1

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.

Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which
would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.
Distinguish Conspiracy
commit a felony?

and

proposal

to

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons

come
to
an
agreement
concerning
the
commission of the felony and decide to commit it
while proposal to commit a felony when the
person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
What are the two concepts of conspiracy?
Explain
From the provision of art 8, you can be guided by
it to know the two concepts
1. Conspiracy as a felony
Conspiracy is punishable only on those
expressly provided by the RPC such as crimes of
treason, sedition, coupdtat , rebellion, the mere
conspiracy of these crimes are already
punishable by the RPC. There are some crimes
that were added such as conspiracy to commit
terrorism ra 9272, and conspiracy to commit
espionage CA 616.
2. Conspiracy
liability

as a

manner of

incurring

The conspirators are already liable without

committing any overt act but from the moment
when they commit overt of any of those crimes
they will be charged of the crime itself and

conspiracy will be absorbed by it. It will be

become the other concept of conspiracy as a
manner or mode of committing conspiracy.
As a rule a rule when there is two or more
person committing a crime, what are the
liabilities of those two or more persons?
As a rule they shall be held individually
liable for their individual acts the only exception
is warrants conspiracy, the criminal liability
becomes collective the act of one becomes the
act of all.
What are the two kinds of conspiracy ? How
do you distinguish the two?
1. Express
2. Implied
Suppose A and B commits arson in the
presence of X, X despite being present and
knowing the crime being committed
he
fails to report the same to the proper
authority, has x incurred any criminal
liability? What principle is involved to you
justify your answer?
As a rule, The mere passive presence of a
person in the scene of the commission of the
crime does not make him criminally liable unless
it can be shown that he acts as a co-conspirators
or accomplice, the exception to the rule is the
crime of misprision of treason [art 116], because
this a crime of omission.
Is it in the commission of two or more
person of any crime, is it always necessary
that there should be direct witness to
testify
to
prove
the
existence
of
conspiracy?]
Quantum of proof required to establish
conspiracy. Evidence of actual cooperation rather
than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act
is required. It must be shown to exist as clearly
and convincingly as the commission of the crime
itself.
When two or more person conspired to
commit murder by killing the president of
the university, they were overheard by the
policemen and arrested them. Are they
liable ?
punish

NO there is no provision of the law that

conspiracy to commit murder. Once

2
murder was committed conspiracy shall be
applied as a mode of incurring criminal liability.

carried to its complete termination following its

natural cause.

What are the three stages of execution of

felonies?

[Of course it speaks of overt acts , which is any

external act that has been done to the outside
world as compare to internal act which is only a
mental process.]

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted

felonies.

Consummated felonies as well as those

which are frustrated and attempted, are
punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; and
it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
There is no crime of frustrated theft
What is the meaning of the phrase directly
by overt acts?
The overt act or external acts that he has
performed by commencing the commission
thereof has connection to that crime he wanted
to commit,
for instance, in robbery, suppose x who
intends to rob the house destroys the door
and reenter the house but he was
prevented by the policeman who was
alarmed by the noise, while he was inside
he was apprehended, what crime does the
culprit liable to, is there attempted robbery
in this case?
No, He is only liable to consummated trespass to
dwelling. The external acts must have direct
connection with the crime intended to be
committed by the offender. His acts had no direct
connection with the crime of robbery by the use if
force upon things.

To what general classification of felonies

will these 3 stages applies?
Formal crimes are kinds of felonies
when it is only consummated e.g slander, oral
defamation, physical injuries
Material crimes are kinds of felonies
when the 3 stages of execution or atleast one of
them applies ,e.g rape
All kinds of felonies classified in the RPC, but
some of them are incapable of having the three
stages.
4 kinds of classification of felonies under
the RPC?
1. Article 9 classification according to their
gravity
When it is grave felony, light felony, less grave
felony.? What is that kind of felony in general to
conform to the provisions of art 9?
Grave felony are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this
code
Afflictive penalties Reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification, perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, prision mayor
Less grave speak of those in the commission
thereof penalize by correccional felony
Correctional penalties- prision correccional,
arresto mayor, suspension, destierro
Light felony- are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor

Reyes definition of overt act:

What are
penalties?

three

kinds

of

correccional

An overt act is some physical activity or deed

indicating to commit a particular crime, more
than a mere planning or preparation, which if

What do you understand to correccional

penalties as to its duaration?

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.

Can the rpc provisions applies also to

stages of execution crimes punished by
special law?
it was held that the attempted or the frustrated
stage of the execution of an offense penalized by
special law is not punishable, unless the special
law provides penalty therefore.
Cite specific example of special law when
theres a mere attempt is punishable
provided by its provisions?
The violation of dangerous drugs act.
According to its sec 26 the mere attempt to
import, production, etc.
Article 64 of RPC prescribing the rules for
graduation of penalties contraining 3
periodswhen mitigating and/or aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of
the crime was held inapplicable to offenses
penalized by special laws.
How many classifications of circumstances
affecting criminal liability of an offender?
Justifying, exempting, mitigating, aggravating,
alternative.
Based on art 15, how can
alternative circumstances?

you

define

Alternative circumstances are those which

must be taken into consideration as aggravating
or mitigating according to the nature and effects
of the crime and the other conditions attending
its commission.
If x kills his mother in law, is relationship
aggravating or mitigating? It will be
aggravating
Suppose x was arrested, he was found to be
intoxicated with drugs, he was able to
prove that taking drugs was not intentional
nor habitua,is it alternative circumstance?
NO. That intoxication under art 15 refers
only to intoxication due to alcoholic drinks only.
Bec under section 25 of dangerous drugs act , the
moment the offender commits any felony and he
was found to be under influence of drugs such
will be considered as special qualifying
aggravating circumstances.
In crimes against property, is relationship
to be considered as aggravating or
mitigating?

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

transgressed the law and is free from both

criminal and civil liability.
How
do
you
circumstances?

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.

The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.

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

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or

rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters,
or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees
and those consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, provided that the first and second
requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further
requisite, in case the revocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making defense
had no part therein.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order

issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

[2nd cousin falls under defense of stranger]

What are the complete elements of valid
defense of relatives?
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it
c. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked , the one making the
defense had no part therein
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first
circumstance of this Art. are present and that the
person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
What are the requisites of defense of
stranger?
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent it or repel it
c. The person defending be not induces by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive
Who are deemed strangers?
Any person not included in the enumeration of
relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of article 11.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are
present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than
that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty

or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

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.

The self-defense includes defense of right of a

person and defense of a property provided all the
requisites elements are present;

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

that which could harm the body or took the life of

the person defending himself. The distance of x
and y is 20 meters and y is only holding a bolo
which cannot hurt x based on the distance they
are apart unlike if he is holding a gun which he
can use to shoot x even they are 2o meters away
to each other. There must be actual co-danger in
the unlawful aggression in which of immediate
kind or imminent kind ; the conduct must be
indicative of real intent to harm, it must be
sufficiently strong in order to cost harm or make
someone suffer.
If there was unlawful aggression and the
reasonable means was not employed, thus
there was an incomplete justifying circumstance,
that will necessitate a one penalty degree lower.
Art 69 will apply which contains two mitigating
circumstances,
incomplete
justifying
circumstance
or
incomplete
exempting
circumstance. This is When not all the requisites
to exempt or to justify the act are not present
provided that majority of those requisites are
present. One or two degree lower depending on
the requisite . Dont forget art 69 in relation to to
justifying and exempting.
Suppose that only Unlawful aggression is
present, the two requisites are absent. will
the offender become criminally liable or will
it be reduction of one degree lower of
penalty?
One of the Supreme court decision, even
though there is only one requisite present, the
offender is entitle to one degree lower , this must
be requisite of Unlawful aggression. Eto lang
pede. It is the paramount requisite of justifying
circumstance.
X Y and Z staged a hold up in a pawnshop. X
and y armed by caliber pistols. Z was not
armed. They took all the jewelry take as
well the cash money. When they are about
to escape. There were two policemen in
their patrol car responded in the incident of
robbery so when the robbers are about to
escape the policemen shouted surrender or
we will shoot at you. The robbers fired at
the policemen. The policemen back fired.
Unfortunatelty , they killed 2 robbers and
one personnel of the pawnshop by strayed
bullets.
Policemen
were
charged
of
homicide. What are the proper defenses of
the policemen can invoke?

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.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act

with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.

Exempting circumstance 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.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act

required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause

Basis: based on the complete absence of

intelligence, freedom of action, or intent or
on the absence of negligence on the part of
the accussed.

Enumerate the exempting circumstances.

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability.

the following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he
shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under fifteen years of age.
3. A person over fifteen years of age and under
18,unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of Art.
80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph,
shall commit him to the care and custody of his
family who shall be charged with his surveillance
and education otherwise, he shall be committed
to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said Art. 80.
[if he is 15yrs and above but under 18yrs , and he
acted with discernment, he shall be criminally
liable but subject to mitigating circumstance of
minority]

5. Any person who act under the compulsion of

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

In paragraph of 5 & 6, what is the basis for

their exemptions?
One of the element of DOLO is lacking.
FREEDOM. The legal maxim under these
paragraphs is : the Act done by them is not their
act , the act done by me against my will is not my
act.
In par no 4, what is the basis of its
exemption?
Lack of Intent or fault. The offender under
this paragraph is not exempt from civil liability.
In justifying circumstances, there is no both
criminally and civilly liability except the act
of necessity under par 4 , under exempting
circumstances if there is also a lack of civil
liability what is the nature of the defense
under par art 12 par 4, would not that be
analogous to the art 11 par 4 where there is
no both civil and criminally liability, ? yes .
by analogous.
Par 4 and 7: both free from civil and criminal
liability
Par 1 2 3 5 6: free from criminal but not from
civil liability.
Suppose there is a pretty lady , she had a
lover, very makulit , one evening that girl
went to the chapel to pray , the suitor of
her followed her and sat beside her, he also
put his hands on over her skirt slowly
caressing her thigh . She was able to get
her small knife and stab him almost killed
him Girl was charged of frustrated
homicide. Her defense of was defense of
honor, is it valid?
NO. there is no valid self-defense.NO
reasonable necessity.
It is only an act of
lasciviousness. If it could be rape, it could have

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.

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so

powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
[explain passion and obfuscation]

How do you define mitigating circumstance?

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered

himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before
the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution;
[favorite bar question:]

Mitigating circumstances are those which,

if present in the commission of the crime, do not
entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but
serve only to reduce the penalty.

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or

otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with his fellow beings.

Basis: it is based on the diminution of either

freedom of action, intelligence, or intent or on the
lesser perversity of the offender.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish

the exercise of the will power of the offender
without
however
depriving
him
of
the
consciousness of his acts.

Pero kung ang ginawa ng girl ay sinaksak ung

kamay and not the abdomen it could have been
justify.

Art.
13. Mitigating circumstances.

The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age
or over seventy years. In the case of the minor,
he shall be proceeded against in accordance with
the provisions of Art. 80.
[ these must be qualified, coz a person below 18
is exempt from criminal liability when he acted
without discernment, so there is no ordinary
mitigating when you are applying this par]
3. That the offender had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed.

10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a

similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned
How will you apply par 1o?
This paragraph authorizes the court to
consider in favor of the accused any other
circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to
those mentioned in par 1 to 9 of art 13.
X robbed the property of y but he returns
the property unlawfully taken from the
victim? Is there mitigating circumstance?
Yes. IT is analogous to voluntary
surrendered. Similar in case of public official,
when he returns the money taken .

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the

part of the offended party immediately preceded
the act.

If it is mitigating, there is diminution of the

elements of culpa. For instance, when a
person is less than insane, he is only
entitled the mitigating circumstance.

5. That the act was committed in the immediate

vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.

Is there any exemptions when the person is

insane, yes. When he acted during lucid interval.

[Grave offense in this paragraph refers not

only to acts punishable by law but also to
acts offensive to the feelings of the person
as SC held]

Suppose an imbecile acted during lucid

interval, is he entitled?
NO. An embecile is always an embecile
there is no lucid interval.
When is a person an embecile? He has also an
intelligence but only comparable to child who is
2 to 7 yrs old.

9
What is the different effect of the age of the
person as to his criminal liability?

2nd surrendered upon a person in authority or

agents.

Exempt from criminal liability, 15 yrs of age and

below for the law says so that provides
presumption as to complete deprivation of
intelligence as to age.

3rd surrender must be voluntary

Age of conditional criminal liability--Above 15yrs

of age and below 18 yrs of age, if he acted with
discernment he will be criminal liable. But he will
be entitled to privilege mitigating circumstance
under article 68 a death penalty or life
imprisonment cannot be imposed upon a minor, it
will be one degree lower only
If for instance the offender is a minor for
violating illegal recruitment law where the
penalty is life imprisonment, can he invoke
the privilege mitigating circumstance ?
NO. because there is no one degree lower
than life imprisonment [THERE IS NONE] , it is
only in reclusion perpetua for crimes committed
under RPC or even if it is violation of special law
but it borrowed its penalty from RPC where that
one degree lower will apply , but if the penalty is
plain life imprisonment even he was a minor that
is the case of people vs ondo where a 17 yrs old
girl who was convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment, there is no one degree lower than
the life imprisonment .
But not in the case of dangerous drugs act
section 98 with respect of minor offender,
acted with discernment the penalty of life
imprisonment or death shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua. It was the provision of sec
98 that reduced to reclusion perpetua , Because
when the law reduced the penalty to reclusion
perpetua and he was a minor at the time of
conviction he is entitled by way of applying art 10
of RPC. Those application of the provision of the
code. Art 68 will be apply to minor so he shall be
entitled to reduce to reclusion temporal as a
supplementary provision to such special law.
Paragraph 7 is the only par which contains two
distict
mitigating
circumstance.
voluntary
surrender & voluntary confesses his guilt in open
court.
What are
surrender?

the

elements

to

voluntary

1st. the accused must not been actually arrested,

if warrant was already issued but not yet served
to the offender

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?

Person in Authority is one directly vested with

jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the
power to govern and execute laws whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission.
Agent of a person in authority is a person, who,
by direct provision of the law, or by election or by
appointment by competent authority is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property and
any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority.
What is the reason why chief of police is not
considered a agent but person in authority?
SC held that chief of police are person with
authority to distinguish him as to other officers.
Person in authority are those directly vested by
jurisdiction meaning the power to administer
justice. E.g justices of court, supreme courts,
mayors, governors, brgy chairman, member of
lupong tagapagkasundo, provided within their
respective jurisdiction only.
But outside their
jurisdiction, they are ordinary juan dela cruz.
Agent of person in authority are constituted
in three ways either by
a. by direct provision of law,
b. by appointment by competent authority by
election who are charged by maintenance of
public order or the protection of individuals . and
c. those running in aid of person of authority
When the mayor while in performance of his duty,
somebody attack him thereby making such
culprit liable of direct assault if somebody in aid

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

with discernment they are criminally liable

but entitled with one degree lower in
penalty, those above 15 but below 18 who
commits a felony who did not acted with
discernment he is exempt from criminal
liability. The age of above 15 but below 18
is called AGE OF CONDITIONAL LIABILITY.
Those who is exactly 15yrs old at the
commission of the crime he is TOTALLY
exempt from criminal liability. Regardless
of the intelligence of the child, the laws
must be applied . even if the child has
intelligence comparable to college holder,
laws still must be applied.
2. Art 69 penalty to be imposed when the
crime committed is not wholly excusable
a penalty lower by one or two degrees
than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed , provided that the majority of
such conditions be present.
3. Art 64 Rules for the application of
penalties which contain three periods
What is the Test of voluntariness?
It is the spontaneous test of the surrender
of the accused indicating that he admits the guilt
in the commission of the crime or that he wants
to relieve the government or the state or the
authorities from the expenses or inconvenience
that will be incurred for his capture or searching
for the acussed for his capture.. it must be
spontaneous.
The accused committed homicide. He did
not run away from the place. He was
surrounded by the police. He was arrested
.It is not voluntary surrender. There must be
external act showing his spontaneous intention
to surrender.
Suppose the murderer, immediately flee
form the scene of the crime, the crime
committed in tondo manila, he fled to
calamba, he surrendered in the calamba, is
that a voluntary surrender. ?
Yes. The law did not require that the
surrender must be done within the same
jurisdiction where the crime was committed. As
long as it
has all requisites of voluntary
surrender.
A person who has committed homicide. He
went to brgy captain of the place . he ask
him to hide him for he was scared that the

11
relatives of the victim might hurt him. Is
this as valid voluntary surrender?

He stab such otherman. Can he invoke passion

and obfuscation? YEs

NO. SC held when the offender goes to

person in authority to seek protection could not
be considered as voluntary surrender for it lacks
the indication of admitting the commission of the
crime.

Suppose a wife was surprised in a night

club that his husband was in torrid kissing
with another woman. Can passion and
obfuscation be invoked?YES,

Requisites of Plea of guilty

1. That the offender spontaneously
confessed his guilt
2. Confession was made in open court
that is before a competent court
3. Made prior to the presentation of the
evidence of the prosecution
Plea of guilty can be valid a mitigating
circumstances when it was made before the
competent of court before the introduction
of evidence by the prosecution. It should be
with a competent court. A competent court
means that the court can validly tries the case
and it is within its jurisdiction. The crime
committed should be within its jurisdiction to try
the case.
Physical defect as mitigating circumstance.
Physical defect must have connection with
the crime committed.
For instance, an accused who is charged of
estafa. Can he invoke such mitigating
circumstance?
NO. it is not connected to the crime of
estafa but if it is a crime of against persons it
could have been appreciated by the court.
Passion and Obfuscation
It must be considered as mitigating only when the
same arose from lawful sentiments.
Supposed a married man aside from his
legal wife he also maintains a mistress. One
evening he was surprised by mistress who
is engaged torrid kissing to other man. He
stab the other man to death. He is now
charged with homicide. Can he invoke
passion and obfuscation as mitigating
circumstances?
NO. it must be come from lawful sentiments .
Suppose that married man was surprised by his
wife romantically embracing with another man.

Suppose a boyfriend was surprised that his

girlfriend was in torrid kissing with another
man. Can passion and obfuscation be
invoked?
NO but paragraph 10 of art 13 can be applied.
Analogous mitigating circumstance can be
applied.
Suppose Mary is a single woman and she
had a live in partner Mario they have been
living together as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage for 7 yrs. One
evening he arrived home telling Mary that
he will leave her bec he found another
woman. But Mary grabbed a kitchen knife
and stab Mario to death. If charged of crime
of homicide, can he invoke passion and
obfuscation?
Yes. Analogous mitigating circumstance can be
applied.
Absolutory causes those which a person
who committed a crime are exempted from
criminal liability because of public policy.
E.g Instigation; When the instigator is a public
officer who cause a innocent person to commit
such crime it is instigation and can invoke
absolutory cause as a matter of defense but if the
person who instigated is a private individual is
not a absolutory cause and such person will be a
principal by inducement.
Instigation in distinction with Entrapment .
Entrapment is a lawful means used by law
enforcement agency to arrest a person who has
committed a crime in flagrante. In case of bribery
, it is difficult to catch public officer who accept a
bribe from person who offered the bribe the nbi
enforced entrapment to arrrest while accepting
the bribe , there is only consummated bribery. No
frustrated no attempted ,it is crime of corruption
of public official make or offer a bribe where two
stages is applicable it is consummated or
attempted, if not accepted by public official the
latter will not be liable while the person offering
will be liable of for attempted corruption of public
official .

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.

What its Basis: based on the greater perversity

of the offender manifested in the commission of
the felony
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.

The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his
public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or
with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of
the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
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 offens . 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.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
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.
10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration
of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel
or
international
damage
thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence
premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength,
or means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia).

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

its proper and

author thereof in
no other penalty
by law for said

As to whether it can be offset by a mitigating

circumstances,

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

inhabited place and it facilitated the commission

of the crime.

There is x he decides to kill Y his enemy. He

arrived in the place in the 7:00 evening the
place where the intended victim resides .
the place was fully illuminated by the light
of the other houses. He could not just enter
the house because he would be notice by
the neighborhood. He waited until the place
was covered by darkness. He went to the
second floor of the place he saw a room
which are well lighted coz the victim is
reading newspaper , right there in he shot
the victim who died afterwards. Could
nighttime be appreciated by the court? Yes.
it is purposely sought by the offender in the
commission of the crime
What are three alternative circumstances
wherein the nighttime could be justify or
be appreciated by the court?
1. When it is purposely sought by the offender in
the commission of the crime
2. Where it facilitate the commission of the crime
3. when nighttime provides impunity to prevent
detection in the commission of the crime
Different test of nighttime/nocturnity.
a. Objective test b. Subjective test
What do you understand by band? When is
there a band?
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.
A B C and D .they attacked a man. All of
them were holding big rocks, ginamit nila to
attack the man. Can band be appreciated?
What do you understand by the word armed
men ?
YES.The law did not specify what weapon
should be used in the commission of the crime.
Therefore, it could be any instrument that could
harm the life or limb of a person. Thus, in this
case, such rocks can harm a person therefore
band can be appreciated by the court.

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.

Recidivism (par 9 Art 14)

Reitiracion (par 10 art 14)
Habitual delinquency (art 62 par 5)
Quasi rescidivism art 160 (Art 160)

Distinguish quasi-recidivism and recidivism

Quasi-recidivism any person who shall commit a
felony after having convicted by final judgment
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving the same, shall be punished by the
maximum period of penalty prescribed by law for
the new felony. WHILE recidivism is any person
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
the RPC.
When shall a person be considered s person
suffering from aggravating circumstance of
habituality/ reitiracion?
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Distinguish reitiracion and recidivism.

In Reiteracion, it is necessary that the offender
shall have served out his sentence for the first
offense, while in recidivism, it is enough that a
final judgment has been rendered in the first
offense.
In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent
offenses must not be embraced in the same title
of the code, while recidivism requires that the
offenses be included in the same title of the code
Reiteracion is not always an aggravating
circumstance while recidivism is always to be
taken into consideration by the court in fixing the
penalty to be imposed upon the accused
Most important distinction: in recidivism, it
is not required that the convict has finished
his sentence, but in reitiracion, the service
of sentence must have been fully served
before conviction. Recidivism is mandatorily
required to be always appreciated by the
court whenever it is proven while reitiracion
is not mandatorily but only discretionary on
the part of the court.
Par 3. That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
if the latter has not given provocation.
What do you understand by dwelling as
aggravating circumstance? what are the
requirements before dwelling can be
appreciated by the court?
Sufficient provocation should not be given
by the offended party to make dwelling be
appreciated by the court. Even if there is
provocation on the part of the offended party,
that dwelling could not be aggravating
circumstance away bec the law says that , such
sufficient provocation must be immediate in the
commission of the crime.
What is dwelling? It is the place which is a
structure, or building where dweller use it
exclusively for comfort and rest.
However, if the house is also a store where there
is only one entrance to enter the house and store
that could not be considered as dwelling under
this circumstance because it is not for exclusively
use for rest and comfort. However, when there is
a separate entrance or door to enter the store

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 .

Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender

of his public position.
Suppose a policeman, he is in his uniform,
armed with his firearm, when he reached
the place he saw his enemy he confronted
him, his enemy run to his house, he shoots
the man. He was charged with homicide.
Can par 1 of art 14 be appreciated by the
court?
NO. The offender acted in his personal
capacity. He could kill his enemy whether he is a
policeman or not. Par 1 could not be appreciated.
What is the test in order to determine who
is offender a public officer has taken
advantage of his public position?
The public officer must use the influence,
prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives
hime as the means by which he realizes his
purose.
How do you define treachery?
Par. 16. That the act be committed with
treachery (alevosia).
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.
Two requisites which must always concur
before treachery can be appreciated?
a. That at the time of the attack the victim
was not in a position to defend himself
b. That the offender consciously adopted the
particular means method or form of attack
employed by him

X he wanted to rob a particular victim, one

evening he followed the victim then upon
behind of the victim he announced the hold
up, but the victim resisted, he kills the
victim and took the things of the victim. Is
treachery must be appreciated?
NO. it is a crime against property therefore
treachery could not be appreciated . Killing is only
incidental. It is only crimes against person where
treachery could exist.
Supposed somebody intending to rape the
victim , a woman, then suddenly and
unexpectedly he attacked the woman from
behind and able to penetrate the woman.
Could treachery be appreciated? Yes. Rape is
a crime against persons.
How should be treachery proven?
Treachery must be
convincing evidence.

proved

by

clear

and

Suppose, x charged of murder, there is one

witness presenting, apparently he is the
only witness of crime, he testified in court
that he heard the gunfire shot and look at
the direction of he saw a man holding a gun
looking down to a person who is dead
already .he is arrested by the police. The
medico legal officer reported that the sole
gunshot wound in the back of the head
cause the death of the victim. The slug was
recovered in the skull. It was subject to
expert examination. It was established that
the two slug came from the same gun that
was recovered from the crime. With that as
evidence can the court validly convict him
of murder? Is the evidence in this case
enough to prove that there was treachery?
No. there is no murder in this case. There
is no proof to establish the first requisite that the
mode of attack was consciously and deliberately
adopted. So If there is no eyewitness on how the
attack begun can the court established the
manner of attack happened and is there be
correct finding how the attack was done by court?
Sc held there should be a witness to testify to
establish whether or not the mode of attack was
deliberately or consciously adopted. If there is
none then the crime was only homicide. The
gunshot wound from the back of the head does
not necessarily imply there is treachery. There
could be initial fighting between the accused 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.

Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to moral

order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime.
Cruelty it is essential that the wrong done was
intended to prolong the suffering of the victim
To what classification of felony can cruelty be
applied? Crimes against person
X robbed the house of Y, a mother with a
3yrs old boy ,x killed both mother and boy
then x threw the boy to the window. Can
cruelty be appreciated insofar as the act of
throwing the boy to the window? NO. A dead
man suffers no further physical suffering .
A&B had a fight. Both of them armed with
bolos. X was hit fatally injured. And still
casting for his breadth, Y approached X and
opened the abdomen and pour in vinegar. IS
there cruelty there?
If there is cruelty, then it qualifies the
crime into a murder. While the victim was still
breathing, Y pour in vinegar so cruelty sets in.
Crime of homicide elevated into a murder. This is
how cruelty becomes a qualifying aggravating .
NOTE: Suppose, the victim was already dead
when he opened the abdomen and pour in
the vinegar, and cut the finger one by one,.
Art 248 the crime was murder, the last
qualifying of murder is raging and scoping
the corpse of the victim. If those acts would
constitute cruelty was done when the victim was
already dead, it can still be convert into murder
as per to last qualifying circumstance under art
248
Ignominy
Any person who committed rape against a
person with the presence of a husband,
relatives, make the crime a qualified rape
with the penalty of death or reclusion
perpetua.
When the rape was committed in dog style ,
there
is
attendant
of
aggravating
circumstance of ignominy.
PAR 13. That the act be committed with evidence
premeditation.
What
are
3
premeditation?

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

commit a crime or a means to suffocate

any remorse.
Intoxication must be proved by satisfactory
evidence, in absence of proof to the
contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual
or unintentional.
Habitual
drunkard
is
one
given
to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating
drinks.
Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is
aggravating when subsequent to the plan
to commit the crime
Suppose a person intentionally intoxicating
himself through the use of marijuana, then
he killed a person.
It will not be considered as any
circumstance.
intoxication
refers
only
to
intoxicating drinks such as liquor or wines. Under
dangerous drug, it will be considered as special
qualifying aggravating circumstances.
Who are the persons criminally liable for felonies?
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable.

The following are criminally liable for grave and

less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light
felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices

These are those which must be taken into

consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime
and
the
other
conditions
attending
its
commission.

Why is it in light felonies the accessories

are not punishable? These causes which has
minor effects in the society

In the case of intoxication,when it could be

appreciated as aggravating circumstances?
Mitigating circumstance? What must be
establish?

IN light felonies, these are punishable only on

stages of consummated stage except when the
crimes are against person and property.

a. Mitigating- if the intoxication is not

habitual or if the intoxication is not
subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
b. Aggravating- if intoxication is habitual or if
it is intentional. it is intentional when the
offender drinks liquor fully knowing its
effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to

Who are these principals?

Art. 17. Principals.

The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution
of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to
commit it;

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

accomplice cooperated in the execution of the

offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with
the intention of supplying material or moral aid in
the execution of the crime in an efficacious way.
Distinguish
principal

between

accomplice

and

An accomplice is one who does not take a direct

part in the commission of the act, who does not
force or induce others to commit it, or who does
not cooperate in the commission of the crime by
another act without which it would not have need
accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of
the act by previous or simultaneous actions.
There is a rule when a person takes part of the
commission of the crime the criminal liability of
each offender will be based on his individual act
but once there is conspiracy it will be act of one
act of all. When is there quasi-collective criminal
liability? When there is principals and there is
accomplices. Their liability is different from each
other.
Elements that will make the offender as an
accomplice
a. There is knowing the criminal design of
the principal , he concurs with the latter in
his purpose
b. He cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts
with the intention of supplying material or
moral aid in the execution of the crime in
an efficacious way
c. There be a relation between the acts done
by the principal and those attributed to
the person charged as accomplice
Accessories before the fact : other term for
Accomplice
X And Y they agreed and decided to kill A
their common enemy who lives in another
brgy. A is always armed with gun. X and Y
only has balisong. They approached B told
him that they decided to kill A and let them
borrow his gun. B agreed for he wanted A to
be killed likewise. X &Y went to the place of
A who is not there. ithe bodyguard was left
there, they inquire from him but he
answered arrogantly. X killed D. D died. Is B
liable as principal or an accomplice?
B will not be liable as either as principal or
accomplice. B did not agreed upon to kill the

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.

Accessories are those who, having knowledge of

the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the
crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3.

By harboring, concealing, or assisting in

the escape of the principals of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of
his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.

What is Corpus delicti or the body of the

crime?
it means that a crime has been committed; that a
crime has actually been perpetrated. It means
actual commission by someone of a particular
crime charged.
Are there how many kinds of accessories in
par 3? 2 kinds
1. Public officers who harbor, conceal, or
assist in the escape of the principal of any
crime with abuse of his public functions
2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or
assist in the escape of the author of the
crime who is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder or attempts against life of the
president, or who is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime
How one become an accessory under par 3?
Under par 3, he could not be liable for under par
3 for he is a private individual but he can be held
liable under special law which is obstruction of
justice.