
judgment in what he does.”
The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane. The popular meaning of the word “crazy” is not synonymous with the legal term
“insane,” (Ambal)
Presumption is in favor of sanity.
“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary” xxx “the law always presumes all acts to be voluntary. It
is improper to presume that acts were executed unconsciously.” (Ambal)
Burden of evidence
In the instant case, the alleged insanity of AMbal was not substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of sanity was not overthrown. He
was not completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he mortally wound his wife.
Presumption in favor of sanity.
“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him, has been
adopted in a series of decisions by this court.” (PEOPLE VS. BASCOS, gr no. 19605, December 19, 1922)
BASCOS CASE
Circumstantial evidence:
a. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane for many years,
b. The doctor who examined the accused testified that the accused was a violent maniac and that he may have been insane when he killed the
victim, and
c. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the victim.
Quantum of evidence
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When the commission of a crime is
established, and the defense of insanity is not made out beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction follows (pp vs. bonoan)
BONOAN CASE
a. Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice (1922, 1926);

b. Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance (authorities);
c. Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or leads to dementia praecox;
d. A day after his arrest he was sent to the Psychopathic hospital.
e. Alienist reported that the accused had a form of psychosis – Manic depressive psychosis.
Commission vs. Trial
Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is different from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first instance, it is an exempting
circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt but the proceedings are suspended until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Pp vs. Legaspi
“Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the incident.”
- No evidence that he was adjudged insane.

- Discharge is proof of being cured.
“Caught with his pants down”
“Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is mentally
sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes committed under its influence.” (Legaspi)
PP vs. Madarang
The courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence
of the power to discern
Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be established by:
a. A witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused,

b. A witness who has rational basis to conclude that the accused was instance based on personal witness
c. Expert testimony
Madarang case
“the testimony or proof of the accused’s insanity must relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is
charged.”
“… proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or during the commission of the crime”
PP vs. Opuran
A man’s act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume thecontrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously, for the moral and legal
presumptions..”
Stringent standard
The stringent standard …requires that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
Facts in Opuran
- Such unusual behavior may be considered as mere abnormality of the mental faculties, which will not exclude imputability;
- Medicine was not shown to be for any mental illness;
- Was never confined in a mental institution;
- Dr. Verona’s findings were not based on incomplete and insufficient facts’
- Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest opportunity;
Article 12, Paragraph 2: Minority
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)

New concepts:
1. Age of criminal responsibility

2. Effects
3. Presumptions
Age of criminal responsibility
A child of fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability. (Sec. 6)
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an
offense.
Section 3(1), RA 9344
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are deisgned to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an
individualized treatment program which may include counseling skills training, education and other activites that will enhance the capcacity of the
child.
Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must:
- Release parents, guardian or nearest relative.

- Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs.
- O/W:
-NGO;
-Barangay;
-Local SWD off or DSWD;
Above 15 but below 18
Without discernment – child is exempt but subject to intervention.
With discernment – subject to appropriate proceedings, i.e., diversion.

No exemption from civil liability.
Discernment
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
It may be shown by:
- Manner of committing a crime

- Conduct of offender
- Appearance of the minor;
- Attitude;
- Comportment;
- Behavior, before, during and after the trial.
Determination of age
- Birth certificate; (best document to determine age)

- Baptismal certificate;
- Other pertinent document;
In the absence of the documents mentioned (these are the instances where minority will be considered):
- Testimony of the child or other persons

- Physical appearance
- Other relevant evidence
CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)
Imposable Penalty
Not more than 6 years

- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if appropriate (where there is a private offended party).
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation.
More than 6 years
Diversion by the court.
Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.
- Restitution
- Reparation
- Indemnification
- Written or oral apology
- Care, guidance and supervision orders
- Counseling
- Trainings, seminars and lectures
-anger management
-problem solving
-values formation
-other skills to aid the child
-participation in community based programs
-participation in education, vocation and life skills programs
Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level
- All the programs at the barangay level

- Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
Kinds of Diversion, Court
- Court
- All programs at barangay and law enforcement
- Written or oral reprimand

- Fine
- Payment of the cost of proceedings
- Institutional care and custody
Sec. 58.Offenses not applicable to children.
- Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);

- Mendicancy (PD 1563);
- Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
Pp vs. Arpon
Although the acts of rape in this case were committed before RA No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said law is still applicable xxx “with more
reason, the Act should apply to a case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review.”
Arpon case
- Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape

- Supreme Court – 3 counts
1st count –exempt, accused 13 years old;
2nd& 3rd – accused 17 years old, discernment, Reclusion Perpetua, one degree lower (death)
- Suspension of sentence no longer an option, accused 29 years old;
- Case remanded to trial court for compliance with Sec. 51, Agricultural camp or other facility.
“Sec. 20-A. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who are Exempt from Criminal Responsibility (RA 10630)”
Article 12, Paragraph 4: Accident
Elements:

- Performance of a lawful act;

- With due care;
- Injury is caused to another by mere accident;
- There is no fault or intention of causing the injury.
Definition
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. (Pp vs. Agliday)
Pp vs. Genita, GR NO. 126171, March 11, 2004.
“He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2.) injury caused was by a mere accident, and
3.) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury.”
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is committed by “any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.”
Performance of a lawful act
For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act. (Agliday)
Intent is a mental state
It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a person’s overt acts. (Agliday)
Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to be cocked first before it could discharged.
Dual standard

Thus, in determining whether an “accident” attended the incident, courts must take into account the dual standards of lack of intent to kill and absence
of fault or negligence.(Pomoy vs. Pp, GR No. 150647, September 29, 2004)
Accident inconsistent with self-defense
Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily
contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent danger. (Pomoy)
Article 12, Paragraph 5: Compulsion of an irresistible force
Elements:
- Compulsion is by physical force;

- The physical force is irresistible;
- The physical force must come from a third person.
Exempted from criminal liability
“because he does not act with freedom.”
“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will”
“must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act
is not done.”
“A threat of future injury is not 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.” (Pp vs. Loreno, GR
NO. L-54414, July 09, 1984)
PP vs. Loreno

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is
exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not
only without will but against his will… 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.
Article 12, Paragraph 6: Impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Elements:
- The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater injury
Opportunity to escape
“ at that the time Narciso Saldana, Elmer Esguerra and Romeo Bautista were waiting for both appellants from a distance of about one (1) kilometer. By
not availing of this chance to escape, appellants allegation of fear or duress becomes untenable.
Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force
Article 12, Paragraph 7: Prevented by Insuperable Cause
Elements:
- An act i
Insuperable cause
Distance and available means of transportation (Vicentillo)
Severe dizziness and extreme debility (Bandian)
Absolutory causes

Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
Absolutory cause in the RPC:
- Art 6 (spontaneous desistance);

- Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt);
- Art. 124 (violent insanity)
- Art. 247 (death under exceptional circumstances)
- Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to trespass to dwelling)
- Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and malicious mischief)
- Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the offended party in SARA (Seduction, Abduction, Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness)
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
“Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another, and prevent him from committing
crime, we should at least abstain from any active efforts in the way of leading him into temptation.” (Saunders vs. Pp, Mich. 218, 222)
Pp vs. Valencia, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002.
“… Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him.”
“Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause.”
Degree of inducement in instigation
In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if it were not for the inducements of the instigator.
Such inducement must be of such a nature the instigator himself becomes a co-principal.
Applicable only to public officers and their agents
In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public officer or one who is performing public functions.

If the instigator is private individual, both the instigator and the person helping are held to be criminally liable.
Entrapment vs. Instigation
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution
of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. (Pp vs.
Legaspi, GR No. 173485, November 23, 2011)
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. The
means of committing the crime originates from the mind of the criminal.
Buy-bust operation
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust
operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. (Valencia)
Entrapment has to be proved as a material allegation
The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of the alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation. Where the testimony of the
informer is indispensable, it should be disclosed. (Pp vs. Ong, GR No. 137348, June 21, 2004)
Instigation vs. Entrapment
Instigation
- Induces accused into commission of crime

- The accused must be acquitted
- It is the law enforcer who conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused
Entrapment
- Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture lawbreaker in the execution of the offense
- Is not a bar to prosecution
- The means originate from the mind of the criminal.
Mitigating circumstances
Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability.
Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary only serve to reduce the penalty but does not change the nature of the crime.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.
Circumstances that, if attendant serve to increase the penalty w/o exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
Generic – is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g., dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.
Specific – applicable to particular crimes, e.g., ignominy in crimes against chastity and Treachery in crimes against persons.
Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime, e.g., treachery qualifies killing to Murder.
Inherent – must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. They cannot be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
(Art. 62, par. 2)
Generic
- Increases penalty to be imposed w/o exceeding the maximum.

- Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance
Qualifying
- Place the offender in no other situation as to deserve any other penalty

- Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance
Rule 110, Sec. 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense – The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall
be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
PP vs. Elona
“In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although proved during the trial, cannot be
appreciated when not alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the cases at bar were committed in 1999, before the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure took effect on Dec 1, 2000, the Court shall give its effect”
1. Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
What is important is that the offender is a public officer and he takes advantage of his public position to commit the crime.
…using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by w/c he realizes his purpose.” (US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil
150)
Pp vs. Villamor
To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public officer must use the influence…
US v sTorrida
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed him in a position to commit these crimes. If he had not been councilman he could not
have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his being councilman that the parties believed that he had the right to
collect fines and it was for this reason that they made the payments.
Pablo vs. Pp
“The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they
were not police officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their money.
Precisely it was on account of their authority that Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a crime and would be brought to the police
station for investigation unless they gave them determined.”
Pp vs. Magayac
That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not necessarily prove that
he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime.”
Pp vs. Fallorina, GR 137347, March 4, 2004
There is no dispute that the appellant is a policeman and that he used his service firearm, the .45 caliber pistol, in shooting the victim. However, there is
no evidence on record that the appellant took advantage of his position as a policeman when he shot the victim. The shooting occurred only when the
appellant saw the victim on the rooftop playing with his kite. The trial court erred in appreciating abuse of public position against the appellant.
Pp v Herrera, GR 140577-58, December 5, 2001
In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position. The mere fact
that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he misused his
public position in the commission of the crime.
But in…
“Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite, which was issued to him when he received the mission
order.” (Pp v Gapasin, GR 73489, April 25, 1993)
2. In contempt of or w/insult to the public authorities
Requisites:
1. A public authority is engaged in the exercise of fuctions

2. The public authority is not eh person against whom the crime is committed.
3. That offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. The presence of the public authority does not prevent the commission of the crime by the offender
Public Authority
Public authority should be construed as a person in authority*, i.e., one who is vested with jurisdiction, that is, one who has the power to govern and
execute the laws
An agent of a person in authority is no included in this circumstance.
*Art. 152, RPC
Public officer should not be the object of the offense.
“Neither can the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult to public authority be appreciated as the crime was committed
against the public authority himself.” (Pp v Gutierrez, GR 116281, February 8 ,1999)
3. Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of Offended Party.
Age may refer to the victim’s advanced or very young age.
For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be evidence that the accused deliberately intended to insult the rank, age, or sex of the offended
party.
Deliberate intent
“The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex cannot be considered because it was neither been prove nor admitted by the defendant that in
committing the crime he had intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim.” (Pp v Mangsant, GR 45704, May 25, 1938) In this case the accused
stabbed a 14-year old girl.
Crimes against persons or honor
With respect to disregard of age and sex, the Court has pronounced in the case of People v COllado that the same may appreciated only in crimes
against persons or honor. (Pp v Hernandez, GR 139697, June 15, 2004)
Dwelling of Offended Party

Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort. It may refer to the entire structure or a portion thereof.
Privacy and sanctity of home
It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. He who goes to
another’s house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere (pp vs. evangelio)
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988
“As to whether the crime must be held to have been committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take it that although the accused were found
with the deceased at the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be regarded as an integral part of the dwelling of that family. The porch of
a house, not common to different neighbors, is a part of the dwelling.
Sufficient provocation by owner of the dwelling
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.
“There must be a close relation between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from whom the provocation came.”
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was not directed at the accused, but to her
daughter. This was, however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to demand an explanation why her daughter was so grossly insulted. So
under these facts, it was error to hold that the aggravating circumstance of morada existed.
Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040
The provocation was not given immediately prior to the commission of the crime and had no particular relation to the house of the deceased. If the
defendant had entered the house of the deceased and surprised the deceased and the wife of the defendant in the act of adultery, the aggravating
circumstance of morada would not exist.
When provocation negates dwelling.

1. Provocation must be immediately prior to the commission of the crime, and

2. There must be a close relation between the provocation and the crime committed.
Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983
Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human abode. However, in
the present case, Rosalyn was not raped therein. Although she was abducted therefrom, accused-appellant was not charged with forcible abduction
with rape but only with rape. Considering that she was not raped in her home, dwelling cannot be appreciated.
Pp vs. Caliso
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic servant
of the family and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
 The offended party trusts the offender,

 That offender abused such trust, and
 The abuse facilitated the commission of the crime.
Pp v Caliso, GR 37271, July 1, 1933
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic servant
of the family and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public authorities are engaged in the discharged of duties or in a place dedicated to public worship.
Palace of the Chief executive and place dedicated to public worship – official or religious functions need not be held.
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties – there must be some performance of public functions.
Intent to commit the crime

There must be evidence that the accused had the intention to commit a crime when he entered the place.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.
“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will
constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and
can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.” Pp vs. Librando
PP vs. Silva
“…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission
of the crime by ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.
“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.”
Darkness or obscurity
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no
longer insure the offender’s immunity from identification or capture.” Pp vs. Carino
Uninhabited place
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help in the place of the commission of the crime.
Pp vs. Rubia
“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, the incident having taken place at sea
where it was difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the assailants could easily have escaped punishment…”
Pp vs. Lumandong
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place under Article 14 (6) was correctly appreciated against the appellant.
Band
This circumstance is present when more than three armed men acted together in the commission of the offense.
In other words the four armed men must directly participate in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
Pp vs. Magdamit
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission thereof. In the present
case, there were seven armed conspirators involved in the commission of the composite crime.
Pp v Dinamling, GR 134605, March 12, 2002
All four accused-appellants were armed, three with long firearms and the other with a short one. They all took part in the commission of the robbery
with homicide, poking their guns at their victims’ heads, tying them up, ransacking the house, killing the two victims.
Pp vs. Lozano
The Code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was
made or used by the accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim of the crime may be considered as arms for purposes of the
law on cuadrilla.
Guns and Knives.
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by a band. In the crime of robbery with
rape, band is considered as an aggravating circumstance. The prosecution established that one of the accused was armed with a handgun, while the
other three had knives when they committed the crime. (Pp v Evangelio, GR 181902, August 31, 2011)
7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
The rule in here is that the offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune in the commission of the crime.
8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

The armed men must not participate in the execution of the felony otherwise they are co-principals.
Must be accomplices
Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or indirectly.
We note that all four accused were charges as principals. The remaining suspects – were never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as to
the nature of their participation. (Lozano)
9. Recidivism.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of the RPC.
Recidivism, 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 second offense are embraced in the same title of the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense.
Criminal propensity
There is no recidivism if the second conviction is for a crime committed before the commission of the crime involved in the first conviction.
10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial.

2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which
it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense.

Recidivism
- Offender is convicted by final judgment

- The offenses are included in the same title of the RPC
- The offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC, penalty is immaterial
Habituality
- Offender serves out his sentence in the previous sentence

- two or more crimes:
light penalty
11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
The price, reward or promise must be the primary consideration of the offender in committing the crime.
Includes the person who gives the reward.
In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not considered primarily because there was no conclusive evidence and the circumstance was not alleged in the
information.
Pp vs. Alicanstre
“The talledo case is not authority on this question.”
“Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence is to the effect that the aggravating circumstance of the price.”
Greater moral depravity
In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may evince even greater moral
depravity in the offeror than in the acceptor. (Alincastre)
Pp v Canete, GR L-37945, May 28, 1984

Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of price was present in the commission of the crime and this affects not only the person who received the
money or the reward but also the person who gave it.
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision, explosion, stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of locomotive, or any other
artifice involving great waste or ruin.
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by means of…”
Pp vs. Comadre
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and bymeans of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Not only does
jurisprudence support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack, reason dictates that this attendant circumstance
should qualify the offense instead of treachery which then be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.
13. Evident premeditation.
Requisites:
1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;

2. an act manifestly indicating the culprit’s determination to commit the crime;
3. a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution.
US v The Moro Manalinde, GR 5292, August 28, 1909
“As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, upon accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply
therewith, deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under orders
received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on
a journey of a day and a night for the sole purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons…”
Pp v Duavis, GR 190861, Decemer 7, 2011

To the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the decision and the execution is not sufficient to allow appellant to fully reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to effectively and efficiently prepare and plan his actions prior to the commission of the crime. Although it may be argued
that there was some kind of premeditation on the part of appellant Duavis, it was not proved to be evident.
*Altercation – 3:00 p.m; Assault – 5:00 pm
Pp v Hilario, GR 128083, March 16, 2001
Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken into account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the
one who became his victim. When the person decided to kill a different person and premeditated on the killing of the latter, but when he carried out
his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.
Differentiated from Manalinde
The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first encountered, does not bar the
consideration of the circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit, and
the material and moral injury are the same, and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the crime.
(Manalinde)
14. Craft, Fraud or Disguise.
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning.
Craft should also be appreciated as aggravating the crime of homicide since it was shown that the victims, particularly the unsuspecting Quillosa, were
lured by the accused into coming with them on the pretext that the formoer would only accompany Rivera to accept the proceeds of the sale of a gun.
(Pp v Michael Nunez, GR 112429-30, July 23, 1997)
Disguise
 Purpose of the offender is to conceal his identity

 To facilitate the commission of the crime
 Offender takes advantage of the disguise

It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and was using sunglasses, these clumsy accounterment could not
constitute the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz contemplates a superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid
identification. (Pp v Reyes, GR 118649, March 9, 1998)
Pp v Cabato, GR L-37400, April 15, 1988
Likewise, the Court considers disguise as another aggravating circumstance. The accused, together with two others, wore masks to cover their faces.
There could have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their identities particularly for Cabato who was very much known to the offended
parties. The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving the way for Cabato’s identification will not render this aggravating circumstance
inapplicable.
Pp v Cunanan, GR L-30103, January 20, 1977
The male malefactors resorted to a disguise. That circumstance did not facilitate the consummation of the killing. Nor was it taken advantage of by the
malefactors in the course of the assault.
They announced their presence at the scene of the crime with shouts and gunshots. That mode of attack counteracted whatever deception might have
arisen from their disguise.
15. Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense.
“..must show that the accused were physically stronger than the victim, and that they abused such superiority by taking advantage of their combined
strength to consummate the offense.” (Pp v Drew, GR 127368, December 3, 2001)
Pp v Padilla, GR 75508, June 10, 1994
Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
Pp v Amodia, GR 177356, November 20, 2008.

To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their
combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There must be clear
proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.
Pp v Ventura, GR 148145046, July 5, 2004
On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and
defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of what superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself.
Means employed to weaken defense.
The means must not be of such a nature that the victim could not put up any sort of defense otherwise that would be a case of treachery.
Pp v Ducusin, GR 30724, August 8, 1929
The aggravating circumstance defined in article 10, no.9, of the Penal Code, that is, the employment of means to weaken the defense, consisting in this
case, in having made the deceased intoxicated, must be taken into account.
16. Treachery
Present (Pp v Gidoc, GR 185162, April 24, 2009)
1. Crimes against persons

2. Means and methods of execution tend directly and specially to insure its execution
Essence of treachery
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the latter’s part. (Gidoc)
Pp v YANSON, GR 179195, October 3, 2011

Verily, [appellant] employed means which insured the killing of [Magan] and such means assured him from the risk of [Magan’s] defense had he made
any. It must also be noted that [Magan] was stabbed four times in the back and two of these wounds were the proximate cause of death. Stabbing from
behind is a good indication of treachery
Pp v Regalado, GR 177302, April 16, 2009
The essence of treachery is deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness
and severity of the attack.
In the case at bar, Chu was caught off-guard when, after he was asking forgiveness from Regalado, the latter suddenly drew a curved knife and stabbed
and pursued the following victim. And once Regalado and his co-appellants cornered Chu, Aragon kicked and punched him while Lopez stabbed him
several times to thus preclude Chua from defending himself.
Treachery cannot be presumed
It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt; every qualifying or aggravating circumstance alleged to have
been present and to have attended such killing must similarly be shown by the same degree of proof. (Pp v Abdulah, GR 182518, January 20, 2009)
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. (VELASCO v. PP)
Means must be consciously adopted
The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without means of escape. There is no doubt
that appellant’s use of a caliber .45 pistol, as well as his act of waiting for Inspector Barte to be seated first in the jeep before approaching him and of
shooting Inspector Barte several times on the head and chest, was adopted by him to prevent Inspector Barte from retaliating or escaping. (Pp v
Guevarra, GR 182192, Octover 29, 2008)
Not in a position to defend himself.

In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was attacked from behind and at close range. The assailant further hid behind the window to mask his
presence and identity. (Pp. v. Dela Pena)
Baluyot and Canete
If the aggression is continuous treachery must be present at the beginning of the assault.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that treachery be present at the moment the fatal blow was delivered. It is this interruption that
gives the accused the time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and method of execution.
“… with treachery”
That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was apparently the intended victim is not incompatible with the existence of treachery. Treachery may be taken
into account even if the victim of the attack was not the person whom the accused intended to kill. (PP v. Trinidad)
Frontal assault.
Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance to repel it or offer any
resistance in defense of his person. (Pp v. Agacer)
17. Ignominy.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
Means are employed or circumstances surround the act that tend to make the crime more humiliating. (US v ABAIGAR, GR 1255, August 17, 1903)
US v. De Leon
There is present also the twelfth generic circumstance of Article 10, proved by the fact that the deceased, a land owner, was forced to kneel in front of
his four servants drawn up in line before him.
Pp v. Acaya

The fact that the crime was committed in a public place and in the presence of many persons did not necessarily tend to make the effects of the crime
more humiliating or put the offended party to shame.
Pp v. Siao
It has been held that where the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior but also the
dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven like the crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy
attended the commission thereof.
18. Unlawful entry.
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)
19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or window.
The breaking must be resorted as a means to the commission of the crime.
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the latter the window or point of ingress need not be broken.
20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor vehicle, airships or other similar means.
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be deliberately used in the commission of the crime.
Besides, it has been established during the trial that the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime in carrying away the effects
thereof, and in facilitating their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)
21. Cruelty.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to Ignominy which refers to moral suffering, i.e. disgrace or shame.
Test in appreciating cruelty

… whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly
increased the victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.. the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him moral and physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal act which he intended to commit. (Pp v.
Sitchon)
Art. 15. Alternative circumstances
Alternative circumstances may be considered either as aggravating or mitigating circumstances according to the (1) nature and effects of the crime and
(2) other conditions attending to its commission.
- Relationship,
- Intoxication,
- Degree of instruction and education.
Relationship
- Spouse
- Ascendant
- Descendant
- Brother or sister
- Relative by affinity
Other relatives by analogy.
- Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.

- Adopted parent and adopted child.
Not included
- Uncle and niece.

- Cousins.
- Relationship between a step-grandniece and her step-grandfather is not one of the relatives specifically enumerated therein.
Generally relationship is…
- Mitigating – crimes against property

- Aggravating – crimes against persons where offended party is of a higher degree than offender or of the same level.
Exceptions
- In serious physical injuries relationship is aggravating no matter the degree of relationship.

- In homicide or murder relationship is aggravating.
- In crimes against chastity it is always aggravating.
Pp v. Orillosa
The alternative circumstance of relationship under Art. 15 of the RPC should be appreciated against the appellant. In crimes of chastity such as acts of
lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating. Inasmuch as it was expressly alleged in the information and duly proven during trial that the
offended party is the daughter of appellant, relationship, therefore, aggravated the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Pp v. Glodo
The information alleges that Maricel was only 15 yrs old at the time of the crime was committed and that she is the daughter of appellant. However,
the prosecution merely presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving the age of the
victim and her relationship with appellant so as to warrant the imposition of death penalty.
Relationship as element of the offense.
Parricide – victim is father, mother, child, ascendant, descendant or spouse
Adultery – wife
Concubinage – husband
In these cases relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating.

Intoxication
Mitigating
(1) not habitual or

(2) unintentional/accidental/not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
Aggravating
(1) habitual or
(2) intentional/subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
Mere proof that offender imbibed intoxicating liquor is not sufficient.
Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of liquor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the test is that it must have sufficed to
affect his mental faculties, to the extent of blurring his reason and depriving him of self-control.
Absent clear and convincing proof as to appellant’s state of intoxication, we are unable to agree that the alternative circumstance of intoxication was
present to aggravate the offense. (pp v. Inggo, GR 14082,June 23, 2003)
Presumption
When the accused is established to be drunk, the presumption is that it was not habitual but accidental and, therefore, mitigating.
Degree of instruction or education
Mitigating when there is lack of instruction or education. There must be lack of sufficient intelligence.
Exceptions:
- crimes against property

- crimes against chastity
- murder

Aggravating when there is high degree of instruction or education when taken advantage of by offender.
Pp v. Mangsant
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has studied in the first grade in a public school, but only to him who really has not received any instruction.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for his own actions.
When there is only one felony, he alone is criminally liable.
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
Article 16.Who are criminally liable
Grave and less grave felonies:
- Principals
- Accomplices
- Accessories
Light felonies:
- Principals
- Accomplices
Subjects in a crime.
1. Active subject (criminal)

2. Passive subject (injured party: private individual or the State)
Only natural persons.

- RPC requires that a person act with malice or with negligence.

- Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty.
- Most penalties can be executed by natural persons.
Article 17. 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.
Principal by direct participation.
Requisites:
1. That they participate in the criminal resolution;

2. They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
Conspiracy
Participating in the criminal resolution is conspiracy.
DEFINITION: Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Pp v. Reyes
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. When the accused by their acts
aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of
the same object, conspiracy exists.
Conspiracy may be express or implied.

Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime; it is sufficient that the
malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. (Pp v Amodia, GR 173791, April 7, 2009)
Manner of commission of crime
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused which show a
joint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and a community of interest among the accused. (Pp v Sicad, GR 133833, Octover 15, 2002)
Indicators of conspiracy
- Spontaneous agreement
- Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
- Contributing positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
- Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
- Knowing the plan and accepting the role assigned and actually performing that role.
Where there is no conspiracy.
Mere silence does not make one a conspirator (Pp v. Gensola)
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (pp v. padrones)
When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own act.
Pp v. enriquez
“if a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery, all of
them are responsible for the death of a person that ensues as a consequence”
Not the object of the conspiracy/necessary or logical consequence of the crime intended.
- In Umali case (96 Phil 185) robbery is not included/necessary or logical consequence of sedition;
- Where the conspiracy specifically targeted one and only one person, the killing of others would not affect the conspirators. (De laCerna)
Some rules in conspiracy.
Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal liability (Timbol)
Participation in the criminal resolution must either be before or simultaneous with the criminal act.
Applicable only in crimes committed by means of dolo.
2nd requisite.They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
He must be at the scene of the crime personally taking part in its execution.
It is sufficient that the act performed directly tends to accomplish the intended crime.
Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape; acting as a lookout/guard.
Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime;

- Using irresistible force;
- Causing uncontrollable fear.
2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime.
- Giving price or reward
- Using words of command.
Requisites of a principal by inducement:
1. Inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime.

2. Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime.
1st Requisite.Intention.
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime.

In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and carabaos) and supplying the gun to use in the commission of the crime.
In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the husband of the inducer is killed.
Does not include
- Thoughtless expressions;
- Imprudent advice;
2nd Requisite.Determining cause.
Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would not have been committed.
It must:
1. Precede the act induced, and

2. Influential.
Requisites: Words of Command
1. Intention to procure commission of crime.

2. Inducer must have ascendancy or influence.
3. Words must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical coercion.
4. Uttered prior to the commission of the crime.
5. Material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime.
Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Principal by cooperation.
Requisites:
1. Participation in criminal resolution.

2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, w/o w/c it would not have been accomplished.
Cooperation
- Cooperation – implies that there is a desire or wish in common.

- Another act – the act must be different from the acts of the principal by direct participation. The act must not involve the material execution of
the offense.
Ex. Dragging a girl to a place where she is to be raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.
Three types of principals.
- Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable as a principal one must fall under any of the three concepts in Art. 17.
- In such case, we apply our ruling inpp v. ubina where we held that when an accused does not fall under any of the three concepts defined in
Article 17 of the RPC, he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice. (PP v. Carriaga)
Article 18. Accomplices
1. Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts

2. Not a principal
3. No conspiracy
Conspirator v. Accomplice
Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the criminal design.
Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal design.
Requisites
1. Community of design
2. Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
3. Relation between acts of principal and accomplice.
1st requisite.Community of design.
Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence of the criminal design.
Prior to the commission of the act.
Knowledge of a crime different from that actually committed. As long as it is a natural consequence of the crime intended, an accomplice is liable.
2nd requisite.Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
- The acts of the accomplice must not be indispensable.
3rd requisite.Relation between acts of principal and accomplice.
Liable for different crimes.
A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrive and take part in killing B.
A – Principal in Murder.
C and D – Accomplices in Homicide.
*No conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A attacked B.
Article 19.Accessories.
Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being principals or accomplices, take subsequent part in its commission by:
1. Profiting or assisting the accused to profit;

2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or its effects/instruments to prevent its discovery.
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape.

Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal.
1. Public officer who abuses his public function (any crime)

2. Private person (treason, parricide, murder attempt against the life of the president, habitually guilty of some other crime.)
PENALTIES
Article 22.Retroactive effect of penal laws.
The general rule is that penal laws have prospective effect.
They can only be given retroactive effect if:
1. It is favorable to the accused , and

2. The accused is not a habitual criminal.
Prospective effect of penal laws
Applicable to all penal laws.
This rule is applicable even for those serving sentence by final judgment.
Habitual criminal is one who…
1. Within a period of 10 years;

2. From the date of the last conviction or release;
3. Of the crimes of serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification;
4. Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3rd time or oftener. (art. 62, par. 5)
Jurisdiction of the courts
- It is the law at the time of the institution of the action that determines the jurisdiction of courts
- Jurisdiction of the courts is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.

Art. 23. Pardon by the offended party.
- Pardon by the offended party does not affect the criminal action. Civil liability may be expressly waived by the offended party.
- The exception under art. 344 of the RPC must be made before the institution of the criminal action.
Article 25.Penalties which may be imposed.
- Art. 25 is a classification of penalties as to principal or accessory penalties.

- This is also a list of the penalties that may be imposed in the RPC.
*RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed in lieu of death.
Art. 26. Fine – when afflictive, correctional or light penalty
Afflictive – exceeds P6, 000.00
Correctional – does not exceed P6,000.00 but is not less than 200.00.
Light – less than 200.00.
*This classification should not be confused with Art. 9, which classifies felonies.
Article 27.Duration of penalties.
The amendment giving a duration to reclusion perpetua (20y and 1d to 40y) did not mean that it has reclassified as a divisible penalty. It remains an
indivisible penalty. (Pp v. Lucas)
Article 28.Computation of penalties.
- If theoffender is in prison, the temporary penalty – judgment of conviction becomes final.

- If the offender is not in prison, the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty – offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities.
- Duration of other penalties – from the day on w/c the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
Article 29.Preventive detention.

Period of preventive suspension – credited fully in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty if the detention prisoner agrees in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners.
Exceptions
- Recidivists and those convicted previously 2 or 3 items of any crime, and

- Those who fail to surrender voluntarily when summoned from execution.
Rules
- If the detention prisoner does not abide by the rules imposed on convicts, he will be credited in the service of his sentence with 4/5 of the
period of preventive detention.
- If the detention prisoner has been in detention for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged
to which he may be sentenced and his case is not terminated, he shall be released immediately.
- In case, the possible penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment.
Article 36.Pardon.
Pardon remits the principal penalty but not the accessory penalty, unless the pardon expressly provides otherwise.
Exception: when pardon is granted after the principal penalty has been fully executed.
It is the Chief Executive who pardons.
Pardon
By Chief Executive
- Extinguishes criminal liability
- Cannot include civil liability
- Given after conviction

By offended party
- Does not extinguish criminal liability

- Offended party can waive civil liability
- Given before institution of criminal prosecution (Except: Rape)
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities – order of payment
1. Reparation of damage caused;restitution

2. Indemnification of consequential damages;use commonly on crimes against persons
3. Fine;
4. Cost of proceedings.
*This article is applicable only when the property of the convict is not sufficient to pay all the pecuniary liabilities.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty.
Under the RPC, subsidiary imprisonment is an additional penalty consisting of imprisonment for a convict who has no property to pay the fine at the
rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment
of conviction by the trial court (RA. 10159)
Rules under the RPC
- If prison correccional or arresto and fine – subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case exceed 1 year.
- If penalty is only fine – subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 6 months if prosecuted for grave or less grave;and not to exceed 15 days if for
a light felony.
- If penalty imposed is higher than prison correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment.
Rules in special laws
- If court imposes a fine – shall not exceed 6 months

- If both imprisonment and fine – shall not exceed 1/3 of the term

Art. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and instruments and tools in the commission of the crime.
- “Every penalty” presupposes that this is an accessory penalty.

- The confiscation or forfeiture is in favor of the government.
- If a third person owns the property and is not liable for the offense, the property cannot be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government.
- If the property is not subject of lawful commerce, it shall be destroyed regardless of whether it belongs to the accused or a third person.
Rules
- There must be a criminal case otherwise no penalty can be imposed.

- If the property belongs to a person not included in the charge, the court cannot order the confiscation/forfeiture of the property.
- If the property was not submitted to the court in evidence, said property cannot be confiscated.
PDEA v. Brodett
Art. 45 of the RPC bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if such “be the property of a third
person not liablefor the offense.”
Release of property
Property seized must be returned to the person from whom it was taken or to person who is entitled to itspossession:
- No criminal prosecution
- Unreasonable prosecution
Art. 46. Penalties to be imposed on principals in general.
- The penalties provided for in the RPC are the penalties imposed on principals for the consummated felony.
- There are, however, certain provisions where a penalty is provided for a frustrated stage or attempted stage of a felony.
Art. 47. When death penalty imposed.
Must be imposed in all cases under existing laws.

Except:
- Below 18 years of age;

- More than 70 years of age;
- Required majority in SC is not obtained.
Pp v. Mateo
“If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise
and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.”
Art. 48 Complex crimes.
In complex crimes at least two crimes are committed but they constitute only one crime, as only one penalty is imposed upon the offender. This is
intended to benefit the offender who is, in the eyes of the law, less criminally perverse than one who commits two or more separate and independent
crimes.
Two kinds of complex crimes:
- Compound crime – a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. Ex; throwing a hand grenade at a group of people causing
death or injuries to several in the group.
- Complex crime proper – one offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Ex; falsifying cedulas so as to collect the fees from persons
to whom they are issued.
Compound crime.
Requisites:
1. One single act.

2. The single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies.
One single act.

- Throwing a hand grenade into a group of people is a single act.

- Placing a bomb in an airplane is a single act.
- Firing a gun once is a single act.
Two or more grave or less grave felonies.
In case the single act produces light felonies they are either treated as:
- Separate offenses; or
- Absorbed. The rule that light felonies are absorbed should only be applied when there is only one victim.
Pp v. de los Santos
The slight physical injuries caused by glenn to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence, would, had they been intentional, have constituted
light felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, they should be treated and punished as separate offenses. Separate information
should have, therefore, been filed.
Several offenders and several victims
Where there are several offenders and it cannot be ascertained who among them killed the several deceased, there is only one crime committed. This
ruling should only be applied when it cannot be ascertained who among the offenders killed the victims (Sanidad, April 30, 2003; Lawas, June 30,
1955; Abella, Aug 31, 1979)
Complex crime proper.
Requisites:
1. At least two offenses;

2. One or some must be a necessary means to commit the other;
3. Both offenses must be punished under the same statute.
At least two offenses.

- Falsification as a means to commit malversation (barbas)

- Usurpation of official functions as a means to commit simple seduction.
Necessary means
Necessary does not mean indispensable otherwise the offense would be considered as an element of the offense and the result would be one felony
committed.
The other crime must be a means to commit not to conceal. If the other crime is used to conceal the other, they are separate offenses.
Applicability of Art. 48.
Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does not provide a specific penalty for a Special Complex Crime. Ex: Kidnapping with Murder or Homicide,
Robbery with Homicide, Rape with Homicide.
Forcible Abduction with Rape.
The abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. This should only be applied to the first rape. If subsequent rapes are committed, they are separate
felonies, since the abduction was no longer necessary for their commission.
Penalty for complex crime
The penalty is for the most serious crime committed to be applied in its maximum period.
Continued crime.
A continued, continuing or continuous crime is not specifically provided for in the RPC. The principles on continued crime is based on a single criminal
impulse and should result in one criminal liability.
The difference in Dela Cruz and Enguerocase,is that in Dela Cruz there was evidence that there was a general plan to commit robbery in the vicinity of
the eight households. InEnguerono such evidence was presented.
Art. 49. Penalty when crime different from that intended.

- This article is only applicable in error in personae.

- In Aberratio ictus, two crimes are committed, therefore, Art. 48 (complex crimes) is applicable;
- In Praeterintentionem, the offender is liable for the crime actually committed.
Rules
- Rule 1
Penalty for felony committed is higher than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with lower penalty imposed in maximum.
- Rule 2
Penalty for felony committed is lower than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with lower penalty imposed in maximum.
Art. 50-57
- Rules in determining the imposable penalties for accomplices and accessories of frustrated and attempted felonies.
- Degree is one entire penalty.
- Period is one of the three equal portions of a divisible penalty.
- A period when prescribed by the RPC as a penalty for a felony is considered a degree.
Art. 60. Exceptions.
- The rules in Art. 50-57 are not applicable where the law specifically provides for a penalty for a frustrated or attempted stage of a felony or
specifically provides for the penalty of an accomplices or accessory.
Art. 61.Rules for graduating penalties
Basis for graduation of penalties is the scale in Art. 71.
- Death
- Rec Perp
- Rec Temp
- Pr Mayor
- PrCorr
- Arr mayor
- Destierro
- ArrMenor
- Public Censure
- Fine
1st Rule. Single and indivisible
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following.
Death
Reclusion Perpetua – penalty
Reclusion Temporal – penalty next lower in degree
2nd Rule.Two indivisible penalties or one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed.
Two indivisible:
Death -
--------- Parricide
Reclusion Perpetua -
Reclusion Temporal
2nd rule.One or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent.

Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal - penalty
Prision Mayor - penalty next lower in degree
Two divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
Prision Mayor -
------ penalty
PrisionCorreccional -
Arresto Mayor - penalty next lower in degree
3rd Rule. One or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of
that immediately following.
Death -
Reclusion Perpetua -
Reclusion Temporal (max) -

Reclusion Temporal (med) -
Reclusion Temporal (min) -
Prision Mayor (max) -
Prision Mayor (med) -
Prision Minor (min) -
4th Rule. Penalty is composed of several periods (at least 3).
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following either
from the penalty prescribed or the penalty immediately following.
Rec Temp – Max
- Med
- Min
-Max
Pr May - Med
- Min
PrCorr - Max
-Med
- Min
5th Rule. Not specially provided for in Rules 1-4.
Proceed by analogy.

- If the penalty consists of two periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty consisting of two periods immediately down the scale.
- If the penalty consists only of one period, the penalty next lower in degree is the next period immediately down the scale.
Art. 62. Application of mitigating, aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency.
1st Rule.Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute the crime or are included by law in defining the crime – No effect.
“By means of fire” not taken into consideration in arson.
“Dwelling” in robbery with force upon things.
“Abuse of confidence” in qualified theft.
Taking advantage of public position and committed by a syndicate – Maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
Syndicate – two or more persons.
Art. 62. Par. 2. Inherent.
When the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime – No effect.
Evident premeditation in robbery and theft.
Art. 62. Par. 3. Circumstances relating to the persons participating in the crime.
1. Moral attributes of the offender.

Ex: Evident premeditation (aggravating)
Passion or obfuscation (mitigating)
2. Private relations of offender and offended party
Ex: relationships, e.g., father and son
3. Any other personal cause
Ex: minority
Insanity
recidivism
In these three instances the aggravating or mitigating circumstance shall affect only those to whom such circumstance is present.
Art. 62. Par. 4. Circumstances consisting in the material execution of the crime.
Material execution – treachery
Means employed – poison, fire, etc.
Affects only those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
Art. 62. Par. 5. Habitual Delinquency
Rules on Habitual delinquency
- Refers only to certain crimes: serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa and falsification.
- It results in an additional penalty not merely an increase in the penalty.
- The additional penalty is imposed upon a third conviction.
- The 10 years shall always be computed from the last conviction or release.
- The subsequent crimes must be committed after conviction.
Art. 63. Indivisible penalties
Single indivisible – imposed regardless of the presence of circumstances
Two indivisible penalties
- One aggravating – greater penalty

- No mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty
- Some mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty
- Both – offset according to number and importance.

Art 64. Penalties which contain three periods.
Rule 1. No aggravating and no mitigating – medium period
Rule 2. Only a mitigating – minimum
Rule 3. Only an aggravating – maximum
Rule 4. When there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances the court shall offset those of one class against the other.
Two or more mitigating and no aggravating
Rule 5.Two or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstance – penalty next lower in degree intheperiod applicable according to the number and
nature of circumstance.This is called a privileged mitigating circumstance.
The mitigating circumstance that constitutes the privilege mitigating circumstance can no longer be considered in determining the imposable period.
Art. 65. Dividing penalties (divisible) into three equal portions.
Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and maximum.
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the maximum. The minimum subtracted from must
not include the 1 day.
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three equal portions.
Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day)is the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum and you have the maximum of
your minimum period.
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the quotient to the minimum
(without including the one day) and you have the maximum of the medium period of the penalty.
Step 6. Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium and you have the minimum of the maximum period of the penalty. Add the quotient to the minimum
(without including the one day) and you have the maximum of the maximum period of the penalty.
Prisioncorreccional medium and maximum
Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and maximum.
2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the maximum. The minimum subtracted from must
not include the 1 day.
6 years 5 years 12 months
- Or
- 2 years 4 months 2 years 4 months
___________________ _______________
3 years 8 months
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three euql portions.
1 year 2 months 20 days
_____________________
3 ) 3 years 8 months
3 years 6 months
____
Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum and you have the maximum of
your minimum period.
2 years 4 months
1 year 2 months 20 days
3 years 6 months 20 days
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the quotient to the maximum and
you have the maximum of your maximum period.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines.
Wealth or means of the culprit is the primary consideration.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall also be considered.
Art. 67. Penalty when accident is present.
Accident is an exempting circumstance under art. 12, paragraph 4. If not all elements are present then the offender is punished in the same manner as
a person liable for reckless imprudence under art. 365.
Art. 68. Penalty upon a person under 18.
RA 9344
15 years and under – no criminal liability (intervention)
Above 15 below 18 –exempt unless acting with discernment (diversion)
Art. 69. Crime not wholly excusable.
Some of the elemets of a justifying or exempting circumstance are present.
Majority.
One or two degrees lower. Privileged mitigating circumstance.
Art. 70. Service of sentence.
Simultaneous if the nature of the penalties allow otherwise the penalties must be served successively.
Disqualification, suspension, destierro, censure, civil interdiction, confiscation, and costs are penalties that may be served simultaneously.
Penalty of imprisonment
Multiple penalties consisting of imprisonment have to be served successively.
The order of severity in Art. 71 must be observed. The most severe must be served first.
Three-fold rule
A convict’s sentence shall not exceed more than three times the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed on him.
Shall not exceed 40 years.
Does not preclude the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.
Art. 71. Graduation of penalties
Under art. 9346 death has been effectively eliminated from the list of imposable penalties under Art. 71.
This affects not only the consummated stage and the principals but also for the frustrated and attempted stage as well with respect
Art. 72-74
Art 72. Satisfaction of civil liability is based on the chronological order that they are imposed.
Art 73. Accessory penalties under Art’s 40-45 are deemed imposed.
Art 75. Increasing or decreasing fine by one or more degrees.

Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth (1/4) of the maximum.
There must be a minimum and a maximum for this article to be applicable.
Only the maximum is increased or decreased, the minimum is never changed.
Increasing or decreasing the fine.
Fine of P200-P2,000
¼ of P2,000 = P500
One degree lower would be a fine of P200-P1,500
Two degrees lower would be a fine of P200,P1,000
Art. 76. Legal periods of divisible penalties
The intention of the law is to give the three periods of a penalty equal or uniform duration due to the ff:
- Equal and uniform durations.

- Does not require that they be used even when the periods of a prescribed penalty correspond to different divisible penalties.
- Will result in the periods not being of equal and uniform duration.
Arresto Mayor does not follow the general rule.
Minimum – 1mo 1 day to 2months
Medium- 2mos 1 day to 4 mos
Maximum – 4 mos 1 day to 6 mos

Indeterminate Sentence Law
A penalty with a minimum and a maximum instead of a straight penalty.
Authorizes the release of a convict after having served the minimum of his sentence.
Temp -
Pr. May – Medium -
Pr. Corr – Maximum -
Arr. May -
ISL does not apply
1. Convicted; death or life imprisonment

2. Convicted; of treason, conspraicy or proposal to commit treason
3. Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or espionage
4. Convicted of piracy
5. Habitual delinquents
6. Escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
7. Violated the terms of the conditional pardon
8. Imprisonment; maximum does not exceed 1 year
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of the law
10. Destierro or suspension.
RPC and Special Laws
Special law.
- Minimum – not be less than the minimum prescribed by law.

- Maximum – not exceed the maximum fixed by law.
RPC
- Minimum – shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
- Maximum – that, in view of the attending circ, could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC.
Steps
1. Ascertain the penalty prescribed for the offense without considering the attending circumstances
2. Use the said penalty as the basis for determining the minimum, which is the penalty next lower in degree. This is the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence.
3. Fix the maximum by imposing the penalty prescribed by the law taking into consideration the attending circumstances.
Homicide, no mitigating no aggravating.
1. Homicide is punished by Reclusion Temporal.

2. Penlaty next lower in degree to Rec Temp is Prision Mayor. Prision Mayor is the minimum of your indeterminate sentence.
3. Maximum is Rec Temp in its medium period since there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
4. The indeterminate sentence, therefore, is Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temp Medium.
Frustrated Homicide with Direct Assault
1. Frustrated Homicide – Pr May; Direct Assault – PrCOrr Med- Max. Penalty for complex crime is for the graver offense which is Pr May.
2. Penalty next lower to Pr Mayor is Pr Corr. PrCorr is the minimum.
3. Max is Pr Mayor in its maximum (complex crime)
4. Indeterminate sentence is, therefore, PrisionCorreccional to Prision Mayor Maximum.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstnace
General rule is: find the penalty next lower in degree to the penalty prescribed by law without first considering the attending circumstance.
Exception is: a privileged mitigating circ (two or more mitigating circ without any aggravating circ, Art. 64 para. 5). In this case the privileged mitigating
circ is first applied to determine the basis for the minimum.

Estafa thru falsification by a public officer with two mit and no agg (privileged mitigating circ).
1. Penalty for the more serious offense (falsification) is prision mayor.

2. Apply the attending circ (privileged mitigating circ) first. One degree lower than Pr Mayor is Pr Corr. (exception to the general rule)
3. One degree lower than PrCorr is Arr Mayor. Arr May is the minimum.
4. Maximum is PrisionCorr in its max, because it is a complex crime.
5. Indeterminate sentence is Arrestor Mayor to PrCorr Maximum.
Probation
Probation – is a disposition where a convict is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.
In a probation, a convict’s sentence consisting of imprisonment is not executed, rather the convict is released subject to the conditions of the
probation. When the convict violates the terms, he may be required to serve the sentence.
When to apply for probation
The application for probation must be filed within the period for perfecting an appeal (15 days from promulgation).
When a convict has perfected an appeal, an application for probation cannot be granted.
Sable v. Pp
“The Probation Law is patently clear that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from
the judgment of conviction.”
“Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated; who manifest
spontaneity, contrition and remorse.”
Except in the case of Colinares v. Pp

In a real sense, the court’s finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for
the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense
and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
Disqualified from probation
-sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 yrs;
- Convicted of subversion, crimes against national security or public order;
- Previously convicted by final judgment by:
- Imprisonment of not less than one month, and/or

- Fine not less than 200.00
-Have been once on probation;
- Those already serving sentence at the time the provisions of the probation law became applicable.
Periods of probation
- If the term of imprisonment is not more than 1 year probation shall not exceed two years.
- If sentenced to more than 1 year probation shall not exceed 6 years.
Completion of the period of probation anddischargeof the probationer shall operate to restore him to all civil rights.
Art. 89. Total extinction of criminal liability.
1. Death
2. Service of sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty

7. Marriage (art. 344)
Death
Personal penalties – extinguished whether death occurs before or after conviction.
Pecuniary penalties are extinguished when death occurs before final judgment. Fines and costs shall subsist if death occurs after final judgment.
Death before final judgment.
When death occurs before final judgment, e.g., pending appeal, the criminal liability of the accused is extinguished as well as his civil liability if it is
based solely on the offense committed.
If the civil liability can be predicated on some other source of obligation other than delict (crime), e.g., law, contract or quasi-delict, the claim for civil
liability survives.
Pp v. Bayotas (READ! MU GAWAS NIS EXAM)
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed…
2. Corollariliy, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
as a result of the same act or omission…
Amnesty and pardon
- Amnesty completely extinguishes the offense, the penalty and the effets thereof. However, amnesty does not extinguish civil liability.
- Pardon merely exempts the convict from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime committed.
Amnesty

- Group/class
- Before or after conviction
- Looks backward
- Affects recidivism
- Civil liability remains
- Public act of president
Pardon
- Individual
- After conviction
- Looks forward
- Recidivism stays
- Civil liability remains
- Private act of President
Prescription of the crime/penalty
The state loses the right to prosecute an offender due to the lapse of time.
The state loses the right to execute final sentence after the lapse of time.
Marriage of the offended woman (art 344); must be in good faith.
The manner in which the appellant dealt with the girl after the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had no bona fide intention of making her his
wife, and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her because of duress. The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent, and it
supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer.” (Pp v. Santiago)
Art. 90. Prescription of crimes
The state loses the right to prosecute an offender.

- Death, Rec Perp, Rec Temp – 20 years

- Other afflictive penalties – 15 years
- Correctional penalties – 10 years
- Except by arresto mayor – 5 years
- Libel and other similar offenses – 1 year
- Oral defamation and slander by deed – 6 months
- Light offenses – 2 months
Prescriptive periods of crimes punished by special laws (act no. 3763)
Punished by:
- Fine/imprisonment (not more than 1 month) – 1 year

- Imprisonment more than 1 month, less than 2 years – 4 years
- Imprisonment more than 2 years, less than 6 years – 8 years
- Imprisonment of 6 years or more – 12 years
- Internal revenue Law – 5 years
- Municipal ordinances – 2 months
- Public service Commission – 2 months
Rules in Special Laws
- Period of prescription begins from the date of commission or date of discovery up to the institution of judicial proceedings.
- Period is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against guilty person and begins to run again if proceedings are dismissed for reasons
not constituting double jeopardy.
- Accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offense than that charged if the lesser offense has already prescribed at the time the information was
filed.
Art. 91. Computation of period (RPC)
- Commences to run on the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents.

- It is interrupted by the filing of complaint or information.

- Commences to run again when the proceedings terminate w/o the accused being convicted or acquitted or unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him.
Art. 92. Prescription of penalties.
The state loses the right to execute final sentence after the lapse of time.
Prescriptive period:
- Death and Rec Perp – 20 years
Prescription
-Prescription of penalties – sentence must be final.
- Prescription of crimes – penalty prescribed by law
- Prescription of penalties – penalty imposed.
Art. 93. Computation of period.
Commences to run when culprit evades service of sentence.
Interrupted when convict:
- Gives himself up.

- Captured
- Goes to a foreign country with which the Govt has no extradition treaty, or
- Commits another crime before the expiration of the period.
Evasion of service of sentence is essential for the rules on prescription on apply.

Art. 94. Partial Extinction
- Conditional pardon. Condition usually takes the form of an undertaking that the convict shall not violate any penal law.
- Commutation. Commutation reduces the degree of the penalty or reduces the length of imprisonment.
- Good conduct allowances. Art. 97.
Art. 97. Good Conduct Allowance.
Good conduct of a prisoner during his imprisonment will result in a deduction of his sentence:
- 1st two years – 5 days/ month of good behavior.

- 3rd to 5th year – 8 days/month of good behavior.
- 6th to 10th year – 10 days/month of good behavior.
- 11th and successive years – 15 days/month of good behavior.
Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty.
- 1/5 of the period of the sentence;

- Evade service during disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities;
- Gives himself up within 48 hours following the proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe.
- An essential element of this article is that the convict must leave the penal institution.
Art. 100. Civil liability.
A person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable.
This principle is based on the dual character of a crime. A crime is (1) an offense against the State because it disturbs the social order and (2) it injures a
private individual unless there is no private injury that is inflicted.
Acquittal
Acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it extinction of the civil liability.

Exception:when there is a finding in the final judgment that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise does not exist, the civil liability is
deemed extinguished.
Abellana v. Pp.
Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence,
for petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses.
Instances when the extinction of the criminal liability does not extinguish civil liability.
- Reasonable doubt. When the acquittal is based that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been presented.
- Non-imputability. Incases of insanity, imbecility or minority.
- In actions for negligence. Civil liability may be based on quasi-delict.
- Independent civil actions. Articles 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the NCC.
Under the Rules of Court; Criminal Procedure.
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless:
- Offended party waives the civil action;

- Offended party reserves the right to institute it separately;
- Offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Separate civil action.
- The filing of a criminal action is not necessary to the filing of and prosecution of a civil action, thus the term “separate civil action”.
- However, once a criminal action has been filed, there are two scenarios that may arise.
1. If the criminal action is filed ahead of the separate civil action – the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.
2. If the civil action is filed ahead of the separate civil action – the criminal action is suspended.(KUWANG)
Applicability of the rules.
Identity of parties and subject matter.
The claimant in the civil action is the offended party in the criminal action and both cases arise from the same offense or transaction.
- If the offended party has reserved the right to file a separate civil action, he loses the right to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case.
- (KUWANG)
Prejudicial question.
- Generally, a criminal case should be decided first before the civil action arising from the crime. An exception to the rule is a prejudicial
question.
- A prejudicial question is a civil case that must be decided first before the criminal action. It requires (1) a previously instituted civil action
whose issues are similar or intimately related ot the issues raised in a subsequent criminal action, and (2) the resolution of such issue
determines whether the criminal action may proceed or not. (Sec. 6, Rule 111 RRC)
Prejudicial question
- A civil action where the genuineness of a document is put in issue is prejudicial to the criminal case for falsification of the same document.
- A petition for the annulment of a subsequent marriage on grounds of duress is a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy.
Pp v. Jadap
As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or
compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) temperate damages
Without need of further proof.

Civil indemnity is mandaotyr and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. In cases of murder
and homicide, moral damages maybe awarded without need of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, other than the death of the
victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be dnied. (jadap)
Exemplary damages.
Article 2230 of the CC states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.
Pp v. Rante
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awrded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circ, but also where the circ of the
case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the accused.
Simple Rape
As to the amount of damages, the Court finds as correct the awrd of P50, 000.00 as civil indemnity and P50, 000.00 as moral damages in line with
prevailing jurisprudence. (Pp v. Dalisay)
*Exemplary damages in theamount of P30, 000.00 was also awarded.
Qualified Rape
Civil indemnity – P75k
Moral damages – P75k
Exemplary – P30k
Awarded without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime. (Pp v. Garcia)
Homicide; civil indemnity
Civil indemnity – without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of thevictim and that petitioner was
responsible therefor – P50, 000.00 (Seguritan v. Pp)
Loss of earning capacity
The award of P135, 331.00 for the loss of earning capacity was also in order. The prosecution satisfactorily proved that the victim was earning an
annual income of P14, 000.00 from the harvest of pineapples.
Actual damages; receipts.
It is error for the trial court and the appellate court to award actual damages of P30, 000.00 for the expenses incurred for the death of the victim. We
perused the records and did not find evidence to support the plea for actual damages. (seguritan)
Temperate damages
When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be
recovered (P25, 000.00). (Seguritan)
In Pp v. Villanueva, we held that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25k, the award of temperate damages
for P25k is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount. (Qu- idet v. Pp)
Art. 101. The following shall be civilly liable.
- Insanity, imbecility and minority. The person having legal authority or control. If the said person can prove that there was no fault or
negligence on his part, the insane, imbecile or minor shall answer with his own property.
- Avoidance of greater evil or injury, the person whose benefit the harm has been prevented in proportion to the benefit which he may have
received.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability.
Innkeepers, tavernkeepers, any other person where a crime is committed in their establishment.
A violation of municipal ordinance or a general or special police action is committed by them or their employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.

1. Employers
2. Teachers
3. Persons or corporations engaged in any kind of industry
- Felony committed by servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, employees while in the discharge of duties.
- Must be involved in any kind of industry.
- The felon is insolvent.
Decision convicting the employee
Binding on the employer. The decision need not expressly state the liability of the employer.
The decision regarding the civil liability is binding on the employer not only with the fact of the liability but also with respect to the amount.
What must be proved.
1. Employer of the convicted employee.

2. Engaged in industry
3. Crime committed in the discharge of duty
4. Execution is unsatisfied; employee is insolvent.
Need not be in a separate civil action; hearing in the criminal action with notice to the employer.
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability.
1. Restitution
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages
Restitution – return of the thing stolen incases of theft.
Reparation – in theft if the thing stolen cannot be returned, its value.In physical injuries, the expenses for the treatment of the injuries.

Indemnification – loss of earning capacity.
Art. 105. Restitution.
Restitution refers to the very same thing taken/stolen.
To give something similar in kind, amount, species or quality is not restitution.
Restitution
Generally, the owner of a thing illegally taken may recover it even form a third person who has acquired it by lawful means.
When the third person acquires the item in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefore.
Art. 106. Reparation.
Reparation will be order by the court if restitution is not possible.
Reparation includes any damage cause by the felonious act.
It includes the item’s special sentimental value to the injured party.
Art. 107. Indemnification.
Indemnification – crimes against persons.
Reparation – crimes against property.
Examples of indemnification
- Expenses for hospitalization of injured parties
Loss of earning capacity.

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider that under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the accused are also jointly and severally liable for the
loss of the earning capacity of Biag and such indemnity should be paid to his heirs. (Pp v. Lagat)
Factors to be considered
The amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased isbased on two factors: (1) the number of years on the basis of
which the damages shall be computed (2) the rate at which the losses
Art. 110. Liability of principals, accomplices and accessories.
Those within a particular class (principal, accomplice, accessory) shall be liable solidarily.
They are subsidiarily liable for those in another class.
Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability.
Same causes for the extinguishment of civil obligations.
- Payment or performance
- Loss of the thing due
- Condonation or remission
- Confusion or merger
- Compensation
- Novation
- THE END -
See you next semester?


CRIM 1 Transcript EH410

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIM 1 Transcript EH410

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 1

CRIMINAL LAW I (Teacher: Fiscal RodulphCarilllo)

--- FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY ----

- Revised Penal Code (Book I)

Tips in answering Fiscal Carillo’s Exam: PRINCIPLES(s), APPLICATION OF THE LAW

REQUIREMENTS: 3 Major Examinations, Oral Examinations/Quiz

Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a culpable felony

How does one incur criminal liability? Give an example.

WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?

-Treats of their nature

-Provides for penalties

Prevent harm to society by:

a. Declaring what conduct is criminal

b. Describing the punishment to be imposed for such conduct

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

-Revised Penal Code

-Special Laws passed by the Legislature

-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

There are no common law crimes.

Are court decisions and circulars sources of criminal law?

State’s power to define and punish crimes.

Limits (1987 Constitution)

-Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)

-Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])

-Speedy disposition of cases

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

-Informed of the nature and cause of accusation

-To be present and defend in person

-To testify in his own behalf

-To confront / cross-examine

JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.

Person committing the crime

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

GONZALES vs. ABAYA, GR No. 164007, August 10, 2006

EXCEPTION – Service-connected offenses – military court

EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION – President, interest of justice – civil court

EXCEPTIONS (These are for purposes of international comity)

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

Philippine Territory – Archipelagic doctrine

Article 2 of the RPC:

1. Philippine ship / airship

3. Introduction of items no. 2 into the Philippines

4. Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their functions

-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in…….

When the new law is favourable to the accused

NOT APPLICABLE (Exception to the exception):

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

Against the Government and in favor of the accused.

Spanish text is controlling (OLD CODIGO PENAL)

ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION

(REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship

Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities;

Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;

Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their functions;

National security / law of nations

WHEN COMMITTED ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP.

Ship or airship must be in international waters.

FORGES OR COUNTERFEITS ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES

Making false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163)

A PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEE, OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTIONS.

- Direct bribery (Art. 210)