I.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. Generality- It is binding to all persons who live

or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to
exceptions.
2. Territoriality- It can only be enforced within
Philippine territory subject to certain exceptions.
3. Irretrospectivity- It can only be applied to acts
and omissions committed after the effectivity of
the law.
II. SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT OR THEORIES IN
CRIMINAL LAW
III. LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law.
An ex post facto law is a law that makes an
innocent act a crime before it is made
punishable.

1. The Classical or Juristic Theory 2. Congress cannot provide for a cruel

The basis of criminal liability is human free will.
The law does not look into why the offender
committed the crime. Man is a moral creature
who understands right from wrong, so that when
he commits the wrong he should be prepared to
accept the punishment.
The purpose of the penalty is retribution which
must be proportional to the gravity of the offense.
(An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, in Latin,
Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente)
punishment.
However, other limitations may be considered,
like:
1. Congress cannot enact a law which shall
punish for a condition. Congress shall punish an
act and not the condition or status.
2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the RPC
which provides that penalty may be imposed. No
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.

2. The Positivist or Realistic Theory
It considers man as a social being and his acts
are attributable not just to his will but to other
forces of society. The offender is regarded as
socially sick and needs treatment. A tendency
towards crime is the product of a persons
environment. There is no such thing as a natural
born killer.
As such, punishment is not the resolution as he is
not entirely to be blamed. Law and jurisprudence
should not be the yardstick in the imposition of
sanction. Instead, the underlying reasons would
be inquired into. The purpose of the penalty is
reformation.
There are no common law crimes in our
jurisdictions. There is no crime if there is no law
punishing it.
IV. THE DOCTRINE OF PRO-REO
The doctrine of pro-reo advocates that penal laws
and laws penal in nature are to be construed and
applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender,
consonant and consistent that an accused shall
be presumed innocent until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The Eclectic or Mixed Theory

It combines both positivist and classical thinking.

Crimes that are economic and social in nature are
dealt in a positivist manner; however, heinous
crimes are dealt in the classical manner.

The purpose of the penalty is reformation and

retribution depending on the nature of the
offense.

The Philippines follow the classical school of

thought although some provisions of eminently
positivist tendencies, like punishment of
impossible crime, juvenile circumstances, are
incorporated in the RPC.

Or; The RPC follows the mixed or eclectic

philosophy. An example of a crime punished
under the classical philosophy is the punishment
of heinous crimes which impose the death
penalty. The punishment of impossible crimes and
consideration of juvenile circumstances are
examples of our allowing of positivist philosophy.

ARTICLE 3
I. MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
a. Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed
by dolo or culpa as defined in the RPC. Lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense except when the
crime results from criminal negligence.
On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are
those considered wrong only because they are
prohibited by statute. They constitute violations
of mere rules of convenience designed to secure
a more orderly regulation of the affairs of the
society.
b. An act may be malum in se and malum
prohibitum at the same time. The omission or
failure of election inspectors to include a voters
name in the registry list of vote is wrong per se
because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to
vote. In this regard, it is considered as malum in
se. Since it is punished under a special law, it is
malum prohibitum. (Section 101, and 103 of The
Revised Election Code)
c. Malum in se is a crime where the act done is
inherently bad, evil, and wrong in nature, such
that it is generally condemned. The moral traits
of the offender are taken into account in
punishing the crime.
Malum prohibitum is a crime where the act doe is
not inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited
by law for public good and welfare. Anyone who
voluntarily commits the prohibited act incurs the
crime.
d. Crimes in mala in se are those where the acts
penalized are inherently bad, evil or wrong that
they are almost universally condemned.
Crimes in mala prohibita are those where the acts
penalized are not inherently bad, evil or wrong
but prohibited by law for public good, public
welfare or interest and whoever violates the
prohibition are penalized.
e. In crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of
criminal intent negligence is a defense while in
crimes mala prohibita good faith or lack of
criminal intent or malice is not a defense. It is
enough that the prohibition was voluntarily
violated.
Criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes
mala in se even when the crime is only attempted
or frustrated while in crimes mala prohibita
criminal liability is generally incurred only when
the crime is consummated.
In crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are appreciated in imposing the
penalties while in crimes mala prohibita such
circumstances are not appreciated unless the
special law has adopted the scheme or scale of
penalties in the RPC.
II. INTENT vs. MOTIVE
a. Intent is the purpose for using a particular
means to achieve the desired result while motive
is the moving power which impels a person to act
for a definite result.
Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus
an element of deliberate felonies while motive is
an element of a crime but only considered when
the identity of the offender is in doubt.
b. Motive is the moving power which impels a
person to do an act for a definite result while
intent is the purpose for using a particular means
to bring about a desired result.
Motive is not an element of a crime but intent is
an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if
attending a crime, always precedes the intent.
c. Motive is relevant to prove a case when there
is doubt as to the identity of the offender or when
the act committed gives rise to variant crimes
and there is a need to determine the proper
crime to be imputed to the offender.
It is not necessary to prove motive when the
offender is positively identified or the criminal act
did not give rise to variant crimes.
d. When proof of motive is not required:
i. where the offender is positively identified
ii. where the offender has admitted the
commission of the crime
iii. where the crime committed is malum
prohibitum
iv. where the crime is a product of culpa or
criminal negligence/ reckless imprudence.
e. A crime may be committed without criminal
intent in the following instances:
i. if such is a culpable felony wherein intent is
substituted by negligence or imprudence
ii. in crimes that are malum prohibitum/ or an act
punishable by special law.

ARTICLE IV
I. A criminal thought or a mere intention no
matter how immoral or improper it may be, will
never constitute a felony.
II. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
a. An impossible crime is committed by any
person:
i. who performs an act that would be an offense
against person or property
ii. that its accomplishment is inherently
impossible or the means employed is either
inadequate or ineffectual
iii. the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision in the RPC
iv. the act must be done with evil intent.
b. There is no impossible crime to commit
kidnapping since kidnapping is a crime against
personal security not of persons or property.
c. Modified concept of an impossible crime
III. THREE WAYS BY WHICH A PERSON MAY
COMMIT A FELONY ALTHOUGH THE
WRONGFUL ACT DONE IS DIFFERENT FROM
THAT WHICH HE INTENDED:
i. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the blow)
ii. Error in Personae (mistake in identity)
iii. Praeter Intentionem (the consequence went
beyond than what is intended)
IV. ABERRATIO ICTUS (MISTAKE IN THE
BLOW)
a. This occurs when the offender delivers a blow
at his intended victim but missed and instead
such blow landed on an intended victim.
Generally, this brings about the first type of
complex crime known as a compound crime. ( A
single act producing two or more grave or less
grave felonies.)
b. This occurs when the offender delivered the
blow at his intended victim but missed, and
instead such blow landed on an unintended
victim. The situation generally brings about
complex crimes where from a single act two or
more grave or less grave felonies resulted,
namely, the attempt against the intended victim
and the consequence of the unintended victim.
As complex crimes, the penalty for the more
serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the
maximum period. It is only when the resulting
felonies are only light that complex crimes do not
result and the penalties are to be imposed
distinctly from each resulting crimes.
c. When A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at the
latter but because of poor aim or lack of
precision, he hits C instead who suffers serious
physical injuries.
V. ERROR IN PERSONAE (mistake in identity)
a. This occurs when the offender thought that he
actually hit his intended victim, but it turned out
that the person hit was another person. The
criminal liability is still the same regardless of the
identity of the victim, unless of course, the
mistake in identity resulted to a crime different
than what the offender originally intended to
commit. In this case, the crime with the lesser
penalty (between the intended crime and the
crime committed) will be the basis of the penalty
imposed in its maximum period.
b. When A, intending to kill B, his enemy, lay in
ambush for the latter to pass along a dark alley.
Because of the darkness, A fired his gun at a
person passing by, thinking him to be B. It turned
out that the person shot is C, As father.
VI. PRAETER INTENTIONEM (the
consequence went beyond than what is
intended)
a. This occurs when there is a flagrant disparity
between the means employed in producing the
felony from the resulting felony. In other words,
the resulting felony could not have been foreseen
by the offender considering the means employed
by him. This is considered as a mitigating
circumstance under Article 13, Paragraph 3.
b. Where A, without intent to kill B, strikes B with
his fist at the back of the head, causing B to fall
down with his head hitting the asphalt pavement
resulting in the fracture of his head that caused
the injury
c. One is liable for the natural and logical
consequences of his acts although the injury that
results is different from that which he intended.
d. One is criminally liable if the felonious act is
the proximate cause of the victims death. The
rule is that when a person, by a felonious act,
generates in the mind of another a sense of
imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape
from or avoid such danger and in the process
sustains injuries or dies, the person committing
the felonious act is responsible for such injury or
death.
f. Proximate cause is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of a felonious act.
VII. ERROR IN PERSONAE AND MISTAKE OF
FACT
Error in personae does not extinguish criminal
liability. Mistake of fact absolves a person from
criminal liability.
Mistake of fact doctrine means that an accused
will not be held criminally liable for the result not
intended where there is a mistake of fact
constituting an involuntary act. (mistaken belief)

VIII. ABERRATIO ICTUS vs. ERROR
PERSONAE
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs
when a felonious act missed the person against
whom it was directed and hit instead somebody
who was not the intended victim.
Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs
when the felonious act was directed at the person
intended but who turned out to be somebody
else.
Aberratio ictus brings about at least two felonious
consequences, the attempted felony on the
intended victim who was not hit and the felony on
the unintended victim was hit. A complex crime
of the first form under Article 48 generally results.
In error in personae, only one crime is committed.
ARTICLE 8
I. CONSPIRACY
a. General Rule
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all,
therefore the crime charged to one is charged to
all involved.
Exceptions:
i. If any co-conspirator would commit a crime not
agreed upon, the other co-conspirators are not
liable. This is when a crime and the crime
committed by one of the conspirators are distinct
crimes. (This exception includes instances where
a composite crime is committed.
ii. If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the
commission of the crime with insignificant or
minimal acts, such that even without his
cooperation the crime could be carried out well,
such co-conspirator should be punished as
accomplice only. The reason for this is that penal
laws always favour a milder form of responsibility
over upon an offender.
b. Conspiracy may be express or implied. The
latter is ascertained by the acts of the other co-
conspirators.
c. Conspiracy and proposal to commit conspiracy
is not a crime unless expressly provided for in the
law. A conspirator must perform an overt act
pursuant to the conspiracy in order to be liable.
d. A person can only be exempted from the
conspiracy (unless otherwise provided as stated
above) when:
i. said person who did not appear is presumed to
have desisted. Exception is if the person who did
not appear is the mastermind.
ii. If he showed up, he tried to prevent the
commission of the crime.
e. Conspiracy cannot exist in a free-for-all brawl
or tumultuous affray, hence each actor is only
liable for his own act.
II. IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
a. Implied conspiracy means that two or more
persons participating in the commission of a
crime are collectively responsible and are liable
as conspirators although they might not have any
agreement to commit said crime, provided that
they demonstrate a common purpose or objective
and unity of criminal intent.
b. Implied conspiracy is one which is only inferred
or deduced from the manner the participants in
the commission of the crime carried out in its
execution. Where the offenders acted in concert
in the commission of the crime, meaning that
their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a
way indicative that they are pursuing a common
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be
acting in conspiracy and their liability shall be
collective and not individual.
c. The existence of implied conspiracy can be
inferred or deduced if the persons who committed
the crime acted in concert simultaneously,
indicative of the meeting of minds toward a
common goal or objective and thus the act of one
is the act of all.
d. The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
i. not all those present at the scene of the crime
will be considered
ii. only those who participated by criminal acts in
the commission of the crime will be considered as
conspirators
iii. mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime without any act of
criminal participation shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
III. EXPRESS CONSPIRACY vs. IMPLIED
CONSPIRACY
a. In express conspiracy, everybody is liable as
long as they conspired to commit the crime.
Except if it falls under the exception.
In implied conspiracy, those who have not done
the criminal act itself are not liable.
b. Mere vouching the honesty or character of
suspects cannot make a person a co-conspirator.
He must enjoy the presumption of innocence.
 i. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act.
ii. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the
actor acted without voluntariness.
iii. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal
because the actor is regarded only as an
instrument of the crime.
iv. There being a wrong done but no criminal,
there is civil liability but no criminal liability.

b. In justifying and exempting or intentional

felonies, the following elements should be
present:

i. Intelligence/ Reason
ii. Freedom
iii. Intent

IV. Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance

under Philippine laws.

V. When the accused was not avoiding any evil,

he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of a greater evil or injury.

VI. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR THE LAWFUL

EXERCISE OF AN OFFICE OR A RIGHT

Requisites:

i. that the accused acted in the performance of a

duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
ii. that the injury caused or the offense
committed is unavoidable or is the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of said right or office.

ARTICLE S 11

I. Self-defense can only be availed of if there is an

actual physical assault upon a person and the
danger is imminent. Where there is no peril to
ones life, limb or right, there is no unlawful
aggression. Without unlawful aggression, self-
defense will be reduced to a mitigating
circumstance (incomplete self-defense).

II. A married woman cannot claim defense of

honor in a case she was already asleep when she
felt that a man was already on top of her. She did
not mind, thinking that it was her husband. After
the sexual act, she realized that the man was not
her husband so she killed the said man. Defense
of honor here cannot apply because because the
unlawful aggression has already ceased. She will
however be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of vindication of grave offense
(Article 13, Paragraph).

III. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES vs.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

a. In justifying:

i. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor.

ii. The act is done within legal bounds, hence
considered as not a crime.
iii. Since the act is not a crime, there is no
criminal.
iv. There being no crime, there is no criminal and
generally no civil liability.

In exempting:
 because the criminal mind is in B already when A
transacted with him.

b. In instigation

i. The idea and design to bring about the

commission of the crime originated and
developed in the mind of the law enforcers.
ii. The law enforcers, induce, lure or incite a
person who is not minded to commit a crime and
would not otherwise commit it into committing
the crime.
iii. This circumstance absolves the accused from
criminal liability.

Example:

Because the members of an anti-narcotics team

are already known to the drug pushers, A, the
team leader, approached and persuaded B to act
as a buyer of shabu and transact with C, the
suspected drug pusher. For the purpose, A gave B
marked money to be used in buying shabu from
C. After C handed the sachet of shabu and the
latter handed the marked money to C, the team
closed-in and placed and B under arrest. Under
the facts, B is not criminally liable for his
participation in the transaction because he was
acting only under instigation by the law
enforcers.

ARTICLE 12

I. With the effectivity of RA 9344 otherwise known

as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,
it is thereby mandated that cases of children 15
years old and below at the time of the
commission of the crime shall immediately be
dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
appropriate social welfare and development
officer. This provision has in effect amended
paragraph 3 of Article 12. Children aged 15 years
and below are now considered children below the
age of criminal responsibility.

II. ENTRAPMENT vs. INSTIGATION

a. In entrapment:

i. The criminal design originates from and is

already in the mind of the law breaker even
before entrapment.
ii. The law enforcers resort to ways and means for
the purpose of capturing the law breaker in
flagrante delicto
iii. This circumstance is no bar to prosecution and
conviction of the law breaker.

Example:

A, an anti-narcotic agent of the government acted

as a poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with
B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that
A is a police officer. A then issued a marked
money to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B.
Thereupon, A signalled his anti-narcotics team to
close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment
 It is not applicable to plea-bargaining since such
is conditional.

III. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ORDINARY AND

PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

i. Under the rules for the application of divisible

penalties, the presence of mitigating
circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating
circumstance, has the effect of applying the
divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the
rules of graduation of penalty, the presence of
privilege mitigating circumstance has the effect
of reducing the penalty one or two degrees lower.

ii. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-

set by aggravating circumstances. Privileged
mitigating circumstances are not subject to the
off-set rule.

ARTICLE 13

I. Paragraph 5- Immediate must be translated as

proximate. Lapse of time is allowed between the
grave offense and the vindication. However, the
offender must not regain his equanimity.

II. Paragraph 7- Voluntary Surrender and

Plea of Guilty

a. Requisites of voluntary surrender to be

mitigating

i. The surrender must be spontaneous. It must be

indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not
conditional or for convenience. (As to how long
will depend on the circumstances. It has been
held that 2 years, before he voluntarily
surrendered is too long a time to consider the
surrender spontaneous.)
ii. It must be voluntary. It must be made before
the government incurs expenses, time and effort
in tracking the offender down.
iii. It must be made to a person in authority or to
an agent of a person in authority.

b. Requisites for a plea of guilty to be mitigating:

i. The accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to

the crime charged.
ii. Such pleas was made before the court
competent to try the case and render judgment.
iii. Such plea was made prior to the presentation
of evidence by the prosecution.

ARTICLE 14
I. Paragraph 3- Dwelling
It must be a building or structure exclusively used
for rest and comfort. A combination of a house
and store is not a dwelling. It also includes
dependencies such as staircase and enclosure of
the house. The offended party need not be a
permanent resident or a domicile of such nor is
there a need that he be the owner of said
dwelling. This aggravating circumstance is
considered even if the living or dwelling is for a
temporary duration or purpose. It is also not
needed that the offender should enter the
dwelling in order that this aggravating
circumstance can be appreciated. It is enough
that the victim is inside the house.
II. Paragraph 6
a. Nighttime- The accused must have deliberately
availed of night time to insure the success of his
act in order that this aggravating circumstance
may be availed of.
b. Uninhabited Place- What is considered here
aside from the distance and isolation of the place
is the reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving or securing aid from third persons.
III. Paragraph 9- Recidivist
Requisites:
i. Offender is on trial for an offense.
ii. Offender was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime.
iii. Both the first and second offenses are
embraced in the same Title of the RPC.
iv. Offender is convicted of the new offense.
IV. FIVE TYPES OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
i. Generic Aggravating- Those that can be applied
to all crimes. Generic aggravating can be set-off
by a mitigating circumstance. If not off set, it has
the effect of imposing the penalty in its maximum
period. Generic aggravating circumstance has to
be alleged in the information otherwise it will not
be considered in imposing the sentence. (A bar
answer suggested that it need not be alleged in
the information as long as it is proven during the
trial, the same shall be considered in imposing
the sentence.)
ii. Specific Aggravating- Those that apply only to
particular crimes and cannot be off-set by
mitigating circumstances.
iii. Inherent Aggravating- Those that essentially
accompany the commission of the crime. It does
not affect the penalty whatsoever.
iv. Qualifying Circumstances- Those that can
change the nature of the crime to a graver one,
or bring about the penalty higher in degree. This
cannot be off-set by mitigating circumstances. It
must be alleged in the information and proven
during trial.
v. Special Aggravating Circumstance- Those that
are provided by special law to be aggravating.
V. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
a. A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an
element of a crime when:
i. It changes the nature of the crime, resulting to
a more serious crime and a heavier penalty.
ii. It is essential to the crime involved. If not,
some other crime would be committed.
b. A qualifying circumstance ( evident
premeditation) that has not been alleged but
proven during trial may not anymore be
considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance. (no allegation, no aggravating)
However, it may be considered for the purpose of
awarding exemplary damages.
ARTICLE 17

I. PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

See doctrines in Article 8 on Conspiracy

II. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT

Requisites:

i. The inducement must be directly made, the

intention being to procure the commission of the
crime.
ii. The inducement alone must be the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by the
material executor.

If requisite number 2 is absent hence; a principal

by direct participation who has a personal reason
to commit a crime so that he would commit it
anyway even if he is not induced by another
person is solely liable for the said crime.

III. PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE

COOPERRATION

i. Participation in the criminal action. (There must

have been anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged.)
ii. Cooperation in the commission of the offense
by performance of another act, without which it
would not have been accomplished.

ARTICLE 18
ACCOMPLICE vs. CONSPIRATOR
I.
An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely
cooperating in the commission of the crime
without participating as a principal by prior or
simultaneous acts whereas a conspirator
participates in the commission of the crime as a
co-principal.
An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an
individual capacity by his act alone of
cooperating the execution of the crime while a
conspirator incur criminal liability not only for his
individual acts in the execution of the commission
of the crime collectively. The acts of the other
participants in the execution of the crime are
considered also as acts of a conspirator for
purposed of collective criminal liability.
An accomplice participates in the execution of a
crime when the criminal design or plan is already
in place whereas a conspirator participates in the
adoption or making of the criminal design.
An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one
degree lower than that of a principal whereas a
conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.
II.
a. knowledge of the criminal design of the
principal
Accomplices know and agree with the criminal
design. They come to know it after the principals
have reached the decision and only then they do
agree to cooperate in the execution.
Conspirators know of them and join in the
criminal design. They know the criminal intention
because they themselves have decided upon
such cause of action.
b. participation
Accomplices are mere instruments who perform
acts not essential to the commission of the crime.
Conspirators are authors of the crime.
c. penalty
Accomplices are one degree lower than that of a
principal.
Conspirators are the same as principals.
Conspiracy alone is not punishable except in
cases where the law specifically provides a
penalty therefore.
d. decision
Accomplices do not decide whether the crime
should be committed. They merely assent to the
plan and cooperate in its accomplishment.
Conspirators decide that the crime should be
committed.
e. requisites
Accomplices:
i. the community of criminal design: that is
knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in
his purpose.
ii. the performance of pervious or simultaneous
acts that are not indispensable to the commission
of the crime.
Conspirators:
i. two or more persons come to an agreement
ii. the agreement concerned the commission of a
crime
ii. the execution of the felony was agreed upon
 i. Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded
and proved by the person pardoned, while
amnesty is a public act of which courts take
judicial notice, it need not be proved.
ii. Pardon does not require concurrence of
Congress while amnesty requires the concurrence
of Congress.
iii. Pardon is granted to individuals while amnesty
is granted to classes of persons or communities.
iv. Pardon may be granted for any offense while
amnesty may be granted for political offenses.
v. Pardon is granted after final conviction while
amnesty may be granted any time even before
trial.
vi. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender
from the consequences of his offense while
amnesty looks backward and the person granted
it stands before the law as though he had
committed no offense.
vii. A pardon merely frees the individual from all
the penalties and legal disabilities imposed upon
him because of his conviction. It does not restore
him to the public office relinquished by reason of
conviction. A pardon does not restore the right to
hold public office unless such right be expressly
restored by the pardon.
vii. Acceptance is essential to complete the
pardon and the pardon may be rejected by the
person to whom it is tendered, for it may inflict
consequences of greater disgrace than those
from which it purports to be.
viii. In amnesty, it is necessary to admit the
commission of the crime in order to avail the
benefits of amnesty. Amnesty presupposes the
commission of a crime. It is inconsistent for
someone to seek forgiveness for a crime which
one denies having committed.

ARTICLE 36

I. If a person pardoned wants to be reinstated to

her former office, he has to re-apply for such
position and undergo the usual procedure
required for a new appointment.

II. PARDON vs. AMNESTY

a. In pardon, the convict is excused from serving III. CRIMES COVERED BY THE GRANT OF
the sentence but the effect of conviction remain AMNESTY UNDER PRESIDENTIAL
unless expressly provided by the pardon; hence, PROCLAMATION 724
for pardon to be valid, there must be a sentence
already final an executory at the time the same is 1. rebellion or insurrection
granted. Moreover, the grant is in favour of 2. coup detat
individual convicted offenders not to a class of 3. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
convicted offenders, and the crimes subject of insurrection or coup detat
the grant may be common crimes or political 4. disloyalty of public officers or employees
crimes. Finally, the act is a private act of the 5. inciting to rebellion or insurrection
Chief Executive which does not require the 6. sedition
concurrence of any public officer or office. 7. conspiracy to commit sedition
8. inciting to sedition
In amnesty, the criminal complexion of the act 9. illegal assembly
constituting the crime is erased as though such 10. illegal association
act was innocent when committed; hence, the 11. direct assault
effects of conviction are obliterated. Amnesty is 12. indirect assault
granted in favour of a class of convicted 13. resistance and disobedience to a person in
offenders, and the crimes involved are generally authority or agents of such persons
political offenses not common crimes. Amnesty is 14. tumults and other disturbances of public
a public act that requires the conformity or order
concurrence of the Senate. 15. unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances
b. Distinctions between pardon and amnesty 16. alarms and scandals
17. illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions
and explosives committed in furtherance of,
incident to or in connection with rebellion or
insurrection
18. violations of articles of war:
a. Article 59- desertion
b. Article 62- absence without leave
c. Article 67- mutiny or sedition
d. Article 68- failure to suppress mutiny or
sedition
e. Article 94- various crimes
f. Article 96- conduct unbecoming an officer and
gentleman
g. Article97- general article

ARTICLE 38

I. PECUNIARY PENALTIES vs. PECUNIARY

LIABILITIES

a. Pecuniary penalties are those which a

convicted offender may be required to pay in
money to the government. These are:
a. fine, and
b. money

b. Pecuniary liabilities are those which a

convicted offender is required to pay in money to
the offended party and to the government. They
are:
a. reparation of the damage caused
b. indemnification of consequential damages
c. fine, and
d. costs of the proceedings

The first two liabilities (a and b) are payable as

civil indemnity to the private offended parties
offended by the crime while the last two (c and d)
are payable to the government.

ARTICLE 48
I. Complex crimes (Delito Compuesto) are
defined under Article 48. There are three
types of complex crimes:
a. Compound Crimes (first part of Article 48)
b. Complex Crime Proper (second part of Article
48)
c. Continued Crime
II. CONTINUED CRIME
a. Continued crime is one where the offender
performs a series of acts violating one and the
same penal provision committed at the same
place and about the same time for the same
criminal purpose, regardless of a series of acts
done, it is regarded in law as one.
b. Delito continuado or continued crime refers to
a crime constituted by several overt acts
committed by the offender in one place at about
the same time, and all such overt acts violate one
and the same penal provision, thus
demonstrating that all such acts are the product
of a single indivisible criminal resolution. Hence,
all acts are considered as one crime only.
III. CONTINUED CRIME vs. CONTINUING
OFFENSE
Delito continuado or continuous crime is a term
used to denote as only one crime a series of
felonious acts arising from a single criminal
resolution, not susceptible of division, which are
carried out in the same place and at the same
time, and violating one and the same penal
provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
criminal intent or purpose, such that each acts
constitutes a partial execution of a particular
crime, violating one and the same penal
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious
acts violating a common right, a common penal
provision, and impelled by a single criminal
impulse.
On the other hand, a continuing offense is one
whose essential ingredients took place in more
than one municipality or city so much so that the
criminal prosecution may be instituted and the
case tried in the competent court of any one of
such municipality or city.
The term continued crime or delito continuado
mandates that only one information should be
filed against the offender although a series of
felonious acts were performed.
The term continuing crime is more pertinently
used with reference to the venue where the
criminal action may be instituted.
IV. COMPOUND CRIME vs. COMPLEX CRIME
a. Compound crimes result when the offender
committed only a single felonious act and from
which two or more crimes resulted. This is
provided for in the modified form in the first
paragraph in Article 48 limiting the resulting
crimes to only grave and/ or less grave felonies.
Hence, light felonies are excluded even though
resulting from the same act.
Complex crimes result when the offender has to
commit an offense as a necessary means for
committing another offense. Only one information
shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the
more serious crime shall be imposed.
c. In a complex crime, the component crimes are
defined and penalized under separate and
distinct articles of the RPC but are allowed to be
alleged in one information as an exception to
Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure because they are committed under the
circumstances in Article 48 of the RPC; two or
more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a
single actor one offense was a necessary means
for committing the other offense.
d. Compound crime- a single act constituting two
or more grave or less grave felonies.
Complex crime- an offense is the necessary
means for committing another.
i. In both instances, the penalty for the most
serious crime will be imposed.
ii. It is not applied to composite crimes.
(otherwise known as special complex crimes,
such as robbery with homicide, robbery with rape
etc.)
iii. One offense should not be possible by a
special law.
V. ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME vs.
COMPOSITE CRIME(SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIME)
a. In concept
An ordinary complex crime is made up two or
more crimes being punished in distinct provisions
of the RPC but alleged in one information either
because they were brought about by a single
felonious act or because one offense is a
necessary means for committing the other
offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
information so that only one penalty shall be
imposed.
A special complex crime is made up of two or
more crimes which are considered only as
component of a single indivisible offense being
punished in one provision of the RPC.
b. As to penalties
In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
In special complex crime, only one penalty is
specifically prescribed for all component crimes
which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The
component crimes are not regarded as distinct
crimes and so the penalty for the most serious
crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its
maximum period. It is the penalty specifically
provided for the special complex crime that shall
be applied according to the rules on the
imposition of penalty.
c. In a special complex crime, also known as a
composite crime, the components crime
constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus
penalized as one crime under one Article of RPC,
such as robbery with homicide under Article 294.
d. The crime of forcible abduction may be
complexed with rape. If multiple rapes were
committed, each will be charged and punished
separately.
f. The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal
laws are to be construed and applied in a way
lenient or liberal to the offender, consistent with
the constitutional guarantee that an accused is
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
ARTICLE 62
I. RECIDIVISM (ARTICLE 14) vs. HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY (ARTICLE 62)
a. Definition
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.
A person shall be deemed a habitual delinquent ,
if within a period of 10 years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious
or less serious physical injuries, robo, horto,
estafa or falsification (falsification, estafa,
robbery, serious physical injuries, and theft) , he
is found guilty of said crimes a third time or
oftener.
b. Nature of crime
In recidivism, the first crime and the aggravated
second crime are embraced in the same title of
the RPC. In habitual delinquency, the first, second
and third crimes must be a habitual delinquent
crime and that is serious or less serious physical
injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification of
document.
c. Time element
In recidivism, the accused is convicted of the first
crime by final judgment at the time of the trial of
the second crime. In habitual delinquency, the
accused is convicted within 10 years from his last
conviction or within 10 years from his last release
from any of the offenses enumerated for the third
time or oftener.
d. Number of crimes committed
In recidivism, there must be at least two crimes
committed. In habitual delinquency, there must
be at least three times committed.
e. Nature of aggravating circumstance
Recidivism is ordinary/generic aggravating
circumstance, the presence of any of which will
trigger the application of the penalty for the
second crime in its maximum period unless it is
off -set by mitigating circumstance. Habitual
delinquency is an extraordinary or special
aggravating circumstance, the presence of which
will trigger the imposition of additional penalty for
the third or subsequent crime. This is not subject
to the off-set rule.
II. RECIDIVISM vs. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
a. In recidivism, the convictions of the offender
are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the
RPC. In quasi-recidivism, the convictions are not
for the crime embraced in the same title of the
RPC. It is for a felony that was committed by the
offender before serving sentence by final
judgment for another crime or while serving
sentence for another crime.
b. Recidivism is considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance and can be off-set by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Quasi-
recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance
and cannot be off-set by any mitigating
circumstance.
III. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
HABITUALITY OR REITERACION
i. The accused is on trial for an offense.
ii. He previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for
the new offense.
iii. He is convicted for the new offense.
ARTICLE 89
I. Criminal liability is extinguished by the death of
the convict. However, take note that criminal
liability is not extinguished with the death of the
offended party since the offense committed is a
crime against the state.
II. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES
a. If the accused died before final judgment
Extinguished- personal and pecuniary liabilities
are only extinguished when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
b. If the accused died after final judgment but
pending appeal
Extinguished- civil indemnity and damages under
the RPC can only be recovered if the accused has
been convicted with finality before he died.
c. If the accused died and after finality of
judgment (appeal already made)
Civil indemnity and damages can be recovered
from the accused.
II. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT
ACQUITTAL FROM CRIMINAL CASE
EXTINGUISHES CIVIL LIABILITY
a. when the civil action is based on obligations
not arising from the acts complained of as a
felony
b. when the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
(Article 29 NCC)
c. acquittal due to an exempting circumstance
like insanity
d. where the court states in its judgment that the
case merely involves civil obligation
e. Where there was a proper reservation for the
filing of a separate civil action
f. in cases of independent civil actions provided
for in Articles 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the NCC.
g. when the judgment of acquittal includes a
declaration that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist
h. where the civil liability is not derived or based
on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted
i. indemnity and damages may be recovered in a
civil action if based on a source of obligation
under Article 1157 of the Civil Code (law,
contracts, quasi-contracts but not on the basis of
delicts)
III. a. Censure may not be included in a sentence
of acquittal because a censure is a penalty.
Censure is repugnant and is essentially
inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal.
b. Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and
severally on the two convicted accused is not
proper. The penalty should be imposed
individually on every person accused of the
crime. Any of the convicted accused and
insolvent and who is unable to pay shall serve the
subsidiary imprisonment.
c. The judge may properly impose an alternative
penalty. Although the law may prescribe an
alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean
that the court may impose the alternative
penalties at the same time. The sentence must
be definite, otherwise, the judgment cannot
attain finality.
d. Civil indemnity and damages under the RPC
are only recoverable if the accused had been
convicted with finality before he died.
 overthrowing the duly constituted government to
be replaced by a government of rebels. It is
carried out by force and violence but need not be
participated in by any member of the military,
national police or any public officer.

Coup detat is committed when members of the

military, PNP, or public officer acting as principal
offenders, launched a swift attack thru strategy,
stealth, threat, violence or intimidation against
duly constituted authorities of the RP, military
camp or installation, communication networks,
public facilities or utilities needed for the exercise
and continued possession of governmental
powers for the purpose of seizing or diminishing
state powers.

Unlike rebellion which requires public uprising,

coup detat may be carried out singly or
simultaneously and the principal offenders must
be members of the military, national police or
public officer, with or without civilian support. The
criminal objective need not be to overthrow the
government but only to destabilize or paralyze
the existing government.

b. Rebellion can now be complexed with common

crimes by virtue of amendments in RA 6968
promulgated in October 1990.

c. If there was conspiracy between the offender/s

committing the coup detat and the offenders
committing rebellion, then there is a complex
crime of coup detat and rebellion. In conspiracy,
the crime of one is the crime of the other. The
two crimes are essentially different and punished
with distinct penalties. This is possible because
the offender in coup detat may be any person or
persons belonging to the military, national police
or public officer whereas rebellion does not so
require. Moreover, the crime of coup detat may
be committed singly whereas rebellion requires
public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow
the duly constituted government. Since the two
crimes are essentially different and punished with
distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to
the application of Article 48.

d. Illegal possession of firearms and explosives

and other common crimes is deemed absorbed in
the rebellion if it is a necessary means for the
perpetration of such.

e. An NPA commander who shot his neighbour

during an altercation using an unlicensed firearm
cannot be charged with rebellion since said act is
not furtherance of the rebellion. He is charged
with the crime of murder or homicide as the case
may be.

f. There can be a complex crime of coup detat

with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and punished with distinct
penalties. Sedition may not be directed against
the government or non-political objective
whereas coup detat is always political in
objective as it is directed against the government
and lead by persons or public officers holding
ARTICLE 134 AND 134-A public office belonging to the military or national
police. Article 48 may apply under the conditions
REBELLION vs. COUP DETAT provided therein.

a. Rebellion is committed when a multitude of

persons rise publicly in arms for the purpose of
 a. Payment through the means of an unfunded
check obtained from a third party can only make
the person who negotiated the check liable for
estafa if said person has actual knowledge that
the check is unfunded otherwise the latter is not
criminally.

b. The mere payment of an unfunded check

cannot give rise to the crime of estafa, intent to
defraud must be ascertained.

c. Estafa cannot be committed several ways. In

order to be liable for the crime of estafa, a person
entrusted must have misappropriated something.
The crime is not committed when the item is sold
to him.

d. There is no such thing as estafa through

negligence since the crime of estafa requires that
the profit or gain must be obtained by the
accused personally. An accuseds negligence in
letting another take advantage of an entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa.

e. A money market transaction partakes of the

nature of a loan. The non-payment for such would
not give rise to the crime of estafa through
misappropriation or conversion. The key here to
determining if the crime of estafa is committed or
not is to see if there has been a transfer
ownership of money. If there is, then it is purely
civil in obligation. However, if it is merely
entrusted in confidence to another, and that the
person entrusted should return it, but said person
fails to do, then he crime of estafa is committed.

f. There is no violation of the constitutional

provision of non-imprisonment for non-payment
of debt when a person is charged with estafa for
failure to deliver the proceeds of goods as a
security for a loan under a trust receipt
agreement. What is being penalized is the
dishonesty and abuse of confidence causing
prejudice to another and not the non-payment of
debt.

g. A person who forges the signature of the owner

of a registered lot and mortgages said lot without
authority from the owner is liable for the complex
crime of estafa through falsification of
documents.

h. A person who failed to return a borrowed horse

can be liable for the crime of estafa.

i. A person who sold the car without authority

from the owner entrusted to him for repainting
can be held for estafa even if there was delay or
failure of payment on the part of the owner of the
car.

j. Personal benefit is an element of estafa.

k. The crime of estafa is committees when

through consent however with abuse of
confidence or deceit, the juridical possession of
an item is transferred to another person.

l. The use of false credit card constitutes the

crime of estafa because such act is considered as
defrauding another by means of deceit and that
damage is caused by said act.
ARTICLE 315
m. A person may commit the crime of estafa by
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous
with the fraud or falsely pretending to possess
agency.

n. RA 1869 provides that any person or persons

who shall commit estafa or other forms of
swindling in Article 315 and 316 of the RPC, as
amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment
to death if the swindling/ estafa is committed by
a syndicate consisting of five or more persons
formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or
scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, samahang nayon, or farmers,
association, or of funds solicited by corporations
associations from the general public.