ARTICLE 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES.

OBEDIENCE OF A LAWFUL ORDER

Requisites
a. An order issued by a superior;
b. Such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
c. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

TICMAN: I am ordering you to kill him. PO looked for C and killed him. PO alleged that he merely acted
through an order. HELD: NOT EXEMPTED. While order's purpose would appear to be lawful (to prevent
drug pushing), but the means is not lawful.

Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan

General Manager of MIAA. His Office received a memorandum. Ordered to withdraw 55M from depository
bank of the MIAA (PNB). Purpose is to pay the obligations of MIAA with PNCC. Also, there is a directive,
deliver the same to Malacanang. He withdrew. After, the P55M cash was delivered to Malacanang. Charged
for malversation of funds (intentional/through negligence). SB convicted for malversation through
negligence. Tabuena invoked GF and par. 5, Art. 11. HELD: ACQUITTED. He is in GF. Cannot blame
Tabuena in believing that the order of President is lawful. Justified, having obeyed the order of the superior.
(1) There was an order of a superior (by the President); (2) Issued for lawful purpose because in the
memorandum, money is to be used to pay obligation of MIAA to PNCC.

TICMAN: Must have been convicted. GF should not be considered. Malversation through negligence – lack
of criminal intent, absence of malice and good faith are not valid defenses. Not obedience to lawful order
because he knew that the obligation is only P34M, not P55M.

FULFILLMENT OF LAWFUL DUTY

Requisites
a. Accused acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office;
b. The injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

N.B. Even private individuals may be held liable therefor.

TICMAN: Mr. A is a police officer assigned in UN Ave. While on duty, received an information from tipster:
“There is a hostage taking incident in Luneta, inside the bus near Rizal monument. 23 hostages, HK
nationals.” He positioned 30m away from the bus. He could see the inside of the bus. He brought a bazooka
and fired a shot. Hostage taker died. Charged with crime of murder by means of explosion. Merely fulfilling
his duty? HELD: PRIVILEGED MITIGATING. No due fulfillment duty when he immediately fired.

READ Yapyuco and Baxinela.

 ARTICLE 12. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

RATIO: Completely deprived of intelligence, freedom of action or intent.

INSANITY, UNLESS ACTED DURING LUCID INTERVAL

Insanity may be acquired (ex. Schizophrenia).

TICMAN: Husband and wife A and B sleeping together. A dreamed of Jurassic Park. Thought wife is a T-
rex, killed her. A may prove his insanity.

IMBECILITY
Imbecility – likened to a child 2-7 years old. TICMAN: Must be below 7 y.o.

MINORITY
How will it affect criminal liability? Depends. If child in conflict of law is 15 years of age or below, absolutely
exempted. If child over 15 but under 18, if not acted with discernment, exempt. Otherwise, at most that
would be considered as privileged mitigating circumstance.

TICMAN: If today is 15th birthday and child raped someone with discernment, exempted. But if tomorrow,
guilty but considered as privileged mitigating. Meanwhile, if today is my 18 th birthday, not anymore minor.
Full responsibility.

N.B. Sec. 58 of RA 9344 – there are certain crimes where children in conflict with the law are ABSOLUTELY
EXEMPT: prostitution, sniffing rugby and mendicancy.

ACCIDENT
May be unforeseeable. Even if foreseeable, must be unavoidable and inevitable.

Requisites:
a. Performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. Causes an injury by mere accident; and
d. No fault on his part to cause injury.

TICMAN: Mr. A, early morning, was driving on Espana Ave. He decided to drive at 20-30 km/hr. He removed
his seatbelt. Old lady suddenly emerged in front of his car. He failed to apply the brakes. Old lady died.
Charged of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. Accident? HELD: NOT EXEMPT. 1st requisite not
present. He is not performing lawful act because no seatbelt.

DURESS, UNCONTROLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY

Must have been forced to commit a crime by another through violence/intimidation.
Must not have the ability to defend himself to the threatened wrong.

If the threatened wrong is remote or speculative.

TICMAN: President called PO1 to Malacanang. President said “PO, Mr. C is a drug lord. I want you to kill
him.” PO1: “I can’t.” President: “No. Kill him, or else, I will have you your wife and children killed tomorrow
by noon time.” He killed Mr. C. Can PO1 successfully invoke having acted under impulse of uncontrollable
fear of an equal or greater injury? HELD: NO. First, he has the opportunity to escape. More importantly,
was the threatened wrong speculative? Fanciful? Remote? It’s up to you.

People vs. Lising

MC and L were abducted. Brought to Pampanga and killed. The suspects were arrested including
mastermind. Charged 2 counts of kidnapping with murder. One of the accused argued he merely acted
under impulse of uncontrollable fear because a week before the incident, the group advised him of the plan
to kidnap 2 persons. And that he was asked to tag along. He doesn’t want to. If he doesn’t, he will bbe
killed. Before the group left, he was given a gun. A week after, the crime was committed. HELD:
CONVICTED. Argument is puerile. He must not have the ability to defend himself or escaped. One week is
too long for him not to have escaped or reported the plan.

People vs. Siao

Houseboy housemate. At gun point, ordered to have sex.

PREVENTED BY INSUPERABLE CAUSE

Even private individuals may invoked.

Parish priest heard confession. B told him a secret. A-Z are conspiring to commit treason. Sakristan heard,
went to DOJ to report the same (misprision of treason). Can father be convicted? HELD: NO. Because he
may invoke last par. of Art. 12. Priest-confessant privilege. Cannot reveal such fact.

TICMAN: A is a PO assigned in Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte. He saw Mr. B stab C. May arrest without warrant?
Yes. “Mr. B, I am placing you under arrest.” B started running. PO chased B. After 2 weeks, PO was able
to arrest B. Typhoon Signal No. 17 and Earthquake Intensity 13. No travel After one week, case was filed.
PO was charged under RPC 125 (delay in the delivery, 36 hours for homicide). HELD: PREVENTED BY
INSUPERABLE CAUSE.

TICMAN: Flashed dirty finger. Light felony. Must be delivered within 12 hours. Happened 7AM, Sunday.
Released beyond 12 hours. In case B files under RPC 125, will it prosper? HELD: NO. While PO has 12
hours, he was prevented by insuperable cause that is the closure of the courts.

MIDTERM EXAM QUETSION ALERT!!! ENTRAPMENT VS. INSTIGATION

 ARTICLE 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

GENERIC/ORDINARY vs. PRIVILEGED.

Generic – they are susceptible of offset by generic aggravating
Privileged – not susceptible of offset by generic or qualifying

If generic attends
Minority – at least 2 degrees
But able to prove 2 or more generic mitigating – it is as if he proved a privileged mitigatin. Thus reduction
of penalty by 1 degree.

SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

 Not found under RPC 13, found in other
 Not susceptible to offset by any aggravating
 If a special mitigating is appreciated, he may be sentenced to suffer penalty as may be prescribed
by law.
 RPC 256 (Infanticide, if offender is mother or maternal grandparents) and 258 (Intentional abortion
caused by pregnant woman) – they have common special mitigating. For concealment of dishonor.

Adultery is a private crime. Spouses husband A and wife B. After 5 years, A left B. After a year, B has sex
with neighbor for 3 years. A returned. A filed adultery case against wife B. What can wife B invoke? HELD:
SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. Abandonment.

N.B. Bigamy is a public crime.

Minority is privileged mitigating.

INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Par. 1 – generic or privileged.

When generic or privileged? If the offender is able to prove a majority of the requisites, such is a privileged
mitigating. Otherwise, generic mitigating. If has only 2 requisites, establishing one will entitled accused to
privileged mitigating, and so on.

Incomplete self-defense
 Privileged mitigating if was able to prove unlawful aggression and either of the remaining requisites.
 If only unlawful aggression is proven – generic mitigating.

NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

NOTE DI MO NAHABOL

PROVOCATION OR THREAT

Requisites
a. The provocation/threat must be sufficient;
b. It must originate from offended party; and
c. The provocation/threat immediately preceded the act (i.e. the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked).

VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

Need not be immediate.

PASSION OBFUSCATION
Same. But cause of passion/obfuscation must be immediate to the commission of the crime.

Requsiites
 a. There is an act, both unlawful AND sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and
b. Said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by
a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity

TICMAN: A and B are sweethearts, NOT spouses. A saw B with Mr. C kissing. Mr. A approached both and
hacked both to death. Prosecuted for homicide. May passion/obfuscation appreciated? HELD: NO. Act of
Mr. A witness could have produced passion or obfuscation, but the act of kissing is NOT unlawful (unless
they are spouses).

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT

CONFESSION OF GUILT
a. The offender spontaneously (voluntary; not conditional) confessed his guilt;
b. The confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the
case;
c. The confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution; and
d. The confession is to the offense charged in the information, not to a different offense.

N.B. NOT applicable during custodial investigation or preliminary investigation. If there is change of plea in
plea bargaining (saying he is guilty), still applicable because prosecution has not yet presented evidence.

TICMAN: “Madam Witness….” Accused: “I am pleading guilty.” HELD: NO APPRECIATION OF

MITIGATING CIRCUMSANCES. Already presented evidence.

TICMAN: Not guilty plea. While prosecution witness is testifying. Accused change plea while on trial. In
order to prevent wagering.

TICMAN: Inverted trial. Defense presented. Accused then said he is guilty. HELD: Entitled to mitigating.
Because prosecution has yet to start presenting evidence.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
a. Offender had NOT been actually arrested;
b. The offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent.
c. The surrender was voluntary.
a. N.B. Voluntary if it acknowledged guilt OR intention of saving the government to of
expenses necessary for his capture.
d. There is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed (People vs. Taraya)
a. XPT: De Vera: case to case basis.

TICMAN: A is PO. Saw B stab C. A said I am arresting you. B said okay. HELD: NO VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER. Because he has already been actually arrested.

People vs. Taraya

De Vera vs. De Vera

Spouses De Vera. Falling out. MR met a woman and got married. MRS filed bigamy case before
prosecutor’s office for PI. Prosecutor found probable cause. Information prepared. Records of the case plus
information was filed with COC of RTC. Around 10 AM, records was sent to the office of the Presiding
Judge. Judge then issued order issuance of warrant. In the afternoon, 2PM, De Vera having learned of the
information, posted bail. At arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the crime charged, in mind that if he would
have 2 mitigating (surrender and confession of guilt). Convicted then applied for probation. Now, MRS
assailed ruling of TC appreciating of voluntary surrender because he surrender only after information is
filed following Taraya case. HELD: NO. CASE TO CASES BASIS. That element should not be appreciated
since MR. DE VERA, only after a few hours of filing, had yielded to the court.

MIDTERM Q ALERT!!! DE VERA MODIFIED.

N.B. THREATS, PROVOCATION, PASSION AND OBFUSCATION, VINDICATION, ILLNESS. All are
similar in character. The rule is they may not be appreciated simultaneously at the same time. Exception:
If the circumstances if based on different set of facts.

People vs. Diokno

Diokno had a 14 year old daughter who eloped with a china man. Diokno saw them, ran towards them.
China man fled. Diokno killed him. Convicted. HELD: PASSION/OBFUSCATION AND VINDICATION.
Appreciated because based on different set of facts. Vindication – grave offense is being committed upon
elopement. Passion – based on the fact the Chinaman instead of asking for forgiveness, had fled.

People vs. Genosa

Marivic Genosa married to Ben. Every time Ben will return home drunk. Ben will always maul Marivic. Then
sleep. Marivic killed Ben. Parricide. HELD: ILLNESS AND PASSSION/OBFUSCATION. Passion –
pregnant at the time of killing. Illness – battered wife syndrome.

PHYSICAL DEFECT
 Not just any physical defect will affect the crime. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime
committed.
 The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime.
This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the
crime was committed.

SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

Voluntary restitution of stolen property in theft (Canta vs. People) and reimbursement, whole or partial, in
malversation (Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan) are similar to voluntary surrender and confession of guilt.

Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan

HELD: 2 GENERIC MITIGATING. Appreciated two GMC when he returned the amount malversed.
Circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender (par. 10 in relation to par. 7) and analogous to confession
of guilt (par. 10 in relation to par. 7).
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

INTOXICATION
Mitigating if: NOT habitual AND NOT subsequent to the #PLAN to commit a felony.
Teetotaler – does not drink alcoholic beverage.

TICMAN: Mr. A is a teetotaler. A is dumped by GF for another girl. Depressed. He drank alone in a bar. For
the first time, he drank. He remembered what her GF has done to him. He planned to rape the ex’s new
GF. HELD: MITIGATING. Not habitual. Not subsequent. He drank first before he planned to commit the
crime.

RELATIONSHIP
 Crimes against chastity, relationship is ALWAYS aggravating.
 Crimes against persons, relationship is ALWAYS aggravating.
 Crimes against property, relationship is ALWAYS mitigating.
o EXEMPTING in theft, swindling and malicious mischief.

TICMAN: A is son of B. A is a law student. One day, her want to his father asking for advance of allowance.
While B is taking the shower, A got P5K from the wallet. Theft. Will it prosper? HELD: NO. SON IS EXEMPT.
RPC 332.

TICMAN: Same set of facts. P5K or your life? Hacked his father to death. Robbery with homicide (not
paricide). Relationship appreciated? HELD: YES. MITIGATING. Because crime against property.

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

Low degree of education NOT mitigating in the following:
a. Crimes against property;
b. Crimes against chastity;
c. Treason
d. Murder; and
e. Rape.

High degree of instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his learning in
committing the crime.

TICMAN: PhD in law against acts of lasciviousness. HELD: NOT AGGRAVATING.

 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION

Inherent in falsification by public officers and employees AND those crimes committed by public officers.

The public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives him as the
means by which he realizes his purpose (U.S. v. Rodriguez; March 21, 1911).

Fortuna vs. People

PLEASE READ. Police saw 2 brothers. Ride with us. Asked ATM. Robbery with intimidation.

CONTEMPT OR INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Requisites
1. The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions;
2. Such public authority is NOT the person against whom the crime is committed;
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority; and
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.

A teacher is NOT a public authority as within the contemplation of Article 14(2) (People vs. Tac-an; February
26, 1990). DEPENDS: RPC 152 considered if he/she is a victim of direct assault under RPC 148. Otherwise,
NOT person in authority.

DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX, AND DWELLING

Sex
 This refers to the female sex only, not the male sex.
 Offender must be a MAN.
 N/A crime against chastity
 Is it inherent in rape? Depends on the form of rape. If rape through carnal knowledge, it is inherent
because victim is a woman. But if through sexual assault, NOT INHERENT because the victim may
either be a man or woman.

Age
It applies to cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age.

Rank
There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party.

TICMAN: PNOY walking looking at X’s GF. X beat and mauled PNOY, hospitalized in 45 days. Serious
physical injuries. HELD: DISREGARD OF RANK.

Dwelling
As long as dwelling is involved.
No need to be the owner.
 N/A if offender and offended resides in the same hourse.
 N/A if victim gave provocation.
o Provocation must have come from the victim.
o Provocation must be sufficient.
o Must have immediately preceded the criminal act.

People vs. Tano

Robbery with rape. Victim is a saleslady in a video store. Got the earnings of the store. Prosecution invokes
dwelling because sales assistant does not only work in the rental store, but also stays there. HELD: No. If
the building where the offense was committed was NOT entirely for dwelling purposes, dwelling cannot be
appreciated.

PARAGRAPH 5

That the crime be committed:

(a) In the palace of the Chief Executive;
(b) In his presence;
(c) Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties; or
(d) In a place dedicated to religious worship.

N.B. PURPOSE of the offender in entering these places must be to commit a crime.

TICMAN: Mr. A is a spa attendant. Customer is PH President. Mr. A barged in the cubicle, grabbed his
attendant and raped in front of the President. Rape. Par. 5 applicable? HELD: YES. Because in the
presence of PH even not performing function. And Mr. A went to the spa with intent to commit the crime.

OBSCURIDAD, DESPOBLADO, and ENCUADRILLA

Nighttime (Nocturna)

TICMAN: Mr. A thought of killing Mr. B. A heard a news that the eclipse would again happen in Manila.
Okay, sige. At exactly 12nn. At exactly, Mr. B went out. Mr. A approached and shot B. Died. Prosecuted for
murder. Nightime appreciated? HELD: NO. Crime was not committed during nighttime. Must be 6PM-6AM,
AND under the cover of darkness.

TICMAN: 3AM and under a lamp post. If lamp post is on, NO. If not, YES.

Band (Encuadrilla)
Composed of at least 4 armed malefactors acting together in the commission of the crime.

Uninhabited places (Despoblado)

In the place where committed, offended party would not have received any reasonable aid or assistance
from anyone.

MEMORIZE, applicable to all

1. TOOK ADVANTAGE;
2. ESPECIALLY SOUGHT FOR; or
3. FACILITATED – made the commission of the crime EASIER.

CRIME WAS COMMITTED ON OCCASION OF CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE,

EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE

Qualification of murder. Qualifying circumstance on theft (2 degrees higher) – because of greater perversity
of the offender. Instead of lending aid, accused would take advantage of their plight.

AID OF ARMED MEN or PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY

AID OF ARMED MEN BAND

It is required that more than three (3) armed malefactors
It is present even if one of the offenders merely
shall have acted together in the commission of the
relied on the aid. Actual aid is not necessary.
offense.
Armed men are accomplices, who take part in Band members are all principals by direct
a minor capacity directly or indirectly. participation.
RECIDIVISM

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.

TICMAN: 1944 homicide, year later, slight physical injuries. Recidivism? HELD: YES. Because homicide
and SPI are embraced in same title.

TICMAN: 1950 trespass, years later, robbery with forced upon things. Recidivism? HELD: NO. Trespass
(liberty) and robbery with forced upon things (property) NOT same title of Code.

REITIRACION
That the offender has been previously punished (a) for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or (b) for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty

Need not be embraced in the same title of the Code.

Reiteracion vs. Recidivism

REITERACION RECIDIVISM
Offender shall have served out his sentence for It is enough that final judgment has been rendered for
the first offense. the first offense.
Offenses need not be included in the same title Offenses are required to be included in the same title of
of the Code. the Code
It is not always an aggravating circumstance.
Always aggravating circumstance.
It is dependent upon the discretion of the judge.

PRICE, REWARD, or PROMISE

Qualifying circumstance in murder.

May be appreciated not only against principal by direct participation, but also to inducers.

INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING, DERAILMENT, or OTHER ARTIFICE

INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN

 By means of fire. For a person to be liable for murder by using fire, in setting the house on fire,
must be done with the intention of killing. If intention is not to kill anyone, but to get back against
the owner. Then, arson with homicide RPC 320.
 By means of explosion. Murder.
 By means of inundation. Kill a person by drowning him.
 By means of poison.
 By other artifice involving a great waste and ruin. Dam.

TICMAN: A wants to kill B. B resides in 15 storey building. A chartered a jet and operated it by himself. A
maneuvered the aircraft towards the building. A jumped. B died. Murder qualified by use of artifice involving
great waste and ruin.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Deliberate planning. Difficult to prove because of first and third requisite.

Requisites:
(a) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(b) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
(c) A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Inherent in the crimes: estafa, robbery, theft. Rape and acts of lasciviousness (BUT TICMAN DOES NOT
AGREE).

Appreciated if actual victim is the intended victim.

May be presumed, even if requisites not proven, as long as prosecution proves EXPRESS conspiracy. If
only IMPLIED, its requisites must be established.

TICMAN: A charged of homicide in 1995. Did not appeal. Sentenced to suffer 20 years. Started serving
sentence. No longer had sex with a woman. On the 10th year, organized a party-list Tigang. 2 weeks before
intended release, “I will rape the very first woman I would see upon my release.” Then subscribed to FHM,
refrained from eating papaya. Then, released. Freedom. He heard shouts of a woman. Raped the woman.
Now charged of crime of rape. HELD: YES.

CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE

Craft – panlilinlang
Fraud - panloloko
Disguise – pagpapanggap

People vs. Feliciano

Victim is member of a rival fraternity. Why disguise appreciated when the mask fell of my head. HELD:
APPRECIATED. Used mask to conceal identity.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, or MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE

DEFENSE

Abuse of superior strength

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the
parties. It is considered that whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assessing the superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.

IGNOMINY vs. CRUELTY

IGNOMINY CRUELTY
It involves moral suffering. It refers to physical suffering.
Generally applicable in crimes against chastity Generally applicable in crimes against persons

Cruelty
Extracted teeth, toe nails, peeled off skin. Murder by means of cruelty.

Ignominy
Appreciated against accused who had killed a person because accused killed the victim in the presence of
his wife and children. There is moral suffering on the part of the latter.

TICMAN: MUST MORAL SUFFERING ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM.

Applicable ALSO in rape.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY
Through a way not intended for the purpose. Inherent in trespass and robbery with us of force upon things.

TICMAN: A wants to rape B. A entered into the main door, but locked. Yet he observed an opened window.
Then rape. Rape. NOT INHERENT. Entering the dwelling through a window.
AID OF MINORS; MOTOR VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS

Motor vehicle
Used in coming to or going out of the crime scene.

The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was perpetrated by means thereof
(People vs. Enguito; February 28, 2000). When trike reach the bridge, speed up. Murder by means of motor
vehicle.

In People vs. Mallari (June 17, 2003), the accused deliberately used his truck in pursuing the victim. Upon
catching up with him, accused hit him with the truck, as a result of which the victim died instantly. It is clear
that the truck was the means used by accused to perpetrate the killing of the victim.

TREACHERY
There is treachery (alevosia) when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

 Appreciable only in crimes against persons.

 Robbery with homicide, only as generic aggravating circumstances. Although crimes against
property, it looks into the constituent crime of homicide.
 Attack must be sudden, swift or unexpected (SUS).
 May not be appreciated if the killing of the victim is preceded by a heated argument.
 Cannot also appreciated if the killing is preceded by provocation HOWEVER slight the provocation
is.

TICMAN: Heated argument. B turned his back against A, then A drew gun, shot. B was killed. HELD: NO
TREACHERY. Attack must be unexpected. Persons in a heated argument necessarily expects an attack,
thus placing him on guard, making the attack not expected.

TICMAN: Panget mo. A turned his back. B killed him. HELD: NO TREACHERY. Provocation. Attack not
expected.

Sison vs. People

Rally of Marcos loyalist (ML). A is on a yellow shirt, flashed a laban sign. ML chased him. ML charged with
murder. Qualified by treachery? HELD: NO. Offended party in this case gave provocation. Attack was not
unexpected.

IMPORTANT: That there must be a deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of attack to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender from the defense which the offended party might
make.

If the meeting or encounter is casual, by chance, accidental, incidental or fortuitous, treachery may not have
attended the killing.

NOT all attack from behind is treacherous. Depends on circumstances.

People vs. Claudio Teehankee Jr.

Three friends. Maureen (16) went out with friends, bar hopping. At 3AM, Maureen: “Accompany me on my
way home. Just drop me two blocks away from my house.” While walking towards the house, he was
accompanied by Leyno. Later, a car crossed their path. Accused went down of the car. Brandished a gun:
“Where are your IDs?” Leyno manifested his resistance. Chapman died. Maureen started running not away
from the scene but around the motor vehicle. Teehankee then shot Maureen and Leyno. Leyno survived.
Hit in the jaw. Maureen survived for a while. Died after 92 days. TC convicted for murder (2) and frustrated
murder. Treachery? HELD: Modified in so far as killing of Chapman. NO TREACHERY. Encounter is
by chance/incidental. Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment,
or those that were preceded by heated altercations are generally NOT attended by treachery for lack of
opportunity of the accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of attack. BUT Shooting of Maureen
and Leyno. HELD: Treachery present. Meeting at some point was casual. But time from initial meeting
until the time he shot the two, there was a gap/time interval.

Go vs. CA
Go is a businessman. Baguan the other party. One way street, while driving, a vehicle is coming from the
opposite direction. Both went down and had heated argument. Shot Baguan then Go run away. Go then
went to police station to clear his name. Murder. Treachery? 2 weeks after promulgation of judgment, he
ran away from detention. Judge caused the recording of conviction. HELD: Had he not escaped, he would
have filed a NOA, approved. From murder to homicide. Mitigating is sufficient provocation. No treachery
because casual.