Crim Premidterms Book 1 PDF

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Introduction
What youve learned about generality, prospectivity they apply also in most jurisdictions. They
are good universally.
However there are principles that apply strictly to the RPC, such as conspiracy, band (as a way
of incurring criminal liability), our concept of principal (3 kinds of principals). Those concepts are
unique to RPC. They cannot, as a general rule, apply to other penal laws. That also is true as to the
stages of the crime, and also the different circumstances, the JEMAA justifying, exempting,
mitigating, aggravating and alternative.
Ne bis in idem
Ne bis in idem is similar to Double Jeopardy. It is an almost universal principle in criminal law
that means if you are already punished for the same act, you cannot be punished again.
Same act, same offense. But we should use the word offense, not act, because of the Lali
doctrine. That case involving trafficked women from Zamboanga to Malaysia. The SC convicted them
not only for trafficking but also for illegal recruitment. So what is the significance of that ruling? If
the same act of recruiting the victims to work or to exploit them, are punished by more than one
law, there could be as many prosecutions and convictions. So one act can give rise to several
offenses. And there can be prosecutions and convictions under those several offenses. Thats the
People vs. Lali case, I suppose its a 2011 case.
So is that ne bis in idem, is that double jeopardy? No, its not. Double jeopardy refers to the
same offense, it does not refer to the same act. So for example, you bring an unlicensed firearm
today (May 28, 2013), there will be 2 offenses illegal possession and Comelec gun ban. Is that
double jeopardy? No.
Two schools of thought of penology
Just to refresh your memory, there are 2 schools of thought classical and positivist.
Two schools of thought or theories of penology:
1. Classical or juristic theory basis of criminal responsibility is the existence of the offenders
free will and the penalty for his criminal act is by way of retribution.
2. Positivist or realistic theory basis of criminal liability is the sum of social and economic
phenomena to which the actor was exposed, hence the penalty is imposed for preventive
or corrective purposes.
*texts inside boxes are taken from the powerpoint slides
First, the basis for the prosecution and punishment is by way of retribution. Second, is imposed
to prevent or correct that conduct of the offender.
2
Cardinal principles of Criminal Law : (Generality, Territoriality and Prospectivity)

1.
1
2
GENERALITY - penal laws apply to all persons who commit crimes within the territory.
Taken from Batch 2013-2014 transcript.

Start of discussion for 2015-2016.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla
PRE-MID BOOK 1
General Rule: Regardless of race or citizenship, everyone is bound by the law of the
state.
Example: Two tourists are fighting within our jurisdiction. If one files a case
against the other, the case will be entitled People of the Philippines vs. John
Snow, notwithstanding that the parties involved are not Filipinos.
Exceptions:
a.
Treaties
b.
General Principles of International Law
c.
Diplomatic Agreement
Except: Consuls
2.
TERRITORIALITY - penal laws apply to all offenses committed within Philippine territory.
General Rule: Philippine adopts the archipelagic doctrine and absolute principle.
An Archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around,
between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state, subject
to its exclusive sovereignty.
Exceptions:
a)
ARTICLE 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise
of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Memory Aid (S F ION)
S - Ship or Airship
Registration of the ship is controlling, not ownership.
F - Forge or Counterfeit
I - Introduction of forge coin or currency note
PRE-MID BOOK 1
O - Public Officers
N - National Security
b) PIRACY as a crime against Humanity
People vs. Tulin: Although the crime of piracy was committed in Singapore, the
Philippine laws were applied because piracy has been declared by the United
Nations as a crime against humanity, which can be prosecuted anywhere.
Philippine laws governing Piracy:
a. PD 532: Committed within the Philippines
b. Article 122 and 123 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659: Committed on High
Seas or Philippine Waters
c)
TRANSNATIONALITY OF CRIME
We do not have this under the RPC; because at the enactment of the code
transportation of offenders was not easy and communication to other state was not
easy.
But for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws there are crimes declared as
transnational crimes
o
Ex. RA 9775: Child Pornography Law; RA 10364: Amended Human Trafficking

Law
Transnational crimes means that once the crime:

1.
is committed either by a Filipino or
2.
that the victim is a Filipino or
3.
that a Filipino is affected by a crime
Here Filipino laws may be applied wherever the crime is committed. So that if the
country where the offender is located is a signatory of a treaty involving the
transnational crime then that country has the duty to surrender the accused to the
Philippines.
o
More specifically: trafficking of persons, trafficking of wildlife, drug trafficking,

fire-arm trafficking and any other thing that involves trafficking they are all
covered by the treaty with the UN office of drugs and crime or Palermo
Convention;
In the Palermo Convention, all states who signed in the said treaty must
surrender the offender to the country where a national is affected by the
crime.
d) INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION
We adhere to this because we are members to the international criminal court (ICC)
In this court, it can try certain cases or crimes. When a country is a member of the court
and a crime falls within the jurisdiction of such court is committed by a national or
within the territory of the country. The ICC may assume jurisdiction over the case. The
Phil may not assume the case but the court in Hague the ICC may assume jurisdiction.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
e) UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
Universal jurisdiction, this is another thing because there are only specific crimes under
international criminal law that are defined as crimes over which states may exercise
jurisdiction. Examples are piracy and torture.
3.
If we caught some of the pirates we could try them under our Philippine laws, not only
because of Art 2 but also because Piracy is a crime over which states may exercise
domestic jurisdiction, under the Universal Jurisdiction Principle.
In international criminal law, piracy falls under universal jurisdiction. This means that
states have the obligation to prosecute the case using their domestic laws and before
their domestic courts.
PROSPECTIVITY - penal laws do not have retroactive effect unless the provisions are favorable to
the accused who is not a habitual offender, except when the law provides against such
retroactive effect.
EXCEPTION TO PROPECTIVITY:
criminal law can have retroactive effect if:

o
FAVORABLE TO AN ACCUSED and
Is NOT a HABITUAL DELINQUENT
ARTICLE 3: Definitions:
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies are committed either by DOLO (not malice but mens rea or criminal intent) or by CULPA
(negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill)
When there is neither intent nor culpa then there is no crime.
Example: a guy driving a truck carefully in his lane, no negligence and no violation of any law,
then there was another vehicle that was driving recklessly who crossed the island and flew over
the island and hit the truck. Unfortunately another vehicle, which sustained the injury. The truck
driver was arrested. Was he committing a crime?
o
No. going back to article 3. You can commit a crime either by dolo or culpa. In this case,
there was no criminal intent on the part of the truck driver. As to culpa, the truck driver
cannot be said to be lacking in foresight by mere reason that he could not anticipate
that somehow an opposing vehicle would fly over an island. No culpa and no dolo. Ergo
there is no felony.
In connection with Crim Pro, Rule 133 provides that a person may only be arrested
when a person is committing a crime in your presence or personal knowledge that one
is committing a crime. In this case, the truck driver was not committing any crime
therefore his arrest was unlawful.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
TWO KINDS OF CRIMINAL INTENT:

1.
General Intent
2.
Presumed in intentional felonies
Specific Intent
Intent is an element in the crime
Must be proved because it is an element of the crime. Failure to prove so may

mean that another crime is committed.
o
Intent to gain in theft and robbery; intent to gain here is an element.
Ex. Juan forced or intimidated Pedro to give the cellphone. We did

not say to whom it belongs or that the taking is with intent to
gain. We cannot have robbery. We can have Grave Coercion,
which is another crime.
Intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated murder or homicide

or infanticide or parricide. Without such intent we cannot have attempted
or frustrated. We can have physical injuries or slander by deed or
mutilation (here in mutilation there is an intent to harm but not to kill)
MALUM IN SE vis--vis MALUM PROHIBITUM
Crimes maybe be inherently immoral in that sense some are Mala in se
If NOT inherently immoral but PROHIBITED nonetheless then the crime is Malum Prohibitum
o
Not all crimes punished under SPECIAL LAWS are MALUM PROHIBITUM
o
Ex. illegal possession of firearms.
Ex. Photo and Video Voyeurism SPL but mala in se.
GR: Good Faith is a defense in crimes that are mala in se and not a defense in crimes that are
mala prohibita.
o
EXC: in illegal possession of firearms or illegal administration of dangerous drugs, Good

Faith is a defense. Because the law here provides that possession must be with FULL
KNOWLEDGE.
MOTIVE and INTENT
MOTIVE the reason or compelling force why the accused committed the acts complained of;
not an element of a crime
CRIMINAL INTENT the purpose of the accused for adopting the particular means to achieve his
objective; may be an element of a crime
Can the crime of attempted homicide be committed through reckless imprudence?

o
No, because intent to kill is an element of attempted/frustrated

homicide/parricide/infanticide
Can the crime of theft be committed through reckless imprudence?

o
PRE-MID BOOK 1
No, because of the specific criminal intent of intent to gain
Can malversation be committed through reckless imprudence?

o
Yes. For example, if public funds are lost because you allowed somebody to have access
over the public funds.
DISCERNMENT
RA 9344 Juvenile Justice Act
We can only hold a minor criminally liable if he is OVER 15 and BELOW 18 and he acts with
discernment. Without the discernment, he will have no criminal liability at all.
Remember that we need that condition of discernment since it is an element in any crime
committed by a minor.
If discernment is important in holding a minor criminally liable, how is it different from culpa or
negligence? For example, can a minor who is over 15 be held liable for homicide through
reckless imprudence?
o
Yes, a minor could be held liable for a culpable felony because discernment is not the
same as imprudence. Minors who could be acting with discernment may be held liable
for culpable felonies.
DISCERNMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM IMPRUDENCE
DISCERNMENT- does not refer to the manner of committing the crime but rather the knowledge
of the consequences of an act. It is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
IMPRUDENCE refers to the manner of committing the felony
For example, a minor knowing that he is not allowed to drive a car because he does not have a
license and drives a car nonetheless, he is acting with discernment but you could not yet say that
he was being reckless.
Remember that felonies can be committed through intent or culpa. If knowing that he is not
authorized to drive, he intentionally bumped his enemy then we have a minor who acted with
discernment and committed an intentional felony. But if that minor knew that he is not
authorized to drive and because he is not very skilled in driving, he kills somebody then we have
a minor who is acting with discernment but who is liable for imprudence.
A minor acting without discernment will not incur any criminal liability whether it is intentional or
culpable.
HOMICIDE
Homicide could actually be committed through reckless imprudence because homicide refers to
the killing of a person either intentionally or by culpa.
There couldnt be murder through reckless imprudence because murder is always intentional.
If the homicide is consummated, intent to kill need not be proved because it is already
presumed. The fact of death of the victim already shows that there was intent to kill.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
It only becomes an element in an attempted or frustrated stage. We cannot have attempted or

frustrated murder, parricide, infanticide, homicide because that requires the element of intent to
kill.
Imprudence resulting in homicide and the injuries could be serious less serious slight physical injuries
committed by reckless imprudence or simple imprudence. We can have that why because the only time
that you cannot a crime of attempted or frustrated stage is when it is committed through reckless
imprudence is because of the element of intent to kill which should be proved because it is an element of
the crime.
So how do we prove intent? For example intent to kill may be proven by the nature of the wounds, the
location and the number of the wounds and the weapon used. If its a very slight wound for example it
may negate intent to kill. But if the wound is fatal it could show intent to kill. According to People vs De
Lima if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act intent to kill is already presumed. No need to prove
on the part of the prosecution. So in consummated stage of the crime it is already presumed but not in
the attempted and frustrated stage of crime.
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.
Article 4 talks about criminal liability and impossible crimes. The only crime punished under book one is
impossible crime. Article 4 talks about the criminal liability of a person who committed a wrongful act
different from what he intended. Committing a felony may be done by dolo or culpa. So if he is
committing a crime intentionally like he hit somebody and that person died. He could be liable for the
death of the person even if it was not intended to kill him. The death was not intended but the act was
intended. We are talking about the act which caused the consequence being intended. However if Juan
boxed Pedro but Pedro did not die it can never be attempted or frustrated homicide. Unlike in the first
example where death resulted from the hitting and Juan is liable for Homicide. This is because there was
no intent to kill. Unless the killing was consummated it cannot be designated as homicide due to the lack
of intent to kill.
Impossible Crimes- can only be committed if there is no other crime that can apply.
REQUISITES:
1.
First determine if there was another crime committed.
2.
Second determine if it was a crime against persons and property.
3.
Third, determine if the reason for its non-consummation is the inherent impossibility or the use
of ineffectual means.
If you have all that then you have an impossible crime.

EXAMPLE: Juan was driving going to the province along the way there was a beautiful person giving him a
thumb sign indicating she would like to hitchhike. So Juan stopped to give her a ride and it went to Juans
head that he should take advantage. He tried to have sexual intercourse but then she turned out to be a
man. Juan was already touching her inappropriately. Is this an impossible crime?
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Remember People vs Baleros where the SC said that rape by sexual intercourse can only be committed
against a woman. You can only have attempted rape if you are already proceeding sexual intercourse. Of
course in this case you cant have attempted or frustrated because rape through sexual intercourse can
only be committed against a woman. So back to my question is this an impossible crime?
ANSWER: No it is not an impossible crime because Juan was already committing acts of
lasciviousness making the first requisite of an impossible crime absent. But we also have to
remember that rape can be committed against a man and it is called rape by sexual assault.
Proximate Cause - cause which in the natural and continues sequence and unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause produces the injury without which the result would not have
occurred. There must be a relation between the cause and effect. There is no
proximate cause when there is an active force that intervened. The active force is a
distinct act absolutely foreign or that the injury is the result of the act of the victim.
DIGESTS:
People vs. Baleros
Facts: At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila, the accused,
by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with
dizzying effects, tried to rape the victim by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge
with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against her will and consent to her
damage and prejudice.
ISSUE: W/N Chito is guilty of attempted rape
HELD: NO. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACQUITTING Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape.
GUILTY of light coercion and is accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of
P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of
the following circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
Under Article 6, in relation to the aforementioned article of the same code, rape is attempted when
the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
o whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of
Malou, constitutes an overt act of rape.
o Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense
Chito was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch
her private part. Verily, while the series of acts committed by the petitioner do not determine attempted
rape, they constitute unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article
287 of the Revised Penal Code. As it were, unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or
compulsion for the reason that this term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although
not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person.
That Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be
PRE-MID BOOK 1
a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed.
People vs Delima
Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail. Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Jorge
Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima ordered his surrender but
Napoleon answered with a stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it, fired his revolver but didnt hit
Napoleon. The criminal tried to run away, not throwing his weapon; the policeman shot him dead. Delima
was tried and convicted for homicide; he appealed.
Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted. The court held that the killing was done in performance
of a duty. Napoleon was under the obligation to surrender and his disobedience with a weapon compelled
Delima to kill him. The action was justified by the circumstances.
Case Study:
#1
So we have a group of Koreans. Di ba nangadto sila sa Kawasan? Di ba, because this occurred like 2 or 3
years ago, and so there was this Korean guy who was on a raft and then another Korean nilukso-lukso
from above and hit the Korean below. The Korean below died. The Korean who jumped suffered injuries
and admitted in the hospital and of course he was also charged for imprudence resulting in homicide. So
he was charged. So in the first, his act of hitting the guy below was the cause of the death- proximate
cause. The jumping was the cause of the death of the other Korean. So theres a proximate cause.
Without that act, this other Korean would not have died. But was it intentional? No. He never intended to
kill the Korean below. But because of his lack of foresight, maybe, or negligence, then he could be held
liable for homicide through reckless imprudence.
#2
Another question, Juan wanted to end his life so he decided to jump from Mactan Bridge. Somebody was
fishing under the bridge. Juan hit the fisherman who later died. Did he commit a crime either by dolo or
culpa? There was neither dolo, no intent to kill anybody but himself and that is not a crime and neither
was there negligence because he could not have foreseen that theres somebody under the water. So no
negligence, no intent, so no crime.
But for the first case, yes there is a crime.
Now, can 2 or more persons be liable for the same crime, one for dolo and the other for culpa? Let us say
that Juan died. The persons who are responsible for Juans death are A and B. It was intentional on the
part of A, B was being negligent. Can they be held liable, assuming there was no conspiracy.
CASE: I think those of you who are in my first year class I gave you the example about that, so there was
this gay person with his boyfriend and they were walking on San Jose dela Montaa (center island) and
they were quarrelling so what the boyfriend did was boxed the gay person and the gay person fell into the
busy street where there were lots of passing vehicles. And let us say, B hit the victim. So the question is
can both A and B be held liable for the death? For A, the act of punching was intentional. And if his punch
caused the death, it was not foreign, totally foreign because for the proximate cause to apply there must
be no active event that is totally foreign. But knowing that you are boxing him in a busy street wherein
there is the likelihood that he could be hit by vehicles if he falls, if the victim falls, then it could be
considered still proximate cause. The act of boxing could be still a proximate cause. But what about the
PRE-MID BOOK 1
driver who actually hit? It would depend on whether he was being negligent or not. So if he was being
negligent because, lets say he was speeding, for example, or maybe he was not supposed to be in that
lane. And he was in that lane, so he was also being negligent. If he was being negligent as well then, they
could be held liable for the death, one for the intentional felony, another for the culpable felony. They
could not be liable for the same crime because they were not conspirators. So that exactly is the ruling of
the Supreme Court in this very old case of Pugay. (People vs. Pugay, G.R. No. 74824, Nov. 17, 1988)
Pugay doused the victim with gasoline as part of their fun-making. Later, Samson arrived and lit the
victims clothes. Victim burned and died.
SC ruled that Pugay is liable for Homicide through reckless imprudence. Samson was held liable for
Homicide.
Q.
1. Why were they not liable for the same crime?

2. What made Pugays act culpable?
3. What made Samsons act intentional?
No conspiracy was found, each his liable for his individual act.
Pugays act was committed with lack of foresight.
Samsons act was deemed committed with dolo because there was knowledge that the victims
clothes were already soaking in gasoline and despite such knowledge he voluntarily lit them.
Intent to kill is already presumed because the crime was consummated.
There was no intent to kill but when Samson lit the victims clothes knowing already that he could burn
and die as a result, then in this case Samson was held liable for the intentional homicide. We could not
apply act of one is the act of all because in order for conspiracy to apply, the conspiracy at itself must also
be proven by independent evidence. And there is no conspiracy proven here therefore they will only be
liable for their individual acts.
Let us say for example there is a snatcher who tried to run near USC, he was mobbed. And then there is
Juan, he was not really part of the mob, but he just wants to join but the injury he inflicted would not be
enough to kill the victim. Nonetheless, the victim died because of the acts of the other offenders. Would
he be liable as well for the death of the victim, for the homicide? There be no conspiracy. He could not be
held for the act of others. He can only be held liable for the injury that he had caused. So in that case we
have a victim who died, only one of the suspects was sued, ang iya rang crime is only possibly, like
physical injuries and yet the victim died if the injury he inflicted would not contribute and lead to the
death and he is not also a conspirator.
So here no conspiracy was found. Each is liable for his own individual act. Pugays act was committed with
lack of foresight because he could have known that that is a likely consequence. Death is a likely
consequence. Samsons act was already intentional because he already had knowledge that the clothes of
the victim were soaking in gasoline. No need to prove the intent to kill because this is now consummated.
Bonkado,
..in the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit the crime, the criminal responsibility arising
from different acts, each of the participants is liable for only his own act.
10
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Caselet:
A, B, C, D and E had a drinking spree. Later, A started hurling insults at his beer buddies which infuriated
another. Then and there the 4 agreed to injure A. B took a knife and gave to C who stabbed A. B boxed
and kicked A which barely hurt the tall and big A. E, on the other hand, was shocked upon seeing the
action going on and froze. Later on A died from the stab wounds. Who are liable for what? B took out the
knife. He did not actually do the stabbing but he gave the knife to C. It was C who stabbed A. D did an act
of boxing but it did not really hurt the victim. E, on the other hand, did nothing.
Lets talk about C. Of course C is the principal by execution. So he is liable for the death.
B was rather the one who gave the knife. Of course he is liable but is he an accomplice, a principal, or
what? Hes probably not a principal in that sense because he is not a principal by execution. Hes not
probably even a principal by inducement. Hes not also a principal by indispensable cooperation probably
or it could be. But lets say that C could have killed him in some other ways so maybe hes not even a
principal. I mean B is not even a principal.
Is E liable criminally? So I have highlighted and underlined the word agreed which means that there is a
conspiracy. There is a conspiracy. So theres a conspiracy.
According to the Compo case, mere knowledge, acquiescence, agreement is not enough. So even if a
person was part of a plan, he must have some degree of participation. If he only nods during the planning
but actually he did nothing. According to Compo that is not enough to constitute one as party to a
conspiracy.
However, in another case Supreme Court said that when the participants in a commission of a crime are
also conspirators, it does not matter anymore what their contributions to the conspiracy are, provided
that they have participation.
So here we are saying that E was not liable because he did not participate. But how about B? Because B
here might only be performing an act of an accomplice but why is he liable the same way as C?
It is because we do not anymore take into consideration what their particular contributions are to the
crime. General Rule: So long as there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. That is only the
general rule because in several cases decided by the Supreme Court, Garcia, Nierras and others, Supreme
Court in certain cases ruled that even if the accused is part of the conspiracy, coz he has contributed,
unlike E who really had not contributed anything to the commission of the crime. However if the
contribution is very minor, sometimes despite the conspiracy, the general rule- the act of one is the act
of all. And in the cases of Garcia, Nierras and others, Supreme Court ruled that when the participation of
a conspirator is only very minor, this conspirator may be punished or may be held liable only as an
accomplice. But hes not really an accomplice. But his liability could only be that of an accomplice.
Gen. Rule: Whenever there is a conspiracy, it does not matter what the individual contributions are
because the act of one becomes the act of all.
Exceptions:
1. The only time when a conspirator is not liable at all is when, like in the Compo case, he did nothing
to contribute to the crime.
2. But in other cases, Supreme Court held, maybe for humanitarian reasons, that when we have a
conspirator knew of the conspiracy and therefore should be held liable like a principal even if he is
not really a principal but he will incur the liability of a principal because the act of one becomes the
act of all. But if his contribution is very minor he will still be charged as a principal but in certain cases
the court may hold him criminally liable only as an accomplice with a diminished sentence.
11
PRE-MID BOOK 1
So, in the Nierras case, A, B, C, D and E were accused for the crime of robbery. A being the principal by
inducement because he is the mastermind but he was not in the premises. B and C were the ones who
directly executed the robbery. D was probably the lookout. E was the driver of the getaway vehicle.
Supreme Court held that the driver would only be
Nieras Case- The driver
Garcia Case- The lookout
I think it was the driver in the Nierras and the lookout in the Garcia, SC said that the driver will not incur
the same liability as B C D and E because his participation was very minor. But his liability is only that of an
accomplice- which means that the principle that the act of one is the act of all is subject to certain
exceptions.
Q: You said a while ago about the minor participation of a conspirator and that in certain exceptional
cases, the SC had reduced the criminal liability into a mere accomplice
Atty: It does not mean that the person is really an accomplice or that the act is that of an accomplice, its
only that the penalty is that of an accomplice.
Q: Actually Maam, my question is did the SC set any standard in determining what minor participation is?
Atty: No, so it would depend. Like in the 2 cases I just mentioned, the Nierras and the Garcia, they were all
prosecuted for robbery and in the Garcia, the participation was only that of a lookout. But the thing is in
the Garcia case, this lookout did not commit any other aside from being the lookout. It would probably
have been a different story if the lookout killed the security guard, or the responding police men. Because
then, even if he was only a lookout, the participation would no longer be minor anymore. In the Garcia
case, he was the lookout and his participation as a lookout was deemed minor only because he did no
other thing. If he did some other things, then the SC would probably not have decided that way. In the
case of Nierras, SC said that since one of the accused only the driver of the getaway vehicle and he was
not in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene, SC said that his participation was only minor, the robbery
would have been committed regardless of his participation.
o
In the case of Nierras, the SC said that since one of the accused was only the driver of the
getaway vehicle and he was not in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene, his participation
was only minor. The robbery would have been committed nonetheless regardless of his
participation.
It would depend on the circumstances. If what the conspirator did was only to hide the weapons,
under ordinary circumstances if that accused who hid the firearms was not part of the
conspiracy, that person would have been an accessory.
The participation of an accessory is always after the commission of the crime. Otherwise called
accessories after the fact because their participation is not before, not during but always after.
On the other hand, the participation of the accomplice is always either before or during the
commission. In both instances, the accomplice and the accessories must not be conspirators. But
once there is an agreement, the act of one is the act of all and we do not as a general rule
determine their respective participations. They may not be principals but they will incur the
penalties as principals.
Conspirators are not necessarily principals. Their participation maybe that of an accomplice or
accessory except that there is an agreement and their liability is that of a principal.
Ex. The role of one conspirator was merely to hide the weapons but he will not be
punished as an accessory but a principal.
Exceptions/Qualifications:
12
PRE-MID BOOK 1
1. Even if a person agreed and was part of the conspiracy but he did not contribute anything to
the accomplishment of the crime, he will not incur any penalty even if he was part of the
conspiracy. To be punished as principal, he must agree and participate. (Compo case)
2. Not only must he agree and participate but that his participation must be sufficient enough. If
it is minor, the court may still regard him as a conspirator but will give him the liability like that of
an accomplice.
ARTICLE 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.
- apply only in intentional felonies. There is only error in personae or abberatio ictus or praeter
intentionem in intentional felonies.
Error in personae there is a target but the recipient of the blow is not the intended target.
Most likely the intended victim is not present,
Abberatio ictus (miscarriage of the blow) there was intent to injure/kill but in the process also
injured/killed another person. It is likely that it will result to complex crime.
Praeter Intentionem injury caused is greater than that 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Case Study:
Juan has a long standing grudge against Pedro. Juan set an ambush against Pedro. He intended
only to inflict physical injuries to teach Pedro a lesson. Under the cover of darkness which he specifically
sought in order that Pedro will not be alerted oh his ambush, he waited along Pedros usual route. Upon
hearing the sound of an approaching motorcycle, Juan threw a stone at the driver hitting him. A passerby
Macario was also hit by the same stone. It turned out that the driver was Juans son Juanito. Both Macario
and Juanito died. What is the crime committed?
Answer:
This is ordinary complex crime of parricide with murder. Never mind the intent because the
crime is already in the consummated stage. What matters is how the crime is committed. Since the
darkness was specifically sought, it is equivalent to treachery. If you kill someone with treachery even if
there is no intent to kill, what matters is that there is an attendant circumstance then it will be murder.
Formula: We always describe the crime according to the elements present. In this case, we have the
element of relationship of being a father and son. The crime charged is always according not to the intent
but according to the result.
Because we always charge the crime according to the result, not the intent. Always the result. So when
Juan kills his son, we call that crime as parricide. So what about the homicide?, even if the crime is
parricide, but the penalty will not be for parricide, it will probably be for homicide, if that was the crime
intended.
13
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Why probably lang??, because that is not yet the case, because if nag sumbagay si Juan og Pedro naigo si
Juanito, the son of Juan, it will be parricide, but the crime intended was not parricide, the crime intended
was homicide, according to article 49, the crime committed is parricide, but the penalty will be for
homicide.
But that is not the case here, what is the crime intended here, probably physical injuries. Anyway physical
injuries is of no moment because they died. So if kaning Juan insofar Juanito is considered, we will call
that parricide, and we all agree that this is a complex crime. Why? Diba article 48, one act equals two or
more grave or less grave. Do we have one act (same stone) do we have two or more grave or less grave?
Yes, so therefore we complex. We complex parricide with murder.
Never mind the intent to kill, because the intent to kill is only necessary if the stage of commission is only
in attempted or frustrated stage. The intent does not matter if the crime is consummated. So even if
there was no intent to kill, because the act was not negligent, there was an intent to throw the stone, it
was not as if ga duwa siya sa stone and naka hit, if so, it would have been only one act of reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide, physical injuries or homicide. But this is not the case of culpa. This is a
case of intentional, g tuyo niya og labay ang stone. So therefore we apply the error in personae, the
praeter intentionem, and aberratio ictus.
Thus, the crime committed is: Parricide and murder, because the intent to kill does not matter anymore, if
it is consummated. What matters now is how the killing was accomplished. And I made it very clear that
the crime was committed under the cover of darkness which was specifically sought and what happened
was that this cover of darkness which was specifically sought is equivalent to treachery. And when you kill
somebody with treachery, even if there was no intent to kill, what matters is that there was the
attendant circumstance, and then it will be murder. So that is why we have a complex crime of parricide
with murder. This is an ordinary complex crime under article 48.
Balik sa basic, which is, the likelihood, it is not absolute rule, just a likelihood, that when there is aberratio
ictus, there is a likelihood that there will be a complex crime. Provided that the rules, the formula that to
have complex crime applies.
Formula:
o
one act equals two or more grave or less grave; OR
one act is a means of committing another act.

--That can happen if there is aberratio ictus.
Second rule:
the crime committed is always the crime that results, never the intended felony.
o
So imong g sumbag si Juan, namatay si Juan, imo tuyo is to injure, you will not
be charged for physical injuries. You will be charged for the homicide.
Or if the victim happens to be spouse, ascendant, descendant, it could be

parricide. But once there is a qualifying circumstance attendant, which would
qualify the killing into murder, then the intent to kill would not matter
anymore.
If Macario did not die, what would have been the crime?
Then we would have complex crime of parricide with serious or less serious physical
injuries.
Because if the injury of Macario who did not die, is only slight physical injuries, then we
will have two separate crimes.
14
PRE-MID BOOK 1
There could never be parricide with attempted murder or frustrated murder, because
you cannot have the attempted and frustrated without the intent to kill. And Juan did
not have the intent to kill. So there can never be an attempted if Macario did not die. If
Macario did not die, the crime would not be complex crime of parricide with any
frustrated or attempted anything. Because to be attempted or frustrated of anything
there must be an intent to kill
So the crime would be complex only if the injuries sustained by Macario was serious or
less serious, otherwise, there would be two separate crime of parricide and slight
physical injuries
Article 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 or over acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Stages of commission felonies
General rule: the stages of the commission of felonies, only applies to felonies, which are crimes punished
under the RPC. As a general rule these principles or stages are not applicable for crimes
punished under Special Penal Laws
Exception: if the SPL so provides.
Example, under the child abuse law, under the trafficking law, there is attempted stage, but no frustrated
stage, because the law so requires, then we apply.
The same is true with conspiracy, conspiracy, is a principle that is applicable for felonies. But not for
crimes punished under SPL. For example, gambling, mag gambling tanan, a, b, c, d ,e. A is the operator, C
is the usher, D was the coordinator, E was the bettor. You cannot be charged as liable under the
conspiracy, because the law that punished gambling is a special penal law and not anymore RPC. So, each
one of you have your own penalties depending on the particular crimes committed by each of you. So the
penalty for the operator is different with that of the coordinator and the bettor.
And so there can be for example no conspiracy to possess firearm. There can only be one possessor of the
firearm. Gawas og sila duha ga gunit sa usa ka pusil.
But there are instances when special penal laws provide for conspiracy. Such as, in drugs, under the
dangerous drugs acts, section 26 provides that there can be conspiracy to sell, to manufacture, to plant,
to distribute to operate a drug den, so on and so forth. But there is no such thing conspiracy in the
possession, why, because the law does not provide. What it provides is only conspiracy is to sell, to
distribute, to operate a drug den, to administer, to import. But no conspiracy to possess. That is why if
you have a group of people and there are dugs on the table, you cannot say A B and C conspiring to
possess. No such thing under the law.
Going back to the stages:
Consummated felony all elements necessary for execution and accomplishment are present, crime
results;
15
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Frustrated felony offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence, the result is already beyond the control of the perpetrator but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, crime did not result.
Attempted felony offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than this own spontaneous desistance, crime did not result.
It must be for some cause other than his desistance. Because once there is spontaneous
desistance, you do not have an attempted stage. Example. Juan took Juana to a motel with an
intention of raping her. Nihilak si Juana, Juan took pity, he did not proceed. Is there an attempted
stage? No. Although he already performed overt acts leading to the commission for the crime,
once there is spontaneous desistance, there can never be an attempted.
It is not to say that there is no more crime, it is possible that there is still a crime, so maybe
abduction, or acts of lasciviousness, application of SPL, like 7610, if victim is a minor.
But never attempted stage of any crime. Because there is spontaneous desistance, there can
never be an attempted rape. In this sense, the desistance, becomes an absolutory cause. It can
be another crime, consummated of another stage, but never attempted of another crime.
Case: US vs Eduave
The subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act
which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender, which,
with the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From that time forward, the phase
is objective
Subjective phase act of the offender which he has control
After all the acts of execution are committed that phase is already objective. So sa subjective, the
offender still has control.
Example:
Richard held a grudge against Piolo. While the latter was resting on a rocking chair one evening. Richard
surreptitiously creep behind Piolo and delivered a forceful thrust with his knife. Thinking that he
accomplished his plan, he fled. It turned out however that the knife merely damaged the pillow on which
Piolo was resting, but Piolo was never scratched.
Q: What is the crime committed?
A: Attempted murder. Because he already started performing an overt act, which is the creeping behind
with a knife and actually delivering the thrust (that is already an overt act).
Definition of attempted, he already began the performance of the overt act, but does
not produce the felony as a result, he was not able to kill, and no spontaneous
desistance. Tungod kay wa ni lahos, kutob ra sa pillow, so he was not able to perform all
the acts. So, it fits the definition of attempted.
Q: Ngano dli frustrated maski nahuman na gud, and I already thought nga na deliver na ang fatal na
wound.
A: PP vs. Enriquez
In order that there be frustrated stage of murder, infanticide, parricide, homicide, there must be a fatal
wound that is inflicted. The fatal wound must be inflicted. If there is no fatal wound inflicted, not all the
acts of execution has been delivered yet.
16
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Why murder? Because he surreptitiously creep, the manner of committing the crime
Crimes with no frustrated stage
1. Rape
a. Rape by carnal knowledge
People vs. Aca-ac: Rape by carnal knowledge only has two stages, which are, attempted
or consummated. In rape by carnal knowledge, the slightest
penetration will already consummate the rape. Mere epidermal
touching, without penetration, will only be attempted.
b. Rape by sexual assault (oral or anal) [no express SC ruling yet as to whether there is a
frustrated stage]
The orifice of the victim can be anal or oral. There must also be penetration (not limited
to male sexual organ) in order to consummate the crime.
2. Arson
In the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, there is no more frustrated arson because
the slightest charring already results to consummated arson. Charring involves chemical
reaction, not just the blackening or the changing of color.
People vs. Garcia: The torch used in order to burn the house of the victim burned out
without burning the house. He was not able to char any part of the
house. The arson was merely attempted because not all the acts of
execution were performed.
3. Theft
Element of Taking
In one case, there was a taking of hospital linens, but before the accused got out of the gate,
they were already apprehended. The Supreme Court said that there was already consummated
Theft.
In another case, there was a taking of firearms, but before the accused got out of the compound,
they were apprehended. The Supreme Court said there was merely attempted Theft.
a.
First school of thought

According to Reyes, as to the taking of the linens, it was consummated because there
was already the ability or capability to dispose the thing taken. The taking having been
completed, the stage has already been consummated.
As to the firearms, the offender did not have the ability to dispose of the thing taken,
The taking being incomplete, the stage is still attempted.
b.
Second school of thought

According to another author, the container of the linens was the room. Once taken out
of the room, there was already taking. Thus, theft was already consummated.
As to the firearms, it was not really taken out because the container of the firearms was
deemed to be the entire compound. It has to be taken have to take outside of the whole
compound before there can be a taking.
17
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Illustration: If a thief would like to get some jewelries and they are inside a drawer, once
they are taken out of the drawer, theft has already been consummated. If what the
theft did is take the whole drawer and he gets apprehended, the crime would be
attempted since he was not able to get out.
CLARIFICATION AS TO POSSESSION AND DISPOSITION IN THEFT:
It was never the SC who mentioned about the control. The SC merely decided that the taking of
the linen was already deemed complete and in the other case is that the taking of the firearm
was not yet complete. The SC never said that the reason why the two decisions are different is
because of disposition, never. Such explanation was only given by a legal scholar but not by the
SC.
Consider a book taken from the library. Once you have taken the book from the library the taking
of the book is already complete. But if you take the book and yet you are still in the library then
the taking is not complete.
On the other hand, there is a bag in the library and you took money from the bag. Once money is
taken from the bag even if the taking is still in the library the taking is already complete.
These two examples are probably the rationale of the legal authors.
4. Robbery
a. Robbery with force upon things
The Supreme Court ruling, which still stands, is that you cannot have robbery with force
upon things unless the thing be taken outside of the building or the house.
So, but then as you know , that would become complicated if you talk about robbery with force upon
things, because the supreme court decisions have settled that in robbery through the use of force upon
things, the things taken should be taken out of the building or the house. Therefore you have to take into
consideration all those justifications.
In the case of firearms, the reason why supreme court probably ruled that the taking was still attempted
was because the container was not just the place where it was stored, it was an armoury and so the
container of the firearm was not just the room but the whole compound so you have to take it out of the
whole compound before you can say that the taking was complete.
5. Bribery
Take note of the Supreme Court decisions in frustrated homicide, infanticide, murder, parricide, there
should be a fatal wound. So when the offender fails to inflict a fatal wound, or if the wound inflicted is not
sufficient to cause the death of the victim, then it is only attempted not frustrated because it is as if all the
overt acts of execution have not been fulfilled.
Ex. Juan gave 10k case to mayor Pedro in consideration of the agreement to give the favourable
consideration of Juans bid in the construction of the public building, mayor Pedro later discovered that
the money was counterfeit thus the construction did not push through, is this impossible crime,
attempted, frustrated or consummated bribery?
Ans: No impossible crime because an impossible crime can only be committed under title 8 and 10 or
crime against persons and property. So this is consummated because the gift was already received
regardless if its legal tender or not and the accomplishment of the project does not matter anymore.
Note that in direct bribery a mere promise is sufficient consideration.
Direct Bribery
Indirect Bribery
18
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Theres a condition
No Condition
A promise to give something is sufficient

consideration to constitute consummated direct
bribery.
A promise is not sufficient
STAGES OF A FELONY
GR: Stages of a felony do not apply in crimes that are punished in special penal laws.
EX: The Special Penal Law itself provides for an attempted stage. Such as child abuse, trafficking.
Crimes by omission
There are NO STAGES here.
Formal Crime like physical injuries, oral defamation and libel - there are no stages here.
This was the ruling in the (case title was not stated) Taking into account the nature and the elements,
manner and the execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable
how the frustrated stage of rape can ever be committed.
CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy can be a crime by itself or can be a mode of incurring criminal liability.
Conspiracy is when two or more persons coming to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and deciding to commit it. Unless a conspiracy is punished, even if there is an agreement, if it is not
considered a crime by the RPC then it is not punished at all.
Example: Juan and Pedro agreed to kill Jose, they already have a conspiracy because they already came to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and they decided to commit it. But they were not
able to commit it. Is there a crime of conspiracy to commit murder? There is none in the RPC; so there is
no liability.
If Pedro and Juan agreed to commit rebellion, and they decide to commit it, can they be held liable even if
in fact was not committed by them? Yes because in the RPC, there is a crime for the conspiracy of
rebellion.
Proposal and inciting to commit a Crime
Proposal the person proposing has actually decided to commit it.
In inciting, the inciter may not have actually decided to commit it. It is possible (nag.gara-gara lang to ang
iyaha).
In proposal, the commission is committed discreetly; whereas in inciting, the inciter must do it publicly.
Conspiracy, when it is not committed as a separate crime, can make all the offenders liable as principal
even if they are not exactly principals.
Example, A, B, C and D agreed to murder E. A was the one who paid B. B executed the crime. C merely
threw the body of E. Ordinarily, if there was no conspiracy, C would only be liable as an accessory; but
19
PRE-MID BOOK 1
because of the conspiracy, their specific contribution to the crime would not matter. They will incur the
same liability as principal.
A, B, C, and D agreed to rob a bank. The agreement was only to Rob the bank. Even if D was just the driver
of the get-away vehicle, because of the conspiracy, D would still be liable for the same crime as A, B, and
C. However, B killed the Security Guard. Homicide was outside the agreement. What would be the
liability?
Homicide is foreseeable. Acts which are foreseeable
So long as they have a contribution, even if the contribution is not direct, they are considered as
conspirators.
In the conspiracy theory, even if the agreement pertains only to one crime, the theory extends even to
other crimes not agreed upon provided they are foreseeable in the crime agreed upon.
If A, B, C and D agreed to rob a bank. B killed the Security guard which was not agreed upon, C raped the
teller which was not also agreed upon. Rape is not foreseeable. All the robbers are liable for robbery with
homicide but not for the rape.
Art 296: Robbery in Band, where there is a robbery in band (more than 3 persons)
Art 296 xxxxxx
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted
to prevent the same.
The quadrilla theory applies when there is a robbery, if for or more perpetrators are armed. Then what
would apply now is the Quadrilla theory wherein paragraph 2 article 296 says if Robbery in band,
members of the band are liable as principals for all assaults, not only foreseeable but also nonforeseeable if they were present - provided they were present - when the assault was committed but did
not prevent it. Quadrilla is not the same as conspiracy. Quadrilla only pertains to robbery in band. It does
not for instance refer to murder.
Implied conspiracy
Conspiracy may be express or implied. Do not confuse with your Criminal Procedure. The Criminal
procedure says that you can only have conspiracy if there is independent evidence to that effect. It does
not necessarily mean that direct evidence. Independent means that aside from the allegation that there
is conspiracy, it can be proven that there is conspiracy.
Even if the conspiracy is not express. Express means they really have an agreement whether it was
written or otherwise. In implied conspiracy, there is no express agreement of a conspiracy but the
conspiracy can be implied from the acts of the participants or the perpetrators. The SC said that it can be
indirect conspiracy. When there is an indirect conspiracy, then all the perpetrators will be held liable as
principals. So if they have a common purpose, and they were united in the execution, there can be
implied conspiracy.
For Example, Juan and Pedro having a Fist fight. Here comes Juana and she gave Juan a knife. Juanito also
came with a baseball bat. All of them mauled Pedro. They did not agree beforehand to kill Pedro. But their
20
PRE-MID BOOK 1
individual acts would show that they had a common purpose and that is to murder and to kill Pedro. They
were all united in the purpose therefore there was conspiracy and they can all be liable as principals.
Liability for prior acts
ABCD kidnapped a rich businessman and kept him in a bodega owned by E, who only came to know of the
kidnapping after the victim was brought to his bodega. They instructed F to collect the ransom. F was
unaware of the kidnapping, the previous acts of ABCD, until his participation which was to collect the
ransom. Is F liable for the kidnapping for ransom?
Yes because F concurred with knowledge that the money was for the release of the victim. When he
concurred, it is as if he agreed with the agreement. Kidnapping is a continuing offense.
LIABLITY FOR PRIOR ACTS:
Case Study:
A, B, C and D kidnapped a rich businessman and placed him in a bodega owned by E who only
came to know of the kidnapping after the victim was brought to his bodega. They then instructed F to
collect the ransom. F was unaware of the kidnapping until his participation in the collecting of the ransom.
Is F liable for kidnapping for ransom?
Answer: Yes. Kidnapping is a continuing offense. F concurred with knowledge that the money was for the
release of the victim. In effect, F can be considered as a conspirator and will incur the penalty of A, B, C
and D.
Case Study:
A. B, and C belong a group of illegal recruiters. They set up an office in Cebu City and were able to
defraud R , S and T. Seeing A, B and C had a lot of money, D decided to join the group. Is D liable for the
previous crime committed against R, S and T?
Answer: No because this not a continuing crime. Those previous acts were already consummated and
terminated.
Q: What if a conspirator backs out of the agreement before the commission of the crime?
o
If he backs out, that means that he is not anymore in agreement at the time of the commission of
the crime. Therefore, he cannot be held liable. However, if the one who backs out is the principal
by inducement, his liability will not be by reason of the conspiracy but by reason of his being a
principal by inducement.
Article 9. Grave Felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of the periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Article 25 if this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
200 is a correctional penalty but it is a penalty which can be imposed in a light felony.
21
PRE-MID BOOK 1
DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITIES (ART. 11 to 15):
J justifying
E - exempting
M - mitigating
A - aggravating
A alternative
Memory Aid (JEMAA)
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.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
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.
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.
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.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
KEYWORD: 3DEFO
a.
3 DEFENSES
i. self defense
ii. defense of relatives
iii. defense of strangers
b.
E- avoid EVIL
c.
F fulfillment of duty
22

d.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
O obedience to an order for lawful purpose
EFFECT perpetuator will not incur CIVIL and CRIMINAL liability. Because the act is justified.
Here, it is not more own the presence or absence of knowledge BUT the presence of
voluntariness in the commission of the crime
st
1 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: SELF DEFENSE

REQ:
First.
Unlawful aggression.

Third.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
All must be present so that there will be justifying circumstance. If one or more is absent, not
justifying but could be mitigating. PROVIDED that the element missing should not be UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION. This must always be present.
CASE STUDY:
o
Juan & Pedro had a quarrel during a drinking session.
Pedro started the quarrel.
Determined to kill Juan, Pedro TRIED to stab Juan with a knife but lost his balance and
fell face down to the ground.
While Pedro was in such situation, Juan got a big stone and hit Pedro with it, killing him.
Q: Was there unlawful aggression?
In numerous cases the SC said that, once the aggression has stopped as in this
case when the aggressor fell in the ground or fled, there can be no more
justifying circumstance of self-defense and mitigating circumstance.
PP VS ANTONIO GR. 144933
FACTS: The facts the victim, Jomar Ephan, was engaged in a drinking
session with Reynaldo Ephan and Roselito Dacillo in front of a store in
Barangay Pakna-an, Mandaue City. Accused-appellant arrived and
bought cigarettes. Then, he ordered Jomar, Reynaldo and Roselito to
count the cigarettes he bought, but the three told accused-appellant
to let the storekeeper do the counting. Rebuked, accused-appellant
left the store. He returned minutes later and suddenly stabbed the
victim at the back, after which he immediately fled. The victim was
rushed by his companions to the hospital but died the following day.
SC: Where an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits

authorship of the crime. The burden of proof is thus shifted on him to
prove all the elements of self-defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the accused.
In the case at bar, even if we sustain the version of accused-appellant
23
PRE-MID BOOK 1
that the initial act of aggression came from the group of the deceased,
still we cannot uphold his plea of self-defense. As testified by accusedappellant himself, the deceased who was at that time very drunk tried
to hit him but missed and fell on the ground. At that point, unlawful
aggression ceased and it was no longer necessary for him to stab the
deceased. It was accused-appellant, therefore, who became the
aggressor when he, despite the condition of the deceased, proceeded
to stab the latter at the back. His act can no longer be interpreted as
an act of self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill. Hence, he
cannot successfully claim the benefit of self-defense.
CASE STUDY: RETAILIATION FROM SELF DEFENSE

o
Without provocation, E tried to stab G with a knife.
Owing to his training in martial arts, G was able to avoid the thrust and he grappled for
the knife.
He was able to take the knife from E.
After having done so, he stabbed and killed E.
Q. Is there self-defense?
No. Because once the victim was able to get hold of the weapon then the
aggression already stops. No justifying.
But this maybe an ordinary mitigating on the ground of vindication of an

offense to self.
nd
2 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Defense of Relatives

REQ:
First.

Third.
Person 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
defending MUST NOT have played part in the provocation
3rd JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Defense of Strangers.

REQ:
24

First.
PRE-MID BOOK 1

Third. person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
th
4 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Avoidance of an Evil

REQ:
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.
th
5 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Fulfillment of a lawful duty

REQ:
1) Offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or duty
2) Injury or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right
or office.
CASE STUDY:
o
SPO1 was looking for P, an escapee
P was armed with a bamboo lance when SPO1 found him.
He demanded that P surrender but P lunged at SPO1with the lance.
SPO1 dodged the lance and fired but missed.
P then ran away still holding the lance. (? Dont know kung pila kabuok yang lance gi
dala ani niya)
SPO1 pursued P and fired at him, hitting and killing him.
Q: was SPO1 act justified?
YES. Here we are not talk anymore of defense. This is a justifying circumstance
in itself. Different of that of defenses. This is justified as performance of a
lawful duty.
PP VS DELIMA: Old case. Cannot be found.
SC: the court ruled that the policeman was in the performance of a lawful duty.
This is not a case of self-defense. Here, the unlawful aggression already
stopped when Pedro ran away.
If SPO1 was a private person, and not in performance of a duty, he would have
been convicted because there was no self-defense.
CABANLIG vs SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: robbery occurred in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Four
25
PRE-MID BOOK 1
days later or on 28 September 1992, the investigating authorities apprehended

three suspects: Jordan Magat (Magat), Randy Reyes (Reyes) and Valino. The
police recovered most of the stolen items. However, a flower vase and a small
radio were still missing. Cabanlig asked the three suspects where these two
items were. Reyes replied that the items were at his house.
Cabanlig asked his colleagues, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis and Esteban, to

accompany him in retrieving the flower vase and radio. Cabanlig then brought
out Reyes and Magat from their cell, intending to bring the two during the
retrieval operation. It was at this point that Valino informed Cabanlig that he
had moved the vase and radio to another location without the knowledge of
his two cohorts. Cabanlig decided instead to bring along Valino, leaving behind
Magat and Reyes.
Around 6:30 p.m., five fully armed policemen in uniform Cabanlig, Padilla,
Mercado, Abesamis and Esteban escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva
Ecija to recover the missing flower vase and radio. The policemen and Valino
were aboard a police vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up jeep.
Just after the jeep had crossed the Philippine National Railway bridge and while
the jeep was slowly negotiating a bumpy and potholed road, Valino suddenly
grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite and jumped out of the jeep. Valino was able
to grab Mercados M16 Armalite when Mercado scratched his head and tried to
reach his back because some flying insects were pestering Mercado. Mercado
shouted hoy! when Valino suddenly took the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig, who was
then facing the rear of the vehicle, saw Valinos act of taking away the M16
Armalite. Cabanlig acted immediately. Without issuing any warning of any sort,
and with still one foot on the running board, Cabanlig fired one shot at Valino,
and after two to three seconds, Cabanlig fired four more successive shots.
Valino did not fire any shot.
The shooting happened around 7:00 p.m., at dusk or nag-aagaw ang dilim at
liwanag. Cabanlig approached Valinos body to check its pulse. Finding none,
Cabanlig declared Valino dead. Valino sustained three mortal wounds one at
the back of the head, one at the left side of the chest, and one at the left lower
back. Padilla and Esteban remained with the body. The other three policemen,
including Cabanlig, went to a funeral parlor.
SC:
Applicable Defense is Fulfillment of Duty
Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles.

Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal
harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of
duty. The difference between the two justifying circumstances is clear,
as the requisites of self-defense and fulfillment of duty are different.
A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force

as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm. In case injury or death
results from the policemans exercise of such force, the policeman
could be justified in inflicting the injury or causing the death of the
offender if the policeman had used necessary force. Since a
26
PRE-MID BOOK 1
policemans duty requires him to overcome the offender, the force

exerted by the policeman may therefore differ from that which
ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. However, a policeman is
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating the offender
with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the
arrest could be affected otherwise. Unlike in self-defense where
unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful
aggression from the victim is not a requisite.
The fugitives unlawful aggression in People v. Delima had already

ceased when the policeman killed him. The fugitive was running away
from the policeman when he was shot. If the policeman were a private
person, not in the performance of duty, there would be no selfdefense because there would be no unlawful aggression on the part of
the deceased. It may even appear that the public officer acting in the
fulfillment of duty is the aggressor, but his aggression is not unlawful,
it being necessary to fulfill his duty.
While self-defense and performance of duty are two distinct justifying

circumstances, self-defense or defense of a stranger may still be
relevant even if the proper justifying circumstance in a given case is
fulfillment of duty. For example, a policemans use of what appears to
be excessive force could be justified if there was imminent danger to
the policemans life or to that of a stranger. If the policeman used
force to protect his life or that of a stranger, then the defense of
fulfillment of duty would be complete, the second requisite being
present.
In this case, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban were in

the performance of duty as policemen when they escorted Valino, an
arrested robber, to retrieve some stolen items. We uphold the finding
of the Sandiganbayan that there is no evidence that the policemen
conspired to kill or summarily execute Valino. In fact, it was not Valino
who was supposed to go with the policemen in the retrieval
operations but his two other cohorts, Magat and Reyes. Had the
policemen staged the escape to justify the killing of Valino, the M16
Armalite taken by Valino would not have been loaded with bullets.
Moreover, the alleged summary execution of Valino must be based on
evidence and not on hearsay.
Undoubtedly, the policemen were in the legitimate performance of

their duty when Cabanlig shot Valino. Thus, fulfillment of duty is the
justifying circumstance that is applicable to this case. To determine if
this defense is complete, we have to examine if Cabanlig used
necessary force to prevent Valino from escaping and in protecting
himself and his co-accused policemen from imminent danger.
Fulfillment of Duty was Complete, Killing was Justified
The Sandiganbayan convicted Cabanlig because his defense of

fulfillment of duty was found to be incomplete. The Sandiganbayan
believed that Cabanlig exceeded the fulfillment of his duty when he
immediately shot Valino without issuing a warning so that the latter
would stop. We disagree with the Sandiganbayan.
27
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Certainly, an M16 Armalite is a far more powerful and deadly weapon

than the bamboo lance that the fugitive had run away with in People
v. Delima. The policeman in People v. Delima was held to have been
justified in shooting to death the escaping fugitive because the
policeman was merely performing his duty.
In this case, Valino was committing an offense in the presence of the

policemen when Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado and
jumped from the jeep to escape. The policemen would have been
justified in shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely necessary
to prevent his escape. But Valino was not only an escaping detainee.
Valino had also stolen the M16 Armalite of a policeman. The
policemen had the duty not only to recapture Valino but also to
recover the loose firearm. By grabbing Mercados M16 Armalite, which
is a formidable firearm, Valino had placed the lives of the policemen in
grave danger.
Had Cabanlig failed to shoot Valino immediately, the policemen would

have been sitting ducks. All of the policemen were still inside the jeep
when Valino suddenly grabbed the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig, Mercado
and Esteban were hemmed in inside the main body of the jeep, in the
direct line of fire had Valino used the M16 Armalite. There would have
been no way for Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban to secure their safety,
as there were no doors on the sides of the jeep. The only way out of
the jeep was from its rear from which Valino had jumped. Abesamis
and Padilla who were in the drivers compartment were not aware
that Valino had grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite. Abesamis and
Padilla would have been unprepared for Valinos attack.
By suddenly grabbing the M16 Armalite from his unsuspecting police

guard, Valino certainly did not intend merely to escape and run away
as far and fast as possible from the policemen. Valino did not have to
grab the M16 Armalite if his sole intention was only to flee from the
policemen. If he had no intention to engage the policemen in a
firefight, Valino could simply have jumped from the jeep without
grabbing the M16 Armalite. Valinos chances of escaping unhurt would
have been far better had he not grabbed the M16 Armalite which only
provoked the policemen to recapture him and recover the M16
Armalite with greater vigor. Valinos act of grabbing the M16 Armalite
clearly showed a hostile intention and even constituted unlawful
aggression.
Facing imminent danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. Time was of
the essence. It would have been foolhardy for the policemen to
assume that Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite merely as a souvenir of
a successful escape.
In this case, the embattled policemen did not have the luxury of time.
Neither did they have much choice. Cabanligs shooting of Valino was
an immediate and spontaneous reaction to imminent danger. The
weapon grabbed by Valino was not just any firearm. It was an M16
Armalite.
The M16 Armalite whether on automatic or semiautomatic setting is a
28
PRE-MID BOOK 1
lethal weapon. This high-powered firearm was in the hands of an

escaping detainee, who had sprung a surprise on his police escorts
bottled inside the jeep. A warning from the policemen would have
been pointless and would have cost them their lives.
At any rate, Valino was amply warned. Mercado shouted hoy when
Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite. Although Cabanlig admitted that he
did not hear Mercado shout hoy, Mercados shout should have served
as a warning to Valino. The verbal warning need not come from
Cabanlig himself.The records also show that Cabanlig first fired one
shot. After a few seconds, Cabanlig fired four more shots. Cabanlig had
to shoot Valino because Valino at one point was facing the police
officers. The exigency of the situation warranted a quick response
from the policemen.
Cabanlig is thus not guilty of homicide. At most, Cabanlig, Padilla,

Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban are guilty only of gross negligence.
The policemen transported Valino, an arrested robber, to a retrieval
operation without handcuffing Valino. That no handcuffs were
available in the police precinct is a very flimsy excuse. The policemen
should have tightly bound Valinos hands with rope or some other
sturdy material. Valinos cooperative demeanor should not have lulled
the policemen to complacency. As it turned out, Valino was merely
keeping up the appearance of good behavior as a prelude to a planned
escape. We therefore recommend the filing of an administrative case
against Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban for gross
negligence.
th
6 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Obedience to a lawful order

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE NOT FOUND IN THE RPC BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Found in a special penal law - RA 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004, enacted on March 8, 2004 and with retroactive effect.
Applicable to crimes punished under the RPC
EX: Juana is a battered woman. Juan, her drunk husband, arrived and went to sleep. Juana and
their son Juanito then killed Juan. Is Juana criminally liable? No. This is in accord with Section 16
of VAWC. Even if there was no provocation or even if the means employed was not reasonable,
there is no liability. As long as the perpetrator was clinically proven by the court to be suffering
from BWS, she could be exonerated. BWS however only applies to Juana. Juanito is liable for
parricide.
SECTION 26, VAWC

SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
29
PRE-MID BOOK 1
psychiatrists/ psychologists.
There was a Supreme Court decision, PEOPLE v GENOSA and in this case, SC said that you could
only be justified only if aside from being a victim of BWS, there was unlawful aggression. This
ruling runs counter to Section 26. This case refers to a crime committed BEFORE the enactment
of VAWC. What applies now is Section 26.
** Question from the class re: Unlawful Aggression**
Q: A hired killer on a motorcycle shoots someone inside a vehicle not knowing that it was
bulletproof. He drives away but the person inside such vehicle chases the gunman and
intentionally rams it thereby killing the gunman.
o
Since there is the use of a vehicle, it could be considered as murder. Look at the three
requisites first. Strictly speaking, is there still unlawful aggression? It would seem that
there was none anymore. Was there reasonableness in the means employed? Maybe
yes because the victim was armed with a firearm. Third is lack of provocation.
Look at the decisions of the SC to determine whether he could be convicted or not. SC

decisions tell us that whenever a person cease firing and moves away, it would seem
that there is no more unlawful aggression. SC is consistent in saying that when there is
no more unlawful aggression, there can be no more self defense. If the gunman was not
fleeing but still firing when hit then we can say that the unlawful aggression has not yet
stopped.
If after the unlawful aggression has ceased, that would seem to be retaliation.
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 nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, 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.
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.
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.
30
PRE-MID BOOK 1
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.
Memory Aid: MIPAFF
M minor
I insane or imbecile
P prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
A accident without fault or intention
F irresistible force
F uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
When there is an exempting circumstance, the accused will not incur criminal liability
It is possible though that he be held civilly liable
In exempting circumstance, it is more on the knowledge of the offender rather than the
voluntariness.
1.
MINORITY
Amended by RA 9344, further amended by RA 10630
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her
birthdate.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
The prosecution has the burden to prove that the minor acted with discernment by evidence of
physical appearance, attitude or deportment before, during and after the commission of the act
and even during trial
Minority is presumed; If alleged, minority has to be taken into account despite lack of proof; it is
to be considered in fixing bail.
Age of criminal liability:
Age of absolute criminal liability 18 and above

o
th
so when we say 18, on your 18 birthday, you start to incur criminal liability. The day
before, the criminal liability is CONDITIONAL
conditional responsibility over 15 and below 18
31
PRE-MID BOOK 1
the condition is you must have acted with discernment. So the age is over 15 and under
18, so the perpetrator could only incur criminal liability if he acts with discernment. If he
did not act with discernment, then he will not incur criminal liability at all.
So when we say over 15, it does not mean 16, or when we say below 18 it does not
mean 17. The interpretation of over 15 is 15 and 1 day, because 15 is not over 15. So on
th
your 15 birthday, you still do not incur criminal liability, because the law says over 15
Absolute irresponsibility 15 years and below

o
2.
For those who are 15 or below they will not incur criminal liability, at all, even if they
have acted with discernment.
INSANITY/IMBECILITY
Insanity
Pp vs. Estrada
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere
abnormality in the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The accused must be so insane
as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent
When there is a mere abnormality in the mental faculties, there could be mitigating
circumstances
Insane or imbecile.
The person who is insane or imbecile does not incur criminal liability.
Their parents or guardians may incur civil liability.
Q: What is insanity?
A: Insanity does not refer to, for example, being slow. It connotes the total absence of knowledge,
and the insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime. It must already be
present.
Insanity occurred before or even after the commission of the crime. the person can still be
held criminally liable.
o
Although he could probably not be fit to stand trial or undergo arraignment, but
that can wait. So, what happens if the insanity happens happen afterwards, is that
the trial will be suspended.
Insanity happened after the conviction the sentence will be suspended.
For insanity to become an exempting circumstance it must occur at the time of the
commission of the crime.
It has been held that schizophrenia is not a total lack of soundness of the mind. It is not
exempting. It could be mitigating, but not exempting.
TEST ON INSANITY:
o
Test of Cognition W/N there was complete deprivation of intelligence
32

o
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Test of Volition W/N there was total deprivation of intelligence
3.
PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
4.
ACCIDENT without fault or intention
Requisites:
1.
Accused was performing a lawful act with due care
2.
Injury is caused by mere accident
3.
There was no fault or intent to cause the injury
An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening wholly or

partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected
by the person to whom it happens (Toledo v People, Sept 24, 2004)
ACCIDENT vs CULPA vs INTENT
5.
If there is intent, offender is liable even if another person was hurt or a different crime
resulted (error in personae, aberration ictus, praetor intentionem)
If there is no intent but there is culpa, offender is still liable, but for a lesser crime
penalty
If there is no intent nor culpa, there could either be mistake of fact or accident and
hence, no liability
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Made to operate directly on the person of the accused and the injury feared may be of a lesser
degree than the damage caused by the accused
6.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Requisites:
1.Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be real or imminent
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed
7. LAWFUL/INSUPERABLE CAUSE
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
A circumstance which is present prior to or simultaneously with the offense by reason of which
the accused who acts with criminal intent, freedom and intelligence does not incur a criminal
liability for an act which constitutes a crime
Neither justifying nor exempting
These are situations where the perpetrator will not have criminal liability but there is no
exempting or justifying circumstance. They must be present to or simultaneous to the offense
Some absolutory causes:
33
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies (Art 6)
Accessories in light felonies (Art 16)
Accessories exempt from criminal liability by reason of relationship (Art 20)
A legal spouse or parent who inflicts slight or less serious physical injuries under
exceptional circumstances (Art 247)
Persons not criminally liable for theft, estafa or malicious mischief by reason of
relationship to the offended party (Art 332)
ENTRAPMENT FROM INSTIGATION
ENTRAPMENT
o
ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing violators( who have
already decided to commit the crime)
legal
INSTIGATION
o
accused is induced to commit the crime (he has not yet decided to commit the crime)
Offender will not incur criminal liability because it is as if he was made to do something
he did not intend to do
NB:
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan
o
In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method
of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards is undertaken (Pp vs De Leon, G.R. NO. 186471, Jan 25, 2010)
CASE: People v. Shirley Casio, GR 211465, December 3,2014

FACTS:
-
This case involves the violation of RA 9208, otherwise known as Anti-Trafficking in

Persons Act of 2003
A non-governmental organization coordinated with the police in order to entrap

persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Policemen were designated as
decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.
They went to D. Jakosalem St in Brgy Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red light district.
Accused noticed them and called their attention by saying, Chicks mo dong?
Accused assured them she had girls and made them wait while she got two girls.
When she came back bringing the two girls, the policemen convinced the accused
to come with them to Queensland Motel where they had two adjacent rooms set
up for the entrapment.
The rest of the team arrested the accused as she was counting the marked money.
Accused was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC and CA
34

-
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, she was instigated
into committing the crim. The police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not
even know who their subject was. Neither did the police know the identities of the
alleged victims
ISSUE: W/N entrapment was valid

HELD:
-
Yes.
In People v Doria, the SC discussed the objective test and the subjective test to
determine whether there was a valid entrapment operation:
Subjective/ Origin of Intent Test
Used to determine whether entrapment actually occurred
Focus of the inquiry is on the accuseds predisposition to commit the

offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial
exposure to government agents.
If accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense
at any favourable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a
police agent used an unduly persuasive inducement
Objective Test
o
Inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on

police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the
crime
The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement

agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one
who is ready and willing, to commit the offense; for purposes of this test, it
is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally resist the
temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity
to act unlawfully.
Accused contends that using the subjective test, she was clearly instigated by the
police to commit the offense. SC said that the accused was the one who
commenced the transaction by calling the attention of the police officers on
whether they wanted girls for that evening and when they responded, it was the
accused appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls. This shows
that the accused was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the
transaction.
The entrapment would still be valid using the objective test. The police merely
proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan. It was accused who
asked them whether they wanted girls. There was no illicit inducement on the part
of the police for the accused to commit the crime.
With regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is not a condition for
an entrapment operations validity
35
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Mitigating Circumstances
Article 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.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded
the act.
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.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
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;
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.
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.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
1.
We discussed the three types of self-defense and the important requisite there is unlawful
aggression. If it is not present then there can be no self-defense.
Incomplete Self-defense: If one or two requisite is lacking and can be a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Only lack of provocation - ordinary mitigating.
2.
Age- minor is over 15 but under 18 and acting with discernment: privileged mitigating
3.
Praeter intentionem (no intention to commit so grave a wrong)- ordinary mitigating
4.
When the offender is deaf or dumb and blind- ordinary mitigating
5.
Vindication of a grave offense
6.
When the offender suffers an illness provided that the illness did not render him totally absent of
sound mind- ordinary mitigating
7.
Passion or obfuscation
8.
Suspect surrenders
36

9.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Other similar circumstances- also referred to as extenuating circumstance

-
Not found in article thirteen some of them are scattered in other articles of RPC.
Examples:
a.
Art 247. Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances;
b.
Infanticide and Abortion- when it was done to hide dishonor;
c.
Art 268- when the victim is voluntarily released and the detention is not
considered serious;
d.
Adultery- when there was abandonment by the husband
KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1.
Ordinary - the penalty will be lowered by period

- Will not affect indivisible penalties in anyway
2.
Privileged - the penalty will be lowered by degree

- It shall always be taken into account; includes the availment of ISLAW even if the
penalty actually imposed is reclusion perpetua
Example: minority, there can be no convicted minor who can be made to serve the
penalty of reclusion perpetua
So when there is intent to conceal a perceived a Voluntary release. When a person is kidnapped
Art. 268- Slight illegal detentaion
If the kidnap victim is released and the detention is not considered serious, the PENALTY will be lower or
mitigated or abandonment by the husband in an adultery case filed against the wife, the abandonment by
the husband will have the effect of mitigating circumstance. So those are just some of them.
-And then there are also instances where there will be a mitigated liability in error in personae in Article
49. In error in personae, if the intent was to kill another person but the person who actually was killed
was a parent, or an ascendant, or a descendant, or a spouse, then the crime will be parricide but the
penalty will not be for parricide. The penalty will be for homicide which was the crime intended.
-And if the age is over 70 of the accused, and then if there are 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating
circumstance, there will be 1 degree lower. 2 or more mitigating without aggravating will have the same
effect as a privilege but is not exactly privilege. It will only have the same effect as a privilege mitigating.
Mitigating:
-Provocation and passion and obfuscation are not two separate mitigating circumstances. If they arise
from the same set of circumstances, they will only be counted as one. They will not be counted two. So
for example, there are 2 friends, Juan and Pedro. Juan may have made side remarks, bugal-bugal and all
those things or maybe Juan hit Pedro for example, and by reason of which Pedro or maybe Juan has an
unfulfilled promise for not paying as regards the Manny vs Money fight, for example so dunay atraso. So
thats provocation. And by reason of that provocation the offender, Pedro, became so incensed, suko kay
siya. And so he killed Juan. It arose from the same feeling. It arose from the same set of circumstances so
they will be treated as one. They cannot be 2 things.
37
PRE-MID BOOK 1
-Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be
treated together as one mitigating circumstance. (Romera vs People, G.R. No. 151978, July 14, 2004)
Praeter Intentionem.
Praeter intentionem can be invoked even in murder, that there was no intent to cause so grave a wrong. I
believe it was last week or week before last when we have the problem pertaining to Juan intended to
injure Pedro and he threw stones. He did not intend to kill Pedro. He just wanted to injure Pedro and so
he threw stones to a motorcycle which was passing by. And he was waiting in ambush. He was purposely
seeking to surprise Pedro and then Pedro died. Aside from Pedro, another guy died, Macario. So in that
case we said that even if Juan did not intend to kill neither Pedro nor the other guy, even if he did not
intend to kill the victim it would not make it just homicide because the intent to kill is only taken into
consideration, taken into account as an element of the crime only if the murder or infanticide or homicide
is in its attempted or frustrated stage. When it is consummated it is already presumed.
Now how would we designate the offense considering that there is a qualifying circumstance present in
the commission of the crime? So we said that because of treachery. Why was there treachery? Because
there was waiting in ambush. He intended to inflict injuries at night and to assure that the victim would
not be able to put up a defense. So there was a treachery. And the victim died. And so because of that
there was murder but, he did not intend to commit the murder. So there was greater image. The crime is
murder. He will be charged for murder. He will be penalized for murder. There is an ordinary, this is just
an ordinary mitigating. And so we know the effect of an ordinary mitigating circumstance to an indivisible
penalty. So, even if he did not intend to kill the victim but because of the qualifying circumstance which
qualified the killing to murder then he will be held liable for the murder and thus the penalty for murder
which is reclusion perpetua will be mete meted upon him. Dili na mu-matter anymore ang ordinary
mitigating. It wont matter anymore because reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. But if the
offender is a minor, and minority is a privilege mitigating. So you will consider it first. So once the convict
is a minor, right away apply the privilege mitigating of minority which means to go down 1 degree lower.
And once the penalty is not anymore indivisible, once the penalty has now become divisible, you can now
take into consideration the ordinary mitigating. But not when penalty is still indivisible.
Plea of guilty.
The plea of guilty must be voluntary and unconditional, must be made before presentation of evidence
for the prosecution. [But in the real world, actually judges would still take into consideration a plea of
guilty as an ordinary mitigating circumstance even if it is not actually like a voluntary level the first time
because even if there is already an arraignment, di ba it is during an arraignment where the accused will
be asked how do you plea? And even if during the first arraignment the accused did not yet enter a plea
of guilty and then later on he changes his mind, even if he changes his mind after the pre-trial, that
sometimes even after the initial presentation of the prosecutions evidence, if the accused changes his
mind and would now say that he would plead guilty to the charges, what really is being done is that
Judges sometimes would call for a pre-arraignment and then still take into consideration the plea of guilty
as voluntary and unconditional.] Regarding unconditional, Im not too sure about that because you know
in your rules of court (CrimPro), we only have 2 kinds of plea. We only have plea of guilty and plea of not
guilty. Any other kind of plea is considered not guilty. So in effect we dont have such a thing as
conditional plea of guilty. We dont really have it because if the accused is asked how do you plea? Guilty
or not guilty? and he answered Actually your honor, I did it because of this and that. We do not have
that because we only have 2 pleas. And so if you make a plea that way, it will be taken as a plea of not
guilty.
In other jurisdictions, they have other kinds of pleas. But for the Philippines we only have 2, guilty and not
guilty. In California they have plea non contendre. They do not really plea not guilty, they do not really
plea guilty. Di sila mu-plead guilty pero non contendre means they are contesting the charges. They are
38
PRE-MID BOOK 1
not saying they are guilty. They are just not making any contest. So there will be a mitigated liability. But
like I said we do not have such pleas here. We only have 2.
Question: How do we characterize a pre-bargaining agreement?
Answer: A plea bargaining agreement is an agreement whereby the offender will plead guilty to a lesser
offense than what is charged. So the information will not be changed. For example, if we have a charge
for murder and then the accused will say -Ayaw nalang na usba ang murder. Dili nalang ko
magpareinvestigate. But I will plead guilty to homicide which is the lesser offense. So if he pleads guilty
for homicide, he will be penalized for the homicide. But the charges remained to be murder but the
penalty will be for the homicide. So how does it differ from for example an ordinary mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty? Lets say that the charges are already homicide. Di lang nato himuong
murder kay what will happen kung murder is that even if he will plead guilty to a murder, it will not
reduce the penalty. Why? Because voluntary plea of guilty is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance
and being an ordinary mitigating circumstance, it will not be taken into account in the imposition of the
penalty because the penalty for murder is single indivisible. Its already indivisible. Although in the original
revised penal code it says that the penalty for murder is maximum of reclusion temporal to death, that
has already been amended by Republic Act 7659 and so the penalty now for murder is reclusion perpetua
so that is single and also indivisible. So if you plead guilty to murder, the penalty will still remain to be
reclusion perpetua if you just plead guilty right away. But if you plead guilty by availing of plea bargaining
then you will be penalized actually not for the penalty of the crime charged but for the penalty for the
lesser offense.
So for example, lets make it robbery and theft. If the charges are robbery, you plead guilty to robbery,
the plea of guilty is only an ordinary mitigating so what will happen is the penalty will still for robbery only
that it is 1 period lower whereas if you plead guilty to the same information of robbery but for the lesser
offense of theft and thereby entering to a plea bargaining agreement signed by all parties concerned then
the penalty will not be any more for robbery which is actually the crime charged but it would be for theft.
Can you imagine if the charges are for qualified theft? The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.
Remember in qualified theft, if the value of the property taken is more than P12,000. For theft the penalty
is only Prision correccional. For example, the accused stole a cellphone worth P15,000 and the accused
happens to be a domestic/househelp, the crime would become qualified theft. The penalty if it were
simply theft would have been Prision mayor. But because the offender is a domestic, the crime is
changed. It will become qualified theft. And the penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher than theft.
So whats 2 degrees higher than theft???
So RP na, now if this domestic pleads guilty, what will happen is that the penalty will remain RP simply
because voluntary plea of guilty is a merely an ordinary mitigating circumstance. So even if mu amin pa
siya during arraignment, the penalty will remain the same - RP.
Compare that with availing of a plea bargaining. Nothing will change. The information will not change BUT
the penalty will change. So with the plea bargaining agreement, accused will now say I will plead guilty for
the lesser crime of theft,. So what will happen is that the penalty will be lowered. In the case qualified
theft and theft, its actually no just the period but 2 degrees. So that the reason why these remedies may
be availed of. Thats a different remedy that can be availed but its more procedural. Because if we rely on
the ordinary mitigating, the only effect is lowering it. Thats not the same as giving a pleas of guilty on plea
bargaining.
Now, naa pa jud buhaton ani sa court, kung maluoy jud kayo ang Court, what they will do. Ilang aresan
ang voluntary plea og guilty sa voluntary surrender, para maduha ka mitigating para ma one degree
lower.
39
PRE-MID BOOK 1
There was a case not too long ago wherein the so who is of age already, he was 20 years, killed the father
while the father was doing something with the. What happened was pag arraignment, it was like in the
affidavit that the reason why the father was killed was because he was being physically abusive to a
relative. In the arraignment, the accused readily said guilty. The PAO lawyer said that dont plead guilty
yet since this is still defensible. The PAO lawyer was hoping that he could avail of defense of relatives as a
possible justifying circumstance. Di man jud siya kay wla na man daw lain didto. So what the court did was
giparesan nalang ang voluntary pleas sa voluntary surrender, Pero actually it was not like that. Gidakop
jud to siya pero giparesan nalang para ma one degree lower. Usahay maluoy man ang mga court.
Q: About Battered Women Syndrome. Lets say the accused is only able to prove one cycle, but we need 2
cycles, so it cannot anymore be BWS as a defense, can we say incomplete under 9262 because par 1 of
Art. 13 mentions only of the preceding article. Or do we go back to the mental illness in Genosa?
Atty: The problem with Genosa is that it has already been superceded by RA 9262. Before 9262, there is
no such thing as justifying circumstance of BWS. Because it was not yet considered as justifying
circumstance, so asa man siya mu fall? Di man siya mu fall sa self-defense or any kind of defense because
of the lacking element of unlawful aggression. Because of that, possible ba siya mu fall sa illness? If the
offender was found to be suffering from BWS, wala may BWS before 9262, so di siya mu fall. It requires
still the requisite of unlawful aggression in order to constitute justifying circumstance because we did not
yet have at that time the justifying circumstance of BWS.
Now that 9262 is already enacted, the law is now very clear that survivors suffering of BWS who are
accused in a crime wherein their victim was their batterer, they will not incur criminal and civil liability,
even if the requisites for self-defense are not present. Genosa was decided on Januray 15, 2004. It was
3
4
decided prior to the passage . So Sec 26 was not yet in effect. Because 9262 was not yet in effect, we
cannot apply the law because it is not yet in effect. Therefore, what can we apply? We can only apply Art
11, 12 or 13.
It could not be Art 11, not justifying circumstance kay in justifying circumstance, the 3 requisites should be
present. But there was no unlawful aggression in Genosa so dili mu apply ang Art 11.
Lets now go to 12 - exempting. There must be total insanity. Was BWS considered insanity? No. So di pud
ta maka gamit og 12.
Lets now go to 13- mitigating. Illness is one of the ordinary mitigating circumstances. IS BWS considered
as illness? Maybe yes. So therefore, in the Genosa case, it could not be justifying nor exempting but it
could be ordinary mitigating. But that was before.
Now, there is no question that once there is BWS even if the elements for defense is not present, there is
a total absence of criminal and civil liability. So in the Genosa case it could be treated as mitigating. Now it
doesnt matter anymore, because the law is clear. But yes, illness- provided that the illness diminished
either the voluntariness or the knowledge, then it can be treated as ordinary mitigating. But if it
completely did away with the knowledge, or voluntariness, such as for example a kleptomaniac who
commits theft. Is the offender there totally insane? No, hes not totally insane because in order to be
3
R.A. No. 9262. The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, was enacted on March
8, 2004 and became effective on March 27 of the same year.
4
SECTION 26. R.A NO. 9262. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. Victim-survivors who are found
by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/
psychologists.
40
PRE-MID BOOK 1
exempting, it must be total. So it cannot be exempting. Can it be considered mitigating? Yes, because
somehow, it affected his voluntariness to commit the crime.
Q: Maam, for you to be considered a battered woman, you need two cycles. Lets say you did not wait for
the second cycle to begin, the prosecution will say that you are not a battered woman. Is that the time
when we can apply analogous circumstance of mental illness like in Genosa, or is it vindication of a
wrong?
A: The thing with 9262, the requirement is the court, its the court who would determine the insanity, and
the court may be guided by the expert testimony of a psychiatrist. So once the psychiatrist,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE CYCLES, say that this woman is suffering BWS, and theres testimony and
evidence to that effect, and the court believes the expert, then there can be total justifying because BWS
is total justifying, not merely exempting.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 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 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.
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.
41
PRE-MID BOOK 1
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).
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.
Kinds
a.
Generic - these are the circumstances that apply to all crimes
b.
Specific - apply only to specific crimes
c.
Qualifying - change the nature of the crime, such as being a domestic in qualified theft or
treachery and evident premeditation inn murder,
d.
Inherent - aggravating circumstance which will not be considered anymore because they are
inherent.
e.
Special - circumstances which increase the penalty. Such as taking advantage of official position,
syndicate.
Effects
a.
Generic - maximize the penalty. If the crime is homicide, for ex, the penalty is RT, if there is an
aggravating circumstance, the penalty would be RT in its maximum. However, unlike mitigating
circumstance, we dont have the equivalent of privileged which will reduce the penalty by
degree. We do not have privileged aggravating which will increase the penalty by degree. In
criminal law, we cannot impose a penalty higher than that imposed by law.
b.
Qualifying - In qualifying, it could be higher by one degree. For example, in qualified theft it can
be two degrees higher.
Some discussion on AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account
42
PRE-MID BOOK 1
of rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
o
Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor. It does not also apply in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide because it is a crime against property. But we can consider the
aggravating circumstance of treachery even it is essentially an aggravating circumstance which
applies in crimes against persons.
Treachery as a rule can be taken consideration to aggravate crimes against persons. Exception to
that is robbery with homicide which is a crime against property. In several cases decided by the
SC, treachery maybe appreciated in the crime involving property of robbery with homicide.
If the victim is a person in authority, it is also aggravating but not when the aggravating
circumstance is already inherent in a crime such as in direct assault. In direct assault, there can
be private persons who can be victims such as professors in schools.
The mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se aggravating. There must be deliberate
intent to insult the sex and the victim.
Sex may also change the nature of the crime. Example is in illegal detention. If the victim is a
woman, it is automatically serious.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

o
Abuse of confidence is aggravating only if the victim is the one who gives the trust.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
o
Nighttime by itself is not aggravating neither is it qualifying. But nighttime can be an ordinary
aggravating if it is specially sought and it is taken advantage of and/or it facilitates the
commission of the crime.
It can be qualifying if the nighttime was the reason that the victim was not able to set up a
defense and therefore it is converted into treachery.
If it is only band, it will become a special aggravating.
16. Treachery 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 may make.
There is treachery when the killing was done in such a manner as to ensure that the crime be
accomplished without giving any chance or opportunity for the victim to put up a defense.
As a rule, if there is suddenness of the attack, that would be considered treachery. But if there is
no evidence as to the time lapse in the commission of the crime, usually treachery would be
appreciated by examining the wounds inflicted on the victim.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation.
SC said that if the victim is a child and the offender is an adult, then the crime would not be
homicide but murder because by reason of their minority, they cannot put up a defense.
43
PRE-MID BOOK 1
However, in the recent ruling of SC the crime was considered murder although the victim was
already 17 appreciating treachery because the latter cannot put up a defense.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
There are two instances when a person can be arrested: valid warrantless arrest and an arrest with a
warrant.
A person actually committing a crime, after committing the crime, he directly goes to the police like he
ran over a person after that, he did not wait to be arrested, he went directly to the police. That is
voluntary surrender; no warrant of arrest needed for that.
But if for example, Juan issued a check to Pedro. The check bounced. Pedro filed an estafa case against
Juan (not a BP 22 case because you will not be arrested). The information was filed in court. If the
information will be filed in court, the court will just determine if there is probable cause for the issuance
of the warrant of arrest and issue the same if the court finds probable cause. It is possible that the
accused did not have knowledge that there is already a Warrant of arrest. Therefore, he has to wait that
the Warrant is served. But even if there is already a Warrant of arrest, he can surrender to the police so
that he can post bail. In this case, there is a voluntary surrender even if the Warrant of arrest has already
been issued.
Juan was charged for homicide. A warrant of arrest was issued against him. The same was not served
because Juan was missing for 2 years. He got tired of avoiding the law so he surrendered to the Police.
It is also possible that the Warrant was already served but at that time, he did not resist the arrest and
voluntarily went with the police. (Mukuyog lang ko kay wala na koy makaon diri sa amo.) This could still
be voluntary surrender.
The voluntariness there means that in the arrest, no restraint was made, whether the warrant is served or
issued, when the arresting officers need not place him under restraint in order to bring him to the court.
This is the essence of voluntary surrender. In the real world, the judges will exercise more leniencies like
gidakop ka pero dili kaayo ka samukan. In fact, when you plead guilty, the judge will even pair you plea
with voluntary surrender so that the penalty will be brought to one degree lower. (Two mitigating
circumstance without any aggravating circumstance will have the same effect with privilege mitigating
circumstance.)
Caveat: Fiscal emphasized that this is what is practiced in the real world. In a Supreme Court ruling, it was
held that there was no voluntary surrender because his arrest was highly eminent. The issue discussed
above is whether or not there can be a voluntary surrender when a warrant of arrest is already issued; the
answer is yes as discussed above.
***Fiscal discussed Crim Pro regarding Posting of Bail. When the warrant of arrest is issued in Manila,
and you are in Cebu, you need not go to Manila to Post Bail. You can post bail in the place where you are
courts of Cebu or in Municipal treasurers authorized to receive post bail. This is already Voluntary
surrender.
DWELLING
Dwelling becomes aggravating because the home is a mans castle. When he is inside his home/abode,
and is being harmed, then there is that aggravating circumstance. In certain cases it is aggravating but can
also be inherent in other cases. Such as if the crime is trespassing or robbery by use of force upon things
in dwellings.
44
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Robbery with homicide, dwelling is aggravating because it is not robbery with force upon things. In
robbery with homicide, the controlling description there would be robbery with violence not anymore
force upon things.
The essence is the victim is supposed to feel safe inside his home. Because of that, even if the crime was
perpetrated from the outside or even if the offender shot the victim from the outside while the victim
was inside his dwelling, it is still an aggravating circumstance.
Dwelling is not limited to the name House. Any part of the house is also part of the dwelling provided it
is a dwelling.
However, the problem is when the structure is not only used as a dwelling, such as half public and half
private because it is used also as half abode and half store. If the place is committed in the dwelling part
then there is aggravating. If committed in the public part, then there is no aggravating.
In one case, the ground floor was video rental, and the upper floor was residence. The rape was
committed on the ground floor. She was dragged to the toilet and kitchen - these were all in the ground
floor. The SC ruled there was no aggravating because the dwelling was on the second floor.
Aggravating: Dwelling:
Dwelling aggravates a felon where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended
party if the latter has not given provocation.
Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law
accords to human abode. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him is more guilty than he
who offends him elsewhere. (Pp vs Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001)
The Supreme Court ruled that there no aggravating because the dwelling was on the second floor not on
the ground. Remember that it must be a dwelling, a place where you stay not a mere transient. The victim
must at least be sleeping there even as a guest.
Dwelling could mean a temporary abode for the time being. It does not have to be a permanent
residence. Its essence is that it is your own private place and the public has no access.
If the public has already access to a place where the attack was made, then dwelling cannot be
appreciated.
Ex. If the place is half dwelling and, half store with one entrance and the attack is made while the victim is
in the dwelling then it is deemed committed inside the dwelling. Or the first floor is the store and the
second floor is utilized as the dwelling, here the second floor is supposed to be private and exclusive and
the public should be denied such that any attack which takes place in any part of the second floor, there is
an aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
Again the rationale of dwelling is that it is supposed to be your palace free from any harm and danger.
Other AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Poison
It can be ordinary aggravating, or it can be qualifying circumstance. But in order to
become qualifying in the crime of murder it has to be specifically sought.
45
PRE-MID BOOK 1
People vs Galura: the accused wanted to have a good time with the victim. So he invited
her to a dinner date where he laced the food with cantharides; the purpose being to
make the victim more consenting. So the purpose was more on the lewd designs of the
accused to have carnal knowledge with the victim afterwards. But what happened was
that the effect of the chemicals poisoned and caused the death of the victim. Supreme
Court said that the poison there cannot be taken as a qualifying circumstance because it
was not specifically sought to kill.
So even if the killing was caused by poisoning with the use of chemicals intentionally
placed on the food of the victim, Supreme Court said it is not qualifying.
2. Recidivism
An ordinary aggravating circumstance
Several kinds of repeat offenses:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Recidivism
a.
2 or more offenses within the same title
b.
The accused has a prior conviction and is facing trial for the 2 offense
c.
Penalty for the previous crime is irrelevant, what is important is that it falls within
the same title as the subsequent offense
d.
It is an ordinary aggravating; therefore it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating.
nd
Quasi- Recidivism
a.
Before or during service of the sentence, the accused commits another crime.
b.
The second offense is committed on or before the service of sentence; and it is not
necessary that he is already facing trial.
c.
Special aggravating, which cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating. The penalty

will not be increased merely by period, but rather it will be always at the maximum.
(same effect as a complex crime)
Habituality
a.
There is more than 1 offense, and the two offenses have the same penalty, or the
nd
other offense is of a higher penalty, or if the 2 offense is a lower penalty but there
are two or more of them.
b.
He has served out the sentence for the first offense (Brabante)
c.
Ordinary aggravating
Habitual Delinquency or Multi-Recidivism (by Brabante)

a.
Accused is convicted of the first offense
b.
He commits any of the habitual delinquency crimes: serious or less serious physical
injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification
c.
Offender is found guilty within 10 years from his last release or last conviction for
the third time or oftener
46

d.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Cannot be offset by an ordinary aggravating circumstance
3. Use of Craft or Disguise

Supreme Court said in one case involving 2 UP law students during an initiation, one of
the accused was wearing a mask, and the mask fell, prosecution said it could still be
considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance even if the disguise was not
effective (because it fell).
What determines whether or not the disguise should be taken into consideration is not
that it is effective, but rather if the accused USED a disguise. Thus in this case, even if
the mask fell and the disguise ineffective, but because it was purposely sought by the
accused, the disguise can still be taken into consideration.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 15. Their concept. 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. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in
the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity
in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the
offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the
plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
1.
Relationship
If it is a crime against property, it is mitigating. If it is a crime against persons, it is
aggravating.
2.
Intoxication
Becomes aggravating when it is intentional or habitual. If it is not intentional or habitual
it is mitigating.
3.
Degree of instruction or education of the offender

It is usually aggravating rather than mitigating. It is aggravating when offender is
equipped with proper education or instruction. The lack of it results to a mitigating
circumstance.
PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ( Art. 16-19 of RPC )

Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
47
PRE-MID BOOK 1
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Article 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;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would
not have been accomplished.
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate
in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
1.
Principals
a.
By direct participation- those who actually performed the overt acts which give rise to the
commission of the offense
b.
By inducement / induction- they are the ones who caused the performance/ commission of
the crime by promise or reward
c.
By indispensable cooperation- contributed to the commission by doing something which is

indispensible to its commission; if its contribution is not indispensible then he could merely
be an accomplice or accessory
Ex. A and B plan to murder X. There was no way that X could be killed except by using a rifle
because he lives in an islet. C is the person who provides the rifle but doesnt know how the
rifle will be used. Answer: C is a principal by direct participation if this is the only way that X
may be killed, otherwise C is merely an accomplice. Note that if there is implied or express
conspiracy, you cannot be considered as an accomplice or accessory because of the
presence of conspiracy.
2. Accomplices- cooperate by previous or simultaneous acts (must have knowledge and must
cooperate BUT there is no agreement)
3. Accessories- after the fact
Note : Knowledge for accomplice, it must not be knowledge of a particular offense or victim otherwise if
you already know the particular crime and against whom then that is already tantamount to conspiracy. If
for example you are the gun store and here is A and B they bought guns from you, it does not mean that
accomplice naka sa tnaan nilang buhaton, what will make the person who supplied the firearm as a
conspirator is when he agrees, but if he does not agree expressly or impliedly but he knows that it is going
to be committed for some crime, whatever the crime is coz you dont know specifically then we can say
that there is already cooperation by prior acts. Once there is a agreement as to what time and against
who, then there is already conspiracy because conspiracy need not be express, it may be implied.
48
PRE-MID BOOK 1
3 Types of Actors (Art. 16)
Grave and Less Grave Felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories
Light Felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
Three kinds of Accessories (Art. 19, RPC)
1. Profited or assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime

2. Concealed or destroyed the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof
3. Harbored, concealed or assisted the escape of the principal, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public function OR whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder or attempt to assassinate the Chief Executive, OR is a habitual criminal.
(Has limited application) (Only applies if principal is identified and his guilt proven)
Note : It is only in accessory in No. 3 where you have the specific crimes, because the specific
crimes which are treason, parricide, murder, these are not necessary in accessories 1 and 2;
they only come to play only in No. 3.
Problem: The victim is living in a small islet and there is no way that he could be killed unless he is shot
from a distance. The guy who made the order was A. A, here, is a principal by inducement.
The guy who will shoot is B. B is principal by execution.
The guy who supplied the only weapon that can effect the killing was C. C was principal by indispensable
cooperation.
But if we have another guy, who transported the firearms - he knew of the plan and his role in the plot,
which was to bring the firearm - he was just the driver. He knew concurred to the criminal design.
Because of his agreement, he will become a conspirator; therefore, even if he was not a principal in any
way, he will be held liable as a principal.
Nathans question: Accomplice vs a Conspirator
Heres a group of armed men. They have conspired to rob a bank. They have agreed on the crime. They
have completed a conspiracy.
You will supply the vehicle. You do not exactly know what the crime is going to be committed (robbery or
to kill). But nonetheless, you have knowledge that theyre going to commit a crime and have contributed
to it; but you have not agreed exactly to it.
Because once there is an agreement, the definition of the conspiracy will kick in.
49
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Conspiracy is that once there is an agreement (two or more persons come to an agreement to perform or
to commit a crime) then there is already a conspiracy. Once you have concurred, as the SC held in many
cases, there can be implied conspiracy. And that is the reason why its really confusing because of the
implied conspiracy. Meaning you do not have to have an agreement per se; its just that you clung to the
criminal design of the original conspirators. Once you cling to that design and agree fully well what the
crime is going to be committed, what it is and whos the target. Once agreed, then there is already
implied conspiracy.
Nathans example where there is a conspiracy to kill Ron. The armed men go to the gun store asked the
owner to help them commit the crime. Is the owner liable as an accomplice or a conspirator?
Fiscals Answer:
Lets discuss the elements
st
1 Did you participate in the killing? Yes, because he supplied the firearm.
nd
2 Was the act of supplying an indication of concurrence to the criminal design which was to kill Ron?
If the answer yes, then there is conspiracy.
If he merely concurred (like tando-tando lang siya) or merely agreed but did not do anything, he
will not be liable.
Article 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.
1. In the first, the one who profits need not be the accessory. It may be the principal.
2. Concealment or destroying the body of the crime the body here could refer to the weapon, body of
the victim
3. Concealing or harboring the criminal himself
Accessory is a Public Official
Accessory is not a Public Official
Principal is guilty of any crime
Principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or

an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive
Principal is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
**Note that the word used here is not a recidivist.

It can be any kind of crime (wala tiwasa ang
50
PRE-MID BOOK 1
statement naputol ang tingog sa mic. Sorry. I just
based it nalang sa codals).**
The offender must have abused his public office

The principal must be tried and convicted. The accessory here cannot be held liable until there is a
conviction.
The principal here must be tried and found guilty. So if the principal is in hiding, you can never convict the
accessory. The conviction of the accessory will depend on the conviction of the principal. But this is only
for #3.
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees,
with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article.
Note: Accessory of a light felony is not liable.
Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. - The following shall not
be considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason
of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the
purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary
powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.
What are not penalties:

1.
2.
Detention of accused (not convicted) persons

a.
Detained person like Enrile, Jinggoy or Revilla can still run for senator or president.
Because they are not yet convicted therefore they still have their civil and political
rights. And once they are convicted accessory penalties will set in. But prior to that, they
can exercise their rights.
b.
They are only deprived of their liberty because the crime for what they are charged is
not bailable.
Detention and hospitalization of insane persons
51
PRE-MID BOOK 1
3.
Commitment of minors to institutions
4.
Suspension of employment during trial or in order to institute proceedings

a.
Before conviction, NOT yet penalties.

i. Example: when the offender is charged with violation of the anti-graft and
practices act. Once the information is filed with the Sandiganbayan. The fact
alone na ma filan ka ug information would be a ground for suspension. But this
suspension is not a penalty because there is no conviction yet.
b.
5.
Administrative fines or disciplinary measure

a.
6.
After conviction, there can be a penalty of suspension which is temporary

disqualification
Not penalties. As the word suggest these are not imposed by the court but rather
imposed by agencies of the government that are charged with enforcement of the laws.
Like violation of traffic rules with LTO or with nature to DENR.
Deprivation of rights and reparations
Classification of Penalties
1.
2.
3.
Capital, Afflictive, Correctional, Light

a.
There is no more death.
b.
Afflictive prision mayor to reclusion perpetua(RPC)/ 6yrs to life imprisonment (SPL)
c.
Correctional Destiero is correctional
d.
Light arresto menor
Divisible, Indivisible
a.
Indivisible Reclusion Perpetua
b.
Divisible Destiero (6mon +1day to 6 yrs) liberty is restricted
Corporal, Deprivation of Freedom, Restriction of Freedom, Deprivation of Rights, Fines

a.
EFFECTS:
i. Corporal Death
ii. Deprivation of Freedom Imprisonment
iii. Restriction of Freedom Destiero
iv. Deprivation of rights Civil interdiction
4.
Economic Fines
a.
Afflictive exceeds P6,000
b.
Correctional P200-P6,000
c.
Light less than P200
52

5.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Principal, Accessory
Duration and effect of Penalties: Arts. 27-45

RECLUSION PERPETUA
Per amendment in R.A. 7659, reclusion perpetua now has a duration of from 20 years and 1 day
to 40 years.
For purposes of Preventive Imprisonment it is pegged at 30 yrs
For purpose of Pardon it is pegged at 30 yrs.
Regardless of these reasons, it remains to be an indivisible penalty. (Pp. vs. Lucas, G.R. Nos.
108172-73, May 25, 1994)
On the other hand, PAROLE can start at 20 yrs and 1day because this is the minimum.
NOTE: If only one Reclusion Perpetua you can never be imprisoned for more than 30 yrs. So
duration of perpetua is 20 yrs and 1 day to 40 yrs BUT if you are only convicted to one perpetua
then your maximum is only 30. ( RA7695)
Unlike other penalty there is a range which is the min, med and max for purpose of parole. The
range can go as high as the max of the penalty which is not the case in perpetua. You will not
reach 40yrs regardless of any circumstance attributing in the single perpetua crime. But if you
are good you can get the 20yrs and 1 day.
The only time it can reach up to 40yrs is when there is application of the THREE FOLD RULE
Preventive Imprisonment it is peg at 30 yrs (PRE-TRIAL PRISONER)

o
This means that when you are imprisoned for committing a crime where the penalty is
reclusion perpetua BUT you grow old in the cell and yet your case has not been closed
and the trial took more than 30 yrs. The trial will still go on but he cannot continue to be
imprisoned anymore because for reason of preventive imprisonment, reclusion
perpetua is only for 30 yrs.
Reclusion is indivisible and imposed in its entirety without a fixed period for its duration
regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstance. BUT TAKE NOTE QUALIFY the meaning of
mitigating because PRIVILEGE MITIGATING WILL HAVE A BEARING regardless of any ordinary
mitigating.
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment

AS TO
1. LAW
2. ACCESSORY PENALTY
3. DURATION
RECLUSION PERPETUA
LIFE IMPRISONMENT
RPC
SPL
CARRIES WITH IT
NONE
DEFINITE
NONE
But for purposes of parole, both
RP and Life imprisonment are
computed at 30, thats the
maximum that a person can be
imprisoned unless 3- fold rule
53
PRE-MID BOOK 1
applies
Destierro
is divisible
the movement of the accused is restricted and it can range from 25 to 25O kilometers.
Rights that are suspended at the time of sentence
It may refer to the rights of a person over his property. (Civil Interdiction)
Pardon by the President and the Offended Party

Presidential Pardon
Pardon by Offended Party
Extends to any crime
Only to private crimes
Extinguishes criminal liability
Bars criminal prosecution
There has to be a conviction
The pardon by the offended party must be given

before the conviction or even the prosecution
Does not include civil liability
May include waiver of civil liability although most

times the pardon can come after the payment of
civil liability
Extended to any party
Must include both offenders unless one of them

died
May be absolute or conditional
Cannot be subject to any condition but it could be

subject as to conditions on civil liability
Pecuniary Liabilities
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. In case the property of the offender should not be
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. The cost of the proceedings.
When you say REPARATION, its usually about PROPERTY. When we say INDEMNIFICATION, its more or
less PERSONS.
Subsidiary Penalty
54
PRE-MID BOOK 1
*Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at
the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution,
but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the
preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal
penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.
(As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
*As amended by R.A. 10159, April 10, 2012
When a person is penalized with a crime and he cannot pay the fine, he can be imprisoned. What is the
rate? The rate is now minimum wage of the highest daily minimum wage in the Philippines (probably in
Makati). It does not say highest minimum wage in the place in commission. So even if the guy committed
the crime in Camotes, for example, the computation should be based on the daily minimum wage in
Makati.
Application of Penalties
Take note of the ones that are repealed:
Art. 47
Art. 63 (2)
Art. 74
Art. 80
Art. 81- 85
The penalties imposed in BOOK 2 for the principal for the consummated stage. Thus:
Consummated
Frustrated
Attempted
55
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Principal
-1
-2
Accomplice
-1
-2
-3
Accessories
-2
-3
-4
Complex Crimes
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Kinds
1.
2.
ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME (Art. 48)

-
There is a formula:
a.
COMPOUND CRIME: One act 2 or more grave or less grave offenses
b.
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER: 2 offenses (NOT 2 acts) one is a means of committing the other
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME/ COMPOSITE CRIME/SINGLE INDIVISIBLE

-
Those provided by law, there is no formula. The law itself states that if this crime is
committed with another crime, this is the penalty.
But there are only a few special complex crimes. Sometime you can change the designation
of the special complex crime, sometimes you cannot. Ex: robbery with homicide, regardless
of the number of people killed, it will always be, robbery with homicide; or regardless of the
manner of killing whether there was treachery, it does not matter, I will always be robbery
with homicide.
Plurality of crimes
It is possible that we have a formal plurality which means that there is one criminal intent resulting in 2 or
more crimes, but there is only one criminal liability. Many crimes committed but there is only one liability.
Why? Because it is possible that those many crimes arose from one single act. Or its possible that those
many crimes refer to one offense as a means to commit another. So in those cases, there is only one
liability.
Material Plurality means there are several crimes arising from several intents or negligence. Here, there
will be separate criminal liability.
In continuing Crime, there is one intent, there are a series of acts but these series of acts only constitute
one crime. Ex: kidnapping, taking one person from place to place. In such cases, there will only be one
criminal liability.
Case Study:
During a quarrel and in the heat of anger, Juan shot Pedro. The same bullet which hit also hit his son
Juanito. Both died. Whats the crime?
56
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Answer:
No doubt we have an ordinary complex crime because one act equals two crimes. What are these 2
crimes? Homicide insofar as Pedro is concerned and parricide insofar as Juanito is concerned. We have 2
crimes but these 2 crimes arose from one act. Here we have a complex crime of parricide with homicide.
Why homicide? Because its in the heat of anger, there is no evident premeditation. Parricide and
homicide, both of these crimes are grave offenses. According to Art 48, the penalty to be imposed is that
for the graver offense. What is the graver offense? Parricide. But the penalty of the graver offense will be
imposed in its maximum.
Case Study:
A B C and D agreed to ambush the vehicle of E and kill him and his companion. As E was driving home, all
accuse fired multiple successive gun shots at Es vehicle. As a result, E and his passenger FG and H was
killed. Is there material plurality or formal plurality?
Answer: MATERIAL PLURALITY. Let us go to the basics. In People v. Orias, SC said, deeply rooted is the
doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct
crimes. Why is there material plurality here? Because there are several acts. Here, one is not a means of
committing another. In the given facts, the formula in Art 48 does not apply because this not a case of one
act equal 2 or more. It is not also a case of one act is means of committing another.
In People v. Valdez, SC said, each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms,
aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot
give rise to a complex crime.
In Nelmida, applying the same set of facts, and you can see that it is a later ruling, katong aotng set of
facts, there was conspiracy. Thats very important later on. So SC found that there was conspiracy. SC,
under the same facts ruled that the accused were guilty of separate counts of different murders.
Pananglitan, daghan gipatay, lain lain na shots ang nakapatay, separate, not complex. In this ruling the
SINGLE IMPULSE DOCTRINE is not applicable.
What is the SINGLE IMPULSE DOCTRINE?
- started with Lawas Case,
-talks about single impulse doctrine as a deviation from the formula.
Formula:
1.
one act equals two or more
2.
one act which is a means of committing another
The Lawas Ruling, 97 Phil 975 (1955)

Single Impulse Doctrine
-
If it is no longer one act, then it is not covered by the formula. Yet the Supreme Court held that
even if there are several acts but acting on the single impulse, it is one crime.
In this case, members of the Home Guard, upon order of their leader, Lawas, simultaneously and
successively fired at several victims. As a result, 50 persons died. SC held that the killing was the
57
PRE-MID BOOK 1
result of a single impulse as there was no intent on the part of the accused to fire at each and
every victim separately and distinctly from each other.
That is why, the word conspiracy is important. Because in the Lawas case, they were not conspiring, they
were just ordered, same in Maguindanao case, it is not like all of them were conspiring.
-
In Lawas, there was no conspiracy, and each accused could not be held liable for separate
crimes for lack of clear evidence showing the number of persons actually killed by each of
them.
This court was merely forced to apply 48, complex crime, because of the impossibility of ascertaining the
number of persons killed by each accused, plus wa man unta toy problema if naay conspiracy, kay if naa
pay conspiracy, kung tulo kabuok g patay, niya tulo sad g patay, simply, sila tulo for each nga g patay, naay
material plurality or separate crime. But what made Lawas unique was that there was no conspiracy, so
how would we prosecute now, because we could not determine, who killed who, and we could not say
that all are guilty for the death because there is no conspiracy. Because if naa pa conspiracy, then we
could have separate offenses. Because you would merely, by virtue of the conspiracy, make them all liable
for each and every death.
PP vs Remolino
Lawas doctrine is more of an exception than the general rule
this court was merely forced to apply Article 48 of the RPC (for Lawas) because of the
impossibility of ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused. Since conspiracy was
not proven therein, joint criminal responsibility could not be attributed to the accused. Each
accused could not be held liable for separate crimes because of lack of clear evidence showing
the number of persons actually killed by each of them (PP vs Nelmida, September 11, 2012)
Recap:
GR: (complex crime)
1.
one act equals two or more
2.
one act which is a means of committing another
Exception:
a.
So long as there is no conspiracy, even if there be several acts but acting on a single impulse,
complex crime is applied because we cannot determine who killed who and there is no
conspiracy. (Lawas case)
b.
But in the four cases (cited below) there is conspiracy. Still, Lawas case was applied. Here,
Supreme Court expanded the definition of single act, they are saying that even if there is
conspiracy, but that conspiracy is the reason that animated the single purpose, that conspiracy of
a single purpose becomes one act.
Remollino case said that Lawas is an exception to the formula, however, this was also applied in several
cases.
Cases of:
(cases that adopted Single Impulse Doctrine)
All involve prisoners, conspiracy present
-
Pp vs Delos Santos
58

-
PP vs. Abella
PP vs Garcia
PP vs Pincalin
PRE-MID BOOK 1
There is a conspiracy (unlike Lawas) and yet Lawas case was applied. So there is again a deviation from
the formula given in article 48.
According to the four cases:
-
Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts in
pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act,the act of execution giving rise to a
complex offense.
(even if in truth and in fact there were several acts, ang single purpose nahimong single act)
These cases refer to jail riots, and in the case of Pincalin, the SC said that this application of the single
impulse doctrine, may not be applicable if what is involved is not prisoners
But the problem is in 2003, dli na prisoners, and naa nay conspiracy. In the case of Sanidad, Lawas was
applied.
-
Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from
their individual firearms, it was not possible to determine who among them actually killed victim
Rolando. The evidence shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlons group as a whole. Where a
conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in
pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a
single complex offense (PP vs Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, April 30, 2003) note: abandoned in
Nelmida)
But in the more recent case of Nelmida:

PP vs Nelmida G.R 184500 September 11, 2012
-
SC said that you are all abandoned. Let us go back
Sanidad is abandoned we have to revert back to the formula. We go back to the basic. Therefore
the only time that we do not apply the formula is when there is no conspiracy. If there is
conspiracy, we should apply the formula. No more deviation
In this case, SC found that there was conspiracy. Under the same facts. SC ruled that the accused
were guilty of several counts of separate murders and attempted murders. Single impulse rule
not applied
Pp vs Sanidad (2003) (abandoned in Pp vs Nelmida)

Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from their
individual firearms, it was not possible to determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando
Tugadi. Moreover, there is no evidence that accused-appellants intended to fire at each and every
one of the victims separately and distinctly from each other. On the contrary, the evidence clearly
shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlon Tugadi's group as a whole. Thus, Where a conspiracy
animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that
purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a single complex
offense.
Pp vs Nelmida (2012)
59
PRE-MID BOOK 1
ISSUE: Applicability of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the conviction of appellants
must be for the separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted
murder or of the complex crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double
attempted murder.
RULING:
This Court believes, however, that appellants should be convicted not of a complex crime but of
separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted murder as the
killing and wounding of the victims in this case were not the result of a single act but of several acts of
the appellants, thus, making Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code inapplicable.
The killing and wounding of the victims were not the result of a single discharge of firearms by the
appellants and their co-accused. To note, appellants and their co- accused opened fire and rained
bullets on the vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security escorts
died while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. Moreover, more than one gunman fired at the
vehicle of the victims. As held in People v. Valdez, each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their
respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and
individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Appellants and their co-accused performed
not only a single act but several individual and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus,
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only of a single act.
In the Nelmida case, SC said if there are separate acts and these separate acts result in the death
of different persons, there shall be as many crimes as there as many victims.
Sanidad ruling is abandoned.
This Nelmida Principle which says that even if there is a single impulse provided that this single
impulse actually results in separate acts, then we should stick to the formula in Art. 48 which
stated that one act giving rise to 2 or more grave or less grave offense. So that if it is not
anymore one act but several acts then there would be as many crimes as there as many victims.
BUT the Nelmida case is very particular because the victims died. So still the Single Larceny
Doctrine has not been abandoned.
CASES INVOLVING SINGLE IMPULSE DOCTRINE (All involve prisoners; Conspiracy present)
Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts in
pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act the act of execution giving rise to a
complex offense.
Pp vs De los Santos 122 Phil. 55 (1965)
Pp vs Abella, 181 Phil 285 (1979)
Pp vs Garcia 185 Phil 362 (1980)
Pp vs Pincalin 190 Phil. 117 (1981)
Santiago vs Garchitorena
For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time;
unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or
more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading
to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.
60
PRE-MID BOOK 1
According to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality
there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator. Padilla views such offense as consisting of a
series of acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution
The Single Impulse Doctrine (SID) does not apply to delito continuado. So the Single Larceny
Doctrine (SLD) still stands.
In SLD, even if the word use is larceny, it does not necessarily mean that it should only refer to
theft or robbery.
Like in the Santiago case which does not involve theft, not a property crime, but is about crimes
against public officers and the SLD was applied here.
Classic example of SLD, an old case wherein the thief took several chickens by different owners
from the chicken coop.
WHEN THERE IS NO PLURALITY:

(1) Foreknowledge Rule where the accused repetitively performed one element of a crime (or
component of a complex crime) over a period of time on a more or less regular basis, having
foreknowledge of its occurrence.
-
Can be continuous/continued crime or continuing crime.
Case Study: Juan is the salesman of a marketing company, in charge of sales in one whole province, who
remits the sales regularly once a week. Every day from Feb. 1 to Feb. 6, he misappropriated P5,000 a day
from his daily collections, remitting only a total of P50,000 on Feb. 7. He again made daily
misappropriations of the same amount from Feb. 8 to Feb. 14, remitting only P40,000 for the scheduled
remittance. How many crimes were committed by Juan?
Answer: here, there is regularity in the remittance although he misappropriated every day. Thus, there is
only one crime committed which is estafa. And estafa happens upon Juans act of remitting the sales.
(2) Doctrine of Common Elements where two or more crimes have one common element. They
cannot be complexed if one is a mode of committing the other.
-
Classic example is damage in Estafa and Falsification of Private Document. We cannot have a
complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document because in complex crime
there has to be 2 offenses which in each offense, their respective elements should be
complete.
If there is a common element of damage, we cannot have 2 offenses but only one offense.
One offense cannot be complete anymore because an element is common to both offenses;
there is no complex crime.
In Complex Crime, all elements of the 2 or more offenses must be complete in itself.
Meaning, each offense must be able to stand alone.
(3) Doctrine of Absorption of Crimes if one offense is an element of another, the former is
absorbed in the latter.
Hence: (this is true even if the crime absorbed carries a higher penalty)
-
Grave Coercion is absorbed in Robbery with Violence or Intimidation against Persons;
61
Physical Injuries is absorbed by Homicide;
Illegal Detention by Abduction.
CONTINUOUS/CONTINUED CRIME vs CONTINUING CRIME

o
Continued/Continuous Crime
-
The offender, impelled by a single criminal impulse (intent), commits a series of overt acts at
about the same time in about the same place and all the overt acts violate one and the same
provision of law.
Example: chicken coop case
Continuing Crime
-
PRE-MID BOOK 1
A crime whose elements are committed in different locations or different times, all elements
constituting only 1 crime.
COMPLEXING FALSIFICATION AND ESTAFA

-
Damage is not an element of or required in falsification of public, official or commercial

documents.
Hence, there can be a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of any of these three
documents.
Case study: Marcial falsified a TCT of land by placing his name as the owner od the land, and
thereafter sold the land to Fabian who was made to believe that Marcial owned it. What crime/s
is/are committed?
Answer: Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. So we have a complex crime here.
NOTE: the only falsification that we cannot complex with another offense is the falsification of a
private document. Because in that case, we need to have a separate element of damage.
Case study: Marcial falsified a letter written by Juan to Macario in order to make it appear that
Marcial was authorized by Juan to receive the rental of Macario on Juans apartment. Macario paid
the rent to Marcial. What crime/s is/are committed by Marcial?
Answer: 2 crimes committed. In a few Supreme Court cases, it held that when there is Estafa
committed through the falsification of private document, the crime should be designated as
falsification of the private document. However, it still depends on WHO is filing the case. If the one
filing the case is the person who sustained damage, then the crime is Estafa, insofar as to the latter. If
the one filing is the person whose signature was falsified, the crime is falsification.
So here, if Macario had paid twice, then the crime is Estafa insofar as Macario is concerned. But if
Marcial will file the case, then the crime is falsification because it was his signature that was falsified.
Case study: Marcial falsely made representations to Macario that he was authorized by Juan to collect
his rent due to Juans apartment. Relying on such misrepresentations, Macario gave his rent to
Marcial. The latter misappropriated the amount. In order to conceal the misdeed, Marcial wrote an
62
PRE-MID BOOK 1
acknowledgment purportedly signed by Magdalena, Macarios mistress, that the latter was the one
who received the money. What is the crime?
Answer: there 2 separate crimes here. There is no complex crime. We have (1) Estafa and (2)
Falsification of Private Document. Falsification was not a mode of committing Estafa, but was
resorted to conceal Estafa.
-
This is similar to burning a person and thereafter burning the house to conceal the body of
the victim. That would not anymore be Arson but rather (1) Murder and (2) Arson. There are
2 separate offenses.
COMPLEXING REBELLION
-
Can rebellion be complex with other common crimes?

o
Regalados view in People vs Hernandez 99 Phil 515 No.

-
Supreme Court tells us that any crime committed in the furtherance of rebellion is
absorbed by rebellion. (Enrile case and Gringo case)
Inigos view Yes, under the new definition of rebellion. (but not yet applied by the Supreme
Court)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

-
Also known as Single or Special Indivisible Crimes
When confronted with a problem wherein 2 or more crimes have been committed, to identify
WON there is a complex crime:
First, determine whether there is a law specifically punishing the act as a special complex
crime.
Second, if there is no specific law punishing such crimes, use the formula under Art. 48 on
complex crimes.
Special Complex Crimes as enumerated: (Memorize!)

a)
Rape with Homicide; Attempted Rape with Homicide (Art. 266-b)

o
No special complex crime punishing these 2 crimes of Rape and Attempted Homicide,
this is the time we apply article 48.
b) Kidnapping under Art. 267 when the victim is killed or dies, or for ransom, or with Rape, or
with Torture;
o
Under the definition in a new special penal law, there are certain conditions when a
physical infliction of pain can be considered torture.
But under Art. 267, Torture not the same as the torture under the new penal law. And
thus, it doesnt need to have the conditions/elements as required under that new law.
Also, always remember, you can never complex a special penal law with felonies
punished under the RPC.
63

o
c)
PRE-MID BOOK 1
When the victim is killed or dies, note that the law does not use the word homicide. So
it can be termed or designated as Kidnapping with Parricide or with Murder, but never
Homicide.
Robbery with Homicide or Serious Physical Injuries (Arts. 294 and 295)
o
Take note that this is regardless of the number victims. Even if there are 10 victims but
there is only one robbery, there can only be one complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide.
d) Robbery with Rape or Intentional Mutilation or Arson (Art. 294)

e)
Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Homicide (Art. 297)
Note:
In letter A, C, and D, that in Robbery and/or Homicide, one of these crimes should be
consummated.
Example: Robbery with Homicide; Robbery with Physical Injuries; Attempted or Frustrated
Robbery with Homicide;
But can you have a complex crime of Attempted Robbery and Attempted Homicide? Yes,
under Art. 48. Not under special complex crime.
Pp vs Malngan (GR 170470, Sept. 26, 2006)

o
Arson resulting in death is simply Arson under Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659 for
Destructive Arson.
For other kinds of arson, PD 1613 applies.
IS THERE A COMPLEX CRIME OF ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED ROBBERY WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL

INJURIES?
-
No. You can never complex slight physical injuries because its either absorbed or separate.
If there is no intent to kill:

o
If the physical injuries were committed on the occasion of and as a means to commit the
Attempted or Frustrated Robbery, the injuries are absorbed; no complexing.
If the physical injuries were committed on the occasion of the Attempted or Frustrated
Robbery but not as a means of committing the latter, there are separate crimes.
Napolis vs CA (GR L-28865)

The robbers entered upon a store by using force upon things. The store leads to the dwelling. So they
went inside the bedroom and they intimidated the victims and robbed the latter.
st
So here, there were 2 modes used in committing the robbery. 1 is the use of force upon things, and
nd
2 is intimidation on persons.
64
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Ruling: the argument to the effect that the violence against or intimidation of a person supplies the
"controlling qualification," is far from sufficient to justify said result. We agree with the proposition
that robbery with "violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary
robbery committed by force upon things," but, precisely, for this reason, We cannot accept the
conclusion deduced therefrom in the cases above cited reduction of the penalty for the latter
offense owing to the concurrence of violence or intimidation which made it a more serious one. It is,
to our mind, more plausible to believe that Art. 294 applies only where robbery with violence against
or intimidation of person takes place without entering an inhabited house, under the conditions set
forth in Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code.
ROBBERY WITH ROBBERY (The obiter in People vs Liani, April 5, 1982)

The reason given in the Napolis case is in order to avoid the illogical proposition that the former is the
"graver offense, " but yet punished with a lighter penalty than the latter. But, if the penalty for the
robbery is higher when it is categorized as one with violence than when classified as one with force
upon things, it is the violence against or intimidation of person that supply the "controlling
qualification," as held in earlier cases (U.S. vs. Turla, 38 Phil. 346; U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 89), and the
crime would simply be robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. In the instant case,
the crime would be robbery with rape under Art 294, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
COMPLEXING RAPE and FORCIBLE ABDUCTION (People vs Garcia, GR 141125)

There can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The crime of forcible abduction
was only necessary for the first rape. Thus, the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered
as separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. They should be detached from and
considered independently of the forcible abduction. Therefore, accused-appellant should be
convicted of one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and three separate acts of rape.
There used to be a landmark decision (Pp vs Jose) which SC said that if the victim of rape was
abducted by a group of offenders and then gang raped the victim in another place, there would
be as many complex crime of Forcible abduction with Rape as there where rapes committed.
But the Garcia ruling now tells us that since there was only one act of abducting, then there
should only be one complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and the others would simply
be Rape.
COMPLEXING CULPABLE CRIMES (Reodica vs CA, GR 125066)

There can be complexing of imprudence crimes under Art. 48. Unless one of the crimes is a light
offense, it has to be filed separately.
POINTS EMPHASIZED BY ATTY. PETRALBA:

o
Memorize all the special complex crimes
When the offense is not a special complex crime, then you determine whether any of the two
formula under Art. 48 is applicable.
If Article 48 is not applicable, determine whether the Doctrine of Absorption applies.
65
PRE-MID BOOK 1
If the Doctrine of Absorption does not apply, determine whether it is a Continuing Crime, or a
Continued Crime, or the Single Larceny Doctrine applies.
If none of these work, then you have separate crimes. Then thats the time you file separate
cases.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that
intended. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to
commit, the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which
the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by
the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a
higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or
the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Remember that this article tell us that its ALWAYS the LOWER penalty which should be imposed.
So if the crime intended to committed is Homicide and what actually committed was Parricide,
then the penalty shall for Homicide
If the intention was to commit Parricide but the resulting crime is Homicide, still the penalty
should be for Homicide.
It is always the lower penalty to be imposed, whether it is the intended crime or the crime
actually committed.
PENALTY FOR ERROR IN PERSONAE

o
Penalty of actual crime is higher than the intended crime penalty is for the intended crime at
maximum period
Penalty of actual crime is lower than the intended crime penalty is for actual crime at maximum
period
If the acts constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime which prescribes a higher
penalty such shall be imposed in its maximum period
If the crime and/or the penalties are the same article 49 does not apply.
Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. - The penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a
frustrated felony.
Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. - A penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
attempt to commit a felony.
Article 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. - The penalty next lower in
66
PRE-MID BOOK 1
degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the
commission of a consummated felony.
Article 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. - The
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony.
Article 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. - The penalty next lower in degree
than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission
of a frustrated felony.
Article 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. - The penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Article 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. - The penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the
accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.
Article 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. - The penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to
the attempt to commit a felony.
ARTS. 50 TO 57 APPLICATION OF PENALTIES TO PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, ACCESSORIES,

CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED STAGES (BY DEGREE)
Consummated
Frustrated
Attempted
Principal
0 (Penalty provided in
the RPC)
Accomplice
Accessory
In the RPC, the penalty provided is for the Principal in its Consummated stage.
For Principals, and it is in the frustrated stage, it is 1 degree lower. And 2 degrees lower, if it in
the attempted stage (based from the penalty given in the consummated stage for Principals). So
on and so forth for Accomplices and Accessories.
However, if the crime committed is Homicide, Parricide, or Murder (in its Frustrated or
Attempted stage), the court may impose more than 1 degree (which can be 2 degrees)
Exception: when the crime is a light felony, no penalty imposed for Accessory-offender.
Lowering by Degree
-
When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance present
When there is 2 or more ordinary mitigating circumstance, without aggravating circumstance,

present
67
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Increasing/Lowering by Period
-
When there is an ordinary mitigating circumstance present
When there is an ordinary aggravating circumstance present
Penalty is ALWAYS in its MAXIMUM period

-
When it is an ordinary complex crime under Art. 48
When the offender is a quasi-recividist
When the crime is performed by a syndicate
Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. - Those accessories falling within
the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions,
shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be
guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave
felony.
ART. 58 ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF DISQUALIFICATION FOR ACCESSORIES NO. 3 WHO ACT IN ABUSE
OF THEIR PUBLIC FUNCTIONS.
Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or
the aims sought are impossible. - When the person intending to commit an offense has already
performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason
of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the
means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the
court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose
upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
ART. 59 PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Article 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. - The provisions contained in Articles 50
to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the
penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
AR. 60 WHEN ARTS. 50 TO 57 ARE NOT APPLICABLE
Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties. - For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according
to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as
principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall
be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees
shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in
Article 71 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more
divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that
immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the
maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
68
PRE-MID BOOK 1
medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper
divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated
scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately
following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty
prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned
respective graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four
preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those
guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and
accessories.
ART. 61 RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES, IN RELATION TO ART. 50 TO 57 (BY DIFFERENT

DEGREES)
Graduating penalties by period

REMINDER: Regardless of the number of aggravating circumstances we can never increase by degree we
can only reach up to the maximum because to prescribe more would be unconstitutional.
When the penalty is indivisible either
a.
single indivisible or
b.
complex penalty which is partly divisible and partly indivisible.
If the penalty is single indivisible such as life or reclusion perpetua, this will not matter anymore because
ordinary mitigating or aggravating will not have effect anymore.
However penalties like reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua that is not indivisible. It is capable of
being divided. So automatically RP becomes the maximum and RT will have to be divided by two. That
makes 16 years and 1 day to 20 years being the medium range and 12 years and 1 day to 16 years being
the minimum. Even if lets just say that the reclusion temporal is maximum, if the penalty attached to the
crime charged is RT maximum to RP that is a divisible penalty. RP will be maximum and the RT maximum
will have to be divided to 3 and the highest years will be the maximum and that maximum will have to be
divided by two. The higher portion will become the medium while the lower will become the minimum
because the RP is the maximum. So what we have is not exactly minimum of RT maximum it is a different
formula altogether.
It could also happen that the penalty for example is prision coreccional maximum to prison mayor
minimum. So you have to get the duration of these two because you cannot easily divide them into 3 you
have to get the whole period and divide by 3. What happens if you have a complex crime? If the penalty is
prision correcional maximum and prison mayor minimum. We have to get the whole period divide it by
three then you will have the maximum then you will have the medium and the minimum. And because it
is a complex crime you will always maximum. What is the effect of an ordinary mitigating? Yes it will have
an effect because here we already have the maximum and we further have to subdivide it into three and
then it will be the minimum of the maximum that will be imposed. Remember always maximum if
complex crime. When we say always it does not mean that we do not take into consideration anymore
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Rather either increasing or lowering by sub periods not periods
anymore because it is always maximum.
PROBLEM:
69
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Minor pleaded guilty to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents
attendant circumstances are minority and plea of guilty to a complex crime. Complex crime you have to
remember is always maximum. Penalty for estafa is prson mayor and estafa is the graver of the two.
STEPS:
1.
Prison mayor should be at the maximum being complex
2.
Because of the presence of minority which is a privileged mitigating circumstance we go one

degree lower so we have prison correcional maximum
3.
and then ordinary MC of plea of guilty so what we have is in PC maximum in its minimum sub
period. That is not yet the penalty that is going to be imposed.
4.
Applying the ISLAW that will only constitute the maximum range.
5.
Then you have to go 1 degree lower to get the minimum range but the question is what is the
minimum range under ISLAW. Should it be one degree lower from the maximum? Where do we
get the minimum?
Now section 1 in ISLAW clearly states that the minimum should be one degree lower from the penalty
attached to the crime charged prescribed by law. So the minimum shall not be computed from the
maximum range we have arrived at but the maximum is fixed/ prescribed by law. Which means that is it
possible that the minimum could be higher than the maximum? For example homicide and the offender is
a minor and two ordinary MC without aggravating. The penalty will become PC and what is the minimum
under ISLAW? It gets more difficult in SPL because in graduating penalties the minimum cannot be lower
than the minimum prescribed in the law and yet minority has the effect of lowering one degree. It would
seem that we can have a grotesque situation where the minimum is higher than the maximum but that is
the wording of ISLAW.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
-
For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower should be determined
WITHOUT regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Code should be applied in its
maximum or minimum period as the circumstances modifying liability may require (People vs
Gonzales, 73 Phil 549)
Thus, a mitigating circumstance cannot be factored in in computing the minimum under ISLAW
How to get the maximum?

o
That which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
RPC
How to get the minimum?

o
The range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code, Sec 1, RA 4103
Where in the penalty next lower? It is anywhere
So that even if we have a complex crime, mitigating or aggravating, a syndicate, quasirecidivism, the minimum under ISLAW is anywhere. It is always maximum if we are talking
about the maximum range but for the minimum range under ISLAW it could be anywhere.
In this case, for purposes of ISLAW, the penalty next lower should be determined without
regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the code should be applied in its
70
PRE-MID BOOK 1
maximum or minimum period as the circumstances modifying the liability may require.
Mitigating circumstances are not factored in. There is a wide latitude for the judge.
-
If a crime is punished by special law, max should be within the max fixed therein and min within the
range prescribed by law
THREE PERIODS BUT BELONGING TO DIFFERENT PENALTIES

Eduarte v People, GR No 176566, Oct 2,2009
-
The penalty prescribed under Art 294(5) is prision correctional maximum to prision mayor medium.
Applying ISLAW, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e.
arresto mayor max to prision correctional medium (anywhere), and whose maximum should be the
proper period of prision correctional maximum to prision mayor medium.
The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. There being 1 mitigating of voluntary surrender,
the maximum term is set at the minimum of the maximum range.
The voluntary surrender only becomes a factor in determining the maximum range. For the
minimum, it does not matter.
ISLAW FOR COMPLEX PENALTIES

Vidal v People, GR No 211023, April 7, 2014
-
The penalty prescribed under ART 217 (4) RPC is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua
This is not a case of an indivisible penalty, this is in fact a divisible penalty.
Applying ISLAW, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e.
prision mayor max to reclusion temporal medium (anywhere) and whose maximum should be the
proper period of reclusion temporal maximum.
The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. RT max is divided into 2 sub-periods, the lower
sub-period is the minimum (of the maximum indeterminate range), the higher sub-period is the
medium and the RP is the max of the range
ISLAW
-
Mandatory only for sentences involving imprisonment (unless the sentence constitutes and
exception)
ISLAW applies to SPL. If the penalty provided is fixed, the penalty under ISLAW shall be within those
limits. If the penalty is borrowed from RPC, the rules for RPC shall apply
People vs Simon, July 29, 1994

o
ISLAW still applies even in crimes or offenses punished under SPL
FACTS : Accused-appellant was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of RA no. 6425
under an indictment alleging that on or about October 22, 1988, at barangay Sto. Cristo, Guagua,
Pampanga, he sold four tea bags to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)poseur-buyer in
consideration of the sum of P40.00, which tea bags, when subjected to a laboratory examination,
71
PRE-MID BOOK 1
were found positive for marijuana. On December 4, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment
convicting appellant, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
ISSUE: Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case?
HELD: Yes. Drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which would
put him within the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does not involve
reclusion perpetua to death. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is a legal and social measure of
compassion, and should be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused.
If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same We hold that this
quoted portion of the section indubitably refers to an offense under an SPL, wherein the penalty
imposed was not taken from and is without reference to the RPC, such that it may be said that the
offense is punished under that law (Caringal v People GR No 197086, February 12, 2014)
o
So if the penalty under the special penal law is for example 8-15 years, the maximum shall
not exceed 15 years, the minimum should not be lower than 8 years. You cannot go lower
than that. Unlike in penalties under the RPC, wherein you can go a degree lower. If in the
SPL, the penalty is not borrowed from the RPC, you can only impose within that range.
There can be no indeterminate sentence if the penalty impose is reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, otherwise it will result in commingling divisible and indivisible penalties in the same
sentence to be served by the convict (People v Lian, March 29, 1996)
o
If you go to ISLAW, it will only tell you that it does not apply when the penalty is death or
life. It does not mention about reclusion perpetua but Lian made it clear that there is also
no application for reclusion perpetua
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is not singular,
unusual or prohibited in the scheme of penalties in the RPC.
Such a penalty is in Article 61 which speaks of a principal penalty composed of one indivisible penalty
and the maximum period of a divisible penalty, in which case the penalty next lower in degree
consists of the three succeeding periods taken from the penalties next lower in degree, that is,
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. What is sought to
be emphasized and clarified by this illustration, and which appears to have been overlooked in
previous decisions, is the aforesaid penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua is a complex and divisible penalty consisting of three periods ( People v Lian)
Even if the penalty imposed is Reclusion Perpetua, if there is a privileged mitigating circumstance
(e.g. minority), ISLAW can only be applied after taking into consideration the privileged mitigating.
Being privileged, it always takes precedence. Criminal laws are to be applied in a manner that is
advantageous to the accused.
o
This is because the maximum range of ISLAW is computed from the penalty actually
imposed. So if the accused is a minor, reclusion perpetua can never be the penalty imposed
because minority is always privileged mitigating and always taken into consideration.
Ergo, there is no crime, however heinous, wherein a minor offender cannot post bail.
WHEN NOT APPLICABLE:

1.
When the penalty is indivisible (PP v Lian; PP v Estrada GR 104906, Oct 27, 1992)
72
PRE-MID BOOK 1
2.
When the maximum penalty imposed does not exceed 1 year
3.
When the penalty is not imprisonment
4.
To those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason,

misprision, rebellion, sedition or espionage, piracy
5.
To those who are habitual delinquents
6.
The law is very specific. It does not say habitual offenders. It says habitual
delinquents which means that recidivists can avail of ISLAW.
To those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
Escapees here do not only refer to those convicted prisoners. The

escapees may have escaped during pre-trial detention
7.
To those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall
have violated the terms thereof
8.
Does not apply in offenses punished by death or life imprisonment
How about reclusion perpetua?

o
If the RP is single and indivisible, ISLAW cannot apply. Art. 63

applies
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater
penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court
shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for
the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of
such compensation.
If the RP is part of a complex penalty which is divisible, ISLAW

applies
If there is a privileged mitigating which lowers RP to a divisible

penalty, ISL applies
If RP of 30 years is arrived at after computing additional years

under the Incremental Penalty Rule, ISL applies
73
PRE-MID BOOK 1
There are certain crimes where the penalty would
depend on the amount (theft, estafa, robbery, etc). For
example, if the amount in damage is ten million then the
penalty for the estafa could reach up to 30 years. 30
years is also the limit. So if the amount of damage of five
million, it has the same penalty as if there had been
damage of 100 million because of the 30 year limit. This
maximum of 30 years is also termed as Reclusion
Perpetua but this is actually derived at by adding one
year for every 10,000 pesos. Even if it is RP, it will still be
considered divisible thus ISLAW applies.
CAN THE MAXIMUM REACH UP TO 30 YEARS? - Yes

People v Villanueva GR 163662, Feb 25, 2015
-
Accused shall be meted an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall be taken from the
maximum period of the basic penalty, that is, reclusion temporal, to be imposed in its maxim period,
plus 1 year for each additional P10,000 of the amount of the fraud, but the total penalty should not
exceed 30 years ( temed reclusion perpetua under PD 818)
The minimum of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Code, without first considering any modifying circumstance not the
incremental penalty for the amount of the fraud in excess of P22,000. Such penalty is prision mayor,
with a duration of 6 years and1 day to 12 years.
People v Tuguinay GR 186132, Feb 27, 2012

-
The additional years of the incremental penalty was added to the lowest of the maximum period, not
the highest, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance.
So if the range for estafa is 6 years to 8 years, the one year (incremental penalty) is added to the 6
years not the 8 years.
Plea Bargaining
What is the result of plea bargaining to ISLAW?
In this case, the accused was charged with robbery with homicide. Robbery with homicide, the penalty
there is actually reclusion perpetua. But he pleaded guilty to the lower offense by virtue of a plea
bargaining agreement. So he pleaded guilty to homicide only and it was agreed by the court, by the
prosecutor, by the heirs of the victim. So what happens is that even if the original charge was for robbery
with homicide, when he pleaded guilty to the lower offense of homicide, the penalty imposable now is
reclusion temporal. It is also possible to incorporate another ordinary mitigating nga plea of guilty.
Because now the penalty is lower, ISLAW applies. ISLAW applies even if the penalty has already been
lowered by virtue of the plea bargaining. So what will happen is that the maximum will be taken from
reclusion temporal medium and the minimum range will be anywhere within prision mayor.
Crime committed was murder punished with reclusion perpetua. Attendants circumstances are minority
with discernment, incomplete self-defense, ordinary mitigating no aggravating.
74
PRE-MID BOOK 1
What is your problem with Graduating?

If the penalty is simple such as the penalty for homicide, reclusion temporal, thats very simple. You can
never go up more than reclusion temporal regardless of any kind of penalty. The problem is when the
penalty is complex penalty. Complex meaning the penalty is not composed of 3 periods of a certain
degree but rather, it could be 1 or 2 periods of a penalty and then 1 or 2 of another. That becomes the
complication, or when you have a penalty which consists in certain period of a divisible penalty and an
indivisible penalty. But if you have an indivisible penalty, automatically the indivisible becomes the
maximum. It becomes the maximum.
So you do not have to worry if you have an indivisible penalty as the maximum because regardless of any
attendants circumstances you will still be in the maximum which means that no aggravating, whether
special or ordinary, no ordinary mitigating will affect that. It will always be that indivisible penalty. You will
have to divide now the divisible part of that complex penalty in order to determine the minimum
medium. And thats where you can graduate them if there are mitigating which are ordinary because if
the mitigating is privileged, you have to get out from that penalty and go 1 degree lower. But even if you
have a, let us say, privileged mitigating, take note that in privileged mitigating you go 1 degree lower? Still
if it is a complex crime you always go to the maximum period. Or if there is a quasi-recidivism, you also
have to go to the maximum always because there are instances like what we wrote on the board wherein
the maximum always applies. So we said earlier that even if the mitigating is ordinary it can still be
appreciated. It can still be appreciated even if the penalty should always be in the maximum because then
what you do is simply to divide the maximum into sub-periods. But if you have a privileged mitigating,
always 1 degree.
Remember even if the law says its always in the maximum, you can always subdivide it. The only time
you cannot subdivide or divide it is when it is indivisible. And also remember if the penalty is destierro,
destierro is divisible so you can also divide it. There is such a thing as destierro minimum, destierro
medium, and destierro maximum. However, even if destierro is a divisible penalty, you cannot apply
ISLAW. Why? Because ISLAW only applies when the penalty is imprisonment.
Art. 70 Successive service of sentences:

Material accumulation system service of sentence shall be successive, unless
simultaneous service is possible
Juridical accumulation system limits on the duration of service of sentence in case of
multiple sentences to be served
Absorption system greater penalties absorb lesser penalties where there is a single
criminal intent, or in the case of continuing crimes, complex crimes, or special complex
crimes
Material accumulation. that first, it has to be simultaneous if the nature of the penalty so permits, and
then successive. For example, fine and disqualification; or fine and imprisonment. The convict can serve
these penalties because they capable of being served simultaneously.
If the penalties are not capable of being served simultaneously, then it should be served
successively starting with the gravest.
Example: Accused is sentenced to serve prision mayor and prision correcional. He will serve
prision mayor first and then prision correcional thereafter.
Judicial accumulation system, in which case the imprisonment cannot be more than 40 years and also it
cannot be more than 3 times of the most severe penalty.
75
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Even if there 20 reclusion perpetua, the maximum years of imprisonment would still be 40 years.
Example: 3 arresto mayors, and then you have 1 reclusion temporal, the maximum of which is
20. All of them may be served.
However, if the gravest penalty multiplied by 3 would be lesser than the total of all the
penalties, then the former shall apply because its always the more advantageous penalty that is
meted to the convict.
Three fold rule the maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to
which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those equals the same maximum period. In
other words, the maximum penalty is three times the most severe or the total of the penalties imposed,
whichever is lower.
In absorption, in certain instances the penalty of another may be absorbed by another crime. Such as in
the case of ordinary or special complex crime.
INCREASING OR REDUCING THE PENALTY OF FINE BY ONE OR MORE DEGREES

Art. 75 How to graduate fine by degree
This is based on the degree of participation or the stage of the commission of the felony
of maximum amount 1 degree; minimum shall remain unchanged
Maybe fixed anywhere within the limits according to mitigating, aggravating and wealth or means
of the culprit. (Art. 66)
Can we graduate fines by degrees?

Yes, according to Article 75; one degree is equal to of the maximum. Deduct a quarter of the fine in
order to get the next degree. However, the graduated fine will always stay within the minimum and
maximum limits.
Example: If the fine prescribed by law is P200 to P600, of the maximum amount of P600 or
P150 is taken.
Example: If the penalty is reduced by 2 degrees, the penalty is computed as follows:

1.
P600 divided by 4
2.
P150 x 2 degrees = P300
3.
P600 P300
= P150
= P300
The penalty lowered by 2 degrees is P200 to P300.
How about graduation by periods?

The graduation should be within the range. Thats for ordinary mitigating. If the penalty is fine, it does not
matter whether it is ordinary or privilege mitigating.
76
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Example: If the fine prescribed by law is P2000 to P8000 and there is 1 privilege mitigating. The
maximum is P6000 and the minimum remains unchanged (P2000).
***ATTY. Petralba once again discusses Graduation of Penalties, ISLAW.***
Example 1: The penalty is prision correcional maximum to prision mayor minimum. If the penalty impose
is compose of 2 periods, the next degree lower should also be compose of 2 periods.
Example 2: The penalty is prision correcional maximum to prision mayor minimum and it involves a
complex crime in which the penalty to be applied is in its maximum period. How do you get the
maximum? Just divide the penalty by 3.
This maximum will now be the penalty for the complex crime. This will have to be further subdivided in
order to obtain the proper period for the penalty to be impose because this is where you will place the
ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances. So if theres 1 aggravating circumstance, the penalty to
be imposed would be:
If theres 1 mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed would be:
77
PRE-MID BOOK 1
If theres no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed would be:
Rule on effects of attendance of privileged mitigating, special aggravating, ordinary mitigating and
ordinary aggravating circumstances:
1.
The presence of privileged mitigating will have the effect of lowering the penalty by one or two
degrees to that prescribed by law.
2.
The presence of 2 ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance will have
the effect of lowering the penalty by one degree to that prescribed by law.
3.
4.
The term aggravating here is generic which refers to both ordinary and special
aggravating circumstance. If you cannot lower the penalty by 1 degree when there are 2
ordinary mitigating but there is 1 ordinary aggravating, with more reason when you
have a special aggravating.
The presence of special aggravating circumstances like (1) taking advantage of ones public
position or (3) commission by a person belonging to an organized/syndicated crime group; (3)
when the accused is a relative of the victim; or when the felony committed is a complex crime
(not a special aggravating circumstance), will have the effect of the penalty being impose in its
maximum period.
Take note: Presence of any or all of them will have the same effect of the penalty being
impose in its maximum period.
Example: The crime committed is direct assault with homicide which is a complex crime.
So the penalty is imposed in its maximum period. The crime is also committed by a
public official taking advantage of his public position. The complex crime and the
presence of such special aggravating circumstance will have the same effect of having
the penalty impose in its maximum period.
Assuming the penalty is already imposed in its maximum because of the presence of a special
aggravating circumstance, the presence of an ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances
will have the effect of further subdividing the maximum period into 3 periods in order to arrive at
the proper period.
If in the same example given above, the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty, there is a
now an ordinary mitigating circumstance which has the effect of further subdividing the
78
PRE-MID BOOK 1
maximum period imposed in order to accommodate the ordinary mitigating

circumstance.
5.
The only instance when you no longer subdivide the maximum term in order to consider ordinary
mitigating or ordinary aggravating circumstances is when the felony committed is a complex
crime or there is a special aggravating circumstance, and the penalty is reclusion temporal
maximum to reclusion perpetua because the maximum term in this instance is indivisible.
Reclusion perpetua, standing alone, is single and indivisible. You cannot graduate reclusion perpetua,
neither can you apply ISLAW because according to the Lian case, that would be co-mingling of divisible
and indivisible penalties which is prohibited. However, if the penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to
reclusion perpetua, that is considered a complex penalty and divisible. In such case, reclusion perpetua will
be the maximum period and reclusion temporal maximum will have to be divided by 2 in order to obtain
the medium and minimum period.
Now lets apply ISLAW. The 1 degree lower in ISLAW is taken not from the penalty imposed but from the
penalty prescribed by law. The one degree lower will be the range of the minimum term.
Example 1: The penalty prescribed is reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty should be imposed in the medium
period. The minimum term is anywhere within the range of prision mayor, the penalty next lower from
reclusion temporal.
79
PRE-MID BOOK 1
ISLAW for Complex Penalties

(Vidal vs People GR 211023, April 7, 2014)
The penalty prescribed under Article 217, par. 4 RPC is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua.
Applying ISLAW, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, .i.e prision
mayor max to reclusion temporal medium {anywhere} and whose maximum should be the proper period of
reclusion temporal maximum. [Applying the rule in Art 61(3)]
The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. RT max is divided into 2 sub-periods, the lower sub-period
is the min (of the maximum indeterminate range), the higher sub-period is the med and Reclusion Perpetua is
the max of the range.
ISLAW: 3 periods but belonging to different penalties

(Eduardo vs People GR 176566 Oct 2 2009)
The penalty prescribed under Art 294 (5) is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium.
Applying ISLaw, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e arresto
mayor max to prision correctional medium {anywhere}, and whose maximum should be the proper period
of prision correcional maximum to prision mayor medium.
The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. There being 1 mitigating of voluntary surrender, the
maximum term is set at the minimum of the maximum range.
Take note: The only instances wherein the penalty imposed would exceed the penalty prescribed is when
the penalty is incremental or if the convict is penalized due to habitual delinquency.
80
PRE-MID BOOK 1
INCREMENTAL PENALTIES
Example: The penalty is prision mayor and we add 1 year for every P10,000. If we reach 30 years, such is
not considered single and indivisible. It is still called reclusion perpetua but it is divisible because the 30
years has been arrived at after adding the additional years in increment. Applying ISLAW, the minimum
term is not reclusion temporal but the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor because the
minimum term is always the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law. Take note that the 30 years can
only be arrived at if there is an aggravating circumstance. If there is no aggravating, it could be below 30
years.
Probation
Here is probation, the penalty may be served outside the detention facility and the convict has to make
periodic reports to the probation officer. The grant of probation is made by the court. It can only be
granted to a convict whose maximum sentence is not more than 6 years.
Who are the disqualified offenders? Memorize!

Those who had been:
1.
Sentenced to a maximum term of more than 6 years imprisonment.
2.
Convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order. (Title 1 and 3,
Book II)
3.
Previously convicted by final judgment of offense punished by imprisonment of note less than 1
month and 1 days and /or fine of not less than P200.
4.
Granted probation for it is available only once.
5.
Already serving sentence upon the effectivity of the law.
6.
Perfected an appeal for appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies.
Case Study:
(People vs Colinares Dec 13, 2011)
Juan was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated Homicide. He appealed. Appellate court found him liable
only for Attempted Homicide. The penalty for attempted homicide does not exceed 6 years. Can he still
avail of probation?
81
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Yes, he can still avail of probation. Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he
having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But, the Court
finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the
penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it
would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC.
Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for probation. He did not
have a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, By taking this appeal, I
choose not to apply for probation. The stiff penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him that
choice. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to now seek probation under this Courts greatly diminished
penalty will not dilute our previous rulings. It remains that those who will appeal from judgments of
conviction, when they have the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
ARTICLE 86. The penalties of reclusin perpetua, reclusin temporal, prisin mayor, prisin correccional,
and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
If the convict is not eligible for probation, he has to serve the sentence in a detention facility. Minor
offenders may be committed to detention facility operated by DSWD.
ARTICLE 87. Destierro. Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or
places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than
250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
ARTICLE 88. Arresto Menor. The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in
the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so
provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which
may seem satisfactory to it.
Extinction of criminal liability

1. Death of the accused
- Death of the offended party will not affect the criminal case.
2. Service of Sentence
3. Amnesty or Pardon
Amnesty
Pardon
Granted before conviction
Granted after conviction
For political offenses
All offenses
Granted by the legislative department,

with the concurrence of the President
Granted by the president
82
PRE-MID BOOK 1
(Executive Clemency)
Erases the effects of penalty for

purposes of Recidivism
Does not erase effects of penalty
Absolute
Absolute or Conditional
(Conditions must be complied with.
Otherwise, there will be a revocation of the
pardon)
Does not obliterate civil liability
Does not obliterate civil liability
Normally, Amnesty does not only refer to a particular person but to a group of persons charged
with the same offenses.
4. Novation
Neri Case: There was novation. Initially the elements of Estafa were present. However, before
the filing of the case in court, they made an agreement where payment will instead be made. It
changed the nature of the obligation from Agency to Sale. The contract was changed. As such,
the elements of Estafa are no longer present. The obligation is no longer to return or remit the
proceeds, but to pay. There is no longer an agency, but a contract of sale. Although it is not one
of the means to extinguish criminal liability as recognized by the RPC, it may prevent the rise of
criminal liability or it may cast a doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction
provided that the novation takes place before the filing of information with the Trial Court.
If there is juridical possession of a thing taken and this person who had juridical possession failed
to return or remit the thing or money to the rightful owner, there could be Estafa.
Example: There was a jewelry entrusted by Maria to Juana so the latter may sell it on
commission. If she fails to sell, she may return it. If she is successful, she has to remit the
proceeds. In the meantime, she retains juridical possession. If she fails to perform her obligation,
she commits Estafa. However, if Maria gave the jewelry to Juana and the latter gave a
downpayment, there is no longer a transfer of juridical personality but a transfer of ownership.
Prescription of the crime

1. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal: 20 years
2. Other Afflictive Penalty (Prison Mayor): 15 years
3. Correctional (Prision Correctional and Destierro):
a. Arresto Mayor: 10 years
b. Libel: 5 years
c. Defamation and Slander by Deed: 1 year
d. Light Offenses: 2 months (60 days)
e. Special Penal Laws: Provided in the SPL itself or the general provision of RA 3326
83
PRE-MID BOOK 1
As you know way mapriso sa utang. There can be no more estafa.
People vs Nery 10 SCRA 224

The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the
state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties
into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on
the original trust. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted
action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the
criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state, only the
latter can renounce it.
It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by the Penal Code
whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either
prevent the rise of criminal or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original petition, whether or
not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is
made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to.
-
Not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for the estafa.
It merely means that there is no more estafa in the first place, because what transpired was
there was an agreement to convert the original obligation to a contract of sale.
Therefore, when the contract is one sale, there is no more criminal liability but only civil liability.
Provided that the novation should take place BEFORE THE FILING of the criminal case.
Because once the case is already filed in court, the real offended party is the STATE, not the
private complainant. And the State will not change the nature of the obligation, neither can the
private offended party represent the state and change the nature of the obligation.
Once the criminal case is filed in court, the victim/private offended party would have no more
personality to enter into another contract which will abandon the old contract.
However,
SSS vs DOJ G.R. 158131

The facts of this case negate the application of novation. In the first place, there is, between SENCOR
and petitioner, no original contract that can be replaced by a new contract changing the object or
principal condition of the original contract, substituting the person of the debtor, or subrogating a
third person in the rights of the creditor. The original relationship between SENCOR and petitioner is
defined by law RA 1161, as amended which requires employers like SENCOR to make periodic
contributions to petitioner under pain of criminal prosecution. Unless Congress enacts a law further
amending RA 1161 to give employers a chance to settle their overdue contributions to prevent
prosecution, no amount of agreements between petitioner and SENCOR (represented by respondent
Martels) can change the nature of their relationship and the consequence of SENCORs non-payment
of contributions.
The indispensability of a prior contractual relation between the complainant and the accused as
requisite for the application of novation in criminal cases was underscored in People v. Tanjutco. In
that case, the accused, who was charged with Qualified Theft, invoked People v. Nery to support his
claim that the complainants acceptance of partial payment of the stolen funds before the filing of
the Information with the trial court converted his liability into a civil obligation thus rendering
84
PRE-MID BOOK 1
baseless his prosecution. The Court rejected this claim and held that unlike in Nery, there was, in that
case, no prior "contractual relationship or bilateral agreement, which can be modified or altered by
the parties.
-
In this case, SC said that this novation thing does not apply if there was no prior contract,
meaning, if the criminal liability did not arise from a contract.
So if the criminal liability arose from a contract and the parties changed the terms and conditions
in the contract such that it would now preclude or bar the offender from enforcing the original
contract, there can be no more criminal liability.
However, if the criminal liability did not arise from a contract, but arose from a different source
of obligation, which is a law (RA 1161), therefore, novation, as to extinguish criminal liability,
cannot be applied.
NOTE: be mindful of the facts given in a question because it would seem that the Nery case can be applied
only if the case involves estafa and such other cases that the OBLIGATIONS AROSE FROM A CONTRACT.
But all other cases, you cannot apply the novation theory as to extinguish criminal liability.
Tanjutco case
-
Qualified theft case. When the private complainant would inform the offender that the former
will already file a criminal case. The offender would then pay.
SC said you cannot invoke Nery case because in theft, there is no prior contract.
SUMMARY:
-
Although it would seem that the SC rulings stretched the modes of extinction of criminal liability,
but thats not the case. Its just that there are instances when the offended party maybe
estopped by his action, like changing the terms and conditions of the original contract wherein it
would result to novation.
PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
-
General Rule: Prescription runs from the date of commission of the crime, if it is discoverable at
the time of the commission of the crime.
Exception: Reckoned from the date of discovery, if it was not discoverable at the time of the
commission.
Provided, that in both instances, the period will not run If the offender is not within the
Philippine territory.
Example: if even if the crime was committed 30 years ago but the offender was outside of the
country, the prescription will not start to run.
Case Study: Juan falsified a Deed of Sale of a land worth P1M legally belonging to Pedro, then
sold the same to Jose in January 1980. Pedro did not know of the crime until after he came home from
the US in January 1, 1995 and found out that Jose was already making improvements thereon. Juan has
since went to work in Japan from 1992 until 2005. Lets assume that the prescription period is 15 years
and the offender is a public official. Can Pedro still file the case in court?
85
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Answer: YES, as provided in the case of Recebido. Date of commission was 1980. Date of
discovery was January 1995, but in the meantime the offender went to Japan in 1992, which was before
the discovery, and came back in the Philippines only in 2005.
Recebido vs People 346 SCRA 881

The crime charged has not prescribed. The petitioner is correct in stating that whether or not the
offense charged has already prescribed when the information was filed would depend on the penalty
imposable therefor, which in this case is "prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
and a fine of not more than 5,000.00 pesos. Under the Revised Penal Code, said penalty is a
correctional penalty in the same way that the fine imposed is categorized as correctional. Both the
penalty and fine being correctional, the offense shall prescribe in ten years. The issue that the
petitioner has missed, however, is the reckoning point of the prescriptive period. The petitioner is of
the impression that the ten-year prescriptive period necessarily started at the time the crime was
committed. This is inaccurate. Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription
shall "commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities, or their agents," In People v. Reyes, this Court has declared that registration in public
registry is a notice to the whole world. The record is constructive notice of its contents as well as all
interests, legal and equitable, included therein. All persons are charged with knowledge of what it
contains.
The prosecution has established that private complainant Dorol did not sell the subject land to the
petitioner-accused at anytime and that sometime in 1983 the private complainant mortgaged the
agricultural land to petitioner Recebido. It was only on September 9, 1990, when she went to
petitioner to redeem the land that she came to know of the falsification committed by the petitioner.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that the land in question was mortgaged to him by Juan
Dorol, the father of private complainant, and was subsequently sold to him on August 13, 1983. This
Court notes that the private offended party had no actual knowledge of the falsification prior to
September 9, 1990. Meanwhile, assuming arguendo that the version of the petitioner is believable,
the alleged sale could not have been registered before 1983, the year the alleged deed of sale was
executed by the private complainant.
Considering the foregoing, it is logical and in consonance with human experience to infer that the
crime committed was not discovered, nor could have been discovered, by the offended party before
1983. Neither could constructive notice by registration of the forged deed of sale, which is favorable
to the petitioner since the running of the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned
earlier, have been done before 1983 as it is impossible for the petitioner to have registered the deed
of sale prior thereto. Even granting arguendo that the deed of sale was executed by the private
complainant, delivered to the petitioner-accused in August 13, 1983 and registered on the same day,
the ten-year prescriptive period of the crime had not yet elapsed at the time the information was
filed in 1991. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the crime had not prescribed at the time of
the filing of the information.
The answer is It can still be filed as a general rule

The exception is when there was already registration prior to year 2000. (kay 15 years naman). If these
are the only facts of the case, it would seem that the answer is Yes Pedro can still file the case in court
because the 15 year period, counted from year 2005 which was the time he was already available to be
sued, has not yet elapsed.
However, if there was already registration more than 15 years ago, then the case can not be filed
anymore because registration would be notice to the whole world.
86
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Exception to the Exception is, even if there is registration but the offender was out of the country because
he could not be sued.
SUMMARY
GR: you need to count the number of years
EX: if falsification, registration would be considered as the date of discovery.
EX to the EX: If the offender was outside of the country. Because even if the date of registration
is also the date of discovery, is already beyond the prescription period, but during that time, he could not
be sued because he is outside of the country and is outside the jurisdiction of the court, then the
reckoning would be the date of his return.
Prescription of the crime means that no case at all or no steps at all is being made. Or if there are made,
that the case has not yet reach the court yet.
For example the crime is punished of a penalty of less than one year. under the local govt code, if the
penalty is less than 1 year, you need to go first to the Lupon before you can file a criminal case. And the
laws says while the case is pending in the lupon, the prescriptive period will not run. The LGC gives the
lupon an maximum of 45 days to complete the conciliation mediation period. However, it is possible that
the Lupon may go beyond that period. Probably through no fault of his own. Probably the barangay was
wiped out by Yolanda therefore no proceedings can be taken on that case. Then while it is true that the
Lupon is only given a max of 45, it does not mean that beyond the 45 the prescriptive period will run. So
long as the case is still pending through no fault of the parties, then the prescriptive period will not run.
And then it (the prescription) begins to run again after the certificate to file action is given.
You go to the prosecutors office, because you can not file a case in a chartered city without passing
through the prosecutors office. During the time that the case is pending in the prosecutors office, the
prescriptive period will not run.
And then once the prosecutors office files the case in court, it will never run until there is a termination
such as when there is a provisional dismissal. When theres a provisional dismissal, from the dismissal, the
prescriptive period runs again.
Now if the case was dismissed at the prosecutors level, the case will run unless you file a MR or Petition
for review or any other thing. But once there are no such moves taken, then the prescriptive period will
run from the dismissal.
Once it is pending in court even if it is already archived in court, the prescription will not run. So long as it
is not terminated.
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
Here what will prescribe is not the crime but the penalty, which means that there must already be a
conviction. So the case must already be tried in court. Either in absencia or may be while the presence of
the accused. And the case was terminated resulting in a conviction where the court imposed a sentence.
It is the sentence that prescribes; probably due to the flight of the accused.
In the case of Pangan vs gatbalite, there can be prescription only if after the sentence is being handed
down that the accused must not have escaped already by that time.
While the case was ongoing, the accused jumped bail. The trial proceeded in his absence and was
convicted in absencia. Then he was able to successfully evade arrest for 50 years. Now, did the penalty
prescribe? No. The penalty will not prescribe. It will only start to run upon escape after he has already
87
PRE-MID BOOK 1
started serving the sentence. (after a short while he has served the sentence, he escaped.) If he has not
started serving even a day of his sentence, the sentence will not prescribe.
Escape means the unlawful departure and one who was not committed to prison can not be said to have
escape from prison. (padakop sah siya then mu.escape)
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive
imprisonment or serving his sentence (As amended by RA No. 10592)
Conditional pardon is granted by the president.
Commutation and good conduct allowances will be computed by and granted by the Bureau of Prisons
under the provisions of Parole. So it would be computed according to the good behaviour.
Theres a new law, basically it is the same. Four-Fifths gihapon. But now, its not anymore presumed.
There has to be an acceptance in writing that you abide by the rules of the prison in order to be credited.
CIVIL LIABILITY
GENERAL RULE: PERSON GUILTY OF THE CRIME, THAT PERSON IS LIKEWISE CIVILLY LIABLE
The General Rule is that when a crime is committed and there is a victim in that crime then
there could arise from such act civil liability.
Take note that not all crimes have victims. There are crimes, which we call as victimless
crimes.
o
Ex. illegal possession of firearms, dangerous drugs, illegal gambling.
Since in this cases there are no victims then there wont be any civil liability.
But when crimes committed with private offended parties, although they are not the
plaintiffs in the case they are also entitled to civil award of damages.
Here the civil liability is not totally dependent on the outcome of the criminal case because
the quantum of evidence required in criminal case is more stringent than that of civil case.
So when an offender is acquitted because no crime is attributed to him this does not mean
that he cannot pay civil liability anymore.
o
Example of this is in cases of Estafa. Here when the fraud has not been established
but their could be an award of civil damages so not automatic.
Also in cases where the offender was found not criminally liable because the act
was justified such as self-defense or the offender is exempt from criminal liability
such as when the offender is a minor. Here there is still civil liability.
EXCPETION:
88

1.
2.
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Accused is a minor
a.
the person who would pay for him is his parents or guardians
b.
here the obligation of the parents are PRIMARY. No need to see if whether the minor
can pay. Once found guilty the liability shall be borne by the parents
Crimes committed by Employees

a.
if such EE cannot bear the civil penalty then they should be paid by the ER.
b.
Here the GR still applies that person criminally liable shall also be civilly liable. BUT
if the ER (SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY) answers the civil liability of the EE if:
i. UNABLE TO SATISFY THE CIVIL OBLIGATION and
ii. Crime is committed while the offender was PERFORMING HIS FUNCTION
AS EE OF THE ER
CIVIL CASE INSTITUTED WITH CRIMINAL CASE:
GR: CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME IS DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE FILING OF THE
CRIMINAL CASE.
Example: Jeep driver hits a pedestrian. The driver is primary liable to the civil liability while
the owner is only subsidiary liable when the driver is unable to pay. BUT DO WE NEED TO
INCLUDE THE ER IN THE CRIMINAL CASE:
No. Because he has no criminal liability so you do not file a criminal case against
him.
According to RULE 111 of the RC, when you file a criminal case is filed automatically
the civil case is deemed instituted with the criminal case.
Mere filing of the prosecutor of the criminal case with the court. This already
constitutes both the criminal and civil.
EXCPETION: R-W-I
o
R reservation
W Waiver
I prior Institution of the civil from the criminal case
So here when the criminal case is settled and civil damages are ruled against the driver and
the driver is unable to pay. The victims can file a MOTION with the court to execute the civil
aspect as against the employer.
BUT the private offended party who seek a judgment against a person who is not primary
liable but secondary liable he must prove that:
The person primary liable is an employee
That he did not perform an obligation of an employer that would exempt him from
subsidiary liability.
Not automatic execution of subsidiary liability but there is no need to file a separate case
against the employer.
89
PRE-MID BOOK 1
CASE STUDY:
Pedro is a taxi driver of Bombero Taxi owned by Nestor. He hit Vicentes car due to reckless
imprudence causing damage to the latters car.
Is pedro civilliy liable?

o
Is Nestor civilly liable?

o
Yes. If found to have committed the crime.
He could be civilly liable but his liability obligation is only subsidiary .
Must nestor be included with pedro in the criminal case to be filled by Vicente?
o
No. because he has not committed a crime therefore no probable cause to hold
nestor for trial.
CASE STUDY:
Joselito, minor, burned the house of Pedro. Pedro filed a criminal case, for which joselito was
found guilty.
Is Jose, the parent of joselito, civilly liable? When?

o
What if joselito was an employee of Ramons general service company and the arson was
committed while joselito was working at Pedros House, would your answer be the same?
o
Yes and the liability is PRIMARY
In this case, the hierarchy is that the parent is first to the employer. So that you must
go after first the parent of the minor who are PRIMARY liable and then go after the
ER who is only subsidiary.
Ozoa vs Madula 1987

o
The subsidiary civil liability of the ER can be determined in the criminal action
unless it was waived or reserved. There is no need for bringing a separate civil
action for that purpose
FACTS:
Petitioner Ozoa was the employer of Policarpio Balatayo, who was

convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon of homicide with
serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.
the judgment of conviction having become final, a writ of execution issued

at the instance of the widow of the deceased (Caridad Madula, herein
private respondent), for the enforcement of the defendant's civil liability.
The writ was however returned unsatisfied by reason of the insolvency of
the accused.
The widow Madula then moved for the issuance of a writ of execution
against the accused's employer, Ozoa. Ozoa opposed the motion. He stated
that the widow had executed an "Affidavit of Desistance" acknowledging
full satisfaction of civil liability; and a separate civil case "should and must
be ventilated .. in order that the Court can acquire jurisdiction over .. (his)
person .. so that the employer-employee relationship could be established
and to afford .. (him) the opportunity to prove his defense.
90
PRE-MID BOOK 1
The Court held a hearing on the motion. It received evidence on the issues,
presented by the widow-movants as well as Ozoa. In addition to the fact
that execution against the accused Balatayo had been returned unsatisfied
on account of his insolvency, not disputed, the Court found other facts to
have been adequately proven by the evidence adduced by both parties, to
wit:
1) Ozoa was the employer of Balatayo, and was a businessman engaged in

the hauling of corn, these being admitted by him in his affidavit marked
Exhibit "F".
2) Ozoa promised to pay the widow Madula P6,000 and thus persuaded her
to sign an affidavit of desistance (marked Exhibit 1), but this amount was
never paid. The only amount in fact given by Ozoa was P1,500.00, which
was used to defray the burial expenses.
Upon these facts, the Court a quo directed execution against Ozoa. In
support of its ruling the Court placed reliance on Article 103, in relation to
Article 102, of the Revised Penal Code, declaring the employer subsidiarily
responsible for the civil liability of his employee when the latter is
insolvent; holding that the conviction of the employee is binding and
conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to the civil liability but
also as to its amount because the employer's liability is inseparable from
and indeed follows that of the employee; and that in substance and in effect,
the employer is a party to the criminal action where his employee's civil
liability is adjudged.
This order of May 12, 1982 is now challenged by Ozoa before us.
A person criminally liable is also civilly liable; and upon the institution of
the criminal action, the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability
arising from the crime is also impliedly instituted unless waived, or the
filing of a separate action therefor is reserved. 8 The employer is
subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil liability ex delito of his
employee in the event of the latter's insolvency; and the judgment in the
criminal action pronouncing the employee to be also civilly liable is
conclusive on the employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but
also as to its amount.
But the foregoing statement does not exhaust the entirety of the rules
relevant and applicable to the juridical situation under consideration. There
is the additional precept, of which sight should not be lost because essential
due process, that before the employer's subsidiary liability is exacted, there
must be adequate evidence establishing that (1) he is indeed the employer
of the convict; (2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime
was committed by the employee in the discharge of his duties; and (4)
execution against the employee is unsatisfied. The determination of these
issues need not be done in a separate civil action. But a determination there
must be, on the basis of evidence that the offended party and the employer
may fully and freely present; and this may be done in the same criminal
action at which the employee's liability, criminal and civil, has been
pronounced. it may be done at a hearing set for that precise purpose, with
due notice to the employer, "as part of the proceeding for the execution of
the judgment.
SC:
91
PRE-MID BOOK 1
We have gone over the record quite carefully and are convinced that Ozoa's
subsidiary civil responsibility has been duly established by the evidence.
That evidence was presented at a hearing at which Ozoa was given
opportunity to submit, as he did submit proofs in his behalf. We agree that
the facts proven adequately demonstrate the existence of the requisites for
holding Ozoa subsidiarily liable as an employer under Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code, specified earlier in this opinion.
ART 104: WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES:

1. RESTITUTION
2. REPARATION
3.
INDEMNIFICATION FOR CONSEQUENSTIAL DAMAGE
Restitution
o
The thing itself should be given back or restore.
Reparation
o
If the thing cannot be returned because it was sold or destroyed or anything

happened to it. Then give reparation which is the AMOUNT or VALUE of the thing.
Restitution and reparation are applicable when properties have been taken or
destroyed.
Indemnification
o
These are damages paid not for the thing but for the inconvenience to the peson or
awarded when in crimes against the persons and honor.
Example: physical injuries may carry damages such as actual damages,

unearned income, hospital expenses and etc.
the award of damages maybe increased or decrease and the attendant mitigating or
aggravating circumstances may determine when the damages maybe reduced or
increased.
Constitutionality of Incremental Penalty Rule

In one case the SC said that civil indemnity is not a penalty or fine and it can be increased. In this case,
what happened was there was a case for estafa and then the amount involved was more than 50milliion.
In estafa what is being adopted by the RPC, is the incremental penalty rule (IPR). But in the incremental
penalty rule, if the amount is 1million, youve already reached the maximum penalty. So here the amount
was way more than the maximum. So, there was that question of the constitutionality of the IPR, because
considering that the RPC was enacted in 1932, when 10 pesos was a lot of money and so therefore to say
that when you commit estafa and the amount is 200,000, at that time, it would be justified if the penalty
is Reclusion Perpetua. Justifiable siya because at that time, 200,00 would be a lot of money. Remember in
estafa where the penalty is already maximum, the penalty is Reclusion Perpetua, a more serious crime
than homicide. Kay sa homicide, 20 years raman, niya sa estafa ma 30 years.
Q: Is it constitutional, considering that there is no valid classification anymore?
92
PRE-MID BOOK 1
A: Justice Carpio said that, well laws can have relative constitutionality, meaning it can be constitutional at
that time, but not anymore.
Example, there could be laws which were constitutional before but not anymore. But ARTICLE 10
of RPC provides that courts cannot impose penalties that are not provided by law and they
have to impose penalties which are provided by law, however article 10 courts may make
representation or communications with the legislature who are making the laws in order to point
out certain inconsistencies or when injustice could result in the strict application of the law.
So according to the case of Lopez, the court said that while it is true that we cannot change or
impose a penalty higher than what is provided by law, there is no such restriction with respect to
civil liability. So that if the penalty seems to be very miniscule or gamay ra kau, the courts have a
wide latitude in so far as the grant of civil liability, because civil liability is not a penalty
Because it is not a penalty, the court may award more
Court: the reasoning of increasing the value civil liability cannot be the same reasoning that
would sustain the adoption of the ratio in the IPR.
Exemplary damages
the imposition of exemplary damages is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of
the offender and to sever as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue
suffering
also referred to as punitive or vindictive damages
Also, exemplary damages may be awarded by the court if the crime is heinous, is so reprehensible and
obnoxious to the public conscience.
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony,
the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony;
Preference in payment. Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals,
accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum)
among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that
of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom
payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their
respective shares.
Article 109 and 110
If there are two more persons civilly liable, the courts shall determine the amount for which each
must respond, but only if both of them are arrested and convicted and brought before the court.
That notwithstanding, principals, accomplices and accessories, each within, their class, shall be
liable solidarily among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the others
So the nature of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor
may be compelled to pay the entire of obligation. As a co-conspirator his civil liability is similar to that of a
joint tort-feasor. Under the civil code, joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable.
93
PRE-MID BOOK 1
Illegal Recruitment Case
In this case, what happened was a group of persons were involved in illegal recruitment. A, B, C,
D, E. A is the mastermind, B, C, and D, also had participation, E was part of the conspiracy but he
performed a very minor role. So what happened was ang tanan na money, the placement fees,
ang nakadawat sa bulk of the money went to A. so ang uban, they just get some amounts every
now and then. But the problem is that, A B C D, were not arrested. Anb na arrest si E ra, so if A
was able to scam 10 million, mau nalang nakadawat si E og 10,000. Pero siyay nadakpan, so
tungod siya man ang nadakpan, siya ang g kiha, tungod g kiha and na proven man na guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, he was convicted.
50 private offended parties seek the civil award, they will now want to collect back the
placement fees. Unfortunately, only one person is convicted, and this person does not appear to
be the person to get most of the money.
So there is 10 million taken from all these private offended party, here is one guy who is
convicted, he got only 10,000.
Q: How much should the civil award be as against E who has been convicted?
A: SC said that there is a conspiracy, and when there is a conspiracy, their liability under the Civil
Code is the same as the civil liability of joint tort-feasors. Thus, the liability of E would be solidary
for the whole amount. D siya ka ingon nga 10,000 ra iya nakuha and mao ra iya e uli. He should
pay all the 10m as a whole. He cannot pay for his share only.
So each of them would be liable for the total damage solidarily.
SC said that it would not be an excuse for any of the joint tort-feasors to assert that his individual
participation in the wrong is insignificant as compared to the others. Joint tort-feasors are not
liable pro rata, they are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount.
Thus, in this case the liability is solidary, regardless if she actually received the amount paid or
not. Notwithstanding that her co accused were not yet arrested and have remained untried.
Civil Liability
When acquittal will not bar civil liability:
1. Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;

2. Court declares that accuseds liability is only civil in nature;
3. Civil liability did not arise from the criminal act
Civil liability ex-delicto
When acquittal bars civil liability:
1. Accused did not commit the act;

He was not guilty of criminal or civil negligence.
- END of Book 1
I don't feel stupid, just inadequate. After three years of studying the law, I'm very
much aware of how little I know. John Grisham, The Rainmaker
94

Crim Premidterms Book 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Premidterms Book 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

Cardinal principles of Criminal Law : (Generality, Territoriality and Prospectivity)

Taken from Batch 2013-2014 transcript.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

General Principles of International Law

ARTICLE 2 of the Revised Penal Code

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

Ex. RA 9775: Child Pornography Law; RA 10364: Amended Human Trafficking

Transnational crimes means that once the crime:

is committed either by a Filipino or

that the victim is a Filipino or

that a Filipino is affected by a crime

More specifically: trafficking of persons, trafficking of wildlife, drug trafficking,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

criminal law can have retroactive effect if:

FAVORABLE TO AN ACCUSED and

Is NOT a HABITUAL DELINQUENT

When there is neither intent nor culpa then there is no crime.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

TWO KINDS OF CRIMINAL INTENT:

Presumed in intentional felonies

Intent is an element in the crime

Must be proved because it is an element of the crime. Failure to prove so may

Intent to gain in theft and robbery; intent to gain here is an element.

Ex. Juan forced or intimidated Pedro to give the cellphone. We did

Intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated murder or homicide

MALUM IN SE vis--vis MALUM PROHIBITUM

Crimes maybe be inherently immoral in that sense some are Mala in se

Ex. illegal possession of firearms.

Ex. Photo and Video Voyeurism SPL but mala in se.

EXC: in illegal possession of firearms or illegal administration of dangerous drugs, Good

MOTIVE and INTENT

Can the crime of attempted homicide be committed through reckless imprudence?

No, because intent to kill is an element of attempted/frustrated

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

Can the crime of theft be committed through reckless imprudence?

No, because of the specific criminal intent of intent to gain

Can malversation be committed through reckless imprudence?

RA 9344 Juvenile Justice Act

DISCERNMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM IMPRUDENCE

IMPRUDENCE refers to the manner of committing the felony

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

It only becomes an element in an attempted or frustrated stage. We cannot have attempted or

First determine if there was another crime committed.

Second determine if it was a crime against persons and property.

If you have all that then you have an impossible crime.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

1. Why were they not liable for the same crime?

Pugays act was committed with lack of foresight.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability Criminal liability shall be incurred:

Praeter Intentionem injury caused is greater than that intended.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

one act equals two or more grave or less grave; OR

one act is a means of committing another act.

Or if the victim happens to be spouse, ascendant, descendant, it could be

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016

Subjective phase act of the offender which he has control