Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SALVA NOTES
R.E.A
What particular provision does refer to how
does a person incur criminal liability?
Am referring to Article 4 which has 2 paragraphs
there [which always be remembered by all of youall bar examinations comes from that particular
provision of art 4 ]
Art. 4. Criminal liability.
and
proposal
to
as a
manner of
incurring
2
murder was committed conspiracy shall be
applied as a mode of incurring criminal liability.
What are
penalties?
three
kinds
of
correccional
3
The duration of those three is the same
6mos and 1 day to 6yrs , one of them is prison
correccional from 6mos and 1 day to 15 days, the
other two is crimes for concubinage, the penalty
is destierro for the mistress and the husband is
imprisonment.
Light felony
What are those afflictive penalties?
What is the penalty in bigamy? Prision mayor,
2. Art 3 Classification of felony according to
mode or manner of commission
If the felony is committed by means of Dolo,
it means intentional felony, if means by
culpa, it means by culpable felonies
How do you define culpable felonies?
These are crimes resulting to negligence
for lack of skill or lack of foresight.
Is a person can be held criminally liable
even he has no criminal intent? If so, in
what instances?
Yes. In cases of Mala prohibita because
criminal intent is not an element. Culpable felony
the offender is not liable bec criminal intent is not
an element.
3. Classification
Are offenses punished by special law
governed by RPC? Yes but only supplementary,
When shall the RPC supplementary to
special laws?
If the provision of the special laws is not contrary.
Cite an example. In illegal possession of
firearms, rpc apply supplementary because the
penalties under such is borrowed under the
penalties provided by the RPC. Having followed
the provision of RPC, it will be applied by for the
benefit of the accused so, if the penalties are
divisible
,the
mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances provisions of RPC will apply, if the
accuses for instance during his arraignment
pleads guilty so he is entitled to one mitigating
circumstances under par 7 of art 13 provided
such will be done before presentation of evidence
of the prosecution.
the minimum of prision
mayor once he pleads guilty.
you
define
4
As a rule, it is not to be considered as
aggravating
but
it
could
be
exempting
circumstance such as There 3 felonies which are
crimes of theft, estafa, and malicious mischief,
.relationship in general is neither aggravating nor
mitigating.
Although if a son steals the money of
mother or father dinudukot ung pera sa
pitaka, he is exempt because it is a crime of
theft. Suppose he destroys the cabinet and
steal the money from the cabinet of his
parents, that is no longer a crime of theft
for it is a crime of robbery, can the
relationship be considered as mitigating or
exempting?
Mitigating. It has been explained by
supreme court if the crimes has been against
property like robbery and the offender is the son
or father as the case maybe, vice versa, that
could be only considered as a mitigating
circumstance analogous to art 332.
X kills y while in the act of defending
himself, x likewise was harmed, he is
charged with the crime of homicide, can he
invoke justifying circumstances to the fiscal
during Preliminary investigation?
NO. Now in justifying circum stances, it is
basic principle that it must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt, the moment a person kills
another even it is a valid self defense the law
dictates that he must be charged before the
court, it is only before the court where he could
only maintain self-defense and not before the
fiscal, because the moment he kills the victim
and in the PI he admits the killing of the victim it
is now a matter of defense which could only be
invoke during the trial on the merits of the case ,
it could not be invoke before the fiscal, same is
true with exempting circumstance , both
justifying and exempting circumstance could only
be properly invoke during the trial.
Imputability is the quality by which an act
may be ascribed to a person as its author or
owner.
Responsibility is the obligation of suffering
the consequences of crime.
How do you define justifying circumstances?
Justifying Circumstances are those where
the act of a person is said to be in accordance
with law, so that such person is deemed to have
define
exempting
Exempting
circumstances
are
those
grounds for exemption from punishment because
there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of
the conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
why does it exempt a person from criminal
liability?
There is lacking of the element of culpa or dole in
the crime.
What are the complete elements of Dolo
and Culpa?
Requisites of Dolo
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. Intent
Requisites of Culpa
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. Imprudent, Negligent, or lacks foresight
and skill
Basis of
justifying circumstance of selfdefense, why is it a person kills another in
defense of himself not punish by law?
As a social defense, state is not expected
to protect everyone, based on the impulse of self
preservation born to a man and part of his
nature as human being.
Example of justifying circumstances where
theres no freedom of action?
Par. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose
Enumerate all the justifying circumstance under
art 11.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances.
5
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it. [it refers to
unlawful aggression]
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.
[State of Necessity]
There is civil liability under this paragraph
Requistes:
a. That an order has been issued by a
superior
b. That such order must be for some lawful
purpose
c. That the means used by the subordinate
to carry out said order is lawful.
In all these justifying paragraphs, do all of
them contain three requisites?
NO. paragraph no. 5. The two requisites
under par 5 are; a. the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in lawful exercise of a
right or office b. the injury caused or the offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duy or lawful exercise of such
right
2 kinds of Unlawful aggression under 1 st
par. And disitinctions:
a. Real or Actual the danger must be
present, that is, actually in existence
b. Imminent or immediate that the danger
is on the point of happening. It is not
required that the attack already begins for
it may be too late.
When
the
aggressor
flees,
aggression no longer exists.
unlawful
No unlawful aggression
agreement to fight
there
when
is
In
order
to
consider
that
unlawful
aggression was actually committed, it is
necessary that an attack or material
aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury shall have been made.
6
Retaliation is not self-defense. It is not a
justifying circumstance. In retaliation, the
aggression that was begun by the injured party
already ceased to exist when the accused
attacked him.
Suppose, Johnny, a farmer, after harvesting
his palay and placed in sacks and piled
these in front of his house. In the middle of
the evening of that day, He was awaken by
loud bark of his dogs. So hearing that , he
got hold of his riffle and then when he
peeks from the window he saw a man
placing a one sacks of rice to his shoulder
the man is already walking away , Johnny
shout at that man and warned him that he
will shoot him if he will not put down the
one sack of rice. Despite the warning of
Johnny the man carrying the palay continue
to move away , johnny fired a warning shot
he still refused to stop . Johnny shot the
man to prevent him from taking away the
one sack of rice. Suppose Johnny was
charged of homicide for the death of the
thief. Can he validly invoke self-defense of
property under the par 1 of art 11? Is there
a unlawful aggression in this case where
there is absence of forceful attack but only
defending himself on his right of the
property? Will the unlawful taking of the
sack
of
palay
constitute
unlawful
aggression?
There is unlawful aggression. The latest
principle applicable is the principle of Self-help .
[people vs narvasa.] but there is lacking of
reasonable necessity. The mere unlawful taking is
already an unlawful aggression. Doctrine of selfhelp granted the owner the right to use
reasonable force to prevent the property from
being taken away.
What is the doctrine of self-help.?
Suppose has X has an enemy Y, one
morning, Y shouted at X at a distance 20
meters away, Y holding a bolo and moving
his hand with a bolo back and forth toward
the direction of x, shouting eto na huling
araw mo sa mundo , x reacted he drove his
pistol and shoot y. y died. X charged of
homicide. Can x invoke valid self-defense.?
Does the act of Y constitute unlawful
aggression?
NO. There is no unlawful aggression to
speak of. The concept of unlawful aggression is
7
Policemen can invoke paragraph 5 of art
11[fulfillment of duty] ; par 1 of art 11 [selfdefense] ,in regards to personnel; par 4 article
12. In actual case when this happens, it will be
considered as robbery with homicide, because
any death on occasion robbery according to 1st
par of art 294 will result to special complex crime
of robbery.
8
been a valid self-defense. There must have been
a strong attack indicative to penetrate the
woman. There is no indication that the victim
could have committed rape because it happened
in a chapel which is a public place where there
are other people around.
Art.
13. Mitigating circumstances.
9
What is the different effect of the age of the
person as to his criminal liability?
the
elements
to
voluntary
Requisite of voluntariness
The same must be spontaneous in such a
manner that it shows the interest of the accused
to surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
either because he acknowledged his guilt or
because he wishes to save them the trouble and
expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture.
Who are person
Article 157
in
authority?
Agents?
10
of the mayor bec he is being overwhelmed by
that attacker thereby such person by direct
provision of law considered as person of authority
For instance a cigarette vendor who assist the
mayor who is being the attack by someone then
he held the mayor at that instance by operation
of law vendor is considered as person with
authority as agents, if in that instance he was
also attacked and injured there will be two counts
of direct assault. Direct assult on mayor and
vendor who by operation of law considered as
agent of person of authority.
Suppose the person to be arrested
voluntary surrender to a municipal or city
assessor. Does the latter considered as
person in authority to be a mitigating?
NO. however, he can invoked par 10 art
13 which are those analogous circumstances of
voluntary surrender because the accused
believed at that time that he being a public
officer he is the right the person. In actual
practice, when that situation happens the
accused entered a plea of guilty and invoke said
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
the prosecution would of course object for such
mitigating circumstance because a city assessor
is not considered ad person with authority but
you could argue in the court that it is similar or
analogous circumstance in voluntary surrender
provided in art 13 par 1o. because the accused
believes at that time the city assessor is the right
person as person with authority.
When two mitigating circumstances are present
under paragraph 7 are admitted , remember it is
analogous to privilege mitigating circumstance,
for instance if the accused is charged with
homicide the penalty is reclusion temporal but
during the arraignment he voluntarily enters plea
of guilty then this is one mitigating under par 7
but then he is able to invoke successfully
voluntary surrender then you will be able to
apply par 5 of art 64 which applies only to
divisible penalty wherein when there are two or
more mitigating circumstances without any
aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be
lowered to one degree, in effect if it is analogous
to privilege mitigating circumstance.
There are only three privilege mitigating
circumstances,
1. Art 68 privileged circumstances of Minority
those above 15 but below 18 who acted
11
relatives of the victim might hurt him. Is
this as valid voluntary surrender?
12
There are other of provisions of RPC as
absolutory causes, attempted felony when a
person directly committed an act but did not act
all acts of execution to produce the felony by
reason of his spontaneous desistence that could
produce the felony so there is spontaneous
desistance before he could consummating the
felony thus he voluntarily desisted himself. But
this is subject to certain qualifications; if the
offender although he has already desisted in
performing further act the initial act performed
by him already constitutes other a violation of
the law therefore he could not be liable for the
crime he attempted commit but such crime he
already committed.
A robber entered the house by destroying
the door, but before he could do further act
inside the house the owner of the house
were awaken.
He could not be charged of frustrated
robbery because the mere entrance of the house
do not constitute such crime, it where
indeterminate sentence will be applicable. If he is
arrested by owner of the house, he will be
charged to consummated act of trespass to
dwelling art 28o.
In art 20 those exemption from criminal liability
as to accessories, article 332 relative exempt
from criminal liability in crimes of theft, estafa
and malicious mischief. Also in 268, if the
offender detains the victim without legal
authority his purpose was deprive, his but within
three days he voluntary releases the victim.
While he is guilty iof slight illegal detention, He
will be entitled to one degree penalty
Basis of mitigating circumstances is lesser
degree of perversity or it result from
diminution of the voluntariness of the act .
for instance, if not all the elements of dolo are
present, there is diminution of intelligence of the
person but he will be entitled to mitigating
circumstances such as illness depriving the
offender the complete consciousness of his act.
for instance, kleptomania which is only
diminution of intelligence of a person.
Define aggravating Circumstances.
They are circumstances which are present in the
commission of the crime will increase the penalty
to be imposed upon the offender.
13
There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might
make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a
crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or
other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the
crime be deliberately augmented by causing
other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
How
do
you
distinguish
a
generic
aggravating circumstance and qualifying
aggravating circumstance?
Generic aggravating circumstance, not offset by
any mitigating circumstance, is to increase the
penalty which should be imposed upon the
accused to the maximum period, but without
exceeding the limit prescribed by law, WHILE
Qualifying aggravating circumstance is not only
to give the crime its proper and exclusive name
but also to place the author thereof in such a
situation as to deserve no other penalty than that
specially prescribed by law for said crime
QAC cannot be offset by a mitigating
circumstance while a GAC may be compensated
by a mitigating circumstance
Sec 8 or rule 11o all aggravating and all
qualifying circumstance must be specifically
alleged in the information and it will only be
appreciated by the court if proven by
competent evidence during the trial.
If qualifying circumstance was not alleged
in the information but during the Trial it
was well proven by evidence, can it be
appreciated by court as generic aggravating
circumstance?
NO. it will not be appreciated anymore
whether qualifying or aggravating because it is
not properly alleged in the information.
What
about
generic
aggravating
circumstance,
if
not
alleged
in
the
information but it was well proven during
the trial?
it will not still be appreciated by the court
for the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be specifically alleged in the information
and proven in court.
What are the different kinds of aggravating
circumstances?
1. Generic- those that can generally apply to
all crimes example : dwelling, nighttime ,
recidivism
2. Specific- those which apply only to specific
crimes such as ignominy in crimes against
chastity and cruelty and treachery which
are applicable only to crimes against
persons found under subparagraphs 3, 15,
16, 17 and 21
3. Qualifying- those that change the nature
of the crime.
4. Inherent- by the nature of the crime
committed it is always present. Example:
abuse of confidence in abuse of public
office in bribery, fraud in estafa, deceit in
simple seduction, ignominy in rape
5. Special- those which arise under special
conditions of increase the penalty of the
offense and cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstance.
Distinction
aggravating
between
generic
and
As to its effect
Generic- increases the penalty which should be
imposed upon the accuses to the maximum
period but without exceeding the limit prescribed
by law
Qualifying- gives the crime
exclusive name and places the
such a situation as to deserve
than that specially prescribed
crime
14
Generic- may be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance since it is not an ingredient of the
crime
Qualifying cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance since it is considered an ingredient
of the crime
What is the classification of par 1 in art 14?
That advantage be taken by the offender of
his public position.
It is now a special aggravating because of
amendment of art 62 par 1 sub paragraph 8
which says when an offense is committed in
abuse of public position the penalty to be
imposed to its maximum period and law says that
if it is in maximum period to be imposed it could
not be offset by any ordinary mitigating
circumstances.
Par. 6. That the crime be committed in the night
time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
commission of the offense. Whenever more than
three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense, it shall
be deemed to have been committed by a band.
When
may
nighttime
be
properly
appreciated by the court?
Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band is
aggravating
a. When it facilitated the commission of the
crime
b. When especially sought for by the
offender to insure the commission of the
crime or for purpose of impunity
c. When the offender took advantage thereof
for the purpose of impunity
Nighttime, even though not specially
sought, if it facilitated the commission of
the crime and the accused took advantage
thereof to commit it, may be considered as
an aggravating.
When
could
an
inhabited
place
be
appreciated by the court? Is it the mere fact
that the place is a inhabited place? What
must be shown to be properly appreciated
as aggravating?
It is when the commission of the crime is
in a inhabited place and such facilitated the
commission of the crime ., it must be shown that
the offender committed such crime in an
15
BY a band is aggravating in crimes against
property or against persons or in the crime
of illegal detention or treason.
By a band is inherent in briagandage which
is committed bu more than three armed
persons forming a band of robbers
Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist.A recidivist
is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of this Code.
Who is a recidivist?
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his
trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
When could recidivism be appreciated by
the court?
Only upon conviction of the second
offense because once he becomes recidivist the
penalty of that second offense can be raised to its
maximum period.
[Salva: I will ask this if I would be a bar
examiner] What are four classification of
repetition of crimes?
a.
b.
c.
d.
16
and a separate door to enter the house the killing
happened in that portion of the house where the
owner of the house live as dwelling then dwelling
can still be appreciated.
Suppose the offender had abducted the
woman inside her house and she was drove
200 meters away from the house and raped
her. Is dwelling can still be appreciated?
YES. Because the crime has been considered
commenced from the house of the victim .
proved
by
clear
and
17
incidentally the victim turn around when the
accused fire his gun at that time.
It is basic that the finding of treachery could not
be inferred by mere conclusion or guest it must
be proven like it is the crime itself. Therefore
there must be a credible witness to testify on how
the attack had begun. There is exception to this
rule, for instance, the killing of the victim is three
days old child,, there is no more need to testify,
killing of a boy of tender age is always murder.
The boy of tender age has no capacity to defend
himself from a mature attacker so there is abuse
of superior strength.
So if there is abuse of superior strength and
treachery , are both will be appreciated by
the court ? NO. abuse of superior strength shall
be absorbed by treachery.
What if treachery is alleged in the
information together with abuse of superior
strength evident premeditation, nighttime,
band, all of them are included in evidence,
what are qualifying circumstance could be
considered by the court? Are these all be
considered
as
generic
aggravating
circumstances?
Abuse of superior strength, nighttime,
band shall be absorbed by treachery, except to
evident premeditation which shall be considered
as generic aggravating circumstance. Evident
premeditation and treachery can co-exist with
each other. This ruling is good only prior to the
enactment of death penalty law.
At present, we dont have death penalty
anymore, the highest penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua , the court should choose
which is one is the correct penalty and it is
subject to the rule under article 63 which is the
rule for imposing penalty which are indivisible
meaning to say reclusion perpetua and death ,
there is application of generic aggravating
circumstance and mitigating circumstance to
correctly impose the penalty.
Article 63 apply only to indivisible penalty. art 64
applies to divisible penalty.
Distinguish Cruelty and Ignominy.
Ignominy involves moral suffering while cruelty
refers to physical suffering.
elements
of
evident
18
1. The time when the offender determined to
commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the
culprit has clung to determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him
to reflect upon the consequences of his
act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will
When evident premeditation is inherent in
the commission of crime? Crimes against
property, crimes against chastity such as adultery
and concubinage.
Par. 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be
employed.
When is there disguise to be considered as
aggravating?
Suppose a robbery was committed by a man
who dressed like a lawyer
wearing a
barong tagalog, he mixed himself in a
passenger bus , while in the middle he
announced the hold up, he took all the
personal belongings of the passengers,
what aggravating circumstance should be
appreciated?
There is intellectual trickery then it is
fraud, when a person dressed himself like a
lawyer with a purpose of committing robbery it is
intellectual trickery.
Alternative Circumstances
19
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished
These principals are always criminally liable
, exceptions: principal by inducement when
it is by force , principal by direct
participation cannot be help criminally
liable for it falls under art 12 par 5 & 6 as
an exempting circumstance for the act
there is lacking of freedom as element of
dolo.
Suppose Ms A and ms B. A went to B. telling
B his life was so sad bec of her husband for
she is a battered woman. It is always
happen to her daily. Ms B told her that kung
ganyan asawa dapat pinpatay na yan. Can
B
be
considered
as
principal
by
inducement?
NO.
What are the modes of inducement in order
the principal can be considered as principal
by inducement?
a. By giving prize, or offering reward or
promise
b. By using words of command
c. Offender must have moral dominance
What are the elements in the principal by
indispensable cooperation?
a. Participation in the criminal resolution,
that is there is either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose
and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime
b. Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act ,
without which it would not have been
accomplished
Difference between cooperation of an
accomplice and cooperation of the principal
as indispensable cooperation
Principal by Indispensable cooperation is where
cooperation must be indispensable while
Accomplice is where cooperation is dispensable.
In Principal by indispensable cooperation , the
participation in the criminal resolution that, there
is either anterior conspiracy or unit of criminal
purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged while a
between
accomplice
and
20
bodyguard but only to A only. There is no
connection between the act B and acts of
principal.
Requisites to be considered as accomplice.
If a person is part of conspiracy, accomplice
cannot be establish anymore.
Accessories
committed.
participation
after
has
been
Art. 19.
Accessories.