San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
Criminal law- A branch or division of public law
which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.
Criminal Procedure- The regulation of the
steps in apprehension, prosecution
conviction of the accused if found guilty.
“NOTE: Criminal Law may not be given
retroactive effect except when it is favorable to
the accused, provided he is not a Habitual
Delinquent---A person, if within a period of 10
years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less
physical injuries, robo (robbery), hurto (theft), or
falsification, he is found guilty of any said crimes
rd
a 3 time or oftener.
“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”- There
is no crime, unless there is a law punishing it.
Basis: Police Power of the State.
Limitations of Police Power:
1. Must not contravene the Constitution or
any statute.
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive.
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory.
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5. Must be general and consistent with
public policy.
6. Must not be unreasonable.
Limitations of Criminal Law:
1. Bill of Rights (Article III,
Constitution)
a. Due Process and Equal Protection
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
b. Freedom of Expression
c. Freedom of Religion ( see. Separation
of Church and State)
d. No excessive fines, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment
and e. Non- Imprisonment for debt or non-
payment of poll tax
f. Bill of Attainder (a legislative act
which inflicts punishment without
trial)
g. Ex-post facto Laws
“NOTE: the death penalty was not completely
abolished by the 1987 Constitution. Rather, it
merely suspended the death penalty and gave
Congress the discretion to review it at the
propitious time.” – People v. Echegaray (G.R.
No. 117472. February 7, 1997)
“NOTE: the death penalty is imposed in heinous
crimes because the perpetrators thereof have
committed unforgivably execrable acts that have
so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal
acts with severely destructive effects on the
national efforts to lift the masses from abject
poverty through organized governmental
strategies based on a disciplined and honest
citizenry, and because they have so caused
irreparable and substantial injury to both their
victim and the society and a repetition of their
acts would pose actual threat to the safety of
individuals and the survival of government, they
must be permanently prevented from doing so”.
– People v. Echegaray (G.R. No. 117472.
1987 February 7, 1997)
“NOTE: punishments are cruel when they
involve torture or a lingering death, but the
1|Page
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

punishment of death is not cruel, within the punishment has a direct and mechanical
meaning of that word as used in the constitution. proportion to the crime committed.
It implies there something inhuman and 2.) Positivist Theory: Man is a moral being,
barbarous, something more than the mere subdued by a morbid and social
extinguishment of life”. – People v. Echegaray phenomenon that predisposes him to
(G.R. No. 117472. February 7, 1997), citing In commit a crime, in spite of or contrary to his

Ex-parte Kemmler (136 U.S., 436) volition; Punishment is for reformation and
correction.
Ex-post facto Law: 3.) Mixed Theory: an amalgamation of both
Classical and Positivist Theories.
 Makes Criminal an act, which, when
committed, was not punishable. Repeal of Penal Law:
 Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
than it was when committed. 1.) Absolute Repeal

 Alters the legal rules of evidence, and a. Express- - Couched in absolute

authorizes conviction upon less or terms such that crime is no

different testimony than the law required longer deemed criminal

at that time of the commission of the b. Implied--- Failure to penalize the

offense. acts under the old law

2.) Partial Repeal
 Assumes to regulate civil rights and
a. Court retains the authority to try
remedies only, but in effect imposes
and sentence the accused
penalties or deprivation of a right for
under the old law.
something which when done was lawful
b. Whichever penalty is more
 Deprives of the person accused of a
favored to the accused, unless it
crime of some lawful protection to which
is provided otherwise.
he has become entitled.
3.) Self-Repeal
a. Expiration by its own terms and
provisions
2. Statutory Rights
a. Sec. 1, Rule 115, Part II, Rules Characteristics of Criminal Law:
of Court
1.) Generality: “Criminal Law shall be
Theories of Criminal Law: applied upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine Territory subject to the
1.) Classical Theory: Man is rational being,
principle of Public International Law and
endowed with reason and free will;
treaty Stipulations.

2|Page
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

2.) Territoriality: “Criminal Law shall ONLY o Note: Regardless of Nationality.

be enforceable within Philippine
Jurisdiction (VFA):
territory. Rationale: A crime is deemed an
offense against the dignity, authority, and A. Exclusive--- Either PH or US Laws
sovereignty of the Philippines.
a. Offenses relating to security
3.) Prospectivity: See. “nullum crimen, nulla
i. Treason
poena sine lege; retroactivity)
ii. Sabotage
iii. Espionage
iv. Violation of National
GENERALITY
Defense Laws

Public International Law: B. Concurrent- both PH or US laws

a. PH primary jurisdiction
 Exempt--- Representation of Political b. PH may waive jurisdiction,
Interest of the State (Sovereign) except: cases of “particular
 Not Exempt--- Representation of importance to the Philippines”.
Commercial, Mercantile, or business i. Heinous Crimes
interest of the state (Propriety) 1. Murder
2. Rape
Laws of Preferential Application: a well-
ii. Offenses under the
established principle of international law that
Dangerous Drugs Act.
diplomatic representatives such as
iii. Offences under the
ambassadors, or public ministers and their
Anti-Child Abuse law
official retinue possess immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the country of their
sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or
TERRITORIALITY
punished by the law of that country.

“The national territory comprises the Philippine

Treaties:
Archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced

 RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (August therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction,
30, 2951)
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
 Visiting Forces Agreement (February 10
including the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
1998)
the insular shelves and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands
Persons covered under the VFA:
of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and

 United States Personnel (Military or dimensions, form part the internal waters of the

Civil) Philippines.” – Article I, 1987 Constitution.

3|Page
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

Territorial Sea: - Old Penal Code: Spanish Penal Code of

1870 I=> French Penal Code of 1810
 12 nautical miles (22 nautical
- Book 1: a.) Basic Principles affecting
kilometers) from the Baseline.
criminal liability; b.) Provisions on penalties
 Full PH Sovereignty (Criminal, Civil,
including criminal and civil liability.
etc.)
- Book 2: a.) Felonies with corresponding
 Foreign Vessels- Innocent Right of
Penalties.
Passage.
 Note: Crimes committed outside of “NOTE: Inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code
territorial sea- No PH jurisdiction was originally approved and enacted in Spanish,

(Unless committed on a Philippine the Spanish text governs”. - People v. Abilong

Ship or Airship) (G.R. No. L-1960. November 26, 1948), citing

People vs. Manaba (58 Phil., 665, 668)
Prosecution of Foreign Vessels (Only applicable
to Merchant Vessels):
ARTICLE 3 and 4
 French Rule- Nationality Principle
(wherever country the Ship/ Airship is Crime: a generic term that embraces any

registered) violation of the Revised Penal Code, Special

 English Rule- Territoriality Principle Penal Laws, and Municipal/City Ordinances.

(whenever the ship/airship is within PH

Felony: Act or Omission punishable by the
territory). Note: PH follows this Rule.
Revised Penal Code.

Note: Warships are considered as

Offense: Act or Omission punishable by Special
extensions of a State’s territory.
Penal Laws.

THE REVISED PENAL CODE Infraction/ Misdemeanor: Act or Omission

punishable by Municipal or City Ordinances.
- Act. No. 3815 (Approved: December 8,
1930; Effective: January 1, 1932) “Malum In Se” vs. “Malum Prohibitum”
- RPC Committee (A.O. No. 94, October 18,
1927) Malum In Se- It is inherently wrong and

1. Anacleto Diaz (Chairman) essentially evil, that is immoral in its nature and

2. Alex Reyes inurious in its consequences without any regard

3. Quintin Paredes to the fact of it being noticed or punished by the

4. Mariano De Joya law of the state. Ex. Crimes under the RPC

5. Guillermo Guevarra

4|Page
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
Malum Prohibitum. The act is not inherently
moral but becomes so because
commission is expressly forbidden by positive
law. Ex. Crimes under SPL.
NOTE: An offense in a special law is not
always a malum prohibitum. We must always
look into the Legislative Intent of the
Authors. (Garcia v. CA, 484 SCRA 617, G.R.
No. 157171. March 14, 2006)
Elements of a Felony:
1.) There must be an Act or Omission.
2.) Such Act or Omission is punishable
under the Revised Penal Code.
3.) There must be Deceit
Negligence (Culpa).
Elements of Criminal Liability:
1.) Physical Element (actus reus)
a. Act
b. Omission
2.) Mental Element (mens rea)
a. Deliberate Intent (Dolo)
b. Constructive Intent (Culpa)
c. Transferred Intent (Art. 4, par. 1)
3.) Concurrence
4.) Resulting Harm
5.) Causation
Act: Bodily movement tending to produce some
effect on the external world. (Note: it being
unnecessary that the same be actually procured,
as the possibility of its production is sufficient).
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
Omission: Failure to perform a positive duty
of its which one is bound to do. (Note: must be
punishable by Law)
Overt/External Acts: Physical Activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which is carried out to its complete
transformation following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the spontaneous desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen a
concrete offense.
“NOTE: Mere passive presence at the scene of
another's crime, mere silence and failure to give
(Dolo) or
the alarm, without evidence of agreement or
conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation
required by article 14 of the (Old) Penal Code for
complicity in the commission of the crime
witnessed passively, or with regard to which one
has kept silent”. – People v. Sylvestre and
Atienza (G.R. No. L-35748. December 14, 1931)
“NOTE: True it is that the proof of (Teresa
Domogma’s) direct participation in the
conspiracy is not beyond reasonable doubt, for
which reason, she cannot have the same liability
as her co-appellants. Indeed, she had no hand
at all in the actual shooting of her husband.
Neither is it clear that she helped directly in the
planning and preparation thereof, albeit we are
convinced that she knew it was going to be done
and did not object… But this is not saying that
she is entirely free from criminal liability. Before
the actual shooting of her husband, she was
more or less passive in her attitude regarding
5|Page
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
her co-appellants' conspiracy, known to her, to
do away with him, after Bernardo was killed, she
became active in her cooperation with them.
These subsequent acts of
"concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal in the crime" which makes her liable as
an accessory after the fact under paragraph 3 of
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. – People
v. Talingdan (G.R. No. 32126. July 6, 1978)
Dolo: Deceit--- Deliberate Intent
Culpa: Negligence, Imprudence, Lack of Skill, or
Lack of Foresight.
Malice = Criminal Intent
Requisites of Dolo (Deceit):
1.) Freedom
2.) Intelligence- morality of human acts
3.) Intent- presumption arises from proof of
the commission of an unlawful act.
Motive: Special/ Personal reason behind the
prompting or inducing of a person to perform an
act or commit a crime. Not an element of a
felony, however, it becomes material only when
there is doubt as to the identity of the offender.
Negligence: The failure to
impending injury, thoughtlessness, failure to use
ordinary care.
Imprudence: The deficiency
avoiding an injury due to lack of skill.
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
Exceptions to Criminal Intent:
- “Ignorancia Legis Excusat, Ignorancia
Facti Excusat” (While ignorance of the
her constitute
law excuses no one, an Honest Mistake
of Fact can excused the accused from
criminal Liability)
Honest Mistake of Fact: Misrepresentation of
Facts on the part of a person who injures
another.
“NOTE: … that had the facts been as he believed
them to be he would have been wholly exempt
from criminal liability on account of his act; and that
he cannot be said to have been guilty of
negligence or recklessness or even carelessness
in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the
means adopted by him to defend himself from the
imminent danger which he believe threatened his
person and his property and the property under his
charge”. – US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. L-5272.
March 19, 1910)
“NOTE: In the instant case, appellants, unlike the
accused in the instances cited, found no
circumstances whatsoever which would press them
to immediate action. The person in the room being
then asleep, appellants had ample time and
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard
foresee an to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless
arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been
made, as the victim was unarmed, according to
Irene Requinea. This, indeed, is the only legitimate
of action in
course of action for appellants to follow even if the
victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed
not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to
get him dead or alive only if resistance or
6|Page
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
aggression is offered by him”. People v. Oanis
(G.R. No. L-47722. July 27, 1943)
Proximate Cause: Ordinary and continuous
sequence of events, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury and
without which the injury would not have
occurred. “el que es causa de la causa es causa del
mal causado” (He who is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the evil caused).
Efficient Intervening Cause: “He who creates
an imminent danger in another’s mind, causing
the latter’s action to do something which results
in injury.” (Intermediate Appellate Court v.
Urbano, G.R. No. 72964. January 7, 1988)
Transferred Intent: When the intention to harm
one individual inadvertently causes a second
person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still
held responsible.
1.) Aberatio Ictus: Mistake in the blow.
2.) Error in Personae- Mistake in the
identity of the victim.
3.) Praetor Intentionem- Lack of Intent.
(entitled to Justifying Circumstances)
“NOTE: In the words of Viada, "in order that an
act may be qualified as imprudence it is
necessary that either malice nor intention to
cause injury should intervene; where such
intention exists, the act should qualified by the
felony it has produced even though it may not
have been the intention of the actor to cause an
evil of such gravity as that produced. And, as
held by this Court, a deliberate intent to do an
unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
idea of reckless imprudence. Where such
unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the
identity of the intended victim cannot be
considered as reckless imprudence”. – People v.
Guillen (G.R. No. L-1477. January 18, 1950)
“NOTE: mistake in the identity of the victim
carries the same gravity as when the accused
zeroes in on his intended victim." - People v.
Sabalones (G.R. No. 123485. August 31, 1998)
“NOTE: In his testimony the appellant
emphatically affirmed that he only wanted to
inflict a wound that would leave a permanent
scar on the face of the deceased, or one that
would compel him to remain in the hospital for a
week or two but never intended to kill him,
because then it would frustrate his plan of
compelling him to marry or, at least, support his
daughter. The appellant had stated this intention
in some of his letters to the deceased by way of
a threat to induce him to accept his proposal for
the benefit of his daughter. That the act of the
appellant in stabbing the deceased resulted in
the fatal wound at the base of his neck, was due
solely to the fact hereinbefore mentioned that
appellant did not have control of his right arm on
account of paralysis and the blow, although
intended for the face, landed at the base of the
neck”. – People v. Albaquerque (G.R. No.
38773. December 19, 1933)
Impossible Crime: “Criminal Liability shall be
incurred…By any person performing an act
which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility
7|Page
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
“NOTE: In an impossible crime, objectively there
is no crime committed but subjectively the
accused is a criminal. He is punished for his
criminal tendency and prospensity.”
Requisites of Impossible Crime:
1.) Committed against Persons/ Property.
2.) Criminal Intent.
3.) Impossibility of Accomplishment.
4.) Inadequate/ Ineffectual means.
5.) Not a violation of the RPC.
Factual Impossibility:
- The factual situation
impossibility which rendered
intended crime.
- Extraneous Circumstances unknown to
the actor or beyond his control to
prevent the consummation
intended crime.
Legal Impossibility:
1.) Motive, desire, and expectation of to
commit a felony;
2.) Intention to form a physical act;
3.) Performance of the physical act;
4.) Consequence does not amount to a
crime.
“NOTE: In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are
recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing
the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but
an act penalized by itself. Furthermore, the
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in
Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes
no distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility. Ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos ”. – Intod v.
CA (G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 2002)
“NOTE: Under Article 4 (2), the act performed by
the offender cannot produce an offense against
person or property because: (1) the commission
of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment: or (2) the means employed is
either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual… To be
impossible under this clause, the act intended by
the offender must be by its nature one
impossible of accomplishment. There must be
either impossibility of accomplishing the
presents
intended act in order to qualify the act an
the
impossible crime”. – Intod v. CA (G.R. No.
103119. October 21, 2002)
ARTICLE 5
of the
- Dura Lex Sed Lex (The Law may be
harsh but it still the Law)
- No matter how excessive the penalty is
imposed on a certain crime, the Judge
must still upheld the sentence.
ARTICLE 6 and 7
Stages of a felony:
1.) Consummated: All elements necessary
for the execution and accomplishment of
the felony are present.
2.) Frustrated: The Offender performs all
the acts of execution but which,
8|Page
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

nevertheless, do not produce it by with the prior acts, should result in the
reason of causes independent of the will consummated crime”.
of the perpetrator.
Development of a crime:
3.) Attempted: The Offender commences
the commission directly by overt acts A. Internal Acts: mere ideas in the mind of
but does not perform all acts of a person that would constitute a crime.
execution by reason of some cause or B. External Acts:
accident other than his own a. Preparatory Acts: Ordinarily,
spontaneous desistance. they are not punishable;
However, where they
“NOTE: The essential element which
considered by law as
distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is
independent crimes, they are
that, in the latter, there is no intervention of a
punishable.
foreign or extraneous cause or agency between
b. Acts of Execution:
the beginning of the commission of the crime
i. Attempted
and the moment when all the acts have been
ii. Frustrated
performed which should result in the
iii. Consummated
consummated crime; while in the former, there is
such intervention and the offender does not Formulae (Murder, Parricide, etc.):
arrive at the point of performing all of the acts
which should produce the crime” Consummated Stage:

Indeterminate State: Purpose of the overt acts Overt Act + Death = Consummated

committed by the accused is uncertain or

Frustrated Stage:
indefinite. These acts may or may not intended
for the criminal purpose. Mortal Wound + Intent to Kill – Death =
Frustrated
Subjective Phase: Phase starting from the first
act committed by the offender to begin the Attempted Stage with Non-Mortal Wound:
commission of the crime up to the last act over
Non-Mortal Wound + Intent to Kill – Death =
which he still has control.
Attempted
“The subjective phase is that portion of the acts
Attempted Stage without Mortal Wound:
constituting the crime included between the act
which begins the commission of the cime and Overt Act + Intent to Kill – Death = Attempted
the last act performed by the offender which,

9|Page
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
“NOTE: Distinctions will life only in the presence/
absence of intent to kill and the severity off the
wounds inflicted upon the victim.”
“Art. 7- Light Felonies are punishable only only
when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against persons or
property”.
Rationale: A light felony produces such light,
insignificant moral or material injury that public
conscience is satisfied with providing a light
penalty for its commission. If a light felony is
only attempted or frustrated, generally it is not
punishable.
Personal Notes:
“NOTE: When a wound is not sufficient to cause
death, but intent to kill is evident, the crime is
attempted”.
“NOTE: An essential element of murder and
homicide, whether in their consummated,
frustrated, or attempted stage, is intent of the
offenders to kill the victim immediately before or
simultaneously with infliction of injuries.”
“NOTE: The crime committed was that of
Frustrated Murder, because the subjective
phase of the acts necessary to commit the
offense had already passed; there was full and
complete belief on the part of the assailant that
he had committed all the acts of execution
necessary to produce the death of the intended
victim”.
“NOTE: Malice, compulsion, or restraint need
not to be alleged in information for unjust
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the
element of restraint or compulsion for the reason
that the term is broad enough to include any
human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm, would
unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person”.
“NOTE: In Homicide cases, the offender is said
to perform all the acts of execution of the wound
on the victim is mortal and could cause the
death barring medical intervention or
attendance. If one inflicts physical injuries on
another but the latter survives, the crime
committed is physical injuries, if the offender had
no intention to kill”.
“NOTE: Unlawful taking, or aporderamiento, is
deemed complete from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing; even he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. Theft can
only be consummated or attempted.
“NOTE: Article 308 of the RPC does not
expressly nor impliedly allow the “free
disposition of the items stolen” is in a way
determinate of whether the crimes of theft have
been produced”.
“NOTE: In Case of Robbery, in order that the
simple fact of entering by means of force or
violence another person’s dwelling may be
considered an attempt to commit an offense, it
must be show that the offender clearly intended
to take possession, for the purpose of gain of
some personal property belonging to another”.
“NOTE: The killing of the victim may be
considered as merely incidental to and an
10 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, “NOTE: Generally, conspiracy is not a crime
which however was not consummated because except when the law specifically provides
of the resistance offered by the deceased. therefor.”
Consequently, this case would properly come
Instances where conspiracy is punishable:
under the provision of Art. 297 of the Revised
Penal Code which states that: When by reason or
1. Treason.
on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a
homicide is committed, the person guilty of such 2. Rebellion.
offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the 3. Sedition.
homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty
under the provisions of this Code”. 4. Coup d’ etat.

“NOTE: In the crime of Rape, from the moment 5. Combinations and Monopolies in
the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim restraint of trade.
he actually attains his purpose and, from the
6. Under Special Laws:
moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. There is no
a. Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A.
more the crime of Frustrated Rape”.
9165)

ARTICLE 8 b. Terrorism

Conspiracy: Two or more persons come to an c. Arson

agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. ARTICLE 11

Proposal: When the person who has decided to Justifying Circumstance: Circumstances that

commit a felony proposes its execution to some relieves the accused of his liabilities due to the

other person or persons. absence of criminal intent.

“NOTE: As long as the conspirators do not “No Crime; No Criminal”

perform overt acts in furtherance of their

“NOTE: In criminal cases, the burden of proof is
malevolent design, then the sovereignty of the
,of course, on the prosecution which must rely
State is not outraged and the tranquility of the
on the strength of its evidence and not on the
public remains undisturbed.”
weakness of the prosecution. In self-defense,
the burden shifts to the defense and the onus of
which he must satisfactorily discharge,

11 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

otherwise, conviction would follow from his
admission that he killed the victim.”
“Anyone who acts in defense of his person
or rights, …”
Unlawful Aggression: sudden unprovoked and
unlawful attack which places a person’s life and
limb in danger which is actual, real, or imminent.
Personal Notes:

Self-Defense: Man’s natural instinct to protect, “NOTE: Unlawful Aggression must be a

repel, and save his person or rights from continuing circumstance or must have been
impending danger or peril, (…) lawful defense is existing at the time the defense is made.”
grounded on the possibility on the part of the
“NOTE: The act of a person armed with a
State to avoid present unjust aggression and
bladed weapon pursuing another constitutes
protect a person unlawfully attacked; therefore, it
unlawful aggression because it signifies the
is inconceivable for the State to require that the
pursuer’s intent to commit an assault with this
innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression
weapon.”
without resistance.

“NOTE: Slap on the face constitutes unlawful

“NOTE: When the accused admits that he killed
aggression, since the face represents a person
the victim, he is only making an admission of
and his dignity; slapping it is a serious personal
fact. He does not lose the constitutional
attack.”
presumption of innocence in his favor because
he may still prove the elements of self-defense
“NOTE: The unlawful aggression already
by clear and convincing evidence, in which case
ceased the moment the accused disarmed the
should be entitled to acquittal.”
victim.”

“NOTE: The offense of (Rape), unlike ordinary

“NOTE: When the unlawful aggression of the
slander, is an outrage which impresses an
victim had already ceased, the accused had no
indelible blot on the victim”
more right to kill the victim.”

Requisites of Self-Defense:
“NOTE: When the aggressor flees to take a
more advantageous position to secure an attack
1.) Unlawful Aggression.
that he already began, the unlawful aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of the means continues.”
employed to prevent or repel it.
“NOTE: Mere act of drawing a gun does not
3.) Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the constitute unlawful aggression, unless it is
part on the part of the person defending pointed at the target.”
himself.

12 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

“NOTE: As long as there is actual danger of B. Imminent Danger.

being raped, a woman is justified in killing her
C. Instinct, more than reason, which impels
aggressor, in the defense of her honor.”
the defense.
“NOTE: When there is an agreement to fight,
D. Nature and quality of the weapon used
unlawful aggression becomes merely an incident
by the aggressor.
thereof.”

E. Physical condition of the aggressor

Retaliation: Aggression that has begun by the
injured party ceased when the accused attacked
F. Character of the aggression
him.
“NOTE: It is settled that reasonable necessity of
“NOTE: In retaliation, the aggression that was
the means employed does not imply material
begun by the injured party already ceased to
commensurability between the means of attack
exist when the accused attacked him. In self-
and defense. What the law requires is rational
defense, the aggression still existed when the
evidence.”
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person
making a defense.” Sufficient Provocation or Threat: One which is
adequate (enough) to excite a person to commit
“The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
the wrong charged, and which must,
the right to exclude any person from the
accordingly, is proportionate to its gravity.
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be “NOTE: The law requires that sufficient
reasonably necessary to repel an actual or provocation must not come from the person
threatened unlawful physical invasion or defending himself”.
usurpation of his property”- Article 429 ([Old]
Civil Code of the Philippines). Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS):
Scientifically defined pattern of psychological
Reasonable necessity of the means and behavioral symptoms found in women living
employed to prevent or repel the aggression in battering relationships as a result of
(…) depends upon the imminent danger of cumulative abuse.
injury, not on the harm actually done to the
accused. Battery: An act of inflicting physical harm upon
the woman or her child resulting to the physical
Requisites that always accompanies unlawful and psychological or emotional distress.
aggression:
Cycle of Violence in Battered Woman
A. Existence of Emergency. Syndrome:
13 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

1.) Tension-building Phase:
escalation of tension displayed by
discreet acts causing
friction such as name-calling, other
mean intentional behaviors, and/or
physical abuse. The batterer is hostile
but not in an extreme manner, while
the woman attempts to pacify the
batterer.
a gradual reducing the penalty by one or two degrees
lower. BWS is a justifying circumstance that
increased absolves the battered woman from criminal
and civil liability.”
“NOTE: Furthermore, in order to be classified as
a battered woman, the couple must go through
the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman
may find herself in an abusive relationship with a
man once. If it occurs a second time, and she

2.) Acute Battering Phase: The tension remains in the situation, she is defined as a

continues to escalate until the woman battered woman”. – People v. Genosa (G.R. No.
135981. January 15, 2004)
is unable to control the batterer’s
angry response pattern. This is when
the actual physical abuse occurs. Defense of Relatives

3.) Non-violent Phase: The batterer may Requisites:

apologize profusely, try to assist his
victim, show kindness and remorse, 1.) Unlawful Aggression

and shower her with gifts and/or

promises. Even the batterer is made
to believe that he will never allow
himself to be violent again.
“NOTE: R.A. No. 9262 went further by
providing that BWS is
circumstance notwithstanding that any of the
2.) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the attack.
3.) In case of provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one defending has
no part therein.
a justifying
Relatives who may be defended:

elements of self-defense is lacking. The

1.) Spouse
emphasis on “notwithstanding that any of the
elements of self-defense is lacking” was 2.) Ascendants
added precisely to avoid its confusion with the
3.) Descendants
rule on self-defense under the penal laws.
Under RA 9262, BWS is not merely a
4.) Legitimate, Natural, or Adopted Brothers
mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the or Sisters
Revised Penal Code that has the effect of

14 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

5.) Relatives by affinity with the same “NOTE: There is no criminal liability, but there is
degree. civil liability.”

6.) Relatives by consanguinity within the “NOTE: The act of (Juan Padernal) in preventing
fourth civil degree. (Marianito de Leon) from shooting
(Ricohermoso) and (Severo Padernal), who
Defense of Strangers:
were the aggressors, was designed to insure the
killing of (Geminiano de Leon) without any risk to
Requisites:
his assailants… (Juan Padernal) was not
1.) Unlawful Aggression. avoiding any evil when he sought to disable
(Marianito de Leon). Padernal’s malicious
2.) Reasonable Necessity of the means intention was to forestall any interference in the
employed to prevent or repel it. felonious assault made by his father and
brother-in-law on Geminiano. That situation is
3.) The person defending be not induced by
inarguably not the case envisaged in Par. 4 of
revenge, resentment, or other evil
Article 11. –People v. Pio Richohermoso (G.R.
motive.
Nos. L-30527-28 March 29, 1974)
“Any person who in order to avoid an evil or
“NOTE: The accused had the right to herself to
injury, does an act which cause damage to
avoid the evil of going through a loveless
another …”
marriage.”- People v. Norma Hernandez (55
Requisites: O.G. 8465)

1.) The evil sought to be avoided actually “Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
exists. duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office…”
2.) The injury feared is greater than that
done to avoid it. Requisites:

3.) There is no other practical and less 1.) The accused must have acted in the
harmful means of preventing it. performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
4.) Evil or injury sought to be avoided must
not be caused by the negligence or 2.) The injury caused or the offense
imprudence of the accused, nor must it committed should have been the
be the result of any violation of law. necessary consequence of such lawful
exercise.

15 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
3.) Must be done within the limits of the law.
There should be no imprudence,
neglect, or abuse in the fulfillment of
duty or exercise of such.
“NOTE: The killing was done in the performance
of a duty. The deceased was under obligation to
surrender, and had no right after evading service
of his sentence, to commit assault
disobedience with a weapon in hand, which
compelled the policeman to resort to such an
extreme means, which, although proved to be
fatal, was justified by the circumstances.
“NOTE: In the absence of the equally necessary
justifying circumstances that the injury or offense
committed be necessary consequence of the
due performance of such duty, there can only be
incomplete justification; a privileged mitigating
circumstance under Article 13 and 69 of the
Revised Penal Code.”
“NOTE: The right to kill an offender is not
absolute, and may be used only as a last resort,
and under the circumstances indicating that the
offender cannot otherwise be taken without
bloodshed… Judgement and discretion of police
officers in the performance of their duties must
be exercised neither capriciously
oppressively, but within reasonable limits.” –
Mamangun v. People (G.R. No.
February 2, 2007)
“Any person who acts in obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose…”
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
Requisites:
1.) A Lawful Order.
2.) Order must come from a superior.
3.) Order must have been for a lawful
purpose.
and 4.) Means used by subordinates was
justifiable.
“NOTE: The arrest and trial of (Borjal) were
made upon express orders of the higher
command; the appellants allowed (Borjal) to be
defended by counsel, one of them chosen by
(Borjal’s sister); the trial lasted for 19 days, and
etc… It appearing that the charge is the heinous
crime of Murder, and that the accused-
appellants acted upon orders, of a superior
officer that they, as military subordinates, could
not question, and obeyed in good faith, without
being aware of their illegality, without any fault or
negligence on their part, we cannot say that
criminal intent has been established.”- People v.
Beronilla (G.R. No. 4445. February 28, 1955)
nor ARTICLE 12
Exempting Circumstances: a circumstance,
149152.
which, if present in the commission of a felony,
frees the offender from criminal liability but does
not relieve him of civil liability except in
Paragraph 4 thereof (accident) where the
offender is relieved of both criminal and civil
liability. Technically although there is a crime
16 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

committed, there is no criminal liability but there Personal Notes:

is civil liability.
“NOTE: An imbecile is a person marked by
NOTE: In invoking any of the exempting mental deficiency while an insane person is one
circumstances as his defense, the accused must who has an unsound mind or suffers from a
initially must admit that the fact that he mental disorder.”
committed the act charged. Having admitted the
“NOTE: Evidence of Insanity must refer to the
fact that he committed the act which he was
time preceding the act under the prosecution or
charged with, the burden of evidence shifts to
to the very moment of execution. (…) He is
the accused, who is now bound to prove by
presumed to be sane when he committed the
clear and convincing evidence the requisites of
act.”
the exempting circumstance he is invoking as a
defense; otherwise, his conviction is certain.
“NOTE: The unlawful act of the accused may be
Such admission cures whatever weakness the
due to his mental disease or a mental defect,
prosecution’s evidence may have.
producing an irresistible impulse” as when the
accused is deprived or lost the power of his will
“An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
which would enable him to prevent himself from
latter acted during a lucid interval…”
doing the act.”
Insanity: a manifestation in language or
“NOTE: The act of concealing a fatal weapon
conduct, of disease or defect of the brain, or a
indicates conscious adoption of a pattern to kill
more or less permanently diseased or
the victim. He was apprehended and arrested in
disordered condition of the mentality, functional
Metro Manila which indicates that he embarked
or organic, and characterized by perversion,
on a flight in order to evade arrest.” – People v.
inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory
Dungo (G.R. No. 89420. July 31, 1991)
or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or
disordered volition.
“NOTE: It is unusual for an insane to confront a
specified person who may have wronged him…
Imbecility: Analogous to childishness and
We infer from this confrontation that the accused
dotage… An imbecile is one who must be
was aware of his acts. This event proves that
deprived completely of reason or discernment
the accused was not insane or if insane, his
and freedom of will at the time of committing the
insanity admitted of lucid intervals.”
crime… An imbecile is a mentally defective
person of the second lowest order of intellectual
“NOTE: Our conclusion is that defendant acted
potential (mental age 3 and years), usually
while in a dream and his acts, with which he is
requiring custodial and complete protective care.
charged, were not voluntary in the sense of

17 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

entailing criminal liability”- People v. Taneo disease of the mind, defendant has
(G.R. No. L- 37673. March 31, 1933) been deprived of or lost the power of
his will which would enable him to
“NOTE: It has been held that invocation of
prevent himself from doing the act,
denial and alibi as defenses indicates that the
then he cannot be found guilty.
accused was in full control of his mental
faculties… This, the shift in theory of alibi and 3.) Durham “Product” Test: An accused
denial to a plea of insanity, made apparent after
is not criminally responsible if his
the appellant realized the futility of his earlier
unlawful act was the product of mental
defenses, is a clear indication that insanity is a
disease or defect.
mere concoction, or an afterthought. In any
event, (Anacito) failed to establish by convincing 4.) ALI Substantial Capacity Test: a
evidence of his alleged insanity at the time of person is not responsible for his
commission of the crime. He is presumed sane, criminal act if, as a result of the mental
and must be convicted.” – People v. Opuran
disease or defect, he lacks substantial
(G.R. No. 147674-75. March 17, 2004)
capacity to appreciate the criminality

Test in determining Insanity (People v. of his act or to conform his conduct to

Madarang [G.R. No. 132319. May 12, 2000]): the requirements of the law.

1.) Traditional Test (M’Naughten Rule of 5.) Appreciation Test of 1984: shifts the

1843): To establish a defense on the burden of proof to the defense, limited

ground of insanity, it must be clearly
proved that, at the time of committing
the act, the party accused was
laboring under such a defect of reason
from disease of the mind, as not to
know the nature and quality of the act
he was doing, or, if he did know it, that
he did not know he was doing what
was wrong.
2.) Irresistible Impulse Test: Assuming
defendant's knowledge of the nature
and quality of his act and knowledge
that the act is wrong, if, by reason of
the scope of expert testimony,
eliminated the defense of diminished
capacity and provided for commitment
of accused found to be insane.
“NOTE: In the Philippines, the courts have
established a more stringent criterion for
insanity to be exempting as it is required that
there must be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the
accused is deprived of reason; he acted
without the least discernment because there is
a complete absence of the power to discern,
or that there is a total deprivation of the will.

18 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will
not exclude imputability.” – People
Madarang (G.R. No. 132319. May 12, 2000)
“NOTE: The severe beatings reportedly inflicted
on appellant constituted a form of cumulative
provocation that broke down her psychological
resistance and self-control. This psychological
paralysis she suffered diminished her will power,
thereby entitiling her to the mitigating factor
under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13.” –
People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981. January
15, 2004)
MINORITY (Par. 2 and 3, Article 12, as
modified by Section 6 of R.A. 9344)
o “A child fifteen (15) years of age or
under at that time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall
be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act
o A child above fifteen (15) years but
below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability
and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child
shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceeding in accordance with this act..
o Section 20- If it has been determined
that the child is taken into custody is
fifteen (15) years old or below, the
authority which will have an initial
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
contact with the child has the duty to
v. immediately release the child to the
custody of his/her parents or guardians,
or in the absence thereof, the child’s
nearest relative. Said authority shall give
notice to the local social welfare and
development officer who will determine
the appropriate programs in consultaion
with the child and to the person having
custody over the child. If the parents,
guardians or nearest relatives cannot be
located, or if they refuse to take custody,
the child may be released to any of the
following: a duly registered
nongovernmental or religious
organization; a barangay official or a
member of the Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC); a local
social welfare and development officer;
or when and where appropriate, the
DSWD. If the child referred to herein
has been found by the Local Social
Welfare and Development Office to be
abandoned, neglected or abused by his
parents, or in the event that the parents
will not comply with the prevention
program, the proper petition for
involuntary commitment shall be filed by
the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare
and Development Office pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise
known as “The Child and Youth Welfare
Code.”
19 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
Child in Conflict with the Law: a child who is
alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine Laws.
Intervention: a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the child
to commit an offense. It may take in the form of
an individualized treatment program which may
include counseling, skills training, education,
and other activities that will enhance his/ her
psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-
being.
Diversion: An alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and
treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the
basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court proceedings.
Diversion Program: The program that the child
in conflict with the law is required to undergo
after he/she is found responsible for an offense
without resorting to formal court proceedings.
“NOTE: …In case the minor fails to behave
properly or to comply with the regulation of the
institution to which he has been committed or
with the conditions imposed upon him when he
was committed to the care of a responsible
person, or in case he should be found
incorrigible or his continued stay in such
institution should be inadvisable, he shall be
returned to the court in order that the same
may render the judgement corresponding to
the crime committed by him…” – Paragraph 7,
Article 80, Revised Penal Code.
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
Discernment: Capacity of the child at the time
of the commission of the offense to understand
the differences between right and wrong and the
consequences of the wrongful act.
“NOTE: The discernment that constitutes the
exception to the exemption of criminal liability
under par. 3 is his mental capacity to understand
the difference between right and wrong, and
such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration of all the
facts and circumstances afforded by the records
in each case, the very appearance, the very
attitude, the comportment and behavior of said
minor, not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and even
during the trial” – People v. Doqueña (G.R. No.
46539. September 27, 1939)
“Any person who, while performing a lawful
act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing
it.”
Requisites:
1.) A person is performing a lawful act.
2.) Such lawful act is performed with due
care.
3.) He causes an injury to another by mere
accident.
Accident: Something that happens outside the
sway of our will, and although it comes through
some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of
humanly foreseeable events.
20 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

Misadventure: Act of man, who, in the constitutes as an element in criminal homicide to

performance of a lawful, without any intention to warrant a conviction it must be negative by a
do harm and after using proper precaution to prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.” – U.S.
prevent danger, unfortunately kills another v. Tañedo (G.R. No. 5418. February 12, 1910)
person.
“NOTE (O.T.): “Direct Evidence of the
Personal Notes: Commission of the Offense is not the only matrix
wherefrom the trial court may draw its
“NOTE: According to Groizard, rights may be
conclusions and finding of guilt. Conviction can
prejudiced by three (3) general classes of acts:
be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence
a.) Malicious and Intentional Acts; b.) Negligent
provided that: a.) There is more than one
or Reckless Acts; c.) Acts which are neither
circumstance; b.) The facts from which
malicious, nor imprudent, but nevertheless
inferences derived are proven; and 3.) The
causes damage.”
combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.”
“NOTE: Where accidental killing is relied upon
as a defense the accused is not required to
“NOTE (O.T.): All the circumstances proved
prove such a defense by a preponderance of
must be consistent with each other, consistent
evidence, because there is a denial of
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty,
intentional killing, and the burden is upon the
and at the same time inconsistent with the
state to show that it was intentional, and if, from
hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every
a consideration of all the evidence, both that for
other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The
the State and the Prisoner, there is reasonable
circumstances proved should constitute an
doubt as to whether or not the killing was
unbroken chain which leads to only one fair and
accidental or intentional, the jury should acquit…
reasonable construction that the accused, to the
But where accidental killing is relied upon, the
exclusion of all others, is the guilty person…
prisoner admits the killing but denies that it was
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
intentional; Therefore, the state must show that
the degree of proof excluding the possibility of
it was intentional, and it is clearly error to instruct
error and producing absolute certainty. Only
the jury that the defendant must show that it was
moral certainty or “that degree of proof which
an accident by a preponderance of the
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind” is
testimony and instruction in the cross case was
required.” – People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 172695.
properly held to be erroneous.” – U.S. v. Tañedo
June 29, 2007)
(G.R. No. 5418. February 12, 1910)
“NOTE: By no stretch of imagination could
“NOTE: Since a plea of misadventure is a denial
playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be
of criminal intent (or its equivalent) which
considered as performing “a lawful act”. Thus on
21 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
this ground alone, appellants defense
accident must be struck down because he was
performing an unlawful act during the incident.
Also, mere possession of a sling and arrow is
punishable by law.” – People v. Castillo (G.R.
No. 172695. June 29, 2007)
“NOTE: by claiming that the killing was by an
accident, appellant has the burden of proof of
establishing the presence of any circumstance
which may relieve him responsibility, and to
prove justification he must rely on the weakness
of the prosecution, for even if weak, it cannot be
disbelieved after the accused has admitted the
killing. – People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 172695.
June 29, 2007)
“Any person who acts under the compulsion
of an irresistible force…”
Requisite: “The force contemplated must be so
formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere
instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will. The duress, force, fear or
intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending, and of such nature as to induce a
well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of
future injury is not enough. The compulsion
must be of such character as to leave no
opportunity for the accused to for escape or self-
defense in equal combat. – People v. Loreno
(G.R. No. 54414. July 9, 1984)
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
of “Any person who acts under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury…”
Requisites:
1.) The existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2.) That the fear must be real and
imminent; and
3.) The fear of an injury is greater than, or
at least equal to, that committed.
“NOTE: A threat, in order to induce insuperable
fear, must promise such great results, and such
results must be so imminent, that the common
run of men would succumb.”
“NOTE: Speculative Fear is not uncontrollable
fear.”
Speculate: To make or guess about what may
occur (…)
“NOTE: There is no uncontrollable fear when the
accused acted on his own free will and with the
desire to collaborate with the criminal design of
his superiors and was therefore, a co-principal
by direct participation.”
“NOTE: There is no doubt that the fear
entertained by Del Rosario because of the gun
directly pointed at him was real and imminent.
Such fear rendered him immobile and subject to
the will of Boy Santos, making for the moment
an automation without a will of his own. – People
v. Del Rosario (G.R. No. 127755. April 14, 1999)
22 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

“NOTE: Confessions, which do not appear to
have been made freely, and voluntarily without
force, intimidation, or promise of pardon, cannot
be accepted as proof on trial.” – U.S. v.
Caballeros (G.R. No. 1352, March 29, 1905)
“Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause…”
commission by one who would not have
perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion
or fraud of the officer. It consists of two (2)
elements: (a) acts of persuasion, trickery, or
fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or
the agents to induce a defendant to commit a
crime; and (b) the origin of the criminal design in
the minds of the government officials rather than
that of the innocent defendant, such that the

Insuperable Cause: Some motive which was crime is the product of the creative activity of the
law enforcement officer. – People v. Doria
lawfully, morally, or physically prevented to do
(125299, January 2, 1999), quoting Justice
what the law commands.
Roberts in Sorells v. United States (287 U.S.
“NOTE: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor 435, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L Ed 413 [1932])
to be punishable must be committed willfully or
Entrapment vs. Instigation:
consciously or at least it must result of a
voluntarily, conscious, and free act or omission.
 In entrapment, ways and means are
Even in cases where said crimes are committed
resorted to for the purpose of trapping
through mere imprudence, the person who
and capturing the lawbreakers in the
commits them, under said circumstance, must
execution of their criminal plan. On the
be in full enjoyment of his mental faculties, or
other hand, in instigation, the instigator
must be conscious of his acts, in order that
practically induces the would-be
he/she may be held liable.” – People v. Bandian
defendant into the commission of the
(G.R. No. 45186. September 30, 1936)
offense, and himself becomes a co-

Other Exculpatory Causes: principal.

Entrapment: The employment of such ways and  Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and

means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a conviction; while in instigation, the

lawbreaker. Oftentimes, it is the only effective defendant would have to be acquitted.

way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the

Buy-Bust Operation: In the apprehension of
commission of the offense. A criminal is caught
illegal drug dealers, (…) ways are devised and
committing the act by ways and means devised
means employed to ensnare and capture the
by peace officers.
malefactors in flagrante delicto while engaged in

Instigation: The conception and planning of an the illicit trade.

offense by an officer, and his procurement of its

23 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

“NOTE: In determining whether what took place Other Absolutory Circumstances:

was entrapment or instigation, the manner in
which the initial contact between the poseur-  Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6(3))

buyer and the alleged pusher was made is

 Accessories who are exempt from
material. All the elements of the sale transaction
criminal liability (Art. 20)
must be clearly and adequately shown starting
from the initial contact between the buyer and  Death or Physical Injuries inflicted under
the pusher until the sale is consummated with exceptional circumstances (Art.242):
the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale. o Legally married person

Pardon (Art. 266-C and Art. 344): o Act of committing sex in

flagrante delicto
Art. 266-C. Effect of pardon. - The subsequent
valid marriage between the offender and the o Kill any or both of them
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
 Art. 280- Any person who enters
action or the penalty imposed.
another’s dwelling for the purpose of
In case the legal husband who is the offender, preventing some serious harm to himelf,
the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the the occupants of the dwelling or a third
offended party shall extinguish the criminal person.
action or the penalty: Provided, that the crime
o Rendering some service to
shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall be
humanity. Justice
abated if the marriage be void ab initio. (R.A.
No., 8353.)
o Cafes, Taverns, Inns and other
th public places, while the same
Art. 344 (4 par.) – In case of seduction,
are open.
abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party
 Art. 332- Persons exempt from crimes of
shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
theft, swindling, or malicious mischief:
penalty already imposed upon him. The
provisions of this paragraph shall also be o Spouses, ascendants and
applicable to co-principals, accomplices, and descendants, or relatives by
accessories after the fact of the above- affinity in the same line.
mentioned cases.
o The widowed spouse with
respect to the property which

24 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall
have passed into
possession of another; and
o Brothers and sisters
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-
lawm if living together.
“NOTE: Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, the State waives its right to hold the
offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of
theft, swindling and malicious mischief and
considers the violation of the juridical right to
property committed by the offender against
certain family members as a private matter and
therefore subject only to civil liability. The waiver
does not apply when the violation of the right to
property is achieved through (and therefore
inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the
public interest in the integrity and presumed
authenticity of public documents. For, in the
latter instance, what is involved is no longer
simply the property right of a family relation
but a paramount public interest.” – Intestate
of Manolita Gonzales v. People (G.R. No.
181409. February 11, 2010)
ARTICLE 13
Mitigating Circumstance: Those Circumstances
which if present reduce the penalties to be imposed
upon the accused either by degree or by period.
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
2 Classes of Mitigating Circumstance:
1.) Privileged Mitigating Circumstances
the
a. Reduces the penalty by
DEGREES.
and
b. CANNOT be offset by Generic
Aggravating Circumstances.
2.) Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance:
a. Reduces the penalty by
PERIODS.
b. CAN be offset by Generic
Aggravating Circumstances.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances
“Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify
or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.”
“A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not
wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the
conditions required to justify the same or to exempt
from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned
in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of
such conditions are present. The courts shall
impose the penalty in the period which may be
deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of
the conditions of exemption present or lacking.” –
Article 69, Revised Penal Code.
“NOTE: Circumstance of incomplete justification
or exemption may give rise to mitigation,
because not all the requisites necessary to
25 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

justify the act or exempt from criminal liability in circumstance of incomplete self defense,
the respective case are attendant.” pursuant to paragraph (1) of Article 13.” –
People v. Narvaez (G.R. No. L-33466. April
“NOTE: In order that incomplete self-defense or
20, 1983)
defense of a relative/stranger may be
considered as a privileged mitigating “NOTE: Undoubtedly, the instant case would
circumstance, it is necessary that there is have fallen under Art. 11, par. 5 of The
always be unlawful aggression plus either
Revised Penal Code had the two (2)
element (2) or (3)… But if there is no unlawful
conditions therefor concurred which, to
aggression, there could be no self-defense or
reiterate: first, that the accused acted in the
defense of a relative/stranger, whether complete
performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of
or incomplete.”
a right or office; and second, that the injury or
“NOTE: In the mind of the court, there is not offense committed be the necessary
the least doubt that, in stabbing to death the consequence of the due performance of such
deceased Amado Capina, in the manner and duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
form and under the circumstances above office. But here, only the first condition was
indicated, the defendant and appellant fulfilled. Hence, Art. 69 is applicable,
committed the crime of homicide, with no although its "that the majority of such
aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but conditions be present," is immaterial since
with at least three mitigating circumstances there are only two (2) conditions that may
(Lack of Intent to commit so grave a wrong, Voluntary Surrender, and be taken into account under Art. 11, par. 5.
Vindication of a Grave Offense) of a qualified character Article 69 is obviously in favor of the
to be considered in her favor; and, in accused as it provides for a penalty lower
accordance with the provisions of article 69 of than that prescribed by law when the crime
the Revised Penal Code, she is entitled to a committed is not wholly justifiable. The
reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty intention of the legislature, obviously, is to
to be imposed upon her.” – People v. Jarigue mitigate the penalty by reason of the
(C.A. No. 384. February 21, 1946) diminution of either freedom of action,
intelligence, or intent, or of the lesser
“NOTE: Be that as it may, appellant's act in
perversity of the offender.” – People v. Ulep
killing the deceased was not justifiable, since
(G.R. No. 132547. September 20, 2000)
not all the elements for justification are
present. He should therefore be held “That the offender is under eighteen years
responsible for the death of his victims, but he of age or over seventy years.”
could be credited with the special mitigating
26 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
See Minority.
“When the offender is a minor under eighteen
years and his case is one coming under the
provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
shall be imposed:
1.) Upon a person under fifteen but over
nine years of age, who is not exempt
from liability, by reason of the court
having declared that he acted with
discernment, a discretionary penalty
shall be imposed, but always lower by
two degrees at least
prescribed by law for the crime which
he committed.
2.) Upon a person over fifteen and under
eighteen years of age the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed, but always in the proper
period.” – Article 68, Revised Penal
Code
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances
“Lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong”
Basis: Diminution of criminal intent and lesser
criminal perversity.
“NOTE: One is not relieved, under the law in
these Islands, from criminal liability for the
natural consequences of one’s illegal acts,
merely because one does not intend to
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
produce such consequences.” – U.S. v.
Brobst (G.R. No. 4935, October 25, 1909, 14
Phil. 310)
“NOTE: In a killing, lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed is an internal
state of mind that can be shown only by
external circumstances, such as the following:
1.) Kind of weapon used.
2.) The mode of attack.
3.) The nature of the injury inflicted on the
victim.
4.) The part of the body injured.
than that 5.) The location of the wound.
6.) The number of wounds suffered by the
victim.
7.) The manner the wound is inflicted.
8.) The attitude of the mind when the
accused attacked the victim.
“NOTE: It is manifest from the proven facts
that appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola.
His design was only to maltreat him may be
because in his drunken condition he was
making a nuisance of himself inside the
detention cell. When Ural realized the fearful
consequences of his felonious act, he allowed
Napola to secure medical treatment at the
municipal dispensary. – People v. Ural (G.R.
No. L-30801. March 27, 1974)
“NOTE: Finally, the plea for the appreciation
of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid
of merit… The appellant’s use of a gun,
although not deliberately sought nor employed
27 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
in the shooting, should have reasonably
placed the appellant on guard of the possible
consequences of his act. The use of a gun is
sufficient to produce the resulting crimes
committed.” – People v. Gonzales (G.R. No.
139542. June 21, 2001)
“That sufficient provocation or threat on
the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act.”
Basis: Diminution of Free Will.
“NOTE: Provocation is sufficient if it is
adequate to excite a person to commit the
wrong, which must accordingly
proportionate in gravity. It is not enough that
the provocative act be unreasonable or
annoying.”
“NOTE: … In the instant case, Tomelden’s
insulting remarks directed at petitioner and
uttered immediately before the fist fight
constituted sufficient provocation. This is not
to mention other irritating statements made by
the deceased while they were having a beer in
Bugallon. Petitioner was the one provoked
and challenged to a fist fight.” – Urbano v.
People (G.R. No. 182750. January 20, 2009)
“NOTE: When the aggression is in retaliation
for an insult, injury, or threat, it cannot be
considered as a defense but as a punishment
inflicted on the author of the provocation.”
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
“NOTE: As a matter of self-defense, sufficient
provocation pertains to its absence on the part
of the person defending himself; while as a
mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its
presence on the part of the offended party.”
“NOTE: The appellant’s contention (sufficient
provocation) is devoid of merit. Firstly since
the alleged provocation which caused the
obfuscation of the appellants arose from the
same incident, that is, the alleged
mistreatment and/or ill treatment of the
appellants by the deceased, these two
mitigating circumstance cannot be considered
as two distinct and separate circumstance but
should be treated as one; Secondly, the
be circumstance of passion and obfuscation
cannot be mitigating in a crime which- as in
the case at bar- is planned and calmly
meditated before its execution.” – People v.
Pagal (G.R. No. L-32040. October 25, 1977)
“That the act was committed in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.”
Basis: Diminution of free will and self-control
Relatives against whom the grave offense
was committed:
1.) Spouse
28 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

2.) Ascendants was not specifically directed at the accused

3.) Descendants but was general in nature.”
4.) Legitimate, Natural or Adopted
“NOTE: Although the punching incident did
Brothers or Sisters
not immediately precede the killing, its impact,
5.) Relatives by affinity within the same
by reason of the seriousness of the
degree
circumstance, under which it was inflicted,
festered till the commission of the crime.”

Provocation/ Threat Vindication “NOTE: The six hour interval between the
 Must immediately  May be proximate alleged grave offense committed by Moncayo
precede the crime against Benito and the assassination was
 Must be personal to  May be committed more than sufficient to enable Benito to
the accused even against the
recover his serenity. But instead of using that
relatives specified by
time to regain his composure, he evolved the
law
 The act that caused  The act being
plan of liquidating Moncayo after office hours.”
the provocation does vindicated should be – People v. Benito (G.R. No. L-32042.
not have to be a a grave offense December 17, 1976)
grave offense
“NOTE: By Edzel’s own clarification, he was
hit with a stick at his ear, not his head. That
act would certainly NOT be classified as a
“NOTE: The question of whether or not a
“grave offense”; and Edzel is Petitioner’s
certain personal offense is grave is dependent
nephew, hence, not a relative by affinity
upon such factors as the social standing of the
“within the same degree” contemplated in
person, the place, and the time when the
Article 13(5). – Bacabac v. People (G.R. No.
insult was made.”
149372. September 11, 2007)
“NOTE: While the law speaks of an
“That of having acted upon an impulse so
(immediate) vindication of a grave offense, the
powerful as naturally to have produced
same should be understood to mean
passion or obfuscation.”
“proximate”.

Basis: Diminution of free-will and self-control

“NOTE: A defamatory remark cannot give rise
to vindication of a grave offense because it “NOTE: There is Passion or Obfuscation
when the crime was committed due to

29 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by
prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a
legitimate stimulus so powerful
overcome reason.”
Requisites:
1.) An unlawful act sufficient to produce
passion or obfuscation was committed
by the intended victim.
2.) The crime was committed within a
reasonable length of time from the
commission of the unlawful act that
produced the obfuscation
accused’s mind.
3.) The passion and obfuscation arose
from lawful sentiments and not from
the spirit of lawlessness or revenge.
“NOTE: Inasmuch as the only causes which
mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss
of self-control as originated from legitimate
feelings, not those which arise from vicious,
unworthy, and immoral passions.” – U.S. v.
Hicks (G.R. No. 4971. September 23, 1909)
“NOTE: In the present case, however, the
impulse upon which defendant acted and
which naturally “produced passion
obfuscation was… the sudden revelation that
she was untrue to (Dela Cruz), and his
discover of her in the arms of another in
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
flagrante… The facts (…) which were the
immediate cause of the crime by producing in
as to the accused strong emotion which impelled
him to the criminal act and even to attempt his
own life, were a sufficient impulse in the
natural and ordinary course to produce the
violent passion and obfuscation…” – U.S. v.
Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 7094. March 29, 1912)
“NOTE: The trial court found as contrary to
human nature appellant’s claims that he went
to confront the paramour of his wife unarmed
and that he never learned the name of the
paramour in spite of the fact that his wife,
allegedly, had been living with the paramour in
the same town for almost a year before the
in the incident. No passion or obfuscation took
place.” – People v. Gelaver (G.R. No. 95357.
June 9, 1993)
“NOTE: The defense submits that (Bello) is so
entitled, because the decreased flat rejection
of petitioner’s entreaties for her to quit her
calling as a hostess and return to her former
relation, aggravated by her sneering
statement that the accused was penniless and
invalid (balbado), provoked the appellant, as
he testified, into losing his head and stabbing
the deceased.” – People v. Bello (G.R. No. L-
18792. February 28, 1964)
and “That the offender had voluntarily
surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the
30 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

court prior to the presentation of evidence 1.) Voluntary Surrender: It shows the
for the prosecution” intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities,
“NOTE: There are two separate ordinary
either because:
mitigating circumstances, namely: 1.
a. He acknowledges his guilt.
Voluntary surrender; 2. Voluntary confession
b. He wishes to save them the
of guilt. They may be considered separately in
trouble and expense
favor of the accused because they are based
necessarily incurred in search
on separate facts.”
and capture.
2.) Voluntary Confession of Guilt: An
Requisites:
accused spontaneously and willingly
1.) Voluntary Surrender: admits his guilt at the first opportunity
a. The offender has not been as an act of repentance and a moral
actually arrested. disposition favorable to his reform and
b. The offender surrendered submission to the law.
himself to a person in authority
Person in Authority:
or his agents.
c. The surrender must be
1.) Any person directly vested with
voluntary.
jurisdiction, whether as an individual
d. The surrender must be
or as a member of some sort of court
unconditional.
or government-owned and controlled
e. The surrender must be
corporation, board or commission.
spontaneous.
(Amurao)
2.) Voluntary Confession of Guilt:
2.) A Public Officer who is directly vested
a. The offender spontaneously
with jurisdiction and power to govern
confessed his guilt.
and execute the laws. (Reyes)
b. The confession of guilt was
made in open court. Agent of a Person in Authority:
c. The confession of guilt was
made prior to the presentation  A person who, by direct provision of law
or by election or appointment by
of evidence.
competent authority, is charged with the
Rationale: maintenance of public order and the

31 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.
protection and security of life and
property.
“NOTE: While it may have taken a week
before turning themselves in, the fact is, they
voluntarily surrendered to
authorities before the arrest
effected.” – People v. Amaguin (G.R. Nos.
54344-45. January 10, 1994)
“NOTE: On the other hand, the appellant’s
plea of guilty does not constitute mitigating
circumstance, because it was NOT made prior
to the presentation of evidence by the
prosecution.” – People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No.
45284. December 29, 1936)
“NOTE: If the accused OFFERED to plead
guilty provided the penalty would be (ex.
Destierro), the plea was considered as
conditional, hence not mitigating; but if the
accused merely PRAYED for a penalty lower
than death, his plea was
unconditional. – People v. Sabilul [89 Phil.
283]; People v. Comendador [G.R. No. L-
38000. September 19, 1980])
“NOTE: Where the accused pleaded guilty but
asked that he be allowed to prove mitigating
circumstances, his plea is still unconditional
and mitigating as he did not thereby deny his
guilt but only questioned the failure to
appreciate the attendant circumstances. The
same rule applies where the accused pleaded
guilty but questioned the
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
circumstance which the prosecution could not
prove when required by the court, since by
such action the accused did not deny his guilt
and, furthermore, his position was justified.” –
People v. Yturriaga (86 Phil. 534); People v.
the police
Ong (G.R. No. L-34497. January 30. 1975)
could be
“NOTE: At arraignment, the accused, with the
consent of the offended party and the
prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to
plead guilty to a lesser offense which
necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused
may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser
offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty.
No amendment of the complaint or information is
necessary.” – Section 2, Rule 116, Rules of
Court.
“NOTE: The fact of death of the victim for
which the accused Rodrigo Umpad was
criminally liable, cannot by simple logic and
deemed plain common sense be reconciled with the
plea of guilty to the lower offense of attempted
homicide. The crime of homicide as defined in
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code
necessarily produces death; attempted
homicide does not. Concededly, hiatus in the
law exists in the case before us, which could
either lead to a misapprehension of Section 2
of Rule 116 or to outright confusion.” –
Amatan v. Aujerio (A.M. No. RTJ-93-956.
September 27, 1995)
aggravating
32 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

“That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, prescribed by law for the felony
or otherwise suffering some physical charged.
defect which thus restricts his means of
Basis: Greater criminal perversity of the
action, defense, or communication with his
offender as shown by the means employed,
fellow beings.”
the time and place of occasion of the
 Self-Explanatory… commission of the felony, the material
execution of the act, or the moral attributes,
“Such illness of the offender as would
private relations or other personal cause.
diminish the exercise of will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of “NOTE: The term (Aggravating Circumstance)
consciousness of his acts.” is strictly construed, not only because what is
involved is a criminal statute, but also its
 Self-Explanatory… implication could result in the imposition of
death penalty.”
“Any other circumstance of a similar
nature and analogous to those above.” “NOTE: Unlike mitigating circumstances, the
enumeration of aggravating circumstance
 Self-Explanatory… di lalabas sa exam
under Article 14 does not include
yan. ☺
circumstances “similar” in nature or

ARTICLE 14 “analogous” to those mentioned therein.”

Aggravating Circumstances: Circumstances 5 Kinds of Aggravating Circumstance:

which, if present in the commission of the

a. Generic- generally applies to all
felony and not offset by any ordinary
crimes.
mitigating circumstances:
b. Specific- Those that apply only to

1.) Increases the Penalty to be imposed particular crimes.

upon the accused to its maximum c. Qualifying- Those that change the

period without however, exceeding the nature of the crime.

penalty prescribed by law for the d. Inherent- Those that already form part

felony committed. of the commission of the felony and do

2.) Changes the nature of the felony to a not have the effect of increasing the

more serious one and makes the penalty.

accused liable for the penalty e. Special- Those arise under special
conditions which increases the penalty
33 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

to the maximum period without must not only state the qualifying but also the
however exceeding the penalty aggravating circumstances. This rule may be
prescribed by law. given retroactive effect in the light of the
established rule that statutes regulating the

Generic Special procedure of courts will be construed as

 Generally applies to  Those which arise applicable to actions pending and

all crimes such as under special undetermined at the time of their passage.”
those mention in conditions
Article 14 of the RPC. “NOTE: Although the aggravating
(special laws)
circumstances in question cannot be
 Must be alleged and  same
charged in the
appreciated for the purpose of fixing a heavier
information, and must penalty, they should, however, be considered
be proven during trial as a basis for the award of exemplary
in order to be damages.”
appreciated
 CAN be offset by  CANNOT be “That advantage be taken by the offender
ordinary mitigating offset by ordinary of his public position”
circumstances mitigating
circumstances Requisites:
 It can change the  It does not change
nature of the felony the nature of the 1.) He must be a public official.
felony 2.) He must also use the influence,
prestige or ascendancy which such
office gives him as a means by which
he realized his purpose.
Generic Qualifying
 Increases the  Changes the nature Exceptions:
penalty to the of the offense.
maximum period. 1.) If the crime committed is through
 May be offset by  Cannot be offset by negligence or carelessness.
ordinary mitigating ordinary mitigating 2.) That the offender did not necessarily
circumstances. circumstances.
make use of his prestige of his office
to commit a crime.
3.) When the aggravating circumstance
“NOTE: Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules was not expressly alleged in the
of Procedure, every complaint or information complaint or information.

34 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

4.) Lack of Evidence. 1.) Public authority is engaged in the

5.) Such Aggravating Circumstance is exercise of his functions.
inherent in the crime. 2.) Public authority must not be the
6.) Sufficient Provocation immediately person whom the crime is committed.
preceded the crime. 3.) Offender knows him to be a public
7.) Acted other than in his official authority
capacity. 4.) His presence has not prevented the
8.) Could have perpetrated the crime offender from committing the crime.
even without occupying his position.
See. Voluntary surrender and voluntary
“NOTE: The mere fact that appellant Mario is confession of guilt for definition of Public
a member of the Police force certainly did not Authorities.
justify that the aggravating circumstance of
This aggravating circumstance is not
advantage being taken by the offender of his
applicable to:
public position be considered as present. He
acted like abrother, instinctively reacting to
1.) Those in the presence of a mere
what was undoubtly a vicious assault on his
agent of a person in authority
kin that could cause the death of a loved one.”
2.) When the offended party is the person
– People v. Capalac (G.R. No. L- 38297.
in authority.
October 28, 1982)
a. Otherwise, it would constitute
as Direct Assault punishable
“NOTE: The trial court properly appreciated
under Art. 148 of the RPC.
taking advantage of public position as an
Aggravating Circumstance because Appellant,
“NOTE: The aggravating circumstance…
a member of the Philippine Constabulary,
cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Galera
committed the crime with an armalite which
and PC Constable Canela were the very ones
was issued to him when he received the
against whom the crime was committed.
mission order. – People v. Gapasin (G.R. No.
Besides, Pat. Galera and PC Constable
73489. April 25, 1994)
Canela are not persons in authority, but
merely agents of persons in authority. –
“That the crime be committed in contempt
People v. Tiongson (G.R. No. L- 35123-24.
of or with insult to public authorities”
July 25, 1984)
Requisites:
“NOTE: In the instant case, Fiscal Dilig, the
Public authority involved in the crime, was the
35 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

victim. Hence, the lower court erred in Rank: High social position or standing,
including the commission of the crime with relative position in civil, military, political, or
insult to public authority as an aggravating social life.
circumstance.” – People v. Magdueño (G.R.
Age: Old or Tender Age.
No. 68699. September 22, 1986)

Sex: Gender (except: a. Passion or

“That the act be committed with insult or in
Obfuscation; b. Relationship between the
disregard of the respect due the offended
offended party and the offender.)
party on account of his rank, age, or sex,
or that it be committed in the dwelling of
“NOTE: In the case at bar, the circumstances
the offended party, if the latter has not
of old age cannot be considered as
given provocation.”
aggravating. There was no evidence that the
accused deliberately intended to offend or
Requisite: There must be evidence that in the
insult the age of the victim.” – People v. Diaz
commission of the crime, the accused
(G.R. No. 24002. January 21, 1974)
deliberately intended to offend or insult the
sex, rank, or age of the offended party.
Dwelling:

1.) The place of abode, where the

“NOTE: Apply only to crimes against persons
or honor.”
“NOTE: Whenever there is a difference in
social condition between the offender and the
offended party, this aggravating circumstance
is sometimes present.
“NOTE: May these four
circumstances be considered separately if
they concur on the same case? It depends – If
their elements are (so) distinctly perceived
and can subsist independently, revealing a
greater degree of perversity.
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
offended party resides and which
satisfies the requirements of his/ her
domestic life (Amurao)
2.) A building or structure exclusively
used for rest and comfort. (Reyes)
“NOTE: A combination of a house and store,
or a market stall where the victim slept is not a
aggravating dwelling.”
Rationale:
1.) The law accords sanctity of privacy to
human abode.
2.) One’s dwelling place is a “sanctuary
worthy of respect” and the one who
slanders another ion the latter’s house
36 | P a g e
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

is more guilty than he who offends to protect and uphold.” – People v. Daniel
him/her elsewhere. (G.R. No. 40330. November 20, 1978)

Requisites: “That the crime be committed with abuse

of confidence or obvious ungratefulness”
1.) Crime must be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party. Basis:
2.) No sufficient provocation on the part of
1.) Abuse of Confidence: Greater
the offended party.
criminal perversity of the accused who
3.) There must be specific evidence.
takes advantage of the trust and
“NOTE: Generally, dwelling is considered confidence reposed upon him by the
inherent in the crimes which can only be offended party in order to facilitate the
committed in the abode of the victim, such as commission of the crime.
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an 2.) Obvious Ungratefulness: Greater
inhabited place. However, in robbery with criminal perversity of the offender,
Homicide, the authors thereof can commit the who instead of being grateful to the
heinous crime without transgressing the offended party’s kindness, favor and
sanctity of the victim’s domicile. In the case at assistance, commits the crime against
bar, the robbers demonstrated an imprudent him.
disregard of the inviolability of the victim’s
Nature:
abode when they forced their way in, looted
their house, intimidated and coerced their
1.) Abuse of Confidence: Generic
dragging them out of the house to be killed.” –
Aggravating Circumstance. This also
People v. Arizobal (G.R. No. 135051-52.
takes the form of qualifying
December 14, 2000)
aggravating circumstance in the
crimes of qualified theft (Article 310)
“NOTE: Although Margarita was merely
and qualified seduction (Article 337).
renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her
2.) Obvious Ungratefulness: Generic
room constituted for all intents and purposes a
Aggravating Circumstance.
“dwelling” as a term used in Art. 14(3). It is not
necessarily under the law that the victim owns
Requisites (Abuse of Confidence):
the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a
lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is 1.) The offended party trusted the
his home the sanctity of which the law seeks offender.

37 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

2.) The offender abused such trust by Nighttime:

committing the crime against the
Definition:
offended party.
3.) The abuse of confidence facilitated the
1.) Period of darkness beginning at the
commission of the crime, the culprit
end of dusk and ending at dawn.
taking advantage of the offended
2.) Sunset to Sunrise (NCC)
party’s belief that the former would not
abuse such confidence. “NOTE: 6:00 P.M. is twilight. No darkness”

“The crime is committed in the palace of Rationale:

Chief Executive, in his presence, where
1.) Prevent discovery of the crime
public authorities are engaged in the
2.) Evade the culprit’s nature.
discharge of their duties, or place
dedicated to religious worship”
Two Test in determining Nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance:
Self-Explanatory… di lalabas sa finals yan! ☺

1.) Objective Test: Darkness facilitated

“That the crime be committed in the
the commission of the crime.
nighttime or uninhabited place, or by a
2.) Subjective Test: Darkness was
band, whenever such circumstances may
purposely sought by the offender.
facilitate the commission of the offense”
“NOTE: The criminal assault on the victim at
Requisites:
3:30 A.M. was invited by nocturnal cover,

1.) It facilitated the commission of the which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses

crime. and encouraged impunity by persuading the

2.) It is especially sought by the accused malefactors that it would be difficult to

to ensure the commission of the determine their scarcity of the people in the
crime. streets. These circumstances combine to pass

3.) Offender took advantage of such for the objective test because it facilitated the

purposes of impunity. commission of the offense.” – People v.

Garcia (G.R. No. L- 30449. October 31, 1979)
“NOTE: It must appear that the offender took
advantage of such circumstance for the more “NOTE: Although the offense was committed

successful consummation of his plans.” at night, nocturnity does not become a

modifying factor when the place is adequately

38 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

lighted and thus, could no longer insure the
offender’s immunity from identification or
capture… The crime scene was sufficiently
lighted by a “Petromax” which led to the
identification of all the acussed.” – People v.
Rodas (G.R. No. 175881. August 28, 2007)
“NOTE: The mere fact that there are more
than three armed men at the scene of the
crime does not prove the existence of a band,
if only one of them committed the crime while
the others were not aware of the commission
of the crime.”

Uninhabited Place: “NOTE: All the armed men, at least four in

number, must take direct part in the execution
Definition: One where there are no houses at
of the act constituting a crime. If one of the
all, a place of considerable distance from town
four armed persons is a principal by
or where the houses are scattered at a great
inducement, they do not form a band.”
distance.
“That the crime be committed on occasion
“NOTE: The offenders must choose the place
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
as an aid either: 1.) to an easy and
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune”
uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal
designs, or 2.) to insure concealment of the Basis: The debased form of criminality on the
offense, that he might thereby be better part of the offender, who, in the midst of great
secured against detection and punishment.” calamity instead of lending aid to the afflicted,
adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
“NOTE: The uninhibitedness of a place is
their misfortune to despoil them.
determined not by the distance of the nearest
house to the scene of the crime, but whether
or not in the place of commission, there was
“That the crime be committed in aid of
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
armed men or persons who insure or
some help.” – People v. Damaso (G.R. No. L-
afford impunity”
30116. November 20, 1978)

Band: Band Aid of Armed Men

 At least four (4)  At least two (2)
Definition: group of more than three armed
armed persons. armed persons.
malefactors shall have acted in the
commission of the offense.  Generic Aggravating  Qualifying
Circumstance. Aggravating

Nature: Generic Aggravating Circumstance Circumstance.

39 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

 At least four (4) armed
persons should have
acted together.
“That the accused is a Recidivist”
 Psychological reliance Quasi Recidivist: A person who shall commit a
of armed men is felony after having been convicted by final
sufficient.
judgement, before beginning to serve such
sentence or while serving such sentence.

Recidivist: Recidivism Quasi-Recidivism

 While under trial for  Before or while
Definition: One who at the time of his trial for
another felony serving his sentence.
one crime, shall have been previously
 Generic  Special
convicted by final judgement of another crime.  Can be Offset  Cannot be Offset
 Crime must be  Not necessarily
“At the trial”: Everything that is done in the
embraced in the embraced in the
course of the trial, from arraignment, until after same title in the RPC same title in the RPC
the sentence is announced by the judge in
open court. “That the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which the law
Conviction upon Final Judgement: attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
two or more crimes to which it attaches a
1.) After the lapse of the period for
lighter penalty”
perfecting the appeal/ motion for
reconsideration or no filing of appeal. Reiteracion: see above ☺
2.) Sentence has been totally or partially
served or satisfied. “NOTE: No Reiteracion exists if the penalty for
3.) Waiver of right to appeal. the previous conviction is lower than the
4.) Application for Probation. present.”

“NOTE: (…) a record of a case still pending on

Recidivism Reiteracion
appeal is incompetent to show that the
 Must embraced  Not necessarily
defendant therein is convicted by final
same title in the RPC embraced in the
judgement.”
same title in the RPC
 Final Judgement is  Final Conviction is
“NOTE: The crime for which the accused was
enough not enough; there is
convicted by final judgement and the crime for already complete
which the accused is subsequently under trial serving of sentence
must be embraced by the RPC.  Two or more  One previous final
previous convictions conviction

40 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

“That the crime be committed in human being without reasonable motive is

consideration of price, reward, or promise”
“That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison,
stranding of a vessel
damage thereto, derailment
locomotive, or by the use of any artifice
involving great waste and ruin”
“That the act be committed with evident
premeditation”
Evident Premeditation: The execution of the
act was preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgement.
always punishable with the more or less grave
penalty according to the nature of the
concurrent circumstances.” – U.S. v.
explosion,
Manalinde (G.R. No. L- 5292. August 28,
or intentional
1909)
of a
“NOTE: Evident Premeditation cannot likewise
be considered when there is nothing to show
that such killing was the result of meditation,
calculation or resolution on his part. On the
contrary, the evidence tends to show that the
series of circumstances which culminated in
the killing constitutes an unbroken chain of
events with no interval of time separating
them for calculation and meditation.” – People
v. Ilaoa (G.R. No. 94308. June 16, 1994)

“NOTE: Fully aware that the appellant and his

“NOTE: Even though in a crime committed
companions were armed with guns and
upon offer of money, reward, or promise,
“tusok”, it was but natural for Rogelio Robles
premeditation is sometimes present, the latter
(Witness) to just observe the protagonists and
not being inherent in the former, and there
not get involved. Feared for his own life and
existing no incompatibility between the two,
that of his own family may have overcome
premeditation cannot necessarily be
whatever humanitarian inclination, he had as
considered as included merely because of
a concerned citizen. Besides, even without the
money, reward, or promise was made, for the
testimony of Rogelio Robles, the presence of
latter might have existed without the former,
the evident premeditation appears to have
the one being independent of the other.” –
been thoroughly and sufficiently established.”
U.S. v. Manalinde (G.R. No. L- 5292. August
– People v. Bibat (G.R. No. 124319. May 13,
28, 1909)
1998)
“The fact that the victim was not
“That craft, fraud, and disguise be
predetermined does not alter the nature,
employed”
conditions and circumstances of the crime, for
the reason that to cause the violent death of a
41 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

Craft: cunning and trickery. It is chicanery “NOTE: For the aggravating circumstance of
resorted to by the accused to aid the superior strength to be deemed present in a
execution of his criminal design. It is case, it does not suffice to prove superiority in
employed as a scheme in the execution of the number on the part of the malefactors; it must
crime. appear that they purposely employed
excessive force, force out of proportion to the
Fraud: deceit. It is manifested by insidious
means of defense available to the person
words and machinations.
attacked. In this case, the evidence shows
that Empacis helped his co-accused by also
Disguise: One uses some device to prevent
stabbing the victim; he and his companion
recognition.
took advantage of their combined strength
“That advantage be taken of superior and their bladed weapons to overcome their
strength, or means be employed to weaken unarmed their unarmed victim and assure the
the defense” success of their felonies design to make of
with his money.” – People v. Empacis (G.R.
Basis: Greater Criminal Perversity on the part
No. 95756. May 14, 1993)
of the accused who deliberately uses his
superior strength in order to be assured of the
commission of the crime.
“That the crime was committed with
treachery (alevosia)”
Band Abuse of Superior
Strength
Treachery: When the offender commits any of
 The offense is  The offense is
the crimes against the person, employing
committed by more committed by the
than three (3) armed culprits taking means, methods, or forms in the execution
malefactors regardless advantage of their thereof which tend directly and specifically to
of the comparative collective strength to
insure its execution, without risk to himself
strength of the victim or overpower their relative
victims. weaker victim or arising from the defense which the offended
victims. party might make.
 The indispensable  What is taken into
components of cuadrilla account is neither the Nature:
are (A) at least four number of aggressors
malefactors and (B) all nor the fact that they
1.) Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
of the four malefactors are armed, but their
are armed. relative physical might – It elevates the killing of the person
vis-à-vis the offended from Homicide to Murder.
party.

42 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

2.) Specific Aggravating Circumstance – “That the means be employed or

It only applies to crimes against circumstances brought about which add
persons. ignominy to the natural effects of the act.”
3.) Generic Aggravating Circumstance –
Basis: Adds disgrace and obloquy to the
In Robbery with Homicide when the
material injury caused by the crime.
victim was killed with treachery.

Nature: Specific Aggravating Circumstance –

“NOTE: Treachery is never presumed. It is
Crimes against Chastity.
required that the manner of attack must be
shown to have been attended by treachery as
‘NOTE: There is no ignominy if the victim was
conclusively as the crime itself… It must be
already dead when the ignominious act was
proved by clear and convincing evidence.”
committed.”

“NOTE: Even if the victim is forewarned,

“Which add ignominy to the natural effects of
treachery can still exist.”
the act.” – Means employed or the
circumstances brought about must tend to
“NOTE: Mode of attack must be thought of by
make the effects of the crime more humiliating
the offender, and must not spring from the
or to put the offended party to shame.
unexpected turn of events.”

“NOTE: Rape committed on the occasion of

Cases where Treachery cannot be
Robbery with Homicide increases the moral
appreciated because the attack was sudden
evil of the crime. (…) Rapes, wanton robbery
and unexpected, if:
for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties
1.) Attack was done impulsively. are condemned and their perpetration will be
2.) Decision was made all of a sudden regarded as aggravating circumstances of
and the victim’s helpless position was ignominy and of deliberately augmenting
accidental. unnecessary wrongs to the main criminal
3.) Chance encounter between the objective.”
accused and victim.
“That the crime be committed after an
“NOTE: When the attack is continuous and unlawful entry”
interrupted, treachery, to be aggravating, must
Unlawful Entry: when an entrance is effected
be present at the inception or commencement
by a way not intended for the purpose.
of the attack.”

Nature:
43 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

1.) Generic Aggravating Circumstance “That the crime be committed with the aid
2.) Inherent Aggravating Circumstance – of persons under fifteen years old, or by
Robbery with Force Upon Things. means of motor vehicle, motorized
watercraft, airships, or other similar
“NOTE: Unlawful Entry must be a means to
means”
effect entrance and not to escape.”
“That the wrong done in the commission
of the crime be deliberately augmented by

Unlawful Entry Trespass into causing other wrong not necessary for its

Dwelling commission.

 Entering the dwelling  Entering the dwelling

“Organized or Syndicate Crime Group”
through an opening of another against
not intended for the the latter’s will and
Definition: A group of two or more persons
purpose. may be committed
collaborating, confederating, or mutually
by means of
violence. helping one another for the purposes of gain
in the commission of any crime.
“That as a means to the commission of the
crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window Nature: Special Aggravating Circumstance.
be broken”
“Use of Illegal Firearms and Explosives –
Nature: Generic Aggravating Circumstance. P.D. No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No.
9294”
Unlawful Entry B.W.R.F.D.W
 Entrance into a  Broken Wall, Rook, - Uhmmm no…. kayo na bahala diyan.
building is made by a Floor, Door, Window Hahahahahaha! ☺
way not for the is used.
purpose of entry.

“Cruelty” ARTICLE 16-20

Cruelty Ignominy
Persons Affecting Criminal Liability:
 Physical Suffering  Moral Suffering
 Qualifying  Generic 1.) Principals
a. Inducement
“NOTE: Culprit enjoys and delights in the b. Indispensable Cooperation
Physical Suffering of the victim.” c. Direct Participation

44 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

2.) Accomplices conspirators by being present at the scene of

3.) Accessories the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy
over the rest of the conspirators as to move
In light Felonies:
them to executing the conspiracy.”

1.) Principals
“NOTE: Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or
2.) Accomplices
approval of the act without cooperation is not
enough to constitute one party to a
PRINCIPALS
conspiracy, but there must be intentional
Principals by Direct Participation: participation in the transaction with a view to
the furtherance of the common design and
See. Conspiracy (Art. 8)
purpose.

“NOTE: Conspiracy may be implied from the

acts committed or from the words, remarks, or
“NOTE: The fact of agreement must be
language uttered by the accused before
nevertheless be convincingly shown. It is
during or after. The commission of the crime
essential that there must be unity of purpose
(…) must show closeness coordination and
and unity in the execution of the unlawful
personal association with one another so as to
objective.
point to a concerted action, common criminal
“NOTE: Conspirators are liable as co- design, community of criminal purpose and
principals regardless of the manner and extent joint criminal objective.
of their participation since in point of law, the
Principal by Direct Force or Inducement
act of one is the act of all.”

: One who conceives the perpetration of a

“NOTE: A conspirator, no matter how minimal
crime calls a meeting of his co-defendants to
his participation in the crime is as guilty as the
deliberate concerning its execution,
principal perpetrator.”
persuades them to carry the purpose into
“NOTE: In order to hold an accused guilty as effect and is present at the time of its
co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must consummation.
be established that he performed an overt act
Inducement: determined by the influence of
in the furtherance of the conspiracy, either by
the inducer over the mind of him who commits
actively in the commission of the crime, or by
the act whatever the cause of such influence.
lending moral assistance to his co-

45 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

Requisites: Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

1. Inducement should precede the : Direct Participation

commission of the crime.
: Committing another act without which the
2. Inducement should be direct and
crime would not have been accomplished.
determining cause of the crime.
3. Inducement was offered with the
ACCOMPLICES
intention of producing the result
thereof. : An accomplice is one who knows the
criminal design of the principal and
Direct Force:
cooperates knowingly or intentionally
therewith by an act, which, even of not
1. Irresistible Force.
rendered, the crime would be completed just
2. Uncontrollable Fear.
the same.
Direct Inducement:
Elements:
1. Price, Reward, Offering, or Promise.
a. Community of criminal design, that is,
2. Words of Command.
knowing the criminal design of the
“Collective Criminal Responsibility” principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose.
: Where one giving the price and the one
b. The performance of previous or
committing the crime thereof are principals –
simultaneous acts which are not
the former, by inducement, and the latter, by
indispensable to the commission of
direct participation.
the crime.

“NOTE: Acts of Inducement do not consist in

simple advice or counsel given before the act
is committed, or in simple words uttered at the
time the act was committed. (…) It is
necessary that such advice or such words
have great dominance and great influence
over the person who acts.”
“NOTE: Performing over acts, which by
themselves are acts of the execution, make
one a principal by direct participation and not
a mere accomplice.”
“NOTE: A lookout is considered as a principal
when he is part of the conspiracy and he
participated in the resolution to commit a
crime; otherwise, he is a accomplice.

46 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

‘NOTE: The responsibility of the accomplice is “NOTE: In a complex crime, although two or
to be determined by acts of aid and more crimes are actually committed, they
assistance, either prior to or simultaneous with constitute only one crime in the eyes of the
the commission of the crime, rendered law as well as the consequence of the
knowingly for the principal therein, and not by offender. The offender has only one criminal
the mere fact of having been present at its intent.”
execution, unless the object of such presence
“Kinds of Complex Crimes”
was to encourage the delinquent or to
apparently or really increase the odds against
1.) Compound Crime: A single act
the victims.
constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies.
Conspirator Accomplice 2.) Complex Crime Proper: An offense
 Takes part in the  Agree to cooperate in is a necessary means for committing
criminal intention or the execution of the
the other.
design criminal intention or
design
Continuing Crime: A single crime consisting
 They decide that a  They merely concur in
crime should be it. of a series of acts but all arising from one
committed criminal resolution.
 Authors of the crime  Mere instruments of the
crime
Special Complex Crime: The law effectively
treats the offense as an individual felony in
itself and then prescribes a specific penalty
ACCESSORIES therefore.

See. Article 19 and 20. “NOTE: In a complex crime, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
Self-Explanatory…
same to be applied in its maximum period.”

“NOTE: When the acts are wholly different,

not only those in themselves, but also
ARTICLE 48
because they are directed against two
Complex Crimes: When a single act different persons by different acts, the
constitutes two or more grave or less grave different acts must be considered as distinct
felonies or when an offense is necessary crimes.”
means for committing another offense.

47 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota
San Beda College of Law: Criminal Law 01 Personal Notes
Based from the Book of Atty. Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Justice Luis B. Reyes, and Personal Notes.

“NOTE: Where a conspiracy animates several
persons with a single purpose, their individual
acts done in pursuance of that purpose are
looked upon as a single act, the act of
execution giving rise to a single complex
crime.”
“NOTE: Rebellion cannot be complexed with
other crimes, such as murder and arson.
Rebellion in itself would include and absorb
the said crimes… Murder and arson are
crimes inherent and concomitant
Rebellion taking place. People v. Hernandez
(99 Phil. 515)
“NOTE: Homicide may precede the robbery or
may occur after the robbery. What
imperative and essential for a conviction for
the crime of Robbery with Homicide is for the
prosecution to establish the offender’s intent
to take personal property before the killing,
regardless of the time when the homicide is
actually carried out.” – People v. Judy
Sanchez (G.R. No. 120655. October 14,
1998)
Sanchez (G.R. No. 120655. October 14,
1998)
“NOTE: Once convicted or acquitted of a
specific act of reckless imprudence, the
accused may not be prosecuted again for the
same act (…) the gravity of the consequences
is only taken into account to determine the
penalty, it does not qualify the substance of
the offense. And, as the careless act is single,
whether injurious result should affect one
with person or several persons, the offense
(criminal negligence) remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into different crimes
and prosecution.” – Ivler v. San Pedro (G.R.
No. 172716. November 17, 2010)
is
-END-
Good Luck on your Finals! ☺

“NOTE: In this case where the circumstantial

evidence satisfactorily establishes that
appellant did kill and unlawfully take the
personal property of the victim, but the original
design to commit robbery was not duly
proven, accused-appellant should be held
liable for the separate crimes of homicide and
theft, and not for the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide. – People v. Judy

48 | P a g e
By: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota