nature and provides for their punishment. Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON) 1. Must be general in application. 2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. 3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. 4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or ecessive fnes. Characteristics of Criminal Law: 1. General ! the law is binding to all persons who reside in the "hilippines 2. Territorial ! the law is binding to all crimes committed within the #ational $erritor% of the "hilippines Exception to Territorial Application& 'nstances enumerated under Article 2. 3. Prospective ! the law does not have an% retroactive e(ect. Exception to Prospective Application& when new statute is favorable to the accused. Efect of repeal of penal law to liailit! of ofen"er Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. As to the efect of repeal of penal law to the liability of ofender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only. A repeal is absolute or total when the crie punished under the repealed law has been decriinali!ed by the repeal. "ecause of the repeal, the act or oission which used to be a crie is no longer a crie. An exaple is #epublic Act $o. %&'&, which decriinali!ed subversion. A repeal is partial or relative when the crie punished under the repealed law continues to be a crie inspite of the repeal. This eans that the repeal erely odi(ed the conditions afecting the crie under the repealed law. The odi(cation ay be pre)udicial or bene(cial to the ofender. *ence, the following rule+ Conse#$ences if repeal of penal law is total or asol$te ,-. 'f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the sae shall be disissed, even though the accused ay be a habitual delinquent. ,/. 'f a case is alread% decided and the accused is alread% serving sentence b% fnal )udgment, if the convict is not a habitual delin*uent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the tie of the repeal. +ut if there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the bene(t of the repealing law. They are entitled to release. 'f the% are not discharged from confnement, a petition for habeas corpus should be (led to test the legality of their continued con(neent in )ail. 'f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin*uent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents. Conse#$ences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative ,-. 'f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to hi. 0o whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. ,2- 'f a case is alread% decided and the accused is alread% serving sentence b% fnal )udgment,even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crie still reains to be a crie. $hose who are not habitual delin*uents will beneft on the e(ect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth appl% to them. 1nder Article //, even if the ofender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is bene(cial shall be applied to hi unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with #ule 2 of Article '/. Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied ,-. 'f a penal law is impliedl% repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. 0o the act or oission which was punished as a crie under the original law will be revived and the sae shall again be cries although during the iplied repeal they ay not be punishable. ,/. 'f the repeal is epress, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the (rst law, so the act or oission will no longer be penali!ed. These efects of repeal do not apply to self3repealing laws or those which have autoatic terination. An exaple is the #ent 4ontrol 5aw which is revived by 4ongress every two years. Theories of Criminal Law 1. Classical Theor! ! Man is essentiall% a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. 1. Positivist Theor! ! Man is subdued occasionall% b% a strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrar% to his volition. Eclectic or %i&e" Philosoph! This cobines both positivist and classical thin6ing. 4ries that are econoic and social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist anner7 thus, the law is ore copassionate. *einous cries should be dealt with in a classical anner7 thus, capital punishen
'()*C %(+*%) *N C,*%*N(L L(- .octrine of Pro ,eo 8henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law adits of two interpretations 9 one lenient to the ofender and one strict to the ofender 9 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the ofender will be adopted. N$ll$m crimen/ n$lla poena sine lege There is no crie when there is no law punishing the sae. This is true to civil law countries, but not to coon law countries. "ecause of this axi, there is no coon law crie in the Philippines. $o atter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law de(ning the act, the sae is not considered a crie. (ct$s non facit re$m/ nisi mens sit rea The act cannot be criinal where the ind is not criinal. This is true to a felony characteri!ed by dolo, but not a felony resulting fro culpa. This axi is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result fro negligence. 0tilitarian Theor! or Protective Theor! The priary purpose of the punishent under criinal law is the protection of society fro actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishent to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criinal law is directed against acts and oissions which the society does not approve. 4onsistent with this theory, the ala prohibita principle which punishes an ofense regardless of alice or criinal intent, should not be utili!ed to apply the full harshness of the special law. )o$rces of Criminal Law 1. $he .evised "enal /ode 2. 0pecial "enal 1aws ! Acts enacted of the "hilippine 1egislature punishing o(enses or omissions. Constr$ction of Penal Laws 1. /riminal 0tatutes are liberall% construed in favor of the o(ender. $his means that no person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearl% within them, nor should an% act be pronounced criminal which is not clearl% made so b% statute. 2. $he original tet in which a penal law is approved in case of a con2ict with an o3cial translation. 3. 'nterpretation b% analog% has no place in criminal law %(L( *N )E (N. %(L( P,O1*'*T( :iolations of the #evised Penal 4ode are referred to as malum in se, which literall% means, that the act is inherentl% evil or bad or per se wrongful. 4n the other hand, violations of special laws are generall% referred to as malum prohibitum. #ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. 5hile intentional felonies are alwa%s mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are alwa%s mala prohibita. 6ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherentl% wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense7 unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. 1ikewise when the special laws re*uires that the punished act be committed knowingl% and willfull%, criminal intent is re*uired to be proved before criminal liabilit% ma% arise. 5hen the act penali8ed is not inherentl% wrong, it is wrong onl% because a law punishes the same. .istinction etween crimes p$nishe" $n"er the ,evise" Penal Co"e an" crimes p$nishe" $n"er special laws 23 As to moral trait of the ofender 'n crimes punished under the .evised "enal /ode, the moral trait of the o(ender is considered. $his is wh% liabilit% would onl% arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. 'n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the o(ender is not considered7 it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntaril% done. 43 As to use of good faith as defense 'n crimes punished under the .evised "enal /ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense7 unless the crime is the result of culpa 'n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense 53 As to degree of accomplishment of the crime 'n crimes punished under the .evised "enal /ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the o(ender7 thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. 'n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl% when it is consummated7 there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law epressl% penali8e the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. 63 As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances 'n crimes punished under the .evised "enal /ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalt% since the moral trait of the o(ender is considered. 'n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalt%. 73 As to degree of participation 'n crimes punished under the .evised "enal /ode, when there is more than one o(ender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalt%7 thus, o(enders are classifed as principal, accomplice and accessor%. 'n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the o(enders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penali8ed to the same etent. $here is no principal or accomplice or accessor% to consider. Test to "etermine if violation of special law is mal$m prohiit$m or mal$m in se Analy!e the violation+ ;s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such< ;f you reove the law, will the act still be wrong< ;f the wording of the law punishing the crie uses the word =willfully>, then alice ust be proven. 8here alice is a factor, good faith is a defense. ;n violation of special law, the act constituting the crie is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an oission. 8hen given a proble, ta6e note if the crie is a violation of the #evised Penal 4ode or a special law. (rt3 23 This Co"e shall ta8e efect on 9an$ar! 2/ 2:543 (rt3 43 E&cept as provi"e" in the treaties an" laws of preferential application/ the provisions of this Co"e shall e enforce" not onl! within the Philippine (rchipelago incl$"ing its atmosphere/ its interior waters an" %aritime ;one/ $t also o$tsi"e of its <$ris"iction/ against those who: 23 )ho$l" commit an ofense while on a Philippine ship or airship= 43 )ho$l" forge or co$nterfeit an! coin or c$rrenc! note of the Philippine *slan"s or oligations an" sec$rities iss$e" ! the Government of the Philippine *slan"s= 53 )ho$l" e liale for acts connecte" with the intro"$ction into these islan"s of the oligations an" sec$rities mentione" in the prece"ing n$mer= 63 -hile eing p$lic o>cers or emplo!ees/ sho$l" commit an ofense in the e&ercise of their f$nctions= or ,0oe of these cries are bribery, fraud against national treasury, alversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds7 e.g., A )udge who accepts a bribe while in ?apan.. 73 )ho$l" commit an! crimes against the national sec$rit! an" the law of nations/ "e?ne" in Title One of 'oo8 Two of this Co"e3 ,These cries include treason, espionage, piracy, utiny, and violation of neutrality. Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels& 1. @rench ,$le ! 0uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that countr%, unless their commission a(ects the peace and securit% of the territor% or the safet% of the state is endangered. 1. English ,$le ! 0uch crimes are triable in that countr%, unless the% merel% a(ect things within the vessel or the% refer to the internal management thereof. ,$his is applicable in the "hilippines- two situations where the foreign country ay not apply its criinal law even if a crie was coitted on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are+ ,-. 8hen the crie is coitted in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong7 ,/. 8hen the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crie was coitted adopts the French Rule, which applies only to erchant vessels, except when the crie coitted afects the national security or public order of such foreign country. Requirements of an ofense committed while on a !hilippine "hip or Airship9 1. .egistered with the "hilippine +ureau of /ustoms 2. 0hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace. 1nder international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crie against huanity in general, such that wherever the pirates ay go, they can be prosecuted. 0) v3 '$ll A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territor% and continued when it entered into "hilippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. :ence within the )urisdiction of the local courts. As a general rule, the #evised Penal 4ode governs only when the crie coitted pertains to the exercise of the public o@cialAs functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions conteplated are those, which are, under the law, to be perfored by the public o@cer in the Boreign 0ervice of the Philippine governent in a foreign country.
Exception+ The #evised Penal 4ode governs if the crie was coitted within the Philippine Ebassy or within the ebassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because ebassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. Paragraph 2 of Article /, use the phrase =as de(ned in Title Cne of "oo6 Two of this 4ode.> This is a very iportant part of the exception, because Title ; of "oo6 / ,cries against national security. does not include rebellion. (rt 53 (cts an" omissions p$nishale ! law are felonies3 Acts ! an overt or eternal act #mission ! failure to perform a dut% re*uired b% law. Exaple of an oission& failure to render assistance to an%one who is in danger of d%ing or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded ! abandonment. Felonies ! acts and omissions punishable b% the .evised "enal /ode Crime ; acts and omissions punishable b% an% law 5hat re*uisites must concur before a felon% ma% be committed< There ust be ,-. an act or oission7 ,/. punishable by the #evised Penal 4ode7 and ,&. the act is perfored or the oission incurred by eans of dolo or culpa. $ow felonies are committed& 1. ! means of "eceit (dolo) ! $here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. Requisites% 1. freedom 2. intelligence 3. intent Exaples& murder, treason, and robber% Criminal intent is not necessar& in these cases% ,-. 8hen the crie is the product of culpa or negligence, rec6less iprudence, lac6 of foresight or lac6 of s6ill7 ,/. 8hen the crie is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called alu prohibitu. 'n criminal law, intent is categori(ed into two% ,-. Deneral criinal intent7 and ,/. 0peci(c criinal intent. )eneral criminal intent is presued fro the ere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criinal intent. "peci*c criminal intent is not presued because it is an ingredient or eleent of a crie, li6e intent to 6ill in the cries of attepted or frustrated hoicideEparricideEurder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the sae. ;t requires proof and there ust be the intent to gain. +istinction between intent and discernment 'ntent is the deterination to do a certain thing, an ai or purpose of the ind. ;t is the design to resolve or deterination by which a person acts. Cn the other hand, discernment is the ental capacity to tell right fro wrong. ;t relates to the oral signi(cance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an eleent of dolo, distinct fro intent. +istinction between intent and motive 'ntent is deonstrated by the use of a particular eans to bring about a desired result 9 it is not a state of ind or a reason for coitting a crie. Cn the other hand, motive iplies otion. ;t is the oving power which ipels one to do an act. 8hen there is otive in the coission of a crie, it always coes before the intent. "ut a crie ay be coitted without otive. ;f the crie is intentional, it cannot be coitted without intent. ;ntent is anifested by the instruent used by the ofender. The speci(c criinal intent becoes aterial if the crie is to be distinguished fro the attepted or frustrated stage. 1. b& means of fault ,culpa- ! $here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. 1. 'mprudence ! defcienc% of action7 e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. :e hit + because it was raining ! reckless imprudence. 2. .egligence / defcienc% of perception7 failure to foresee impending danger, usuall% involves lack of foresight 0. c. Requisites% 1. =reedom 2. 'ntelligence 3. 'mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight 4. 1ack of intent The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac6 of precaution on the part of the person perforing or failing to perfor an act. ;f the danger ipending fro that situation is clearly anifest, you have a case of rec1less imprudence. "ut if the danger that would result fro such iprudence is not clear, not anifest nor iediate you have only a case of simple negligence. %ista8e of fact ! is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in)ur% to another. :e is not criminall% liable. a. Requisites& 1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be7 2. intention of the accused is lawful7 3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness. E&le% 2nited "tates v. Ah Chong. Ah /hong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room b% placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened b% somebod% who was tr%ing to open the door. :e asked the identit% of the person, but he did not receive a response. =earing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. +elieving that he was attacked, he sei8ed a knife and fatall% wounded the intruder. Fista6e of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. 8hen the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss ista6e of fact. (rt3 63 Criminal liailit! shall e inc$rre": 23 '! an! person committing a felon!/ altho$gh the wrongf$l act "one e "iferent from that which he inten"e"3 Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proimate cause of the resulting felon%. 't must be the direct, natural, and logical conse*uence of the felonious act. Ca$ses which pro"$ce a "iferent res$lt: 1. 3ista1e in identit& of the victim ! in)uring one person who is mistaken for another ,this is a comple crime under Art. 4>- e.g., A intended to shoot +, but he instead shot / because he ,A- mistook / for +. 4Error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. ;t was the actual victi upon who the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victi. *ow does error in personae afect criinal liability of the ofender< Error in personae is itigating if the crie coitted is diferent fro that which was intended. ;f the crie coitted is the sae as that which was intended, error in personae does not afect the criinal liability of the ofender. ;n ista6e of identity, if the crie coitted was the sae as the crie intended, but on a diferent victi, error in persona does not afect the criinal liability of the ofender. "ut if the crie coitted was diferent fro the crie intended, Article GH will apply and the penalty for the lesser crie will be applied. ;n a way, ista6e in identity is a itigating circustance where Article GH applies. 8here the crie intended is ore serious than the crie coitted, the error in persona is not a itigating circustance 2. 3ista1e in blow ! hitting somebod% other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances ,this is a comple crime under Art. 4>- e.g., + and / were walking together. A wanted to shoot +, but he instead in)ured /. I Aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victi, but because of poor ai, that blow landed on soebody else. ;n aberratio ictus, the intended victi as well as the actual victi are both at the scene of the crime. aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a coplex crie. This being so, the penalty for the ore serious crie is iposed in the axiu period. 3. 'n5urious result is greater than that intended ! causing in)ur% graver than intended or epected ,this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13- e.g., A wanted to in)ure +. :owever, + died. I !raeter intentionem is itigating, particularly covered by paragraph & of Article -&. ;n order however, that the situation ay qualify as praeter intentione, there must be a notable disparit& between the means emplo&ed and the resulting felon& 'n all these instances the o(ender can still be hel" criminall! liale, since he is motivated b% criminal intent. Requisites& 1. the felon% was intentionall% committed 2. the felon% is the proimate cause of the wrong done +octrine of !roximate Cause ! such ade*uate and e3cient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessaril% produce the event. Requisites& 1. the direct, natural, and logical cause 2. produces the in)ur% or damage 3. unbroken b% an% su3cient intervening cause 4. without which the result would not have occurred !roximate Cause is negated b&% 1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel% foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a su3cient intervening cause. 2. .esulting in)ur% or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim. Proxiate cause does not require that the ofender needs to actually touch the body of the ofended party. ;t is enough that the ofender generated in the ind of the ofended party the belief that ade hi ris6 hiself. Requisite for !resumption blow was cause of the death ! 5here there has been an in<$r! inAicte" s$>cient to pro"$ce "eath followe" ! the "emise of the person, the presumption arises that the in)ur% was the cause of the death. "rovided& 1. victim was in normal health 2. death ensued within a reasonable time The one who caused the proxiate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the iediate cause is also liable, but erely contributory or soeties totally not liable. +low accelerated death; cause for the acceleration of death of the deceased. :e is also liable 6. =ist blow on back of adomen that produced in2ammation of spleen that caused his death. +low was proimate cause of death; cause of proimate cause of death of the deceased 6. "erson with heart disease stabbed with knife, the shock resulted his death. 43 '! an! person performing an act which wo$l" e an ofense against persons or propert!/ were it not for the inherent impossiilit! of its accomplishment or on acco$nt of the emplo!ment of ina"e#$ate or inefect$al means3 ,e#$isites: (*%PO))*'LE C,*%E) 1. Act would have been an o(ense against persons or propert% 2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the /ode or of a special penal law 3. $here was criminal or evil intent 4. Accomplishment was inherentl% impossible7 or inade*uate or ine(ectual means were emplo%ed. Notes: 1. 4(ender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was alread% dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime. 2. $he law intends to punish the criminal intent. 3. $here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. Belonies against persons& parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph%sical in)uries, etc. Belonies against property+ robber%, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc. 'nherent impossibilit&: #fense Against a !erson& A thought that + was )ust sleeping. + was alread% dead. A shot +. A is liable. 'f A knew that + is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable. #fense against propert&& A took a watch form + then she found out that the watch that she took was her?s. 8hen we say inherent ipossibility, this eans that under any and all circustances, the crie could not have ateriali!ed. ;f the crie could have ateriali!ed under a diferent set of facts, eploying the sae ean or the sae act, it is not an ipossible crie7 it would be an attepted felony. 6mplo&ment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill +. :owever, + survived because A used small *uantities of poison ! frustrated murder. 6mplo&ment of 'nefectual means: A aimed his gun at +. 5hen he fred the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empt%. A is liable. Ta6e $ote+ 8henever you are confronted with a proble where the facts suggest that an ipossible crie was coitted, be careful about the question as6ed. ;f the question as6ed is+ 's an impossible crime committed78, then you )udge that question on the basis of the facts. ;f really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an ipossible crie is coitted, then you state the reason for the inherent ipossibility. ;f the question as6ed is 's he liable for an impossible crime78, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an ipossible crie, if the act done b& the ofender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised !enal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. *e will be prosecuted for the crie constituted so far by the act done by hi. This idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, )ust to teach the ofender a lesson because of his criminal perversit&. ;f he could be taught of the sae lesson by charging hi with soe other crie constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. ;f you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is presented, &et it is a principle of criminal law that he will onl& be penali(ed for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised !enal Code.3 Pwede lang apenali!e ang ipossible crie 6ung under sita sa revised penal code. Art @. 5henever a court has knowledge of an% act which it ma% deem proper to repress and which is not punishable b% law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report to the /hief 6ecutive, through the Aepartment of Bustice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made sub)ect of legislation. *n the same wa! the co$rt shall s$mit to the Chief E&ec$tive/ thro$gh the .epartment of 9$stice/ s$ch statement as ma! e "eeme" proper/ witho$t s$spen"ing the e&ec$tion of the sentence/ when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Co"e wo$l" res$lt in the imposition of a clearl! e&cessive penalt!/ ta8ing into consi"eration the "egree of malice an" the in<$r! ca$se" ! the ofense3 8hen a person is charged in court, and the court (nds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the )udge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. "aragraph 2 does not appl% to crimes punishable b% special law, including profteering, and illegal possession of frearms or drugs. $here can be no eecutive clemenc% for these crimes. Art. C. /onsummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. ( felon! is cons$mmate" when all the elements necessar! for its e&ec$tion an" accomplishment are present= an" it is fr$strate" when the ofen"er performs all the acts of e&ec$tion which wo$l" pro"$ce the felon! as a conse#$ence $t which/ nevertheless/ "o not pro"$ce it ! reason of ca$ses in"epen"ent of the will of the perpetrator3 There is an attempt when the ofen"er commences the commission of a felon! "irectl! ! overt acts/ an" "oes not perform all the acts of e&ec$tion which sho$l" pro"$ce the felon! ! reason of some ca$se or acci"ent other than his own spontaneo$s "esistance3 +evelopment of a crime 1. 'nternal acts ! intent and plans7 usuall% not punishable 2. 6ternal acts 1. "reparator% Acts ! acts tending toward the crime 7 not punishable 2. Acts of 6ecution ! acts directl% connected the crime7 punishable under ."/ "tages of Commission of a Crime Attempt Frustrated Consummat ed 4ve rt acts of eec ution are start ed #ot all acts of eec ution are pres ent Aue to reas ons othe r "erforms all the acts of eecution Acts performed would produce felon% as conse*uenc e =elon% is not produces 'ndependent will of the perpetrator A felon% is consummate d when all the elements necessar% for its eecution and accomplishm ent are present. than the spon tane ous desis tanc e of the perp etrat or All acts of eec ution are pres ent /ri me soug ht to be com mitt ed is not achi eved Aue to inter veni ng caus es inde pend ent of the will of the perp etrat or All the acts of eec ution are pres ent $he resul t soug ht is achi eved "tages of a Crime does not appl& in: 1. 4(enses punishable b% 0pecial "enal 1aws, unless the otherwise is provided for. 2. =ormal crimes ,e.g., slander, adulter%, etc.- 3. 'mpossible /rimes 4. /rimes consummated b% mere attempt. Exaples+ attempt to 2ee to an enem% countr%, treason, corruption of minors. @. =elonies b% omission C. /rimes committed b% mere agreement. Exaples+ betting in sports ,endings in basketball-, corruption of public o3cers. .esistance Jesistance on the part of the ofender negates criinal liability in the attepted stage. Jesistance is true only in the attepted stage of the felony. ;f under the de(nition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no aount of desistance will negate criinal liability. The spontaneous desistance of the ofender negates only the attepted stage but not necessarily all criinal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the ofender, if the desistance was ade when acts done by hi already resulted to a felony, that ofender will still be criinally liable for the felony brought about his act ;n deciding whether a felony is attepted or frustrated or consuated, there are three criteria involved+ ,-. The anner of coitting the crie7 ,/. The eleents of the crie7 and ,&. The nature of the crie itself. Applications% -. A put poison in +?s food. + threw awa% his food. A is liable ! attepted urder.D1E /. A stole +?s car, but he returned it. A is liable ! ,consuated. theft. &. A aimed his gun at +. / held A?s hand and prevented him from shooting + ! attepted urder. G. A in2icted a mortal wound on +. + managed to survive ! frustrated urder. 2. A intended to kill + b% shooting him. A missed ! attepted urder. '. A doused +?s house with kerosene. +ut before he could light the match, he was caught ! attepted arson. %. A cause a bla8e, but did not burn the house of + ! frustrated arson. K. +?s house was set on fre b% A ! ,consuated. arson. H. A tried to rape +. + managed to escape. $here was no penetration ! attepted rape. -L. A got hold of +?s painting. A was caught before he could leave +?s house ! frustrated robbery.9:; The attepted stage is said to be within the sub)ective phase of execution of a felony. Cn the sub)ective phase, it is that point in tie when the ofender begins the coission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the coission of the crie already. ;f he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crie has already passed the sub)ective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attepted. The oent the execution of the crie has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consuated. ;f the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. ;f the felony follows as a consequence, it is consuated. although the ofender ay not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued coitting those acts but he hiself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consuate the crie, 0upree 4ourt said the sub)ective phase has passed .#T6" #. AR"#.< The weight of the authority is that the crie of arson cannot be coitted in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly deterine whether the ofender has perfored all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the preises has started to burn. Cn the other hand, the oent a particle or a olecule of the preises has blac6ened, in law, arson is consuated. This is because consuated arson does not require that the whole of the preises be burned. ;t is enough that any part of the preises, no atter how sall, has begun to burn. 6"TAFA =". T$6FT ;n estafa, the ofender receives the property7 he does not ta6e it. "ut in receiving the property, the recipient ay be coitting theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to hi was only the physical or aterial possession of the ob)ect. ;t can only be estafa if what was transferred to hi is not only aterial or physical possession but )uridical possession as well. 8hen you are discussing estafa, do not tal6 about intent to gain. ;n the sae anner that when you are discussing the crie of theft, do not tal6 of daage. Nat$re of the crime itself ;n cries involving the ta6ing of huan life 9 parricide, hoicide, and urder 9 in the de(nition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victi be ortally wounded. 1nder the de(nition of the frustrated stage, to consider the ofender as having perfored all the acts of execution, the acts already done by hi ust produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there ust be a fatal in)ury inMicted, because it is only then that death will follow. ;f the wound is not ortal, the crie is only attepted. The reason is that the wound inMicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, urder or hoicide as a consequence7 it cannot be said that the ofender has perfored all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, hoicide or urder as a result. An exception to the general rule is the so3called sub)ective phase. The 0upree 4ourt has decided cases which applied the sub)ective standard that when the ofender hiself believed that he had perfored all the acts of execution, even though no ortal wound was inMicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage. The coon notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. ;n the case of !eople v. .ierra, the 0upree 4ourt ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co3conspirator erely cooperated in the coission of the crie with insigni(cant or inial acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crie could be carried out as well, such co3conspirator should be punished as an accoplice only. Art. F. 1ight felonies are punishable onl% when the% have been consummated with the eception of those committed against persons or propert%. Exaples of light felonies& slight ph%sical in)uries7 theft7 alteration of boundar% marks7 malicious mischief7 and intriguing against honor. 'n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever% stage of eecution is punishable but onl% the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not. Art. >. /onspirac% and proposal to commit felon% are punishable onl% in the cases in which the law speciall% provides a penalt% therefore. ( conspirac! e&ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felon! an" "eci"e to commit it3 There is proposal when the person who has "eci"e" to commit a felon! proposes its e&ec$tion to some other person or persons3 4onspiracy is punishable in the following cases& treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. 4onspiracy to coit a crie is not to be confused with conspiracy as a eans of coitting a crie. 'n both cases there is an agreement but mere conspirac% to commit a crime is not punished 6G/6"$ in treason, rebellion, or sedition. 6ven then, if the treason is actuall% committed, the conspirac% will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspirac% to commit treason. Conspirac! an" Proposal to Commit a Crime Conspirac! Proposal 6lemen ts Agreement among 2 or more persons to commit a crime $he% decide to commit it A person has decided to commit a crime :e proposes its commission to another /rimes 1. /onspirac% to commit sedition 2. /onspirac% to commit rebellion 3. /onspirac% to commit treason 4. "roposal to commit treason @. "roposal to commit rebellion Mere conspirac% in combination in restraint of trade ,Art. 1>C-, and brigandage ,Art. 3HC-. Two wa&s for conspirac& to exist% ,-. There is an agreeent. ,/. The participants acted in concert or siultaneously which is indicative of a eeting of the inds towards a coon criinal goal or criinal ob)ective. 8hen several ofenders act in a synchroni!ed, coordinated anner, the fact that their acts copliented each other is indicative of the eeting of the inds. There is an iplied agreeent. Two 1inds of conspirac&% ,-. 4onspiracy as a crie7 and ,/. 4onspiracy as a anner of incurring criinal liability 8hen conspiracy itself is a crie, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criinal liability. The ere conspiracy is the crie itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the ere conspiracy7 otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the coission of the crie because conspiracy is not an overt act but a ere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup dAetat are the only cries where the conspiracy and proposal to coit to the are punishable. 8hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criinal liability, there ust be an overt act done before the co3 conspirators becoe criinally liable. Bor as long as none of the conspirators has coitted an overt act, there is no crie yet. "ut when one of the coits any overt act, all of the shall be held liable, unless a co3conspirator was absent fro the scene of the crie or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the coission of the crie. As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to coit a crie in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presued to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the asterind. Bor as long as none of the conspirators has coitted an overt act, there is no crie yet. "ut when one of the coits any overt act, all of the shall be held liable, unless a co3 conspirator was absent fro the scene of the crie or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the coission of the crie As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to coit a crie in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presued to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the asterind. 8hen the conspiracy itself is a crie, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreeent. Cn the other hand, if the co3conspirator or any of the would execute an overt act, the crie would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. conspiracy as a crie, ust have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crie ust be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it ust be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by con)ectures or speculations. 8hen the conspiracy is )ust a basis of incurring criinal liability, however, the sae ay be deduced or inferred fro the acts of several ofenders in carrying out the coission of the crie. The existence of a conspiracy ay be reasonably inferred fro the acts of the ofenders when such acts disclose or show a coon pursuit of the criinal ob)ective. ere 6nowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreeent to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There ust be an intentional participation in the crie with a view to further the coon felonious ob)ective. 8hen several persons who do not 6now each other siultaneously attac6 the victi, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of in)ury inMicted by any one of the. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not 6nown to each other. Jo not thin6 that participants are always 6nown to each other. Conspirac& is a atter of substance which ust be alleged in the inforation, otherwise, the court will not consider the sae. !roposal is true only up to the point where the party to who the proposal was ade has not yet accepted the proposal. Cnce the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party a6es a proposition to the other7 conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties. )E.*T*ON= Proposal to coit sedition is not a crie. "ut if 1nion " accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to coit sedition which is a crie under the #evised Penal 4ode. Composite crimes 4oposite cries are cries which, in substance, consist of ore than one crie but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crie. Bor exaple, the cries of robbery with hoicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical in)uries. ;n case the crie coitted is a coposite crie, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts coitted during the coission of the crie agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crie agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crie. As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crie agreed upon. The exception is if any of the co3 conspirator would coit a crie not agreed upon. This happens when the crie agreed upon and the crie coitted by one of the co3conspirators are distinct cries. Exception to the exception+ ;n acts constituting a single indivisible ofense, even though the co3conspirator perfored diferent acts bringing about the coposite crie, all will be liable for such crie. They can only evade responsibility for any other crie outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the coission of such other act. Art. I. Jrave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in an% of their are aKictive, in accordance with Article 2@ of this /ode. Less grave felonies are those which the law p$nishes with penalties which in their ma&im$m perio" are correctional/ in accor"ance with the aoveBmentione" article3 Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalt! of arresto ma&oror a ?ne not e&cee"ing 4CC pesos/ or oth is provi"e"3 /apital punishment ! death penalt%. "enalties ,imprisonment-& Jrave ! si %ears and one da% to reclusion perpetua ,life-7 1ess grave ! one month and one da% to si %ears7 1ight ! arresto enor ,one da% to 3H da%s-. CL())*@*C(T*ON O@ @ELON*E) This question was as6ed in the bar exaination+ *ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies classi(ed< 8hat the exainer had in ind was Articles &, ' and H. Jo not write the classi(cation of felonies under "oo6 / of the #evised Penal 4ode. That was not what the exainer had in ind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to de(ne. Therefore, the exainer was after the classi(cations under Articles &, ' and H. @elonies are classi?e" as follows: (2) According to the manner of their commission 1nder Article &, they are classi(ed as, intentional felonies or those coitted with deliberate intent7 and culpable felonies or those resulting fro negligence, rec6less iprudence, lac6 of foresight or lac6 of s6ill. ,:- According to the stages of their execution 1nder Article '., felonies are classi(ed as attepted felony when the ofender coences the coission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perfor all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of soe cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance7 frustrated felony when the ofender coences the coission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator7 and, consuated felony when all the eleents necessary for its execution are present. (5) According to their gravit& 1nder Article H, felonies are classi(ed as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishent or penalties which in any of their periods are aNictive7 less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their axiu period was correccional7 and light felonies or those infractions of law for the coission of which the penalty is arresto enor. 8hy is it necessary to deterine whether the crie is grave, less grave or light< To deterine whether these felonies can be coplexed or not, and to deterine the prescription of the crie and the prescription of the penalty. ;n other words, these are felonies classi(ed according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to the. Ta6e note that when the #evised Penal 4ode spea6s of grave and less grave felonies, the de(nition a6es a reference speci(cally to Article /2 of the #evised Penal 4ode. Jo not oit the phrase =;n accordance with Article /2> because there is also a classi(cation of penalties under Article /' that was not applied. ;f the penalty is (ne and exactly P/LL.LL, it is only considered a light felony under Article H. ;f the (ne is iposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the (ne of P/LL.LL is considered a correctional penalty under Article /'. ;f the penalty is exactly P/LL.LL, apply Article /'. ;t is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in -L years. ;f the ofender is apprehended at any tie within ten years, he can be ade to sufer the (ne. This classi(cation of felony according to gravity is iportant with respect to the question of prescription of cries. ;n the case of light felonies, cries prescribe in two onths. ;f the crie is correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except arresto ayor, which prescribes in (ve years. (rt3 2C3 Ofenses which are or in the f$t$re ma! e p$nishale $n"er special laws are not s$<ect to the provisions of this Co"e3 This Co"e shall e s$pplementar! to s$ch laws/ $nless the latter sho$l" speciall! provi"e the contrar!3 =or 0pecial 1aws& "enalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc. 4(enses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated. "lea of guilt% is not mitigating for o(enses punishable b% special laws. #o minimum, medium, and maimum periods for penalties. #o penalt% for an accessor% or accomplice, unless otherwise stated.
!rovisions of R!C applicable to special laws% 1. Art. 1C "articipation of Accomplices 2. Art. 22 .etroactivit% of "enal laws if favorable to the accused 3. Art. 4@ /onfscation of instruments used in the crime )0PPLETO,D (PPL*C(T*ON O@ T1E ,EE*)E. PEN(L CO.E ;n Article -L, there is a reservation =provision of the #evised Penal 4ode ay be applied suppletorily to special laws>. Oou will only apply the provisions of the #evised Penal 4ode as a suppleent to the special law, or siply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an in)ustice. ;f no )ustice would result, do not give suppletorily application of the #evised Penal 4ode to that of special law. Bor exaple, a special law punishes a certain act as a crie. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the sae. *ere is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. *is violation caused daage or in)ury to a private party. Fay the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the ofended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point< Oes, because Article -LL of the #evised Penal 4ode ay be given suppletory application to prevent an in)ustice fro being done to the ofended party. Article -LL states that every person criinally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in)ustice that would be caused to the private ofended party, if he would not be indeni(ed for the daages or in)uries sustained by hi. ;n !eople v. Rodrigue(, it was held that the use of ars is an eleent of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of (rears. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crie punishable under the #evised Penal 4ode, because violations of the #evised Penal 4ode are ore serious than a violation of a special law. "ut a crie in the #evised Penal 4ode can absorb a crie punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crie in the #evised Penal 4ode ;n the crie of sedition, the use of (rears is not an ingredient of the crie. *ence, two prosecutions can be had+ ,-. sedition7 and ,/. illegal possession of (rears. "ut do not thin6 that when a crie is punished outside of the #evised Penal 4ode, it is already a special law. Bor exaple, the crie of cattle3rustling is not a ala prohibitu but a odi(cation of the crie theft of large cattle. 0o Presidential Jecree $o. 2&&, punishing cattle3rustling, is not a special law. ;t can absorb the crie of urder. ;f in the course of cattle rustling, urder was coitted, the ofender cannot be prosecuted for urder. Furder would be a qualifying circustance in the crie of quali(ed cattle rustling. This was the ruling in!eople v. 3artinada. The aendents of Presidential Jecree $o. 'G/2 ,The Jangerous Jrugs Act of -H%/. by #epublic Act $o. %'2H, which adopted the scale of penalties in the #evised Penal 4ode, eans that itigating and aggravating circustances can now be considered in iposing penalties. Presidential Jecree $o. 'G/2 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the #evised Penal 4ode. The stages of the coission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed. Circ$mstances afecting criminal liailit! $here are fve circumstances a(ecting criminal liabilit%& ,1- Bustif%ing circumstances7 ,2- 6empting circumstances7 ,3- Mitigating circumstances7 ,4- Aggravating circumstances7 and ,@- Alternative circumstances. There are two others which are fo$n" elsewhere in the provisions of the ,evise" Penal Co"e: ,1- Absolutor% cause7 and ,2- 6tenuating circumstances. ;n )ustifying and exepting circustances, there is no criinal liability. 8hen an accused invo6es the, he in efect adits the coission of a crie but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon hi to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to )ustify or exept his acts fro criinal liability. 8hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof. ?ustifying circustances conteplate intentional acts and, hence, are incopatible with dolo. Exepting circustances ay be invo6ed in culpable felonies. (sol$tor! ca$se The efect of this is to absolve the ofender fro criinal liability, although not fro civil liability. ;t has the sae efect as an exepting circustance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circustances under Article -/. Article /L provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be iposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitiate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by a@nity within the sae degrees with the exception of accessories who pro(ted theselves or assisting the ofender to pro(t by the efects of the crie. Then, Article KH provides how criinal liability is extinguished+ Jeath of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before (nal )udgent7 0ervice of the sentence7 Anesty7 Absolute pardon7 Prescription of the crie7 Prescription of the penalty7 and Farriage of the ofended woan as provided in Article &GG.
1nder Article /G%, a legally arried person who 6ills or inMicts physical in)uries upon his or her spouse who he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paraour or istress in not criinally liable. 1nder Article /-H, discovering secrets through sei!ure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penali!ed. 1nder Article &&/, in the case of theft, swindling and alicious ischief, there is no criinal liability but only civil liability, when the ofender and the ofended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister3in3law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. 1nder Article &GG, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the arriage of the ofended party shall extinguish the criinal action. Absolutory cause has the efect of an exepting circustance and they are predicated on lac6 of voluntariness li6e instigation. ;nstigation is associated with criinal intent. Jo not consider culpa in connection with instigation. ;f the crie is culpable, do not tal6 of instigation. ;n instigation, the crie is coitted with dolo. ;t is confused with entrapent. Entrapent is not an absolutory cause. Entrapent does not exept the ofender or itigate his criinal liability. "ut instigation absolves the ofender fro criinal liability because in instigation, the ofender siply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criinal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criinal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. .iference etween instigation an" entrapment ;n instigation, the criinal plan or design exists in the ind of the law enforcer with who the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a ere instruent or tool of the law enforcer in the perforance of his duties. Cn the other hand, in entrapment, a criinal design is already in the ind of the person entrapped. ;t did not eanate fro the ind of the law enforcer entrapping hi. Entrapent involves only ways and eans which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. The eleent which a6es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac6 of criinal intent as an eleent of voluntariness. ;f the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criinally liable, because it is the law enforcer who planted that criinal ind in hi to coit the crie, without which he would not have been a criinal. ;f the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criinally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. ;n instigation, the private citi!en only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citi!en upon instigation of the law enforcer incriinates hiself. ;t would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citi!en who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citi!en believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells hi, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. ;f the person instigated does not 6now that the person is instigating hi is a law enforcer or he 6nows hi to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of induceent, both will be criinally liable. ;n entrapent, the person entrapped should not 6now that the person trying to entrap hi was a law enforcer. The idea is incopatible with each other because in entrapent, the person entrapped is actually coitting a crie. The o@cer who entrapped hi only lays down ways and eans to have evidence of the coission of the crie, but even without those ways and eans, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. ;nstigation absolves the person instigated fro criinal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criinal if his ind is not criinal. Cn the other hand, entrapent is not an absolutory cause. ;t is not even itigating. ;n case of sonabulis or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is de(nitely acting without freedo and without su@cient intelligence, because he is asleep. *e is oving li6e a robot, unaware of what he is doing. 0o the eleent of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. 0onabulis is an absolutory cause. ;f eleent of voluntariness is absent, there is no criinal liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circustance is not aong those enuerated in Article -/, refer to the circustance as an absolutory cause. Fista6e of fact is an absolutory cause. The ofender is acting without criinal intent. 0o in ista6e of fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed the to be, this act is )usti(ed. ;f not, there is criinal liability, because there is no ista6e of fact anyore. The ofender ust believe he is perforing a lawful act.
6tenuating circumstances The efect of this is to itigate the criinal liability of the ofender. ;n other words, this has the sae efect as itigating circustances, only you do not call it itigating because this is not found in Article -&.
'llustrations% An unwed other 6illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealent of dishonor is an extenuating circustance insofar as the unwed other or the aternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Fother 6illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. 0ince there is a aterial lowering of the penalty or itigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circustance. The concealent of honor by other in the crie of infanticide is an extenuating circustance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victi is three days old and above. ;n the crie of adultery on the part of a arried woan abandoned by her husband, at the tie she was abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to see6 the copany of another an. Abandonent by the husband does not )ustify the act of the woan. ;t only extenuates or reduces criinal liability. 8hen the efect of the circustance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circustance. A 6leptoaniac is one who cannot resist the teptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exepting. Cne who is a 6leptoaniac and who would steal ob)ects of his desire is criinally liable. "ut he would be given the bene(t of a itigating circustance analogous to paragraph H of Article -&, that of sufering fro an illness which diinishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving hi of the consciousness of his act. 0o this is an extenuating circustance. The efect is to itigate the criinal liability. .istinctions etween <$stif!ing circ$mstances an" e&empting circ$mstances 'n 5ustif&ing circumstances > ,-. The circustance afects the act, not the actor7 ,/. The act coplained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law7 hence, it is legitiate and lawful in the eyes of the law7 ,&. 0ince the act is considered lawful, there is no crie, and because there is no crie, there is no criinal7 ,G. 0ince there is no crie or criinal, there is no criinal liability as well as civil liability. 'n exempting circumstances > ,-. The circustances afect the actor, not the act7 ,/. The act coplained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness. *e is a ere tool or instruent of the crie7 ,&. 0ince the act coplained of is actually wrongful, there is a crie. "ut because the actor acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criinal7 ,G. 0ince there is a crie coitted but there is no criinal, there is civil liability for the wrong done. "ut there is no criinal liability. *owever, in paragraphs G and % of Article -/, there is neither criinal nor civil liability. 8hen you apply for )ustifying or exepting circustances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea6ness of prosecutionAs evidence. D1E$he di(erence between murder and homicide will be discussed in /riminal 1aw ''. $hese crimes are found in Articles 24> and 24I, +ook '' of the .evised "enal /ode. D2E $he di(erence between theft and robber% will be discussed in /riminal 1aw ''. $hese crimes are found in $itle $en, /hapters 4ne and $hree, +ook '' of the .evised "enal /ode. (rt3 22: 9$stif!ing Circ$mstances those wherein the acts of the actor are in accor"ance with law/ hence/ he is <$sti?e"3 There is no criminal an" civil liailit! eca$se there is no crime3 "elf/defense 1. .eason for lawfulness of self; defense& because it would be impossible for the 0tate to protect all its citi8ens. Also a person cannot )ust give up his rights without an% resistance being o(ered. 2. .ights included in self;defense& 1. Aefense of person 2. Aefense of rights protected b% law 23 .efense of propert!: a. $he owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to eclude an% person from the en)o%ment or disposal thereof. =or this purpose, he ma% use such force as ma% be reasonabl% necessar% to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful ph%sical invasion or usurpation of his propert%. ,Art. G/H, $ew 4ivil 4ode- b. defense of chastit% 3. 6lements& 1. 23 0nlawf$l (ggression; is a ph%sical act manifesting danger to life or limb7 it is either actual or imminent. 1. ActualLreal aggression ! .eal aggression presupposes an act positivel% strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merel% threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. $here must be real danger to life a personal safet%. 2. 'mminent unlawful aggression ! it is an attack that is impending or on the point of happening. 't must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merel% imaginar%. $he intimidating attitude must be o(ensive and positivel% strong. 3. 5here there is an agreement to fght, there is no unlawful aggression. 6ach of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self;defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fght is bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants. 6ception& 5here the attack is made in violation of the conditions agreed upon, there ma% be unlawful aggression. 4. Mnlawful aggression in self; defense, to be )ustif%ing, must eist at the time the defense is made. 't ma% no longer eist if the aggressor runs awa% after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fghting. 'f the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he su(ered the in)ur% before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute self; defense, but revenge. A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on the face is, because his dignit% is in danger. A police o3cer eceeding his authorit% ma% become an unlawful aggressor. $he nature, character, location, and etent of the wound ma% belie claim of self;defense. 43 ,easonale necessit! of the means emplo!e" to prevent or repel it= a3 ,e#$isites: Means were used to prevent or repel Means must be necessar% and there is no other wa% to prevent or repel it Means must be reasonable ! depending on the circumstances, but generall% proportionate to the force of the aggressor. 1. $he rule here is to stand %our ground when in the right which ma% invoked when the defender is unlawfull% assaulted and the aggressor is armed with a weapon. 2. $he rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace o3cer who, unlike a private person, cannot run awa%. 3. $he reasonable necessit% of the means emplo%ed to put up the defense. $he gauge of reasonable necessit% is the instinct of self;preservation, i.e. a person did not use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self;preservation, using the nearest or onl% means available to defend himself, even if such means be disproportionatel% advantageous as compared with the means of violence emplo%ed b% the aggressor. .easonableness of the means depends on the nature and the *ualit% of the weapon used, ph%sical condition, character, si8e and other circumstances. 53 Lac8 of s$>cient provocation on the part of the person "efen"ing himself3 1. 5hen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor b% the person defending himself. 2. 5hen even if provocation was given b% the person defending himself, such was not su3cient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not su3cient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself. 3. 5hen even if the provocation were su3cient, it was not given b% the person defending himself. 4. 5hen even if provocation was given b% the person defending himself, the attack was not proimate or immediate to the act of provocation. @. 0u3cient means proportionate to the damage caused b% the act, and ade*uate to stir one to its commission. 23 Fin"s of )elfB.efense 1. )elfB"efense of chastit! ! to be entitled to complete self; defense of chastit%, there must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will su3ce. 2. .efense of propert! ! an attack on the propert% must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of such propert%. 3. )elfB"efense in liel ! ph%sical assault ma% be )ustifed when the libel is aimed at a person?s good name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another. N+urden of proof ! on the accused ,su3cient, clear and convincing evidence7 must rel% on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution-. .efense of ,elative (3 Elements: 1. unlawful aggression 2. reasonable necessit% of the means emplo%ed to prevent or repel the attack7 3. in case provocation was given b% the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in such provocation. '3 ,elatives entitle" to the "efense: 1. spouse 2. ascendants 3. descendants 4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters @. relatives b% a3nit% in the same degree C. relatives b% consanguinit% within the 4th civil degree. $he third element need not take place. $he relative defended ma% even be the original aggressor. All that is re*uired to )ustif% the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation. Jeneral opinion is to the e(ect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, ecept in cases of brothers and sisters who, b% relatives b% nature, ma% be illegitimate. $he unlawful aggression ma% depend on the honest belief of the person making the defense. .efense of )tranger (3 Elements 1. unlawful aggression 2. reasonable necessit% of the means emplo%ed to prevent or repel the attack7 3. the person defending be not induced b% revenge, resentment or other evil motive. 2. A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger. 3. +e not induced b% evil motive means that even an enem% of the aggressor who comes to the defense of a stranger ma% invoke this )ustif%ing circumstances so long as he is not induced b% a motive that is evil. )tate of Necessit! -. Art. --, Par. a provides+ (n! person who/ in or"er to avoi" an evil or in<$r!/ "oes an act which ca$ses "amage to another/ provi"e" that the following re#$isites are present: @irst3 That the evil so$ght to e avoi"e" act$all! e&ists= )econ"3 That the in<$r! feare" e greater than that "one to avoi" it= an" Thir"3 That there e no other practical an" less harmf$l means of preventing it3 1. A state of necessit% eists when there is a clash between une*ual rights, the lesser right giving wa% to the greater right. Aside from the 3 re*uisites stated in the law, it should also be added that the necessit% must not be due to the negligence or violation of an% law b% the actor. 2. $he person for whose beneft the harm has been prevented shall be civill% liable in proportion to the beneft which ma% have been received. $his is the onl% )ustif%ing circumstance which provides for the pa%ment of civil indemnit%. Mnder the other )ustif%ing circumstances, no civil liabilit% attaches. $he courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which law one is liable @$l?llment of .$t! or Lawf$l E&ercise of a ,ight or O>ce 23 Elements: 1. that the accused acted in the performance of a dut%, or in the lawful eercise of a right or o3ce7 2. that the in)ur% caused or o(ense committed be the necessar% conse*uence of the due performance of the dut%, or the lawful eercise of such right or o3ce. 2. A police o3cer is )ustifed in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered to do so, and after such o3cer fred warning shots in the air. shooting an o(ender who refused to surrender is )ustifed, but not a thief who refused to be arrested. 3. $he accused must prove that he was dul% appointed to the position he claimed he was discharging at the time of the commission of the o(ense. 't must be made to appear not onl% that the in)ur% caused or the o(ense committed was done in the fulfllment of a dut%, or in the lawful eercise of a right or o3ce, but that the o(ense committed was a necessar% conse*uence of such fulfllment of dut%, or lawful eercise of a right or o3ce. 4. A mere securit% guard has no authorit% or dut% to fre at a thief, resulting in the latter?s death. Oe"ience to a )$perior Or"er 23 Elements: 1. there is an order7 2. the order is for a legal purpose7 3. the means used to carr% out said order is lawful. 2. $he subordinate who is made to compl% with the order is the part% which ma% avail of this circumstance. $he o3cer giving the order ma% not invoke this. 3. $he subordinate?s good faith is material here. 'f he obe%ed an order in good faith, not being aware of its illegalit%, he is not liable. :owever, the order must not be patentl% illegal. 'f the order is patentl% illegal this circumstance cannot be validl% invoked. 4. $he reason for this )ustif%ing circumstance is the subordinate?s mistake of fact in good faith. @. 6ven if the order be patentl% illegal, the subordinate ma% %et be able to invoke the eempting circumstances of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear. 6G6M"$'#J /'./MM0$A#/60 6empting circumstances ,non; imputabilit%- are those ground for eemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of an% of the conditions which make the act voluntar%, or negligent. +asis& $he eemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. A person who acts 5'$:4M$ MA1'/6 ,without intelligence, freedom of action or intent- or 5'$:4M$ #6J1'J6#/6 ,without intelligence, freedom of action or fault- is #4$ /.'M'#A11O 1'A+16 or is 6G6M"$ =.4M "M#'0:M6#$. $here is a crime committed but no criminal liabilit% arises from it because of the complete absence of an% of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act. +urden of proof& An% of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved b% the defendant to the satisfaction of the court. (rt3 243 C*,C0%)T(NCE) -1*C1 E+E%PT @,O% C,*%*N(L L*('*L*TD3 The following are e&empt from criminal liailit!: 23 (n imecile or insane person/ $nless the latter has acte" "$ring a l$ci" interval3 5hen the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defnes as a felon% ,delito-, the court shall order his confnement on one of the hospital or as%lums established for persons thus aKicted. :e shall not be permitted to leave without frst obtaining the permission of the same court. .e*uisites& 1. 4(ender is an imbecile 2. 4(ender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime *%'EC*L*TD O, *N)(N*TD An imecile is eempt in all cases from criminal liabilit%. $he insane is not so eempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. 'n the latter, loss of consciousness of ones acts and not merel% abnormalit% of mental faculties will *ualif% ones acts as those of an insane. "rocedure& court is to order the confnement of such persons in the hospitals or as%lums established. 0uch persons will not be permitted to leave without permission from the court. $he court, on the other hand, has no power to order such permission without frst obtaining the opinion of the A4: that such persons ma% be released without danger. "resumption is alwa%s in favor of sanit%. $he defense has the burden to prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. =or the ascertainment such mental condition of the accused, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time. /ircumstantial evidence which is clear and convincing will su3ce. An eamination of the outward acts will help reveal the thoughts, motives and emotions of a person and if such acts conform to those of people of sound mind. 'nsanit% at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of the trial will eempt one from criminal liabilit%. 'n case of insanit% at the time of the trial, there will be a suspension of the trial until the mental capacit% of the accused is restored to a(ord him a fair trial. 6vidence of insanit% must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the ver% moment of its eecution. 5ithout such evidence, the accused is presumed to be sane when he committed the crime. /ontinuance of insanit% which is occasional or intermittent in nature will not be presumed. 'nsanit% at another time must be proved to eist at the time of the commission of the crime. A person is also presumed to have committed a crime in one of the lucid intervals. /ontinuance of insanit% will onl% be presumed in cases wherein the accused has been ad)udged insane or has been committed to a hospital or an as%lum for the insane. 'nstances of 'nsanit%& .e%es& =eeblemindedness is not imbecilit% because the o(ender can distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be eempted must not be able to distinguish right from wrong. .elova& =eeblemindedness is imbecilit%. /rimes committed while in a dream, b% a somnambulist are embraced in the plea of insanit%. :%pnotism, however, is a debatable issue. /rime committed while su(ering from malignant malaria is characteri8ed b% insanit% at times thus such person is not criminall% liable. 1. +asis& complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness. 2. Aefnition & An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that of children between 2 and F %ears of age. An insane is one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligenceLreason or without the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will. 1. Aementia praeco is covered b% the term insanit% because homicidal attack is common in such form of ps%chosis. 't is characteri8ed b% delusions that he is being interfered with seuall%, or that his propert% is being taken, thus the person has no control over his acts. 2. Pleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendenc% to steal, to be considered eempting, will still have to be investigated b% competent ps%chiatrist to determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse produced b% his mental defect, thus loss of will;power. 'f such mental defect onl% diminishes the eercise of his willpower and did not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, it is onl% mitigating. 3. 6pileps% which is a chronic nervous disease characteri8ed b% convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness ma% be covered b% the term insanit%. :owever, it must be shown that commission of the o(ense is during one of those epileptic attacks. 2. A person under nine %ears of age. M'#4.'$O Mnder nine %ears to be construed nine %ears or less. 0uch was inferred from the net subse*uent paragraph which does not totall% eempt those over nine %ears of age if he acted with discernment. "resumptions of incapabilit% of committing a crime is absolute. Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be established b% the testimonies of families and relatives. 0enilit% or second childhood is onl% mitigating. 4 periods of the life of a human being& 1. .e*uisite& 4(ender is under I %ears of age at the time of the commission of the crime. $here is absolute criminal irresponsibilit% in the case of a minor under I;%ears of age. 2. +asis& complete absence of intelligence. (ge Criminal ,esponsiilit! I %ears and below Absolute irresponsibilit% +etween I and 1@ %ears old /onditional responsibilit% 5ithout discernment ! no liabilit% 5ith Aiscernment ! mitigated liabilit% +etween 1@ and 1> %ears old Mitigated responsibilit% +etween 1> and FH %ears old =ull responsibilit% 4ver FH %ears old Mitigated responsibilit 53 ( person over nine !ears of age an" $n"er ?fteen/ $nless he has acte" with "iscernment/ in which case/ s$ch minor shall e procee"e" against in accor"ance with the provisions of article GC of this Co"e3 -hen s$ch minor is a"<$"ge" to e criminall! irresponsile/ the co$rt/ in conformit! with the provisions of this an" the prece"ing paragraph/ shall commit him to the care an" c$sto"! of his famil! who shall e charge" with his s$rveillance an" e"$cation= otherwise/ he shall e committe" to the care of some instit$tion or person mentione" in sai" article GC3 QMA1'='6A M'#4.'$O& +asis& complete absence of intelligence 0uch minor over I %ears and under 1@ %ears of age must have acted without discernment to be eempted from criminal liabilit%. 'f with discernment, he is criminall% liable. "resumption is alwa%s that such minor has acted without discernment. $he prosecution is burdened to prove if otherwise. Aiscernment means the mental capacit% of a minor between I and 1@ %ears of age to full% appreciate the conse*uences of his unlawful act. 0uch is shown b%& ,1- manner the crime was committed ,i.e. commission of the crime during nighttime to avoid detection7 taking the loot to another town to avoid discover%-, or ,2- the conduct of the o(ender after its commission ,i.e. elation of satisfaction upon the commission of his criminal act as shown b% the accused cursing at the victim-. =acts or particular facts concerning personal appearance which lead o3cers or the court to believe that his age was as stated b% said o3cer or court should be stated in the record. 'f such minor is ad)udged to be criminall% liable, he is charged to the custod% of his famil%, otherwise, to the care of some institution or person mentioned in article >H. $his is because of the court?s presupposition that the minor committed the crime without discernment. Allegation of Rwith intent to kill9 in the information is su3cient allegation of discernment as such conve%s the idea that he knew what would be the conse*uences of his unlawful act. $hus is the case wherein the information alleges that the accused, with intent to kill, willfull%, criminall% and feloniousl% pushed a child of > 1L2 %ears of age into a deep place. 't was held that the re*uirement that there should be an allegation that she acted with discernment should be deemed ampl% met. 4. An% person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an in)ur% b% mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. A//'A6#$& +asis& lack of negligence and intent. 6lements& Aischarge of a frearm in a thickl% populated place in the /it% of Manila being prohibited b% Art. 1@@ of the ."/ is not a performance of a lawful act when such led to the accidental hitting and wounding of 2 persons. Arawing a weaponLgun in the course of self;defense even if such fred and seriousl% in)ured the assailant is a lawful act and can be considered as done with due care since it could not have been done in an% other manner. 5ith the fact dul% established b% the prosecution that the appellant was guilt% of negligence, this eempting circumstance cannot be applied because application presupposes that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the person performing the lawful act. Accident happens outside the swa% of our will, and although it comes about some act of our will, lies be%ond the bounds of humanl% foreseeable conse*uences. $he accused, who, while hunting saw wild chickens and fred a shot can be considered to be in the performance of a lawful act eecuted with due care and without intention of doing harm when such short recoiled and accidentall% wounded another. 0uch was established because the deceased was not in the direction at which the accused fred his gun. $he chau(eur, who while driving on the proper side of the road at a moderate speed and with due diligence, suddenl% and unepectedl% saw a man in front of his vehicle coming from the sidewalk and crossing the street without an% warning that he would do so, in e(ect being run over b% the said chau(eur, was held not criminall% liable, it being b% mere accident. 1. A person is performing a lawful act 2. 6ercise of due dare 3. :e causes in)ur% to another b% mere accident 4. 5ithout fault or intention of causing it. @. An% person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. '..60'0$'+16 =4./6& +asis& complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness 6lements& =orce, to be irresistible, must produce such an e(ect on an individual that despite of his resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime. 't compels his member to act and his mind to obe%. 't must act upon him from the outside and b% a third person. +aculi, who was accused but not a member of a band which murdered some American school teachers and was seen and compelled b% the leaders of the band to bur% the bodies, was not criminall% liable as accessor% for concealing the bod% of the crime. +aculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. 'rresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. 't must consist of an etraneous force coming from a third person. 1. $hat the compulsion is b% means of ph%sical force 2. $hat the ph%sical force must be irresistible. 3. $hat the ph%sical force must come from a third person C. An% person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an e*ual or greater in)ur%. M#/4#$.411A+16 =6A.& +asis& complete absence of freedom 6lements 1. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least e*ual to that wLc he is re*uired to commit 2. that it promises an evil of such gravit% and imminence that the ordinar% man would have succumbed to it. Auress, to be a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one?s life or limb. 't should not be inspired b% speculative, fanciful or remote fear. $hreat of future in)ur% is not enough. $he compulsion must leave no opportunit% to the accused for escape or self;defense in e*ual combat. Auress is the use of violence or ph%sical force. $here is uncontrollable fear is when the o(ender emplo%s intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime, while irresistible force is when the o(ender uses violence or ph%sical force to compel another person to commit a crime. Ran act done b% me against m% will is not m% act9 H3 (n! person who fails to perform an act re#$ire" ! law/ when prevente" ! some lawf$l or ins$perale ca$se. 1A5=M1 4. '#0M"6.A+16 /AM06& +asis& acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felon% 6lements& 1. $hat an act is re*uired b% law to be done 2. $hat a person fails to perform such act 3. $hat his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause 6amples of lawful cause& $o be an 6G6M"$'#J circumstance ! '#$6#$ '0 5A#$'#J '#$6#$ ! presupposes the eercise of freedom and the use of intelligence Aistinction between )ustif%ing and eempting circumstance& 1. "riest can?t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him 2. #o available transportation ! o3cer not liable for arbitrar% detention 3. Mother who was overcome b% severe di88iness and etreme debilit%, leaving child to die ! not liable for infanticide 1. 6empting ! there is a crime but there is no criminal. Act is not )ustifed but the actor is not criminall% liable. Jeneral .ule& $here is civil liabilit% 6ception& "ar 4 ,causing an in)ur% b% mere accident- and "ar F ,lawful cause- b. Bustif%ing ! person does not transgress the law, does not commit an% crime because there is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the intention of the actor. .istinction etween E&empting an" 9$stif!ing Circ$mstances E&empting Circ$mstance 9$stif!ing Circ$mstance 6isten ce of a crime $here is a crime but there is no criminal, the actor is eempted from liabilit% of his act $here is no crime, the act is )ustifed Absolutor% /auses ! are those where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of public polic% and sentiment, there is no penalt% imposed. 6empting and Bustif%ing /ircumstances are absolutor% causes. 4ther eamples of absolutor% causes& 1- Art C ! spontaneous desistance 2- Art 2H ! accessories eempt from criminal liabilit% 3- Art 1I par 1 ! profting one?s self or assisting o(enders to proft b% the e(ects of the crime *nstigation v3 Entrapment *N)T*G(T*ON ENT,(P%ENT 'nstigator practicall% induces the would;be accused into the commission of the o(ense and himself becomes co; principal $he wa%s and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the eecution of his criminal plan. Accused will be ac*uitted #4$ a bar to accused?s prosecution and conviction Absolutor% cause #4$ an absolutor% cause %*T*G(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE) Aefnition ! $hose circumstance which reduce the penalt% of a crime 6(ect ! .educes the penalt% of the crime but does not erase criminal liabilit% nor change the nature of the crime Pinds of Mitigating /ircumstance& Privilege" %itigating Or"inar! %itigating 4(set b% an% aggravati ng circumsta nce /annot be o(set b% an% aggravating circumstance /an be o(set b% a generic aggravating circumstance 6(ect on the penalt% :as the e(ect of imposing the penalt% b% 1 or 2 degrees than that provided b% law 'f not o(set, has the e(ect of imposing the penalt% in the minimum period Pinds Minorit%, 'ncomplete 0elf; defense, two or more mitigating circumstances without an% aggravating circumstance ,has the e(ect of lowering the penalt% b% one $hose circumstances enumerated in paragraph 1 to 1H of Article 13 degree- (rticle 253 23 Those mentione" in the prece"ing chapter/ when all the re#$isites necessar! to <$stif! the act or to e&empt from criminal liailit! in the respective cases are not atten"ant 9$stif!ing circ$mstances 1. "elf/defense?defense of relative?defense of stranger ! unlawful aggression must be present for Art 13 to be applicable. 4ther 2 elements not necessar%. 'f 2 re*uisites are present ! considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. Exaple+ Buan makes fun of "edro. "edro gets pissed o(, gets a knife and tries to stab Buan. Buan grabs his own knife and kills "edro. 'ncomplete self;defense because although there was unlawful aggression and reasonable means to repel was taken, there was su3cient provocation on the part of Buan. +ut since 2 elements are present, it considered as privileged mitigating. b. "tate of .ecessit& ,par 4- avoidance of greater evil or in)ur%7 if an% of the last 2 re*uisites is absent, there?s onl% an ordinar% Mitigating /ircumstance. Exaple& 5hile driving his car, Buan sees "edro carelessl% crossing the street. Buan swerves to avoid him, thus hitting a motorbike with 2 passengers, killing them instantl%. #ot all re*uisites to )ustif% act were present because harm done to avoid in)ur% is greater. /onsidered as mitigating. c. !erformance of +ut& ,par @- Exaple& Buan is supposed to arrest "edro. :e thus goes to "edro?s hideout. Buan sees a man asleep. $hinking it was "edro, Buan shot him. Buan ma% have acted in the performance of his dut% but the crime was not a necessar% conse*uence thereof. /onsidered as mitigating. E&empting circ$mstance a. 3inorit& over @ and under AB ! if minor acted with discernment, considered mitigating Exaple& 13 %ear old stole goods at nighttime. Acted with discernment as shown b% the manner in which the act was committed. b. Causing in5ur& b& mere accident ! if 2 nd re*uisite ,due care- and 1 st part of 4 th re*uisite ,without fault ! thus negligence onl%- are A+06#$, considered as mitigating because the penalt% is lower than that provided for intentional felon%. Exaple& "olice o3cer tries to stop a fght between Buan and "edro b% fring his gun in the air. +ullet ricocheted and killed "etra. 43cer willfull% discharged his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area was populated. c. 2ncontrollable fear ! onl% one re*uisite present, considered mitigating Exaple& Mnder threat that their farm will be burned, "edro and Buan took turns guarding it at night. "edro fred in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal his identit%. Buan was awakened and shot the unidentifed person. $urned out to be a neighbor looking for is pet. Buan ma% have acted under the in2uence of fear but such fear was not entirel% uncontrollable. /onsidered mitigating 43 That the ofen"er is $n"er 2G !ears of age or over HC !ears3 *n the case of a minor/ he shall e procee"e" against in accor"ance with the provisions of (rt 2:4 of P. :C5 Applicable to& a. 4(ender over I, under 1@ who acted with discernment b. 4(ender over 1@, under 1> c. 4(ender over FH %ears Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission of crime, not date of trial =arious Ages and their Cegal 6fects a. under I ! eemptive circumstance b. over I, below 1@ ! eemptive7 ecept if acted with discernment c. minor delin*uent under 1> ! sentence ma% be suspended ,"A CH3- d. under 1> ! privileged mitigating circumstance e. 1> and above ! full criminal responsibilit% f. FH and above ! mitigating circumstance7 no imposition of death penalt%7 eecution g. of death sentence if alread% imposed is suspended and commuted. 53 That the ofen"er ha" no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committe" (praeter intentionam) /an be used onl% when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between eans eployed to execute the criinal act and its consequences 'ntention& as an internal act, is )udged b% the proportion of the means emplo%ed to the evil produced b% the act, and also b% the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the bod%. Budge b% considering ,1- the weapon used, ,2- the in)ur% in2icted and ,3- the attitude of mind when the accuser attacked the other. Exaple& "edro stabbed $omas on the arm. $omas did not have the wound treated, so he died from loss of blood. #ot applicable when o(ender emplo%ed brute force Exaple& .apist choked victim. +rute force of choking contradicts claim that he had no intention to kill the girl. Art 13, par 3 addresses itself to the intention of the o(ender at the particular moment when he eecutes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage. 'n crimes against persons ! if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felon% to mere ph%sical in)uries. 't is not considered as mitigating. Mitigating onl% when the victim dies. Exaple& As part of fun;making, Buan merel% intended to burn "edro?s clothes. "edro received minor burns. Buan is charged with ph%sical in)uries. :ad "edro died, Buan would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance. #ot applicable to felonies b% negligence. 5h%< 'n felonies through negligence, the o(ender acts without intent. $he intent in intentional felonies is replaced b% negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies. $here is no intent on the part of the o(ender which ma% be considered as diminished. +asis of par 3& intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felon%, is diminished 63 That the s$>cient provocation or threat on the part of the ofen"e" part! imme"iatel! prece"e" the act3 "rovocation ! an% un)ust or improper conduct or act of the o(ended part%, capable of eciting, inciting or irritating an%one. +asis& diminution of intelligence and intent .e*uisites& a. "rovocation must be su3cient. 1. 0u3cient ! ade*uate enough to ecite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingl% be proportionate to its gravit%. 2. 0u3cienc% depends on& the act constituting the provocation the social standing of the person provoked time and place provocation took place 3. Exaple& Buan likes to hit and curse his servant. :is servant thus killed him. $here?s mitigating circumstance because of su3cient provocation. 4. 5hen it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fght b% the deceased is #4$ su3cient provocation. b. 't must originate from the o(ended part% 1. 5h%< 1aw sa%s the provocation is Ron the part of the o(ended part%9 2. 6ample& $omas? mother insulted "etra. "etra kills $omas because of the insults. #o Mitigating /ircumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not $omas. 3. "rovocation b% the deceased in the frst stage of the fght is not Mitigating /ircumstance when the accused killed him after he had 2ed because the deceased from the moment he 2ed did not give an% provocation for the accused to pursue and attack him. c. "rovocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime b% the person who is provoked 1. 5h%< 'f there was an interval of time, the conduct of the o(ended part% could not have ecited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to eercise self; control. 2. $hreat should not be o(ensive and positivel% strong because if it was, the threat to in2ict real in)ur% is an unlawful aggression which ma% give rise to self;defense and thus no longer a Mitigating /ircumstance 73 That the act was committe" in the imme"iate vin"ication of a grave ofense to the one committing the felon! ("elito)/ his spo$se/ ascen"ants/ "escen"ants/ legitimate/ nat$ral or a"opte" rother or sisters/ or relatives ! a>nit! within the same "egree3 23 ,e#$isites: there?s a grave o(ense done to the one committing the felon% etc. that the felon% is committed in vindication of such grave o(ense. 2. 1apse of time is allowed between the vindication and the one doing the o(ense ,proimate time, not )ust immediatel% after- 3. Exaple& Buan caught his wife and his friend in a compromising situation. Buan kills his friend the net da% ! still considered proimate. ".4S4/A$'4# S'#A'/A$'4# Made directl% onl% to the person committing the felon% Jrave o(ense ma% be also against the o(ender?s relatives mentioned b% law /ause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave o(ense 4(ended part% must have done a grave o(ense to the o(ender or his relatives #ecessar% that provocation or threat immediatel% preceded the act. #o time interval Ma% be proimate. $ime interval allowed More lenient in vindication because o(ense concerns the honor of the person. 0uch is more worth% of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat. Sindication of a grave o(ense and passion and obfuscation can?t be counted separatel% and independentl% I3 That of having acte" $pon an imp$lse so powerf$l as nat$rall! to have pro"$ce" passion or of$scation "assion and obfuscation is mitigating& when there are causes naturall% producing in a person powerful ecitement, he loses his reason and self;control. $hereb% dismissing the eercise of his will power. "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# are Mitigating /ircumstances onl% when the same arise from lawful sentiments ,not Mitigating /ircumstance when done in the spirit of revenge or lawlessness- .e*uisites for "assion T 4bfuscation a. $he o(ender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation b. $hat the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge c. $he act must come from lawful sentiments Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation a. $hat there be an act, both unlawful and un)ust b. $he act be su3cient to produce a condition of mind c. $hat the act was proimate to the criminal act d. $he victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation 6ample& Buan saw $omas hitting his ,Buan- son. Buan stabbed $omas. Buan is entitled to Mitigating /ircumstance of "T4 as his actuation arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of his son. $he eercise of a right or a fulfllment of a dut% is not the proper source of "T4. Exaple& A policeman arrested Buan as he was making a public disturbance on the streets. Buan?s anger and indignation resulting from the arrest can?t be considered passionate obfuscation because the policeman was doing a lawful act. $he act must be su3cient to produce a condition of mind. 'f the cause of the loss of self;control was trivial and slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating. Exaple& Buan?s boss punched him for not going to work he other da%. /ause is slight. $here could have been no Mitigating /ircumstance of "T4 when more than 24 hours elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of the felon%, or several hours have passed between the cause of the "T4 and the commission of the crime, or at least U hours intervened between the previous fght and subse*uent killing of deceased b% accused. #ot mitigating if relationship is illegitimate $he passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based onl% on the honest belief of the o(ender, even if facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were wrong. "assion and obfuscation cannot co; eist with treacher% since the means that the o(ender has had time to ponder his course of action. "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# arising from one and the same cause should be treated as onl% one mitigating circumstance Sindication of grave o(ense can?t co;eist wL "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# P())*ON (N. O'@0)C(T*ON *,,E)*T*'LE @O,CE Mitigating 6empting #o ph%sical force needed .e*uires ph%sical force =rom the o(ender himself Must come from a 3rd person Must come from lawful sentiments Mnlawful P())*ON (N. P,OEOC(T*ON O'@0)C(T*ON "roduced b% an impulse which ma% be caused b% provocation /omes from in)ured part% 4(ense, which engenders perturbation of mind, need not be immediate. 't is onl% re*uired that the in2uence thereof lasts until the crime is committed Must immediatel% precede the commission of the crime 6(ect is loss of reason and self;control on the part of the o(ender 0ame H3 That the ofen"er ha" vol$ntaril! s$rren"ere" himself to a person in a$thorit! or his agents/ or that he ha" vol$ntaril! confesse" his g$ilt efore the co$rt prior to the presentation of the evi"ence for the prosec$tion3 2 Mitigating /ircumstances present& a- voluntaril% surrendered b- voluntaril% confessed his guilt 'f both are present, considered as 2 independent mitigating circumstances. Mitigate penalt% to a greater etent .e*uisites of voluntar% surrender& a- o(ender not actuall% arrested b- o(ender surrendered to a person in authorit% or the latter?s agent c- surrender was voluntar% 0urrender must be spontaneous ! shows his interest to surrender unconditionall% to the authorities 0pontaneous ! emphasi8es the idea of inner impulse, acting without eternal stimulus. $he conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the o(ense, determines the spontaneit% of the surrender. Exaple& 0urrendered after @ %ears, not spontaneous an%more. Exaple& 0urrendered after talking to town councilor. #ot S.0. because there?s an eternal stimulus /onduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibilit% #ot mitigating when warrant alread% served. 0urrender ma% be considered mitigating if warrant not served or returned unserved because accused can?t be located. 0urrender of person re*uired. #ot )ust of weapon. "erson in authorit% ! one directl% vested with )urisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some courtLgovernmentLcorporationLboard Lcommission. +arrio captainLchairman included. Agent of person in authorit% ! person who b% direct provision of law, or be election, or b% appointment b% competent authorit% is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and securit% of life and propert% and an% person who comes to the aid of persons in authorit%. ."/ does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender ma% occur. 0urrender must be b% reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant is charged .e*uisites for plea of guilt% a- o(ender spontaneousl% confessed his guilt b- confession of guilt was made in open court ,competent court- c- confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea considered as Mitigating /ircumstance plea in the .$/ in a case appealed from the M$/ is not mitigating ! must make plea at the frst opportunit% plea during the preliminar% investigation is no plea at all even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilt%, he is entitled to Mitigating /ircumstance as long as withdraws his plea of not guilt% to the charge before the fscal could present his evidence plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating /ircumstance because to be voluntar% plea of guilt%, must be to the o(ense charged plea to the o(ense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original info, is Mitigating /ircumstance present .ules of /ourt re*uire that even if accused pleaded guilt% to a capital o(ense, its mandator% for court to re*uire the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused being likewise entitled to present evidence to prove, inter alia, Mitigating /ircumstance >. $hat the o(ender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise su(ering from some ph%sical defect wLc thus restricts his means of action, defense or communication wL his fellow beings. +asis& one su(ering from ph%sical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness. #o distinction between educated and uneducated deaf;mute or blind persons $he ph%sical defect of the o(ender should restrict his means of action, defense or communication with fellow beings, this has been etended to cover cripples, armless people even stutterers. $he circumstance assumes that with their ph%sical defect, the o(enders do not have a complete freedom of action therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime. I. 0uch illness of the o(ender as would diminish the eercise of the will;power of the o(ender wLo depriving him of consciousness of his acts. +asis& diminution of intelligence and intent .e*uisites& a- illness of the o(ender must diminish the eercise of his will;power b- such illness should not deprive the o(ender of consciousness of his acts when the o(ender completel% lost the eercise of will;power, it ma% be an eempting circumstance deceased mind, not amounting to insanit%, ma% give place to mitigation 2C3 (n" an! other circ$mstance of a similar nat$re an" analogo$s to those aoveBmentione" 6amples of Ran% other circumstance9& a- defendant who is CH %ears old with failing e%esight is similar to a case of one over FH %ears old b- outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave o(ense c- impulse of )ealous feeling, similar to "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# d- voluntar% restitution of propert%, similar to voluntar% surrender e- etreme povert%, similar to incomplete )ustifcation based on state of necessit% #4$ analogous& a- killing wrong person b- not resisting arrest not the same as voluntar% surrender c- running amuck is not mitigating M'$'JA$'#J /'./MM0$A#/6 which arise from& a- moral attributes of the o(ender Exaple& Buan and $omas killed "edro. Buan acted wL "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4#. 4nl% Buan will be entitled to Mitigating /ircumstance b- private relations with the o(ended part% Exaple& Buan stole his brother?s watch. Buan sold it to "edro, who knew it was stolen. $he circumstance of relation arose from private relation of Buan and the brother. Aoes not mitigate "edro. c- other personal cause Exaple& Minor, acting with discernment robbed Buan. "edro, passing b%, helped the minor. /ircumstance of minorit%, mitigates liabilit% of minor onl%. 0hall serve to mitigate the liabilit% of the principals, accomplices and accessories to whom the circumstances are attendant. /ircumstances which are neither eempting nor mitigating a- mistake in the blow b- mistake in the identit% of the victim c- entrapment of the accused d- accused is over 1> %ears old e- performance of a righteous action Exaple& Buan saved the lives of II people but caused the death of the last person, he is still criminall% liable (GG,(E(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE) Aefnition ! $hose circumstance which raise the penalt% for a crime without eceeding the maimum applicable to that crime. +asis& $he greater perversit% of the o(ense as shown b%& a- the motivating power behind the act b- the place where the act was committed c- the means and wa%s used d- the time e- the personal circumstance of the o(ender f- the personal circumstance of the victim Pinds& a- Jeneric ! generall% applicable to all crimes b- 0pecifc ! appl% onl% to specifc crimes ,ignomin% ! for chastit% crimes7 treacher% ! for persons crimes- c- Qualif%ing ! those that change the nature of the crime ,evident premeditation ! becomes murder- d- 'nherent ! necessaril% accompanies the commission of the crime ,evident premeditation in theft, estafa- J0(L*@D*NG (GG,(E(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE GENE,*C (GG,(E(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE Jives the proper and eclusive name, places the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalt% than that specifcall% prescribed b% law 'ncrease penalt% to the maimum, without eceeding limit prescribed b% law /an?t be o(set b% Mitigating /ircumstance Ma% be compensated b% Mitigating /ircumstance Must be alleged in the information. 'ntegral part of the o(ense #eed not be alleged. Ma% be proved over the ob)ection of the defense. Qualif%ing if not alleged will make it generic Aggravating /ircumstances which A4 #4$ have the e(ect of increasing the penalt%& 1- which themselves constitute a crime specifcall% punishable b% law or which are included in the law defning a crime and prescribing the penalt% thereof Exaple& breaking a window to get inside the house and rob it 2- aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such degree that it must of necessit% accompan% the commission thereof Exaple& evident premeditation inherent in theft, robber%, estafa, adulter% and concubinage Aggravating circumstances are not presumed. Must be proved as full% as the crime itself in order to increase the penalt%. (rt 263 (ggravating circ$mstances3 K The following are aggravating circ$mstances: 23 23 That a"vantage e ta8en ! the ofen"er of his p$lic position ,e#$isites: 1. $he o(ender is a public o3cer 2. $he commission of the crime would not have been possible without the powers, resources and in2uence of the o3ce he holds. 6ssential ! "ublic o3cer used the in2uence, prestige or ascendanc% which his o3ce gives him as the means b% which he reali8ed his purpose. =ailure in o3cial is tantamount to abusing of o3ce 5earing of uniform is immaterial ! what matters is the proof that he indeed took advantage of his position 23 43 That the crime e committe" in contempt of or with ins$lt to the p$lic a$thorities ,e#$isites: 1. $he o(ender knows that a public authorit% is present 2. $he public authorit% is engaged in the eercise of his functions 3. $he public authorit% is not the victim of the crime 4. $he public authorit%?s presence did not prevent the criminal act Exaple& Buan and "edro are *uarrelling and the municipal ma%or, upon passing b%, attempts to stop them. #otwithstanding the intervention and the presence of the ma%or, Buan and "edro continue to *uarrel until Buan succeeds in killing "edro. "erson in authorit% ! public authorit% who is directl% vested with )urisdiction, has the power to govern and eecute the laws 6amples of "ersons in Authorit% 1. Jovernor 2. Ma%or 3. +aranga% captain 4. /ouncilors @. Jovernment agents C. /hief of "olice .ule not applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent. Agent ! subordinate public o3cer charged with the maintenance of public order and protection and securit% of life and propert% Exaple& barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman 23 53 That the act e committe": (2) with ins$lt or in "isregar" of the respect "$e to the ofen"e" part! on acco$nt of his (a) ran8/ () age/ (c) se& or (4) that it e committe" in the "welling of the ofen"e" part!/ if the latter has not given provocation3 circumstances ,rank, age, se- ma% be taken into account only in cries against persons or honor, it cannot be invoked in crimes against propert% .ank ! refers to a high social position or standing b% which to determine one?s pa% and emoluments in an% scale of comparison within a position Age ! the circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in case where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age 0e ! refers to the female se, not to the male se7 not applicable when 1. $he o(ender acted wL "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# 2. there eists a relation between the o(ender and the victim ,but in cases of divorce decrees where there is a direct bearing on their child, it is applicable- 3. the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime ,6. "arricide, rape, abduction- .e*uisite of disregard to rank, age, or se 1. /rimes must be against the victim?s person or his honor 2. $here is deliberate intent to o(end or insult the respect due to the victim?s rank, age, or se Aisregard to rank, age, or se is absorbed b% treacher% or abuse of strength Awelling ! must be a building or structure eclusivel% used for rest and comfort ,combination house and store not included- 1. ma% be temporar% as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers 2. basis for this is the sanctit% of privac% the law accords to human abode dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house 6lements of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling 1. /rime occurred in the dwelling of the victim 2. #o provocation on the part of the victim ,e#$isites for Provocation: (LL %0)T CONC0, 1. given b% the owner of the dwelling 2. su3cient 3. immediate to the commission of the crime -hen "welling ma! an" ma! not e consi"ere" -hen it ma! e consi"ere" -hen it ma! not e consi"ere" although the o(ender fred the shot from outside the house, as long as his victim was inside even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, so long as the commission began inside the dwelling when adulter% is committed in the dwelling of the husband, even if it is also the dwelling of the wife, it is still aggravating because she and her paramour committed a grave o(ense to the head of the house 'n robber% with violence against persons, robber% with homicide, abduction, or illegal detention 'f the o(ended part% has given provocation 'f both the o(ender and the o(ended part% are occupants of the same dwelling 'n robber% with force upon things, it is inherent 63 That the act e committe" with (2) a$se of con?"ence or (4) ovio$s $ngratef$lness ,e#$isites of ($se of Con?"ence ,e#$isite of Ovio$s 0ngratef$lness a- 4(ended part% has trusted the o(ender b- 4(ender abused such trust c- Abuse of confdence facilitated the commission of the crime a- ungratefulness must be obvious, that is, there must be something which the o(ender should owe the victim a debt of gratitude for #ote& robber% or theft committed b% a visitor in the house of the o(ended part% is aggravated b% obvious ungratefulness Exaple& A )ealous lover, alread% determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her for a ride and during that ride, he stabbed her Abuse of confdence is inherent in& 1. malversation 2. *ualifed theft 3. estafa b% conversion 4. misappropriation @. *ualifed seduction @. $hat the crime be committed in the palace of the /hief 6ecutive, or in his presence, or when public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. .e*uirements of the aggravating circumstance of public o3ce& A polling precinct is a public o3ce during election da% #ature of public o3ce should be taken into account, like a police station which is on dut% 24 hrs. a da% place of the commission of the felon% ,par @-& if it is MalacaVang palace or a church is aggravating, regardless of whether 0tate or o3cial7 functions are being held. as regards other places where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some performance of public functions the o(ender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered the place .e*uisites for aggravating circumstances for place of worship& 1. $he crime occurred in the public o3ce 2. "ublic authorities are actuall% performing their public duties 1. $he crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of Jod regardless of religion 2. 4(ender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the place of worship -hen Paragraph 4 an" 7 of (rticle 26 are applicale /ommitted in the presence of the /hief 6ecutive, in the "residential "alace or a place of worship,"ar. @, Art. 14- /ommitted in contempt of "ublic Authorit% ,"ar. 2, Art 14- "ublic authorities are performing of their duties when the crime is committed 0ame 5hen crime is committed in the public o3ce, the o3cer must be performing his duties, ecept in the "residential "alace 4utside the o3ce ,still performing dut%- "ublic authorit% ma% be the o(ended part% "ublic authorit% is not be the o(ended part% Ia3 That the crime e committe" (2) in the nighttime/ or (4) in an $ninhaite" place (5) ! a an"/ whenever s$ch circ$mstances ma! facilitate the commission of the ofense3 #ighttime, Mninhabited "lace or +% a +ang Aggravating when& 'mpunit% ! means to prevent the accused?s being recogni8ed or to secure himself against detection or punishment #ighttime begins at the end of dusk and ending at dawn7 from sunset to sunrise Mninhabited "lace ! one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other 1. it facilitated the commission of the crime 2. especiall% sought for b% the o(ender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunit% 3. when the o(ender took the advantage thereof for the purpose of impunit% 4. commission of the crime must have began and accomplished at nighttime 1. commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime 2. when the place of the crime is illuminated b% light, nighttime is not aggravating 3. absorbed b% $reacher% ,e#$isites: 1. $he place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime 2. Aeliberatel% sought and not incidental to the commission or omission of the crime 3. $aken advantage of for the purpose of impunit% what should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the o(ense, there was a reasonable possibilit% of the victim receiving some help I3 -henever more than 5 arme" malefactors shall have acte" together in the commission of an ofense/ it shall e "eeme" to have een committe" ! a an"3 ,e#$isites: if one of the four;armed malefactors is a principal b% inducement, the% do not form a band because it is undoubtedl% connoted that he had no direct participation, +and is inherent in robber% committed in band and brigandage 't is not considered in the crime of rape 't has been applied in treason and in robber% with homicide 1. =acilitated the commission of the crime 2. Aeliberatel% sought 3. $aken advantage of for the purposes of impunit% 4. $here must be four or more armed men F. $hat the crime be committed on the occasion of a con2agration, shipwreck, earth*uake, epidemic or other calamit% or misfortune ,e#$isites: 1. /ommitted when there is a calamit% or misfortune 1. /on2agration 2. 0hipwreck 3. 6pidemic 2. 4(ender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such misfortune +asis& /ommission of the crime adds to the su(ering b% taking advantage of the misfortune. based on time o(ender must take advantage of the calamit% or misfortune Aistinction between "aragraphs F and 12 of Article 14 /ommitted during a calamit% or misfortune /ommitted with the use of wasteful means /rime is committed AM.'#J an% of the calamities /rime is committed +O using fre, inundation, eplosion or other wasteful means G3 That the crime e committe" with the ai" of (2) arme" men or (4) persons who ins$re or afor" imp$nit! based on the means and wa%s .e*uisites& 6ceptions& 1. that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directl% or indirectl% 2. that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed 1. when both the attacking part% and the part% attacked were e*uall% armed 2. not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose. 3. /asual presence, or when the o(ender did not avail himself of an% of their aid nor did not knowingl% count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime -*T1 T1E (*. O@ (,%E. %EN 'D ( '(N. "resent even if one of the o(enders merel% relied on their aid. Actual aid is not necessar% .e*uires more than 3 armed malefactors who all acted together in the commission of an o(ense if there are more than 3 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in the emplo%ment of a band. :3 That the acc$se" is a reci"ivist .ecidivist ! one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previousl% convicted b% fnal )udgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the ."/ +asis& Jreater perversit% of the o(ender as shown b% his inclination to commit crimes .e*uisites& 5hat is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of the o(ense. At the time of the trial means from the arraignment until after sentence is announced b% the )udge in open court. 5hen does )udgment become fnal< ,.ules of /ourt- 6ample of /rimes embraced in the 0ame title of the ."/ Q& $he accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, robber% and estafa. Budgments were read on the same da%. 's he a recidivist< 1. o(ender is on trial for an o(ense 2. he was previousl% convicted b% fnal )udgment of another crime 3. that both the frst and the second o(enses are embraced in the same title of the ."/ 4. the o(ender is convicted of the new o(ense 1. after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal 2. when the sentence has been partiall% or totall% satisfed or served 3. defendant has epressl% waived in writing his right to appeal 4. the accused has applied for probation 1. robber% and theft ! title 1H 2. homicide and ph%sical in)uries ! title > A& #o. +ecause the )udgment in an% of the frst two o(enses was not %et fnal when he was tried for the third o(ense .ecidivism must be taken into account no matter how man% %ears have intervened between the frst and second felonies "ardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnest% etinguishes the penalt% and its e(ects $o prove recidivism, it must be alleged in the information and with attached certifed copies of the sentences rendered against the accused 6ceptions& if the accused does not ob)ect and when he admits in his confession and on the witness stand3 1H. $hat the o(ender has been previousl% punished for an o(ense to which the law attaches an e*ual or greater penalt% or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalt% .eiteracion or :abitualit% ! it is essential that the o(ender be previousl% punished7 that is, he has served sentence. "ar. 1H speaks of penalt% attached to the o(ense, not the penalt% actuall% imposed ,E*TE,(C*ON ,EC*.*E*)% #ecessar% that o(ender shall have 6nough that fnal )udgment has been served out his sentence for the frst sentence rendered in the frst o(ense "revious and subse*uent o(enses must not be embraced in the same title of the /ode 0ame title #ot alwa%s an aggravating circumstance Alwa%s aggravating 4 =orms of .epetition :abitual Aelin*uenc% ! when a person within a period of 1H %ears from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious ph%sical in)uries, robber%, theft, estafa or falsifcation is found guilt% of an% of said crimes a third time or oftener. Quasi;.ecidivism ! an% person who shall commit a felon% after having been convicted b% fnal )udgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished b% the maimum period of the penalt% prescribed b% law for the new felon% 1. .ecidivism ! generic 2. .eiteracion or :abitualit% ! generic 3. Multiple recidivism or :abitual delin*uenc% ! etraordinar% aggravating 4. Quasi;.ecidivism ! special aggravating 223 That the crime e committe" in consi"eration of a price/ rewar" or promise3 ,e#$isites: 1. At least 2 principals 1. $he principal b% inducement 2. $he principal b% direct participation 2. the price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of the commission of the criminal act Applicable to both principals. 243 That the crime e committe" ! means of in$n"ation/ ?re/ poison/ e&plosion/ stran"ing a vessel or intentional "amage thereto/ or "erailment of a locomotive/ or ! $se of an! other arti?ce involving great waste or r$in3 .e*uisite& $he wasteful means were used b% the o(ender to accomplish a criminal purpose 253 That the act e committe" with evi"ent preme"itation 6ssence of premeditation& the eecution of the criminal act must be preceded b% cool thought and re2ection upon the resolution to carr% out the criminal intent during the space of time su3cient to arrive at a calm )udgment .e*uisites& /onspirac% generall% presupposes premeditation 5hen victim is di(erent from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. Although it is not necessar% that there is a plan to kill a particular person for premeditation to eist ,e.g. plan to kill frst 2 persons one meets, general attack on a villageWfor as long as it was planned- $he premeditation must be based upon eternal facts, and must be evident, not merel% suspected indicating deliberate planning 6vident premeditation is inherent in robber%, adulter%, theft, estafa, falsifcation, and etc. 1. the time when the o(ender determined to commit the crime 2. an act manifestl% indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination 3. a su3cient lapse of time between the determination and eecution to allow him to re2ect upon the conse*uences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will 263 That (2) craft/ (4) fra$"/ or (5) "isg$ise e emplo!e" /raft ! involves intellectual tricker% and cunning on the part of the accused. 't is emplo%ed as a scheme in the eecution of the crime ,e.g. accused pretended to be members of the constabular%, accused in order to perpetrate rape, used chocolates containing drugs- =raud !involves insidious words or machinations used to induce victim to act in a manner which would enable the o(ender to carr% out his design. as distinguished from craft which involves acts done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim, fraud involves a direct inducement through entrapping or beguiling language or machinations Aisguise ! resorting to an% device to conceal identit%. "urpose of concealing identit% is a must. Aistinction between /raft, =raud, and Aisguise Craft @ra$" .isg$ise 'nvolves the use of intellectual tricker% and cunning to arouse suspicion of the victim 'nvolves the use of direct inducement b% insidious words or machinations 'nvolves the use of devise to conceal identit% .e*uisite& $he o(ender must have actuall% taken advantage of craft, fraud, or disguise to facilitate the commission of the crime. 'nherent in& estafa and falsifcation. 273 That (2) a"vantage e ta8en of s$perior strength/ or (4) means e emplo!e" to wea8en the "efense $o purposel% use ecessive force out of the proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. .e*uisite of Means to 5eaken Aefense $o weaken the defense ! illustrated in the case where one struggling with another suddenl% throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and while in the said situation, he wounds or kills him. 4ther means of weakening the defense would be intoication or disabling thru the senses ,casting dirt of sand upon another?s e%es- 1. 0uperiorit% ma% arise from aggressor?s se, weapon or number as compared to that of the victim ,e.g. accused attacked an unarmed girl with a knife7 3 men stabbed to death the female victim-. 2. #o advantage of superior strength when one who attacks is overcome with passion and obfuscation or when *uarrel arose unepectedl% and the fatal blow was struck while victim and accused were struggling. 3. Ss. b% a band & circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what is taken into account is not the number of aggressors nor the fact that the% are armed but their relative ph%sical might vis;X;vis the o(ended part% 1. Means were purposel% sought to weaken the defense of the victim to resist the assault 2. $he means used must not totall% eliminate possible defense of the victim, otherwise it will fall under treacher% 2I3 That the act e committe" with treacher! (alevosia) $.6A/:6.O& when the o(ender commits an% of the crime against the person, emplo%ing means, methods or forms in the eecution thereof which tend directl% and speciall% to insure its eecution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the o(ended part% might make. .e*uisites& $reacher% ! can?t be considered when there is no evidence that the accused, prior to the moment of the killing, resolved to commit to crime, or there is no proof that the death of the victim was the result of meditation, calculation or re2ection. 6amples& victim asleep, half;awake or )ust awakened, victim grappling or being held, stacks from behind +ut treacher% ma% eist even if attack is face;to;face ! as long as victim was not given an% chance to prepare defense 1. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself 2. that the o(ender consciousl% adopted the particular means, method or form of attack emplo%ed b% him 1. does not eist if the accused gave the deceased chance to prepare or there was warning given or that it was preceded b% a heated argument 2. there is alwa%s treacher% in the killing of child 3. generall% characteri8ed b% the deliberate and sudden and unepected attack of the victim from behind, without an% warning and without giving the victim an opportunit% to defend himself T,E(C1E, D ('0)E O@ )0PE,*O, )T,ENGT1 %E(N) E%PLODE. TO -E(FEN .E@EN)E Means, methods or forms are emplo%ed b% the o(ender to make it impossible or hard for the o(ended part% to put an% sort of resistance 4(ender does not emplo% means, methods or forms of attack, he onl% takes advantage of his superior strength Means are emplo%ed but it onl% materiall% weakens the resisting power of the o(ended part% 5here there is conspirac%, treacher% is considered against all the o(enders $reacher% absorbs abuse of strength, aid of armed men, b% a band and means to weaken the defense 1F. $hat the means be emplo%ed or circumstances brought about which add ignomin% to the natural e(ects of the acts 'J#4M'#O ! is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and oblo*u% to the material in)ur% caused b% the crime Applicable to crimes against chastit% ,rape included-, less serious ph%sical in)uries, light or grave coercion and murder .e*uisites& 6amples& accused embraced and kissed the o(ended part% not out of lust but out of anger in front of man% people, raped in front of the husband, raped successivel% b% fve men tend to make the e(ects of the crime more humiliating 'gnomin% not present where the victim was alread% dead when such acts were committed against his bod% or person 1. /rime must be against chastit%, less serious ph%sical in)uries, light or grave coercion, and murder 2. $he circumstance made the crime more humiliating and shameful for the victim 2G3 That the crime e committe" after an $nlawf$l entr! Mnlawful entr% ! when an entrance is e(ected b% a wa% not intended for the purpose. Meant to e(ect entrance and #4$ eit. 5h% aggravating< 4ne who acts, not respecting the walls erected b% men to guard their propert% and provide for their personal safet%, shows greater perversit%, a greater audacit% and hence the law punishes him with more severit% 6ample& .apist gains entrance thru the window 'nherent in& $respass to dwelling, robber% with force upon things, and robber% with violence or intimidation against persons. 2:3 That as a means to the commission of the crime/ a wall/ roof/ "oor or win"ow e ro8en ,e#$isites: Applicable onl% if such acts were done b% the o(ender to e(ect entrance. +reaking is lawful in the following instances& 1. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken 2. $he% were broken to e(ect entrance 1. an o3cer in order to make an arrest ma% break open a door or window of an% building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonabl% believed to be7 2. an o3cer if refused admittance ma% break open an% door or window to eecute the search warrant or liberate himself, 2H. $hat the crime be committed ,1- with the aid of persons under 1@ %ears of age, or ,2- b% means of motor vehicles, airships or other similar means. .eason for Y1& to repress, so far as possible, the fre*uent practice resorted to b% professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their responsibilit% ,remember that minors are given lenienc% when the% commit a crime- Exaple& Buan instructed a 14;%ear old to climb up the fence and open the gate for him so that he ma% rob the house .eason for Y2& to counteract the great facilities found b% modern criminals in said means to commit crime and 2ee and abscond once the same is committed. #ecessar% that the motor vehicle be an important tool to the consummation of the crime ,bic%cles not included- Exaple& Buan and "edro, in committing theft, used a truck to haul the appliances from the mansion. 21. $hat the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberatel% augmented b% causing other wrong not necessar% for its commission
/ruelt%& when the culprit en)o%s and delights in making his victim su(er slowl% and graduall%, causing him unnecessar% ph%sical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. /ruelt% cannot be presumed nor merel% inferred from the bod% of the deceased. :as to be proven. 1. mere pluralit% of words do not show cruelt% 2. no cruelt% when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead ,e#$isites: 1. that the in)ur% caused be deliberatel% increased b% causing other wrong 2. that the other wrong be unnecessar% for the eecution of the purpose of the o(ender *GNO%*ND C,0ELTD Moral su(ering ! sub)ected to humiliation "h%sical su(ering (rt 273 (LTE,N(T*EE C*,C0%)T(NCE)3 Their concept3 K (lternative circ$mstances are those which m$st e ta8en into consi"eration as aggravating or mitigating accor"ing to the nat$re an" efects of the crime an" the other con"itions atten"ing its commission3 The! are the relationship/ into&ication an" the "egree of instr$ction an" e"$cation of the ofen"er3 The alternative circ$mstance of relationship shall e ta8en into consi"eration when the ofen"e" part! in the spo$se/ ascen"ant/ "escen"ant/ legitimate/ nat$ral/ or a"opte" rother or sister/ or relative ! a>nit! in the same "egrees of the ofen"er3 The into&ication of the ofen"er shall e ta8en into consi"eration as a mitigating circ$mstances when the ofen"er has committe" a felon! in a state of into&ication/ if the same is not hait$al or s$se#$ent to the plan to commit sai" felon! $t when the into&ication is hait$al or intentional/ it shall e consi"ere" as an aggravating circ$mstance3 Alternative /ircumstances ! those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and e(ects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. $he% are& 1. relationship ! taken into consideration when o(ended part% is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative b% a3nit% in the same degree of the o(ender 2. intoication ! mitigating when the o(ender has committed a felon% in the state of intoication, if the same is not habitual or subse*uent to the plan to commit the said felon%. Aggravating if habitual or intentional 3. degree of instruction and education of the o(ender ,EL(T*ON)1*P %itigating Circ$mstance (ggravating Circ$mstance 'n crimes against propert% ,robber%, usurpation, fraudulent insolvenc%, arson- 'n crimes against persons ! in cases where the o(ender, or when the o(ender and the o(ended part% are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, adopted brother or half;brother. Alwa%s aggravating in crimes against chastit%. 6ception& Art 332 of // ! no criminal liabilit%, civil liabilit% onl% for the crimes of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutuall% b% spouses, ascendants, descendants or relatives b% a3nit% ,also brothers, sisters, brothers;in; law or sisters;in;law if living together-. 't becomes an 6G6M"$'#J circumstance. .elationship neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an element of the o(ense. 6ample& parricide, adulter%, concubinage. *NTO+*C(T*ON %*T*G(T*NG (GG,(E(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE C*,C0%)T(NCE a- if intoication is not habitual b- if intoication is not subse*uent to the plan to commit a felon% a- if intoication is habitual ! such habit must be actual and confrmed b- if its intentional ,subse*uent to the plan to commit a felon%- Must show that he has taken such *uantit% so as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control A habitual drunkard is given to inebriet% or the ecessive use of intoicating drinks. :abitual drunkenness must be shown to be an actual and confrmed habit of the o(ender, but not necessaril% of dail% occurrence. .EG,EE O@ *N)T,0CT*ON (N. E.0C(T*ON %*T*G(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE (GG,(E(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE 1ow degree of instruction education or the lack of it. +ecause he does not full% reali8e the conse*uences of his criminal act. #ot )ust mere illiterac% but lack of intelligence. :igh degree of instruction and education ! o(ender avails himself of his learning in committing the o(ense. Aetermined b%& the court must consider the circumstance of lack of instruction 6ceptions ,not mitigating-& 1. crimes against propert% 2. crimes against chastit% ,rape included- 3. crime of treason (rt 2I3 -ho are criminall! liale3 K The following are criminall! liale for grave an" less grave felonies: 1. "rincipals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories3
The following are criminall! liale for light felonies: 23 Principals 43 (ccomplices3 Accessories ! not liable for light felonies because the individual pre)udice is so small that penal sanction is not necessar% 4nl% natural persons can be criminals as onl% the% can act with malice or negligence and can be subse*uentl% deprived of libert%. Buridical persons are liable under special laws. Manager of a partnership is liable even if there is no evidence of his direct participation in the crime. /orporations ma% be the in)ured part% Jeneral .ule& /orpses and animals have no rights that ma% be in)ured. 6ception& defamation of the dead is punishable when it blackens the memor% of one who is dead. (rt 2H3 Principals3 K The following are consi"ere" principals: 23 23 Those who ta8e a "irect part in the e&ec$tion of the act= 43 43 Those who "irectl! force or in"$ce others to commit it= 53 53 Those who cooperate in the commission of the ofense ! another act witho$t which it wo$l" not have een accomplishe"3 Principals ! .irect Participation ,e#$isites for 4 or more to e principals ! "irect participation: 1. participated in the criminal resolution ,conspirac%- 2. carried out their plan and personall% took part in its eecution b% acts which directl% tended to the same end /onspirac% ! 's unit% of purpose and intention. Estalishment of Conspirac! 1. proven b% overt act 2. #ot mere knowledge or approval 3. 't is not necessar% that there be formal agreement. 4. Must prove be%ond reasonable doubt @. /onspirac% is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in eecution. C. Mnit% of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime ma% be shown in the following cases& 1. 0pontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime 2. Active /ooperation b% all the o(enders in the perpetration of the crime 3. /ontributing b% positive acts to the reali8ation of a common criminal intent 4. "resence during the commission of the crime b% a band and lending moral support thereto. @. 5hile conspirac% ma% be implied from the circumstances attending the commission of the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspirac% must be established b% positive and conclusive evidence. /onspirator not liable for the crimes of the other which is not the ob)ect of the conspirac% or is not a logical or necessar% conse*uence thereof Multiple rape ! each rapist is liable for another?s crime because each cooperated in the commission of the rapes perpetrated b% the others 6ception& in the crime of murder with treacher% ! all the o(enders must at least know that there will be treacher% in eecuting the crime or cooperate therein. 6ample& Buan and "edro conspired to kill $omas without the previous plan of treacher%. 'n the crime scene, Buan used treacher% in the presence of "edro and "edro knew such. +oth are liable for murder. +ut if "edro sta%ed b% the gate while Buan alone killed $omas with treacher%, so that "edro didn?t know how it was carried out, Buan is liable for murder while "edro for homicide. #o such thing as conspirac% to commit an o(ense through negligence. :owever, special laws ma% make one a co;principal. Exaple+ 1nder the Pure Bood and Jrug Act, a storeowner is liable for the act of his emplo%ees of selling adulterated co(ee, although he didn?t know that co(ee was being sold. /onspirac% is negatived b% the ac*uittal of co;defendant. $hat the culprits Rcarried out the plan and personall% took part in the eecution, b% acts which directl% tended to the same end9& 1. $he principals b% direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personall% taking part, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he is e*uall% liable as a principal b% direct participation. 2. 4ne serving as guard pursuant to the conspirac% is a principal direct participation. 'f the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission of the acts of eecution cannot be held criminall% liable, unless the crime agreed to be committed is treason, sedition, or rebellion. Principals ! *n"$ction a3 LThose who "irectl! force or in"$ce others to commit itM 2. "rincipal b% induction liable onl% when principal b% direct participation committed the act induced 53 ,e#$isites: 1. inducement be made directl% with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime 2. such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime b% the material eecutor "3 @orms of *n"$cements 1. +% "rice, reward or promise 2. +% irresistible force or uncontrollable fear 3. /ommander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime 4. /ommander has ascendanc% or in2uence @. 5ords used be so direct, so e3cacious, so powerful C. /ommand be uttered prior to the commission F. 6ecutor had no personal reason 4. 'mprudent advice does not constitute su3cient inducement @. .e*uisites for words of command to be considered inducement& C. 5ords uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to be obe%ed do not make one an inductor. *N.0CTO, P,OPO)E) TO CO%%*T ( @ELOND *n"$ce others )ame 1iable onl% when the crime is eecuted "unishable at once when proposes to commit rebellion or treason. $he person to whom one proposed should not commit the crime, otherwise the latter becomes an inductor /overs an% crime /overs onl% treason and rebelli Efects of (c#$ittal of Principal ! "irect participation on liailit! of principal ! in"$cement 1. /onspirac% is negated b% the ac*uittal of the co;defendant. 2. 4ne can not be held guilt% of instigating the commission of the crime without frst showing that the crime has been actuall% committed b% another. +ut if the one charged as principal b% direct participation be ac*uitted because he acted without criminal intent or malice, it is not a ground for the ac*uittal of the principal b% inducement. Principals ! *n"ispensale Cooperation -. RThose who cooperate in the coission of the ofense by another act without which it would not have been accoplished> /. .e*uisites& 1. "articipation in the criminal resolution 2. /ooperation through another act ,includes negligence- Nthere is collective criminal responsibilit% when the o(enders are criminall% liable in the same manner and to the same etent. $he penalt% is the same for all. there is individual criminal responsibilit% when there is no conspirac%. (rt3 2G3 (ccomplices3 K (ccomplices are those persons who/ not eing incl$"e" in (rt3 2H/ cooperate in the e&ec$tion of the ofense ! previo$s or sim$ltaneo$s acts3 ,e#$isites: 6amples& a- Buan was choking "edro. $hen $omas ran up and hit "edro with a bamboo stick. Buan continued to choke "edro until he was dead. $omas is onl% an accomplice because the fatal blow came from Buan. b- 1ending a dagger to a killer, knowing the latter?s purpose. An accomplice has knowledge of the criminal design of the principal and all he does is concur with his purpose. $here must be a relation between the acts done b% the principal and those attributed to the person charges as accomplice 'n homicide or murder, the accomplice must not have in2icted the mortal wound. 1. there be a communit% of design ,principal originates the design, accomplice onl% concurs- 2. he cooperates in the eecution b% previous or simultaneous acts, intending to give material and moral aid ,cooperation must be knowingl% done, it must also be necessar% and not indispensable 3. $here be a relation between the acts of the principal and the alleged accomplice (rt3 2:3 (ccessories3 K (ccessories are those who/ having 8nowle"ge of the commission of the crime/ an" witho$t having participate" therein/ either as principals or accomplices/ ta8e part s$se#$ent to its commission in an! of the following manners: 23 '! pro?ting themselves or assisting the ofen"er to pro?t ! the efects of the crime3 43 '! concealing or "estro!ing the o"! of the crime/ or the efects or instr$ments thereof/ in or"er to prevent its "iscover!3 53 '! haroring/ concealing/ or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime/ provi"e" the accessor! acts with a$se of his p$lic f$nctions or whenever the a$thor of the crime is g$ilt! of treason/ parrici"e/ m$r"er/ or an attempt to ta8e the life of the Chief E&ec$tive/ or is 8nown to e hait$all! g$ilt! of some other crime3 6ample of "ar 1& person received and used propert% from another, knowing it was stolen 6ample of "ar 2& placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfull% killed to plant evidence, or bur%ing the deceased who was killed b% the principals 6ample of "ar 3& a- public o3cers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of an% crime ,not light felon%- with abuse of his public functions, b- private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime ! guilt% of treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the "resident, or who is known to be habituall% guilt% of some crime. Jeneral .ule& "rincipal ac*uitted, Accessor% also ac*uitted 6ception& when the crime was in fact committed but the principal is covered b% eempting circumstances. 6ample& Minor stole a ring and Buan, knowing it was stolen, bought it. Minor is eempt. Buan liable as accessor% $rial of accessor% ma% proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other 1iabilit% of the accessor% ! the responsibilit% of the accessor% is subordinate to that of a principal in a crime because the accessor%?s participation therein is subse*uent to its commission, and his guilt is directl% related to the principal. 'f the principal was ac*uitted b% an eempting circumstance the accessor% ma% still be held liable. Ai(erence of accessor% from principal and accomplice& 1. Accessor% does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce the commission of the crime 2. Accessor% does not cooperate in the commission of the o(ense b% acts either prior thereto or simultaneous therewith 3. "articipation of the accessor% in all cases alwa%s takes place after the commission of the crime 4. $akes part in the crime through his knowledge of the commission of the o(ense. (rt3 4C3 (ccessories who are e&empt from criminal liailit!3 K The penalties prescrie" for accessories shall not e impose" $pon those who are s$ch with respect to their spo$ses/ ascen"ants/ "escen"ants/ legitimate/ nat$ral/ an" a"opte" rothers an" sisters/ or relatives ! a>nit! within the same "egrees/ with the single e&ception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 2 of the ne&t prece"ing article3 +asis& $ies of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one?s name which compels one to conceal crimes committed b% relatives so near as those mentioned. #ephew and #iece not included Accessor% not eempt when helped a relative;principal b% profting from the e(ects of the crime, or assisted the o(ender to proft from the e(ects of the crime. 4nl% accessories covered b% par 2 and 3 are eempted. "ublic o3cer who helped his guilt% brother escape does not incur criminal liabilit% as ties of blood constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call of dut%. "6#A1$O ! su(ering in2icted b% the 0tate for the transgression of a law. 3 fold purpose& Buridical /onditions of "enalt% 1. retribution or epiation ! penalt% commensurate with the gravit% of the o(ense 2. correction or reformation ! rules which regulate the eecution of penalties consisting of deprivation of libert% 3. social defense ! in2eible severit% to recidivists and habitual delin*uents a. Must be productive of su(ering ! limited b% the integrit% of human personalit% b. Must be proportionate to the crime c. Must be personal ! imposed onl% upon the criminal d. Must be legal ! according to a )udgment of fact and law e. Must be e*ual ! applies to ever%one regardless of the circumstance f. Must bee correctional ! to rehabilitate the o(ender