Criminal Law 1 Transcript

CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 1
CRIMINAL LAW I (Teacher: Fiscal RodulphCarilllo) classmate walking with his girlfriend. You say: “This is my
chance. I will shoot my classmate”. You shoot your
--- FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY ---- classmate but you missed in shooting him. Instead, you
shot his girlfriend. Are you liable? Will you be liable for an
SOURCES
intentional or culpable felony? If the act is an intentional
felony, why? It was not the girlfriend whom you wanted to
- Revised Penal Code (Book I)
kill. It was her boyfriend. In this case, your classmate.
- Jurisprudence
Would that not amount to a culpable felony?
Tips in answering Fiscal Carillo’s Exam: PRINCIPLES(s),
In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF BATANGAS, what did
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
De Joya asked from the Supreme Court?
REQUIREMENTS: 3 Major Examinations, Oral
PP vs. GONZALES?
Examinations/Quiz
QUESTION: If I bought a gun with the intent of killing a
Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He left her
person without actually killing him, will I be liable for an
and joined the Mormons. He became a dedicated
attempted murder?
missionary spreading the gospel of Brigham Young. One
day he arrived in a town to do missionary work and met
WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?
Clara. They fell in love with each other. Timothy honestly
believed that his conversion to the Mormon religion -Defines crimes
allowed him to have more than one wife. Without his first
marriage to Maria dissolved, Timothy married Clara. -Treats of their nature
Timothy was charged with bigamy.
-Provides for penalties
Timothy is: Criminally liable because his mistake in the
interpretation of the law does not excuse him from its Primary Purpose
effects.
Prevent harm to society by:
Criminally because his misapprehension of the facts
a. Declaring what conduct is criminal
caused an injury that would result in criminal liability
b. Describing the punishment to be imposed for such
Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a
conduct
culpable felony
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Criminally liable because good faith is not a defense in the
case of felonies
-Revised Penal Code
ANSWER:
-Special Laws passed by the Legislature
PRINCIPLE OF LAW: “One who commits an intentional
-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
felony is liable for all the natural and logical consequences
that may result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or There are no common law crimes.
not.”
No law = no crime.
APPLICATION:
Are court decisions and circulars sources of criminal law?
How does one incur criminal liability? Give an example.
“SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence,
What if you want to kill your classmate because he would Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. This
not allow you to copy his answers in an exam? You see this is just a clarification of our decision.” (NORMA DE JOYA vs.
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos. 159418-19, JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
December 10, 2003)
Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.
State’s power to define and punish crimes.
In criminal cases:
“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the
subdivision of which its great powers will admit, and of all Place / Venue
the means by which they may be carried into execution,
Nature of the crime – if penalty is 6 years and 1 day above
would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and could
(RTC); if drug related case, the RTC specially designated as
scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would
drug court; if the case consists of a minor?
probably never be understood by the public.”
Person committing the crime
A state must be able to define and punish crimes. If you
place the penalties for crimes in the Constitution, it will
WHEN DOES A COURT ATTAIN JURISDICTION?When the
tarnish its characteristic. It will not be brief, broad and
offender surrenders himself; during arraignment; the
definite anymore. If you do that, that will be making our
person surrendering must do it personally, you cannot
Constitution a broad one.
send a messenger
Limits (1987 Constitution)
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
-Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)
(1) General (refers to the subject of criminal law; ANYONE
WHO LIVES OR SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY
-Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])
WILL BE SUBJECT TO PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW
-Speedy disposition of cases
(2) Territorial
-Right to bail
(3) Prospective
-Presumption of innocence
JURISDICTION
-Self-incrimination
-Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over military
-Double jeopardy personnel with Courts martial even in times of war as long
as the civil courts are still functioning
The power of the state to define and punish crimes has a
limitation. These are more or less included in our laws. We GONZALES vs. ABAYA, GR No. 164007, August 10, 2006
can find some of these in the Revised Rules of Court.
RA #7055
LIMITS (Statutory)
GENERAL RULE – AFP, persons subject to military law, who
-Presumption of innocence commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised
Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local ordinances –
-Informed of the nature and cause of accusation civil court.
-To be present and defend in person EXCEPTION – Service-connected offenses – military court
-To testify in his own behalf EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION – President, interest of
justice – civil court
-Self-incrimination
EXCEPTIONS (These are for purposes of international
-To confront / cross-examine comity)

- Treaties REPEAL
- Laws of preferential application;
- Sovereigns, Chiefs of State, Ambassadors, If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall
Ministers plenipotentiary, ministers residents be applied. (Exception, retroactive, favourable)
and charges d’affaires.
If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall
- Consuls being commercial representatives have
be applied. (General law, no retroactive effect, not
no such immunity. They do not enjoy the same
favorable)
immunity enjoyed by the above-mentioned
political agencies
If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is
obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favourable) ; THOSE
2. TERRITORIAL
WHO ARE SERVING SENTENCE, YOU RELEASE THEM ; Anti-
Criminal law is applicable only with respect to acts Subversion Act was totally repealed; Just becoming a
committed within Philippine territory. member of an organization that is subversive, you can be
prosecuted, however, this was already repealed so their
Philippine Territory – Archipelagic doctrine cases were DISMISSED
EXCEPTIONS CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
Article 2 of the RPC: Against the Government and in favor of the accused.
1. Philippine ship / airship Spanish text is controlling (OLD CODIGO PENAL)
2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations As in all rules of statutory construction, these rules are
or securities (maskipagnaakagawassaPilipinas, liable applicable only when there is some ambiguity in the
gihaponka!) interpretation of the criminal statute
3. Introduction of items no. 2 into the Philippines PP vs. GONZALES – What was the crime involved in this
case? What particular principle in law would you use if
4. Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their you were the justice in this case? So what if you can
functions establish that the accused did not commit a felonious act
punishable by Article 4 of the RPC? Would it be correct to
5. Crimes against national security / law of nations (EVEN
say that a felony cannot be punished merely because it is
IF YOU COMMIT REBELLION OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES,
not proven that such felony existed?
TENDING TO INDUCE FOREIGNERS TO COMMIT SUCH
CRIME, YOU WILL STILL BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ; Piracy) ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION
3. PROSPECTIVE (REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship
-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or
in……. securities;
EXCEPTION Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;
When the new law is favourable to the accused Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their
functions;
NOT APPLICABLE (Exception to the exception):
National security / law of nations
Express prohibition;
FISCAL CARILLO: Airplane sir, walailabot?
Habitual criminal
Walailabotnohkywala man dha? Yes or no? (The term

“AIRSHIP” is found in the OLD CODIGO PENAL so the Territorial Waters – TRIABLE in our courts unless – merely
answer is YES, LABOT) affect things (1) within the vessel or they refer to the (2)
internal management thereof. (ENGLISH RULE)
WHEN COMMITTED ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP.
ENGLISH RULE vs. FRENCH RULE
A person who commits an offense on board a Philippine
ship or airship while the same is outside Philippine Crimes committed on board FMV within territorial waters.
territory can be tried by our courts.
FRENCH RULE – NOT triable unless it affects peace and
Ship or airship must be in international waters. security of the territory
FORGES OR COUNTERFEITS ANY COIN OR CURRENCY ENGLISH RULE – TRIABLE unless they merely affect things
NOTE, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES within vessel or refer to internal management thereof.
(Take note: THE MOMENT WE GET AN INFORMATION
Making false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163) THAT A FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL / AIRSHIP POSSESSES
A PROHIBITED ARTICLE, THE PHILIPPINE COURTS WILL
A PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEE, OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE
HAVE JURISDICTION)
OF HIS FUNCTIONS.
EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH RULE
- Direct bribery (Art. 210)
- Indirect bribery (Art. 211) Possession of opium.
- Frauds against the public treasure (Art. 213)
- Malversation (Art. 217) If FMV is in transit – NOT TRIABLE
- Falsification (Art. 171)
- Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216) If Philippines is destination – TRIABLE
CRIMES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW SMOKING OPIUM –triable regardless
OF NATIONS
OPIUM IS LANDED ON PHILIPPINE SOIL- triable regardless
- Treason (Art. 114)
(See PP vs. WONG CHENG, PP vs. LOOK CHAW & PP vs. AH
- Espionage (Art. 117)
SING)
- Piracy (Art. 122)
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED TODAY. WHAT IS
FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIPS
CONTROLLING AT PRESENT IS R.A. 9165
An extension of the territory of the country to which it
ART. 3. FELONIES
belongs.
FELONY is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
In the case of US vs. BULL, a continuing crime on board a
foreign merchant ship sailing to the Philippines istriable by
ELEMENTS:
our courts. The condition was still existing when the ship
was within territorial waters. Act or omission;
WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN Punishable by the RPC;

MERCHANT SHP
There is dolo or culpa
International Waters – NOT triable in our courts, an
extension of the territory of the country to which the ship ACT OR OMISSION
belongs.

- Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to Why was AH CHONG brought to court? Was he relieved
produce some effect in the external world.” (PP from criminal liability merely because of his belief that he
vs. GONZALES) was under attack? Is there any principle involved in the
case of AH CHONG that the Supreme Court used in
ACTS acquitting him? Was it not an intentional act on the part of
AH CHONG in killing his victim? So, can you say that
OVERT – done openly, external (not internal), must have a
“GOOD FAITH” is a defense for the crime of homicide?
direct connection with the felony committed.
OANIS Case
Is the act of buying a gun a crime? You bought a gun
because you are going to commit a crime. You bought it PP vs. VILLACORTA
for the purpose of self-defense. You bought it because you
want to join a shooting competition. Even when you draw DIEGO vs. CASTILLO
pistol (loaded) or you just want to threaten a person, IT IS
STILL AN EQUIVOCAL ACT. REQUISITES OF DOLO
OMISSION - FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary

- INTELLIGENCE – discern morality of act (your
Omission refers to inaction or the failure to perform a ability to know what is right from wrong; a
positive duty. There must be a law punishing such inaction clinically insane person cannot be held liable for
or failure. a criminal act as this is an exempting
circumstance; you may not know what is right
“Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, and wrong but you may know who is handsome
mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without or not)
evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute - INTENT – to commit the felony
the cooperation…” The only evidence of the state was that
SILVESTRE was with her husband and failure on the part of INTENT
SILVESTRE to give an alarm. (PP vs. SILVESTRE)
Being in a state of mind, intent is hard to prove.
You see somebody in a remote area in danger of dying.
Nadasmagansiyaug truck and you failed to give assistance, Criminal intent is PRESUMED from the commission of an
you will be LIABLE under the above rule. (OMISSION) unlawful act. The decision to adopt a means to arrive at a
result is INTENT. You must look at all the circumstances.
FELONIES
The act of stabbing is an intentional act but there is no
DOLO – deceit / malice; deliberate intent criminal intent because the person thought he was
defending himself. (AH CHONG Case)
CULPA – fault; no deliberate intent but there is:
Because we do not have psychics, we look at all the
Imprudence – lack of skill, or factors; the circumstances before, during and after the act.
So in another case, you don’t look at the results only. A
Negligence – lack of foresight
small scratch on the forehead does not mean that there is
an attempted murder on the person. Look at the weapon
*WHETHER IT BE IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE, IT MUST
used; the part of the body to which the blow was directed
BE VOLUNTARY.
and the circumstances attendant to the felonious act. WE
Recall the illustrative case given by Fiscal Carillo LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS READILY OBSERVABLE.
(HOUSEBOY & HOUSEMAID / “Ti-uniko, ti-uniko, Sir”)
Spouses, brothers and sisters, there is no theft. BECAUSE
Houseboy was only used as an instrument THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP.
GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT

Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent. reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim
was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea.
Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and robbery,
intent to kill in homicide and murder. And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal
liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making
MISTAKE OF FACT an arrest.
Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury The accused were given the benefit of mitigating
to another. circumstances
No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there MISTAKE OF FACT vs. MISTAKE OF LAW
is no criminal intent.
This Court, in People vs. Bitdu, carefully distinguished
Whenever there is good faith, it SUPPLANTS the criminal between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the
act. You cannot deny your basic instincts. defense of good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of
law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay person,
MISTAKE OF FACT; Requisites
from liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused, who had
obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan custom,
Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed
honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage,
them to be.
she was not omitting any violation of the law, and that she
INTENTION of accused is lawful. had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
(DIEGO vs. CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, August 11,
NO fault or carelessness. 2004)
Good faith happens when mistake of fact is present. GOOD FAITH IS A GOOD DEFENSE.
US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No. 5272 REQUISITES OF CULPA
“In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such - Freedom;

ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a - Intelligence;
particular intent which under the law is a necessary - Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of foresight or
ingredient of the offense charged (e.g., in larceny, animus Lack of skill.
furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes and misdemeanors
generally some degree of criminal intent) “cancel the CULPA – no intent to cause injury
presumption of intent,” and works an acquittal except in
The offender in culpable felonies must perform an act
those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction
without intention to cause injury to another.
under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence.”
If the offender intended to cause injury but the result is
The circumstances will indicate the intention of the
different from that intended, he is liable for an intentional
person.
felony under Article 4. (INTENTIONAL FELONY =
PP vs. OANIS, July 27, 1943, GR No. 47722 mangligisniCarillotungodkycgesiyaugpamusil)
In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the Shooting a person in a running mode is UNLAWFUL. It is
instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which wrong for a law enforcer to shoot a running suspect TO
would press them to immediate action. The person in the ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE MUST BE ARRESTED OR NOT.
room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and
If the person is an ESCAPE PRISONER, killing him MAY be
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
justified.
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any
CRIMES OR OFFENSES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS

Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is sufficient if 14-Banal. The contention of the counsel for the 14-Banal
the accused had intent to perpetrate the act. was that the victim DID NOT IMMEDIATELY SEEK FOR
MEDICAL ATTENDANCE. Hence, because of his decision not
It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or to seek for medical assistance, the accused-defendants
voluntarily. should not be liable. Is the counsel for the 14-Banal
correct?
IF IT IS WRONG BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT IS MALA IN SE
(Good Faith). IF IT IS WRONG BECAUSE THE ACT When does an action result to criminal liability and when
COMMITTED IS PROHIBITED BY LAW, IT IS MALA does an action not result to criminal liability?
PROHIBITA (Special Penal Laws; Good faith is NOT a
defense). As long as you possess the prohibited articles, ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
you are liable.
Criminal liability is incurred:
MALA PROHIBITA – there must be knowledge that the
article in possession is prohibited by law Committing a felony although the wrongful act done is
different from what he intended;
MOTIVE and INTENT
Impossible crime (KILLING AN ALREADY DEAD PERSON)
- Motive is the moving power that impels one to
action for a definite result RULE ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular means
A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible
to effect such result.
for all the consequences that may naturally and logically
MOTIVE IS NOT A REQUISITE result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is, INTENTIONAL FELONY

therefore, not necessary for the conviction of the accused.
For this article to apply, the offender must be committing
EXCEPT: an intentional felony (dolo)
- There is doubt as to the identity of the accused “… different from that which he intended.”
- There are 2 antagonistic versions
If the offender was committing a culpable felony this
DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE article does NOT apply
A punches B and B falls to the ground with an improvised COMMITTING A FELONY (Acts with criminal intent)
stove sustaining an injury. 12 days later, B died. Is A liable?
If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not
I have a swiss-knife and then somebody grabs it and then I applicable.
injure your hand because I was trying to get back my
BINDOY Case– trying to retain a bolo that was taken from
swiss-knife. Am I liable? Does this not fall within the
the owner.
principle that I should be liable for the consequences of
my own actions?
VILLANUEVA Case – snatching a bolo because of curiosity.
You are a member of the 13 Judas gang. Your mortal
“Although the wrongful act done be different from that
enemies are the 14 Banal gang. The latter ganged up on
which he intended.”
you. You are an expert of MMA. So you defend yourself
against their blades. You hurt your own finger. Back to MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY – error in personae
your house, you were hiding. When you looked at it, that
finger was already hanging. 4 days after, the finger starts MISTAKE IN THE BLOW –aberratio ictus
to blacken. So you go to court and file a case against the

INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – “Direct, natural and logical”
praeterintentionem
“A person who threatens or pursues another with a knife
In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the and causes the latter to jump to the river in order to avoid
natural and logical consequence that may result from the him and drowns as he did not know how to swim, is liable
unlawful act, whether foreseen or not. for the intentional death of that person.” (US vs. VALDEZ ,
41 Phil. 497)
MISTAKE IN INDENTITY – error in personae
“If the victim had a delicate constitution as he was
A intended to kill B; suffering from tuberculosis and died as a result from the
fist-blows, the person who delivered the said blows is
A mistakes C for B (darkness);
liable for the death.” (PP vs. ILLUSTRE, 54 Phil 594)
A shoots C, killing him.
If the death was accelerated by fist blows delivered
because the victim was suffering from some internal
A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct,
condition, the person who delivered the blows is liable for
natural and logical consequence of his felonious act
the death. (PP vs. RODRIGUEZ)
(shooting).
SEGURITAN vs. PP
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus
REFUSAL OF OR UNSKLLFUL MEDICAL TREATMENT
X intends to kill Y;
Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical operation,
X shoots at Y;
the person who caused the injuries is still liable as a
X hits Z (poor aim) killing him. person is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to
relieve the accused from the natural or ordinary results of
X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s death is the direct, his crime. (US vs. MARASIGAN)
natural and logical consequence of his felonious act
(shooting Z) X is also liable for the attempt on Y. REFUSAL
INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – “…that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of
Praeterintentionem responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is,
calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the
A punches B once (no intent to kill); immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful
medical or surgical treatment…” (PP vs. MOLDES, GR No.
B falls to the ground hitting his head on the pavement; 42122, December 1, 1934)
B dies as a result of the injuries to his head. PROXIMATE CAUSE
A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling to the ground “that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
and hitting his head on the pavement is the direct, natural unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
and logical consequence of his felonious act (punching). injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. The remote cause is not necessarily the
PP vs. CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October 6, 1933
proximate cause. It was the negligence of the bus
“There is nothing to indicate that it was due to some company that was the proximate cause.” (VDA.DE
extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of BATACLAN vs. MEDINA, GR No. L-10126, October 22, 1957)
defendants’ felonious act, and the fact that the defendant
A person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences of
did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve
his act.
him from the consequence of his unlawful act, but is
merely a mitigating circumstance.“

“And there is authority that if the consequences resulted Should not constitute another violation of the RPC (The act
from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the of pseudomizing a person is a crime of acts of
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such lasciviousness; Any person can be a victim of rape as long
consequences.” (PP vs. MARCO, GR Nos. L-28324-5) as you insert penis or an object into the mouth)
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE What is the difference between a finger and a canister?
The moral depravity and the criminal intent is the SAME.
Active force that intervenes between the felony and the
resulting injury; AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY
The active force must be a distinct act; or Crimes against persons:
A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act; - Murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape, etc.
The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the Crimes against property:
victim
- Robbery, Theft, Estafa, etc.
FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE VICTIM
Kidnapping / serious illegal detention is a crime against
“Malicious act or omission of the victim” (That particular liberty
act now becomes the efficient intervening cause)
Q: Kidnapping a dead body?
PP vs. VILLACORTA (GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011)
A: No criminal liability.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct,
natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted EVIL INTENT
upon him by the accused. X XX The medical findings,
There must be intent to injure another.
however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection
of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time
of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and Our laws do not distinguish between legal and physical
foreign to the crime. impossibility.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY = opening a safe without money

inside
The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due
to: INTOD vs. PP
Inherent impossibility Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is

found in Article 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction
Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
between factual or physical impossibility and legal
impossibility. The case of INTOD vs. PP was an impossible
IS THIS PUNISHABLE? Yes. Because you are intending to
crime. Shooting a space where the intended victim is not
commit a crime. There is a criminal propensity on the part
present is an impossible crime.
of offender.
There is no need to distinguish factual from physical
REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
impossibility because Philippine law is clear, “INHERENTLY
- Persons / Property IMPOSSIBLE”.
- Evil Intent
PP vs. ENOJA
- Inherently impossible / means employed is
inadequate or ineffectual.
In another case where the accused who claimed that since ARSON
they shot the victim after the first shooter had already
shot the victim, they were in effect shooting a person If any part of the structure is burned (CONSUMMATED)
already dead, the Supreme Court called their argument
If the fire is started but no part of the structure is burned
merely speculative.
(FRUSTRATED)
ART. 5 – DUTY OF JUDGE WHEN SITUATION NOT
If no fire has been even started (ATTEMPTED)
COVERED BY LAW.
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
Act is not punished by law – must render a decision
according to the law.
THEFT – gaining possession of the item consummates the
felony.
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – must not suspend the execution of
sentence
There is no frustrated theft. (VALENZUELA vs. PP, GR No.
1160188, June 21, 2007; Rule of VALENZUELA case is
*report to the President through the Department of
similar to the ruling of ADIAO case)
Justice (DOJ)
MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES NOT ALLOWED
FORMAL CRIMES – slander and false testimony
“[s]entences should not be in the alternative. There is
nothing in the law which permits courts to impose
MERE ATTEMPT OR PROPOSAL – flight to enemy’s country
sentences in the alternative.” While a judge has the
(ATTEMPT) and corruption of minor (PROPOSAL)
discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot
impose both in the alternative. “He must fix positively and MATERIAL CRIMES – rape, homicide or murder
with certainty the particular penalty.” (ABELLANA vs. PP,
GR No. 174654, August 17, 2011) “In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the accused
intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly
ART. 6 – STAGES OF EXECUTION weapon and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did
not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is
- Consummated
frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim’s
- Frustrated
wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder
- Attempted
or attempted homicide.” (COLINARES vs. PP, GR No.
182748, December 13, 2011)
CONSUMMATED
FRUSTRATED
All elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
- Offender performs all the acts of execution that would
produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of
MURDER.It is necessary that you kill the victim for there to
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
become a consummated felony.
ATTEMPTED
THEFT. It is necessary that you take possession of the
objects you intend to gain.
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
FACTORS:
1st Internal Acts – not punishable
- The nature of the offense.
2nd External Acts:
- The elements constituting the felony.
- The manner of committing the same. a.) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable;

b.) Acts of Execution – punishable frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous
desistance of the perpetrator will logically and necessarily
ATTEMPTED STAGE, Elements ripen into a concrete offense.”
Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt DOES NOT PERFORM ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
acts.
If the offender has performed all acts of execution –
Does not perform all the acts of execution which should consummated stage or frustrated stage
produce the felony.
If there is still something else to be done – attempted
Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance stage
Due to a cause of accident other than his own “By reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. spontaneous desistance.”
OVERT ACTS Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own
spontaneous desistance – NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
External Acts;
It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of
Direct connection with the crime intended to be
crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the
committed.
path of righteousness.”
“The overt acts must have an immediate and necessary
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
relation to the offense.” –VIADA
Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT
EQUIVOCAL vs. UNEQUIVOCAL
from the crime actually committed before the desistance.
-drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts.
PERFORMS ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
-drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim and, with
Nothing is left to be done by the offense because he has
intent to kill, discharge the firearm at the victim can we
performed the last act necessary to produce the crime.
say that the acts are not overt acts of homicide/murder.
In attempted crime, offender never passes the subjective
PP vs. LAMAHANG
phase.
“Directly by overt acts”
BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER
This element requires that the offender personally execute
“…this Court has held that is not necessary that the
the commission of the crime.
accused actually commit all the acts of execution
necessary to produce the death of his victim, but that it is
Inducing another to commit a crime, when the person
sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said
induced does not accede will not result in criminal liability
acts. PP vs. SY PIO
for the inducer as the general rule is mere proposal to
commit a crime is not punishable.
US vs. EDUAVE GR No. 12155, February 02, 1917
PP vs. LIZADA
“A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the
offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical
overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some outside
activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a
cause from performing all of the acts which should
particular crime, more than a mere planning or
produce the crime.”
preparation, which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being
DESISTANCE AFTER PERFORMING ALL ACTS
“If he has performed all of the acts which should result in Let’s say you and two of your friends are having a drinking
the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists session. One of them suddenly says that I am not satisfied
from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.” with the government and then you say let us overthrow P-
(Ai.Kaluo-oyniyaoi.Molakawnalangko.) Noy and replace him. The two agree. Is there any criminal
liability in this particular situation? Yes or no? If their plan
PP vs. DAGMAN, GR No. 23133 was to rob? Is there conspiracy? Punishable?Mere
conspiracy to commit robbery? Is this punishable? So you
The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the
have now decided that you are going to commit rebellion
offenders performed all of the acts of execution which
and the 3 of you go to Malacanang. You parked your car
should precede the felony as a consequence but which,
and alighted and said: “ATTACK”. When you reached the
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
gate, didtorakanakibawngaimongmgakauban bag-o
independent of the will of the perpetrators; in this
ranahuwasan.Waclanikuyognimo. Nagpabilinraclasa auto.
instance, the playing possum by Magbual.
What is the criminal liability of the three? Ikawunsaimong
liability? How about the two who remained in the car?
What if the 2nd person who went with you did not shoot
BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF
his gun but just kept on giving you bullets. So the one who
THE PERPETRATOR
remained in the car? Must conspiracy be coupled with an
Felony NOT produced – causes independent of the will of external act? What if that person who is left at the car gets
the perpetrator. out of the car and starts saying: “Go. Go. Go. Go. Attack.”?
PP vs. LIZADA PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a detail of the execution; he need not even take part in
particular crime, more than a mere planning or every act or need not even know the exact part to be
preparation, which if carried out to its complete performed by the others in the execution of the
termination following its natural course, without being conspiracy.
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous
Let’s say you are a member of band of robbers. Five of you
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
decide to rob a bank. The first says: I am the only one who
ripen into a crime.”
has a driver license. The other one says I have a gun and
A woman filed a case against a man charging the man with walkie-talkie. That leaves 3, including you to get inside the
rape. While the complaint was under investigation, they bank and to get the money from the bank. As the plan was
meet each other in a dark alley just the 2 of them and the made out, the 2 of you played your roles. You are told by
man immediately draws his bolo and says to the girl: “I will your 2 companions to watch the employees and the 2 of
kill you, SALAMAMETS”. Then starts hacking at the them will go inside the vault. You noticed that the teller is
woman. Woman tries to go away but was still slashed at beautiful and you say: Lugosonnalangninako”. You took
her back. Woman falls down and the man says: “I have with you the teller and bought her inside an office of the
killed the worst enemy”. The man throws the woman to bank. You raped her. After, you left. Then, 5 of you got
the garbage. Thereafter, the man goes home and arrested. Nahibongang 4 nimongakaubanngaang title sa
announced it publicly that he killed someone. Not case ky “ROBBERY WITH RAPE”. Tutokclanimo.
knowing, the woman was able to crawl from the place of
What is the liability of the other four? Let’s say, they all
incident to the hospital. Woman files a case against the
saw you drag the girl into the office. Ingonmonga: “Mao
man. The man contends as a defense that he was liable
bitawnaang tripping gyudniya. Walapaman sad
only for attempted murder. What is the liability of the
nacyakasuway. Pasagdaaannanato, padayon ta
man? Will he be liable for attempted murder or frustrated
driugkawat”. The other four did not participate in the
murder?
rape. Will they still be liable?

ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY
Punishable only when consummated. When two or more persons aim their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a
EXCEPT: crimes against persons (SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY, part so that their acts, though apparently independent,
MALTREATMENT) or property were in fact connected and cooperative indicating
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
sentiment, conspiracy may be inferred. And where there is
conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all. (PP vs.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
ALETA, GR No. 179708, April 16, 2009)
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to

commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons *ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED
“…are punishable only in the cases in which the law Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial
specially provides a penalty therefor.” (ART. 8, Par. 1, RPC) evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its
existence. (PP vs. AMODIA, GR No. 173791, April 7, 2009)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
PP vs. LAGAT
Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection. Direct proof that the two accused conspired is not
essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before,
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (this is not so
during, and after the commission of the crime that they
much of overthrowing the government. This is more of a
acted with a common purpose and design.
tumultuous uprising; mere civil disobedience)
AMODIA Case
CRIME vs. MANNER OF INCURRING LIABILITY
An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has
Treason, coup d’etat, sedition is actually committed –
performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
conspiracy is NOT a crime but a manner of incurring
contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be
criminal liability.
committed.
PD No. 1866 vs. PD No. 8294
- Active participation
- Moral assistance by being present
CONSPIRACY
- Exercising moral ascendancy
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
(PP vs. MULIT, GR No. 181043, October 8, 2008)
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity
Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the
of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
commission of a crime. Where a conspiracy is established,
constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond
the precise modality or extent of participation of each
reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of
individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of
one is the act of all.” (QUIDET vs. PP, GR No. 179289, April
one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in
8, 2010)
the commission of the crime is immaterial.
REQUISITES?
“even if not all the parties committed the same act,”

A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed GRAVE FELONIES
the same act, but the participants performed specific acts
that indicated unity of purpose in accomplishing a criminal - Capital Punishment (death)
design. Moreover, direct proof - Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive.
of previous agreement to commit an offense is not AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)

necessary to prove conspiracy – conspiracy may be proven
- Reclusion Perpetua
by circumstantial evidence. (PP vs. MALIBIRAN, GR No.
- Reclusion Temporal
178301, April 24, 2009)
- Permanent / Temporary Absolute
PP vs. REYES Disqualification
- Permanent / Temporary Special Disqualification
PP vs. EVANGELIO - Prision Mayor
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every LESS GRAVE FELONIES

detail of the execution; he need not even take part in
every act or need not even know the exact part to be - Punishment which in their maximum is
performed by the others in the execution of the correctional.
conspiracy.
CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)
NO CONSPIRACY – separate and individual responsibility
- PrisionCorrecional
In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the - Arresto Mayor
defendants are separate and individual, each is liable for - Suspension
his own acts, the damage caused thereby, and the - Destierro (maximum radius of 25 kilometers)
consequences thereof. While the evidence shows that the
LIGHT FELONIES
appellant boxed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to
the extent of the injuries, in which case, the appellant
- ArrestoMenor
should be held liable only for slight physical injuries.
- Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES
FELONY – Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.
“Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill
*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light
Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he
penalty if it is less than P200.00)
sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated because
while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up ART. 10.
anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.” (PP vs.
BOKINGCO) 1st Clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede special
penal laws
THE CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED
2nd Clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws,
If the crime is actually committed, proposal becomes a unless the special law provides otherwise.
manner of incurring liability, i.e., principal by inducement.
(GO TAN vs. SPS. TAN, GR No. 168852, September 30,
Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary. 2008)
ART. 9 – GRAVITY OF FELONIES Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code
may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
- Grave
punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in
- Less Grave
which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
- Light

Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not applicable establish the elements of self-defense by clear and
convincing evidence. When successful, the otherwise
Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code – SCALE OF PENALTIES felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on
the lack of criminal intent of the accused.”
- Special laws.
- Punishes only consummated acts. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- No definition of accessories or accomplices.
- No formula for graduation of penalties. - Self-defense
- Defense of relatives
Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same. - Defense of strangers
- Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
Mitigating / Aggravating circumstances cannot be
- Fulfillment of duty / lawful exercise of right or
considered, no graduation of penalties.
office
- Obedience to an order issued for some lawful
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
purpose
- Justifying (Art. 11)
SELF-DEFENSE
- Exempting (Art. 12)
- Mitigating (Art. 13)
- In defense of his person or rights.
- Aggravating (Art. 14)
- Alternative (Art. 15) DEFENSE OF PERSON OR RIGHTS
- Absolutory causes (Minority, Art. 280 last par.,
violent insanity, Art. 332, Art. 344) Person includes danger to one’s:
IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY - Life

- Limb
IMPUTABILITY – quality by which an act may be ascribed
to a person as the author. RIGHTS INCLUDES:
RESPONSIBILITY – obligation of suffering the - Right to property

consequences of crime.
SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not
necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the - Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);
same. - Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
ART. 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES - Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself
In accordance with the law.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
The actor is not considered to have violated the law.
- This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and
No criminal OR civil liability indispensable requisite.
- No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether
No crime committed (Just like in the case of AH CHONG.
complete or incomplete.
There was no crime committed.)
- The aggression must be unlawful and actual.
COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011
PP vs. CONCILLADO
“When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the
COLINARES vs. PP
burden of showing that he was legally justified in killing
the victim or inflicting injury to him. The accused must PP vs. GAYRAMA, GR No. 39270, 39271, October 30, 1934
“It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful ACTUAL OR IMMINENT
aggression…”
ACTUAL – assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL)
“….taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of
the deceased in so doing was to succeed in capturing and IMMINENT – rocking a boat coupled with threats of
arresting the appellant…” capsizing the same. (PP vs. CABUNGCAL)
PP vs. MERCED, GR No. 14170, November 23, 1918 PP vs. MACASO
“…that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that US vs. FERRER, GR No. 60, November 8, 1901
it was made by a deceived and offended husband in order
The unlawful aggression and the defense must be
to defend his honor and rights by punishing the offender
simultaneous / without appreciable interval of time.
of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the other
defendant, he would have exercised a lawful right,…”
“If any time intervened between the supposed attack of
the deceased and the firing of the revolver by the
Let’s say, 2 persons. Let’s call them Mr. X and Mr. Y. They
defendant, the latter’s actions would cease to have the
are playing cards. X is angry because Y is cheating. That is
true character of a real defense, which, in order to be
why Y is winning. So, after the game, X goes home, gets his
legally sufficient, requires primarily and as an essential
knife and then he goes on looking for Y. He sees Y
condition that the attack be immediately present.”
spending his winnings buying an adobo. Aso2 pa ang
adobo ron! Nagkurog2 pa angtambok! X attacks. He
THE NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF
swoops down with a knife but nasangit man at the back of
WOUND / INJURIES.
the chair so si Y, hinanaw man ug sine, also gets out a
knife. Turns out that Y is better in using the knife so he Wounds / injuries on the victim would usually indicate
starts slashing X. But si X ingoncya: “Murag, alkansikoani whether self-defense is credible or not.
da”. So he runs away. So si Y niingon,
“Kani.Hinaymodagan”. X falls down. Y kills X. Y is charged. Wound / injuries on the accused are not as determinative
Y says self-defense. If you were the judge, can self-defense as the injuries on the victim.
be invoked? Who is the aggressor?
CANO vs. PP, GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL
“…the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted
An actual assault, or on the accused does not, per se, negate self-defense.
Indeed, to prove self-defense, the actual wounding of the
Threat of an assault of an: person defending himself is not necessary.”
-immediate and imminent; AGE AND CONDITION OF ALLEGED AGGRESSOR
-offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian (Diaz)
intent to cause an injury.
The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right
ACTUAL AGGRESSION hand (Ardiza)
“Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and BEHAVIOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT
unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or Failure to interpose self-defense after:
intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least
imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack Surrendering – Manansala
would not be sufficient.” (BAXINELA vs. PP, GR No.
Confession – De la Cruz
149652, March 24, 2006)

PHYSICAL FINDINGS If angpaasalalakihikaponsababae? This cannot be. Crimes

against chastity is limited only to women.
Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were
facing each other. The factual findings establish that the She could not have expected that the aggressor would
wounds were in the back of the victim. have actually raped her. Kutobragyudcguro to
anglalakiughikap-hikap. There was here a lack of sufficient
The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of provocation on the part of accused Juarigue.
the pants and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez)
Provocation must come from an unjust conduct. Only
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF reasonable necessity was lacking in this case. The Supreme
THE ACT CONSTITUTING SELF-DEFENSE. Court gave JUARIGUE a privileged mitigating circumstance.
“a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he PP vs. DE LA CRUZ (GR No. 411487, May 2, 1935)
flees.”
“In order that legitimate self-defense may be taken into
“…it is because this Court considered that the requisites of account and sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above
self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and all, that the aggression be real, or at least, imminent, and
indispensable among these being the unlawful aggression not merely imaginary.”
of the opponent.” (PP vs. ALCONGA, April 30, 1947, GR No.
L-162) US vs. GUY-SAYCO
PP vs. ACOSTA REASONABLE NECESSITY
PP vs. ALETA ELEMENTS:
If a person is attacked with bare hands, how should that - There must be reasonable necessity in both:
person defend himself? What is the rule as far as - Course of action taken by the person defending;
reasonable means is concerned? If he uses a knife or a - Means used;
samurai? If that person has a knife, can you use a gun?
What if that person is super black-belt ninja who can kill Determined by:
with his bare hands? Still, you defense yourself with bare
- Existence of unlawful aggression and
hands?
- The nature and extent of the aggression
If you defend yourself by way of shooting the aggressor in
If you are attacked with a weapon, circumstances dictate
his chest? Would that be reasonable? Why? Shoot him
that you find a weapon, whatever said weapon may be.
three times? BUNGYAO BUNGYAOBUNGYAO! Or shoot
him just once, BUNGYAO? What if the bolo used by the
NATURE AND EXTENT OF AGGRESSION
aggressor is dull and rusty, would you be still justified in
killing the person? What is the rule on reasonable Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing
necessity? What does the law require? What is the rule? If death – mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocana)
it is not mathematical equality or perfect equality, what is
sufficient? Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place
was dark and uninhabited, “Lie down and give me your
“The moment the aggressor ceases, the person defending money”.
himself is not anymore justified in killing the said
aggressor. There is no more unlawful aggression.” *Refer PP vs. LARA (GR No. 24014, October 16, 1925)
to PP vs. ALCONGA (78 Phil. 366)
It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind
PP vs. JUARIGUE human nature does not act upon processes of formal
reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation
and when it is apparent as in this case, that a person has
reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the expected to control his blow or draw a distinction as to the
courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor injury that would result after he delivers his blow.
irresponsible in law for the consequences.”
PP vs. ONAS
PP vs. MACASAET
US vs. MENDOZA
“Having concluded, however, that under all the
circumstances the accused was justified in making use of US vs. MACK (GR No. L-3515, October 3, 1907)
his knife to repel the unprovoked assault as best he could,
“…court not reasonably be expected to take the chance
it would be impossible to say that a second or third blow
that mere ordinary force would be used in striking, or that
was unnecessary under all the circumstances of the case, it
the blow would be given upon some protected part of his
appearing that the accused instantly and without
body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen
hesitation inflicted all the wounds at or about the same
enough to give him his death blow.”
time.” (BLOWS MUST BE DELIVERED RAPIDLY.)
“The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the
REASONABLE NECESSITY IN THE MEANS USED.
circumstances was to fire at the body of his opponent, and
- Rational necessity to employ the means used. thus make sure of his own life.”
- Perfect equality is not required.
PHYSICAL CONDITION, CHARACTER AND SIZE OF THE
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE is what is required. OPPOSING PARTIES.
“One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine

distinction as to the extent of the injury which a reckless
US vs. APEGO and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him…”
(PP vs. IGNACIO, GR NO. 40140, November 27, 1933)
“…since there was no real need of wounding with the said
weapon him who had merely caught her arm.” WHEN ATTACKED BY AN UNARMED ASSAILANT/S
“…there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a “…there may be other circumstances, such as the very
blow therewith in the center of the body, whether the violence of the attack or a great disparity in the age or
principal vital organs are seated, of the man who had not physical ability of the parties, which give deceased
performed any act which might be considered as an actual (accused) reasonable ground to apprehend danger of
attempt against her honor.” death or great bodily harm and justify him in employing a
deadly weapon in self-defense.” (Ignacio)
PP vs. MONTALBO, GR No. 34750, December 31, 1931
CANO vs. PEOPLE GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
- Nature and quality of the weapon used
- Physical condition, character and size PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL – prevent or repel aggression.
- Other circumstances of both aggressor and
person defending himself LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER – overcome his opponent.
- Place and occasion of assault
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, RATIONALE.
The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct
Because this justifying circumstance is born by necessity provoked the aggression sought to be repelled or
and is resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, prevented.
the person defending himself is not expected to think
THERE ARE 4 SITUATIONS WHERE THE 3rd REQUISITE IS
coolly and clearly. The person defending is, therefore, not
CONSIDERED PRESENT:
- No provocation - Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister

- Provocation was not sufficient
- Was not given by the person defending himself - Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
- Was not immediate or proximate
-parents-in-law
NEED NOT BE AN ACT OF VIOLENCE
-son / daughter-in-law
Challenging one to come out of the house to fight.
-brother / sister-in-law
(US vs. McCRAY, 2 Phil 5454, PP vs. VALENCIA, L-58426,
- Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree (2nd
October 31, 1984)
degree nga cousin)
Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar
The same in self-defense:
language. (PP vs. SOTELO, 55 Phil 403) But a petty question
of pride does not justify wounding or killing an opponent.
- Unlawful aggression
(“Why are you calling me?” PP vs. DOLFO)
- Reasonable necessity
Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased. (GETIDA,
“In case there is sufficient provocation, the person
CA)
defending himself had no part therein”
ADMITS TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED
(US vs. ESMEDIA GR No. L-5749, October 21, 1910)
*Read the case of (PP vs. NUGAS)

“…inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these
wounds upon him in defense of their father who was
PP vs. GENOSA (GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
fatally wounded at the time. They honestly believed, and
“First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be had good ground upon which to found their belief, that
proven to have characterized at least two battering Santiago would continue his attack upon their father.”
episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner.
PP vs. TORING
Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the
“it cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel,
killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered
Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence of
person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from
the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted
her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use
on his cousin.
force in order to save her life.
PP vs. CAABAY (GR Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003)
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have
posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual –
Considering the nature, location and number of the
grave harm to the accused, based on the history of
wounds sustained by the victims, the appellants’ plea of
violence perpetrated by the former against the latter.”
self-defense and defense of a relative will not hold.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
BALUNUECO vs. CA
In 27 March 2004 of R.A. 9262 took effect.
The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the
accused belie his testimony
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.
The accused failed to present himself to the authorities
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Accused recollection of events
- Spouse
- Ascendant
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
- Descendant
- Unlawful aggression “…the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about
- Reasonable necessity mainly because of the desire of driver JulitoSto. Domingo
to avoid greater evil or harm…”
“The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.”CABUSLAY vs. PP “It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for
whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented, and as
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF SANITY. such it comes within the purview of said penal provision.”
“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the Ty vsPp, GR No. 149275, Sept. 27, 2004
defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing
that fact rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of “…the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
decisions by this court.” (PEOPLE vs. BASCOS) anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, this
defense is not applicable.”
Article 11, Paragraph 4: Avoidance of Greater Evil or Art. 11, Paragraph 5: Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
injury Exercise of Right or Office
Requisites: Requisites:
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists. 1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty
2. The injury feared is greater than that done to or lawful exercise of a right or office.
avoid it. 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
3. There is no other practical and less harmful be the necessary consequence of the due
means of preventing it. performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
Cannot be invoked (Avoidance of Greater Evil or injury)
Fulfillment of duty
- Negligence,
- No evil to be avoided, or The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and
- Violation of law by the actor. guards who shoot prisoners who attempt to escape
(Delima, Valcorza, Lagata, Magno).
No criminal liability but there is civil liability
Self-defense vs. Fulfillment of duty
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.-
“Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different
Second: in cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11,
principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-
the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
preservation from mortal harm, while fulfillment of duty is
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit
premised on the due performance of duty.” Cabanlig vs.
in which they may have received.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148431, July 28, 2005.
Pp vs. Ricohermoso, GR Nos. L-30527-28, March 29, 1974
Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan
“… was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon
A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using
without any risk to his assailants.”
such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain
the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,
“Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought
recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from
to disable Marianito.”
bodily harm.
Tan vs. Standard Vacuum, GR No. L-4160, July 29, 1952
Article 11, Paragraph 6: Obedience to an order issued for
some lawful purpose

Requisites: 1. An imbecile or an insane person
1. An order has been issued by a superior. An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while
2. The order must be for some lawful purpose an insane person is one who has an unsound mind or
3. The means used to carry out the order must be suffers from a mental disorder (pp vs. ambal, oct. 17,
lawful. 1980)
Illegal orders, the subordinate is liableEXCEPT when: An insane person may have lucid interval while imbecile
does not have.
- He is not aware that the order is illegal;
- He is not negligent. Rule on imbeciles and insane persons
Pp vs. Beronilla, GR No. L-4445, February 29, 1955 Imbecile – “…he must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of committing the crime”
murder, and that the accused-appellants acted upon
orders, of superior officers that they, as military Insanity – “there must be complete deprivation of
subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in good intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the
faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any freedom of the will.”
fault or negligence on their part, we cannot say that
criminal intent has been established. Crazy vs. Insane
Art. 12. Exempting Circumstances “there is a vast difference between an insane person and
one who has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger
In exempting circumstances the act does not result in that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he
criminal liability because the act is not voluntary or does.”
negligent.
The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he
There is absence of: is insane. The popular meaning of the word “crazy” is not
synonymous with the legal term “insane,” (Ambal)
- Intelligence,
- Freedom of action, Presumption is in favor of sanity.
- Intent, or
- Negligence “The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in
the absence of proof to the contrary” xxx “the law always
Exempting Circumstances presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to
presume that acts were executed unconsciously.” (Ambal)
1. Insanity or imbecility
2. Minority (15 yrs. of age or under, RA 9344) Burden of evidence
3. Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting without
discernment) In the instant case, the alleged insanity of AMbal was not
4. Performance of a lawful act with due care substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption
(accident) of sanity was not overthrown. He was not completely
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force (physical bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when
force) he mortally wound his wife.
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
Presumption in favor of sanity.
(moral or psychological compulsion)
7. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or
“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the
insuperable cause
defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing
that fact rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of
Article 12, Paragraph 1: An imbecile or an insane person
decisions by this court.” (PEOPLE VS. BASCOS, gr no. - No evidence that he was adjudged insane.
19605, December 19, 1922) - Discharge is proof of being cured.
BASCOS CASE “Caught with his pants down”
Circumstantial evidence: “Mental depravity which results not from any disease of
the mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral
a. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane system, where the person is mentally sane, does not
for many years, exempt one from responsibility for crimes committed
b. The doctor who examined the accused testified under its influence.” (Legaspi)
that the accused was a violent maniac and that
he may have been insane when he killed the PP vs. Madarang
victim, and
c. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill The courts have established a more stringent criterion for
the victim. insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must
be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
Quantum of evidence the act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted
without the least discernment because there is a complete
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as absence of the power to discern
such must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When
the commission of a crime is established, and the defense Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be
of insanity is not made out beyond a reasonable doubt, established by:
conviction follows (pp vs. bonoan)
a. A witness who is intimately acquainted with the
BONOAN CASE accused,
b. A witness who has rational basis to conclude
a. Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice that the accused was instance based on personal
(1922, 1926); witness
b. Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance c. Expert testimony
(authorities);
c. Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom Madarang case
of or leads to dementia praecox;
d. A day after his arrest he was sent to the “the testimony or proof of the accused’s insanity must
Psychopathic hospital. relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the
e. Alienist reported that the accused had a form of commission of the offense with which he is charged.”
psychosis – Manic depressive psychosis.
“… proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or
Commission vs. Trial during the commission of the crime”
Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is PP vs. Opuran

different from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first
A man’s act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to
instance, it is an exempting circumstance, in the second
assume thecontrary, i.e. that acts were done
the accused is not exempt but the proceedings are
unconsciously, for the moral and legal presumptions..”
suspended until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Stringent standard
Pp vs. Legaspi
The stringent standard …requires that there be a
“Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the
incident.”
Facts in Opuran

- Such unusual behavior may be considered as Without discernment – child is exempt but subject to
mere abnormality of the mental faculties, which intervention.
will not exclude imputability;
- Medicine was not shown to be for any mental With discernment – subject to appropriate proceedings,
illness; i.e., diversion.
- Was never confined in a mental institution;
No exemption from civil liability.
- Dr. Verona’s findings were not based on
incomplete and insufficient facts’
Discernment
- Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest
opportunity; Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong.
Article 12, Paragraph 2: Minority
It may be shown by:
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
- Manner of committing a crime
New concepts:
- Conduct of offender
- Appearance of the minor;
1. Age of criminal responsibility
- Attitude;
2. Effects
- Comportment;
3. Presumptions
- Behavior, before, during and after the trial.
Age of criminal responsibility
Determination of age
A child of fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of
- Birth certificate; (best document to determine
the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal
age)
liability. (Sec. 6)
- Baptismal certificate;
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a - Other pertinent document;
series of activities which are designed to address issues
In the absence of the documents mentioned (these are
that caused the child to commit an offense.
the instances where minority will be considered):
Section 3(1), RA 9344
- Testimony of the child or other persons
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are - Physical appearance
deisgned to address issues that caused the child to commit - Other relevant evidence
an offense. It may take the form of an individualized
CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)
treatment program which may include counseling skills
training, education and other activites that will enhance
Imposable Penalty
the capcacity of the child.
Not more than 6 years
Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must:
- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation
- Release parents, guardian or nearest relative.
if appropriate (where there is a private offended
- Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate
party).
programs.
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation.
- O/W:
-NGO; More than 6 years
-Barangay;
-Local SWD off or DSWD; Diversion by the court.
Above 15 but below 18 Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.

nd rd
- Restitution 2 & 3 – accused 17 years old, discernment,
- Reparation Reclusion Perpetua, one degree lower (death)
- Indemnification - Suspension of sentence no longer an option,
- Written or oral apology accused 29 years old;
- Care, guidance and supervision orders - Case remanded to trial court for compliance with
- Counseling Sec. 51, Agricultural camp or other facility.
- Trainings, seminars and lectures
-anger management Article 12, Paragraph 4: Accident
-problem solving
Elements:
-values formation
-other skills to aid the child
- Performance of a lawful act;
-participation in community based
- With due care;
programs
- Injury is caused to another by mere accident;
-participation in education, vocation
- There is no fault or intention of causing the
and life skills programs
injury.
Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level
Definition
- All the programs at the barangay level
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of
- Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
our will, and although it comes about through some act of
our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
Kinds of Diversion, Court
consequences. (Pp vs. Agliday)
- Court
Pp vs. Genita, GR NO. 126171, March 11, 2004.
- All programs at barangay and law enforcement
- Written or oral reprimand
“He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.)
- Fine
he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2.) injury
- Payment of the cost of proceedings
caused was by a mere accident, and 3.) he had no fault or
- Institutional care and custody
intention of causing the injury.”
Sec. 58.Offenses not applicable to children.
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
- Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);
Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is
- Mendicancy (PD 1563);
committed by “any person who, while performing a lawful
- Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.”
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
Performance of a lawful act
Pp vs. Arpon
For an accident to become an exempting circumstance,
Although the acts of rape in this case were committed
the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at
before RA No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said
another is not a lawful act. (Agliday)
law is still applicable xxx “with more reason, the Act should
apply to a case wherein the conviction by the lower court
Intent is a mental state
is still under review.”
It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a
Arpon case
mental state, the existence of which is shown by a
person’s overt acts. (Agliday)
- Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape
- Supreme Court – 3 counts
st
1 count –exempt, accused 13 years old;
Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt
be cocked first before it could discharged. from criminal liability because he does not act with
freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a
Dual standard mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will… A threat of future injury is not enough.
Thus, in determining whether an “accident” attended the
The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
incident, courts must take into account the dual standards
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
of lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or
equal combat.
negligence.(Pomoy vs. Pp, GR No. 150647, September 29,
2004) Article 12, Paragraph 6: Impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
Accident inconsistent with self-defense
Elements:
Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting
circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to kill. - The threat which causes the fear is of an evil
On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates greater injury
a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself
from imminent danger. (Pomoy) Opportunity to escape
Article 12, Paragraph 5: Compulsion of an irresistible “ at that the time Narciso Saldana, Elmer Esguerra and
force Romeo Bautista were waiting for both appellants from a
distance of about one (1) kilometer. By not availing of this
Elements: chance to escape, appellants allegation of fear or duress
becomes untenable.
- Compulsion is by physical force;
- The physical force is irresistible; Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear
- The physical force must come from a third
person. Irresistible force
Exempted from criminal liability Article 12, Paragraph 7: Prevented by Insuperable Cause
“because he does not act with freedom.” Elements:
“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only - An act i

without will but against his will”
Insuperable cause
“must be present, imminent and impending and of such a
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of Distance and available means of transportation (Vicentillo)
death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.”
Severe dizziness and extreme debility (Bandian)
“A threat of future injury is not enough.”
Absolutory causes
“The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave
Instances where the act committed is a crime but for
no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense
reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
in equal combat.” (Pp vs. Loreno, GR NO. L-54414, July 09,
imposed.
1984)
Absolutory cause in the RPC:
PP vs. Loreno
- Art 6 (spontaneous desistance);
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
- Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt);
force, like one who acts under the impulse of
- Art. 124 (violent insanity)
- Art. 247 (death under exceptional of the offense. (Pp vs. Legaspi, GR No. 173485, November
circumstances) 23, 2011)
- Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to trespass to
dwelling) Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
- Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
malicious mischief)
purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker in the
- Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the
execution of his criminal plan. The means of committing
offended party in SARA (Seduction, Abduction,
the crime originates from the mind of the criminal.
Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness)
Buy-bust operation
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in
“Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no
recent years has been accepted as a valid means of
encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot assist
arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is
another, and prevent him from committing crime, we
commonly employed by police officers as an effective way
should at least abstain from any active efforts in the way
of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a
of leading him into temptation.” (Saunders vs. Pp, Mich.
crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime
218, 222)
originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or
Pp vs. Valencia, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002. prodding him to commit the offense. (Valencia)
“… Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its Entrapment has to be proved as a material allegation
agent lures the accused into committing the offense in
The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of
order to prosecute him.”
the alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust
“Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and operation. Where the testimony of the informer is
considered an absolutory cause.” indispensable, it should be disclosed. (Pp vs. Ong, GR No.
137348, June 21, 2004)
Degree of inducement in instigation
Instigation vs. Entrapment
In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if
it were not for the inducements of the instigator. Instigation
Such inducement must be of such a nature the instigator - Induces accused into commission of crime
himself becomes a co-principal. - The accused must be acquitted
- It is the law enforcer who conceives the
Applicable only to public officers and their agents commission of the crime and suggests to the
accused
In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public
officer or one who is performing public functions. Entrapment
If the instigator is private individual, both the instigator - Ways and means are resorted to trap and
and the person helping are held to be criminally liable. capture lawbreaker in the execution of the
offense
Entrapment vs. Instigation - Is not a bar to prosecution
- The means originate from the mind of the
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate
criminal.
method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap
and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal Mitigating circumstances
plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the
inducement of the would-be accused into the commission

Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely PP vs. Elona
free the actor from criminal liability.
“In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled
Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although
only serve to reduce the penalty but does not change the proved during the trial, cannot be appreciated when not
nature of the crime. alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the
cases at bar were committed in 1999, before the Revised
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on Dec 1, 2000,
the Court shall give its effect”
Circumstances that, if attendant serve to increase the
penalty w/o exceeding the maximum of the panlty 1. Advantage be taken by the offender of his
provided by law. public position.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances What is important is that the offender is a public

officer and he takes advantage of his public position
Generic – is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g.,
to commit the crime.
dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.
…using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which
Specific – applicable to particular crimes, e.g., ignominy in
his office gives him as the means by w/c he realizes
crimes against chastity and Treachery in crimes against
his purpose.” (US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150)
persons.
Pp vs. Villamor
Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime, e.g.,
treachery qualifies killing to Murder. To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public
officer must use the influence…
Inherent – must of necessity accompany the commission
of the crime. They cannot be taken into account for the US vsTorrida
purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 2)
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time
Generic placed him in a position to commit these crimes. If he had
not been councilman he could not have induced the
- Increases penalty to be imposed w/o exceeding
injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on
the maximum.
account of his being councilman that the parties believed
- Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance
that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this
reason that they made the payments.
Qualifying
Pablo vs. Pp
- Place the offender in no other situation as to
deserve any other penalty
“The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police
- Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance
officers at the time of the robbery palced them in a
position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police
Rule 110, Sec. 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense – The complaint or boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand
information shall state the designation of the offense over their money. Precisely it was on account of their
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions authority that Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and committed a crime and would be brought to the police
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of station for investigation unless they gave them
the offense, reference shall be made to the section or determined.”
subsection of the statute punishing it.
Pp vs. Magayac

That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded The provocation was not given immediately prior to the
CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill commission of the crime and had no particular relation to
Jimmy does not necessarily prove that he took advantage the house of the deceased. If the defendant had entered
of his public position to commit the crime.” the house of the deceased and surprised the deceased and
the wife of the defendant in the act of adultery, the
Pp vs. Fallo aggravating circumstance of morada would not exist.
Dwelling of Offended Party When provocation negates dwelling.
Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used 1. Provocation must be immediately prior to the
for rest and comfort. It may refer to the entire structure commission of the crime, and
or a portion thereof. 2. There must be a close relation between the
provocation and the crime committed.
Privacy and sanctity of home
Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983
It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily
because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance
the human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law
him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends accords to the human abode. However, in the present
him elsewhere (pp vs. evangelio) case, Rosalyn was not raped therein. Although she was
abducted therefrom, accused-appellant was not charged
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988
with forcible abduction with rape but only with rape.
Considering that she was not raped in her home, dwelling
“As to whether the crime must be held to have been
cannot be appreciated.
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take
it that although the accused were found with the deceased
Pp vs. Caliso
at the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must
be regarded as an integral part of the dwelling of that “…in the commission of the crime the aggravating
family. The porch of a house, not common to different circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present
neighbors, is a part of the dwelling. since the appellant was the domestic servant of the family
and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
Sufficient provocation by owner of the dwelling
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the
authorities are engaged in the discharged of duties or in a
dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.
place dedicated to public worship.
“There must be a close relation between provocation and
Palace of the Chief executive and place dedicated to public
commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from
worship – official or religious functions need not be held.
whom the provocation came.”
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
their duties – there must be some performance of public
functions.
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena
vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was not
Intent to commit the crime
directed at the accused, but to her daughter. This was,
however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to There must be evidence that the accused had the
demand an explanation why her daughter was so grossly intention to commit a crime when he entered the place.
insulted. So under these facts, it was error to hold that the
aggravating circumstance of morada existed. 6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.
Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040

“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of Band

nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the
commission of the crime, all will constitute one This circumstance is present when more than three armed
aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although men acted together in the commission of the offense.
they can be considered separately if their elements are
In other words the four armed men must directly
distinctly perceived and can subsist independently,
participate in the execution of the act constituting the
revealing a greater degree of perversity.” Pp vs. Librando
crime.
PP vs. Silva
Pp vs. Magdamit
“…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than
sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by
three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by
commission thereof. In the present case, there were seven
ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.
armed conspirators involved in the commission of the
“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly composite crime.
shows that they intended to commit the crime in
Pp vs. Lozano
darkness.”
The Code does not define or require any particular arms or
Darkness or obscurity
weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the nature or the purpose for which it was made or used by
obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological the accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries
onset of, nighttime. upon the victim of the crime may be considered as arms
for purposes of the law on cuadrilla.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity
does not become a modifying factor when the place is Guns and Knives.
adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the
offender’s immunity from identification or capture.” Pp vs.
aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by
Carino
a band. In the crime of robbery with rape, band is
Uninhabited place considered as an aggravating circumstance.
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to 7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
receive some help in the place of the commission of the earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
crime.
The rule in here is that the offender must take advantage
Pp vs. Rubia of the calamity or misfortune in the commission of the
crime.
“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been
committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, 8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
the incident having taken place at sea where it was impunity.
difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the
The armed men must not participate in the execution of
assailants could easily have escaped punishment…”
the felony otherwise they are co-principals.
Pp vs. Lumandong
Must be accomplices
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited
Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires
place under Article 14 (6) was correctly appreciated
that the armed men are accomplices who take part in
against the appellant.
minor capacity, directly or indirectly. We note that all four

accused were charges as principals. The remaining 11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
suspects – were never identified and charged. Neither was
proof adduced as to the nature of their participation. The price, reward or promise must be the primary
(Lozano) consideration of the offender in committing the crime.
9. Recidivism. Includes the person who gives the reward.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not considered
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final primarily because there was no conclusive evidence and
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the circumstance was not alleged in the information.
the RPC.
Pp vs. Alicanstre
Recidivism, requisites.
“The talledo case is not authority on this question.”
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
“Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence
2. That he was previously convicted by final
is to the effect that the aggravating circumstance of the
judgment of another crime;
price.”
3. That both the first and second offense are
embraced in the same title of the RPC;
Greater moral depravity
4. That the offender is convicted of the second
offense. In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in
the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may
Criminal propensity
evince even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in
the acceptor. (Alincastre)
10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision, explosion,
Requisites:
stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto,
1. The accused is on trial. derailment of locomotive, or any other artifice involving
2. He previously served sentence for another great waste or ruin.
offense to which the law attaches an equal or
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used
greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to
by the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase
which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for
“by means of…”
the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense.
Pp vs. Comadre
Recidivism
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and
bymeans of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a
- Offender is convicted by final judgment
qualifying circumstance.
- The offenses are included in the same title of the
RPC
13. Evident premeditation.
- The offenses are embraced in the same title of
the RPC, penalty is immaterial Requisites:
Habituality 1. the time when the offender determined to

commit the crime;
- Offender serves out his sentence in the previous
2. an act manifestly indicating the culprit’s
sentence
- two or more crimes: 16. Treachery
light penalty
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
There is treachery when the following essential elements Means are employed or circumstances surround the act
are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim that tend to make the crime more humiliating.
was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the US v. De Leon
particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by
There is present also the twelfth generic circumstance of
him. (VELASCO v. PP)
Article 10, proved by the fact that the deceased, a land
Not in a position to defend himself. owner, was forced to kneel in front of his four servants
drawn up in line before him.
In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was attacked
from behind and at close range. The assailant further hid Pp v. Acaya
behind the window to mask his presence and identity. (Pp.
The fact that the crime was committed in a public place
v. Dela Pena)
and in the presence of many persons did not necessarily
Means must be consciously adopted. tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or
put the offended party to shame.
The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s
attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without Pp v. Siao
knowing such act.
It has been held that where the accused in committing the
Baluyot and Canete rape used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
superior, female inferior but also the dog position as dogs
If the aggression is continuous treachery must be present do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven like the crime
at the beginning of the assault. itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of
ignominy attended the commission thereof.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that
treachery be present at the moment the fatal blow was 18. Unlawful entry.
delivered. It is this interruption that gives the accused the
time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for
method of execution. the purpose.
“… with treachery” Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)
That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was apparently the 19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or window.
intended victim is not incompatible with the existence of
The breaking must be resorted as a means to the
treachery. Treachery may be taken into account even if
commission of the crime.
the victim of the attack was not the person whom the
accused intended to kill. (PP v. Trinidad)
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the
latter the window or point of ingress need not be broken.
Frontal assault.
20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor
Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal
vehicle, airships or other similar means.
since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of
a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be deliberately used
person. (Pp v. Agacer)
in the commission of the crime.
17. Ignominy.
Besides, it has been established during the trial that the
accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
crime in carrying away the effects thereof, and in
which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury
facilitating their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)
caused by the crime.

21. Cruelty. Generally relationship is…
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to - Mitigating – crimes against property

Ignominy which refers to moral suffering, i.e. disgrace or - Aggravating – crimes against persons where
shame. offended party is of a higher degree than
offender or of the same level.
Test in appreciating cruelty
Exceptions
… whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not - In serious physical injuries relationship is
necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the aggravating no matter the degree of
victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or relationship.
corpse.. the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim - In homicide or murder relationship is
suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and aggravating.
physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation - In crimes against chastity it is always
of the criminal act which he intended to commit. (Pp v. aggravating.
Sitchon)
Pp v. Orillosa
Art. 15. Alternative circumstances
The alternative circumstance of relationship under Art. 15
Alternative circumstances may be considered either as of the RPC should be appreciated against the appellant.
aggravating or mitigating circumstances according to the
(1) nature and effects of the crime and (2) other conditions Pp v. Glodo
attending to its commission.
The information alleges that Maricel was only 15 yrs old at
- Relationship, the time of the crime was committed and that she is the
- Intoxication, daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely
- Degree of instruction and education. presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of
Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving
Relationship the age of the victim and her relationship with appellant
so as to warrant the imposition of death penalty.
- Spouse
- Ascendant Relationship as element of the offense.
- Descendant
- Brother or sister Parricide – victim is father, mother, child, ascendant,
- Relative by affinity descendant or spouse
Other relatives by analogy. Adultery – wife
- Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or Concubinage – husband

stepdaughter.
In these cases relationship is neither mitigating nor
- Adopted parent and adopted child.
aggravating.
Not included
Intoxication
- Uncle and niece.
Mitigating
- Cousins.
- Relationship between a step-grandniece and her
(1) not habitual or
step-grandfather is not one of the relatives
(2) unintentional/accidental/not subsequent to the
specifically enumerated therein.
plan to commit the felony.

Aggravating In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on

the degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
(1) habitual or
(2) intentional/subsequent to the plan to commit Article 16.Who are criminally liable
the felony.
Grave and less grave felonies:
Mere proof that offender imbibed intoxicating liquor is
not sufficient. - Principals
- Accomplices
Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of - Accessories
liquor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the
test is that it must have sufficed to affect his mental Light felonies:
faculties, to the extent of blurring his reason and depriving
- Principals
him of self-control.
- Accomplices
Absent clear and convincing proof as to appellant’s state
Subjects in a crime.
of intoxication, we are unable to agree that the alternative
circumstance of intoxication was present to aggravate the
1. Active subject (criminal)
offense. (pp v. inggo)
2. Passive subject (injured party: private individual
or the State)
Presumption
Only natural persons.
When the accused is established to be drunk, the
presumption is that it was not habitual but accidental and,
- RPC requires that a person act with malice or
therefore, mitigating.
with negligence.
- Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty.
Degree of instruction or education
- Most penalties can be executed by natural
Mitigatingwhen there is lack of instruction or education. persons.
There must be lack of sufficient intelligence.
Article 17. Principals
Exceptions:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of
- crimes against property the act;
- crimes against chastity 2. Those who directly force or induce others to
- murder commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
Aggravating when there is high degree of instruction or offense by another act without which it would
education when taken advantage of by offender. not have been accomplished.
Pp v. Mangsant Principal by direct participation.
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has studied in Requisites:

the first grade in a public school, but only to him who
really has not received any instruction. 1. That they participate in the criminal resolution;
2. They carried out their plan and personally took
Persons Criminally liable part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for
his own actions. Conspiracy
When there is only one felony, he alone is criminally liable. Participating in the criminal resolution is conspiracy.
DEFINITION: Two or more persons come to an agreement When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to act.
commit it.
Pp v. enriquez
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of incurring
criminal liability. “if a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon
the commission of a crime which will probably endanger
Pp v. Reyes human life such as robbery, all of them are responsible for
the death of a person that ensues as a consequence”
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. Not the object of the conspiracy/necessary or logical
When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, consequence of the crime intended.
one performing one part and the other performing
another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the - In Umali case (96 Phil 185) robbery is not
attainment of the same object, conspiracy exists. included/necessary or logical consequence of
sedition;
Conspiracy may be express or implied. - Where the conspiracy specifically targeted one
and only one person, the killing of others would
Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of not affect the conspirators. (De laCerna)
the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime;
it is sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert Some rules in conspiracy.
pursuant to the same objective.
Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal liability
Manner of commission of crime (Timbol)
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in Participation in the criminal resolution must either be
which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the before or simultaneous with the criminal act.
acts of the accused which show a joint or common
purpose and design, a concerted action and a community Applicable only in crimes committed by means of dolo.
of interest among the accused. (pp v. Sicad) nd
2 requisite.They carried out their plan and personally
Indicators of conspiracy took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to
the same end.
- Spontaneous agreement
- Active cooperation by all the offenders in the He must be at the scene of the crime personally taking
perpetration of the crime part in its execution.
- Contributing positive acts to the realization of a
It is sufficient that the act performed directly tends to
common criminal intent
accomplish the intended crime.
- Presence during the commission of the crime by
Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape; acting as a
a band and lending moral support
lookout/guard.
- Knowing the plan and accepting the role
assigned and actually performing that role.
Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
Where there is no conspiracy.

1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime;
- Using irresistible force;
Mere silence does not make one a conspirator (Pp v.
- Causing uncontrollable fear.
Gensola)
2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime.
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (pp v. padrones) - Giving price or reward
- Using words of command.

Requisites of a principal by inducement: 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by

performing another act, w/o w/c it would not
1. Inducement with the intention of procuring the have been accomplished.
2. Inducement is the determining cause of the Cooperation
- Cooperation – implies that there is a desire or
st
1 Requisite.Intention. wish in common.
- Another act – the act must be different from the
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime. acts of the principal by direct participation. The
act must not involve the material execution of
In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and
the offense.
carabaos) and supplying the gun to use in the commission
of the crime. Ex. Dragging a girl to a place where she is to be
raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.
In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the
husband of the inducer is killed. Three types of principals.
Does not include - Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable as a

principal one must fall under any of the three
- Thoughtless expressions;
concepts in Art. 17.
- Imprudent advice;
- In such case, we apply our ruling inpp v. ubina
nd where we held that when an accused does not
2 Requisite.Determining cause.
fall under any of the three concepts defined in
Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would Article 17 of the RPC, he may only be considered
not have been committed. guilty as an accomplice. (PP v. Carriaga)
It must: Article 18. Accomplices
1. Precede the act induced, and 1. Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts

2. Influential. 2. Not a principal
3. No conspiracy
Requisites: Words of Command
Conspirator v. Accomplice
1. Intention to procure commission of crime.
2. Inducer must have ascendancy or influence. Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the
3. Words must be direct, so efficacious, so criminal design.
powerful as to amount to physical coercion.
Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution,
4. Uttered prior to the commission of the crime.
accomplices concur in the criminal design.
5. Material executor has no personal reason to
commit the crime.
Requisites
Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense
1. Community of design
by another act without which it would not have been
2. Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
accomplished.
3. Relation between acts of principal and
accomplice.
Principal by cooperation.
st
1 requisite.Community of design.
Requisites:
1. Participation in criminal resolution.

Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence PENALTIES

of the criminal design.
Article 22.Retroactive effect of penal laws.
Prior to the commission of the act.
The general rule is that penal laws have prospective effect.
Knowledge of a crime different from that actually
committed. As long as it is a natural consequence of the They can only be given retroactive effect if:
crime intended, an accomplice is liable.
1. It is favorable to the accused , and
nd
2 requisite.Cooperation by previous or simultaneous 2. The accused is not a habitual criminal.
acts.
Prospective effect of penal laws
- The acts of the accomplice must not be
Applicable to all penal laws.
indispensable.
rd This rule is applicable even for those serving sentence by

3 requisite.Relation between acts of principal and
final judgment.
accomplice.
Habitual criminal is one who…
Liable for different crimes.
1. Within a period of 10 years;
A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrive and take
2. From the date of the last conviction or release;
part in killing B.
3. Of the crimes of serious and less serious physical
A – Principal in Murder. injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification;
rd
4. Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3 time or
C and D – Accomplices in Homicide. oftener. (art. 62, par. 5)
*No conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A Jurisdiction of the courts

attacked B.
- It is the law at the time of the institution of the
action that determines the jurisdiction of courts
- Jurisdiction of the courts is determined by the
Article 19.Accessories. allegations in the complaint or information.
Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being Art. 23. Pardon by the offended party.
principals or accomplices, take subsequent part in its
commission by: - Pardon by the offended party does not affect the
criminal action. Civil liability may be expressly
1. Profiting or assisting the accused to profit; waived by the offended party.
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime - The exception under art. 344 of the RPC must be
or its effects/instruments to prevent its made before the institution of the criminal
discovery. action.
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape.
Article 25.Penalties which may be imposed.
Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal. - Art. 25 is a classification of penalties as to
principal or accessory penalties.
1. Public officer who abuses his public function - This is also a list of the penalties that may be
(any crime) imposed in the RPC.
2. Private person (treason, parricide, murder
attempt against the life of the president,
habitually guilty of some other crime.)
*RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. - If the detention prisoner does not abide by the
The penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed in rules imposed on convicts, he will be credited in
lieu of death. the service of his sentence with 4/5 of the period
of preventive detention.
Art. 26. Fine – when afflictive, correctional or light - If the detention prisoner has been in detention
penalty for a period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged
Afflictive – exceeds P6, 000.00
to which he may be sentenced and his case is
not terminated, he shall be released
Correctional – does not exceed P6,000.00 but is not less
immediately.
than 200.00.
- In case, the possible penalty is destierro, he shall
Light – less than 200.00. be released after 30 days of preventive
imprisonment.
*This classification should not be confused with Art. 9,
which classifies felonies. Article 36.Pardon.
Article 27.Duration of penalties. Pardon remits the principal penalty but not the accessory
penalty, unless the pardon expressly provides otherwise.
The amendment giving a duration to reclusion perpetua
(20y and 1d to 40y) did not mean that it has reclassified as Exception: when pardon is granted after the principal
a divisible penalty. It remains an indivisible penalty. (Pp v. penalty has been fully executed.
Lucas)
It is the Chief Executive who pardons.
Article 28.Computation of penalties.
Pardon
- If theoffender is in prison, the temporary
By Chief Executive
penalty – judgment of conviction becomes final.
- If the offender is not in prison, the penalty
- Extinguishes criminal liability
consisting of deprivation of liberty – offender is
placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities. - Cannot include civil liability
- Duration of other penalties – from the day on
w/c the defendant commences to serve his - Given after conviction
sentence.
By offended party
Article 29.Preventive detention.
- Does not extinguish criminal liability
Period of preventive suspension – credited fully in the - Offended party can waive civil liability
service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of - Given before institution of criminal prosecution
liberty if the detention prisoner agrees in writing to abide (Except: Rape)
by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted
prisoners. Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities – order of payment
Exceptions 1. Reparation of damage caused;restitution

2. Indemnification of consequential damages;use
- Recidivists and those convicted previously 2 or 3 commonly on crimes against persons
items of any crime, and 3. Fine;
- Those who fail to surrender voluntarily when 4. Cost of proceedings.
summoned from execution.
*This article is applicable only when the property of the
Rules convict is not sufficient to pay all the pecuniary liabilities.

Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the property belongs to a person not included
in the charge, the court cannot order the
Under the RPC, subsidiary imprisonment is an additional confiscation/forfeiture of the property.
penalty consisting of imprisonment for a convict who has - If the property was not submitted to the court in
no property to pay the fine at the rate of one day for each evidence, said property cannot be confiscated.
amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition PDEA v. Brodett
of judgment of conviction by the trial court (RA. 10159)
Art. 45 of the RPC bars the confiscation and forfeiture of
Rules under the RPC an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime
if such “be the property of a third person not liablefor the
- If prison correccional or arresto and fine – offense.”
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of
the term of sentence and in no case exceed 1 Release of property
year.
- If penalty is only fine – subsidiary imprisonment Property seized must be returned to the person from
shall not exceed 6 months if prosecuted for whom it was taken or to person who is entitled to
grave or less grave;and not to exceed 15 days if itspossession:
for a light felony.
- No criminal prosecution
- If penalty imposed is higher than prison
- Unreasonable prosecution
correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment.
Art. 46. Penalties to be imposed on principals in general.
Rules in special laws
- The penalties provided for in the RPC are the
- If court imposes a fine – shall not exceed 6
penalties imposed on principals for the
months
consummated felony.
- If both imprisonment and fine – shall not exceed
- There are, however, certain provisions where a
1/3 of the term
penalty is provided for a frustrated stage or
Art. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the proceeds of attempted stage of a felony.
the crime and instruments and tools in the commission of
Art. 47. When death penalty imposed.
the crime.
Must be imposed in all cases under existing laws.
- “Every penalty” presupposes that this is an
accessory penalty.
Except:
- The confiscation or forfeiture is in favor of the
government. - Below 18 years of age;
- If a third person owns the property and is not - More than 70 years of age;
liable for the offense, the property cannot be - Required majority in SC is not obtained.
confiscated or forfeited in favor of the
government. Pp v. Mateo
- If the property is not subject of lawful
commerce, it shall be destroyed regardless of “If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the
whether it belongs to the accused or a third penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
person. is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to
provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals
Rules before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.”
- There must be a criminal case otherwise no Art. 48 Complex crimes.

penalty can be imposed.

In complex crimes at least two crimes are committed but Several offenders and several victims
they constitute only one crime, as only one penalty is
imposed upon the offender. This is intended to benefit the Where there are several offenders and it cannot be
offender who is, in the eyes of the law, less criminally ascertained who among them killed the several deceased,
perverse than one who commits two or more separate and there is only one crime committed. This ruling should only
independent crimes. be applied when it cannot be ascertained who among the
offenders killed the victims (Sanidad, April 30, 2003;
Two kinds of complex crimes: Lawas, June 30, 1955; Abella, Aug 31, 1979)
- Compound crime – a single act constitutes two Complex crime proper.

or more grave or less grave felonies. Ex;
throwing a hand grenade at a group of people Requisites:
causing death or injuries to several in the group.
1. At least two offenses;
- Complex crime proper – one offense is a
2. One or some must be a necessary means to
necessary means for committing the other. Ex;
commit the other;
falsifying cedulas so as to collect the fees from
3. Both offenses must be punished under the same
persons to whom they are issued.
statute.
Compound crime.
At least two offenses.
Requisites:
- Falsification as a means to commit malversation
1. One single act. (barbas)
2. The single act produces two or more grave or - Usurpation of official functions as a means to
less grave felonies. commit simple seduction.
One single act. Necessary means
- Throwing a hand grenade into a group of people Necessary does not mean indispensable otherwise the
is a single act. offense would be considered as an element of the offense
- Placing a bomb in an airplane is a single act. and the result would be one felony committed.
- Firing a gun once is a single act.
The other crime must be a means to commit not to
Two or more grave or less grave felonies. conceal. If the other crime is used to conceal the other,
they are separate offenses.
In case the single act produces light felonies they are
either treated as: Applicability of Art. 48.
- Separate offenses; or Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does not provide a
- Absorbed. The rule that light felonies are specific penalty for a Special Complex Crime. Ex:
absorbed should only be applied when there is Kidnapping with Murder or Homicide, Robbery with
only one victim. Homicide, Rape with Homicide.
Pp v. de los Santos Forcible Abduction with Rape.
The slight physical injuries caused by glenn to the ten The abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. This
other victims through reckless imprudence, would, had should only be applied to the first rape. If subsequent
they been intentional, have constituted light felonies. rapes are committed, they are separate felonies, since the
Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, abduction was no longer necessary for their commission.
they should be treated and punished as separate offenses.
Penalty for complex crime
Separate information should have, therefore, been filed.
The penalty is for the most serious crime committed to be specifically provides for the penalty of an
applied in its maximum period. accomplices or accessory.
Continued crime. Art. 61.Rules for graduating penalties
A continued, continuing or continuous crime is not Basis for graduation of penalties is the scale in Art. 71.
specifically provided for in the RPC. The principles on
continued crime is based on a single criminal impulse and - Death
should result in one criminal liability. - Rec Perp
- Rec Temp
The difference in Dela Cruz and Enguerocase,is that in Dela - Pr Mayor
Cruz there was evidence that there was a general plan to - PrCorr
commit robbery in the vicinity of the eight households. - Arr mayor
InEnguerono such evidence was presented. - Destierro
- ArrMenor
Art. 49. Penalty when crime different from that intended. - Public Censure
- Fine
- This article is only applicable in error in
personae. st
1 Rule. Single and indivisible
- In Aberratio ictus, two crimes are committed,
therefore, Art. 48 (complex crimes) is applicable; The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
- In Praeterintentionem, the offender is liable for following.
the crime actually committed.
Death
Rules
Reclusion Perpetua – penalty
- Rule 1
Penalty for felony committed is higher than Reclusion Temporal – penalty next lower in degree
penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony nd
2 Rule.Two indivisible penalties or one or more divisible
with lower penalty imposed in maximum.
penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
- Rule 2
Penalty for felony committed is lower than
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony
following the lesser of the penalties prescribed.
with lower penalty imposed in maximum.
Two indivisible:
Art. 50-57
Death -
- Rules in determining the imposable penalties for
accomplices and accessories of frustrated and ---------
attempted felonies. Parricide
- Degree is one entire penalty.
- Period is one of the three equal portions of a Reclusion Perpetua -
divisible penalty.
- A period when prescribed by the RPC as a Reclusion Temporal
penalty for a felony is considered a degree. nd
2 rule.One or more divisible penalties to be imposed to
Art. 60. Exceptions. their full extent.
- The rules in Art. 50-57 are not applicable where One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent.
the law specifically provides for a penalty for a
Reclusion Perpetua
frustrated or attempted stage of a felony or
Reclusion Temporal - penalty of the two next following either from the penalty
prescribed or the penalty immediately following.
Prision Mayor - penalty next lower in
degree Rec Temp – Max
- Med
- Min
-Max
Pr May - Med
- Min
Two divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent. PrCorr - Max
Prision Mayor - -Med

- Min
------ penalty
th
5 Rule. Not specially provided for in Rules 1-4.
PrisionCorreccional -
Proceed by analogy.
Arresto Mayor - penalty next lower in
degree - If the penalty consists of two periods, the
rd penalty next lower in degree is the penalty
3 Rule. One or two indivisible penalties and the
consisting of two periods immediately down the
maximum period of another divisible penalty
scale.
- If the penalty consists only of one period, the
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
penalty next lower in degree is the next period
medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible
immediately down the scale.
penalty and the maximum period of that immediately
following.
Art. 62. Application of mitigating, aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency.
Death -
st
1 Rule.Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
Reclusion Perpetua -
constitute the crime or are included by law in defining the
Reclusion Temporal (max) - crime – No effect.
Reclusion Temporal (med) - “By means of fire” not taken into consideration in arson.
Reclusion Temporal (min) - “Dwelling” in robbery with force upon things.
Prision Mayor (max) - “Abuse of confidence” in qualified theft.
Prision Mayor (med) - Taking advantage of public position and committed by a

syndicate – Maximum regardless of mitigating
Prision Minor (min) - circumstances.
th
4 Rule. Penalty is composed of several periods (at least Syndicate – two or more persons.
3).
Art. 62. Par. 2. Inherent.
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
period immediately following the minimum prescribed and
When the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the Single indivisible – imposed regardless of the presence of
crime – No effect. circumstances
Evident premeditation in robbery and theft. Two indivisible penalties
Art. 62. Par. 3. Circumstances relating to the persons - One aggravating – greater penalty
participating in the crime. - No mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty
- Some mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty
1. Moral attributes of the offender. - Both – offset according to number and
Ex: Evident premeditation (aggravating) importance.
Passion or obfuscation (mitigating)
2. Private relations of offender and offended party Art 64. Penalties which contain three periods.
Ex: relationships, e.g., father and son
3. Any other personal cause Rule 1. No aggravating and no mitigating – medium period
Ex: minority
Rule 2. Only a mitigating – minimum
Insanity
recidivism
Rule 3. Only an aggravating – maximum
In these three instances the aggravating or mitigating
Rule 4. When there are both aggravating and mitigating
circumstance shall affect only those to whom such
circumstances the court shall offset those of one class
circumstance is present.
against the other.
Art. 62. Par. 4. Circumstances consisting in the material
Two or more mitigating and no aggravating
execution of the crime.
Rule 5.Two or more mitigating and no aggravating
Material execution – treachery
circumstance – penalty next lower in degree intheperiod
applicable according to the number and nature of
Means employed – poison, fire, etc.
circumstance.This is called a privileged mitigating
Affects only those who had knowledge of them at the circumstance.
time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
The mitigating circumstance that constitutes the privilege
therein.
mitigating circumstance can no longer be considered in
Art. 62. Par. 5. Habitual Delinquency determining the imposable period.
Rules on Habitual delinquency Art. 65. Dividing penalties (divisible) into three equal
portions.
- Refers only to certain crimes: serious and less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its
and falsification. entirety by ascertaining the minimum and maximum.
- It results in an additional penalty not merely an
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty
increase in the penalty.
prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the
- The additional penalty is imposed upon a third
maximum. The minimum subtracted from must not
conviction.
include the 1 day.
- The 10 years shall always be computed from the
last conviction or release.
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three equal
- The subsequent crimes must be committed after
portions.
conviction.
Art. 63. Indivisible penalties

Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day)is the minimum Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum
of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum
and you have the maximum of your minimum period. and you have the maximum of your minimum period.
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period 2 years 4 months
and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the
quotient to the minimum (without including the one day) +
and you have the maximum of the medium period of the
1 year 2 months 20 days
penalty.
Step 6. Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium and you 3 years 6 months 20 days
have the minimum of the maximum period of the penalty.
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period
Add the quotient to the minimum (without including the
and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the
one day) and you have the maximum of the maximum
quotient to the maximum and you have the maximum of
period of the penalty.
your maximum period.
Prisioncorreccional medium and maximum
Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its Art. 66. Imposition of fines.
entirety by ascertaining the minimum and maximum.
Wealth or means of the culprit is the primary
2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years consideration.
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty Mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall also be
prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the considered.
maximum. The minimum subtracted from must not
Art. 67. Penalty when accident is present.
include the 1 day.
Accident is an exempting circumstance under art. 12,
6 years 5 years 12 months
paragraph 4. If not all elements are present then the
- Or offender is punished in the same manner as a person liable
- 2 years 4 months 2 years 4 months for reckless imprudence under art. 365.
___________________ _______________ Art. 68. Penalty upon a person under 18.
3 years 8 months RA 9344
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three euql 15 years and under – no criminal liability (intervention)
portions.
Above 15 below 18 –exempt unless acting with
1 year 2 months 20 days discernment (diversion)
_____________________ Art. 69. Crime not wholly excusable.
3 ) 3 years 8 months Some of the elemets of a justifying or exempting

circumstance are present.
3 years 6 months
Majority.
____
One or two degrees lower. Privileged mitigating
circumstance.

Art. 70. Service of sentence. There must be a minimum and a maximum for this article
to be applicable.
Simultaneous if the nature of the penalties allow
otherwise the penalties must be served successively. Only the maximum is increased or decreased, the
minimum is never changed.
Disqualification, suspension, destierro, censure, civil
interdiction, confiscation, and costs are penalties that may Increasing or decreasing the fine.
be served simultaneously.
Fine of P200-P2,000
Penalty of imprisonment
¼ of P2,000 = P500
Multiple penalties consisting of imprisonment have to be
served successively. One degree lower would be a fine of P200-P1,500
The order of severity in Art. 71 must be observed. The Two degrees lower would be a fine of P200,P1,000
most severe must be served first.
Art. 76. Legal periods of divisible penalties
Three-fold rule
The intention of the law is to give the three periods of a
A convict’s sentence shall not exceed more than three penalty equal or uniform duration due to the ff:
times the length of time corresponding to the most severe
- Equal and uniform durations.
of the penalties imposed on him.
- Does not require that they be used even when
Shall not exceed 40 years. the periods of a prescribed penalty correspond
to different divisible penalties.
Does not preclude the imposition of subsidiary - Will result in the periods not being of equal and
imprisonment. uniform duration.
Art. 71. Graduation of penalties
Under art. 9346 death has been effectively eliminated Arresto Mayor does not follow the general rule.
from the list of imposable penalties under Art. 71.
Minimum – 1mo 1 day to 2months
This affects not only the consummated stage and the
principals but also for the frustrated and attempted stage Medium- 2mos 1 day to 4 mos
as well with respect
Maximum – 4 mos 1 day to 6 mos
Art. 72-74
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Art 72. Satisfaction of civil liability is based on the
A penalty with a minimum and a maximum instead of a
chronological order that they are imposed.
straight penalty.
Art 73. Accessory penalties under Art’s 40-45 are deemed
Authorizes the release of a convict after having served the
imposed.
minimum of his sentence.
Art 75. Increasing or decreasing fine by one or more
Temp -
degrees.
Pr. May – Medium -
Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth (1/4) of
the maximum.
Pr. Corr – Maximum -
Arr. May -
ISL does not apply 2. Penlaty next lower in degree to Rec Temp is
Prision Mayor. Prision Mayor is the minimum of
1. Convicted; death or life imprisonment your indeterminate sentence.
2. Convicted; of treason, conspraicy or proposal to 3. Maximum is Rec Temp in its medium period
commit treason since there is no aggravating or mitigating
3. Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, circumstances.
sedition, or espionage 4. The indeterminate sentence, therefore, is
4. Convicted of piracy Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temp Medium.
5. Habitual delinquents
6. Escaped from confinement or evaded sentence Frustrated Homicide with Direct Assault
7. Violated the terms of the conditional pardon
8. Imprisonment; maximum does not exceed 1 year 1. Frustrated Homicide – Pr May; Direct Assault –
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at PrCOrr Med- Max. Penalty for complex crime is
the time of the approval of the law for the graver offense which is Pr May.
10. Destierro or suspension. 2. Penalty next lower to Pr Mayor is Pr Corr. PrCorr
is the minimum.
RPC and Special Laws 3. Max is Pr Mayor in its maximum (complex crime)
4. Indeterminate sentence is, therefore,
Special law. PrisionCorreccional to Prision Mayor Maximum.
- Minimum – not be less than the minimum Privileged Mitigating Circumstnace

prescribed by law.
- Maximum – not exceed the maximum fixed by General rule is: find the penalty next lower in degree to
law. the penalty prescribed by law without first considering the
attending circumstance.
RPC
Exception is: a privileged mitigating circ (two or more
- Minimum – shall be within the range of the mitigating circ without any aggravating circ, Art. 64 para.
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the 5). In this case the privileged mitigating circ is first applied
Code for the offense. to determine the basis for the minimum.
- Maximum – that, in view of the attending circ,
could be properly imposed under the rules of the Estafa thru falsification by a public officer with two mit
RPC. and no agg (privileged mitigating circ).
Steps 1. Penalty for the more serious offense

(falsification) is prision mayor.
1. Ascertain the penalty prescribed for the offense 2. Apply the attending circ (privileged mitigating
without considering the attending circumstances circ) first. One degree lower than Pr Mayor is Pr
2. Use the said penalty as the basis for determining Corr. (exception to the general rule)
the minimum, which is the penalty next lower in 3. One degree lower than PrCorr is Arr Mayor. Arr
degree. This is the minimum of the May is the minimum.
indeterminate sentence. 4. Maximum is PrisionCorr in its max, because it is a
3. Fix the maximum by imposing the penalty complex crime.
prescribed by the law taking into consideration 5. Indeterminate sentence is Arrestor Mayor to
the attending circumstances. PrCorr Maximum.
Homicide, no mitigating no aggravating. Probation
1. Homicide is punished by Reclusion Temporal.

Probation – is a disposition where a convict is released - Previously convicted by final judgment by:
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer. - Imprisonment of not less than one month,
and/or
In a probation, a convict’s sentence consisting of - Fine not less than 200.00
imprisonment is not executed, rather the convict is
released subject to the conditions of the probation. When -Have been once on probation;
the convict violates the terms, he may be required to serve
- Those already serving sentence at the time the provisions
the sentence.
of the probation law became applicable.
When to apply for probation
Periods of probation
The application for probation must be filed within the
- If the term of imprisonment is not more than 1
period for perfecting an appeal (15 days from
year probation shall not exceed two years.
promulgation).
- If sentenced to more than 1 year probation shall
When a convict has perfected an appeal, an application for not exceed 6 years.
probation cannot be granted.
Completion of the period of probation anddischargeof the
Sable v. Pp probationer shall operate to restore him to all civil rights.
“The Probation Law is patently clear that no application for Art. 89. Total extinction of criminal liability.
probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
1. Death
has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
2. Service of sentence
conviction.”
3. Amnesty
“Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first 4. Absolute pardon
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed 5. Prescription of the crime
and rehabilitated; who manifest spontaneity, contrition 6. Prescription of the penalty
and remorse.” 7. Marriage (art. 344)
Except in the case of Colinares v. Pp Death
In a real sense, the court’s finding that Arnel was guilty, Personal penalties – extinguished whether death occurs
not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted before or after conviction.
homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time
Pecuniary penalties are extinguished when death occurs
imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC
before final judgment. Fines and costs shall subsist if death
done him right from the start, it would have found him
occurs after final judgment.
guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right
penalty of two years and four months maximum. This
Death before final judgment.
would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for
probation. When death occurs before final judgment, e.g., pending
appeal, the criminal liability of the accused is extinguished
Disqualified from probation
as well as his civil liability if it is based solely on the
offense committed.
-sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than 6 yrs;
If the civil liability can be predicated on some other
source of obligation other than delict (crime), e.g., law,
- Convicted of subversion, crimes against national security
contract or quasi-delict, the claim for civil liability survives.
or public order;

Pp v. Bayotas (READ! MU GAWAS NIS EXAM) The state loses the right to execute final sentence after the
lapse of time.
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as Marriage of the offended woman (art 344); must be in
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As good faith.
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the
death of the accused prior to final judgment The manner in which the appellant dealt with the girl after
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had no bona
liability directly arising from and based solely on fide intention of making her his wife, and the ceremony
the offense committed… cannot be considered binding on her because of duress.
2. Corollariliy, the claim for civil liability survives The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the consent, and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution
same may also be predicated on a source of of the wrongdoer.” (Pp v. Santiago)
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Art. 90. Prescription of crimes
Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
obligation from which the civil liability may arise
The state loses the right to prosecute an offender.
as a result of the same act or omission…
- Death, Rec Perp, Rec Temp – 20 years
Amnesty and pardon
- Other afflictive penalties – 15 years
- Correctional penalties – 10 years
- Amnesty completely extinguishes the offense,
- Except by arresto mayor – 5 years
the penalty and the effets thereof. However,
- Libel and other similar offenses – 1 year
amnesty does not extinguish civil liability.
- Oral defamation and slander by deed – 6 months
- Pardon merely exempts the convict from the
- Light offenses – 2 months
punishment the law inflicts for a crime
committed.
Prescriptive periods of crimes punished by special laws
(act no. 3763)
Amnesty
Punished by:
- Group/class
- Before or after conviction
- Fine/imprisonment (not more than 1 month) – 1
- Looks backward
year
- Affects recidivism
- Imprisonment more than 1 month, less than 2
- Civil liability remains
years – 4 years
- Public act of president
- Imprisonment more than 2 years, less than 6
years – 8 years
Pardon
- Imprisonment of 6 years or more – 12 years
- Individual - Internal revenue Law – 5 years
- After conviction - Municipal ordinances – 2 months
- Looks forward - Public service Commission – 2 months
- Recidivism stays
Rules in Special Laws
- Civil liability remains
- Private act of President
- Period of prescription begins from the date of
commission or date of discovery up to the
Prescription of the crime/penalty
institution of judicial proceedings.
The state loses the right to prosecute an offender due to - Period is interrupted when proceedings are
the lapse of time. instituted against guilty person and begins to run

again if proceedings are dismissed for reasons Evasion of service of sentence is essential for the rules on
not constituting double jeopardy. prescription on apply.
- Accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offense
than that charged if the lesser offense has
already prescribed at the time the information
Art. 94. Partial Extinction
was filed.
- Conditional pardon. Condition usually takes the
Art. 91. Computation of period (RPC)
form of an undertaking that the convict shall not
- Commences to run on the day the crime is violate any penal law.
discovered by the offended party, authorities, or - Commutation. Commutation reduces the degree
their agents. of the penalty or reduces the length of
- It is interrupted by the filing of complaint or imprisonment.
information. - Good conduct allowances. Art. 97.
- Commences to run again when the proceedings
Art. 97. Good Conduct Allowance.
terminate w/o the accused being convicted or
acquitted or unjustifiably stopped for any reason
Good conduct of a prisoner during his imprisonment will
not imputable to him.
result in a deduction of his sentence:
Art. 92. Prescription of penalties. st
- 1 two years – 5 days/ month of good behavior.
rd th
- 3 to 5 year – 8 days/month of good behavior.
The state loses the right to execute final sentence after th th
- 6 to 10 year – 10 days/month of good
the lapse of time.
behavior.
th
Prescriptive period: - 11 and successive years – 15 days/month of
good behavior.
- Death and Rec Perp – 20 years
Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty.
Prescription
- 1/5 of the period of the sentence;
-Prescription of penalties – sentence must be final. - Evade service during disorders, conflagrations,
earthquakes, or other calamities;
- Prescription of crimes – penalty prescribed by law - Gives himself up within 48 hours following the
proclamation announcing the passing away of
- Prescription of penalties – penalty imposed.
the calamity or catastrophe.
- An essential element of this article is that the
Art. 93. Computation of period.
convict must leave the penal institution.
Commences to run when culprit evades service of
Art. 100. Civil liability.
sentence.
A person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Interrupted when convict:
This principle is based on the dual character of a crime. A
- Gives himself up.
crime is (1) an offense against the State because it disturbs
- Captured
the social order and (2) it injures a private individual unless
- Goes to a foreign country with which the Govt
there is no private injury that is inflicted.
has no extradition treaty, or
- Commits another crime before the expiration of
Acquittal
the period.
Acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it
extinction of the civil liability.

Exception:when there is a finding in the final judgment judgment has been rendered in the criminal
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may action.
arise does not exist, the civil liability is deemed
extinguished. 2. If the civil action is filed ahead of the separate
civil action – the criminal action is
Abellana v. Pp. suspended.(KUWANG)
Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of Applicability of the rules.
his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently,
causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be Identity of parties and subject matter.
civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the
acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses. The claimant in the civil action is the offended party in the
criminal action and both cases arise from the same offense
Instances when the extinction of the criminal liability or transaction.
does not extinguish civil liability.
Separate civil action.
- Reasonable doubt. When the acquittal is based
that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not - If the offended party has reserved the right to
been presented. file a separate civil action, he loses the right to
- Non-imputability. Incases of insanity, imbecility intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case.
or minority. - (KUWANG)
- In actions for negligence. Civil liability may be
Prejudicial question.
based on quasi-delict.
- Independent civil actions. Articles 31, 32, 33 and
- Generally, a criminal case should be decided first
34 of the NCC.
before the civil action arising from the crime. An
exception to the rule is a prejudicial question.
Under the Rules of Court; Criminal Procedure.
- A prejudicial question is a civil case that must be
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for decided first before the criminal action. It
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged requires (1) a previously instituted civil action
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless: whose issues are similar or intimately related ot
the issues raised in a subsequent criminal action,
- Offended party waives the civil action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines
- Offended party reserves the right to institute it whether the criminal action may proceed or not.
separately; (Sec. 6, Rule 111 RRC)
- Offended party institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action. Prejudicial question
Separate civil action. - A civil action where the genuineness of a

document is put in issue is prejudicial to the
- The filing of a criminal action is not necessary to criminal case for falsification of the same
the filing of and prosecution of a civil action, document.
thus the term “separate civil action”. - A petition for the annulment of a subsequent
- However, once a criminal action has been filed, marriage on grounds of duress is a prejudicial
there are two scenarios that may arise. question to a criminal case for bigamy.
Separate civil action. Pp v. Jadap
1. If the criminal action is filed ahead of the As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the
separate civil action – the separate civil action following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto
arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory
damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) thevictim and that petitioner was responsible therefor –
temperate damages P50, 000.00 (Seguritan v. Pp)
Without need of further proof. Loss of earning capacity
Civil indemnity is mandaotyr and granted to the heirs of The award of P135, 331.00 for the loss of earning capacity
the victim without need of proof other than the was also in order. The prosecution satisfactorily proved
commission of the crime. In cases of murder and homicide, that the victim was earning an annual income of P14,
moral damages maybe awarded without need of 000.00 from the harvest of pineapples.
allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the
heirs, other than the death of the victim, since the Actual damages; receipts.
emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim
It is error for the trial court and the appellate court to
cannot be dnied. (jadap)
award actual damages of P30, 000.00 for the expenses
Exemplary damages. incurred for the death of the victim. We perused the
records and did not find evidence to support the plea for
Article 2230 of the CC states that exemplary damages may actual damages. (seguritan)
be imposed when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances. Temperate damages
Pp v. Rante When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, certainty, temperate damages may be recovered (P25,
can be awrded, not only in the presence of an aggravating 000.00). (Seguritan)
circ, but also where the circ of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the accused. In Pp v. Villanueva, we held that when actual damages
proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than
Simple Rape P25k, the award of temperate damages for P25k is
justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.
As to the amount of damages, the Court finds as correct (Quidet v. Pp)
the awrd of P50, 000.00 as civil indemnity and P50, 000.00
as moral damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. (Pp Art. 101. The following shall be civilly liable.
v. Dalisay)
- Insanity, imbecility and minority. The person
*Exemplary damages in theamount of P30, 000.00 was having legal authority or control. If the said
also awarded. person can prove that there was no fault or
negligence on his part, the insane, imbecile or
Qualified Rape minor shall answer with his own property.
- Avoidance of greater evil or injury, the person
Civil indemnity – P75k
whose benefit the harm has been prevented in
proportion to the benefit which he may have
Moral damages – P75k
received.
Exemplary – P30k
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability.
Awarded without need of further proof other than the
Innkeepers, tavernkeepers, any other person where a
commission of the crime. (Pp v. Garcia)
crime is committed in their establishment.
Homicide; civil indemnity
A violation of municipal ordinance or a general or special
Civil indemnity – without need of proof other than the fact police action is committed by them or their employees.
that a crime was committed resulting in the death of
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. To give something similar in kind, amount, species or
quality is not restitution.
1. Employers
2. Teachers Restitution
3. Persons or corporations engaged in any kind of
industry Generally, the owner of a thing illegally taken may recover
it even form a third person who has acquired it by lawful
- Felony committed by servants, pupils, workmen, means.
apprentices, employees while in the discharge of
When the third person acquires the item in good faith at a
duties.
public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without
- Must be involved in any kind of industry.
reimbursing the price paid therefore.
- The felon is insolvent.
Art. 106. Reparation.
Decision convicting the employee
Reparation will be order by the court if restitution is not
Binding on the employer. The decision need not expressly
possible.
state the liability of the employer.
Reparation includes any damage cause by the felonious
The decision regarding the civil liability is binding on the
act.
employer not only with the fact of the liability but also
with respect to the amount.
It includes the item’s special sentimental value to the
injured party.
What must be proved.
Art. 107. Indemnification.
1. Employer of the convicted employee.
2. Engaged in industry
Indemnification – crimes against persons.
3. Crime committed in the discharge of duty
4. Execution is unsatisfied; employee is insolvent. Reparation – crimes against property.
Need not be in a separate civil action; hearing in the Examples of indemnification

criminal action with notice to the employer.
- Expenses for hospitalization of injured parties
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability.
Loss of earning capacity.
1. Restitution
2. Reparation of the damage caused; Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider
3. Indemnification for consequential damages that under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the accused are also
jointly and severally liable for the loss of the earning
Restitution – return of the thing stolen incases of theft. capacity of Biag and such indemnity should be paid to his
heirs. (Pp v. Lagat)
Reparation – in theft if the thing stolen cannot be
returned, its value.In physical injuries, the expenses for the Factors to be considered
treatment of the injuries.
The amount of damages recoverable for the loss of
Indemnification – loss of earning capacity. earning capacity of the deceased isbased on two factors:
(1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages
Art. 105. Restitution.
shall be computed (2) the rate at which the losses
Restitution refers to the very same thing taken/stolen.
Art. 110. Liability of principals, accomplices and
accessories.

Those within a particular class (principal, accomplice,

accessory) shall be liable solidarily.
They are subsidiarily liable for those in another class.
Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability.
Same causes for the extinguishment of civil obligations.
- Payment or performance
- Loss of the thing due
- Condonation or remission
- Confusion or merger
- Compensation
- Novation
- THE END -
See you next semester?

Criminal Law 1 Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Criminal Law 1 Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 1

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

EXCEPTIONS CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

1. Philippine ship / airship Spanish text is controlling (OLD CODIGO PENAL)

3. PROSPECTIVE (REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship

EXCEPTION Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN Punishable by the RPC;

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

OMISSION - FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary

GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT

US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No. 5272 REQUISITES OF CULPA

“In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such - Freedom;

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is, INTENTIONAL FELONY

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

B dies as a result of the injuries to his head. PROXIMATE CAUSE

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

The active force must be a distinct act; or Crimes against persons:

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY = opening a safe without money

Inherent impossibility Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

PP vs. LIZADA PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY

There is proposal when the person who has decided to

NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

of previous agreement to commit an offense is not AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every LESS GRAVE FELONIES

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY - Life

RESPONSIBILITY – obligation of suffering the - Right to property

PP vs. MERCED, GR No. 14170, November 23, 1918 PP vs. MACASO

-immediate and imminent; AGE AND CONDITION OF ALLEGED AGGRESSOR

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

PHYSICAL FINDINGS If angpaasalalakihikaponsababae? This cannot be. Crimes

PP vs. ACOSTA REASONABLE NECESSITY

PP vs. ALETA ELEMENTS:

“One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine

- No provocation - Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister

*Read the case of (PP vs. NUGAS)

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

Requisites: 1. An imbecile or an insane person

BASCOS CASE “Caught with his pants down”

Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is PP vs. Opuran

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

Above 15 but below 18 Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.

“because he does not act with freedom.” Elements:

“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only - An act i

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances What is important is that the offender is a public

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

Dwelling of Offended Party When provocation negates dwelling.

Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of Band

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

9. Recidivism. Includes the person who gives the reward.

Habituality 1. the time when the offender determined to

“… with treachery” Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

21. Cruelty. Generally relationship is…

_____ _ Art. 68. Penalty upon a person under 18.