CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER Padilla Cases and Notes Ortega Notes

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V.
Verga
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I. History of the Revised Penal Law
A. Codification Movement -- sought to have all laws codiied or written
in a single bod! o aw.
B. !anish Codi"o Penal
"he ro!al order dated #ecember 1$% 1&&'% directing the e(ecution o the ro!al
decree o )e*tember +% 1&&+% wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in
orce in the Peninsula% as amended in accordance with the recommendations o
the code committee% be *ublished and a**lied in the Phili**ine ,slands% as well
as the Provisional Law o Criminal Procedure which accom*anied it. "hese two
laws% having been *ublished in the Oicial -a.ette o /anila on /arch 10 and
1+% 1&&$% became eective in 1ul! 1+% 1&$'. #$. vs. %am!aron"&
C. Codi"o Penal n" Pili!inas 2 modiied the )*anish Penal Code.
D. $ Period 2 the! tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas
were deectivel! translated
II. 'efinition of Penal Law and Criminal Law
A. Penal laws 2 laws which relates to *enalties
B. Criminal laws 2 laws which relates to crimes
C. 3elon! -- 4 crime under the Revised Penal Code is reerred to as a
elon!. #o not use this term in reerence to a violation o s*ecial law.
D. Oense -- 4 crimes *unished under a s*ecial law is called as statutor!
oense.
E. /isdemeanor --4 minor inraction o the law% such as a violation o an
ordinance% is reerred to as a misdemeanor.
F. Crime -- 5hether the wrongdoing is *unished under the Revised Penal
Code or under a s*ecial law% the generic word crime can be used.
Loren(o vs. Posadas
,ssue6 57N 4rt. 0'8' o a ta( law is a *enal law thus can be a**lied
retroactivel! in conormit! with the *rovisions o 4rt. 99 o RPC.
#ecision6 4 statute is *enal when it im*oses *unishment or an oense
committed against the state. :Penal )tatutes; are statutes% which command or
*rohibit certain acts and establish *enalties or their violation% and even those%
which% without e(*ressl! *rohibiting certain acts% im*ose a *enalt! on their
commission.
Note6 Non-*a!ment o ta(es is merel! a civil liabilit!7indemnit!. "he ta( code
as it e(ists toda! which carries *unishments ma! be considered *enal
*rovisions.
Peo!le vs. Moran
3acts6 "he accused violated the election code and was sentenced b! the lower
court. <e was as=ing or reconsideration and iled a s*ecial motion alleging
that the crime com*lained o had *rescribed under the *rovision o section $1
o 4ct 0808% enacted b! the Legislature on /arch >% 1>99.
,ssue6 57N *enal laws *rovide or not onl! *enalt! but also *rescri*tion.
#ecision6 ?es.
#ecision6 "he court ound the crime to have *rescribed (in accordance with the
new law) and set aside the decision. "he @lection law contained in the
4dministrative Code and 4ct 0808 which amended and modiied the ormer% it is
evident that the *rovision declaring that oenses resulting rom the violations
o said 4ct shall *rescribe one !ear ater their commission must have
retroactive eect% the same being avorable to the accused. 4n e(ce*tion- to
give them retroactive eect when avorable to accused. "he e(ce*tion a**lies
to a law dealing with *rescri*tion o crime6 4rt 99 a**lies to a law dealing with
*rescri*tion o an oense which is intimatel! connected with that o the
*enalt!% or the length o time or *rescri*tion de*ends u*on the gravit! o the
oense. Penal laws not onl! *rovide or *enalties but also *rescri*tions.
III. Rationale of Penal Laws
$ vs. otto
3acts6 Vicente )otto is the director% editor% *ublisher and *rinter o a wee=l!
*a*er. On /a! 1>1A% he edited the *a*er with the intention o attac=ing them
re*utation o Lo*e B. )antos and two other *rinci*als o a labor grou*. <e was
ound guilt! o libel.
,ssue6 57N )otto was guilt!
#ecision6 ?es. Penalties are used to deter *eo*le rom doing the same crime.
4 deterrent eect u*on others is one o the *ur*oses o the inliction o a
*enalt! or the violation o the criminal law (@(em*larit!).
Peo!le vs. Carillo and Ra)*enio
+vvver"a Pa"e , of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Verga
3acts6 Carillo was sentenced with death *enalt! or the crimes o robber!%
attem*ted ra*e and homicide. <is accom*lice was onl! charged or robbing
@mma 4ba!a and /arcelino Lonto=.
,ssue6 57N the *enalt! or Carillo was Custiied.
#ecision6
"he accused is a dangerous enem! o the societ! thus% im*osition o the
highest *enalt! i Custiied. Carillo has *roved himsel to be a dangerous enem!
o societ!. "he latter must *rotect itsel rom such enem! b! ta=ing his lie in
retribution or his oense and as an e(am*le and warning to others. ,n these
da!s o ram*ant criminalit! it should have a salutar! eect u*on the criminall!
minded to =now that the courts do not shir= their disagreeable dut! to im*ose
the death *enalt! in cases where the law so reDuires.
Peo!le vs. .o*n"
3acts6 1imm! ?oung is a hired =iller who committed a crime o murder under
4rt 9+& o the RPC. <e reused to *lea guilt! because according to him% his
guilt is lighter than those who ordered the =illing o 4lonso Liongto. <e was
sentenced with death *enalt! in accordance with 4rt 9+& in relation to 4rt '+ o
the RPC. <owever% R4 9>'% which was a**roved 1$ 1une 1>+&% *rovides that
or a *enalt! o death is im*osed% all Custices o the )u*reme Court must irst
concur. )aid law is *rocedural thus can be a**lied to cases *ending at the time
o its a**roval.
,ssue6 57N ?oung should be charged with the crime o murder.
#ecision6 One o the Custices dissented% thus death *enalt! was not im*osed.
"he =illing in Duestion was attended b! evident *remeditation which Dualiied
the crime as murder6 (a) it was committed in consideration o a *rice reward or
*romise and (b) with treacher!. "his case also *rovides the notion o
aggravating circumstances (acts that would *rovide or higher *enalties 2 art
1+) and mitigating circumstances (*rovides or lighter *enalties 2 art 10).
#eath *enalt! was im*osed to rationali.e the conce*t o @(em*larit!6 ma=ing a
*erson e(am*le to serve as a deterrent)
Peo!le vs. Revilla
3acts6 "he accused was charged or the crime o inidelit! in the custod! o the
*risoners. Nicasio 1unio% the *risoner% was onl! sentenced to suer si( da!s o
arresto menor only% a *enalt! that ma! be served in the house o the oender
because o the condition o his health. "he munici*alit! also could not eed him
Nicasio or lac= o a**ro*riation% Revilla then believed that this act in *ermitting
Nicasio to slee* in his own house was not grave in nature% being at most a
mere rela(ation o the rules *rescribed or the care and custod! o munici*al
*risoners. Revilla was charged under 4rt 990 or his actions.
,ssue6 57N the charge against Revilla is *ro*ortionate to the act he
committed.
#ecision6 No. <is action then was due to a mista=en conce*tion o his dut!%
hence it is obvious that the *enalt! im*osed against him is notoriousl!
e(cessive to the e(tent o being cruel or being out o *ro*ortion with the crime
committed. "he *enalt! was not *ro*ortionate to the evil to be curbed.
Retribution, the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of
the offense.
"he *enalt! im*osed u*on the accused or inidelit! in the custod! o a *risoner
sentenced to onl! si( da!s o arresto menor being e(cessive% such act should
be brought to the attention o <is @(cellenc!% the President o the Phili**ines
or him to decide whether or not it would be convenient to recommend to the
national assembl! the amendment o art 990 o RPC (conniving with or
consenting to evasion) so as to ma=e it more in consonance with the am*litude
o the matters that a court must consider in meting out *unishment to whoever
ma! have the misortune inringing the *rece*t regarding inidelit! in the
custod! o *risoners or detained *risoners.

Peo!le vs. /alano

3acts6 -alano was accused o alsiication o one *eso bill% which he used to
*urchase our eggs. <e was ound guilt! and was sentenced to suer
intermediate *enalt! ranging rom 18 !ears and 1 da! to 19 !ears and 18
months. "he )olicitor -eneral believes that the *unishment is too harsh.
,ssue6 57N the *enalt! i too harsh
#ecisions6 "he *unishment is too harsh and it ma! not actuall! serve the
*ur*ose o the legislator. ,m*risonment ma! change an individual but it can
also e(*ose the *erson to hardened criminal. "hus% *unishments should be
a**lied with care. 4 co*! o the decision was sent to the *resident or the
e(ercise o e(ecutive clemenc!.
IV. %wo theories in Criminal Law
A. Classical "heor!
1. Easis o criminal liabilit! is human ree will and *ur*ose o *enalt!
is retribution
9. :4n e!e or an e!e% a tooth or a tooth.; 2 Oculo *ro oculo% dente
*ro dente.F
0. /an is a moral creature with absolute ree will to choose between
good and evil% thereb! *lacing more stress u*on the eect or
result o elonious act than u*on the man.
+. @ndeavored to establish a mechanical and direct *ro*ortion
between crime and *enalt!
+vvver"a Pa"e 0 of ,--
A. "he *ur*ose o *enalt! is retribution. "he oender is made to
suer or the wrong he has done. "here is scant regard to the
human element.
B. Positivist theor!
1. /an is occasionall! subdued b! a strange and morbid *henomenal
which *ushes him to do wrong in s*ite or contrar! to his volition
9. Crime is a social and natural *henomenon% it cannot be created
and chec=ed b! a**lication o abstract *rinci*le o law and
Curis*rudence nor b! im*osition o *enalties% i(ed and determined
a *riori.
0. Rehabilitation b! means o individual measures on case to case
basis.
4dvocates *ersonal and individual investigation% conducted b! com*etent bod!
o *s!chiatrist and social scientist.
V. Crimes
A. 'efinition
1. 3elon!
9. Oense
0. ,nraction o Ordinance
(a) 5hen *enalt! im*osed is not an e(ercise o sovereign *ower to deine
crimes and *rovide *unishment.
'e /*(man vs. *1ido
3acts6 de -u.man who is a civil service eligible or *assing the civil service
e(am was disDualiied rom an! a**ointment or having violated the 1a!wal=ing
laws and ordinance concerning cocheros% which according to the lower court
constitutes a crime.
,ssue6 57N said acts constitute a crime
#ecision6 No. 4 *enalt! im*osed or breach o a munici*al regulation does not
necessaril! constitute a criminal oense. 4 violation o a munici*al ordinance
to Duali! as a crime must involve a least a certain degree o evil doing%
immoral conduct% corru*tion% malice or want o *rinci*les reasonabl! related to
the reDuirements o the *ublic oice. 4 crime is an act committed or omitted in
violation o *ublic laws. Ordinances are not *ublic laws. Criminal acts% in its
commission% have some immoral intention.
Conde vs. Mamenta
3acts6 Petitioner reused to *a! the new rates o the stall she was holding
stating that the increased rate was e(cessive. "he increase is based on the
*rovisions o a munici*al ordinance. "he *etitioner was criminall! convicted b!
the trial court or not *a!ing the surcharge.
,ssue6 57N the *etitioner can be *rosecuted criminall! o her non-*a!ment o
the rental.
#ecision6 No. "he surcharge or non-*a!ment i not a *enalt! under criminal
law but onl! an amount added to the usual charge. ,t is more o an
administrative *enalt!% which can be recovered onl! b! civil action.
VI. Common Law Crimes
A. deinition6 bod! o *rinci*les% usages and rules o action which do not
rest or their authorit! u*on an! e(*ress or *ositive declaration o the
will o the legislature
B. common law crimes are not recogni.ed in the countr!
C. the codiication movement *rovided or all crimes to be codiied% thus%
a crime not *unishable b! law is not a crime at all.
VII.Power to define and !*nish crimes
Peo!le vs. antia"o
3acts6 #eendant was ound guilt! o =illing a seven-!ear-old bo!. <e is now
a**ealing the decision stating that 4ct 9&&' o the Phili**ine Legislature% which
*rovides that :all *rosecution or oenses shall be in the name o the Peo*le o
the Phili**ines; is unconstitutional or amending -eneral Order No. A& which
has a character o a constitutional law.
,ssue6 57N 4ct 9&&' is unconstitutional.
#ecision6 "he *rocedure in criminal matters is not incor*orated in the
constitution but is let in the hands o the legislature so that it alls within the
real o *ublic statutor! law. "he state has the authorit!% under its *olice *ower%
to deine and *unish crimes and to la! down the rules o criminal *rocedure.
)tates% as a *art o their *olice *ower% have a large measure o discretion in
creating and deining criminal oenses.
Peo!le vs. %aylor
3acts6 "he deendant% being the acting editor and *ro*rietor% manager% *rinter
and *ublisher o /anila Eulletin was accused o committing libel against a
member o the Phili**ine bar.
,ssue6 57N the deendant is guilt! o libel.
#ecision6 ,n the Phili**ines% there e(ist no crimes called :common law crimes;
No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so b! law. Libel is made a
crime here b! 4ct 9$$ o the G) Phili**ine Commission. <owever% in order to
*rove that the deendant is -uilt! o the crime% it must be *roven that he is the
Hauditor% editor% or *ro*rietorI o the said news*a*er. "here was no *roo o this
because evidence shows that he is merel! the manager. Petition was dismissed.
Peo!le vs. Pomar
3acts6 "he manager o La 3lor granted a maternit! leave to /acaria but
reused to *a! Ph* &8.88 to which the em*lo!ee is entitled as her regular wage
as stated in )ec. 10 o 4ct 08$1.
,ssue6 57N 4ct 08$1 us unlawul e(ercise o *olice *ower.
#ecision6 "he *olice *ower is the *ower vested in the legislature o the state to
ma=e% ordain% and establish all manner o wholesome and reasonable laws%
statutes% and ordinances% either with *enalties or without% which are not
re*ugnant to the constitution as the! shall Cudge to be or the good and welare
o the commonwealth% and o the subCects o the state
$ vs. Pa1lo
3acts6 4ndres Pablo% a *oliceman% re*orted that he saw Rodrigo and /alicsi in
the Cueteng arena and then testiied on the contrar! during the trial. <e was
charged with *erCur! and convicted under 4ct. 1'>$ which was said to have
re*ealed articles 01& and 09+ o the *enal code.
,ssue6 Can the deendant be *unishedJ
#ecision6 "he right o *rosecution and *unishment or a crime is one o the
attributes that b! a natural law belongs to the sovereign *ower instinctivel!
charged b! the common will o the members o societ! to loo= ater% guard and
deend the interests o the communit! as well as rights o each individual.
,m*osing *unishments should be the last resort6 our laws do not merel!
*rovide or retribution but it also *rovides or laws that are in avor o the
oender.
$ vs. /*stillo
3acts6 -ustillo was alread! convicted o a crime or illegal *ossession o
irearms. <owever% another inormation was iled against him or the same
crime but or a dierent ammunition which he alread! *ossessed at the same
time and same *lace the irst inormation was iled against him.
,ssue6 57N -ustillo ma! be *rosecuted or the second time or the same
violation.
#ecision6
"he *rosecution violated the Phili**ines Eill and 4ct No. &> which embod! the
*rinci*le that no *erson shall be twice *ut in Ceo*ard! or the same oense
because this rule covers as nearl! as *ossible ever! single criminal act born o
a single criminal intent even though more than one crime is committed b! said
act.
Peo!le vs. Chon" Hon"
3acts6 "he deendants were convicted or violation o Ordinance No. 0>+% which
*rohibits the *la!ing o Cueteng. "he court ordered or the dismissal o the
case on the ground that said ordinance is null and void or it conlicts with 4rt
1>A o the RPC% which *rovides or lesser *enalties than the ordinance.
,ssue 57N Ordinance 0>+ conlicts with the law.
#ecision6 ,t is admitted that Cueteng is alread! *rohibited and *enali.ed in
article 1>A o the Revised Penal Code. Eut the act that an act is alread!
*rohibited and *enali.ed b! a general law does not *reclude the enactment o a
munici*al ordinance covering the same matter. "he rule is well settled that the
same act ma! constitute an oense against both the state and a *olitical
subdivision thereo and both Curisdictions ma! *unish the act% without.
inringing an! constitutional *rinci*le. 4s a general rule% additional regulation to
that o the state law does not constitute a conlict therewith. "he act that an
ordinance enlarges u*on the *rovisions o a statute b! reDuiring more than the
statute reDuires creates no conlict therewith% unless the statute limits the
reDuirement or all cases to its own *rescri*tion. Eoth the ordinance and RPC
*rohibit and *enali.e the same act and the distinction in *enalties is necessar!
because o the *eculiar conditions o the localit!.
N"o .ao %it and Chia En" Chen" vs. heriff of Manila
3acts6 Eeore the court is an a**lication or the writ o habeas cor*us.
Petitioners were charged o visiting a house where o*ium was smo=ed. "he!
now claimed that the court erred in their decision because it does not have
Curisdiction over the case.
,ssue6 57N the court has Curisdiction to tr! the case.
#ecision6 ,t is not a Curisdictional deect and one which de*rives the trial court
o its authorit! to tr!% convict% and *ass sentence% that a criminal action is
brought in the name o the cit! o /anila instead o the Gnited )tates. "hat act
constitutes a mere deect or error curable at an! stage o the action does not
de*rive the court o the *ower to *ronounce a valid Cudgment and im*ose a
valid sentence. Oenses committed in the Phili**ines are crimes against the
*eo*le o the Phili**ines.

VIII.Characteristics of criminal law
A. /ENERAL -- criminal law is binding on all *ersons who live or soCourn
in Phili**ine territor! (art 1+% New Civil Code).
Peo!le vs. /alac"ac
3acts6 @nriDue -alacgac was a naturali.ed G) citi.en. <e arrived in the
Phili**ines to visit his wie and in his *ossession is a gun% which is git to the
said s*ouse. G*on reaching his in-lawIs home% he and his wie had a ight%
which caused his brother in law to beat him on the head. ,n retaliation% he
ired indiscriminatel! wounding his wieIs brothers and sisters. <e was accused
o attem*ted *arricide but retorted that the Phili**ines has no Curisdiction over
him since he is an 4merican Citi.en.
,ssue6 57N -alagcac enCo!s e(tra-territorialit! rights
#ecision6 No. No oreigner enCo!s in this countr! e(tra-territorial right to be
e(em*ted rom its laws and Curisdiction% with e(ce*tion o heads o states and
di*lomatic re*resentatives who% b! virtue o customar! law o nations% are not
subCect to the Phili**ine territorial Curisdiction.
Note6 4s a general rule% the Curisdiction o the civil courts is not aected b! the
militar! character o the accused
$ vs. weet
3acts6 )weet was an em*lo!ee o the G) 4rm! in the Phili**ines. <e assaulted
a *risoner o war or which he was charged with the crime o *h!sical inCuries.
)weet inter*osed the deense that the act that he was an em*lo!ee o the G)
militar! authorities de*rived the court i the Curisdiction to tr! and *unish him.
,ssue6 57N Phili**ine courts have Curisdiction to tr! )weet
#ecision6 4n assault committed b! a militar! em*lo!ee u*on a *risoner o
war is a violation o the general *enal law% and as such it im*oses criminal
res*onsibilit!. 1urisdiction o the civil tribunals is unaected b! the militar! or
other s*ecial character o the *erson brought beore them or trial% unless
controlled b! e(*ress legislation to the contrar!.
E4em!tions to the Princi!le of /enerality
1. Persons subCect to /ilitar! Law (4rt. 9 o the Commonwealth 4ct
No. +8&% articles o war) are not immune rom suit but are
covered b! the articles o war.
(a) Oicers% members o nurse cor*s and soldiers belonging to
the regular orces o the Phili**ine 4rm!
(b) 4ll reservist rom the date o theor call to active dut! and
while on such active dut!
(c) 4ll trainees undergoing militar! dut!
(d) 4ll *ersons lawull! called7drated
(e) Cades. 3l!ing cadets and *robationar! third lieutenants
() Retainers to the cam*
(g) 4ll *ersons under sentence adCudged b! courts martial
9. 4s *rovided in the treaties and laws o *reerential a**lication.
@(am*le6
(a) Eases agreements between G) and Phili**ines and RP-G)
Visiting 3orces 4ccord.
(b) R4 No. $A 2 law o *reerential a**lication in avor o
di*lomatic re*resentatives. ,t e(tends the di*lomatic
*rivilege to the members o the household and domestic
servants that were registered with the #34
(c) "he constitution is a law o *reerential o*eration
0. E! virtue o *rinci*les o Pubic international law 2 these *eo*le
*ossess immunit! rom the criminal Curisdiction o the countr! o
their soCourn and cannot be sued% arrested or *unished b! the law
o that countr!6
A1sol*te E4em!tions
(a) )overeigns and other chies o state
(b) 4mbassadors% ministers *leni*otentiar!% ministers resident%
and charges dIaaires% ambassadors e(traordinar! (Vienna
Convention on #i*lomatic Relations and Protocol)
Relative E4em!tions
(c) consuls and vice consuls6 honorar! consuls not e(em*ted.
Note5
a) Public ,nternational Law and treaties are deemed *art o the law o the
land.
b) 3or a *erson to be immune% he7she must be able to invo=e a *rovision
o *ublic international law7treat!K law o *reerential a**lication or
customar! international law.
chnec6en1*r"er vs. Moran
3acts6 Petitioners is a honorar! consul o Grugua! in manila charged with
alsiication o *rivate documents. <e obCected on the Curisdiction o the Courts
o 3irst ,nstance on the ground that under the Phili**ine an G) constitution%
lower courts have no Curisdiction to tr! him
,ssue6 57N the lower courts have Curisdiction to tr! the consul.
#ecision6 ,t is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the *rivileges and
immunities o an ambassador or minister% but is subCect to the laws and
regulations o the countr! to which he is accredited. 4 consul is not e(em*t
rom criminal *rosecution or violations o the laws o the countr! where he
resides. Courts o 3irst ,nstance were vested with original Curisdiction over all
criminal cases in which a *enalt! o more than si( monthsL im*risonment or a
ine e(ceeding one hundred dollars might be im*osed. )uch Curisdiction
included the trial o criminal actions brought against consuls.
%ime Inc. vs. Reyes
3acts6 @nrile and Villegas iled a suit against "ime ,nc or an article regarding
corru*tion in 4sia where the two were eatured. R4 +0'0 *rovides that *ublic
oicials should ile their *etitions in the *lace where the! are rendering their
service. Villegas iled his *etition in Ri.al and not in /anila.
,ssue6 57N the case will *ros*er and 57N cor*orations ma! be sued
#ecision6 "he rule is that where a statute creates a right and *rovides a remed!
or its enorcement% the remed! is e(clusiveK and where it coners Curisdiction
u*on a *articular court% that Curisdiction is li=ewise e(clusive% unless otherwise
*rovided. <ence% the venue *rovisions o Re*ublic 4ct No. +0'0 should be
deemed mandator! or the *art! bringing the action% unless the Duestion o
venue should be waived b! the deendant which was not the case here. 4
cor*oration is immune rom suit but it ma!% b! writ o *rohibition% see= relie
against the wrongul assum*tion o Curisdiction. 4nd a oreign cor*oration
see=ing a writ o *rohibition against urther maintenance o a suit% on the
ground o want o Curisdiction% is not bound b! the ruling o the court in which
the suit was brought.
WH8 vs. A)*ino
3acts6 Res*ondent Cudge issued a search warrant or the search and sei.ure o
the *ersonal eects o the *etitioner% an oicial o the 5<O. #es*ite
intervention o the )olicitor -eneral and the #34 that /r. Verstu!t is covered
with di*lomatic immunit!% the Cudge reused to withdraw the search warrant.
,ssue6 57N the action o the Cudge is a violation o R4 $A and thus an abuse o
discretion.
#ecision6 ?es. ,t is a recogni.ed *rinci*le o international law and under our
s!stem o se*aration o *owers that di*lomatic immunit! is essentiall! a
*olitical Duestion and courts should reuse to loo= be!ond a determination b!
the e(ecutive branch o the government% and where the *lea o di*lomatic
immunit! is recogni.ed and airmed b! the e(ecutive branch o government as%
in the case at bar% it is then the dut! o the courts to acce*t the claim o
immunit! u*on a**ro*riate suggestion b! the *rinci*al law oicer o the
government% the )olicitor -eneral in this case% or other oicer acting under his
direction. <ence% in adherence to the settled *rinci*le that courts ma! not so
e(ercise their Curisdiction b! sei.ure and detention o *ro*ert!% as to embarrass
the e(ecutive arm o the government in conducting oreign relations% it is
acce*ted doctrine that Min such cases the Cudicial de*artment o (this)
government ollows the action o the *olitical branch and will not embarrass the
latter b! assuming an antagonistic Curisdiction.M
B. PRINCIPLE 89 %ERRI%8RIALI%. -- 4s a rule. Penal laws o the
Phili**ines are enorceable onl! within its territor!. , the *ower to
deine crimes is the *ower o the sovereign% it must be ollowed that
such sovereign can onl! e(ercise such *ower within its
Curisdiction7territor!.
1. "erritor!
9. 4tmos*here
0. ,nterior 5aters
+. /aritime .one
Note6 Limits o the territorial sea (b! GNCLO)) is onl! 0 miles rom the
seashore. 5hat is ollowed now is the 19-mile rule *lus the 19-mile contiguous
.one. Eut or *ur*oses o criminal law% our Curisdiction onl! e(tends to the
territorial sea.
Classification of Vessels5
1. 3oreign *ublic vessels 2 war vessels7war shi*s (e(. Lawton )hi* in G)
vs. 3owler). 5ar vessels are considered to be an e(tension o the
nationalit! o the owner o said vessel and cannot be subCected to the
laws o the state
#a& 9orei"n P*1lic Vessels
$ vs. 9owler
3acts6 "het was committed on board a trans*ort while navigating the high
seas. "he accused were brought to trial and deendants contends that the
Court o 3irst ,nstance have no Curisdiction over the case because the crime
was committed in a oreign *ublic vessel and on high seas.
,ssue6 57N the court has Curisdiction to tr! the case.
#ecision6 No. Courts o 3irst ,nstance o the Phili**ines have no Curisdiction to
ta=e cogni.ance o crimes committed on the high seas on board o a trans*ort
or other vessel not registered or licensed in the Phili**ines. 5arshi*s are
+vvver"a Pa"e : of ,--
alwa!s re*uted to be the territor! o the countr! to which the! belong an
cannot be subCected to the laws o another state. 4 G) 4rm! trans*ort is
considered a warshi*.
9. 3oreign merchant vessels 2 more or less subCected to the territorial
laws.
Note6 "he state is not obligated to give immunit! on crimes done in oreign
*ublic vessels. "his is Cust a matter o comit!.
R*les as to ;*risdiction over crimes committed a1oard forei"n merchant
vessels while in the territorial waters of another co*ntry
1. 3rench Rule 2 such crimes are not triable in the courts o that
countr!% unless their commission aects the *eace and securit! o
the territor! or the saet! o the state is endangered. 3rench
courts thereore claim e(clusive Curisdiction over crimes
committed on board 3rench merchant vessels in oreign *orts b!
one member o the crew against another. (G) vs. Eull)
A. @nglish Rule 2"he @nglish onl! e(ercise their Curisdiction on issues
that involve the internal management o vessel% otherwise% such
crimes are triable in that countr! where the! were committed.
(G) vs. Eull)
Note6 ,n the Phili**ines% we observe the @nglish rule
#a& 9orei"n Merchant Vessels
$ vs. <*ll
3acts6 <.N Eull% who was the master o a vessel trans*orting cattle% carabao
and other animals rom 3ormosa to /anila% ailed to *rovide suitable means or
securing animas while the! are in transit. )uch neglect was a violation o 4ct.
No. 9$A o the Phili**ine Commission. Eull contends that the Phili**ine courts
have no Curisdiction over his oense.
,ssue6 57N the Phili**ines has Curisdiction over this case.
#ecision6 5hen a vessel comes within 0 miles rom the headland which
embrace the entrance o /anila Ea!% the vessel is within the territorial waters
and thus% the laws o the Phili**ines shall a**l!. 4 continuing crime committed
on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Phili**ines is within the
Curisdiction o the courts o the Phili**ine when the orbidden conditions e(isted
during the time the shi* was within the territorial waters% regardless o the act
that the same conditions e(isted when the shi* sailed rom the oreign *ort and
while it was on the high seas.
#1& 9orei"n Merchant Vessel In %ransit
$ vs. Loo6 Chaw
3acts6 "he deendant was charged with unlawul *ossession and sale o o*ium.
<e was on board the steamshi* @rrol% which was o @nglish nationalit!% which
came rom <ong Bong and was bound to /e(ico via the *orts o /anila. "he
deense moved or the dismissal o the case on the ground that the courts have
no Curisdiction since the act does not constitute a crime.
,ssue6 57N the courts have Curisdiction over a oreign vessel in transit.
#ecision6 /ere *ossession o o*ium aboard a oreign merchant vessel in
transit is not triable in the Phili**ines% because that act alone does not
constitute a breach o *ublic order. "he mere *ossession o o*ium on such a
shi*% without being used in our territor!% does not bring about in this countr!
those disastrous eects that our law contem*lates on avoiding. Eut our courts
acDuire Curisdiction when the tunes o o*ium are landed rom the vessel on
Phili**ine sol. Landing or using o*ium is an o*en violation o the Phili**ine
laws.
#c& 9orei"n Merchant Vessels not in transit
$ vs. Ah in"
3acts6 #eendant is a ireman o the steamshi* )hun Chang% a oreign steamer%
which doc=ed at the *ort o Cebu. #eendant brought eight cans o o*ium and
u*on ins*ection% authorities ound said substances. 4 charge o illegal
im*ortation was served against him.
,ssue6 57N the crime o illegal im*ortation o o*ium in to the Phili**ines was
*roven.
#ecision6 5hen a oreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the
Phili**ines is its terminal *ort% the *erson in *ossession o o*ium on board the
vessel is liable% because he ma! be held guilt! o illegal im*ortation o o*ium.
,m*ortation is com*lete when the shi* anchored in the Phili**ine *ort. ,t is not
necessar! that the o*ium be discharged or ta=en rom the shi* (G) vs. 1ose).
E4em!tions to the territorial a!!lication of criminal law
4rticle 9 o RPC *rovides that its *rovisions shall be orced outside o the
Curisdiction o the Phili**ines against those who6
1) )hould commit an oense while on a Phili**ine shi* or airshi*.
Note6 4 Phili**ine vessel or aircrat must be understood as that which is
registered in the Phili**ine Eureau o Customs. ,t is the registration o the
vessel or aircrat in accordance with the laws o the Phili**ines% not the
citi.enshi* o its owner% which ma=es it a Phili**ine shi* or airshi*.
+vvver"a Pa"e = of ,--
9) 5hen the oender should orge or countereit an! coin or currenc!
note o the Phili**ines or obligations and securities b! the
-overnment.
Note6 Countereiting or orging Phili**ine coins or ban= notes in a oreign
countr! ma! be *rosecuted beore Phili**ine civil courts.
0) 5hen the oender should be liable or acts connected with the
introduction to the Phili**ines o the obligations and securities
mentioned in the *receding number.
Note6 ,ntroducing a=e currenc! in the Phili**ine is as dangerous as orging or
countereiting o the same% to the economical interest o the countr!.
+) 5hen the oender% while being a *ublic oicer or em*lo!ee% should
commit an oense in the e(ercise o his unctions.
Note6 crimes that ma! be committed% even in abroad% in the e(ercise o *ublic
unctions are6
a) direct briber!
b) indirect briber!
c) rauds against the *ublic treasur!
d) *ossession o *rohibited interest
e) malversation o *ublic unds or *ro*ert!
) ailure o accountable oicer to render accounts
g) illegal use o *ublic unds or *ro*ert!
h) ailure to ma=e deliver! o *ublic unds or *ro*ert!
i) alsiication b! a *ublic oicer or em*lo!ee committed with
abuse o his oicial *osition.
A) 5hen the oender should commit an! o the crimes against the
national securit! and law o nations.
Note6 "his include% treason% cons*irac! and *ro*osal to commit treason%
es*ionage% inciting was and giving motives or re*risals% violation o neutralit!%
corres*ondence with hostile countr!% light to enem!Is countr!% *irac! and
mutin! on the high seas.
Peo!le vs. L8L>L8 and ARAW
3acts6 "he deendants were charged o the crime o *irac! or *irating two
#utch boats as well as ra*ing two o the women. #eendants contend that the
*rovisions o the *enal code dealing with *irac! are no longer in orce.
,ssue6 57N the *rovisions o the *enal code dealing with the crime o *irac!
are still in orce.
#ecision6 ?es. E! virtue o the "reat! o Paris% )*ain ceded the Phili**ine
,slands to the G). ,t is but a logical construction that wherever M)*ainM is
mentioned in the Penal Code% it should be substituted b! the words MGnited
)tatesM and wherever M)*aniardsM are mentioned% the word should be
substituted b! the e(*ression% Mciti.ens o the Gnited )tates and citi.ens o the
Phili**ine ,slands.M Pirac! is a crime not against an! *articular )tate but
against all man=ind. ,t ma! be *unished in the com*etent tribunal o an!
countr! where the oender ma! be ound or into which lie ma! be carried. "he
Curisdiction o *irac! unli=e all other crimes has no territorial limits.
Note6 "his case is an e(ce*tion to the e(ce*tion.
C. PRINCIPLE 89 IRRE%R8PEC%IVI%. 8R PR8PEC%IVI%. ?
*enal law cannot ma=e an act *unishable in a manner in which it was
not *unishable when it was not committed. 4t 0'' o RPC *rovide
that crimes are *unished under the laws in orce at the time o their
commission. ,t is logical or laws to loo= orward and not bac=ward.
N*ll*m crimen@ n*lla !oena sine le"e -- "here is no crime when there is no
law *unishing the same. "his is true to civil law countries% but not to common
law countries.
$ vs. Macasaet
3acts6 "he deendant was *roven guilt! o selling native wine at retail without
the license reDuired b! law. <e was sentenced to *a! a ine and was also
sentenced to im*risonment in case o insolvenc! with res*ect to the ine
im*osed. "he Cudge im*osed a sentence with heavier *enalt! in accordance
with a new law% which too= eect two months ater the trial.
,ssue6 57N 4ct. No. 1$09 which im*osed both the ine and the im*risonment
should be a**lied on this case.
#ecision6 No. ,nasmuch as 4ct No. 1$09 did not go into orce until ater the
commission o the oense% subsidiar! im*risonment can not be lawull!
im*osed. Penal statutes cannot be made retroactive with res*ect to a crime% or
other oense% unless the! are avorable to the *erson accused.
E4 !ost facto laws
Rule6 No e( *ost acto laws shall be enacted.
4n e( *ost acto law is one which6
(1) ma=es criminal in act done beore the *assage o the law and which was
innocent when done% and *unishes such in act.
(9) aggravates a crime% or ma=es it greater than it was% when committedK
+vvver"a Pa"e A of ,--
(0) changes the *unishment and inlicts a greater *unishment than the law
anne(ed to the crime when committedK
(+) alters the legal rules o evidence% and authori.es conviction u*on less or
dierent testimon! than the law reDuired at the time o the commission o the
oenseK
(A) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies onl!% in eect im*oses
*enalt! or de*rivation o a right or something which when done was lawulK
and
(') de*rives a *erson accused o a crime o some lawul *rotection to which he
has become entitled% such as the *rotection o a ormer conviction or acDuittal%
or a *roclamation o amnest!.
In re5 Bay Ville"as Bami@ Inc.
3acts6 "he *etitioners are assailing the constitutionalit! o )ec. & (a) and 1& o
R4 No. '109 sa!ing that it is an e( *ost acto law. "he said law *rohibits the
*etitionerIs nominee to be nominated in the constitutional convention since he
re*resents a *art.
,ssue6 57N the said law is an e( *ost acto law and thus unconstitutional.
#ecision6 No. "he *rohibition against e( *ost acto laws a**lies onl! to criminal
or *enal matters% not to laws% which concern civil matters. 4lthough section 1&
*enali.es a violation o an! o the *rovision o R4 1'09% the *enalt! is im*osed
onl! or acts committed ater the a**roval o the law and not those *er*etuated
*rior thereto.
<ill of Attainder as E4 Post 9acto Law
Peo!le vs. 9errer
3acts6 "he deendants assail the constitutionalit! o R4 No. 1$88 or the 4nti
)ubversion 4ct on the ground that is a bill o attainder.
,ssue6 57N the law is unconstitutional
#ecision6 4 bill o attainder is a legislative act% which inlicts *unishment
without trial. ,ts essence is the substitution o a legislative or a Cudicial
determination o guilt. )ection + o the 4nti-)ubversion 4ct e(*ressl! states
that the *rohibition therein a**lies onl! to acts committed M4ter the a**roval
o this 4ct.M Onl! those who M=nowingl!% willull! and b! overt acts ailiate
themselves with% become or remain members o the Communist Part! o the
Phili**ines and7or its successors or o an! subversive associationM ater 1une
98% 1>A$% are *unished.
E4ce!tions to the !ros!ective a!!lication of criminal laws #When !enal
law a!!ly retroactively&
,. When favora1le to the acc*sed
Peo!le vs. Macasaet
Escalante vs. antos
3acts6 Petitioner was convicted or the crime o estaa and was sentenced to
serve or 9 !ears and 11 months im*risonment to indemni! the oended *art!.
4ter 0 !ears% he has not !et been released. <e is *etitioning or habeas
cor*us.
,ssue6 57N the *etition is Custiied.
#ecision6 ?es. "he *etitioner% having alread! served or more than three !ears
is entitled to be discharged under the *rovisions o 4rt. 99 o the *enal code.
"he *rinci*le o the retroactivit! o *enal laws in so ar as it is avorable to the
deendant is sanctioned b! the Revised Penal Code. @ven i the accused is
serving inal Cudgment% as long as he is not a habitual delinDuent% he can avail
o the amended% lighter *enalt!.
(a) #egree o ,m*osable Penalt! is reduced
Peo!le vs. *1ido
3acts6 C3, o /anila ound the accused guilt! o libel and is hereb! sentenced to
0 months o arresto ma!or with accessor! *enalties o the law% to *a! a ine o
A88 *esos% to indemni! the oended *art!% /a!or 4rsenio Lacson in the sum
o 18%888 *esos with subsidiar! im*risonment in case o insolvenc!. 4**ealed
to the Court o 4**eals. "he C4 ordered the accused to *a! a ine o A88 *esos
and indemnit! is reduced to A%888 *esos onl!. 4**ellant said that he could not
be reDuired to serve the amount o ine and indemnit! in the orm o subsidiar!
im*risonment because said Cudgment did not e(*ressl! *rovide that. "his was
denied. )heri then attached whatever rights% interest o accused in the two-
store! building% but the same was registered in the name o 4ga*ito )ubido%
and so he iled a third *art! claim enCoining the sheri to *roceed with the sale.
Lower court issued a writ o inCunction. Lower court states that he should suer
subsidiar! im*risonment% even i the same was not stated in the decision o C4.
,ssue6 57N )ubido be reDuired to suer subsidiar! im*risonment% in case o
insolvenc! to *a! his civil liabilit!.
#ecision6 No. 4ccused-a**ellant is avored b! the retroactive orce o 4rt. 0>
o the RPC% as amended b! R.4. A+'A which e(em*ts an accused *erson rom
subsidiar! im*risonment in case o insolvenc! to *a! his civil liabilit!.
Considering that 4rt. 0>% as amended is avorable to the accused% the same
should be made a**licable to him. ,t is so *rovided in 4rt. 99 o the RPC.
4**l!ing 4rt. 0> as amended% he cannot also be reDuired to serve his civil
liabilit! to the oended *art! in orm o subsidiar! im*risonment because this is
no longer reDuired b! the aoresaid article.
+vvver"a Pa"e C of ,--
Note6 Removal o subsidiar! im*risonment to *a! civil liabilit!
(b) Prescribing -rounds or /itigation or @(tinction o Criminal
Liabilit!
Laceste vs. antos
3acts6 "he *etitioner% Clemente Laceste% *ra!s the court to set him at libert!
through the writ o habeas corpus% *leading that there is no suicient legal
ground or continuing his im*risonment an! longer. 5ith Nicolas Lachica% he
had been *rosecuted% ound guilt!% and sentenced to commitment or the crime
o ra*e. Nicola Lachica married the victim% /agdalena de Ocam*o% and was
accordingl! relieved rom the criminal *rosecution b! virtue o section 9% 4ct
No. 1$$0% and article ++& o the Penal Code then in orce% which *rovided that
such a marriage e(tinguished *enal liabilit!% and hence% the *enalt!. Eut the
*etitioner herein continued serving his sentence% which was not aected b! the
marriage o his coaccused and the oended *art!.
,ssue6 57N Laceste should be reed.
#ecision6 ,t is believed that the Revised Penal Code% 4ct No. 0&1A% article 0++%
last *aragra*h% a**lies to the case o the herein *etitioner% and that he should
be discharged rom *rison. 4ll *enal laws have been declared retroactive b! the
<onorable )u*reme Court. 4nd the Legislature% under section 0'' o the New
Penal Code% has clearl! intended to give retroactive eect to article 99% because
section 0'' *rovides6 M5ithout *reCudice to the *rovisions contained in article
99 o this Code% elonies and misdemeanors% committed *rior to the date o
eectiveness o this Code% shall be *unished in accordance with the Code or
4cts in orce at the time o their commission.M , it was not the intention o the
Legislature to ma=e the new Code retroactive% it would have used the words
"notwithstanding" or "in spite of"% instead o "without prejudice."
"he *rinci*le o retroactivit! o *enal laws in so ar as the! avor the deendant%
has been sanctioned in the Revised Penal Code% as it was in the Code that
*receded it.
(c) Providing or Prescri*tion o oenses
Peo!le vs. Moran
E4ce!tions to retroactivity of laws
#a& Acc*sed is a ha1it*al criminal #Art. 00&
#1& Acc*sed 'isre"ards Later law and invo6es !rior stat*te *nder
which he was !rosec*ted.
#c& Later tat*te Precl*des A!!lication to E4istin" Actions or
Pendin" Cases
%avera vs. Valde(
3acts6 "he accused was charged with oense o inCurias graves under articles
o the RPC.
,ssue6 57N the new law can a**l! to the accused.
#ecision6 No. )ection 10 o the new act *rovides as ollows6 M4ll laws and
*arts o laws now in orce% so ar as the same ma! be in conlict herewith% are
hereb! re*ealed6 Provided% "hat nothing herein contained shall o*erate as a
re*eal o e(isting laws in so ar as the! are a**licable to *ending actions or
e(isting causes o action% but as to such causes o action or *ending actions
e(isting laws shall remain in ull orce and eect.M "he general rule that *enal
laws shall be retroactive in so ar as the! avor the accused has no a**lication
where the later law is e(*ressl! made ina**licable to *ending actions or
e(isting causes o action.
D. PRINCIPLE 89 LE/ALI%. 5 N*ll*m crimen@ n*lla !oena sine le"e
-- "here is no crime when there is no law *unishing the same. "his is
true to civil law countries% but not to common law countriesK all crimes
must be so deined and *enali.ed under the law (art. 91)
E. PER8NAL 2 Penal laws does not allow an!one to assume anotherIs
criminal liabilit!
F. PRINCIPLE 89 CER%AIN%. 2 ever! act made *unishable b! law
must be so deined as to leave no *enumbra o doubt or uncertaint!
as to its a**licabilit! to a given case.
ID. 8ther f*ndamental Ass*m!tions of Penal Law
A. 3ree-will or reedom to choose between right and wrongK no liabilit! i
elonious act is committed without ree will
B. ,gnorance o the law e(cuses no one rom com*liance therewith
D. Limitations on the !ower of the lawma6in" 1ody to enact !enal
le"islation
A. No e( *ost acto law or bill o attainder shall be enacted
B. No *erson shall be held to answer or criminal oenses without due
*rocess o law 2 criminal laws must be o general a**lication and must
clearl! deine the acts and omissions *unished as crimes.
DI. <asic Ma4ims in Criminal Law
A. Princi!le of Pro Reo -- 5henever a *enal law is to be construed or
a**lied and the law admits o two inter*retations 2 one lenient to the
+vvver"a Pa"e ,- of ,--
oender and one strict to the oender 2 that inter*retation which is
lenient or avorable to the oender will be ado*ted.
Peo!le vs. Al(a"a
3acts6 Ro! 4l.aga was ound guilt! b! the R"C or the crime o murder. "he
accused maintained his innocence sa!ing that tit was the victim who
accidentall! shot himsel while the! were battling or the gun. "here were two
witnesses with contradicting testimonies. "here were also testimonies which
were inconsistent to the guilt o the accused.
,ssue6 57N the 4l.aga should be charged be!ond reasonable doubt.
#ecision6 No. 5here incul*ator! acts are susce*tible o two inter*retations%
one consistent and another inconsistent with the guilt o the accused% the
accused should be acDuitted since evidence ailed to ulill the test o moral
certaint! to su**ort a conviction. "he court agrees with the accused that where
acts are susce*tible o two inter*retations% then we have to sustain the
inter*retation% which leads to acDuittal. Proo o guilt must convince be!ond
reasonable doubt.
Peo!le vs. N"
3acts6 "he deendant was charged with the crime o orcible abduction with
ra*e. #uring arraignment% accused *leaded not guilt!. R"C convicted the
deendant but he a**ealed contending that evidences were not enough to
warrant a conviction.
,ssue6 57N the evidences were enough to warrant a charge o guilt! be!ond
reasonable doubt.
#ecision6 No. Charge o ra*e based u*on the sole testimon! o the one who
com*lains o ra*e should be regarded with utmost caution and that the *erson
charged with the oense should not be convicted unless the com*lainantLs
testimon! is im*eccable and rings true throughout. "he case at bar alls short
to the Duantum o evidence reDuired to sustain a conviction o ra*e thereb!
creating reasonable doubt as to a**ellantLs guilt. "he rule is that reasonable
doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in avor o the accused. "he
reDuirement o *roo be!ond reasonable doubt calls or moral certaint! o guilt
-- a certaint! that convinces and satisies the reason and the conscience o
those who are to act u*on it.
B. Act*s non facit re*m@ nisi mens sit rea -- "he act cannot be
criminal where the mind is not criminal. "his is true to a elon!
characteri.ed b! dolo% but not a elon! resulting rom cul*a. "his
ma(im is not an absolute one because it is not a**lied to cul*able
elonies% or those that result rom negligence.
DII.Constr*ction of !enal laws
A. Li1eral Constr*ction In 9avor of the 8ffender
#a& Reason
Note6 4mbiguit! 2 occurs when an act alls under more than one law or
when the law is susce*tible to more than one inter*retation
Peo!le vs. P*risima
3acts6 "went! si( *etitions or review were iled b! the Peo*le o the
Phili**ines involving the inormation iled charging the res*ective accused
with violation o P# No. >. "he courts o irst instances issued an order
Duashing the in ormations iled alleging that the acts ailed to state one
essential element o the crime
,ssue6 57N the inormations iled b! the *eo*le were suicient in orm
and substance to constitute an oence o Hillegal *ossession o deadl!
wea*onI *enali.ed under P# No. >.
#ecision6 No. "he inormations merel! contained the irst element 2 that
is% carr!ing outside oneIs residence o an! bladed% blunt or *ointed wea*on
2 but it ailed to include the second element% which is the intention or
motivation behind it. "his =ind o construction is ver! much o*en to *olice
e(tortion thus must be avoided. Penal statues must be construed strictl!
against the state and liberall! in avor o the accused. "he reason or this
is the :tenderness o the law o the rights o individualsK the obCect is to
establish a certain rule b! conormit! to which man=ind would be sae% and
the discretion o the court limited. "he *ur*ose is not to enable the guilt!
*erson to esca*e *unishment through technicalit! but to *rovide *recise
deinition o orbidden acts. Penal laws should be construed strictl!. No
*erson should be brought within their terms who is not clearl! within them
nor should an! act be *ronounced criminal which is not made clearl! so be
a statute.
ee5 Princi!le of Pro>reo
B. Penal laws are strictly constr*ed a"ainst the /overnment and
li1erally in favor of the acc*sed #$ vs. A1ad antos&. %his r*le
may 1e invo6ed only where the law is am1i"*o*s and there is
do*1t as to its inter!retation. Where the law is clear and
*nam1i"*o*s@ there is no room for the a!!lication of this r*le
#Peo!le vs. /atchalian&.
+vvver"a Pa"e ,, of ,--
#a& When the law is clear@ there is no room for
inter!retation. %he tas6 of the co*rt is to a!!ly the
law. Will not also a!!ly when strict constr*ction will
defeat the intent@ !olicy and !*r!ose.
#1& If the law is am1i"*o*s@ the tas6 of the co*rt of to
6now the meanin" and intention of the law.
Ramire( vs. Co*rt of A!!eals
3acts6 Petitioner iled a case against *rivate res*ondent% -arcia or allegedl!
ve(ing and humiliating her. ,n su**ort o her allegations% she *resented a
transcri*t o her conversation with the res*ondent. 4s a result o her actions%
res*ondent iled a case against her or violation o Re*ublic 4ct +988% entitled
4n 4ct to *rohibit and *enali.e wire-ta**ing and other related violations o
*rivate communication% and other *ur*oses. Petitioner also alleged that *rivate
conversation% which she and the res*ondent had% is not the same with *rivate
communication.
,ssue6 57N there is ambiguit! in the meaning o *rivate conversation and
*rivate communication.
#ecision6 "here is no ambiguit!. Legislative intent is determined *rinci*all!
rom the language o a statute. 5here the language o a statute is clear and
unambiguous% the law is a**lied according to its e(*ress terms% and
inter*retation would be resorted to onl! where a literal inter*retation would be
either im*ossible or absurd or would lead to an inCustice. "he aore stated
*rovision clearl! and uneDuivocall! ma=es it illegal or an! *erson% not
authori.ed b! all the *arties to an! *rivate communication to secretl! record
such communication b! means o an! gadget.
/aanan vs. Intermediate A!!ellate Co*rt
#in contrast with Ramire( vs. CA&
3acts6 "his case involves an act o overhearing a conversation b! use o an
e(tension line.
,ssue6 57N there is ambiguit! in the *hrase Mdevice(s) or arrangement(s)M
#ecision6 "he use o a tele*hone e(tension or the *ur*ose o overhearing a
*rivate conversation without authori.ation did not violate R.4. +988 because a
tele*hone e(tension device was neither among those devices enumerated in
)ection 1 o the law nor was it similar to those Mdevice(s) or arrangement(s)M
enumerated therein. "he *hrase is ambiguous and the *rinci*le that M*enal
statutes must be construed strictl! in avor o the accused.M /ust be ollowed.
"he case o Ramire. turns on a dierent note% because the a**licable acts and
circumstances *ointing to a violation o R.4. +988 suer rom no ambiguit!% and
the statute itsel e(*licitl! mentions the unauthori.ed MrecordingM o *rivate
communications with the use o ta*e-recorders; as among the acts *unishable.
$ vs. %ori1io
3acts6 #eendant was charged or violation o 4rt. 08 and 00 o 4ct 11+$%
which regulates the registration% branding and slaughtering o large cattle
without a license. "here are two constructions o these *rohibitions6
(c) "he *hrase Hat the munici*al slaughter houseI ma! be ta=en
as limiting and restricting both the word HslaughteredI and
:=illed or ood; in section 08 and :=illing or ood; in section
00.
(d) "he *hrase : at the munici*al slaughterhouse; ma! bet ta=en
as limiting and restricting the words :=illed or ood;
4**ellant contends that since in his town% there are no slaughterhouses% the
*rohibitions o 4ct 11+$ does not a**l!.
,ssue6 57N the deendant incurred liabilit!.
#ecision6 ?es. "he act *rimaril! see=s to *rotect large cattle rom thetK thus%
the latter construction should be ado*ted. 5hen the language i a statute is
susce*tible o more than one construction% that construction should be ado*ted
which will most tend to give eect to the maniest intent o the legislature.
)ec. 08 and 00 o the act *rohibit and *enali.e the slaughtering or causing to
be slaughtered or human consum*tion o large cattle at an! *lace without the
*ermit *rovided or in sec. 08.
$ vs. Chico
3acts6 #eendant was charged or violating sec. 1 o 4ct. No. 1'>' o the
Phili**ine commission which *rohibits the dis*la! o an! lag% banner or device
used during the insurrections in the Phili**ines. <e contends that he is
ignorant o the law and that the *rohibition is onl! against the actual use o
identical banners and devices which were used during the Phili**ine
insurrection.
,ssue6 57N the accused should be held liable or the violation.
#ecision6 ?es. "he contention is nonsense. ,n cases li=e this% the court shall
resort to the *rinci*le that the s*irit o the law controls the letter. "he intention
o the legislature and obCect aimed at are to control the literal inter*retation o
a *articular language in a statute. Language ca*able o more than one
meaning is to be ta=en in the sense% which will harmoni.e the intention and
obCect. 5hen there is ambiguit!% and there is doubt as to the subCect matter to
which the law is to be a**lied% the *reamble ma! be used.
+vvver"a Pa"e ,0 of ,--
C. C*lt*ral environment 1y which the le"islat*re is o!eratin" can
also 1e a so*rce of the meanin" as well as the intention of the
law.
Le"amia vs. Intermediate A!!ellate Co*rt
3acts6 Petitioner has been living with a married man or 98 !ears and the
relationshi* ended with the death o the man. 4ter the death o husband
@milio% Cora.on iled or su**ort or their son. "his came to the =nowledge o
the real s*ouse thus she iled a com*laint against Cora.on or using the name
Re!es although she was not married to @milio.
,ssue6 57N Cora.on violated the 4nti-4lias Law.
#ecision6 ,t is in the light o our cultural environment that the law must be
construed. Our societ! is a tolerant one and surel!% the lawma=ers could not
have meant to criminali.e what Cora.on had done es*eciall! because some o
them *robabl! had their own Cora.ons.
D. In the constr*ction or inter!retation of the !rovisions of the
RPC@ the !anish te4t is controllin".
<a6in" vs. 'irector of !risons
3acts6 Petitioner has been in detention or 1& !ears o *reventive im*risonment
or the crime o rebellion. <e is claiming or allowance or good conduct as
*rovided or b! 4rt >$ o the RPC.
,ssue6 57N 4rt >$ o the RP is a**licable to detention *risoners or *risoners
who are Cust serving *reventive im*risonment.
#ecision6 "he term Man! *risonerM in the @nglish te(t o 4rt. >$ regarding good
conduct allowance is% in the )*anish te(t% Mel *enado%M who is a convict or a
*erson alread! sentenced b! inal Cudgment. "here is no doubt that 4rticle >$
does not embrace detention *risoners within its reach. Eecause it s*ea=s o the
buena conducta observada *or el *enado - not one under M*rison *reventiva.M
"he allowance or good conduct Mor each month o good behaviorM then
unDuestionabl! reers to good behavior o a *risoner while he is serving his
term as a convict and not otherwise. ,nasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was
originall! a**roved and enacted in )*anish% the )*anish te(t governs.
Peo!le vs. Mana1a
3acts6 /anaba was charged with ra*e. "he irst com*laint was made b! the
chie o *olice o #umagete. "he accused was tried and convicted% but the
Cudgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court
had no Curisdiction over the *erson o the deendant or the subCect matter o
the action% because the com*laint had not been iled b! the oended *art!% but
b! the chie o *olice. "he victim then iled the same com*laint. "his time%
/anaba iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o Ceo*ard! or the same
oense.
,ssue6 57N the *lea or double Ceo*ard! should be granted.
#ecision6 "he third *aragra*h o article 0++ o the Revised Penal Code *rovides
that6 "he oenses o seduction% abduction% ra*e or acts o lasciviousness% shall
not be *rosecuted e(ce*t u*on a com*laint iled b! the oended *art!N..; ,t
will be observed that the )*anish eDuivalent o the word MiledM is not ound in
the )*anish te(t% which is controlling% as it was the )*anish te(t o the Revised
Penal Code that was a**roved b! the Legislature. )ince the irst com*laint iled
was not the com*laint o the oended *art!% it was not a valid com*laint in
accordance with the law. "he Cudgment o the court was thereore void or lac=
o Curisdiction over the subCect matter% and the deendant was never in
Ceo*ard!.
Peo!le vs. Mesias
3acts6 "he deendant was accused o robbing seven sac=s o rice and beore
arraignment% he contended that the term rice does not onl! mean hulled rice
but also includes *ala!. , the word rice includes the grain in its original state
without the hull being ta=en awa!% then MriceL is included under the term
Lsemilla alimenticiaL or cereal seed. "hereore% the thing stolen was reall! hulled
rice (arro.) but there is nothing in the com*laint which shows that act. "he
com*laint merel! alleges that the obCect stolen was seven sac=s o rice. ,t ma!
be hulled rice (arro.) or it ma! be rice seeds (*ala!). Gnder the circumstances%
the deendant submits that the doubt should alwa!s be resolved in avor o the
accused.
,ssue6 57N the *hrase Mhulled riceM was within the meaning o Msemilla
alimenticiaM as used in the )*anish te(t.
#ecision6 "he @nglish word McerealM% into which was translated the *hrase
Msemilla alimenticiaM% used in the )*anish te(t o article 080 o the Revised
Penal Code% is incorrect. ,nasmuch as hulled rice (arro.) cannot be considered
as seedling (semilla alimenticia)% the oense with which the a**ellee is charged
in the inormation does not all under article 080 o the Revised Penal Code but
under the second to the last *aragra*h o article 089 where the oense therein
deined is *enali.ed with arresto ma!or in its ma(imum degree to *rision
correccional. ,n cases o doubt in the inter*retation o the Revised Penal Code%
the )*anish te(t should *revail.
Note6 "here are alread! amendments that use @nglish terms. 3or these
amendments% there is no need to go bac= to the )*anish te(t. Eut or those%
which remained in their original orm% the )*anish te(t is controlling.
Peo!le vs. <al*1ar
3acts6 Ealubar was ound guilt! o the crime o *h!sical inCuries b! the lower
court. "he victim lost our o his ront teeth. "he conlict arose rom the
ambiguous term :an! other members; which is necessar! or the charge. "he
@nglish te(t contained :loss on an! other *art o his bod!; while the )*anish
te(t *rovided the loss o :an! other member; resulting in :disigurement;.
Later cases seem to suggest that loss o teeth does not constitute
disigurement because it can easil! be re*laced.
,ssue6 57N the accused is still liable or his actions.
#ecision6 ,n this case% )*anish te(t is given more weight. MCualDuier otro
miembroM is more accuratel! translated Man! other memberM% meaning an!
other member than an e!e% a hand% a oot% an arm% or a leg resulting to
M#eormeM or MdisiguredM. )uch is the case at bar. "he accused is not relieved
o liabilit! rom the reDuisite :deorme; even i the victim can lessen the
deormit! through artiicial means. One who unlawull! wounds another is
res*onsible or the conseDuences o his act.
DIII.Re!eals
A. 'ifferent effects of re!eal of !enal law
1) , re*eal ma=es the *enalt! lighter in the new law% the new law shall
be a**lied% e(ce*t when the oender is a habitual delinDuent or when
the new law is made not a**licable to *ending action or e(isting
causes o action.
9) , the new law im*oses a heavier *enalt!% the law in orce at the time
o the commission o the oense shall be a**lied
0) , the new law totall! re*eals the e(isting law so that the act% which
was *enali.ed under the old law% is no longer *unishable% the crime is
obliterated.
Peo!le vs. %amayo
3acts6 "he accused was *rosecuted or and convicted o a violation o an
ordinance. 5hile the case was *ending a**eal% the ordinance was re*ealed b!
eliminating the section under which the accused was being *rosecuted.
,ssue6 57N the absolute re*eal obliterated the criminal liabilit!.
#ecision6 "he re*eal is absolute. 5here the re*eal is absolute and not a
reenactment or re*eal b! im*lication% the oense ceases to be criminal. "he
deendant must be acDuitted.
'avid vs. 'ancel
3acts6 Petitioner is assailing the *romotion o 4ngel #ancel to Chie o "a(
Registration a *osition to which he claims to be lawull! entitled. <e urther
contends that @O No. A80% which *rescribes a minimum eicienc! o &AO or
*romotion% was su*erceded b! the Com*ilation o Civil )ervice Laws and Rules
under which his rating o &+O is considered a high degree o eicienc!.
,ssue6 57N @O A80 was re*ealed b! Com*ilation o Civil )ervice Laws and
Rules% an 4dministrative Com*ilation.
#ecision. No. "he Com*ilation o Civil )ervice Laws and Rules was *re*ared
merel! b! the Eureau o Civil )ervice and could not *ossibl! have re*ealed
@(ecutive Order No. A80% series o 1>0+ since under 4rticle $ o the Civil Code%
Mlaws are re*ealed onl! b! subseDuent ones and their violation or non-
observance shall not be e(cused b! disuse% or custom or *ractice to the
contrar!.M
Peo!le vs. Alm*ete
3acts6 "he deendant su**osedl! violated )ec 0> o he 4gricultural "enanc!
Law which is *remised on the e(istence o the rice share tenanc! s!stem. "he
act o *re-rea*ing and *re-treshing without notice to the landlord% which was
an oense under the 4gricultural "enanc!% has ceased to be an oense under
the subseDuent law% the Code o 4grarian Reorms. "o *rosecute it as an
oense when the Code o 4grarian Reorms is alread! in orce would be
re*ugnant to the *olic! and s*irit o that Code and would subvert the maniest
legislative intent not to *unish an!more *re-rea*ing sod *re-threshing without
notice to the landholder.
,ssue6 57N 4lmuete violated a law.
#ecision6 "he 4gricultural Land Reorm Code su*erseded the 4gricultural
"enanc! Law (e(ce*t as Dualiied in sections + and 0A o the Code). "he Code
instituted the leasehold s!stem and abolished share tenanc! subCect to certain
conditions indicated in section + thereo. ,t is signiicant that section 0> is not
re*roduced in the 4gricultural Land Reorm Code whose section 1$9 re*eals Mall
laws or *art o an! law inconsistent withM its *rovisions. "he *rohibition against
*re-threshing has no more raison dLetre because the lessee is obligated to *a!
a i(ed rental as *rescribed in section 0+ o the 4gricultural Land Reorm Code%
or the Code o 4grarian Reorms% as redesignated in Re*ublic 4ct No. '0&>
which too= eect on )e*tember 18% 1>$1. "hus% the legal ma(im cessante
ratione legis% cessat i*sa le( (the reason or the law ceasing% the law itsel also
ceases)% a**lies to the case at bar.
B. Conse)*ences if re!eal of !enal law is !artial or relative
(1) , a case is *ending in court involving the violation o the re*ealed law%
and the re*ealing law is more avorable to the accused% it shall be the
one a**lied to him. )o whether he is a habitual delinDuent or not% i
the case is still *ending in court% the re*ealing law will be the one to
a**l! unless there is a saving clause in the re*ealing law that it shall
not a**l! to *ending causes o action.
(9) , a case is alread! decided and the accused is alread! serving
sentence b! inal Cudgment% even i the re*ealing law is *artial or
relative% the crime still remains to be a crime. "hose who are not
habitual delinDuents will beneit on the eect o that re*eal% so that i
the re*eal is more lenient to them% it will be the re*ealing law that will
henceorth a**l! to them.
C. E4!ress or im!lied re!eal 2 @(*ress or im*lied re*eal reers to the
manner the re*eal is done.
,. An im!lied re!eal will ta6e !lace when there is a law on a
!artic*lar s*1;ect matter and a s*1se)*ent law is !assed
also on the same s*1;ect matter 1*t is inconsistent with
the first law@ s*ch that the two laws cannot stand to"ether@
one of the two laws m*st "ive way. It is the earlier that
will "ive way to the later law 1eca*se the later law
e4!resses the recent le"islative sentiment.
#a& Re!eal 1y im!lication is not favored
#1& %here is im!lied re!eal if there are irreconcila1le
inconsistencies.
Peo!le vs. Castro
3acts6 "he deendant was charged with inCuries graves or sending letter to a
medical health oicer which contained insults and accusations. "he a**ellant
contends (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial did not show that he
was guilt! o the crime o inCurias graves as deined under the Penal Code% and
(b) that even though the evidence did show that he had violated the *rovisions
o the Penal Code *roviding a *unishment or inCurias graves% he could not be
*unished% or the reason that said *rovisions o the Penal Code had been
re*ealed b! the Libel Law (4ct No. 9$$).
,ssue6 57N the *enal code *rovisions were alread! re*ealed b! the Libel Law.
#ecision6 Provisions o the Penal Code% which deine and *unish grave insults%
when those crimes are e(*ressed *ublicl! in writing% are re*ealed b! 4ct No.
9$$-the Libel Law. 4 *enal law% li=e an! other statute% ma! be re*ealed either
e(*ressl! or b! necessar! im*licationK and such statute or law is re*ealed b!
im*lication i the later statute is so re*ugnant to the earlier one that the two
cannot stand together or i the whole subCect o the earlier statute is covered
b! the latter one having the same obCect% and which was clearl! intended to
*rescribe the onl! rule a**licable to the subCect. , a criminal law deals with the
same subCect as a *rior law and is inconsistent with and re*ugnant to the *rior
law% the ormer is thereb! re*ealed. 5here the latter or revising statute clearl!
covers the whole subCect matter o antecedent acts% and it *lainl! a**ears to
have been the *ur*ose o the Legislature to give e(*ression in it to the whole
law on the subCect% the latter is held to be re*ealed b! necessar! im*lication.
#eendant was acDuitted.
Peo!le vs. Perfecto
3acts6 -regorio Perecto% editor o La Nacion was ound guilt! o violating 4rt.
9A$ o the Penal Code or attac=ing the virtue o the members o the )enate.
4rt 9A' o the Penal Code *rovides that an! *erson who b! writing% shall
deame% abuse or insult an! minister o the Crown or other *erson shall be
*unished. #eendant Duestions whether this article is still in orce or whether
the Libel law alread! re*ealed it.
,ssue6 57N 4rt 9A' is still in orce.
#ecision6 "he Phili**ine Libel Law% 4ct No. 9$$% has had the eect o re*ealing
so much o article 9A' o the Penal Code as related to written deamation%
abuse% or insult. 4rticle 9A' o the )*anish Penal Code is not now in orce
because abrogated b! the change rom )*anish to 4merican sovereignt! over
the Phili**ines and because inconsistent with democratic *rinci*les o
government. 5here the later statute clearl! covers the old subCect-matter o
antecedent acts% and it *lainl! a**ears to have been the *ur*ose o the
Legislature to give e(*ression in it to the whole law on the subCect% *revious
laws are held to be re*ealed b! necessar! im*lication.
c. Effects
(1) Pending Criminal 4ction is not dismissed
<*scayno vs. Military Commissions No. ,@ 0@ : and 07
3acts6 "he *etitioners were accused o rebellion or having allegedl!
*artici*ated in *ublic u*rising to overthrow the government. "he! were
accused o subversion under R4 1$88 (4nti-)ubversion Law). )ometime o
1>$'% P# No. &&A which re*ealed R4 1$88 too= eect. One o the *etitioners
contends that her criminal liabilit! was e(tinguished b! the re*eal.
,ssue6 57N in re*ealing R4 1$88% P# No. &&A e(tinguished the criminal
liabilities o *ersons charged with violation o the older law.
#ecision6 No. "hat decree% which is the Revised 4nti-)ubversion Law% in
re*ealing or su*erseding Re*ublic 4ct No. 1$88% e(*ressl! *rovides in its
)ection $ that Macts committed in violationM o the ormer law beore the
eectivit! o the said decree Mshall be *rosecuted and *unished in accordance
with the *rovisions o the ormer 4rtM and that nothing in the said decree Mshall
*revent *rosecution o cases *ending or violation oM Re*ublic 4ct No. 1$88.
"hat saving or transitor! clause is reenacted in section 1+(i) o the National
)ecurit! Code. ,t is similar to article 0'' o the Revised Penal Code which
*rovides that elonies and misdemeanors committed *rior to the eectivit! o
the Revised Penal Code shall be *unished in accordance with the old Penal Code
and the laws in orce at the time o their commission. "he act that Presidential
#ecree No. &&A does not mention the CPP does not mean that the *art! is no
longer regarded as a subversive organi.ation. "he *ur*ose o the *art! is the
decisive actor in determining whether it is a subversive organi.ation.
(9) Eut *enalt! under second law will be a**lied i avorable
to accused.
0. E4!ress re!eal ta6es !lace when a s*1se)*ent law contains
a !rovision that s*ch law re!eals an earlier enactment.

Peo!le vs. oliman
3acts6 #eendant was accused o *erCur! under 4rt 1'>$. 5hile he was
serving his sentence% 4ct. No. 1'>$ was e(*ressl! re*ealed b! a )ection in the
administrative code. 4ccused contends that his criminal liabilit! should be
e(tinguished because o the re*eal.
,ssue6 57N the criminal liabilit! was e(tinguished because o the re*eal.
#ecision6 )ection 19 o the administrative code *rovides that a law% which
e(*ressl! re*ealed a *rior law% is itsel re*ealedK the irst law re*ealed shall not
be revived unless e(*ressl! *rovided. "hereore% the old rule continues in orce
where a law% which re*eals a *rior law% is not e(*ressl!% but b! im*lication% is
itsel re*ealed. 4ct no. 1'>$ im*liedl! re*eals 4rt. 01> o the *enal code%
which also deines and *enali.es *erCur!. 4ct. No. 9'A$ e(*ressl! re*ealed 4ct
no. 1'>$% thus% the *rovisions o the *enal code is revived.
D. Conse)*ences if re!eal of !enal law is e4!ress or im!lied
(1) , a *enal law is im*liedl! re*ealed% the subseDuent re*eal o the
re*ealing law will revive the original law. )o the act or omission which
was *unished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the
same shall again be crimes although during the im*lied re*eal the!
ma! not be *unishable.
(9) , the re*eal is e(*ress% the re*eal o the re*ealing law will not revive
the irst law% so the act or omission will no longer be *enali.ed.
(0) @ects o nullit! o re*ealing laws
Cr*( vs. .o*n"1er"
3acts6 Petitioner attac=ed the constitutionalit! o 4ct No. 01AA which *rohibits
the im*ortation o cattle rom oreign countries to the Phili**ines. Res*ondent
demurred that even id 4ct No. 01AA was declared unconstitutional% the
*etitioner would still be *rohibited rom im*orting because 4ct. No. 08A9 which
was re*ealed b! 4ct. No 01AA will be revived.
,ssue6 57N 4ct. No 01AA is constitutional.
#ecision6 ?es. 4n unconstitutional statute can have no eect to re*eal ormer
laws or *arts o laws b! im*lication% since being voidK it is not inconsistent with
such ormer law. ,t is entirel! unnecessar! to *ass u*on the validit! o the
statute attac=ed because even i it were declared unconstitutional% the
*etitioner would not be entitled to relie because o 4ct. No. 08A9.
DIV.'istinction 1etween crimes !*nished *nder the Revised Penal Code
and crimes !*nished *nder s!ecial laws
1. 4s to moral trait o the oender
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% the moral trait o
the oender is considered. "his is wh! liabilit! would onl! arise when
there is dolo or cul*a in the commission o the *unishable act.
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% the moral trait o the oender
is not consideredK it is enough that the *rohibited act was voluntaril!
done.
9. 4s to use o good aith as deense
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% good aith or lac= o
criminal intent is a valid deenseK unless the crime is the result o
cul*a
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% good aith is not a deense
+vvver"a Pa"e ,: of ,--
0. 4s to degree o accom*lishment o the crime
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% the degree o
accom*lishment o the crime is ta=en into account in *unishing the
oenderK thus% there are attem*ted% rustrated% and consummated
stages in the commission o the crime.
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% the act gives rise to a crime
onl! when it is consummatedK there are no attem*ted or rustrated
stages% unless the s*ecial law e(*ressl! *enali.e the mere attem*t or
rustration o the crime.
+. 4s to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% mitigating and
aggravating circumstances are ta=en into account in im*osing the
*enalt! since the moral trait o the oender is considered.
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are not ta=en into account in im*osing the *enalt!.
A. 4s to degree o *artici*ation
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% when there is more
than one oender% the degree o *artici*ation o each in the
commission o the crime is ta=en into account in im*osing the *enalt!K
thus% oenders are classiied as *rinci*al% accom*lice and accessor!.
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% the degree o *artici*ation o
the oenders is not considered. 4ll who *er*etrated the *rohibited act
are *enali.ed to the same e(tent. "here is no *rinci*al or accom*lice
or accessor! to consider.
E*estions F Answers
1. "hree hiCac=ers accosted the *ilot o an air*lane. "he!
com*elled the *ilot to change destination% but beore the same could be
accom*lished% the militar! was alerted. 5hat was the crime committedJ
Grave coercion. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. Under
special laws, the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated.
Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalied only
when the pernicious effects, which such law seeks to prevent, arise.
9. 4 ma!or awarded a concession to his daughter. )he was also
the highest bidder. "he award was even endorsed b! the munici*al council as
the most advantageous to the munici*alit!. "he losing bidder challenged the
validit! o the contract% but the trial court sustained its validit!. "he case goes
to the )andiganba!an and the ma!or gets convicted or violation o Re*ublic
4ct No. 081> (4nti--rat and Corru*t Practices 4ct). <e a**eals alleging his
deenses raised in the )andiganba!an that he did not *roit rom the
transaction% that the contract was advantageous to the munici*alit!% and that
he did not act with intent to gain. Rule.
!udgment affirmed. The contention of the mayor that he did not profit
anything from the transaction, that the contract was advantageous to the
municipality, and that he did not act with intent to gain, is not a defense. The
crime involved is malum prohibitum.
"n the case of People v. Sunico, an election registrar was prosecuted for
having failed to include in the voter#s register the name of a certain voter.
There is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from
preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. "n trial, the
election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. The trial court convicted
him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. $n
appeal, it was held by he %upreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from
casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as
a crime, but because with or without a law, that act is wrong. "n other words,
it is malum in se. Conse&uently, good faith is a defense. %ince the prosecution
failed to prove that the accused acted with malice, he was ac&uitted.
%est to determine if violation of s!ecial law is mal*m !rohi1it*m or
mal*m in se
'nalye the violation( "s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or
punishing it as such) "f you remove the law, will the act still be wrong)
"f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word *willfully+, then
malice must be proven. ,here malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
"n violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act.
Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an
omission.
,hen given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the -evised .enal
Code or a special law.
DV. Article 0
A. )ource o RPC
(1) Raael del PanIs Correctional Code o 1>1'
(9) Code o /aruecos
+vvver"a Pa"e ,= of ,--
(0) Original #rat o -erman Penal Code o 1>10
B. 5here oense *unishable under RPC is also *unished under militar!
law
C. Pirac! is triable an!where (see Lo-Lol and )araw)
C8PE 89 APPLICA%I8N 89 %HE PR8VII8N 89 %HE REVIE' PENAL
C8'E
"he *rovision in 4rticle 9 embraces two sco*es o a**lications6
(1) ,ntraterritorial 2 reers to the a**lication o the Revised Penal Code
within the Phili**ine territor!K
(9) @(traterritorial 2 reers to the a**lication o the Revised Penal Code
outside the Phili**ine territor!.
Intraterritorial a!!lication
,n the intraterritorial a**lication o the Revised Penal Code% 4rticle 9 ma=es it
clear that it does not reer onl! to Phili**ine archi*elago but it also includes the
atmos*here% interior waters and maritime .one. )o whenever !ou use the word
territor!% do not limit this to land area onl!.
4s ar as Curisdiction or a**lication o the Revised Penal Code over crimes
committed on maritime .ones or interior waters% the 4rchi*elagic Rule shall be
observed. )o the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modiied b! the
rule. 4n! crime committed in interior waters com*rising the Phili**ine
archi*elago shall be subCect to our laws although committed on board a oreign
merchant vessel.
4 vessel is considered a Phili**ine shi* onl! when it is registered in accordance
with Phili**ine laws. Gnder international law% as long as such vessel is not
within the territorial waters o a oreign countr!% Phili**ine laws shall govern.
E4traterritorial a!!lication
@(traterritorial a**lication o the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on
board Phili**ine shi* or airshi* reers onl! to a situation where the Phili**ine
shi* or airshi* is not within the territorial waters or atmos*here o a oreign
countr!. Otherwise% it is the oreign countr!Is criminal law that will a**l!.
<owever% there are two situations where the oreign countr! ma! not a**l! its
criminal law even i a crime was committed on board a vessel within its
territorial waters and these are6
(1) 5hen the crime is committed in a war vessel o a oreign countr!%
because war vessels are *art o the sovereignt! o the countr! to
whose naval orce the! belongK
(9) 5hen the oreign countr! in whose territorial waters the crime was
committed ado*ts the 3rench Rule% which a**lies onl! to merchant
vessels% e(ce*t when the crime committed aects the national securit!
or *ublic order o such oreign countr!.
%he 9rench R*le
"he 3rench Rule *rovides that the nationalit! o the vessel ollows the lag
which the vessel lies% unless the crime committed endangers the national
securit! o a oreign countr! where the vessel is within Curisdiction in which
case such oreign countr! will never lose Curisdiction over such vessel.
%he American or An"lo>a4on R*le
"his rule strictl! enorces the territorialit! o criminal law. "he law o the
oreign countr! where a oreign vessel is within its Curisdiction is strictl!
a**lied% e(ce*t i the crime aects onl! the internal management o the vessel
in which case it is subCect to the *enal law o the countr! where it is registered.
Eoth the rules a**l! onl! to a oreign merchant vessel i a crime was
committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters o another
countr!. , that vessel is in the high seas or o*en seas% there is no occasion to
a**l! the two rules. , it is not within the Curisdiction o an! countr!% these
rules will not a**l!.
E*estion F Answer
4 vessel is not registered in the Phili**ines. 4 crime is committed
outside Phili**ine territorial waters. "hen the vessel entered our territor!. 5ill
the Revised Penal Code a**l!J
?es. Gnder the old Rules o Criminal Procedure% or our courts to ta=e
cogni.ance o an! crime committed on board a vessel during its vo!age% the
vessel must be registered in the Phili**ines in accordance with Phili**ine laws.
Gnder the Revised Rules o Criminal Procedure% however% the reDuirement that
the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Phili**ine laws
has been deleted rom )ection 9A% *aragra*h c o Rule 118 o the Rules o
Court. "he intention is to do awa! with that reDuirement so that as long as the
vessel is not registered under the laws o an! countr!% our courts can ta=e
cogni.ance o the crime committed in such vessel.
+vvver"a Pa"e ,A of ,--
/ore than this% the revised *rovision added the *hrase :in accordance with
generall! acce*ted *rinci*les o ,nternational Law;. )o the intention is clear to
ado*t generall! acce*ted *rinci*les o international law in the matter o
e(ercising Curisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course o
its vo!age. Gnder international law rule% a vessel which is not registered in
accordance with the laws o an! countr! is considered a *irate vessel and *irac!
is a crime against humanit! in general% such that wherever the *irates ma! go%
the! can be *rosecuted.
Prior to the revision% the crime would not have been *rosecutable in our court.
5ith the revision% registration is not an!more a reDuirement and re*laced with
generall! acce*ted *rinci*les o international law. Pirac! is considered a crime
against the law o nations.
,n !our answer% reerence should be made to the *rovision o *aragra*h c o
)ection1A o the Revised Rules o Criminal Procedure. "he crime ma! be
regarded as an act o *irac! as long as it is done with :intent to gain;.
When !*1lic officers or em!loyees commit an offense in the e4ercise of
their f*nctions
"he most common subCect o bar *roblems in 4rticle 9 is *aragra*h +6 :5hile
being *ublic oicers or em*lo!ees% Pthe!F should commit an oense in the
e(ercise o their unctions6;
4s a general rule% the Revised Penal Code governs onl! when the crime
committed *ertains to the e(ercise o the *ublic oicialIs unctions% those
having to do with the discharge o their duties in a oreign countr!. "he
unctions contem*lated are those% which are% under the law% to be *erormed b!
the *ublic oicer in the 3oreign )ervice o the Phili**ine government in a
oreign countr!.
@(ce*tion6 "he Revised Penal Code governs i the crime was committed within
the Phili**ine @mbass! or within the embass! grounds in a oreign countr!.
"his is because embass! grounds are considered an e(tension o sovereignt!.
,llustration6
4 Phili**ine consulate oicial who is validl! married here in the Phili**ines and
who marries again in a oreign countr! cannot be *rosecuted here or bigam!
because this is a crime not connected with his oicial duties. <owever% i the
second marriage was celebrated within the Phili**ine embass!% he ma! be
*rosecuted here% since it is as i he contracted the marriage here in the
Phili**ines.
E*estion F Answer
4 consul was to ta=e a de*osition in a hotel in )inga*ore. 4ter the
de*osition% the de*onent a**roached the consulIs daughter and reDuested that
certain *arts o the de*osition be changed in consideration or Q18%888.88.
"he daughter *ersuaded the consul and the latter agreed. 5ill the crime be
subCect to the Revised Penal CodeJ , so% what crime or crimes have been
committedJ
?es. 3alsiication.
Normall!% the ta=ing o the de*osition is not the unction o the consul%
his unction being the *romotion o trade and commerce with another countr!.
Gnder the Rules o Court% however% a consul can ta=e de*ositions or letters
rogator!. "here is% thereore% a deinite *rovision o the law ma=ing it the
consulIs unction to ta=e de*ositions. 5hen he agreed to the alsiication o the
de*osition% he was doing so as a *ublic oicer in the service o the Phili**ine
government.
Paragra*h A o 4rticle 9% use the *hrase :as deined in "itle One o Eoo= "wo o
this Code.;
"his is a ver! im*ortant *art o the e(ce*tion% because "itle , o Eoo= 9 (crimes
against national securit!) does not include rebellion. )o i acts o rebellion
were *er*etrated b! 3ili*inos who were in a oreign countr!% !ou cannot give
territorial a**lication to the Revised Penal Code% because "itle , o Eoo= 9 does
not include rebellion.
,llustration6
5hen a 3ili*ino who is alread! married in the Phili**ines% contracts another
marriage abroad% the crime committed is bigam!. Eut the 3ili*ino can not be
*rosecuted when he comes bac= to the Phili**ines% because the bigam! was
committed in a oreign countr! and the crime is not covered b! *aragra*h A o
4rticle 9. <owever% i the 3ili*ino% ater the second marriage% returns to the
Phili**ines and cohabits here with his second wie% he commits the crime o
concubinage or which he can be *rosecuted.
"he Revised Penal Code shall not a**l! to an! other crime committed in a
oreign countr! which does not come under an! o the e(ce*tions and which is
not a crime against national securit!.
DVI.Article 25 9elonies
H8W A 9EL8N. MA. ARIE
+vvver"a Pa"e ,C of ,--
P*nisha1le 1y the Revised Penal Code
"he term elon! is limited onl! to violations o the Revised Penal Code. 5hen
the crime is *unishable under a s*ecial law !ou do not reer to this as a elon!.
)o whenever !ou encounter the term elon!% it is to be understood as reerring
to crimes under the Revised Penal Code
.
"his is im*ortant because there are certain *rovisions in the Revised Penal Code
where the term :elon!; is used% which means that the *rovision is not
e(tended to crimes under s*ecial laws. 4 s*eciic instance is ound in 4rticle
1'8 2 Ruasi-Recidivism% which reads6
4 *erson who shall commit a elon! ater having been
convicted b! inal Cudgment% beore beginning to serve
sentence or while serving the same% shall be *unished under
the ma(imum *eriod o the *enalt!.
Note that the word Melon!M is used.
A. #einition6 3elonies are acts and omissions *unishable b! the law.
Note6 "he *hrase :*unishable b! law; is not onl! constrained to those acts that
are *unishable b! the RPC. Crimes can also be *unishable b! s*ecial laws.
@lements6
1. Nullum crimen% nulla *oena sine lege. , there is no law that
deines an act as a crime and *rovides or its *enalt!% such act is
not a crime.
9. 4cts ma! be omissions or commissionsK onl! e(ternal acts are
*unished
0. Omission is s!non!mous to inaction% the ailure to *erorm a
*ositive dut! which one is bound to do. "here must be a low
reDuiring the *erormance o such act.
Peo!le vs. ilvestre and Atien(a
3acts6 /artin and Romana were both convicted o the crime o arson b! the
Court o 3irst ,nstance. "he case o Romana was a**ealed because there is no
strong evidence that can *rove that she was an accom*lice o /artin.
,ssue6 57N RomanaIs act o omission is *unishable.
#ecision6 No. /ere *assive *resence at the scene o anotherIs crime% mere
silence and ailure to give alarm% without evidence o agreement or cons*irac!
is not *unishable. Romana was acDuitted.
B. Classiication o 3elonies
1. ,ntentional 3elonies
(a) 4ct or omission o oender is maliciousK act committed b!
means o dolo
(b) 4ct is *erormed with deliberate intent.
9. Cul*able 3elonies 2 *erormed without maliceK act committed b!
means o cul*a
(a) Negligence 2 lac= o oresight
(b) ,m*rudence 2 lac= o s=ill
PER8N CA$IN/ ING$R.@ WI%H8$% EVIL IN%EN%I8N@ MA. <E LIA<LE
98R C$L<A<LE 9EL8N.
$ vs. 'ivino
3acts6 #ivino was charged or the crime o lesiones graves or burning the eet
4lonsa believing in good aith that a**l!ing *etroleum on her sores and ulcers
would cure her wounds. Gnortunatel!% 4lonsa became more inCured and
deormed ater the treatment.
,ssue6 57N #ivino committed a crime considering he acted on good aith.
#ecision6 One who% not being regular *ractitioner% underta=es to render medical
assistance to another *erson% is liable or an! inCuries resulting% rom such
treatment% and the act that he acted in good aith and according to the best o
his abilit! does not relieve him rom res*onsibilit!% although his ignorance ma!
be considered as a mitigating circumstance. #ivino was held liable or cul*able
elon! because the acts he committed were out o ignorance with the intent to
bring about remed! instead o harm.
Note6 Rec=less Negligence means voluntar! act without malice.
WHEN %HERE I NEI%HER MALICE 8R 9A$L%
Peo!le vs. Catan"ay
3acts6 Catanga! was ound guilt! o homicide through rec=less negligence. On
the night o the crime% Catanga! was tas=ed to negotiate the distance. Eut as
he was nearing the Duarr!% he accidentall! stumbled onan emban=ment and
two shots were discharged% one =illing his com*anion.
,ssue6 57N Catanga! was guilt! o rec=less negligence
+vvver"a Pa"e 0- of ,--
#ecision6 No. "he discharge o a irearm that caused the% victimLs death
having been *urel! accidental and wholl! involuntar! on the *art o the
accused% his action lac=s the element essential or holding that it was
*erormed with rec=less negligence% which reDuires that the damage be inlicted
without malice but through a voluntar! act. ,n this case% there was no intent
because Catanga! had a ver! good relationshi* with the victim. "here was no
negligence either because o*ening the latch while a**roaching the Duarr! is
ver! usual or hunters. "he emban=ment cannot also be antici*ated.
$ vs. Ramire(
3acts6 Pedro Ramire. went on hunting together with two other com*anions.
<e as=ed his two com*anions to watch over their *re! while he loo=s or
another. 4ter wal=ing or about A8 meters% he seemed to have seen an e!e o
a deer and shot it. "o his sur*rise% he shot one o his com*anions.
,ssue6 57N there is rec=less im*rudence on this case.
#ecision6 ?es. <e *erormed a voluntar! act in discharging his gun% although
the resulting homicide was without malice% because he did not have the
intention o =illing the deceased. Eut nonetheless% he =new he had two
com*anions% thus% he should have e(ercised all the necessar! diligence to avoid
ever! undesirable accident. /oreover% the e!es o a man is not luminous in the
dar= thus it would be im*ossible to mista=e it to that o a deer. "he act that
the deendant oered to the mother o the deceased a carabao and a horse b!
wa! o indemnit! indicates that the deendant admitted the commission o the
crime although he *erormed that act without criminal intent and onl! through
im*rudence. "he accused is guilt! o homicide through rec=less im*rudence.
REA8N WH. C$LPA<LE 9EL8NIE ARE P$NIHE'
Peo!le vs. Male(a
3acts6 /ale.a and 4dlaon were charged with crimes o alsiication o *ublic
documents b! reason o rec=less negligence. /ale.a is the munici*al treasurer
and he certiied an account showing *a!ments or the construction o the
munici*al building. 4dlaon signed that he received the mone! when in act the
mone! was never or the construction o munici*al building but was to be given
to Eastes who loaned a sum o mone! to the munici*al *resident and treasurer.
#eendants maintained that alsiication does not constitute the crime
com*lained o.
,ssue6 57N rec=less negligence is considered a crime.
#ecision6 Eetween an act *erormed voluntaril! and intentionall!% and another
committed unconsciousl! and Duite unintentionall!% there e(ists another%
*erormed without malice% but at the same time *unishable% though in a lesser
degree and with an eDual material resultK an intermediate act which the Penal
Code Dualiies as negligence% or rec=less negligence. 3elonies are committed
not onl! b! means o deceit (dolo) but also b! means o ault (cul*a).
Note6 Reason or *unishing acts o negligence6 4 man must use common
sense% and e(ercise due relection in all his actsK it is his dut! to be cautious%
careul% and *rudent% i not rom instinct% then through ear o incurring
*unishment. <e is res*onsible or such results as an!one might oresee and or
acts% which no one would have *erormed% e(ce*t through cul*able abandon.
Otherwise his own *erson% rights and *ro*ert!% and those o his ellow beings%
would ever be e(*osed to all manner o danger and inCur!. (Peo*le vs. /ale.a
and 4dlaon).
C. Crimes *unished under s*ecial laws.
,. R*le5 %here is no need for the !attern analysis for acts that
involve !*1lic !olicy #stat*tory law&H no dolo is re)*ired
#$. vs. /o Chico&
0. Act alone constit*tes the offense
$ vs. iy Con" <ien
3acts6 #eendants Eenito )i! Cong Eieng and Co Bong were convicted o a
violation o )ection $ o 4ct. No. 1'AA o the Phili**ine Commission =nown as
the Pure 3ood and #rugs 4ct. Eenito )i! Cong Eieng a**ealed or6
(a) <e did not have an! =nowledge o the acts done b! his agent
which was the sale o adulterated coee.
(b) Co Bong was in charge o the store.
,ssue6 57N deendant )i! Cong Eeing should be held liable or the actions o
his store manager.
#ecision6 Gnder the Phili**ine Pure 3ood and #rugs 4ct% *roo o the act o
the sale o *rohibited drugs and ood *roducts is suicient to sustain a
conviction o a violation o the statute% without *roo o guilt! =nowledge o the
act o adulteration or criminal intent in the ma=ing o the sale. ,t is a mista=en
notion that *ositive% willul intent% as distinguished rom a mere intent% to
violate the criminal law% is an essential ingredient in ever! criminal oense% and
that where there is the absence o such intent there is no oenseK this is
es*eciall! so as to statutor! oenses. 5hen the statute *lainl! orbids an act to
be done% and it is done b! some *erson% the law im*lies conclusivel! the guilt!
intent% although the oender was honestl! mista=en as to the meaning o the
law he violates. 5hen the language is *lain and *ositive% and the oense is not
made to de*end u*on the *ositive% willul intent and *ur*ose% nothing is let to
inter*retation.
2. Mala Prohi1ita and Mala in e
Mala in e Mala Prohi1ita
+vvver"a Pa"e 0, of ,--
'efinition 4cts that are wrong
rom their nature.
4cts that are wrong
merel! because it is
*rohibited b! a
statute.
Intent ,ntent governs. ,ntent is not
im*ortant.
Violates RPC )*ecial *enal laws
Minim*m
re)*ired for
a !erson to
inc*r
criminal
lia1ility
Criminal ,ntent ,ntent to *er*etuate
a crime
3. /ood faith can 1e invo6ed as defense for violation of the
RPC #Mala in e&
%imoner vs. Peo!le
3acts6 "he Court o 4**eals ound the *etitioner guilt! be!ond reasonable
doubt o the crime o -rave Coercion *enali.ed under 4rt. 9&' o the Revised
Penal Code. "he *etitioner was the ma!or o a town and b! the
recommendation o the /unici*al <ealth Oicer% he barricaded some
establishments and stalls which *rotruded into the sidewal= o the /aharli=a
highwa! and who were not com*l!ing with certain health and sanitation
reDuirement.
"he *etitioner then iled a com*laint against the owners o the stalls sa!ing that
these stalls constituted *ublic nuisance as well as nuisance *er se. "he owners
o the stalls charged the *etitioner with the oense o grave coercion.
,ssue6 57N the conviction o the court o a**eals that the *etitioner committed
grave coercion is correct the com*lainants were *ublic nuisance.
#ecision6 "he court is in agreement that the com*lainants were *ublic
nuisance or aecting a considerable number o *ersons in their neighborhood.
Petitioner% as ma!or o the town% merel! im*lemented the aoresaid
recommendation o the /unici*al <ealth Oicer. <aving then acted in good aith
in the *erormance o his dut!% *etitioner incurred no criminal liabilit!.
-rave coercion is committed when Ma *erson who% without authorit! o law%
shall b! means o violence% *revent another rom doing something not
*rohibited b! law or com*el to do something against his will% either it be right
or wrong.M "he third element being absent in the case at bar% *etitioner cannot
be held guilt! o grave coercion.
7. /ood 9aith and a1sence of criminal intent are not valid
defenses in crimes !*nished 1y s!ecial laws #Mala
Prohi1ita&
Peo!le vs. 8r)*i;o and 8n"sod
3acts6 OrDuiCo and Ongsod were guilt! o the crime o robber!% in addition%
Ongsod was also ound guilt! o the crime o illegal *ossession o irearms. "he
testimon! o the witnesses were credible and accurate% enough to call or a
conviction. Ongsod contends that it was OrDuiCo who owned the gun and it was
merel! in his *ossession when the Phili**ine constabular! sei.ed it. <e urther
stated that he has ever! intention o surrendering the gun.
,ssue6 57N the absence o criminal intent and good aith are valid deenses in
crimes *unishable b! s*ecial laws.
#ecision6 No. ,t does not matter or the conviction o Ongsod that he is the
owner or borrower o the gun because this act has no bearing on his guilt. "he
mere unlicensed *ossession o irearm% regardless o the intent o the holder is
suicient to sustain a conviction. )ince the oense is malum *rohibitum
*unished b! s*ecial law% and good aith and absence o criminal intent are not
valid deenses.
:. E4ce!tions to the "ood faith r*le in crimes of Mala
Prohi1ita. Intent to !er!et*ate the act is re)*ired.
Peo!le vs. Mallari
3acts6 /allari was ound guilt! o illegal *ossession o irearms. #es*ite his
*lea that he alread! a**lied or the renewal o his license% which e(*ired some
0 months beore he was arrested% a act corroborated b! an oice o the
constabular!% he was still sentence b! the lower court.
,ssue6 57N the lower court was correct in their decision.
#ecision6 "he accused was absolved. ,n statutor! oenses% it is enough that
the statue has been violated and that it is not necessar! to inDuire whether
there was intent to violate it. <owever% or the court can ado*t a more liberal
view. "he s*irit o the law regarding *ossession o irearms is to *unish those
who *ossess the same without =nowledge o the authorities concerned% and
without even bothering themselves to legali.e such *ossession. 5here the
accused had a *ending a**lication or *ermanent *ermit to *ossess a irearm%
and such *ossession was not un=nown to an agent o the law who advised the
ormer to =ee* it in the meantime% an! doubt as to his claim should be resolved
in his avor.

Peo!le vs. Ma!a
3acts6 "he accused is a secret agent contending that being suchK he should be
e(em*ted rom the law *rohibiting illegal *ossession o irearm.
,ssue6 57N /a*a should be e(em*ted rom com*l!ing with the law.
#ecision6 4s secret agent is not included in the enumeration in )ection &$> o
the Revised 4dministrative Code o *ersons who are not *rohibited in )ection
&$&% Revised 4dministrative Code% as amended b! Re*ublic 4ct No. +% rom
*ossessing an! irearm. 4**ellant is not also e(em*ted rom the reDuirement
o license. "he irst and undamental dut! o courts is to a**l! the law.
Construction and inter*retation come onl! ater it has been demonstrated that
a**lication is im*ossible or inadeDuate without them.
D. Pattern o anal!sis in determining criminal liabilit!
1. 5as there criminal intent (dolo)J
9. Or was the act done b! means o cul*a (im*rudence7negligence)J
E. #elito #eloso and #elito Cul*osa
Elements
'elito 'eloso
#dolo&
'elito c*l!osa
#c*l!a&
3reedom 3reedom
,ntelligence ,ntelligence
,ntent Negligence7,m*rudence
(a) ,ntent #eined distinguished rom discernment
/*evarra vs. Hon. I"nacio Almodovar
3acts6 Petitioner 1ohn Phili* -uevarra% 11 !ears old% was *la!ing with his best
riend. "he! were target-shooting a bottle ca* *laced with an air rile borrowed
rom a neighbor. ,n the course o their game% "eodoro was hit b! a *ellet on his
let collar bone which caused his death.
3iscal e(cul*ated *etitioner due to his age and because the unortunate
occurrence a**eared to be an accident. "he victimLs *arents a**ealed to the
/inistr! o 1ustice% which ordered the 3iscal to ile a case against *etitioner or
<omicide through rec=less ,m*rudence. "he *etitioner was in *osition that
MdiscernmentM connotes MintentM. "he )olicitor -eneral insists that discernment
and intent are two dierent conce*ts.
,ssue6
1. 57N an eleven (11) !ear old bo! could be charged with the crime o
homicide thru rec=less im*rudence.
9. 57N the term MdiscernmentM% as used in 4rticle 19(0) o the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) is s!non!mous with Mintent.M
#ecision6 "he two terms should not be conused. ,t is clear that the terms
MintentM and MdiscernmentM conve! two distinct thoughts. 5hile both are
*roducts o the mental *rocesses within a *erson% the ormer reers to the
desired o oneLs act while the latter relates to the moral signiicance that *erson
ascribes to the said act. <ence a *erson ma! not intend to shoot another but
ma! be aware o the conseDuences o his negligent act% which ma! cause inCur!
to the same *erson in negligentl! handling an air rile. #iscernment constitutes
an e(ce*tion to the e(em*tion rom criminal liabilit! o a minor under iteen
!ears o age but over nine% who commits an act *rohibited b! law% is his mental
ca*acit! to understand the dierence between right and wrong. ,n evaluating
elonies committed b! means o cul*a% three (0) elements are indis*ensable%
namel!% intelligence% reedom o action% and negligence. Obviousl!% intent is
wanting in such elonies. <owever% intelligence remains as an essential
element% hence% it is necessar! that a minor above nine but below iteen !ears
o age be *ossessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which
results in a Duasi-oense. 3or him to be criminall! liable% he must discern the
rightness or wrongness o the eects o his negligent act. ,ndeed% a minor over
nine !ears o age but below iteen ma! be held liable or a Duasi-oense under
4rticle 0'A.
(b) Binds o ,ntent
(1) general notion o intent 2 motive is not essential in
establishing this notion o criminal intent
(9) s*eciic notion o intent 2 there is no great dierence
between s*eciic criminal intent ad motive.
(c) #istinguished rom /otive
WHEN M8%IVE I RELEVAN%
Peo!le vs. 'orico
3acts6 Romualdo #orico% #ionisio Eallonico and 3ernando #orico were all ound
guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt or murdering -ervacio #a*ulag and was
sentenced each with death *enalt!. "he three were said to have =illed the
accused because he insisted on iling a criminal com*laint against Romualdo or
the =illing o his ne*hew. #ionisio said that he was merel! a b!stander and did
not *artici*ate in the crime
,ssue6 57N motive is relevant to establish guilt
#ecision6 ,t is true that no motive has been shown wh! he would =ill -ervacio
#a*ulag% but this Court has re*eatedl! held that motive is *ertinent onl! when
there is doubt as to the identit! o the cul*rit. "his not a situation which alls
under Hwho had done itI since #,ON,),O E4LLON,CO was *ositivel! identiied b!
credible witnesses as one o the assailants o the victim. Proo o motive is not
essential or conviction. "here was no reason shown wh! the witnesses or the
*rosecution would oist a crime on #,ON,),O E4LLON,CO i he did not reall!
commit it.
'isclos*re of motive is an aid in com!letin" the !roof of the
commission of the crime.
Note6 Circumstantial @vidences deined6 indirect evidenceK act that was seen in
the vicinit! o the crimeK an aid to the *rosecutionK *roo o crime
$ vs. /o 9oo *y
3acts6 3ire bro=e out in house no. 08. 4ter some time% ire also bro=e out in
<ouse no. 9'% which was Cust across the *assagewa! rom <ouse No% 08. "he
accused had dr! goods store in house no. 9'. <owever% witnesses testiied that
the ire in <ouse no. 9' bro=e out when the ire in <ouse no. 08 was about to
be *ut out. 5hile the ireighters were tr!ing to brea= into the storeroom% the!
heard something moving. 5hen the! got inside% the! ound a hole% which
su**orted the act that someone% set ire on house no. 9'.
,ssue6 57N the accused was guilt! o arson.
#ecision6 "he accused were ound guilt! o the crime. "he act that the
deendants owned a stoc= o goods% that it was insured or three times its
value% and that their business o*erations over a *eriod a**ro(imatel! eighteen
months Cust *rior to the ire had resulted in a considerable loss% urnishes a
*owerul motive or the commission o the crime (circumstantial evidence). "he
a**ellants had been conducting their business at a loss or nearl! 1& months.
"he success o their crime meant that the! would receive about twice the value
o their stoc= o goods and thus converting a losing investment into a *roitable
one.
Lac6 of motive may 1e an aid in showin" the innocence of the acc*sed
Peo!le vs. %aneo
3acts6 Potenciano "aneo was accused o *arricide or =illing his wie% and
wounding his ather in law and two o their guests. ,t a**ears rom the
evidence that that the da! beore the commission o the crime% the accused had
a ight with @nriDue Collantes and Valentin 4badilla% who invited him to come
down and ight% and when he was about to go down% he was sto**ed b! his wie
and his mother. On the da! o the commission o the crime% it was noted that
the deendant was not eeling well% thus% he went to bed and sle*t. "he
deendant states that when he ell aslee*% he dreamed that Collantes was tr!ing
to stab him with a bolo while 4badilla held his eet% b! reason o which he got
u*K and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down%
he armed himsel with a bolo and let the room.
,ssue6 57N the deendant is guilt! o the crime o *arricide.
#ecision6 No. "he deendant was not held liable or the crime. 4 *erson who
suddenl! hot u* in his slee* let the room with a bolo in his hand% and u*on
meeting with his wie who tried to sto* him% wounded her abdomen and
attac=ed other% or having acted in a dreamK he had no criminal intent.
4n e(treme moral *erversion ma! lead a man to commit a crime with a real
motive but Cust or the sa=e o committing it. Or% he a**arent lac= o a motive
or committing a criminal act does not necessaril! mean that there are none%
but that sim*l! the! are not =nown to us% or we cannot *robe into the de*ths
o oneLs conscience where the! ma! be ound% bidden awa! and inaccessible to
our observation.
WHEN M8%IVE I IRRELEVAN%
When assailant is !ositively identified
Peo!le vs. 'iva
3acts6 /a(imo #iva and his wie were accused o murdering 4nanias Eano.
"heir dis*ute was regarding boundaries o the adCoining lands the! own. On
the da! the crime was committed% /a(imo and Cesaria #iva cons*ired to attac=
the victim. Eeore the victimIs lie e(*ired% he was able to tell his wie who his
attac=ers were. /a(imo and Cesaria contended that it was 4nanias who irst
attac=ed them and that /a(imo merel! deended himsel. /a(imo also
contended that the trial court erred in sa!ing that the motive o the =illing was
a land case because he has no interest therein since it was his ather who was
the *lainti in the said case. @ven i there is such motive% it is not a suicient
ground or him to ambush% attac= and =ill 4nanias. )ince the *rosecution was
not able to establish the motive% /a(imo claims that he should not be convicted
o the crime.
,ssue6 57N the motive is needed to convict the deendants.
#ecision6 No. /otive is not im*ortant to have a conviction. "he Duestion o
what motive is suicient to im*el one to commit a *articular act is alwa!s
relative and no i(ed norm o conduct can be said to be decisive o ever!
imaginable case. Eut motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when
there is no doubt as to the identit! o the cul*rit or where the oender had
admitted the deedK and the ailure o the *rosecution to establish motive is
com*letel! inconseDuential. 5here% as in this case% the identit! o the a**ellant
as the author o the =illing is not dis*uted as he admitted having =illed the
deceased% his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction
and the ailure o the )tate to establish his motive is o no moment.
Note5 When assailant is !ositively identified@ motive need not 1e
esta1lished
H8W M8%IVE I PR8VE'H M8%IVE AL8NE I N8% PR889 89 CRIME
$ vs. Ramire(
,t must be noted that there could be no motive in this case because Ramire.
and the victim were good riends. "he act could not have been done
deliberatel!.
PR889 89 M8%IVE AL8NE I N8% $99ICIEN% %8 $PP8R%
C8NVIC%I8N
Peo!le vs. Marcos
3acts6 /ariano /arcos% his son 3erdinand /arcos and brother in law% Ruirino
Li.ardo were accused or the murder o 1ulio Nalundasan% /arianoIs archrival.
#uring the 1>0A elections% 1ulio won over /ariano or the oice o
re*resentative o ,locos Norte. #uring the victor! *arade% 1ulioIs men were said
to have *assed over /arianoIs house to humiliate the deeated candidate. "he
ollowing night% 1ulio was ound dead. "he /arcoses and Li.ardo became the
sus*ects. "he *rimar! witness o the *rosecution was Li.ardoIs bod!guard who
said that he was there when the crime was committed and the motive was said
to be the victor! *arade beore 1ulioIs death.
,ssue6 57N the *arade was a suicient motive to warrant a sentence.
#ecision6 No. 5hile the deeat o /arcos ollowed b! such insulting *arade%
might have irritated the herein deendants% the e(istence o a motive alone%
though *erha*s an im*ortant consideration% is not *roo o the commission o a
crime% much less o the guilt o the deendants-a**ellants. E! and large% the
court ound the testimon! o 4guinaldo to be inherentl! im*robable and ull o
contradictions in im*ortant details% thus it shall be discredited. ,t is neither
necessar! nor *roitable to e(amine the corroborative evidence *resented b!
the *rosecution. 5here the *rinci*al and basic evidence u*on which the
*rosecution rests its case ails% all evidence intended to su**ort or corroborate
it must li=ewise ail.
(d) 5hen crimes ma! be committed without criminal intent
9EL8NIE C8MMI%E' <. MEAN 89 C$LPA
ee5 $ vs. 'ivino
899ENE P$NIHA<LE A MALA PR8HI<I%A
(e) ,ntentional and Cul*able 3elonies #istinguished
Peo!le vs. /*illen
/R No. L>,3== Gan*ary ,A@ ,C7-
3acts6 1ulio -uillen was ound guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt o the crime o
murder and multi*le rustrated murder. 4ccording to the accused% he was
e(tremel! disa**ointed in President Ro(as or his alleged ailure to redeem his
*romises made b! him during the *residential election. <ence% he was
determined to assassinate the *resident. <e carried two hand grenades in
Pla.a /iranda and hurled it on the stage where the *resident was ma=ing a
s*eech. -eneral Castaneda% u*on seeing the grenade% =ic=ed it awa! rom the
*latorm. 5hen the grenade e(*loded% it inCured )imeon Varela and our other
men. )imeon died because o the inCuries he sustained.
,ssue6 57N 1ulio -uillen is guilt! o the crime charge considering that it was
the *resident which he intended to =ill and not )imeon Varela.
#ecision6 ?es. ,n throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention
o =illing him% the a**ellant acted with malice. <e is thereore liable or all the
conseDuences o his wrongul actK or in accordance with article + o the
Revised Penal Code% criminal liabilit! is incurred b! an! *erson committing a
elon! (delito) although the wrongul act done be dierent rom that which he
intended to do. ,n the words o Viada% :in order that an act ma! be Dualiied as
im*rudence it is necessar! that neither malice nor intention to cause inCur!
should interveneK where such intention e(ists% the act should be Dualiied b!
the elon! it has *roduced% even though it ma! not have been the intention o
the actor to cause an evil o such gravit! as that *roduced;. "he Duali!ing
circumstance o treacher! ma! *ro*erl! be considered% even when the victim o
the attac= was not the one whom the deendant intended to =ill% i it a**ears
rom the evidence that neither o the two *ersons could in an! manner *ut u* a
deense against the attac=% or became aware o it. ,n criminal negligence% the
inCur! caused to another should be unintentional% it being sim*l! the incident o
another act *erormed without malice.
Peo!le vs. Nan)*il
/R No. ,=C22 March 02@ ,C00
3acts6 NanDuil was investigating a certain )everino Ramiscal or the thet o
1uan RosasIs carabao. #uring the investigation% NanDuil struc= )everino with
his gun. 4s a conseDuence% the victim died ater a ew moments.
,ssue6 57N the accused should be charged with a crime o homicide through
rec=less im*rudence.
#ecision6 ?es. "he accused having had no intention to commit so serious an
evil as that which resulted% the crime committed b! him cannot be that o
homicide through rec=less im*rudence% because he did have the intention to do
some evil unlawull! (maltreating the deceased)% and this intention% although it
was not that o =illing% is inconsistent with rec=less im*rudence.
() in both% acts are voluntar! (Peo*le vs. Ramire.)
(g) 4cts that are negligentl! e(ecuted are voluntar!
(h) ,ntent is shown b! overt acts
Peo!le vs. Ma1*">at
3acts6 "he accused and 1uana Euralo were sweethearts. One da!% the accused
invited 1uana to ta=e a wal= with him% but the latter reused on account o the
accused having reDuentl! visited the house o a certain Carmen. Later on% the
accused went to a house where 1uana had gone to ta=e *art in some devotion.
"hereater% the accused threatened that i 1uana reuses to see him% he will
enter the house% get the gild and =ill an!one who would sto* him. 4ter the
devotion% the accused ollowed the girl and her niece on their wa! home. 5hen
the! were about to go u* their house% the accused ired a shot intended or
1uana but which wounded Perecta instead.
,ssues6 57N the accused is guilt! o rustrated murder.
#ecision6 ?es. 4lthough the mere act o iring at a *erson is not *roo *er se
o intent to =ill% !et when the surrounding circumstances o the act are such
that the! leave no room or doubt that the intention was to =ill the *erson ired
u*on% the crime is not sim*l! Mdischarge o irearm%M but homicide or murder as
the case ma! be. "he Duali!ing circumstance o treacher! ma! *ro*erl! be
considered% even when the victim o the attac= was not the one whom the
deendant intended to =ill% i it a**ears rom the evidence that neither o the
two *ersons could in an! manner *ut u* a deense against the attac=% or
become aware o it.
(i) Criminal ,ntent Presumed rom Commission o the crime
Mista6e of fact 2 while ignorance o the law e(cuses no one (ignorantia legis
non e(cusat)% ignorance or mista=e o act relieves tha accused rom criminal
liabilit! (ignoratia acti e(cusat)
MI%ABE 89 9AC% A A 'E9ENE
Peo!le vs. Catolico
/R No. :3A: -0 March ,C,,

3acts6 "he deendant% a Custice o *eace% was charged o malversation o
*ublic unds. <e rendered decisions in certain cases% each one or damages
resulting rom a breach o contract% rom which the deendants a**ealed. 4s
reDuired b! law% the deendants de*osited Ph* 1'.88 and a bond o Ph* A8.88
or each case. ,t a**eared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent
and that the deendants did not *resent new bonds within the time i(ed b! the
accused as Custice o *eace. G*on *etition o the *laintis% the accused
dismissed the a**eals and ordered said sums attached and delivered to the
*laintis in satisaction o the Cudgment. "he accused was *rosecuted or
malversation% a elon! under 4rt. 91$.
,ssue6 57N the accused was guilt! o the said crime considering that his
actions were not contrar! to law.
#ecision6 "hat act o the accused% in *ermitting the sums de*osited with him
to be attached in the satisaction o the Cudgment rendered b! him% was not
unlawul. @ver!thing he did was in good aith under the belie that he was
acting Cudiciousl! and correctl!. "he act committed% so ar as a**ears orm the
record% at most a *ure mista=e o Cudgment% an error o the mind o*erating
u*on a state o acts. 4 crime is not committed i the mind i the *erson
*erorming the act com*lained o be innocent (actus non acit reum% nisi mes
sit rea). -ood aith is a deense and in this case% there is good aith. -ood
aith negates intent. 5hen there is no intent% there is no crime.
Note6 ,t is a *rima acie evidence in /alversation that such missing unds or
*ro*ert! have been *ut to *ersonal use or used or *ersonal ends b! such
*erson. ,n this case% it was not *roven that the accused Custice o *eace used
the mone! or *ersonal use.
$ vs. Ah Chon"
3acts6 #eendant was a coo= and the deceased was a house bo!% and both
were em*lo!ed in the same *lace and usuall! sle*t in the same room. One
night% ater the deendant had gone to bed% he was awa=ened b! some one
tr!ing to o*en the door% and called out twice. Eelieving that he was being
attac=ed% he sei.ed a =itchen =nie% struc= and atall! wounded the intruder%
who turned out to be his roommate.
,ssue6 57N 4h Chong should be acDuitted because o mista=e o act.
#ecision6 Gnder such circumstances% there is no criminal liabilit!% *rovided that
the ignorance or mista=e o act was not due to negligence or bad aith. ,n
other words% i such ignorance or mista=e o acts is suicient to negate a
*articular intent which% under the law% is a necessar! ingredient o the oense
charged it destro!s the *resum*tion o intent and wor=s an acDuittalK e(ce*t in
those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the *enal
*rovisions governing negligence% and in cases where% under the *rovisions o
article 1 o the Penal Code% a *erson voluntaril! committing an act incurs
criminal liabilit! even though the act be dierent rom that which he intended
to commit. "he circumstances *roved that in 4h ChongIs mind% he was being
attac=ed% regardless o the circumstances outside him. 5ould the acts been as
he though them to be% there would have been no crime. /ista=e o act
indicates good aith. -ood aith negates intent. 5ithout intent% there is no
crime.
Note6
+vvver"a Pa"e 0: of ,--
9. Lac= o intent to =ill the deceased% because the intention was to
=ill another% does not relieve the accused rom criminal
res*onsibilit! (Peo*le vs. -ona).
9. ,n mista=e o act% the intention o the accused in *erorming the
act should be lawul.
0. "here is no crime o resistance when there is a mista=e o act (G)
vs. Eautista)
+. 5hen the accused is negligent% mista=e o act is not a deense.
(Peo*le vs. 3ernando)
/ood faith has many so*rces
#a& Mista6e of fact
#1& Act is lawf*l
%he !oint is5 when "ood faith is esta1lished@ it ne"ates criminal intent.
No criminal intent@ no crime.
Peo!le vs. 9ormaran
No. ,0-AC>CR
3acts6 3ormaran was accused o a crime o *erCur! or having sworn to a Civil
)ervice 3orm No. 1 beore a notar! *ublic that he was never accused o a
violation o an! law beore an! court or tribunal% when the truth and in act he
had been charged with the oense o unCust ve(ation in a criminal case beore
the 1ustice o the Peace Court. 5hen he testiied in his deense% the deendant
claimed that he answered :No; to the Duestion whether he had been accused o
a violation o an! law% because he relied on the o*inion o the *rovincial iscal
that unCust ve(ation does not involve moral tur*itude and he thought it was not
necessar! to mention it in Civil )ervice 3orm No. 1. ,t a**eared that he was
*reviousl! *rosecuted twice or *erCur! or answering HNOI to the same Duestion
but he was acDuitted on the irst case and the second case was dismissed.
,ssue6 57N 3ormaran was unCustl! *rosecuted on the case at bar.
#ecision6 No. it was held that in view o the actual bac=ground o the case%
the act o the deendant in answering :no; to the Duestion can be considered
onl! as an error o Cudgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the
crime o *erCur!. "he deendant was not liable or the crime because he had no
intent to commit the crime.
Note6 Lac= o intent to commit a crime ma! be inerred rom the acts o the
case.
Peo!le vs. Penalosa
/R No 303 Gan*ary 0=@ ,C-0
3acts6 4 minor married without *arental consent% in violation o 4rt +$A o he
old Penal Code which *unished an! minor who shall contract marriage without
the consent o his or her *arents. "he women believed that she was born in
1&$>K that so her *arents gave her to understand ever since she was !oungK
and she did not as= them concerning her age. ,n the same instance% the
husband relied on the statement o his wie that she is o age when the! got
married.
,ssue6 57N the husband and the wie violated the said *rovision o the Penal
code
#ecision6 4 minor who marries without *arental consent in the alse belie that
she is o age is not criminall! res*onsible. ,t is not criminal negligence or a
husband to rel! u*on his wieLs statement o her age nor or the wie to rel!
u*on that o her ather. ,n eect it suices to remember the irst article% which
states that where there is no intent there is no crime. ,n order to assert without
ear o mista=e that in our Code the substance o a crime does not e(ist i there
is not a deed% an act that alls within the s*here o ethics i there is not a moral
wrong. One cannot be convicted under 4rt. +$A when b! reason o a mista=e
o acts there does not e(ist the intention to commit the crime. /ista=e o act
establishes good aith because have the acts been as she thought them to be%
the act would have been lawul. -ood aith negates intent. 5hen there is no
intention% there is no crime. -ood aith is transerable (in this case% to the
husband).
Note6 "here is no elon! b! dolo i there is no intent.
Peo!le vs. Cochin"
3acts6 Coching and several others were accused o alsiication o *ublic
document and violation o the election code. Conching and the others sincerel!
believed that boo=lets +188 to +198 were sam*le ballots because three ballots
rom the boo=let were detached and two ballots were used to cover the
o*enings o the bo(es that was given to them beore the election. "he! have
no wa! o chec=ing since the recei*t co*! signed b! Coching when he received
the ballots were not given to them. "hus% the! did not include in the counting
boo=lets +188 to +198.
,ssue6 57N Coching and the others are guilt! o the crime charges.
#ecision6 No. "he lower court was in agreement that the deendants did not
intend to *er*etuate the act. Eut according to them% since the act is malum
*rohibitum 2 against a law7statute% intention is immaterial. "he Court is in
disagreement with this notion. "he act% according to the court% being an act
mala *rohibita has no bearing on the case because this is not a case o willul
or conscious violation o a *enal statue% nor o ignorance o the law. "he case
at bar is a case o ignorance o the act. "he deendants are in honest belie
that the series o unused ballots were not oicial but sam*le ballots. G*holding
the ma(im ignorantia acti e(cusat as established in Peo*le vs. Oanis. "he
courts should Cudge the accused not b! the acts as the! later turned out to be
+vvver"a Pa"e 0= of ,--
but what the! believed to be as acts at the time o the oense and the
conditions obtaining them (G) vs. 4h Chong). #eendants were acDuitted.
MI%ABE 89 9AC% N8% A 'E9ENE
ee5 Peo!le vs. 8anis
Peo!le vs. de 9ernando
/R No 03C=A 0= March ,C0:
3acts6 "he accused% a *oliceman% was inormed that three convicts had
esca*ed. "he residents o the barrio were alarmed o the news. 5hile doing
rounds in the barrio% he was called b! the daughter o a certain #elgado to
inorm him that three un=nown *ersons were *rowling around their house.
4ter some time% the! saw a *erson going u* the stairs dressed in dar= clothes
and carr!ing a bolo. 4ccused called out to the *erson to identi! himsel. "he
*erson% did not answer thus% de 3ernando ired a shot in the air. 4s the
un=nown *erson continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one
o the esca*ed convicts% the accused ired directl! at the man who turned our to
be the ne*hew o the house.
,ssue6 57N de 3ernando was guilt! o homicide through rec=less negligence.
#ecision6 ?es. 4n agent o the law% to whom notice had been given o the
*resence o sus*icious loo=ing *ersons% who might be esca*ed *risoners rom a
nearb! *enitentiar!% *rowling around the vicinit!% and who enters a house to
=ee* watch% and later in the evening sees a *erson with a bolo in hand
a**roaching the house in the -attitude o going u* the stairs% who does not
answer the challenge o the oicer o the law% and continues his advance
notwithstanding that the latter had ired a shot into the air% and the said agent
o the law considering that the said stranger has not been recogni.ed b! an!
*erson in the household% and thin=ing him to be an evil-doer% shoots and =ills
him% is not guilt! o murder or homicide. <e however% acted with rec=less
negligence in ailing to e(ercise the ordinar! diligence that% under the
circumstances% he should have e(ercised b! inDuiring o the occu*ants o the
house whether the stranger was =nown to them% as he seemed to have called
somebod! in the house% or was reall! what be thought him to be% beore
shooting him% which ma=es said oicer guilt! o homicide through rec=less
negligence.

DVII.Article 35 Criminal Lia1ility
A. Committing a elon! even i the conseDuences are unintended
1. @lements6
(a) 3elon! is committed
P@OPL@ vs. E,N#O?
3acts6 "he accused was charged o the crime o homicide or wounding with his
bolo @migdio who was merel! a s*ectator o the ight% which ensued between
the deendant and a certain Pacas.
,ssue6 57N Eindo! should be charged or =illing @migdio
#ecision6 "he a**ellant should be acDuitted since there is no evidence% which
shows that @migdio too= *art in the ight. Neither was there an! indication that
the accused was aware o the victimIs *resence. <ad the deendant tried to
wound his adversar! and instead had bit the b!stander% he would% o course%
have had to answer or his criminal act. Eut in view o the evidence% the inCur!
was accidental and the deendant should be acDuitted.
(1) 5hen act is lawul
P@OPL@ vs. )4L,N4)
'9 O.-. 01&'
3acts6 Crisanto )alinas was charged or the death o 1aime "ibule. 1aime died
ater alling rom his motherIs hold while the mother was reeing his ather rom
CrisantoIs hold. Crisanto was holding the victimIs grandather in order to
*revent him rom ighting with the deendantIs ather.
,ssue6 57N Crisanto should be liable or the death o the bab!
#ecision6 No. "he acce*ted rule is that an oender is alwa!s liable or the
conseDuence o his criminal action even though the result be dierent rom
what he intended. Gnder the circumstances% it cannot be held that the accused
was committing a crime and it cannot be said that the death o the child was a
direct result o a crime. "he act being lawul% there could have been no crime
committed. "he deendant was acDuitted.
(b) 5rong done is direct% natural% logical conseDuence o elon!
committed
G) vs. V4L#@S
3acts6 "he accused was not satisied with the slow raising o the anchor which
caused him to abuse his men with oensive language. One o the crew
remonstrated that the! would be able to wor= better i the accused sto*s
insulting them. ,nuriated% the accused moved towards the victim with big
=nie threatening to stab him. "he victim% believing that he is going to be
=illed% threw himsel in water and never resurace.
,ssue6 57N the deendant should be liable or his crewIs death
+vvver"a Pa"e 0A of ,--
#ecision6 ?es. "he crewIs death was a conseDuence o the deendantIs action.
, a *erson against whom% a criminal assault is directed reasonabl! believes
himsel to be in danger o death or great bodil! harm% a d in order to esca*e
Cum*s into water% im*elled b! the instincts o sel-*reservation% the assailant us
res*onsible or homicide in case death results b! drowning.
P@OPL@ vs. RG,4N)ON
'9 P<,L. 1'9
3acts6 "he deendant% was convicted o a crime o homicide or the death o
4ndres 4ribuabo% a deranged *erson who constantl! as=ed or ood rom the
ormer. "he deendant too= hold o a irebrand and a**lied it to the abdomen
o the man who *estered him. Victim was treated in the hos*ital but died.
#eendant contends that the victim would have survived i he did not remove
the drainage *laced to isolate the inection.
,ssue6 57N Ruianson should be held liable or the death o the victim
#ecision6 One who inlicts an inCur! on another is deemed b! law to be guilt!
o homicide i the inCur! contributes mediatel! or immediatel! to the death o
the victim. "he act that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve
the actor o res*onsibilit!.
4s the wound% which the a**ellant inlicted u*on the deceased% was the cause%
which determined his death% it is evident that the act in Duestion should be
Dualiied as homicide.
(1) Elow was eicient cause o death
P@OPL@ vs. ,LLG)"R@
A+ P<,L. A++
3acts6 "he deendant% who was in charged in ma=ing sure that the roasted *ig
will not be consumed beore the end o the *arade gave a blow to 1uan /agsino
who tried getting a *iece o the *ig. 1uan died o internal hemorrhage and
contusion on the liver.
,ssue6 57N the deendant should be held liable or the death o the victim.
#ecision6 ?es. ,t was the deendantIs blow in the right h!*ocondrium% which
bruised the liver and *roduced internal hemorrhage. "hat the victim had a
delicate condition and suered rom inci*ient tuberculosis does not aect
criminal liabilit! o the deendant who gave him a severe blow% which was the
cause o the deathK even o the wea=ened condition made the blow more atal%
the eicient cause o the death remains the same. "here was no intent but this
does not e(tinguish the crime.
(9) Elow was *ro(imate cause o death
P@OPL@ vs. R@?@)
'1 P<,L. 0+1

3acts6 "he a**ellant and victim were having an illicit relationshi*. 5hen the
victim tried to end their aair% the a**ellant dragged the deceased towards the
streets and stabbed her in the chest with the an =nie. "he victim was said to
have died rom shoc=.
,ssue6 57N the a**ellant should be acDuitted considering the act that the
wound was onl! a slight one
#ecision6 No. ,n this Curisdiction% it is a well settled that such is not the law. 4
*erson is res*onsible or the conseDuences o his criminal act even o the
deceased have been shown to be suering rom a deceased heart (which was
not shown). 4**ellantIs assault being the *ro(imate cause o the death% he
should be res*onsible. "he girl died rom shoc= as a result o the wound
inlicted b! the deendant.
"here is intention in the commission o the crime because when a *erson who
stabs another with a lethal wea*on% death could reasonable be antici*ated.
"he accused is *resumed to have intended the natural conseDuences o the
wrongul act.
(i) <ow *ro(imate cause is determined
V#4. #@ E4"4CL4N% @" 4L. vs. /@#,N4
189 P<,L. 1&1
3acts6 "he victim% husband o the *etitioner% died rom the e(*losion o the bus
o which he was a *assenger. Eeore the e(*losion% the vehicle .ig-.agged into
a canal% causing said bus to overturn. #ue to overturning o the bus% the
gasoline lea=ed soa=ing the soil underneath thus% when the rescuers came with
torches came near the busK the bus was set on ire.
,ssue6 57N the overturning o the bus was the *ro(imate cause o the death.
#ecision6 ?es. "he reason that when the vehicle turned% the lea=ing o the
gasoline was the natural conseDuence. ,t was also natural that the rescuers
would innocentl! a**roach the bus to e(tend aid. "hus% the burning o the bus
was a natural cause and should be attributed to the negligence o the driver
and the conductor.
(ii) #einition
GRE4NO vs. ,N"@R/@#,4"@ 4PP@LL4"@ COGR"
1A$ )CR4 1
3acts6 Grbano was charged or the crime o homicide or the death o /arcelo
1avier. 4 ight ensued between the two when Grbano learned that 1avier
+vvver"a Pa"e 0C of ,--
o*ened the loodgates thereb! causing his *ala! to be looded. /arcelo was
onl! hit in the *alm and while the wound was healing% the victim continued
wor=ing. 4ter 99 da!s% he died rom tetanus.
,ssue6 57N the hac=ing incident can be considered a *ro(imate cause o
/arceloIs death.
#ecision6 No. Pro(imate cause it the case% which in natural and continuous
seDuence% unbro=en b! an! eicient intervening cause% *roduces inCur!% and
without which% the result would not have occurred.
"he hac=ing incident could not have been the cause o the victimIs death since
the tetanus a**eared onl! on the 99
nd
da! ater the hac=ing incident. ,t is
*ossible that the victim ma! have been inlicted with a mild tetanus but since
1avier died onl! two or three da!s rom the onset% it is logical to assume that
there ma! be other causes other than the hac=ing incident. ,t is a rule that in
criminal conviction% the *roo that the accused caused the victimIs death must
convince a rational mind be!ond reasonable doubt. )ince there ma! be other
eicient causes o the death% the accused should be acDuitted.
(iii) 5hen elon! committed not *ro(imate cause6
(0) ,ntervening active orce% which is distinct and absolutel!
oreign to elonious act o accused
(i) Resulting inCur! is due to intentional act o victim
(ii) #eath attributable to ever *revalent in localit!
P@OPL@ vs. P4L4LON
+> P<,L. 1$$
3acts6 4**ellant was ound guilt! o the crime o homicide or the death o a
child whom he sla**ed ater answering insolentl!. "he child ell but continued
to wor=. "hat same aternoon% the child was brought home sic= b! his ather.
One-hal da!s later% the child died. "he doctor testiied it was the blow which
was the cause o the death.
,ssue6 57N the deendant should be held liable or the death o the child.
#ecision6 No. ,t a**ears that the e(amination o the bod! was incom*lete and
the conclusion o the doctor have been much more than mere guesses.
3urthermore% it was *roven that ever was *revalent among the children in the
localit! thus% there is reasonable doubt as to the true cause o the death.
4**ellant thereore should be acDuitted.
(iii) Cause o death not *roved
G) vs. @/E4"@
3acts6 "he child has been seriousl! ill or three wee=s. One da!% as the child
lain on a dam* loor% deendant ordered said child to transer. "he child did not
obe! thus% deendant struc= him on the thighs with a sli**er. "wo da!s later%
the child died.
,ssue6 57N the deendant should be held liable or the death o the child.
#ecision6 No. )ince the cause o the death was un=nown% the deendant
cannot be held liable or said death. @mbate was acDuitted.
(iv) #eath attributable to tetanus
GRE4NO vs. ,N"@R/@#,4"@ 4PP@LL4"@ COGR"
(+) Elow accelerated death
P@OPL@ vs. RO#R,-G@S
3acts6 "he deendant was charged with having dealt with /anciano /agno with
two blows which =noc=ed the victim down. ,t was ound that /agno *rovo=ed
the deendant.
#ecision6 5hen the act is well established that the accused struc= the victim
twice with his ist% in the abdomen and in the bac=% whereore the latter ell to
the ground and had hardl! risen and started to wal= when he again ell down
dead% the crime committed is rightl! classiied as homicide and the accused is
res*onsible thereore. @ven though a blow with the ist or a =ic= does not cause
an! e(ternal wound it ma! easil! *roduce inlammation o the s*leen and
*eritonitis and cause death% and even though the victim ma! have been
*reviousl! aected b! some internal malad!% !et i a blow with the ist or oot
accelerated death% he who caused such acceleration is res*onsible or the death
as the result o an inCur! willull! and unlawull! inlicted.
(c) 5hen there is an intervening cause
G) vs. P4L4LON
The defendant was convicted of homicide largely on the testimony of a young
physician who stated, in substance, that he e/amined the body of the deceased
on the day after the commission of the crime and found ecchymosis on the
body from which he concluded that hard blows had been inflicted on the
deceased and that as a result thereof, there was a congestion of the right lung
which was the principal cause of the death. 0o autopsy of the body was made
and the physician admitted that his conclusions were partly based upon the
statements of the members of the family of the deceased. 1eld( That the
testimony of the physician was not conclusive and that the ecchymosis
described by him might have been nothing, but suggillations or "death spots"
formed after the death. "n case of death under suspicious circumstances, it is
the duty of the physician performing the post mortem. e/amination to e/ercise
the utmost care and not draw unwarranted conclusions from e/ternal
appearances susceptible of different interpretations.
(1) ,nstances not constituting eicient intervening cause6
(i) 5ea= or diseased *h!sical condition o victim

P@OPL@ vs. ,LLG)"R@% )GPR4
P@OPL@ vs. R@?@)% )GPR4
(ii) Nervousness or tem*erament o victim
P@OPL@ vs. 4L/ON"@
,hen a person dies in conse&uence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by
moving about against the doctor2s orders, not because of carelessness or a
desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant, but because of his
nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant, the crime is
homicide and not merely slight physical injuries, simply because the doctor was
of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days. The accused is
then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical
conse&uences.
P@OPL@ vs. RG,4N)ON
5here it does not a**ear that the victim% in removing the drainage rom his
wound% had acted voluntaril! and with the =nowledge that he was *erorming
an act *reCudicial to his health% as this should be attributed to his *athological
condition and to his state o nervousness and restlessness on account o the
*h!sical *ain caused b! the *eritonitis rom which he was suering% such act o
the victim does not have the eect o altering the natural Curidical
conseDuences o the *unishable act o the accused all the more because% as the
deense itsel claims% the victim was mentall! deranged.
(iii) Causes inherent in victim6
(1) 4ddiction to tuba drin=ing
G) vs. E4?G"4)
The fact that the victim was addicted to the habit of drinking tuba, on account
of which it is admitted that his constitution and physical condition retarded the
healing of his wounds, according to the opinion of the physician who attended
him, beyond the time that it should have taken, cannot lessen the assailant2s
responsibility, because he is responsible for all the conse&uences of the
personal injury which was produced by the act that he had willfully performed
in violation of a prohibitive law, and because his responsibility cannot be
lessened on account of the bad state of health and the weakened constitution
of the victim.
(9) Victim did no =now how to swim
G) vs. V4L#@S% )GPR4
(iv) Neglect o victim or third *erson6
(1) Victim reused medical attendance or surgical
o*eration
G) vs. /4R4),-4N
5here it a**ears rom the evidence in the case that the a**ellant inlicted a
wound u*on the com*laining witness which destro!ed the use o one o the
ingers o the let hand% a motion or a new trial will be denied when based
u*on the allegation that a**ellant would be able to *rove% i o**ortunit! were
given% that the inger% although useless at *resent% could be restored to
substantiall! its normal condition b! a surgical o*eration. 4 *erson inCured in
an assault is not obliged to submit to a surgical o*eration to relieve the *erson
who assaulted him rom the results o his crime.

(d) @ven i unintended.
(1) @rror in *ersonae6 mista=e in identit! o victim
P@OPL@ vs. O4N,)
P@OPL@ vs. -ON4
"here can be no doubt that the deendant =illed /a*udul and that he is guilt!
o the crime charged% but his attorne! argues that in view o the act that said
deendant had no intention to =ill the deceased and committed the crime b!
mista=e% he should have been ound guilt! o homicide through negligence
under *aragra*h 1 o article A'& o the Penal Code and not o the graver crime
o intentional homicide.
"his contention is contrar! to earlier decisions o this court. ,n the case o
Gnited )tates vs. /endieta (0+ Phil.% 9+9)% the court said6
M@ven admitting that the deendant intended to inCure <ilario Lauigan instead o
Pedro 4cierto% even that% in view o the mortal wound which he inlicted u*on
the latter% in no wa! could be considered as a relie rom his criminal act. "hat
he made a mista=e in =illing one man instead o another% when it is *roved that
he acted maliciousl! and willull!% cannot relieve him rom criminal
res*onsibilit!. Neither do we believe that the act that he M4nd an! such *erson
who shall ma=e a alse or raudulent return shall be *unished b! a ine not
e(ceeding ten thousand *esos or b! im*risonment or a term not e(ceeding
two !ears% or both.M
(9) 4berratio ictus6 mista=e in the blow
P@OPL@ vs. /4EG--4"
(0) Prater intentionem6 inCurious result is greater than that
intended
P@OPL@ vs. C4-OCO
Be!words6 3ell bac=wards
#ecision6 Gnder the circumstances o this case the deendant is liable or the
=illing o the deceased because his death was the direct conseDuence o
deendants elonious act o stri=ing him on the head. , the deendant had not
committed the assault in a treacherous manner% he would nevertheless have
been guilt! o homicide% although he did not intend to =ill the deceased% and
since the deendant did commit the crime with treacher!% he is guilt! o murder
because o the *resence o the Duali!ing circumstance o treacher!.
9. Cause o the cause is the cause o the evil caused

P@OPL@ vs. -4R#ON
, a *erson against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonabl! believes
himsel to be in danger o death or great bodil! harm and in order to esca*e
Cum*s into the water% im*elled b! the instinct o sel *reservation% the assailant
is res*onsible or homicide in case death results b! drowning
'ppellant should likewise be chargeable with 1omicide. The mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be
appreciated in appellant2s favor. The determined resolution to do the victim
wrong was evident when, even after the victim had disappeared beneath the
surface of the sea, he cruelly asked "are you already dead)" 'ppellant2s bid for
ac&uittal in his si/th assignment of error, therefore, deserves no consideration.
,,. ,/PO)),EL@ CR,/@)
ReDuisites6
1. act performed is against property
9. That the act was done with evil intent
0. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means
employed is either inade&uate or ineffectual
+. The act performed should not constitute a violation f another
provision of the -.C
,N"O# vs. C4
,n our Curisdiction% im*ossible crimes are recogni.ed. "he im*ossibilit! o
accom*lishing the criminal intent is not merel! a deense% but an act *enali.ed
b! itsel. 3urthermore% the *hrase Minherent im*ossibilit!M that is ound in
4rticle +(9) o the Revised Penal Code ma=es no distinction between actual or
*h!sical im*ossibilit! and legal im*ossibilit!. Gbi le( non distinguit nee nos
distinguiere debemos.
"he actual situation in the case at bar *resents a *h!sical im*ossibilit! which
rendered the intended crime im*ossible o accom*lishment. 4nd under 4rticle
+% *aragra*h 9 o the Revised Penal Code% such is suicient to ma=e the act an
im*ossible crime.
1. "o u*hold the contention o res*ondent that the oense was
4ttem*ted /urder because the absence o Palang*angan was a
su*ervening cause inde*endent o the actorLs will% will render
useless the *rovision in 4rticle +% which ma=es a *erson criminall!
liable or an act Mwhich would be an oense against *ersons or
*ro*ert!% were it not or the inherent im*ossibilit! o its
accom*lishment ( ( (.M ,n that case% all circumstances which
*revented the consummation o the oense will be treated as an
accident inde*endent o the actorLs will which is an element o
attem*ted and rustrated elonies.
,m*ossible crime
4n im*ossible crime is an act which would be an oense against *erson or
*ro*ert! were it not or the inherent im*ossibilit! o its accom*lishment or on
account o the em*lo!ment o inadeDuate or ineectual means.
E*estion F Answer
1. 4ccused was a housebo! in a house where onl! a s*inster
resides. ,t is customar! or the s*inster to slee* nude because her room was
warm. ,t was also the habit o the housebo! that whenever she enters her
room% the housebo! would ollow and *ee= into the =e!hole. 3inall!% when the
housebo! could no longer resist the urge% he climbed into the ceiling% went
inside the room o his master% *laced himsel on to* o her and abused her% not
=nowing that she was alread! dead ive minutes earlier. ,s an im*ossible crime
committedJ
?es. Eeore% the act *erormed b! the oender could not have been a
crime against *erson or *ro*ert!. "he act *erormed would have been
constituted a crime against chastit!. 4n im*ossible crime is true onl! i the act
done b! the oender constitutes a crime against *erson or *ro*ert!. <owever%
with the new ra*e law amending the Revised Penal Code and classi!ing ra*e as
a crime against *ersons% it is now *ossible that an im*ossible crime was
committed. Note% however% that the crime might also all under the Revised
4dministrative Code 2 desecrating the dead.
9. 4 was driving his car around Ro(as Eoulevard when a *erson
hitched a ride. Eecause this *erson was e(Duisitel! dressed% 4 readil!
welcomed the ellow inside his car and he continued driving. 5hen he reached
a motel% 4 suddenl! swerved his car inside. 4 started =issing his *assenger%
but he ound out that his *assenger was not a woman but a man% and so he
*ushed him out o the car% and gave him ist blows. ,s an im*ossible crime
committedJ , not% is there an! crime committed at allJ
,t cannot be an im*ossible crime% because the act would have been a
crime against chastit!. "he crime is *h!sical inCuries or acts o lasciviousness%
i this was done against the will o the *assenger. "here are two wa!s o
committing acts o lasciviousness. Gnder 4rticle 00'% where the acts o
lasciviousness were committed under circumstances o ra*e% meaning to sa!%
there is em*lo!ment o violence or intimidation or the victim is de*rived o
reason. @ven i the victim is a man% the crime o acts o lasciviousness is
committed. "his is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. 4cts
o lasciviousness reDuire a victim to be a woman onl! when it is committed
under circumstances o seduction. , it is committed under the circumstances
o ra*e% the victim ma! be a man or a woman. "he essence o an im*ossible
crime is the inherent im*ossibilit! o accom*lishing the crime or the inherent
im*ossibilit! o the means em*lo!ed to bring about the crime. 5hen we sa!
inherent im*ossibilit!% this means that under an! and all circumstances% the
crime could not have materiali.ed. , the crime could have materiali.ed under
a dierent set o acts% em*lo!ing the same mean or the same act% it is not an
im*ossible crimeK it would be an attem*ted elon!.
Gnder 4rticle +% *aragra*h 9% im*ossible crime is true onl! when the crime
committed would have been against *erson or against *ro*ert!. ,t is%
thereore% im*ortant to =now what are the crimes under "itle V,,,% against
*ersons and those against *ro*ert! under "itle T. 4n im*ossible crime is true
onl! to an! o those crimes.
0. 4 entered a de*artment store at about midnight% when it was
alread! closed. <e went directl! to the room where the sae or vault was being
=e*t. <e succeeded in o*ening the sae% but the sae was em*t!. ,s an
im*ossible crime committedJ , not% what crime is *ossibl! committedJ
"his is not an im*ossible crime. "hat is onl! true i there is nothing
more to steal. Eut in a de*artment store% where there is *lent! to steal% not
onl! the mone! inside the vault or sae. "he act that the vault had turned out
to be em*t! is not reall! inherentl! im*ossible to commit the crime o robber!.
"here are other things that he could ta=e. "he crime committed thereore is
attem*ted robber!% assuming that he did not la! his hands on an! other article.
"his could not be tres*ass to dwelling because there are other things that can
be stolen.
+. 4 and E were lovers. E was willing to marr! 4 e(ce*t that 4
is alread! married. 4 thought o =illing his wie. <e *re*ared her brea=ast
ever! morning% and ever! morning% he *laced a little dose o arsenic *oison into
the brea=ast o the wie. "he wie consumed all the ood *re*ared b! her
husband including the *oison but nothing ha**ened to the wie. Eecause o the
volume o the household chores that the wie had to attend to dail!% she
develo*ed a *h!sical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to
an! =ind o *oisoning% so the amount o *oison a**lied to her brea=ast has no
eect to her. ,s there an im*ossible crimeJ
No im*ossible crime is committed because the act itsel stated that
what *revented the *oison rom ta=ing eect is the *h!sical condition o the
woman. )o it im*lies that i the woman was not o such *h!sical condition% the
*oison would have ta=en eect. <ence% it is not inherentl! im*ossible to reali.e
the =illing. "he crime committed is rustrated *arricide.
, it were a case o *oisoning % an im*ossible crime would be
constituted i a *erson who was thin=ing that it was a *oison that he was
*utting into the ood o the intended victim but actuall! it was vetsin or sugar
or soda. Gnder an! and all circumstances% the crime could not have been
reali.ed. Eut i due to the Duantit! o vetsin or sugar or soda% the intended
victim develo*ed LE/ and was hos*itali.ed% then it would not be a case o
im*ossible crime an!more. ,t would be a case o *h!sical inCuries% i the act
done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code.
#o not conuse an im*ossible crime with the attem*ted or rustrated stage.
A. )cott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house.
@ver!da!% )cott leaves or wor= but beore leaving he would loc= the ood
cabinet where he =e*t his ood. Charles resented this. One da!% he got an
electric cord tied the one end to the door =nob and *lugged the other end to an
electric outlet. "he idea was that% when )cott comes home to o*en the door
=nob% he would be electrocuted. Gn=nown to Charles% )cott is wor=ing in an
electronic sho* where he received a dail! dosage o electric shoc=. 5hen )cott
o*ened the door=nob% nothing ha**ened to him. <e was Cust sur*rised to ind
out that there was an electric cord *lugged to the outlet and the other hand to
the door =nob. 5hether an im*ossible crime was committed or notJ
,t is not an im*ossible crime. "he means em*lo!ed is not inherentl!
im*ossible to bring about the conseDuence o his elonious act. 5hat
*revented the consummation o the crime was because o some cause
inde*endent o the will o the *er*etrator.
'. 4 and E are enemies. 4% u*on seeing E% got the revolver o
his ather% shot E% but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were
old% none o them discharged. 5as an im*ossible crime committedJ
No. ,t was *urel! accidental that the irearm did not discharge
because the bullets were old. , the! were new% it would have ired. "hat is a
cause other than the s*ontaneous desistance o the oender% and thereore% an
attem*ted homicide.
Eut i let us sa!% when he started sDuee.ing the trigger% he did not reali.e that
the irearm was em*t!. "here was no bullet at all. "here is an im*ossible
crime% because under an! and all circumstances% an unloaded irearm will never
ire.
5henever !ou are conronted with a *roblem where the acts suggest that an
im*ossible crime was committed% be careul about the Duestion as=ed. , the
Duestion as=ed is6 :,s an im*ossible crime committedJ;% then !ou Cudge that
Duestion on the basis o the acts. , reall! the acts constitute an im*ossible
crime% then !ou suggest than an im*ossible crime is committed% then !ou state
the reason or the inherent im*ossibilit!.
, the Duestion as=ed is :,s he liable or an im*ossible crimeJ;% this is a catching
Duestion. @ven though the acts constitute an im*ossible crime% i the act done
b! the oender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code%
he will not be liable or an im*ossible crime. <e will be *rosecuted or the
crime constituted so ar b! the act done b! him. "he reason is an oender is
*unished or an im*ossible crime Cust to teach him a lesson because o his
criminal *erversit!. 4lthough obCectivel!% no crime is committed% but
subCectivel!% he is a criminal. "hat *ur*ose o the law will also be served i he
is *rosecuted or some other crime constituted b! his acts which are also
*unishable under the RPC.
$. 4 and E are neighbors. "he! are Cealous o each otherIs
social status. 4 thought o =illing E so 4 climbed the house o E through the
window and stabbed E on the heart% not =nowing that E died a ew minutes ago
o bangungot. ,s 4 liable or an im*ossible crimeJ
No. 4 shall be liable or Dualiied tres*ass to dwelling. 4lthough the
act done b! 4 against E constitutes an im*ossible crime% it is the *rinci*le o
criminal law that the oender shall be *unished or an im*ossible crime onl!
when his act cannot be *unished under some other *rovisions in the Revised
Penal Code.
,n other words% this idea o an im*ossible crime is a one o last resort% Cust to
teach the oender a lesson because o his criminal *erversit!. , he could be
taught o the same lesson b! charging him with some other crime constituted
b! his act% then that will be the *ro*er wa!. , !ou want to *la! sae% !ou state
there that although an im*ossible crime is constituted% !et it is a *rinci*le o
criminal law that he will onl! be *enali.ed or an im*ossible crime i he cannot
be *unished under some other *rovision o the Revised Penal Code.
, the Duestion is :,s an im*ossible crime is committedJ;% the answer is !es%
because on the basis o the acts stated% an im*ossible crime is committed. Eut
to *la! sae% add another *aragra*h6 <owever% the oender will not be
*rosecuted or an im*ossible crime but or UUUUU Pstate the crimeF. Eecause it
is a *rinci*le in criminal law that the oender can onl! be *rosecuted or an
im*ossible crime i his acts do not constitute some other crimes *unishable
under the Revised Penal Code. 4n im*ossible crime is a crime o last resort.
Modified conce!t of im!ossi1le crime5
,n a wa!% the conce*t o im*ossible crime has been modiied b! the decision o
the )u*reme Court in the case o Intod v. CA@ et al.@ 0,7 CRA 70. ,n this
case% our cul*rits% all armed with irearms and with intent to =ill% went to the
intended victimIs house and ater having *in*ointed the latterIs bedroom% all
our ired at and riddled said room with bullets% thin=ing that the intended
victim was alread! there as it was about 18688 in the evening. ,t so ha**ened
that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in
her bedroom at that time. @ventuall! the cul*rits were *rosecuted and
convicted b! the trial court or attem*ted murder. "he Court o 4**eals
airmed the Cudgment but the )u*reme Court modiied the same and held the
*etitioner liable onl! or the so-called im*ossible crime. 4s a result% *etitioner-
accused was sentenced to im*risonment o onl! si( months o arresto ma!or
or the elonious act he committed with intent to =ill6 this des*ite the
destruction done to the intended victimIs house. )omehow% the decision
de*reciated the seriousness o the act committed% considering the lawlessness
b! which the cul*rits carried out the intended crime% and so some members o
the bench and bar s*o=e out against the soundness o the ruling. )ome as=ed
Duestions6 5as it reall! the im*ossibilit! o accom*lishing the =illing that
brought about its non-accom*lishmentJ 5as it not *urel! accidental that the
intended victim did not come home that evening and% thus% un=nown to the
cul*rits% she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with
bulletsJ )u**ose% instead o using irearms% the cul*rits set ire on the
intended victimIs house% believing she was there when in act she was not%
would the criminal liabilit! be or an im*ossible crimeJ
Gntil the ,ntod case% the *revailing attitude was that the *rovision o the
Revised Penal Code on im*ossible crime would onl! a**l! when the wrongul
act% which would have constituted a crime against *ersons or *ro*ert!% could
not and did not constitute another elon!. Otherwise% i such act constituted
an! other elon! although dierent rom what the oender intended% the
criminal liabilit! should be or such other elon! and not or an im*ossible
crime. "he attitude was so because 4rticle + o the Code *rovides two
situations where criminal liabilit! shall be incurred% to wit6
4rt +. Criminal liabilit! 2 Criminal liabilit! shall be
incurred6
1. E! an! *erson committing a elon! (delito) although
the wrongul act be dierent rom that which he
intended.
9. E! an! *erson *erorming an act which would be an
oense against *ersons or *ro*ert!% were it not or
the inherent im*ossibilit! o its accom*lishment or
on account o the em*lo!ment o inadeDuate or
ineectual means.
Paragra*h 1 reers to a situation where the wrongul act done constituted a
elon! although it ma! be dierent rom what he intended. Paragra*h 9 reers
to a situation where the wrongul act done did not constitute an! elon!% but
because the act would have given rise to a crime against *ersons or against
*ro*ert!% the same is *enali.ed to re*ress criminal tendencies to curtail their
reDuenc!. Eecause criminal liabilit! or im*ossible crime *resu**oses that no
elon! resulted rom the wrongul act done% the *enalt! is i(ed at arresto
ma!or or a ine rom P988.88 to PA88.88% de*ending on the :social danger and
degree o criminalit! shown b! the oender; (4rticle A>)% regardless o whether
the wrongul act was an im*ossible crime against *ersons or against *ro*ert!.
"here is no logic in a**l!ing *aragra*h 9 o 4rticle + to a situation governed b!
*aragra*h 1 o the same 4rticle% that is% where a elon! resulted. Otherwise% a
redundanc! and du*licit! would be *er*etrated.
,n the ,ntod case% the wrongul acts o the cul*rits caused destruction to the
house o the intended victimK this elonious act negates the idea o an
im*ossible crime. Eut whether we agree or not% the )u*reme Court has
s*o=en% we have to res*ect its ruling.
N8 CRIME $NLE %HERE I A LAW P$NIHIN/ I%
5hen a *erson is charged in court% and the court inds that there is no law
a**licable% the court will acDuit the accused and the Cudge will give his o*inion
that the said act should be *unished.
4rticle A covers two situations6
(1) "he court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not
constitute a crime. "he *ro*er Cudgment is acDuittal% but the court is
mandated to re*ort to the Chie @(ecutive that said act be made
subCect o *enal legislation and wh!.
(9) 5here the court inds the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the commission o he crime%
the Cudge should im*ose the law. "he most that he could do is to
recommend to the Chie @(ecutive to grant e(ecutive clemenc!.
%A/E IN %HE C8MMII8N 89 9EL8N.
"he classiication o stages o a elon! in 4rticle ' are true onl! to crimes under
the Revised Penal Code. "his does not a**l! to crimes *unished under s*ecial
laws. Eut even certain crimes which are *unished under the Revised Penal Code
do not admit o these stages.
"he *ur*ose o classi!ing *enalties is to bring about a *ro*ortionate *enalt!
and eDuitable *unishment. "he *enalties are graduated according to their
degree o severit!. "he stages ma! not a**l! to all =inds o elonies. "here are
elonies which do not admit o division.
9ormal crimes
3ormal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. 3or
e(am*le% in oral deamation% there is no attem*ted oral deamation or
rustrated oral deamationK it is alwa!s in the consummated stage.
)o also% in illegal e(action under 4rticle 910 is a crime committed when a *ublic
oicer who is authori.ed to collect ta(es% licenses or im*ose or the
government% shall demand an amount bigger than or dierent rom what the
law authori.es him to collect. Gnder sub-*aragra*h a o 4rticle 910 on ,llegal
e(action% the law uses the word :demanding;. /ere demanding o an amount
dierent rom what the law authori.es him to collect will alread! consummate a
crime% whether the ta(*a!er *a!s the amount being demanded or not.
Pa!ment o the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation
o the crime.
"he dierence between the attem*ted stage and the rustrated stage lies on
whether the oender has *erormed all the acts o e(ecution or the
accom*lishment o a elon!. Literall!% under the article% i the oender has
*erormed all the acts o e(ecution which should *roduce the elon! as a
conseDuence but the elon! was not reali.ed% then the crime is alread! in the
rustrated stage. , the oender has not !et *erormed all the acts o e(ecution
2 there is !et something to be *erormed 2 but he was not able to *erorm all
the acts o e(ecution due to some cause or accident other than his own
s*ontaneous desistance% then !ou have an attem*ted elon!.
?ou will notice that the elon! begins when the oender *erorms an overt act.
Not an! act will mar= the beginning o a elon!% and thereore% i the act so ar
being done does not begin a elon!% criminal liabilit! corres*ondingl! does not
begin. ,n criminal law% there is such a thing as *re*arator! act. "hese acts do
not give rise to criminal liabilit!.
E*estion F Answer
4 and E are husband and wie. 4 met C who was willing to marr! him%
but he is alread! married. 4 thought o eliminating E and to *oison her. )o% he
went to the drugstore and bought arsenic *oison. On the wa! out% he met #. #
as=ed him who was sic= in the amil!% 4 conided to # that he bought the
*oison to *oison his wie in order to marr! C. 4ter that% the! *arted wa!s. #
went directl! to the *olice and re*orted that 4 is going to =ill his wie. )o the
*olicemen went to 4Is house and ound 4 still unwra**ing the arsenic *oison.
"he *olicemen as=ed 4 i he was *lanning to *oison E and 4 said !es. Police
arrested him and charged him with attem*ted *arricide. ,s the charge correctJ
No. Overt act begins when the husband mi(ed the *oison with the
ood his wie is going to ta=e. Eeore this% there is no attem*ted stage !et.
4n overt act is that act which i allowed to continue in its natural course would
deinitel! result into a elon!.
,n the attem*ted stage% the deinition uses the word :directl!;. "his is
signiicant. ,n the attem*ted stage% the acts so ar *erormed ma! alread! be a
crime or it ma! be Cust an ingredient o another crime. "he word Mdirectl!IM
em*hasi.es the reDuirement that the attem*ted elon! is that which is directl!
lin=ed to the overt act *erormed b! the oender% not the elon! he has in his
mind.
,n criminal law% !ou are not allowed to s*eculate% not to imagine what crime is
intended% but a**l! the *rovisions o the law o the acts given.
5hen a *erson starts entering the dwelling o another% that act is alread!
tres*assing. Eut the act o entering is an ingredient o robber! with orce u*on
things. ?ou could onl! hold him liable or attem*ted robber! when he has
alread! com*leted all acts *erormed b! him directl! leading to robber!. "he
act o entering alone is not !et indicative o robber! although that ma! be what
he ma! have *lanned to commit. ,n law% the attem*ted stage is onl! that overt
act which is directl! lin=ed to the elon! intended to be committed.
,n $ v. Nama;a@ the accused was arrested while he was detaching some o
the wood *anels o a store. <e was alread! able to detach two wood *anels. "o
a la!man% the onl! conclusion that will come to !our mind is that this ellow
started to enter the store to steal something. <e would not be there Cust to
slee* there. Eut in criminal law% since the act o removing the *anel indicates
onl! at most the intention to enter. <e can onl! be *rosecuted or tres*ass.
"he removal o the *anelling is Cust an attem*t to tres*ass% not an attem*t to
rob. 4lthough% NamaCa was *rosecuted or attem*ted robber!% the )u*reme
Court held it is onl! attem*ted tres*ass because that is the crime that can be
directl! lin=ed to his act o removing the wood *anel.
"here are some acts which are ingredients o a certain crime% but which are% b!
themselves% alread! criminal oenses.
,n abduction% !our desire ma! lead to acts o lasciviousness. ,n so ar the
woman being carried is concerned% she ma! alread! be the victim o lascivious
acts. "he crime is not attem*ted abduction but acts o lasciviousness. ?ou onl!
hold him liable or an attem*t% so ar as could be reasonabl! lin=ed to the overt
act done b! him. #o not go ar and imagine what !ou should do.
E*estion F Answer
4 awa=ened one morning with a man slee*ing in his soa. Eeside the
man was a bag containing *ic=loc=s and similar tools. <e ound out that the
man entered his sala b! cutting the screen on his window. , !ou were to
*rosecute this ellow% or what crime are !ou going to *rosecute himJ
"he act done b! him o entering through an o*ening not intended or
the *ur*ose is onl! Dualiied tres*ass. Rualiied tres*ass because he did so b!
cutting through the screen. "here was orce a**lied in order to enter. Other
than that% under 4rticle 08+ o the Revised Penal Code% illegal *ossession o
*ic=loc=s and similar tools is a crime. "hus% he can be *rosecuted or two
crimes6 (1) Dualiied tres*ass to dwelling% and (9) illegal *ossession o
*ic=loc=s and similar toolsK not com*le( because one is not necessar! means to
commit the other.
'esistance
#esistance on the *art o the oender negates criminal liabilit! in the
attem*ted stage. #esistance is true onl! in the attem*ted stage o the elon!.
, under the deinition o the elon!% the act done is alread! in the rustrated
stage% no amount o desistance will negate criminal liabilit!.
"he s*ontaneous desistance o the oender negates onl! the attem*ted stage
but not necessaril! all criminal liabilit!. @ven though there was desistance on
the *art o the oender% i the desistance was made when acts done b! him
alread! resulted to a elon!% that oender will still be criminall! liable or the
elon! brought about his act. 5hat is negated is onl! the attem*ted stage% but
there ma! be other elon! constituting his act.
,llustrations6
4 ired at E and E was hit on the shoulder. Eut ELs wound was not mortal.
5hat 4 then did was to a**roach E% and told E% :Now !ou are dead% , will =ill
!ou.; Eut 4 too= *it! and =e*t the revolver and let. "he crime committed is
attem*ted homicide and not *h!sical inCuries% because there was an intention
to =ill. "he desistance was with the second shot and would not aect the irst
shot because the irst shot had alread! hit E. "he second attem*t has nothing
to do with the irst.
,n another instance% 4 has a ver! seductive neighbor in the *erson o E. 4 had
alwa!s been loo=ing at E and had wanted to *ossess her but their status were
not the same. One evening% ater 4 saw E at her house and thought that E was
alread! aslee*% he entered the house o E through the window to abuse her.
<e% however% ound out that E was nude% so he lost interest and let. Can a be
accused o attem*ted ra*eJ No% because there was desistance% which
*revented the crime rom being consummated. "he attem*ted stage was
erased because the oender desisted ater having commenced the commission
o the elon!.
"he attem*ted elon! is erased b! desistance because the oender
s*ontaneousl! desisted rom *ursuing the acts o e(ecution. ,t does not mean%
however% that there is no more elon! committed. <e ma! be liable or a
consummated elon! constituted b! his act o tres*assing. 5hen 4 entered the
house through the window% which is not intended or entrance% it is alwa!s
*resumed to be against the will o the owner. , the oender *roceeded to
abuse the woman% but the latter screamed% and 4 went out o the window
again% he could not be *rosecuted or Dualiied tres*ass. #welling is ta=en as
an aggravating circumstance so he will be *rosecuted or attem*ted ra*e
aggravated b! dwelling.
,n deciding whether a elon! is attem*ted or rustrated or consummated% there
are three criteria involved6
(1) "he manner o committing the crimeK
(9) "he elements o the crimeK and
(0) "he nature o the crime itsel.
Manner of committin" a crime
3or e(am*le% let us ta=e the crime o briber!. Can the crime o rustrated
briber! be committedJ No. (,ncidentall!% the common conce*t o briber! is that
it is the act o one who corru*ts a *ublic oicer. 4ctuall!% briber! is the crime o
the receiver not the giver. "he crime o the giver is corru*tion o *ublic oicial.
Eriber! is the crime o the *ublic oicer who in consideration o an act having to
do with his oicial duties would receive something% or acce*t an! *romise or
*resent in consideration thereo.)
"he conusion arises rom the act that this crime reDuires two to commit -- the
giver and the receiver. "he law called the crime o the giver as corru*tion o
*ublic oicial and the receiver as briber!. -iving the idea that these are
inde*endent crimes% but actuall!% the! cannot arise without the other. <ence% i
onl! one side o the crime is *resent% onl! corru*tion% !ou cannot have a
consummated corru*tion without the corres*onding consummated briber!.
"here cannot be a consummated briber! without the corres*onding
consummated corru*tion. , !ou have briber! onl!% it is onl! *ossible in the
attem*ted stage. , !ou have a corru*tion onl!% it is *ossible onl! in the
attem*ted stage. 4 corru*tor gives mone! to a *ublic oicer or the latter not
to *rosecute him. "he *ublic oicer received the mone! but Cust the same%
arrested him. <e received the mone! to have evidence o corru*tion. #o not
thin= that because the corru*tor has alread! delivered the mone!% he has
alread! *erormed all the acts o e(ecution% and% thereore% the corru*tion is
alread! be!ond the attem*ted stage. "hat thin=ing does awa! with the conce*t
o the crime that it reDuires two to commit. "he manner o committing the
crime reDuires the meeting o the minds between the giver and the receiver.
5hen the giver delivers the mone! to the su**osed receiver% but there is no
meeting o the minds% the onl! act done b! the giver is an attem*t. ,t is not
*ossible or him to *erorm all the acts o e(ecution because in the irst *lace%
the receiver has no intention o being corru*ted.
)imilarl!% when a *ublic oicer demands a consideration b! oicial dut!% the
corru*tor turns down the demand% there is no briber!.
, the one to whom the demand was made *retended to give% but he had
re*orted the matter to higher authorities% the mone! was mar=ed and this was
delivered to the *ublic oicer. , the *ublic oicer was arrested% do not thin=
that because the *ublic oicer alread! had the mone! in his *ossession% the
crime is alread! rustrated briber!% it is onl! attem*ted briber!. "his is because
the su**osed corru*tor has no intention to corru*t. ,n short% there is no
meeting o the minds. On the other hand% i there is a meeting o the minds%
there is consummated briber! or consummated corru*tion. "his leaves out the
rustrated stage because o the manner o committing the crime.
Eut indirect briber! is alwa!s consummated. "his is because the manner o
consummating the crime does not admit o attem*t or rustration.
?ou will notice that under the Revised Penal Code% when it ta=es two to commit
the crime% there could hardl! be a rustrated stage. 3or instance% the crime o
adulter!. "here is no rustrated adulter!. Onl! attem*ted or consummated. "his
is because it reDuires the lin= o two *artici*ants. , that lin= is there% the crime
is consummatedK i such lin= is absent% there is onl! an attem*ted adulter!.
"here is no middle ground when the lin= is there and when the lin= is absent.
"here are instances where an intended elon! could alread! result rom the acts
o e(ecution alread! done. Eecause o this% there are elonies where the
oender can onl! be determined to have *erormed all the acts o e(ecution
when the resulting elon! is alread! accom*lished. 5ithout the resulting
elon!% there is no wa! o determining whether the oender has alread!
*erormed all the acts or not. ,t is in such elonies that the rustrated stage
does not e(ist because without the elon! being accom*lished% there is no wa!
o stating that the oender has alread! *erormed all the acts o e(ecution. 4n
e(am*le o this is the crime o ra*e. "he essence o the crime is carnal
=nowledge. No matter what the oender ma! do to accom*lish a *enetration%
i there was no *enetration !et% it cannot be said that the oender has
*erormed all the acts o e(ecution. 5e can onl! sa! that the oender in ra*e
has *erormed all the acts o e(ecution when he has eected a *enetration.
Once there is *enetration alread!% no matter how slight% the oense is
consummated. 3or this reason% ra*e admits onl! o the attem*ted and
consummated stages% no rustrated stage. "his was the ruling in the case o
Peo!le v. 8rita.
,n ra*e% it reDuires the connection o the oender and the oended *art!. No
*enetration at all% there is onl! an attem*ted stage. )lightest *enetration or
slightest connection% consummated. ?ou will notice this rom the nature o the
crime reDuiring two *artici*ants.
"his is also true in the crime o arson. ,t does not admit o the rustrated
stage. ,n arson% the moment an! *article o the *remises intended to be
burned is blac=ened% that is alread! an indication that the *remises have begun
to burn. ,t does not reDuire that the entire *remises be burned to consummate
arson. Eecause o that% the rustrated stage o arson has been eased out. "he
reasoning is that one cannot sa! that the oender% in the crime o arson% has
alread! *erormed all the acts o e(ecution which could *roduce the destruction
o the *remises through the use o ire% unless a *art o the *remises has
begun to burn. , it has not begun to burn% that means that the oender has
not !et *erormed all the acts o e(ecution. On the other hand% the moment it
begins to burn% the crime is consummated. 4ctuall!% the rustrated stage is
alread! standing on the consummated stage e(ce*t that the outcome did not
result. 4s ar as the stage is concerned% the rustrated stage overla*s the
consummated stage.
Eecause o this reasoning b! the Court o 4**eals in Peo!le v. /arcia@ the
)u*reme Court ollowed the anal!sis that one cannot sa! that the oender in
the crime o arson has alread! *erormed all the acts o e(ecution which would
*roduce the arson as a conseDuence% unless and until a *art o the *remises
had begun to burn.
,n $ v. Valde(@ the oender had tried to burn the *remises b! gathering Cute
sac=s la!ing these inside the room. <e lighted these% and as soon as the Cute
sac=s began to burn% he ran awa!. "he occu*ants o the room *ut out the ire.
"he court held that what was committed was rustrated arson.
"his case was much the wa! beore the decision in the case o Peo!le v.
/arcia was handed down and the Court o 4**eals ruled that there is no
rustrated arson. Eut even then% the anal!sis in the case o $ v. Valde( is
correct. "his is because% in determining whether the elon! is attem*ted%
rustrated or consummated% the court does not onl! consider the deinition
under 4rticle ' o the Revised Penal Code% or the stages o e(ecution o the
elon!. 5hen the oender has alread! *assed the subCective stage o the
elon!% it is be!ond the attem*ted stage. ,t is alread! on the consummated or
rustrated stage de*ending on whether a elon! resulted. , the elon! did not
result% rustrated.
"he attem*ted stage is said to be within the subCective *hase o e(ecution o a
elon!. On the subCective *hase% it is that *oint in time when the oender
begins the commission o an overt act until that *oint where he loses control o
the commission o the crime alread!. , he has reached that *oint where he
can no longer control the ensuing conseDuence% the crime has alread! *assed
the subCective *hase and% thereore% it is no longer attem*ted. "he moment
the e(ecution o the crime has alread! gone to that *oint where the elon!
should ollow as a conseDuence% it is either alread! rustrated or consummated.
, the elon! does not ollow as a conseDuence% it is alread! rustrated. , the
elon! ollows as a conseDuence% it is consummated.
%he tro*1le is that@ in the ;*ris!r*dence reco"ni(in" the o1;ective
!hase and the s*1;ective !hase@ the *!reme Co*rt considered not only
the acts of the offender@ 1*t also his 1elief. %hat altho*"h the offender
may not have done the act to 1rin" a1o*t the felony as a conse)*ence@
if he co*ld have contin*ed committin" those acts 1*t he himself did not
!roceed 1eca*se he 1elieved that he had done eno*"h to cons*mmate
the crime@ *!reme Co*rt said the s*1;ective !hase has !assed. %his
was a!!lied in the case of G) v. Valde.% where the offender@ havin"
already !*t 6erosene on the ;*te sac6s@ li"hted the same@ he had no
reason not to 1elieve that the fire wo*ld s!read@ so he ran away. %hat
act demonstrated that in his mind@ he 1elieved that he has !erformed
all the acts of e4ec*tion and that it is only a matter of time that the
!remises will 1*rn. %he fact that the occ*!ant of the other room came
o*t and !*t o*t the fire is a ca*se inde!endent of the will of the
!er!etrator.
"he ruling in the case o $ v. Valde( is still correct. Eut in the case o
Peo!le v. /arcia@ the situation is dierent. <ere% the oender who *ut the
torch over the house o the oended *art!% the house being a ni*a hut% the
torch which was lighted could easil! burn the roo o the ni*a hut. Eut the
torch burned out.
,n that case% !ou cannot sa! that the oender believed that he had *erormed
all the acts o e(ecution. "here was not even a single burn o an! instrument
or agenc! o the crime.
"he anal!sis made b! the Court o 4**eals is still correct6 that the! could not
demonstrate a situation where the oender has *erormed all the acts o
e(ecution to bring about the crime o arson and the situation where he has not
!et *erormed all the acts o e(ecution. "he weight o the authorit! is that the
crime o arson cannot be committed in the rustrated stage. "he reason is
because we can hardl! determine whether the oender has *erormed all the
acts o e(ecution that would result in arson% as a conseDuence% unless a *art o
the *remises has started to burn. On the other hand% the moment a *article or
a molecule o the *remises has blac=ened% in law% arson is consummated. "his
is because consummated arson does not reDuire that the whole o the *remises
be burned. ,t is enough that an! *art o the *remises% no matter how small%
has begun to burn.
"here are also certain crimes that do not admit o the attem*ted or rustrated
stage% li=e *h!sical inCuries. One o the =nown commentators in criminal law
has advanced the view that the crime o *h!sical inCuries can be committed in
the attem*ted as well as the rustrated stage. <e e(*lained that b! going
through the deinition o an attem*ted and a rustrated elon! under 4rticle '% i
a *erson who was about to give a ist blow to another raises his arms% but
beore he could throw the blow% somebod! holds that arm% there would be
attem*ted *h!sical inCuries. "he reason or this is because the oender was
not able to *erorm all the acts o e(ecution to bring about *h!sical inCuries.
On the other hand% he also stated that the crime o *h!sical inCuries ma! be
committed in the rustrated stage when the oender was able to throw the
blow but somehow% the oended *art! was able to sideste* awa! rom the
blow. <e reasoned out that the crime would be rustrated because the oender
was able to *erorm all the acts o e(ecution which would bring about the
elon! were it not or a cause inde*endent o the will o the *er*etrator.
"he e(*lanation is academic. ?ou will notice that under the Revised Penal
Code% the crime o *h!sical inCuries is *enali.ed on the basis o the gravit! o
the inCuries. 4ctuall!% there is no sim*le crime o *h!sical inCuries. ?ou have to
categori.e because there are s*eciic articles that a**l! whether the *h!sical
inCuries are serious% less serious or slight. , !ou sa! *h!sical inCuries% !ou do
not =now which article to a**l!. "his being so% !ou could not *unish the
attem*ted or rustrated stage because !ou do not =now what crime o *h!sical
inCuries was committed.
E*estions F Answers
1. ,s there an attem*ted slight *h!sical inCuriesJ
, there is no result% !ou do not =now. Criminal law cannot stand on
an! s*eculation or ambiguit!K otherwise% the *resum*tion o innocence would
be sacriiced. "hereore% the commentatorIs o*inion cannot stand because !ou
cannot tell what *articular *h!sical inCuries was attem*ted or rustrated unless
the conseDuence is there. ?ou cannot classi! the *h!sical inCuries.
9. 4 threw muriatic acid on the ace o E. "he inCuries would
have resulted in deormit! were it not or timel! *lastic surger!. 4ter the
surger!% E became more handsome. 5hat crime is committedJ ,s it
attem*ted% rustrated or consummatedJ
"he crime committed here is serious *h!sical inCuries because o the
deormit!. 5hen there is deormit!% !ou disregard the healing duration o the
wound or the medical treatment reDuired b! the wound. ,n order that in law% a
deormit! can be said to e(ist% three actors must concur6
(1) "he inCur! should bring about the uglinessK
(9) "he ugliness must be visibleK
(0) "he ugliness would not disa**ear through natural healing *rocess.
4long this conce*t o deormit! in law% the *lastic surger! a**lied to E is beside
the *oint. ,n law% what is considered is not the artiicial or the scientiic
treatment but the natural healing o the inCur!. )o the act that there was
*lastic surger! a**lied to E does not relieve the oender rom the liabilit! or
the *h!sical inCuries inlicted. "he crime committed is serious *h!sical inCuries.
,t is consummated. ,n determining whether a elon! is attem*ted% rustrated or
consummated% !ou have to consider the manner o committing the elon!% the
element o the elon! and the nature o the elon! itsel. "here is no real hard
and ast rule.
Elements of the crime
,n the crime o estaa% the element o damage is essential beore the crime
could be consummated. , there is no damage% even i the oender succeeded
in carting awa! the *ersonal *ro*ert! involved% estaa cannot be considered as
consummated. 3or the crime o estaa to be consummated% there must be
misa**ro*riation alread! done% so that there is damage alread! suered b! the
oended *art!. , there is no damage !et% the estaa can onl! be rustrated or
attem*ted.
On the other hand% i it were a crime o thet% damage or intent to cause
damage is not an element o thet. 5hat is necessar! onl! is intent to gain% not
even gain is im*ortant. "he mere intent to derive some *roit is enough but the
thin=ing must be com*lete beore a crime o thet shall be consummated. "hat
is wh! we made that distinction between thet and estaa.
, the *ersonal *ro*ert! was received b! the oender% this is where !ou have to
decide whether what was transerred to the oender is Curidical *ossession or
*h!sical *ossession onl!. , the oender did not receive the *ersonal *ro*ert!%
but too= the same rom the *ossession o the owner without the latterIs
consent% then there is no *roblem. "hat cannot be estaaK this is onl! thet or
none at all.
,n estaa% the oender receives the *ro*ert!K he does not ta=e it. Eut in
receiving the *ro*ert!% the reci*ient ma! be committing thet% not estaa% i
what was transerred to him was onl! the *h!sical or material *ossession o the
obCect. ,t can onl! be estaa i what was transerred to him is not onl! material
or *h!sical *ossession but Curidical *ossession as well.
5hen !ou are discussing estaa% do not tal= about intent to gain. ,n the same
manner that when !ou are discussing the crime o thet% do not tal= o damage.
"he crime o thet is the one commonl! given under 4rticle '. "his is so
because the conce*t o thet under the Revised Penal Code diers rom the
conce*t o larcen! under 4merican common law. Gnder 4merican common law%
the crime o larcen! which is eDuivalent to our crime o thet here reDuires that
the oender must be able to carr! awa! or trans*ort the thing being stolen.
5ithout that carr!ing awa!% the larcen! cannot be consummated.
,n our conce*t o thet% the oender need not move an inch rom where he
was. ,t is not a matter o carr!ing awa!. ,t is a matter o whether he has
alread! acDuired com*lete control o the *ersonal *ro*ert! involved. "hat
com*lete control sim*l! means that the oender has alread! su**lanted his will
rom the will o the *ossessor or owner o the *ersonal *ro*ert! involved% such
that he could e(ercise his own control on the thing.
,llustration6
, *laced a wallet on a table inside a room. 4 stranger comes inside the room%
gets the wallet and *uts it in his *oc=et. , suddenl! started searching him and ,
ound the wallet inside his *oc=et. "he crime o thet is alread! consummated
because he alread! acDuired com*lete control o m! wallet. "his is so true
when he removed the wallet rom the conines o the table. <e can e(ercise his
will over the wallet alread!% he can dro* this on the loor% etc.
Eut as long as the wallet remains on the table% the thet is not !et
consummatedK there can onl! be attem*ted or rustrated thet. , he has
started liting the wallet% it is rustrated. , he is in the act o tr!ing to ta=e the
wallet or *lace it under% attem*ted.
:"a=ing; in the conce*t o thet% sim*l! means e(ercising control over the thing.
, instead o the wallet% the man who entered the room *retended to carr! the
table out o the room% and the wallet is there. 5hile ta=ing the table out o the
room% , a**rehended him. ,t turned out that he is not authori.ed at all and is
interested onl! in the wallet% not the table. "he crime is not !et consummated.
,t is onl! rustrated because as ar as the table is concern% it is the conines o
this room that is the container. 4s long as he has not ta=en this table out o the
our walls o this room% the ta=ing is not com*lete.
4 man entered a room and ound a chest on the table. <e o*ened it ound
some valuables inside. <e too= the valuables% *ut them in his *oc=et and was
arrested. ,n this case% thet is consummated.
Eut i he does not ta=e the valuables but lits the entire chest% and beore he
could leave the room% he was a**rehended% there is rustrated thet.
, the thing is stolen rom a com*ound or rom a room% as long as the obCect
has not been brought out o that room% or rom the *erimeter o the com*ound%
the crime is onl! rustrated. "his is the conusion raised in the case o $ v.
'iIo com*ared with Peo!le v. Adio and Peo!le v. Es!irit*.
,n $ v. 'iIo@ the accused loaded bo(es o rile on their truc=. 5hen the!
were on their wa! out o the )outh <arbor% the! were chec=ed at the
chec=*oint% so the! were not able to leave the com*ound. ,t was held that
what was committed was rustrated "het.
,n Peo!le v. Es!irit*@ the accused were on their wa! out o the su**l! house
when the! were a**rehended b! militar! *olice who ound them secreting some
hos*ital linen. ,t was held that what was committed was consummated thet.
"he em*hasis% which was erroneousl! laid in some commentaries% is that% in
both cases% the oenders were not able to *ass the chec=*oint. Eut wh! is it
that in one% it is rustrated and in the other% it is consummatedJ
,n the case o $ v. 'iIo@ the bo(es o rile were stoc=ed ile inside the
com*ound o the )outh <arbor. 4s ar as the bo(es o rile are concerned% it is
the *erimeter o the com*ound that is the container. 4s long as the! were not
able to bring these bo(es o rile out o the com*ound% the ta=ing is not
com*lete. On the other hand% in the case o Peo!le v. Es!irit*@ what were
ta=en were hos*ital linens. "hese were ta=en rom a warehouse. <os*ital
linens were ta=en rom bo(es that were diused or destro!ed and brought out
o the hos*ital. 3rom the moment the! too= it out o the bo(es where the
owner or the *ossessor had *laced it% the control is com*lete. ?ou do not have
to go out o the com*ound to com*lete the ta=ing or the control.
"his is ver! decisive in the *roblem because in most *roblems given in the bar%
the oender% ater having ta=en the obCect out o the container changed his
mind and returned it. ,s he criminall! liableJ #o not ma=e a mista=e b! sa!ing
that there is a desistance. , the crime is one o thet% the moment he brought
it out% it was consummated. "he return o the thing cannot be desistance
because in criminal law% desistance is true onl! in the attem*ted stage. ?ou
cannot tal= o desistance an!more when it is alread! in the consummated
stage. , the oender has alread! acDuired com*lete control o what he
intended to ta=e% the act that he changed his mind and returned the same will
no longer aect his criminal liabilit!. ,t will onl! aect the civil liabilit! o the
crime because he will no longer be reDuired to *a! the obCect. 4s ar as the
crime committed is concerned% the oender is criminall! liable and the crime is
consummated thet.
,llustration6
4 and E are neighbors. One evening% 4 entered the !ard o E and o*ened the
chic=en coo* where E =ee*s his ighting coc=s. <e discovered that the ighting
coc=s were not *h!sicall! it or coc=ighting so he returned it. "he crime is
consummated thet. "he will o the owner is to =ee* the ighting coc= inside the
chic=en coo*. 5hen the oender succeeded in bringing the coc= out o the
coo*% it is clear that his will com*letel! governed or su*erseded the will o the
owner to =ee* such coc= inside the chic=en coo*. <ence% the crime was
alread! consummated% and being consummated% the return o the ownerIs
*ro*ert! is not desistance an!more. "he oender is criminall! liable but he will
not be civill! liable because the obCect was returned.
5hen the rece*tacle is loc=ed or sealed% and the oender bro=e the same% in
lieu o thet% the crime is robber! with orce u*on things. <owever% that the
rece*tacle is loc=ed or sealed has nothing to do with the stage o the
commission o the crime. ,t reers onl! to whether it is thet or robber! with
orce u*on things.
Nat*re of the crime itself
,n crimes involving the ta=ing o human lie 2 *arricide% homicide% and murder
2 in the deinition o the rustrated stage% it is indis*ensable that the victim be
mortall! wounded. Gnder the deinition o the rustrated stage% to consider the
oender as having *erormed all the acts o e(ecution% the acts alread! done
b! him must *roduce or be ca*able o *roducing a elon! as a conseDuence.
"he general rule is that there must be a atal inCur! inlicted% because it is onl!
then that death will ollow.
, the wound is not mortal% the crime is onl! attem*ted. "he reason is that the
wound inlicted is not ca*able o bringing about the desired elon! o *arricide%
murder or homicide as a conseDuenceK it cannot be said that the oender has
*erormed all the acts o e(ecution which would *roduce *arricide% homicide or
murder as a result.
4n e(ce*tion to the general rule is the so-called subCective *hase. "he
)u*reme Court has decided cases which a**lied the subCective standard that
when the oender himsel believed that he had *erormed all the acts o
e(ecution% even though no mortal wound was inlicted% the act is alread! in the
rustrated stage.
C8NPIRAC. AN' PR8P8AL %8 C8MMI%E A 9EL8N.
"wo wa!s or cons*irac! to e(ist6
(1) "here is an agreement.
(9) "he *artici*ants acted in concert or simultaneousl! which is indicative
o a meeting o the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal
obCective. 5hen several oenders act in a s!nchroni.ed% coordinated
manner% the act that their acts com*limented each other is indicative
o the meeting o the minds. "here is an im*lied agreement.
"wo =inds o cons*irac!6
(1) Cons*irac! as a crimeK and
(9) Cons*irac! as a manner o incurring criminal liabilit!
5hen cons*irac! itsel is a crime% no overt act is necessar! to bring about the
criminal liabilit!. "he mere cons*irac! is the crime itsel. "his is onl! true when
the law e(*ressl! *unishes the mere cons*irac!K otherwise% the cons*irac! does
not bring about the commission o the crime because cons*irac! is not an overt
act but a mere *re*arator! act. "reason% rebellion% sedition% and cou* dIetat
are the onl! crimes where the cons*irac! and *ro*osal to commit to them are
*unishable.
A. -eneral Rule6 cons*iracies and *ro*osals to commit a elon! are not
*unishable
1. Not indictable in the Phili**ines
G) vs. L,/ EG4NCO
3acts6 #eendants are being accused o estaa or derauding @l Eanco @s*anol-
3ili*ino. Lim Euanco had an account with the said ban= and drew large sums o
mone! thererom b! means o chec=s that were signed b! him and endorsed b!
Re!es. <owever% cons*irac! e(isted between the deendants or the
withdrawal o unds rom the ban= regardless o whether Lim Eaunco had unds
in the ban= to his credit or not. Re!es mani*ulated the boo=s as to ma=e them
show an a**arent credit when in act Lim Euanco was owing the ban= a large
sum o mone!.
,ssue6 57N the deendants should be charged with cons*irac! or estaa.
#ecision6 Gnder the common law% a combination o two or more *ersons to do
an unlawul act b! lawul means% or a lawul act b! unlawul means% to the
*reCudice o an individual or *ublic is a distinct oense. "he Penal code deines
certain acts as cons*iracies and ma=es them *unishable. 4rticle + o the Penal
code sa!s that there is a cons*irac! when two or more *ersons act together or
the commission o a crime% and decide to commit it. "he crime o cons*irac! as
=nown to the common law does not e(ist under the s!stem embodied in the
)*anish Penal Code% which deines certain s*eciic acts as cons*iracies% and
*rovides that a cons*irac! to commit a crime is *unishable onl! in the cases in
which the law s*eciicall! ma=es them so. "he inormation in this case charges
the deendants with the crime o estaa% and does not attem*t to charge them
with the crime o cons*irac!
(a) Eut o *ivotal im*ortance in determining liabilit! o
*er*etuators o crime
P@OPL@ vs. P@R4L"4
3acts6 "he accused were OTO members and were charged or multi*le murder
or =illing three members7s!m*athi.ers o the )igue-)igue gang during a *rison
riot. "he *rison riot was an oshoot o the long standing clashes between the
warring grou*s. )igue-sigueIs members are *redominantl! "agalogs while
OTOIs members came rom Visa!as and /indanao6
,ssue6 57N there is cons*irac! in this case
#ecision6 4 cons*irac! e(ists when two or more *ersons come to an agreement
concerning the commission o a elon! and decide to commit it. -enerall!%
cons*irac! is not a crime e(ce*t when the law s*eciicall! *rovides or a *enalt!
thereore as in treason% rebellion and sedition. "he crime o cons*irac! =nown
to the common law is not an indictable oense in the Phili**ines. 4n agreement
to commit a crime is a re*rehensible act rom the view*oint o moralit!% but as
long as the cons*irators do not *erorm overt acts in urtherance o their
malevolent design% the sovereignt! o the )tate is not outraged and the
tranDuilit! o the *ublic remains undisturbed. <owever% when in resolute
e(ecution o a common scheme% a elon! is committed b! two or more
maleactors% the e(istence o cons*irac! assumes *ivotal im*ortance in the
determination o liabilit! o the *er*etrators.
@(ce*tion6 4s *rovided b! Law
9. cons*iracies *unished b! RPC
(a) cons*irac! to commit treason (4rt 11A)
(b) cons*irac! to commit rebellion (4rt 10')
(c) cons*irac! to commit sedition (4rt 1+1)
0. Pro*osals *unished in the code
(a) *ro*osal to commit treason (4rt 11A)
(b) Pro*osal to commit rebellion (4rt 10')
+. cons*iracies *unished b! s*ecial laws
(a) commonwealth act no '1' sec. A
(b) R4 1$88
,,. /@R@ CON)P,R4C? 4) CON)","G",N- CO//,)),ON O3 CR,/@
A. Combinations in restrain o "rade (4rt 1&')
B. Erigandage (4rt 08')
C. Certain violations o the dangerous drugs act
,,,. /@R@ PROPO)4L 4) OV@R" 4C" PGN,)<@# E? L456 ER,ER NO"
4CC@P"@# (4rt. 919% RPC)
G) vs. -LOR,4
3acts6 -loria was an unsuccessul candidate or election as *resident o his
town. G*on iling a *rotest% he a**roached the treasurer o said treasurer o
said *rovince% a member o said board% and oered and *romised to give him
the sum o 988 *esos i he would Mlend his aid and su**ort to the said *rotest.
#eendant was charged with :attem*tM to commit the crime o briber!;
,ssue6 57N the act is *unishable b! the RPC.
#ecision6 ,t is urged that the said oer was a mere *ro*osal to commit a
crime% and that under the *rovisions o article + such *ro*osals can onl! be
*unished in cases where s*eciic authorit! thereor is to be ound in the Penal
Code% and that there is nothing in said code which *enali.es a *ro*osal to
commit the crime o briber!.
,n the case in Duestion the *ro*osal was in act an Mattem*tM as deined in
article 0 o said code% wherein it is said that Mthere is an attem*t when the
guilt! *erson ma=es a beginning in the commission o a crime b! direct% overt
acts and does not *erorm all o the acts o e(ecution which constitute the
crime% b! reason o some cause or action other than his own voluntar!
desistanceKM the accused% having made an oer o mone! or the *ur*ose o
briber!% can not be said to have made a mere *ro*osition% as the oer o
mone! is an overt act in a crime o this nature% and its reusal on the *art o
the oicial whom it was *ro*osed to bribe alone *revented the consummation
o the crime.
,V. @L@/@N") O3 CON)P,R4C?
P@OPL@ vs. O-4P4?
3acts6 "he deendants was said to have cons*ired to =ill Oga*a!% the godson o
one o the deendants. 4 conlict arose between the victim and one o the
deendants when the ormer accused the latter o land-grabbing lands owned
b! the ormerIs grandather. /oreover% the victim did not su**ort the
deendant during the elections. "hus the deendant% with several others had
the victim =illed.
,ssue6 57N there is cons*irac! in the case at bar.
#ecision6 "here is no cons*irac! in this case. 4ccording to Peo*le v. /alila!
and Peo*le v. Pud*ud

6 M4 cons*irac! Le(ists when two or more *ersons come to
an agreement concerning the commission o a elon! and decide to commit it.
L"he obCective then on the *art o the cons*irators is to *erorm an act or
omission *unishable b! law. 5hat is reDuired is assent to the *er*etration o
such a misdeed. "hat must be their intent. "here is need in the language o
1ustice /a*a in the earl! leading case o Gnited )tates v. /agcomot% a 1>8>
decision% or Lconcurrence o willsL or unit! o action and *ur*ose.L "he usual
*hraseolog! em*lo!ed in man! o the later cases is Lcommon and Coint *ur*ose
and design.I L"hus a cons*irac! need not be *roved be direct evidenceK it ma!
be deduced rom the mode and manner in which the oense was *er*etrated.
"he conditions attending its commission and the acts e(ecuted ma! be
indicative o a common design to accom*lish a criminal *ur*ose and obCective.
, such be the case then% the act o one is the act o all the others involved and
each is to be held to the same degree o liabilit! as the others.
A. "wo or more *ersons come to an agreement (G) vs. Villarino)
B. 4greement concerns commission o elon! (G) vs. 3igueras)
C. "he! decide to commit it.
V. @L@/@N") O3 PROPO)4L
A. 4 *erson has decided to commit a crime
B. <e *ro*oses its commission to another
1. i *ro*osal is acce*ted% there is a cons*irac!
V,. CON)P,R4C? "O CO//," 4 CR,/@ ,) #,)",N-G,)<@# 3RO/
CON)P,R4C? 4) 4 /@4N) "O CO//," "O CR,/@
Note6 5hen cons*irac! relates to crime actuall! committed% not a elon! but
onl! a means o incurring criminal liabilit!.
V,,. L,4E,L,"? O3 CON)P,R4"OR
A. determination to commit elon!
B. ta=ing *art in ever! detail is not essential
P@OPL@ vs. C4E,L,N-
3acts6 "he victim was a driver o a truc= that was to deliver a truc=load o rice
to /anila. "heir truc= bro=e down while in the highwa! causing them to sto*.
)uddenl!% three men% who *reviousl! had a conrontation with one the truc=
*assengers% came and attac=ed the *ersons inside the truc= =illing the victim.
-uido died rom traumatic inCuries in the head. Cabiling contends that he could
not have =illed -uido since he was not the one with the lead *i*e.
,ssue6 57N Cabiling is as guilt! as his other com*anions or the murder o
-uido.
#ecision6 ?es. ,t is not essential that each cons*irator shall ta=e *art in ever!
act% or that one should =now the e(act *art to be *erormed b! the other
cons*irator in the e(ecution o the cons*irac!. Cons*irac! im*lies concert o
design and not *artici*ation in ever! detail o e(ecution. , it is *roved that two
or more *ersons aimed% b! their acts% at the accom*lishment o some unlawul
obCect% each doing a *art so that their acts% through a**arentl!% were in act
connected and coo*erative% indicating a closeness o *ersonal association and a
concurrence o sentiments% cons*irac! ma! be inerred although no actual
meeting between them to cons*ire is *roved% or the *rosecution need not
establish that all the *arties thereto agreed to ever! detail in the e(ecution o
the crime or that the! were actuall! together at all stages o the cons*irac!. ,t
is enough that rom the individual acts o each accused% it ma! be reasonabl!
deduced that the! had a common *lan to commit the elon!.
@ver! one o the cons*irators who too= active *art in its e(ecution is thereore
res*onsible or all he acts o the others done in the urtherance o the common
design.
C. Cons*irators need not all Coin in the agreement at the same time
D. Collective criminal res*onsibilit!6 4ct o one% act o all (Peo*le vs.
4lon.o)
E. )olidar! indemnit! or victimIs indemnit!
V,,,. #@-R@@ O3 PROO3 R@RG,R@# "O @)"4EL,)< CON)P,R4C?
A. )ame #egree o *roo reDuired to establish crime
1. /ere com*anionshi* does not establish cons*irac!
9. /ere *resence at crime scene does not establish cons*irac!
B. Positive and convincing
C. 3ounded on acts and not mere conCectures% inerences or
*resum*tions
,T. L,4E,L,"? ,N 4E)@NC@ O3 CON)P,R4C?
A. ,ndividual liabilit!
P@OPL@ vs. "OL,N-
3acts6 "he deendants were all ound guilt! or the crime o Robber! in Eand
with <omicide. "oling an Eolando robbed a certain 3rancisco Lum*a!ao. G*on
seeing this% 3rancisco shouted or hel*. "he victim went to 3ranciscoIs house.
G*on seeing ,sabelo% "oling shot ,sabelo thereb! =illing him. Eolando contends
that he did not =now o "olings *lan till the! were in the barrio. <e onl! Coined
them because o the Ph* .A8 share in the loot that was *romised to him.
,ssue6 57N Eolando is as guilt! as the other deendants
#ecision6 Cons*irac! not having been established% the criminal res*onsibilit! o
several accused is individual. Cons*irac! is not *roven in this case because it
does not a**ear that the a**ellants had a common design. 4ccording to
Eolando% he went along with "oling because he was araid to dis*lease the latter
and he onl! learned o their *ur*ose on their wa!. Considering that Eolando
ater =nowing that th! were to rob someone still went with them to the Earrio%
and although he did not directl! *artici*ate in the robber! he gave moral
encouragement to them with his *resence and shared in the loot in the amount
o Ph* .A8% he should be criminall! res*onsible as an accom*lice or the crime
o robber!.
4n accom*lice is one who coo*erates in the e(ecution o the crime b! *revious
or simultaneous acts% *rovided that he has not ta=en direct *art in the
e(ecution o the crime or orced or induced others to e(ecute it% or coo*erated
in its *er*etuation b! an indis*ensable act.
P@OPL@ vs. RG,N"O
3acts6 "he deendants were charged o murder or hitting and inlicting u*on
the vital *arts o Patrolman EutawaIs bod! mortal gunshot wounds% which
caused his untimel! death. ,t was said that Ruinto and his com*anions% who
were at that time alread! drun=% had a heated encounter with the victims in
to*side caV. <owever% the *rosecution was not able to establish whether it
was reall! the deendant who =illed the victim.
,ssue6 57N Ruinto should be acDuitted
#ecision6 ,t is signiicant that in the instant case% there is no evidence tending
to show cons*irac!. ,n the absence o cons*irac!% it is necessar! to *rove who
shot and =illed the victim% as mere Presence o the accused at the scene o the
crime% in the com*an! o others% among whom could have been the cul*rits%
does not establish criminal liabilit!. ,t is settled that where cons*irac! is absent%
each o the accused is res*onsible onl! or the conseDuences o his own act. ,n
the instant case% the nature and e(tent o a**ellantLs *artici*ation% i an!% in
the acts leading to the commission o the elon! has not been established b!
the evidence or the *rosecution. RuintoIs guilt was not *roved be!ond
reasonable doubt thus he was acDuitted.

E*estion F Answer
Gnion 4 *ro*osed acts o sedition to Gnion E. ,s there a crime
committedJ 4ssuming Gnion E acce*ts the *ro*osal% will !our answer be
dierentJ
"here is no crime committed. Pro*osal to commit sedition is not a
crime. Eut i Gnion E acce*ts the *ro*osal% there will be cons*irac! to commit
sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code.
5hen the cons*irac! is onl! a basis o incurring criminal liabilit!% there must be
an overt act done beore the co-cons*irators become criminall! liable.
5hen the cons*irac! itsel is a crime% this cannot be inerred or deduced
because there is no overt act. 4ll that there is the agreement. On the other
hand% i the co-cons*irator or an! o them would e(ecute an overt act% the
crime would no longer be the cons*irac! but the overt act itsel.
,llustration6
4% E% C and # came to an agreement to commit rebellion. "heir agreement was
to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. @ven i none o them has
*erormed the act o rebellion% there is alread! criminal liabilit! arising rom the
cons*irac! to commit the rebellion. Eut i an!one o them has committed the
overt act o rebellion% the crime o all is no longer cons*irac! to commit
rebellion but rebellion itsel. "his subsists even though the other co-cons*irator
does not =now that one o them had alread! done the act o rebellion.
"his legal conseDuence is not true i the cons*irac! is not a crime. , the
cons*irac! is onl! a basis o criminal liabilit!% none o the co-cons*irators would
be liable% unless there is an overt act. )o% or as long as an!one shall desist
beore an overt act in urtherance o the crime was committed% such a
desistance would negate criminal liabilit!.
,llustration6
"hree *ersons *lan to rob a ban=. 3or as long as none o the cons*irators has
committed an overt act% there is no crime !et. Eut when one o them commits
an! overt act% all o them shall be held liable% unless a co-cons*irator was
absent rom the scene o the crime or he showed u*% but he tried to *revent
the commission o the crime
4s a general rule% i there has been a cons*irac! to commit a crime in a
*articular *lace% an!one who did not a**ear shall be *resumed to have
desisted. "he e(ce*tion to this is i such *erson who did not a**ear was the
mastermind.
5e have to observe the distinction between the two because cons*irac! as a
crime% must have a clear and convincing evidence o its e(istence. @ver! crime
must be *roved be!ond reasonable doubt.
5hen the cons*irac! is Cust a basis o incurring criminal liabilit!% however% the
same ma! be deduced or inerred rom the acts o several oenders in carr!ing
out the commission o the crime. "he e(istence o a cons*irac! ma! be
reasonabl! inerred rom the acts o the oenders when such acts disclose or
show a common *ursuit o the criminal obCective. "his was the ruling in Peo!le
v. Pinto@ 0-3 CRA C.
4lthough cons*irac! is deined as two or more *erson coming to an agreement
regarding the commission o a elon! and deciding to commit it% the word
:*erson; here should not be understood to reDuire a meeting o the co-
cons*irator regarding the commission o the elon!. 4 cons*irac! o the second
=ind can be inerred or deduced even though the! have not met as long as the!
acted in concert or simultaneousl!% indicative o a meeting o the minds toward
a common goal or obCective.
Cons*irac! is a matter o substance which must be alleged in the inormation%
otherwise% the court will not consider the same.
,n Peo!le v. La*rio@ 0-- CRA 3AC@ it was held that it must be established
b! *ositive and conclusive evidence% not b! conCectures or s*eculations.

,n %aer v. CA@ ,A: CRA 7CA-@ it was held that mere =nowledge%
acDuiescence to% or a**roval o the act% without coo*eration or at least%
agreement to coo*erate% is not enough to constitute a cons*irac!. "here must
be an intentional *artici*ation in the crime with a view to urther the common
elonious obCective.
5hen several *ersons who do not =now each other simultaneousl! attac= the
victim% the act o one is the act o all% regardless o the degree o inCur! inlicted
b! an! one o them. 4ll will be liable or the conseDuences. 4 cons*irac! is
*ossible even when *artici*ants are not =nown to each other. #o not thin= that
*artici*ants are alwa!s =nown to each other.
,llustrations6
4 thought o having her husband =illed because the latter was maltreating her.
)he hired some *ersons to =ill him and *ointed at her husband. "he goons got
hold o her husband and started mauling him. "he wie too= *it! and shouted
or them to sto* but the goons continued. "he wie ran awa!. "he wie was
*rosecuted or *arricide. Eut the )u*reme Court said that there was desistance
so she is not criminall! liable.
4 law student resented the act that his brother was =illed b! 4. <e hired E to
=ill 4 and oered him PA8%888.88. <e disclosed to E that 4 was being
arraigned in the Cit! <all o /anila and told him to e(ecute the *lan on the
ollowing da!. ,n the evening o that same da!% the law student changed his
mind so he immediatel! went to the *olice and told them to dis*atch *olice
oicers to *revent E rom committing the crime. Gnortunatel!% the *olice were
caught in traic causing their dela!% so that when the! reached the *lace% E had
alread! =illed 4. ,n this case% there was no *ro*osal but a cons*irac!. "he!
have cons*ired to e(ecute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a
cons*irac! to commit murder is not a crime in itsel but merel! a basis or
incurring criminal liabilit!. "his is Cust a *re*arator! act% and his desistance
negates criminal liabilit!.
Pro*osal is true onl! u* to the *oint where the *art! to whom the *ro*osal was
made has not !et acce*ted the *ro*osal. Once the *ro*osal was acce*ted% a
cons*irac! arises. Pro*osal is unilateral% one *art! ma=es a *ro*osition to the
otherK cons*irac! is bilateral% it reDuires two *arties.
4s *ointed out earlier% desistance is true onl! in the attem*ted stage. Eeore
this stage% there is onl! a *re*arator! stage. Cons*irac! is onl! in the
*re*arator! stage.
"he )u*reme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminall! liable.
:5hen a *erson has set oot to the *ath o wic=edness and brings bac= his oot
to the *ath o righteousness% the law shall reward him or doing so.;
5here there are several *ersons who *artici*ated% li=e in a =illing% and the!
attac=ed the victim simultaneousl!% so much so that it cannot be =nown what
*artici*ation each one had% all these *artici*ants shall be considered as having
acted in cons*irac! and the! will be held collectivel! res*onsible.
#o not search or an agreement among the *artici*ants. , the! acted
simultaneousl! to bring about their common intention% cons*irac! e(ists. 4nd
when cons*irac! e(ists% do not consider the degree o *artici*ation o each
cons*irator because the act o one is the act o all. 4s a general rule% the! have
eDual criminal res*onsibilit!.
E*estion F Answer
"here are several oenders who acted simultaneousl!. 5hen the!
led% a victim was ound dead. 5ho should be liable or the =illing i who
actuall! =illed the victim is not =nownJ
"here is collective res*onsibilit! here. 5ithout the *rinci*le o
cons*irac!% nobod! would be *rosecutedK hence% there is the rule on collective
res*onsibilit! since it cannot be ascertained who actuall! =illed the victim.
"here is cons*irac! when the oenders acted simultaneousl! *ursuing a
common criminal designK thus% acting out a common criminal intent.
,llustration6
A@ < and C have 1een co*rtin" the same lady for several years. 8n
several occasions@ they even visited the lady on intervenin" ho*rs.
<eca*se of this@ A@ < and C 1ecame hostile with one another. 8ne day@
' invited the yo*n" lady and she acce!ted the invitation. Event*ally@
the yo*n" lady a"reed to marry '. When A@ < and C learned a1o*t this@
they all stood *! to leave the ho*se of the yo*n" lady feelin"
disa!!ointed. When A loo6ed 1ac6 at the yo*n" lady with '@ he saw '
la*"hin" menacin"ly. At that instance@ A sta11ed '. C and < followed.
In this case@ it was held that cons!iracy was !resent.
"he common notion is that when there is cons*irac! involved% the *artici*ants
are *unished as *rinci*als. "his notion is no longer absolute. ,n the case o
Peo!le v. Nierra@ the )u*reme Court ruled that even though there was
cons*irac!% i a co-cons*irator merel! coo*erated in the commission o the
crime with insigniicant or minimal acts% such that even without his coo*eration%
the crime could be carried out as well% such co-cons*irator should be *unished
as an accom*lice onl!. "he reason given is that *enal laws alwa!s avor a
milder orm o res*onsibilit! u*on an oender. )o it is no longer accurate to
thin= that when there is a cons*irac!% all are *rinci*als.
Notwithstanding that there is cons*irac!% a co-cons*irator ma! be held liable
onl! as an accom*lice. "hat means the *enalt! which shall be im*osed u*on
him is one degree lower.
3or e(am*le% there was a *lanned robber!% and the ta(i driver was *resent
during the *lanning. "here% the cons*irators told the ta(i driver that the! are
going to use his ta(icab in going to the *lace o robber!. "he ta(i driver agreed
but said% :, will bring !ou there% and ater committing the robber! , will return
later;. "he ta(i driver brought the cons*irators where the robber! would be
committed. 4ter the robber! was inished% he too= the cons*irators bac= to
his ta(i and brought them awa!. ,t was held that the ta(i driver was liable onl!
as an accom*lice. <is coo*eration was not reall! indis*ensable. "he robbers
could have engaged another ta(i. "he ta(i driver did not reall! sta! during the
commission o the robber!. 4t most% what he onl! e(tended was his
coo*eration. "hat is wh! he was given onl! that *enalt! or an accom*lice.
4% E% and C% under the inluence o mariCuana% bro=e into a house because the!
learned that the occu*ants have gone on an e(cursion. "he! ransac=ed the
house. 4 got a colored "V% E saw a camera and too= that% and C ound a can o
salmon and too= that. ,n the crime o robber! with orce u*on things% the
*enalt! is based on the totalit! o the value o the *ersonal *ro*ert! ta=en and
not on the individual *ro*ert! ta=en b! him.
,n iton v. CA@ it was held that the idea o a cons*irac! is incom*atible with
the idea o a ree or all. "here is no deinite o**onent or deinite intent as
when a bas=etball crowd beats a reeree to death.
Com!osite crimes
Com*osite crimes are crimes which% in substance% consist o more than one
crime but in the e!es o the law% there is onl! one crime. 3or e(am*le% the
crimes o robber! with homicide% robber! with ra*e% robber! with *h!sical
inCuries.
,n case the crime committed is a com*osite crime% the cons*irator will be liable
or all the acts committed during the commission o the crime agreed u*on.
"his is because% in the e!es o the law% all those acts done in *ursuance o the
crime agreed u*on are acts which constitute a single crime.
,llustrations6
4% E% and C decided to commit robber! in the house o #. Pursuant to their
agreement% 4 would ransac= the second loor% E was to wait outside% and C
would sta! on the irst loor. Gn=nown to E and C% 4 ra*ed the girl u*stairs. 4ll
o them will be liable or robber! with ra*e. "he crime committed is robber!
with ra*e% which is not a com*le( crime% but an indivisible elon! under the
4rticle 9>+ o the Revised Penal Code. @ven i E and C did not =now that ra*e
was being committed and the! agreed onl! and cons*ired to rob% !et ra*e was
*art o robber!. Ra*e can not be se*arated rom robber!.
4% E and C agreed to rob the house o #. ,t was agreed that 4 would go the
second loor% E would sta! in the irst loor% and C stands guard outside. 4ll
went to their designated areas in *ursuit o the *lan. 5hile 4 was ransac=ing
the second loor% the owner was awa=ened. 4 =illed him. 4% E and C will be
liable or robber! with homicide. "his is because% it is well settled that an!
=illing ta=ing *lace while robber! is being committed shall be treated as a single
indivisible oense.
4s a general rule% when there is cons*irac!% the rule is that the act o one is the
act o all. "his *rinci*le a**lies onl! to the crime agreed u*on.
"he e(ce*tion is i an! o the co-cons*irator would commit a crime not agreed
u*on. "his ha**ens when the crime agreed u*on and the crime committed b!
one o the co-cons*irators are distinct crimes.
@(ce*tion to the e(ce*tion6 ,n acts constituting a single indivisible oense%
even though the co-cons*irator *erormed dierent acts bringing about the
com*osite crime% all will be liable or such crime. "he! can onl! evade
res*onsibilit! or an! other crime outside o that agreed u*on i it is *roved that
the *articular cons*irator had tried to *revent the commission o such other
act.
"he rule would be dierent i the crime committed was not a com*osite crime.
,llustration6
4% E and C agreed to =ill #. 5hen the! saw the o**ortunit!% 4% E and C =illed #
and ater that% 4 and E ran into dierent directions. C ins*ected the *oc=et o
the victim and ound that the victim was wearing a ring 2 a diamond ring 2 and
he too= it. "he crimes committed are homicide and thet. 4s ar as the
homicide is concerned% 4% E and C are liable because that was agreed u*on and
thet was not an integral *art o homicide. "his is a distinct crime so the rule
will not a**l! because it was not the crime agreed u*on. ,nsoar as the crime
o thet is concerned% C will be the onl! one liable. )o C will be liable or
homicide and thet.
CLAI9ICA%I8N 89 9EL8NIE
"his Duestion was as=ed in the bar e(amination6 <ow do !ou classi! elonies or
how are elonies classiiedJ
5hat the e(aminer had in mind was 4rticles 0% ' and >. #o not write the
classiication o elonies under Eoo= 9 o the Revised Penal Code. "hat was not
what the e(aminer had in mind because the Duestion does not reDuire the
candidate to classi! but also to deine. "hereore% the e(aminer was ater the
classiications under 4rticles 0% ' and >.
3elonies are classiied as ollows6
(1) 4ccording to the manner o their commission
Gnder 4rticle 0% the! are classiied as% intentional elonies or those
committed with deliberate intentK and cul*able elonies or those
resulting rom negligence% rec=less im*rudence% lac= o oresight or
lac= o s=ill.
(9) 4ccording to the stages o their e(ecution
Gnder 4rticle '.% elonies are classiied as attem*ted elon! when the
oender commences the commission o a elon! directl! b! overt acts%
and does not *erorm all the acts o e(ecution which should *roduce
the elon! b! reason o some cause or accident other than his own
s*ontaneous desistanceK rustrated elon! when the oender
commences the commission o a elon! as a conseDuence but which
would *roduce the elon! as a conseDuence but which nevertheless do
not *roduce the elon! b! reason o causes inde*endent o the
*er*etratorK and% consummated elon! when all the elements
necessar! or its e(ecution are *resent.
(0) 4ccording to their gravit!
Gnder 4rticle >% elonies are classiied as grave elonies or those to
which attaches the ca*ital *unishment or *enalties which in an! o
their *eriods are alictiveK less grave elonies or those to which the
law *unishes with *enalties which in their ma(imum *eriod was
correccionalK and light elonies or those inractions o law or the
commission o which the *enalt! is arresto menor.
5h! is it necessar! to determine whether the crime is grave% less grave or
lightJ
"o determine whether these elonies can be com*le(ed or not% and to
determine the *rescri*tion o the crime and the *rescri*tion o the *enalt!. ,n
other words% these are elonies classiied according to their gravit!% stages and
the *enalt! attached to them. "a=e note that when the Revised Penal Code
s*ea=s o grave and less grave elonies% the deinition ma=es a reerence
s*eciicall! to 4rticle 9A o the Revised Penal Code. #o not omit the *hrase :,n
accordance with 4rticle 9A; because there is also a classiication o *enalties
under 4rticle 9' that was not a**lied.
, the *enalt! is ine and e(actl! P988.88% it is onl! considered a light elon!
under 4rticle >.
, the ine is im*osed as an alternative *enalt! or as a single *enalt!% the ine o
P988.88 is considered a correctional *enalt! under 4rticle 9'.
, the *enalt! is e(actl! P988.88% a**l! 4rticle 9'. ,t is considered as
correctional *enalt! and it *rescribes in 18 !ears. , the oender is
a**rehended at an! time within ten !ears% he can be made to suer the ine.
"his classiication o elon! according to gravit! is im*ortant with res*ect to the
Duestion o *rescri*tion o crimes.
,n the case o light elonies% crimes *rescribe in two months. 4ter two months%
the state loses the right to *rosecute unless the running *eriod is sus*ended.
, the oender esca*es while in detention ater he has been loose% i there was
alread! Cudgment that was *assed% it can be *romulgated even i absent under
the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. , the crime is correctional% it *rescribes
in ten !ears% e(ce*t arresto ma!or% which *rescribes in ive !ears.
$PPLE%8R. APPLICA%I8N 89 %HE REVIE' PENAL C8'E
4rticle 18 is the conseDuence o the legal reDuirement that !ou have to
distinguish those *unished under s*ecial laws and those under the Revised
Penal Code. 5ith regard to 4rticle 18% observe the distinction.
,n 4rticle 18% there is a reservation :*rovision o the Revised Penal Code ma!
be a**lied su**letoril! to s*ecial laws;. ?ou will onl! a**l! the *rovisions o the
Revised Penal Code as a su**lement to the s*ecial law% or sim*l! correlate the
violated s*ecial law% i needed to avoid an inCustice. , no Custice would result%
do not give su**letoril! a**lication o the Revised Penal Code to that o s*ecial
law.
3or e(am*le% a s*ecial law *unishes a certain act as a crime. "he s*ecial law is
silent as to the civil liabilit! o one who violates the same. <ere is a *erson
who violated the s*ecial law and he was *rosecuted. <is violation caused
damage or inCur! to a *rivate *art!. /a! the court *ronounce that he is civill!
liable to the oended *art!% considering that the s*ecial law is silent on this
*ointJ ?es% because 4rticle 188 o the Revised Penal Code ma! be given
su**letor! a**lication to *revent an inCustice rom being done to the oended
*art!. 4rticle 188 states that ever! *erson criminall! liable or a elon! is also
civill! liable. "hat article shall be a**lied su**letor! to avoid an inCustice that
would be caused to the *rivate oended *art!% i he would not be indemniied
or the damages or inCuries sustained b! him.
,n Peo!le v. Rodri"*e(@ it was held that the use o arms is an element o
rebellion% so a rebel cannot be urther *rosecuted or *ossession o irearms. 4
violation o a s*ecial law can never absorb a crime *unishable under the
Revised Penal Code% because violations o the Revised Penal Code are more
serious than a violation o a s*ecial law. Eut a crime in the Revised Penal Code
can absorb a crime *unishable b! a s*ecial law i it is a necessar! ingredient o
the crime in the Revised Penal Code.
,n the crime o sedition% the use o irearms is not an ingredient o the crime.
<ence% two *rosecutions can be had6 (1) seditionK and (9) illegal *ossession o
irearms.
Eut do not thin= that when a crime is *unished outside o the Revised Penal
Code% it is alread! a s*ecial law. 3or e(am*le% the crime o cattle-rustling is not
a mala *rohibitum but a modiication o the crime thet o large cattle. )o
Presidential #ecree No. A00% *unishing cattle-rustling% is not a s*ecial law. ,t
can absorb the crime o murder. , in the course o cattle rustling% murder was
committed% the oender cannot be *rosecuted or murder. /urder would be a
Duali!ing circumstance in the crime o Dualiied cattle rustling. "hias was the
ruling in Peo!le v. Martinada.
"he amendments o Presidential #ecree No. '+9A ("he #angerous #rugs 4ct o
1>$9) b! Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% which ado*ted the scale o *enalties in the
Revised Penal Code% means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can
now be considered in im*osing *enalties. Presidential #ecree No. '+9A does
not e(*ressl! *rohibit the su**letor! a**lication o the Revised Penal Code.
"he stages o the commission o elonies will also a**l! since su**letor!
a**lication is now allowed.
Circ*mstances affectin" criminal lia1ility
"here are ive circumstances aecting criminal liabilit!6
(1) 1usti!ing circumstancesK
(9) @(em*ting circumstancesK
(0) /itigating circumstancesK
(+) 4ggravating circumstancesK and
(A) 4lternative circumstances.
"here are two others which are ound elsewhere in the *rovisions o the
Revised Penal Code6
(1) 4bsolutor! causeK and

(9) @(tenuating circumstances.
,n Custi!ing and e(em*ting circumstances% there is no criminal liabilit!. 5hen
an accused invo=es them% he in eect admits the commission o a crime but
tries to avoid the liabilit! thereo. "he burden is u*on him to establish be!ond
reasonable doubt the reDuired conditions to Custi! or e(em*t his acts rom
criminal liabilit!. 5hat is shited is onl! the burden o evidence% not the burden
o *roo.
1usti!ing circumstances contem*late intentional acts and% hence% are
incom*atible with dolo. @(em*ting circumstances ma! be invo=ed in cul*able
elonies.
A1sol*tory ca*se
%he effect of this is to a1solve the offender from criminal lia1ility@
altho*"h not from civil lia1ility. It has the same effect as an e4em!tin"
circ*mstance@ 1*t yo* do not call it as s*ch in order not to conf*se it
with the circ*mstances *nder Article ,0.
4rticle 98 *rovides that the *enalties *rescribed or accessories shall not be
im*osed u*on those who are such with res*ect to their s*ouses% ascendants%
descendants% legitimate% natural and ado*ted brothers and sisters% or relatives
b! ainit! within the same degrees with the e(ce*tion o accessories who
*roited themselves or assisting the oender to *roit b! the eects o the
crime.
"hen% 4rticle &> *rovides how criminal liabilit! is e(tinguished6
#eath o the convict as to the *ersonal *enalties% and as to *ecuniar! *enalties%
liabilit! thereor is e(tinguished i death occurs beore inal CudgmentK
)ervice o the sentenceK
4mnest!K
4bsolute *ardonK
Prescri*tion o the crimeK
Prescri*tion o the *enalt!K and
/arriage o the oended woman as *rovided in 4rticle 0++.
Gnder 4rticle 9+$% a legall! married *erson who =ills or inlicts *h!sical inCuries
u*on his or her s*ouse whom he sur*rised having se(ual intercourse with his or
her *aramour or mistress in not criminall! liable.
Gnder 4rticle 91>% discovering secrets through sei.ure o corres*ondence o the
ward b! their guardian is not *enali.ed.
Gnder 4rticle 009% in the case o thet% swindling and malicious mischie% there
is no criminal liabilit! but onl! civil liabilit!% when the oender and the oended
*art! are related as s*ouse% ascendant% descendant% brother and sister-in-law
living together or where in case the widowed s*ouse and the *ro*ert! involved
is that o the deceased s*ouse% beore such *ro*ert! had *assed on to the
*ossession o third *arties.
Gnder 4rticle 0++% in cases o seduction% abduction% acts o lasciviousness% and
ra*e% the marriage o the oended *art! shall e(tinguish the criminal action.
4bsolutor! cause has the eect o an e(em*ting circumstance and the! are
*redicated on lac= o voluntariness li=e instigation. ,nstigation is associated
with criminal intent. #o not consider cul*a in connection with instigation. , the
crime is cul*able% do not tal= o instigation. ,n instigation% the crime is
committed with dolo. ,t is conused with entra*ment.
@ntra*ment is not an absolutor! cause. @ntra*ment does not e(em*t the
oender or mitigate his criminal liabilit!. Eut instigation absolves the oender
rom criminal liabilit! because in instigation% the oender sim*l! acts as a tool
o the law enorcers and% thereore% he is acting without criminal intent because
without the instigation% he would not have done the criminal act which he did
u*on instigation o the law enorcers.
'ifference 1etween insti"ation and entra!ment
,n instigation% the criminal *lan or design e(ists in the mind o the law enorcer
with whom the *erson instigated coo*erated so it is said that the *erson
instigated is acting onl! as a mere instrument or tool o the law enorcer in the
*erormance o his duties.
On the other hand% in entra*ment% a criminal design is alread! in the mind o
the *erson entra**ed. ,t did not emanate rom the mind o the law enorcer
entra**ing him. @ntra*ment involves onl! wa!s and means which are laid down
or resorted to acilitate the a**rehension o the cul*rit.
,llustrations6
4n agent o the narcotics command had been ti**ed o that a certain house is
being used as an o*ium den b! *rominent members o the societ!. "he law
enorcers cannot themselves *enetrate the house because the! do not belong
to that circle so what the! did was to convince a *rominent member o societ!
to visit such house to ind out what is reall! ha**ening inside and that so man!
cars were congregating there. "he law enorcers told the undercover man that
i he is oered a cigarette% then he should tr! it to ind out whether it is loaded
with dangerous drugs or not. "his ellow went to the *lace and mingled there.
"he time came when he was oered a stic= o cigarette and he tried it to see i
the cigarette would aect him. Gnortunatel!% the raid was conducted and he
was among those *rosecuted or violation o the #angerous #rugs 4ct. ,s he
criminall! liableJ No. <e was onl! there u*on instigation o the law enorcers.
On his own% he would not be there. "he reason he is there is because he
coo*erated with the law enorcers. "here is absence o criminal intent.
, the law enorcer were able to enter the house and mingle there% nobod!
would oer him a cigarette because he is un=nown. 5hen he saw somebod!% he
*leaded to s*are him a smo=e so this ellow handed to him the cigarette he was
smo=ing and ound out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. <e arrested
the ellow. #eense was that he would not give a cigarette i he was not as=ed.
,s he criminall! liableJ ?es. "his is a case o entra*ment and not instigation.
@ven i the law enorcer did not as= or a cigarette% the oender was alread!
committing a crime. "he law enorcer ascertained i it is a violation o the
#angerous #rugs 4ct. "he means em*lo!ed b! the law enorcer did not ma=e
the accused commit a crime. @ntra*ment is not an absolutor! cause because in
entra*ment% the oender is alread! committing a crime.
,n another instance% a law enorcer *retended to be a bu!er o mariCuana. <e
a**roached a *erson sus*ected to be a *usher and *revailed u*on this *erson
to sell him two =ilos o dried mariCuana leaves and this ellow gave him and
delivered them. <e a**rehended the ellow. #eense is instigation% because he
would not have come out or the mariCuana leaves i the law enorcer had not
instigated him. ,t is a case o entra*ment because the ellow is alread!
committing the crime rom the mere act that he is *ossessing mariCuana. @ven
without selling% there is a crime committed b! him6 illegal *ossession o
dangerous drugs. <ow can one sell mariCuana i he is not in *ossession thereo.
"he law enorcer is onl! ascertaining i this ellow is selling mariCuana leaves% so
this is entra*ment% not instigation. )elling is not necessar! to commit the
crime% mere *ossession is alread! a crime.
4 ellow wants to ma=e mone!. <e was a**roached b! a law enorcer and was
as=ed i he wanted to deliver a *ac=age to a certain *erson. 5hen that ellow
was delivering the *ac=age% he was a**rehended. ,s he criminall! liableJ "his
is a case o instigationK he is not committing a crime.
4 *oliceman sus*ected a ellow selling mariCuana. "he law enorcer as=ed him%
:4re !ou selling thatJ <ow muchJ Could !ou bring that to the other ellow
thereJ; 5hen he brought it there% the *erson% who ha**ens to be a law
enorcer% to whom the *ac=age was brought to ound it to be mariCuana. @ven
without bringing% he is alread! *ossessing the mariCuana. "he act that he was
a**ointed to another *erson to ind out its contents% is to discover whether the
crime is committed. "his is entra*ment.
"he element which ma=es instigation an absolutor! cause is the lac= o criminal
intent as an element o voluntariness.
, the instigator is a law enorcer% the *erson instigated cannot be criminall!
liable% because it is the law enorcer who *lanted that criminal mind in him to
commit the crime% without which he would not have been a criminal. , the
instigator is not a law enorcer% both will be criminall! liable% !ou cannot have a
case o instigation. ,n instigation% the *rivate citi.en onl! coo*erates with the
law enorcer to a *oint when the *rivate citi.en u*on instigation o the law
enorcer incriminates himsel. ,t would be contrar! to *ublic *olic! to *rosecute
a citi.en who onl! coo*erated with the law enorcer. "he *rivate citi.en
believes that he is a law enorcer and that is wh! when the law enorcer tells
him% he believes that it is a civil dut! to coo*erate.
, the *erson instigated does not =now that the *erson is instigating him is a
law enorcer or he =nows him to be not a law enorcer% this is not a case o
instigation. "his is a case o inducement% both will be criminall! liable.
,n entra*ment% the *erson entra**ed should not =now that the *erson tr!ing to
entra* him was a law enorcer. "he idea is incom*atible with each other
because in entra*ment% the *erson entra**ed is actuall! committing a crime.
"he oicer who entra**ed him onl! la!s down wa!s and means to have
evidence o the commission o the crime% but even without those wa!s and
means% the *erson entra**ed is actuall! engaged in a violation o the law.
,nstigation absolves the *erson instigated rom criminal liabilit!. "his is based
on the rule that a *erson cannot be a criminal i his mind is not criminal. On
the other hand% entra*ment is not an absolutor! cause. ,t is not even
mitigating.
,n case o somnambulism or one who acts while slee*ing% the *erson involved
is deinitel! acting without reedom and without suicient intelligence% because
he is aslee*. <e is moving li=e a robot% unaware o what he is doing. )o the
element o voluntariness which is necessar! in dolo and cul*a is not *resent.
)omnambulism is an absolutor! cause. , element o voluntariness is absent%
there is no criminal liabilit!% although there is civil liabilit!% and i the
circumstance is not among those enumerated in 4rticle 19% reer to the
circumstance as an absolutor! cause.
/ista=e o act is not absolutor! cause. "he oender is acting without criminal
intent. )o in mista=e o act% it is necessar! that had the acts been true as the
accused believed them to be% this act is Custiied. , not% there is criminal
liabilit!% because there is no mista=e o act an!more. "he oender must
believe he is *erorming a lawul act.
E4ten*atin" circ*mstances

"he eect o this is to mitigate the criminal liabilit! o the oender. ,n other
words% this has the same eect as mitigating circumstances% onl! !ou do not
call it mitigating because this is not ound in 4rticle 10.
,llustrations6
4n unwed mother =illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. "he
concealment o dishonor is an e(tenuating circumstance insoar as the unwed
mother or the maternal grand*arents is concerned% but not insoar as the
ather o the child is concerned. /other =illing her new born child to conceal
her dishonor% *enalt! is lowered b! two degrees. )ince there is a material
lowering o the *enalt! or mitigating the *enalt!% this is an e(tenuating
circumstance.
"he concealment o honor b! mother in the crime o inanticide is an
e(tenuating circumstance but not in the case o *arricide when the age o the
victim is three da!s old and above.
,n the crime o adulter! on the *art o a married woman abandoned b! her
husband% at the time she was abandoned b! her husband% is it necessar! or
her to see= the com*an! o another man. 4bandonment b! the husband does
not Custi! the act o the woman. ,t onl! e(tenuates or reduces criminal liabilit!.
5hen the eect o the circumstance is to lower the *enalt! there is an
e(tenuating circumstance.
4 =le*tomaniac is one who cannot resist the tem*tation o stealing things which
a**eal to his desire. "his is not e(em*ting. One who is a =le*tomaniac and
who would steal obCects o his desire is criminall! liable. Eut he would be given
the beneit o a mitigating circumstance analogous to *aragra*h > o 4rticle 10%
that o suering rom an illness which diminishes the e(ercise o his will *ower
without% however% de*riving him o the consciousness o his act. )o this is an
e(tenuating circumstance. "he eect is to mitigate the criminal liabilit!.
'istinctions 1etween ;*stifyin" circ*mstances and e4em!tin"
circ*mstances
,n Custi!ing circumstances 2
(1) "he circumstance aects the act% not the actorK
(9) "he act com*lained o is considered to have been done within the
bounds o lawK hence% it is legitimate and lawul in the e!es o the lawK
(0) )ince the act is considered lawul% there is no crime% and because
there is no crime% there is no criminalK
(+) )ince there is no crime or criminal% there is no criminal liabilit! as well
as civil liabilit!.
,n e(em*ting circumstances 2
(1) "he circumstances aect the actor% not the actK
(9) "he act com*lained o is actuall! wrongul% but the actor acted without
voluntariness. <e is a mere tool or instrument o the crimeK
(0) )ince the act com*lained o is actuall! wrongul% there is a crime. Eut
because the actor acted without voluntariness% there is absence o dolo
or cul*a. "here is no criminalK
(+) )ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal% there is civil
liabilit! or the wrong done. Eut there is no criminal liabilit!. <owever%
in *aragra*hs + and $ o 4rticle 19% there is neither criminal nor civil
liabilit!.
5hen !ou a**l! or Custi!ing or e(em*ting circumstances% it is conession and
avoidance and burden o *roo shits to the accused and he can no longer rel!
on wea=ness o *rosecutionIs evidence
G*stifyin" circ*mstances
)ince the Custi!ing circumstances are in the nature o deensive acts% there
must be alwa!s unlawul aggression. "he reasonableness o the means
em*lo!ed de*ends on the gravit! o the aggression. , the unlawul aggressor
was =illed% this can onl! be Custiied i it was done to save the lie o the *erson
deending or the *erson being deended. "he eDuation is :lie was ta=en to
save lie.;
elf 'efense
,n Custi!ing circumstances% the most im*ortant is sel-deense. 5hen this is
given in the bar% it is the element o unlawul aggression that is in issue. Never
conuse unlawul aggression with *rovocation. /ere *rovocation is not enough.
,llustration6
4 and E are long standing enemies. Eecause o their continuous Duarrel over
the boundaries o their adCoining *ro*erties% when 4 saw E one aternoon% he
a**roached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. 5hen he
was about ive eet awa! rom E% E *ulled out a revolver and shot 4 on the
chest% =illing him. ,s E criminall! liableJ 5hat crime was committed% i an!J
"he act o 4 is nothing but a *rovocation. ,t cannot be characteri.ed as an
unlawul aggression because in criminal law% an unlawul aggression is an
attac= or a threatened attac= which *roduces an imminent danger to the lie
and limb o the one resorting to sel-deense. ,n the acts o the *roblem given
above% what was said was that 4 was holding a bolo. "hat bolo does not
*roduce an! real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. 4s
long as that arm o 4 was down holding the bolo% there is no imminent danger
to the lie or limb o E. "hereore% the act o E in shooting 4 is not Custiied.
'efense of ri"hts is incl*ded in the circ*mstances of defense and so is
defense of honor.
,n $ v. Mateo@ while a woman was slee*ing% her sister and brother-in-law
went to see a movie and came home late that evening. "he accused was
alread! aslee*. "he brother-in-law came u* irst while his wie was still in the
staircase. <e started eeling through the dar=% and in the *rocess% he
awa=ened the accused. Eelieving that her honor was at sta=e% she got a *air o
scissors and stabbed the man. 5hen the lights were turned on% she reali.ed
that she had stabbed her brother-in-law. "he accused claimed as having acted
in deense o her honor and mista=e o act. )he said that she believed that
her own honor was at sta=e. ,t was held that the whole matter is *urel! her
imagination. "ouching the arm could not *roduce such danger as would reall!
be imminent to the honor o the woman.
4**arentl!% under the Revised Penal Code% the honor o a woman in res*ect o
her deense is eDuated with her virginit!.
,n $ v. Ga*ri"*e@ it was held that it was not *ossible to ra*e the accused
because the whole thing trans*ired in the church% where there were so man!
*eo*le. "hereore% her availing o deense o honor is not tenable. )he could
not *ossibl! be ra*ed in that *lace. #eense o honor here is being eDuated
with one o abuse o chastit! o a woman. ,n this case% the oended *art!
*laced his hand on the thigh o the woman who was then *ra!ing. "here was
alread! some sort o aggression but it was not enough to warrant the act
resorted to b! the accused in getting a small =nie rom her bag and thrusting it
on the chest o the oended *art!.
#o not conuse unlawul aggression with *rovocation. 5hat Custiies the =illing
o a su**osed unlawul aggressor is that i the oender did not =ill the
aggressor% it will be his own lie that will be lost. "hat will be the situation. ,
that is not the situation% even i there was an unlawul aggression that has
alread! begun% !ou cannot invo=e sel-deense.
,llustration6
"wo *olicemen Duarreled inside a *olice *recinct. One shot the other. "he
other was wounded on his thigh. "he *oliceman who was wounded on the
thigh Cum*ed on the arm o the ellow who shot him. ,n the *rocess% the!
wrestled or *ossession o the gun. "he *oliceman who shot the other gu! ell
on the loor. On that *oint% this *oliceman who was shot at the thigh was
alread! able to get hold o the revolver. ,n that *osition% he started em*t!ing
the revolver o the other *oliceman who was l!ing on the loor. ,n this case% it
was held that the deense o sel-deense is no available. "he shooting was not
Custiied.

,n Peo!le v. Rodri"*e(@ a woman went into the house o another woman
whom she sus*ected o having an aair with her husband. )he started *ouring
gasoline on the house o the woman. )ince the woman has children inside the
house% she Cum*ed out to *revent this other woman rom *ouring gasoline
around the house. "he woman who was *ouring gasoline had a bolo% so she
started hac=ing the other woman with it. "he! gra**led with the bolo. 4t that
moment% the one who Cum*ed out o the house was able to wrest the bolo awa!
and started hac=ing the other woman. ,t was held that the hac=ing was not
Custiied. 4ctuall!% when she =illed the su**osed unlawul aggressor% her lie
and limb were no longer in imminent danger. "hat is the ocal *oint.
4t the time the accused =illed the su**osed unlawul aggressor% was her lie in
dangerJ , the answer is no% there is no sel-deense. Eut while there ma! be
no Custi!ing circumstance% do not orget the incom*lete sel-deense. "his is a
mitigating circumstance under *aragra*h 1 o 4rticle 10. "his mitigating
circumstance is either *rivileged or ordinar!. , ordinar!% it has the eect o
reducing the im*osable *enalt! to the minimum *eriod. Eut i it is *rivileged% it
has the eect o lowering the *enalt! b! one to two degrees% de*ending on how
the court will regard the absence or *resence o conditions to Custi! the act.
'efense of !ro!erty ri"hts
"his can onl! be invo=ed i the lie and limb o the *erson ma=ing the deense is
also the subCect o unlawul aggression. Lie cannot be eDual to *ro*ert!.
'efense of stran"er
, the *erson being deended is alread! a second cousin% !ou do not invo=e
deense o relative an!more. ,t will be deense o stranger. "his is vital
because i the *erson ma=ing the deense acted out or revenge% resentment or
some evil motive in =illing the aggressor% he cannot invo=e the Custi!ing
circumstance i the relative deended is alread! a stranger in the e!es o the
law. On the other hand% i the relative deended is still within the coverage o
deense o relative% even though he acted out o some evil motive% it would still
a**l!. ,t is enough that there was unlawul aggression against the relative
deended% and that the *erson deending did not contribute to the unlawul
aggression.
E*estion F Answer
"he *erson being deended was a relative 2 a irst cousin. Eut the
ellow who =illed the aggressor had some score to settle with the aggressor. ,s
he entitled to a Custi!ing circumstanceJ
?es. ,n law% the condition that a *erson ma=ing the deense did not
act out o revenge% resentment or evil motive is not a reDuirement in deense o
relative. "his is onl! reDuired in deense o strangers.
,ncom*lete sel-deense or incom*lete Custi!ing circumstance or incom*lete
e(em*ting circumstances
5hen !ou sa! incom*lete Custi!ing circumstance% it means that not all the
reDuisites to Custi! the act are *resent or not the reDuisites to e(em*t rom
criminal liabilit! are *resent.
<ow% i at all% ma! incom*lete sel-deense aect the criminal liabilit! o the
oenderJ
, the Duestion s*eciicall! reers to incom*lete sel-deense% deense o relative
or deense o stranger% !ou have to Duali! !our answer.
3irst% to have incom*lete sel-deense% the oended *art! must be guilt! o
unlawul aggression. 5ithout this% there can be no incom*lete sel-deense%
deense o relative% or deense o stranger.
)econd% i onl! the element o unlawul aggression is *resent% the other
reDuisites being absent% the oender shall be given onl! the beneit o an
ordinar! mitigating circumstance.
"hird% i aside rom the element o unlawul aggression another reDuisite% but
not all% are *resent% the oender shall be given the beneit o a *rivileged
mitigating circumstance. ,n such a case% the im*osable *enalt! shall be
reduced b! one or two degrees de*ending u*on how the court regards the
im*ortance o the reDuisites *resent. Or absent.
, the Duestion reers generall! to Custi!ing or e(em*ting circumstances% the
Duestion should be% :how ma! incom*lete Custi!ing circumstance aect
criminal liabilit! o the oender% i at allJ;
/a=e a se*arate answer with res*ect to sel-deense% deense o relative or
deense o stranger because in these cases% !ou alwa!s have to s*eci! the
element o unlawul aggressionK otherwise% there would be no incom*lete sel-
deense% deense o relative or deense o stranger. ,n general% with res*ect to
other circumstances% !ou need onl! to sa! this6
, less than a maCorit! o the reDuisites necessar! to Custi! the act or e(em*t
rom criminal liabilit! are *resent% the oender shall onl! be entitled to an
ordinar! mitigating circumstance.
, a maCorit! o the reDuisites needed to Custi! the act or e(em*t rom criminal
liabilit! are *resent% the oender shall be given the beneit o a *rivileged
mitigating circumstance. "he *enalt! shall be lowered b! one or two degrees.
5hen there are onl! two conditions to Custi! the act or to e(em*t rom criminal
liabilit!% the *resence o one shall be regarded as the maCorit!.
tate of necessity
"he state o necessit! must not have been created b! the one invo=ing the
Custi!ing circumstances. 3or e(am*le% 4 drove his car be!ond the s*eed limit
so much so that when he reached the curve% his vehicle s=idded towards a
ravine. <e swerved his car towards a house% destro!ing it and =illing the
occu*ant therein. 4 cannot be Custiied because the state o necessit! was
brought about b! his own elonious act.
Civil liabilit! reerred to in a state o necessit! is based not on the act
committed but on the beneit derived rom the state o necessit!. )o the
accused will not be civill! liable i he did not receive an! beneit out o the state
o necessit!. On the other hand% *ersons who did not *artici*ate in the damage
or inCur! would be *ro tanto civill! liable i the! derived beneit out o the state
o necessit!.
Civil liabilit! is based on the beneit derived and not on the act% damage or
inCur! caused. ,t is wrong to treat this as an e(ce*tion to the rule that in
Custi!ing circumstances% there is no criminal nor civil liabilit!% on the *rinci*le
that :no one should enrich himsel at the e(*ense o another;.
,llustration6
4 and E are owners o adCoining lands. 4 owns the land or *lanting certain
cro*s. E owns the land or raising certain goats. C used another land or a
vegetable garden. "here was heav! rain and loods. #am was o*ened. C
drove all the goats o E to the land o 4. "he goats rushed to the land o 4 to
be saved% but the land o 4 was destro!ed. "he author o the act is C% but C is
not civill! liable because he did not receive beneits. ,t was E who was
beneited% although he was not the actor. <e cannot claim that it was ortuitous
event. E will answer onl! to the e(tent o the beneit derived b! him. , C who
drove all the goats is accused o malicious mischie% his deense would be that
he acted out o a state o necessit!. <e will not be civill! liable.
9*lfillment of d*ty
,n the Custi!ing circumstance o a *erson having acted out o ulillment o a
dut! and the lawul e(ercise o a right or oice% there are onl! two conditions6
(1) "he elon! was committed while the oender was in the ulillment o a
dut! or in the lawul e(ercise o a right or oiceK and
(9) "he resulting elon! is the unavoidable conseDuence o the due
ulillment o the dut! or the lawul e(ercise o the right or oice.
,nvariabl!% when !ou are given a *roblem on this *remise% and the irst
condition is *resent% but the second is not because the oender acted with
cul*a% the oender will be entitled to a *rivelege mitigating circumstance. "his
is what !ou call incom*lete Custiication o ulillment o dut! or incom*lete
Custiication o e(ercise o a right. ,n that case% the *enalt! would be reduced
b! one or two degrees.
,n Peo!le v. 8anis and Callanta@ the accused Chie o Police and the
constabular! soldier were sent out to arrest a certain Ealagtas% su**osedl! a
notorious bandit. "here was an order to =ill Ealagtas i he would resist. "he
accused arrived at the house o a dancer who was su**osedl! the girlriend o
Ealagtas. 5hen the! were there% the! saw a certain *erson who resembled
Ealagtas in all his bodil! a**earance slee*ing on a bamboo bed but acing the
other direction. "he accused% without going around the house% started iring at
the man. "he! ound out later on that the man was not reall! Ealagtas. "he!
tried to invo=e the Custi!ing circumstance o having acted in ulillment o a
dut!.
"he second reDuisite is absent because the! acted with negligence. "here was
nothing that *revented them rom loo=ing around the house and loo=ing at the
ace o the ellow who was slee*ing. "here could not be an! danger on their lie
and limb. <ence% the! were held guilt! o the crime o murder because the
ellow was =illed when he was slee*ing and totall! deenseless. <owever% the
)u*reme Court granted them the beneit o incom*lete Custiication o
ulillment o dut! and the *enalt! was reduced b! one or two degrees.
#o not conuse ulillment o a dut! with sel-deense.
,llustration6
4% a *oliceman% while waiting or his wie to go home% was suddenl! stabbed at
the bac= b! E% a hoodlum% who mistoo= him or someone else. 5hen 4 saw E%
he drew his revolver and went ater E. 4ter iring a shot in the air% E did not
sto* so 4 shot E who was hit at a vital *art o the bod!. E died. ,s the act o 4
CustiiedJ
?es. "he Custi!ing circumstance o sel-deense cannot be invo=ed because the
unlawul aggression had alread! ceased b! the time 4 shot E. 5hen the
unlawul aggressor started leeing% the unlawul aggression ceased. , the
*erson attac=ed runs ater him% in the e!es o the law% he becomes the unlawul
aggressor. )el-deense cannot be invo=ed. ?ou a**l! *aragra*h A on
ulillment o dut!. "he oender was not onl! deending himsel but was acting
in ulillment o a dut!% to bring the criminal to the authorities. 4s long as he
was not acting out o malice when he ired at the leeing criminal% he cannot be
made criminall! liable. <owever% this is true onl! i it was the *erson who
stabbed was the one =illed. Eut i% let us sa!% the *oliceman was stabbed and
des*ite the act that the aggressor ran into a crowd o *eo*le% the *oliceman
still ired indiscriminatel!. "he *oliceman would be held criminall! liable
because he acted with im*rudence in iring toward several *eo*le where the
oender had run. Eut although he will be criminall! liable% he will be given the
beneit o an incom*lete ulillment o dut!.
E4em!tin" circ*mstances
,n e(em*ting circumstances% the reason or the e(em*tion lies on the
involuntariness o the act 2 one or some o the ingredients o voluntariness
such as criminal intent% intelligence% or reedom o action on the *art o the
oender is missing. ,n case it is a cul*able elon!% there is absence o reedom
o action or intelligence% or absence o negligence% im*rudence% lac= o oresight
or lac= o s=ill.
Im1ecility and insanity
"here is com*lete absence o intelligence. ,mbecile has an ,R o $. "he
intellectual deicienc! is *ermanent. "here is no lucid interval unli=e in insanit!.
"he insanit! that is e(em*ting is limited onl! to mental aberration or disease o
the mind and must com*letel! im*air the intelligence o the accused. Gnder
common law countries% emotional or s*iritual insanit! are e(em*ting
circumstances unli=e in this Curisdiction because the Revised 4dministrative
Code% as deined is limited to mental aberration o the mind. "his was the
ruling in Peo!le v. '*n"o.
,n Peo!le v. Rafanan@ decided on Novem1er 0,@ ,CC,@ the ollowing are
the two tests or e(em*tion on grounds o insanit!6

(1) "he test o cognition% or whether the accused acted with com*lete
de*rivation o intelligence in committing said crimeK and
(9) "he test o volition% or whether the accused acted in total de*rivation
o reedom o will.
)chi.o*renia (dementia *raeco() can onl! be considered a mitigating
circumstance because it does not com*letel! de*rive the oender o
consciousness o his acts.
Minority
,n e(em*ting circumstances% the most im*ortant issue is how the minorit! o
the oender aected his criminal liabilit!. ,t seems that the view o man! is
that when the oender is a !outhul oender% he must necessaril! be conined
in a reormator!. "his is wrong. 4 !outhul oender can onl! be conined in a
reormator! u*on order o the court. Gnder the amendment to Presidential
#ecree No. '80% Presidential #ecree No. 11$> reDuires that beore a !outhul
oender ma! be given the beneit i a sus*ension o sentence% there must be
an a**lication iled with the court which should *ronounce sentence. Note that
the commitment o the oender in a reormator! is Cust a conseDuence o the
sus*ension o the sentence. , the sentence is not sus*ended% there is no
commitment in a reormator!. "he commitment is in a *enitentiar!% since
sus*ension o sentence reDuires certain conditions6
(1) "he crime committed should not be *unishable b! reclusion *er*etua
or death *enalt!K
(9) "he oender should not have been given the beneit o a sus*ended
sentence beore. "his means he is a irst timerK
(0) <e must be below 1& !ears old because a !outhul oender is one who
is below 1&.
Note that the age o maCorit! has been reduced to 1&. "here is no more
brac=et where the oender is a minor !et no longer entitled to a mitigating
circumstance. 4n oender below 1& is alwa!s entitled to a mitigating or
e(em*ting circumstance.
<ow does the minorit! o the oender aect his criminal liabilit!J
(1) , the oender is within the brac=et o nine !ears old e(actl! or less%
he is e(em*t rom criminal liabilit! but not rom civil liabilit!. "his t!*e
o oenders are absolutel! e(em*t. @ven i the oender nine !ears or
below acted with discernment% this should not be ta=en against him
because in this age brac=et% the e(em*tion is absolute.
(9) , over nine but below 1A% a distinction has to be made whether the
oender acted with or without discernment. "he burden is u*on the
*rosecution to *rove that the oender acted with discernment. ,t is
not or the minor to *rove that he acted without discernment. 4ll that
the minor has to show is that he is within the age brac=et. , the
*rosecution would want to *in criminal liabilit! on him% it has to *rove
that the crime was committed with discernment. <ere% i the oender
was e(em*t rom criminal liabilit! because the *rosecution was not
able to *rove that the oender acted with discernment% he is onl!
civill! liable but he will be committed to the surveillance o his *arents
who will be reDuired to re*ort to the court *eriodicall! on the *rogress
or develo*ment o the oender.
, the oender is *roven to have acted with discernment% this is where
the court ma! give him the beneit o a sus*ended sentence. <e ma!
be given the beneit o a sus*ended sentence under the conditions
mentioned earlier and onl! i he would ile an a**lication thereor.
)us*ension o sentence is not automatic. , the !outhul oender has iled an
a**lication thereor.
(0) , at the time the Cudgment is to be *romulgated he is alread! above
1&% he cannot avail o a sus*ended sentence. "he reason is because i
the sentence were to be sus*ended% he would be committed in a
reormator!. )ince he cannot be committed to a reormator! an!more
because he is not less than 1& !ears old% he would have to be
committed to a *enitentiar!. "hat means *romulgation o the
sentence shall not be sus*ended. , the sentence should not be
sus*ended% although the minor ma! be Dualiied% the court will
*romulgate the sentence but the minor shall be entitled to the
reduction o the *enalt! b! at least two degrees.
5hen the oender is over nine but below 1A% the *enalt! to be
im*osed is discretionar! on the court% but lowered b! at least two
degrees. ,t ma! be lowered b! three or our degrees% de*ending u*on
whether the court deems best or the interest o the oender. "he
limitation that it should be lowered b! at least two degrees is Cust a
limitation on the *ower o the court to reduce the *enalt!. ,t cannot
be less than two degrees.
(+) , the oender is 1A !ears old and above but below 1&% there is no
e(em*tion an!more but he is also given the beneit o a sus*ended
sentence under the conditions stated earlier and i at the time the
sentence is *romulgated% he is not 1& !ears old or over !et. , the
sentence is *romulgated% the court will im*ose a *enalt! one degree
lower. "his time it is i(ed. ,t is to be im*osed one degree lower and
in the *ro*er *eriods subCect to the rules in 4rticle '+.
'amn*m a1s)*e in;*ria
Gnder 4rticle 19% *aragra*h +% the oender is e(em*t not onl! rom criminal
but also rom civil liabilit!. "his *aragra*h embodies the Latin ma(im :damnum
absDue inCuria;.
,llustration6
4 *erson who is driving his car within the s*eed limit% while considering the
condition o the traic and the *edestrians at that time% tri**ed on a stone with
one o his car tires. "he stone lew hitting a *edestrian on the head. "he
*edestrian suered *rouse bleeding. 5hat is the liabilit! o the driverJ
"here is no civil liabilit! under *aragra*h + o 4rticle 19. 4lthough% this is Cust
an e(em*ting circumstance% where generall! there is civil liabilit!% !et% in
*aragra*h + o 4rticle 19% there is no civil liabilit! as well as criminal liabilit!.
"he driver is not under obligation to dera! the medical e(*enses.
<owever% correlate *aragra*h + o 4rticle 19 with the second *aragra*h o
4rticle 9$A. 4rticle 9$A gives !ou the crime o abandoning the victim o oneIs
own accident. ,t is a crime. <ere% the accident reerred to in *aragra*h 9 o
4rticle 9$A is in the conce*t o *aragra*h + o 4rticle 19. "his means that the
oender must be *erorming a lawul act% that he was doing it with due care
but somehow% inCur! resulted b! mere accident without ault or intention o
causing it.
, at the ver! beginning% the oender was negligent% !ou do not a**l! 4rticle
9$A% *aragra*h 9. ,nstead% it will be 4rticle 0'A on criminal negligence. Notice
that in the last *aragra*h o 4rticle 0'A% in the case o the so-called hit and run
drivers who have inCured somebod! and would abandon the victim o the
accident% the *enalt! is Dualiied to a higher degree. <ere% under *aragra*h +
o 4rticle 19% the inliction o the inCur! b! mere accident does not give rise to a
criminal or civil liabilit!% but the *erson who caused the inCur! is dut! bound to
attend to the *erson who was inCured. , he would abandon him% it is in that
abandonment that the crime arises which is *unished under the second
*aragra*h o 4rticle 9$A.
Com!*lsion of irresisti1le force and *nder the im!*lse of an
*ncontrolla1le fear
"he oender must be totall! de*rived o reedom. , the oender has still
reedom o choice% whether to act or not% even i orce was em*lo!ed on him or
even i he is suering rom uncontrollable ear% he is not e(em*t rom criminal
liabilit! because he is still *ossessed with voluntariness. ,n e(em*ting
circumstances% the oender must act without voluntariness.
,n a situation where the oender would otherwise be e(em*t% but the reDuisites
or e(em*tion are not all *resent% the oender is still entitled to a mitigating
circumstance o incom*lete e(em*tion under *aragra*h 1 o 4rticle 10. 4**l!
the rule i maCorit! o the reDuisites to e(em*t rom criminal liabilit! are
*resent. "he oender shall be given the beneit o *rivelege mitigating
circumstances. "hat means that the *enalt! *rescribed o the crime committed
shall be reduced b! one or two degrees in accordance with 4rticle '> o the
Revised Penal Code. , less than a maCorit! o the reDuisites or e(em*tion are
*resent% the oender shall be given onl! the beneit o ordinar! mitigating
circumstances. "hat means the *enalt! shall be reduced to the minimum
*eriod o the *rescribed *enalt!% unless the mitigating circumstance is oset b!
an aggravating circumstance.
Miti"atin" circ*mstances
#istinctions between ordinar! mitigating circumstances and *rivileged
mitigating circumstances
(1) 4s to the nature o the circumstances
Ordinar! mitigating circumstances can be oset b! aggravating
circumstances.
Privilege mitigating circumstance can never be oset b! an!
aggravating circumstance.
(9) 4s to eect
Ordinar! mitigating circumstances% i not oset% will o*erate to reduce
the *enalt! to the minimum *eriod% *rovided the *enalt! is a divisible
one.
Privilege mitigating circumstances o*erate to reduce the *enalt! b!
one or two degrees% de*ending u*on what the law *rovides.
?ou can easil! detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liabilit! o
the oender is *rivilege or not% that is% i the *enalt! is reduced b! degree. ,
the *enalt! is lowered b! one or two degrees% it is *rivilegeK thereore% even i
there is an aggravating circumstance% do not com*ensate because that would
be violating the rules.
"he circumstances under 4rticle 10 are generall! ordinar! mitigating% e(ce*t in
*aragra*h 1% where it is *rivilege% 4rticle '> would a**l!. )o also% *aragra*h 9%
in cases where the oender is below 1& !ears old% such an oender i criminall!
liable is entitled to the lowering o *enalt! b! one degree. Eut i over nine but
under 1A% he is entitled to a discretionar! *enalt! o at least two degrees lower.
5hen there is a lowering o *enalties b! degrees% it is a *rivilege. ,t cannot be
oset b! an aggravating circumstance.
4lthough the bul= o the circumstances in 4rticle 10 are ordinar! mitigating
circumstances% !et% when the crime committed is *unishable b! a divisible
*enalt!% two or more o this ordinar! mitigating circumstances shall have the
eect o a *rivilege mitigating circumstances i there is no aggravating
circumstance at all.
Correlate 4rticle 10 with 4rticles '0 and '+. 4rticle 10 is meaningless without
=nowing the rules o im*osing the *enalties under 4rticles '0 and '+.
,n bar *roblems% when !ou are given indeterminate sentences% these articles
are ver! im*ortant.
5hen the circumstance which mitigates criminal liabilit! is *rivileged% !ou give
eect to it above all considerations. ,n other words% beore !ou go into an!
circumstance% lower irst the *enalt! to the *ro*er degree. "hat is *recisel!
wh! this circumstance is considered *rivileged. ,t ta=es *reerence over all
other circumstances.
E*estion F Answer
4 1$ !ear old bo! committed *arricide. 5ill he be given the beneit o
,ndeterminate )entence LawJ "hen% the acts state% *enalt! or *arricide is
reclusion *er*etua to death.
?ou have learned that the ,ndeterminate )entence Law does not a**l!%
among other situations% when the *enalt! im*osed is death or lie
im*risonment. Eut then in the *roblem given% the oender is a 1$-!ear old
bo!. "hat circumstance is *rivileged. )o beore !ou go in the ,ndeterminate
)entence Law% !ou have to a**l! that circumstance irst. Eeing a 1$-!ear old
bo!% thereore% the *enalt! would go one degree lower and the *enalt! or
*arricide which now stands at reclusion *er*etua will go down to reclusion
tem*oral. Reclusion tem*oral is alread! governed b! the ,ndeterminate
)entence Law.
"he answer% thereore% is !es. <e shall be given the beneit o the
,ndeterminate )entence Law. 4lthough the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime
committed is reclusion *er*etua% that is not the im*osable *enalt!% since being
1$ !ears old is a *rivilege mitigating circumstance. "hat *rivilege lowers the
*enalt! b! one degree. "he im*osable *enalt!% thereore% is reclusion tem*oral.
"he ,ndeterminate )entence Law a**lies to this and so the oender will be
given its beneit.
Criminal laws are to be construed alwa!s in a manner liberal or lenient
to the oender. Eetween giving the oender the beneit o the ,ndeterminate
)entence Law and withholding it awa! rom him% there is more reason to give
him its beneit. ,t is wrong or !ou to determine whether the ,ndeterminate
)entence Law will a**l! or not on the basis o reclusion *er*etua because that
is not the im*osable *enalt!. "he moment !ou do that% !ou disregard the
*rivileged character o minorit!. ?ou are onl! treating it as an ordinar!
mitigating circumstance. Privilege mitigating circumstance will a**l! over and
above all other considerations. 5hen !ou arrive at the correct *enalt!% that is
the time when !ou ind out whether the ,ndeterminate )entence Law will a**l!
or not.
3or *ur*oses o lowering the *enalt! b! one or two degrees% the age o the
oender at the time o the commission o the crime shall be the basis% not the
age o the oender at the time the sentence is to be im*osed. Eut or *ur*oses
o sus*ension o the sentence% the age o the oender at the time the crime
was committed is not considered% it is the age o the oender at the time the
sentence is to be *romulgated.
Praeter intentionem
"he common circumstance given in the bar o *raeter intentionem% under
*aragra*h 0% means that there must be a notable dis*ro*ortion between the
means em*lo!ed b! the oender com*ared to that o the resulting elon!. ,
the resulting elon! could be e(*ected rom the means em*lo!ed% this
circumstance does not avail. "his circumstance does not a**l! when the crime
results rom criminal negligence or cul*a. 5hen the crime is the *roduct o
rec=less im*rudence or sim*le negligence% mitigating circumstances does not
a**l!. "his is one o the three instances where the oender has *erormed a
elon! dierent rom that which he intended. "hereore% this is the *roduct o
intentional elon!% not a cul*able one.
*fficient threat or !rovocation
"his is mitigating onl! i the crime was committed on the ver! *erson who
made the threat or *rovocation. "he common set-u* given in a bar *roblem is
that o *rovocation was given b! somebod!. "he *erson *rovo=ed cannot
retaliate against himK thus% the *erson *rovo=ed retaliated on a !ounger
brother or on an elder ather. 4lthough in act% there is suicient *rovocation% it
is not mitigating because the one who gives the *rovocation is not the one
against whom the crime was committed.
E*estion F Answer
4 was wal=ing in ront o the house o E. E at that time was with his
brother C. C told E that sometime in the *ast% 4 bo(ed him% and because he
was small% he did not ight bac=. E a**roached 4 and bo(ed him% but 4 cannot
hit bac= at E because E is bigger% so 4 bo(ed C. Can 4 invo=e suicient
*rovocation to mitigate criminal liabilit!J
No. )uicient *rovocation must come rom the oended *art!. "here
ma! actuall! be suicient *rovocation which immediatel! *receded the act% but
i *rovocation did not come rom the *erson oended% *aragra*h +% 4rticle 10
will not a**l!.
"he commission o the elon! must be immediate to the threat or *rovocation
in order that this circumstance be mitigating. , there is suicient brea= o time
beore the *rovocation or threat and the conseDuent commission o the crime%
the law *resu**oses that during that interval% whatever anger or diminished
sel control ma! have emerged rom the oender had alread! vanished or
disa**eared. ,n a**l!ing this mitigating circumstance% the courts are generall!
considering that there must be no brea= between the *rovocation or threat and
the commission o the elon!. ,n other words% the elon! was committed
*recisel! because he was then and there *rovo=ed.

<owever% the recent rulings o the )u*reme Court% as well as the Court o
4**eals% has stretched this criterion 2 it is not onl! a matter o time an!more.
Eeore% there was a ruling that i a *eriod o one hour had la*sed between the
*rovocation and the commission o the elon!% this mitigating circumstance is
no longer a**licable.
,llustration6
"he accused went to a barrio dance. ,n that gathering% there was a bull! and he
told the accused that he is not allowed to go inside. "he accused tried to reason
out but the bull! sla**ed him several times in ront o so man! *eo*le% some o
whom were ladies who were being courted b! the accused% so he was
humiliated and embarrassed. <owever% he cannot ight the bull! at that time
because the latter was much bigger and heavier. 4ccused had no choice but to
go home. 5hen he saw the bull! again% this time% he was armed with a =nie
and he stabbed the bull! to death. "he evidence or the accused showed that
when he went home% he was not able to slee* throughout the night% thin=ing o
the humiliation and outrage done to him% des*ite the la*se o about 99 hours.
"he )u*reme Court gave him the beneit o this mitigating circumstance. "he
reason stated b! the )u*reme Court or allowing the accused to be beneited b!
this mitigating circumstance is that the eect o the humiliation and outrage
emitted b! the oended *art! as a *rovocation u*on the accused was still
*resent when he committed the crime and% thereore% the reason or *aragra*h
+ still a**lies. "he accused was still acting under a diminished sel control
because he was thin=ing o the humiliation he suered in the hands o the
oended *art!. "he outrage was so serious unless vindicated.
"his is the correct inter*retation o *aragra*h +% 4rticle 10. 4s long as the
oender at the time he committed the elon! was still under the inluence o
the outrage caused b! the *rovocation or threat% he is acting under a
diminished sel control. "his is the reason wh! it is mitigating.
?ou have to loo= at two criteria6
(1) , rom the element o time% there is a material la*se o time stated in
the *roblem and there is nothing stated in the *roblem that the eect
o the threat or *rovocation had *rolonged and aected the oender at
the time he committed the crime% then !ou use the criterion based on
the time element.
(9) <owever% i there is that time element and at the same time% acts are
given indicating that at the time the oender committed the crime% he
is still suering rom outrage o the threat or *rovocation done to him%
then he will still get the beneit o this mitigating circumstance.
,n Peo!le v. 'io6no@ a Chinaman elo*ed with a woman. 4ctuall!% it was
almost three da!s beore accused was able to locate the house where the
Chinaman brought the woman. <ere% suicient *rovocation was one o the
mitigating circumstances considered b! the )u*reme Court in avor o the
accused.
Vindication of a "rave offense
"he word :oense; should not be ta=en as a crime. ,t is enough i what was
im*uted or what was done was wrong. ,n considering whether the wrong is a
grave one u*on the *erson who committed the crime% his age% education and
social status will be considered.
<ere% in vindication o a grave oense% the vindication need not be done b! the
*erson u*on whom the grave oense was committed. )o% unli=e in suicient
threat or *rovocation where the crime should be inlicted u*on the ver! *erson
who made the threat or *rovocation% here% it need not be the same *erson who
committed the grave oense or who was oended b! the wrong done b! the
oended *art!.
"he word :immediate; here does not carr! the same meaning as that under
*aragra*h +. "he word :immediate; here is an erroneous )*anish translation
because the )*anish word is :*ro(ima; and not :immediatementa.; "hereore%
it is enough that the oender committed the crime with the grave oense done
to him% his s*ouse% his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister%
whether natural% ado*ted or legitimate and that is the *ro(imate cause o the
commission o the crime.
Passion or o1f*scation
"his stands on the *remise or *ro*osition that the oender is suering rom a
diminished sel control because o the *assion or obuscation. "he same is true
with the circumstances under *aragra*hs + and A. )o% there is a ruling to the
eect that i the oender is given the beneit o *aragra*h +% he cannot be
given the beneit o *aragra*h A or '% or vice-versa. Onl! one o the three
mitigating circumstances should be given in avor o the oender.
<owever% in one case% one o the mitigating circumstances under *aragra*hs +%
A and ' stands or arises rom a set o acts% and another mitigating
circumstance arises rom another set o acts. )ince the! are *redicated on
dierent set o acts% the! ma! be a**reciated together% although the! arose
rom one and the same case. <ence% the *rohibition against considering all
these mitigating circumstances together and not as one a**lies onl! i the!
would be ta=en on the basis o the same set o acts.
, the case involves a series o acts% then !ou can *redicate an! one o these
circumstances on one act and the other on another act and so on.
"he *assion must be legitimate. 4s a rule% it cannot be based on common law
relationshi* because common law relationshi*s are illicit. <owever% consider
whether *assion or obuscation is generated b! common law relationshi* or b!
some other human consideration.
,n a case where the relationshi* between the accused and the woman he was
living with was one o common law% he came home and sur*rised his common
law wie having se(ual intercourse with a riend. "his inuriated him. <e =illed
the riend and he claimed *assion or obuscation. "he trial court denied his
claim because the relationshi* was a common law one.
On review% the accused was given the beneit o the circumstances and the
basis o considering *assion or obuscation in avor o the accused was the act
o the common law wie in committing adulter! right rom the conCugal bed.
5hether or not the! are married% an! man who discovers that inidelit! was
committed on the ver! bed *rovided b! him to the woman would naturall! be
subCected to obuscation.
5hen a married *erson sur*rised his better hal in the act o se(ual intercourse
with another% he gets the beneit o 4rticle 9+$. <owever% that reDuisite which in
the irst *lace% the oender must have sur*rised his7her s*ouse actuall!
committing se(ual intercourse should be *resent. , the sur*rising was done not
in the actual act o se(ual intercourse but beore or ater it% then 4rticle 9+$
does not a**l!.
4lthough this is the ruling% still% the accused will be given the beneit o
suicient *rovocation i the intercourse was done in his dwelling. , this act was
done somewhere else and the accused =ills the *aramour or the s*ouse% this
ma! be considered as mitigation o a grave oense to him or otherwise as a
situation suicient to create *assion or obuscation. "hereore% when a married
man u*on coming home% sur*rises his wie who was nude and l!ing with
another man who was also nude% 4rticle 9+$ does not a**l!. , he =ills them%
vindication o a grave oense will be mitigating in avor o the oender.
Ill*strations5
4 is courting E% a rece*tionist in a beerhouse. C danced with E. 4 saw this and
stabbed C. ,t was held that Cealous! is an ac=nowledged basis o *assion.
4% a male classmate is escorting E% a emale classmate. On the wa! out% some
men whistled lustull!. "he male classmate stabbed said men. "his was held to
be obuscation.
5hen a man saw a woman bathing% almost na=ed% or which reason he ra*ed
her% such man cannot claim *assion as a mitigating circumstance.
4 man and a woman were living together or 1A !ears. "he man let the
village where the! were living and never returned home. "he common law wie
learned that he was getting married to a classmate. On the scheduled wedding
da!% she stabbed the groom in the chest% instantl! =illing him. )he conessed
and e(*lained that an! woman cannot tolerate what he did to her. )he gave
him the best !ears o her lie. )he *racticall! waited or him da! and night. ,t
was held that *assion and obuscation were considered mitigating. ,ngratitude
was shown here.
Vol*ntary s*rrender
"he essence o voluntar! surrender reDuires that the oender% ater having
committed the crime% had evaded the law enorcers and the law enorcers do
not =now o his whereabouts. ,n short% he continues to elude arrest. ,% under
this circumstance% the oender would come out in the o*en and he gives
himsel u*% his act o doing so will be considered as indicative o re*entance
and he also saves the government the time and the e(*ense o loo=ing or him.
4s a general rule% i ater committing the crime% the oender did not lee and he
went with the res*onding law enorcers mee=l!% voluntar! surrender is not
a**licable.
<owever% there is a ruling that i ater committing the crime% the oender did
not lee and instead waited or the law enorcers to arrive and he surrendered
the wea*on he used in =illing the victim% the ruling was that voluntar!
surrender is mitigating. ,n this case% the oender had the o**ortunit! to go into
hiding% the act that he did not lee is not voluntar! surrender.
<owever% i he comes out rom hiding because he is seriousl! ill and he went to
get medical treatment% the surrender is not considered as indicative o remorse
or re*entance. "he surrender here is onl! done out o convenience to save his
own sel. <ence% it is not mitigating.
@ven i the oender ma! have gone into hiding% i the law enorcers had alread!
=nown where he is hiding and it is Cust a matter o time beore he is lushed out
o that *lace% then even i the law enorcers do not =now e(actl! where he was
hiding and he would come out% this is not voluntar! surrender.
5hether or not a warrant o arrest had been issued against the oender is
immaterial and irrelevant. "he criterion is whether or not the oender had
gone into hiding or had the o**ortunit! to go into hiding and the law enorcers
do not =now o his whereabouts. , he would give u*% his act o surrendering
under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to acce*t the conseDuences
o the wrong he has done and also thereb! saves the government the eort%
the time and the e(*enses to be incurred in loo=ing or him.
5here the oender went to the munici*al building not to own res*onsibilit! or
the =illing% such act is not tantamount to voluntar! surrender as a mitigating
circumstance. 4lthough he admitted his *artici*ation in the =illing% he tried to
avoid res*onsibilit! b! claiming sel-deense which however he was not able to
*rove. Peo!le v. Mindac@ decided 'ecem1er ,3@ ,CC0.
)urrender to be considered voluntar! and thus mitigating% must be
s*ontaneous% demonstrating an intent to submit himsel unconditionall! to the
*erson in authorit! or his agent in authorit!% because (1) he ac=nowledges his
guilt (9) he wishes to save the government the trouble and e(*enses o
searching and ca*turing him. 5here the reason or the surrender o the
accused was to insure his saet!% his arrest b! *olicemen *ursuing him being
inevitable% the surrender is not s*ontaneous.
Physical defect
"he *h!sical deect that a *erson ma! have must have a relation to the
commission o the crime. ,n a case where the oender is dea and dumb%
*ersonal *ro*ert! was entrusted to him and he misa**ro*riated the same. "he
crime committed was estaa. "he act that he was dea and dumb is not
mitigating because that does not bear an! relation to the crime committed.
Not an! *h!sical deect will aect the crime. ,t will onl! do so i it has some
relation to the crime committed. , a *erson is dea and dumb and he has been
slandered% he cannot tal= so what he did was% he got a *iece o wood and
struc= the ellow on the head. "he crime committed was *h!sical inCuries. "he
)u*reme Court held that being a dea and dumb is mitigating because the onl!
wa! is to use his orce because he cannot stri=e bac=.
, the oender is blind in one e!e% as long as his means o action% deense or
communication with others are not restricted% such circumstance is not
mitigating. "his circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime
committed and must de*end on how the crime was committed.
Analo"o*s cases
"he act o the oender o leading the law enorcers to the *lace where he
buried the instrument o the crime has been considered as eDuivalent to
voluntar! surrender. "he act o a thie in leading the authorities to the *lace
where he dis*osed o the loot has been considered as analogous or eDuivalent
to voluntar! surrender.
)tealing b! a *erson who is driven to do so out o e(treme *overt! is
considered as analogous to incom*lete state o necessit!. <owever% this is not
so where the oender became im*overished because o his own wa! o living
his lie. , his liest!le is one o having so man! vices% as a result o which he
became *oor% his subseDuent stealing because o his *overt! will not be
considered mitigated b! incom*lete state o necessit!.
A""ravatin" circ*mstances
Binds o aggravating circumstances6
(1) -eneric or those that can generall! a**l! to all crimeK
(9) )*eciic or those that a**l! onl! to a *articular crimeK
(0) Ruali!ing or those that change the nature o the crimeK
(+) ,nherent or those that must o necessit! accom*an! the commission o
the crime.
"he aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certaint!% with
the same degree o *roo reDuired to establish the crime itsel.
/ost im*ortant o the classiication o aggravating circumstances are the
Duali!ing and the generic aggravating circumstances.
,n *ractice% the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are reerred to
sim*l! as aggravating circumstances. "he so-called Duali!ing aggravating
circumstances are sim*l! reerred to as Duali!ing circumstances. "his is so
because there is no Duali!ing circumstance that is not aggravating. "o sa!
Duali!ing aggravating circumstance is redundant. ,n the e(amination% i !ou
ind Duali!ing circumstances% !ou have to thin= about these as aggravating
circumstances which are the ingredients o the crime.
'istinctions 1etween a""ravatin" and )*alifyin" circ*mstances5
,n aggravating circumstances 2
(1) "he circumstance can be oset b! an ordinar! mitigating
circumstanceK
(9) No need to allege this circumstance in the inormation% as long as it is
*roven during trial. , it is *roved during trial% the court would consider
the same in im*osing the *enalt!K
(0) ,t is not an ingredient o a crime. ,t onl! aects the *enalt! to be
im*osed but the crime remains the same.
,n Duali!ing circumstance 2
(1) "he circumstance aects the nature o the crime itsel such that the
oender shall be liable or a more serious crime. "he circumstance is
actuall! an ingredient o the crimeK
(9) Eeing an ingredient o the crime% it cannot be oset b! an! mitigating
circumstanceK
(0) Ruali!ing circumstances to be a**reciated as such must be
s*eciicall! alleged in the com*laint or inormation. , not alleged but
*roven during the trial% it will be considered onl! as generic
aggravating circumstance. , this ha**ens% the! are susce*tible o
being oset b! a mitigating circumstance.
4n aggravating circumstance is Duali!ing when it is an ingredient o the crime.
"hereore it is included in the *rovision o law deining the crime. , it is not so
included% it is not Duali!ing.
,n 4rticle 9+&% in the crime o murder% the law s*eciicall! mentions thereunder
several circumstances which are aggravating under 4rticle 1+. 4ll o these will
Duali! a =illing rom homicide to murderK however% !ou understand that onl!
one is Duali!ing.
, let us sa!% the accused was charged with murder. "hree o these
circumstances6 treacher!% evident *remeditation and act was done in
consideration o a *rice% reward or *romise were alleged as aggravating. Onl!
one o these is Duali!ing. , an! one o the three circumstances was *roven%
the crime was alread! murder. , the other two are also *roven% even i the!
are alleged in the inormation or com*laint% the! are onl! to be ta=en as
generic. , there is an! mitigating circumstance in avor o the oender% the
two other circumstances which are otherwise Duali!ing could be oset b! the
mitigating% *rovided the mitigating circumstance is not a *rivileged mitigating
circumstance. "hereore% i there are three o the Duali!ing circumstances
alleged in the com*laint or inormation% onl! one will Duali! the crime. "he
others will merel! be considered as generic. "hus% i there is an! ordinar!
mitigating circumstance in avor o the accused% such will be wi*ed out b! these
circumstances% although initiall! the! are considered as Duali!ing. #o not
hesitate to oset on the *rinci*le that a Duali!ing circumstance cannot be
oset b! an ordinar! mitigating circumstance because onl! one is necessar!.
@ven i an! o the Duali!ing circumstances under 4rticle 9+& on murder was
*roven% i that is not the circumstance alleged in the inormation% it cannot
Duali! the crime. Let us sa!% what was alleged in the inormation was
treacher!. #uring the trial% what was *roven was the *rice% reward or *romise
as a consideration or =illing. "he treacher! was not *roved. 1ust the same%
the accused cannot be convicted o murder because the circumstance *roven is
not Duali!ing but merel! generic. ,t is generic because it is not alleged in the
inormation at all. , an! o these Duali!ing circumstances is not alleged in the
inormation% it cannot be considered Duali!ing because a Duali!ing is an
ingredient o the crime and it cannot be ta=en as such without having alleged in
the inormation because it will violate the right o the accused to be inormed o
the nature o the accusation against him.
Correlate 4rticle 1+ with 4rticle '9. 4rticle '9 gives !ou the dierent rules
regarding aggravating circumstances. 4ggravating circumstances will not be
considered when it is the crime itsel. , the crime charged is Dualiied tres*ass
to dwelling% dwelling is no longer aggravating. 5hen the aggravating
circumstance reers to the material e(ecution o the crime% li=e treacher!% it will
onl! aggravate the criminal liabilit! o those who em*lo!ed the same.
Ill*stration5
4 *erson induced another to =ill somebod!. "hat ellow =illed the other gu! and
em*lo!ed treacher!. 4s ar as the =illing is concerned% the treacher! will Duali!
onl! the criminal liabilit! o the actual e(ecutioner. "he ellow who induced him
becomes a co-*rinci*al and thereore% he is liable or the same crime
committed. <owever% let us sa!% the ellow was hired to =ill the *arent o the
one who hired him. <e =illed a stranger and not the *arent. 5hat was
committed is dierent rom what was agreed u*on. "he ellow who hired him
will not be liable or the crime he had done because that was not the crime he
was hired to commit.
%a6in" advanta"e of !*1lic !osition
4rticle '9 was also amended b! the Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>. "he legal im*ort o
this amendment is that the subCect circumstance has been made a Duali!ing or
s*ecial aggravating that shall not be oset or com*ensated b! a mitigating
circumstance. , not alleged in the inormation% however% but *roven during the
trial% it is onl! a**reciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
"he mitigating circumstance reerred to in the amendment as not aecting the
im*osition o the *enalt! in the ma(imum are onl! ordinar! mitigating
circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances alwa!s lower the *enalt!
accordingl!.
'isres!ect d*e to ran6@ a"e@ se4
4ggravating onl! in crimes against *ersons and honor% not against *ro*ert! li=e
Robber! with homicide (Peo!le v. /a@ ,7: CRA =C-).
"eachers% *roessors% su*ervisors o *ublic and dul! recogni.ed *rivate schools%
colleges and universities% as well as law!ers are *ersons in authorit! onl! or
*ur*oses o direct assault and sim*le resistance% but not or *ur*oses o
aggravating circumstances in *aragra*h 9% 4rticle 1+. (Peo!le v. %aoan@ ,A0
CRA :-,).
A1*se of confidence
#o not conuse this with mere betra!al o trust. "his is aggravating onl! when
the ver! oended *art! is the one who re*osed the conidence. , the
conidence is re*osed b! another% the oended *art! is dierent rom the ellow
who re*osed the conidence and abuse o conidence in this case is not
aggravating.
,llustrations6
4 mother let her !oung daughter with the accused because she had nobod! to
leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. "he accused abused the
child. ,t was held that the abuse o conidence is not aggravating. 5hat is
*resent is betra!al o trust and that is not aggravating.
,n a case where the oender is a servant% the oended *art! is one o the
members o the amil!. "he servant *oisoned the child. ,t was held that abuse
o conidence is aggravating. "his is onl! true however% i the servant was still in
the service o the amil! when he did the =illing. , he was driven b! the master
alread! out o the house or some time and he came bac= and *oisoned the
child% abuse o conidence is no longer aggravating. "he reason is because that
conidence has alread! been terminated when the oender was driven out o
the house.
+vvver"a Pa"e :- of ,--
'wellin"
#welling will onl! be aggravating i it is the dwelling o the oended *art!. ,t
should also not be the dwelling o the oender. , the dwelling is both that o
the oended *art! and the oender% dwelling is not aggravating.
#welling need not be owned b! the oended *art!. ,t is enough that he used
the *lace or his *eace o mind% rest% comort and *rivac!. "he rule that
dwelling% in order to be aggravating must be owned b! the oended *art! is no
longer absolute. #welling can be aggravating even i it is not owned b! the
oended *art!% *rovided that the oended *art! is considered a member o the
amil! who owns the dwelling and eDuall! enCo!s *eace o mind% *rivac! and
comort.
Ill*stration5
<usband and wie Duarreled. <usband inlicted *h!sical violence u*on the wie.
"he wie let the conCugal home and went to the house o her sister bringing her
*ersonal belongings with her. "he sister accommodated the wie in the ormers
home. "he husband went to the house o the sister-in-law and tried to
*ersuade the wie to come bac= to the conCugal home but the wie reused
because she is more at *eace in her sisterLs house than in the conCugal abode.
#ue to the wieLs reusal to go bac= to the conCugal home and live with the
husband% the husband *ulled out a =nie and stabbed the wie which caused her
death. ,t was held that dwelling was aggravating although it is not owned b!
the oended *art! because the oended *art! is considered as a member o
the amil! who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enCo!ed
*rivac!. Peace o mind and comort.
@ven a room in a hotel i rented as a dwelling% li=e what the salesmen do when
the! are assigned in the *rovinces and the! rent rooms% is considered a
dwelling. 4 room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling i it is used
with a certain degree o *ermanence% where the oended *art! see=s *rivac!%
rest% *eace o mind and comort.
, a !oung man brought a woman in a motel or a short time and there he was
=illed% dwelling is not aggravating.
4 man was =illed in the house o his common law wie. #welling is aggravating
in this case because the house was *rovided b! the man.
#welling should not be understood in the conce*t o a domicile. 4 *erson has
more than one dwelling. )o% i a man has so man! wives and he gave them a
*laces o their own% each one is his own dwelling. , he is =illed there% dwelling
will be aggravating% *rovided that he also sta!s there once in a while. 5hen he
is onl! a visitor there% dwelling is not aggravating.
"he crime o adulter! was committed. #welling was considered aggravating on
the *art o the *aramour. "he *aramour is not a resident o the same dwelling.
<owever% i the *aramour was also residing on the same dwelling% dwelling is
not considered aggravating.
"he term :dwelling; includes all the de*endencies necessar! or a house or or
rest or or comort or a *lace o *rivac!. , the *lace used is on the second loor%
the stairs which are used to reach the second loor is considered a dwelling
because the second loor cannot be enCo!ed without the stairs. , the oended
*art! was assaulted while on the stairs% dwelling is alread! aggravating. 3or
this reason% considering that an! de*endenc! necessar! or the enCo!ment o a
*lace o abode is considered a dwelling.
,llustrations6
4 and E are living in one house. 4 occu*ies the ground loor while E the u**er
loor. "he stairs here would orm *art onl! o ELs dwelling% the same being
necessar! and an integral *art o his house or dwelling. <ence% when an attac=
is made while 4 is on the stairs% the aggravating circumstance o dwelling is not
*resent. , the attac= is made while E was on the stairs% then the aggravating
circumstance o dwelling is *resent.
5henever one is in his dwelling% the law is *resuming that he is not intending
to commit a wrong so one who attac=s him while in the tranDuilit! o his home
shows a degree o *erversit! in him. <ence% this aggravating circumstance.
#welling is not limited to the house *ro*er. 4ll the a**urtenances necessar! or
the *eace and comort% rest and *eace o mind in the abode o the oended
*art! is considered a dwelling.
,llustrations6
4 man was i(ing something on the roo o his house when he was shot. ,t was
held that dwelling is aggravating. Roo still *art o the house.
,n the *rovinces where the comort rooms are usuall! ar rom the house
*ro*er% i the oended *art! while answering the call o nature is =illed% then
dwelling is aggravating because the comort room is a necessar! de*endenc! o
the house *ro*er.
A !erson while in the room of his ho*se@ maintainin" the room@ was
shot. 'wellin" is a""ravatin".
, the oender entered the house and the oended *art! Cum*ed out o the
house% even i the oender caught u* with him alread! out o the house%
dwelling is still aggravating. "he reason is because he could not have let his
dwelling were it not or the act that the attac=er entered the house.
, the oended *art! was inside the house and the oender was outside and
the latter shot the ormer inside the house while he was still outside. #welling
is still aggravating even i the oender did not enter the house.
+vvver"a Pa"e :, of ,--
4 garage is *art o the dwelling when connected with an interior *assage to the
house *ro*er. , not connected% it is not considered *art o the dwelling.
One-hal o the house is used as a store and the other hal is used or dwelling
but there is onl! one entrance. , the dwelling *ortion is attac=ed% dwelling is
not aggravating because whenever a store is o*en or business% it is a *ublic
*lace and as such is not ca*able o being the subCect o tres*ass. , the
dwelling *ortion is attac=ed where even i the store is o*en% there is another
se*arate entrance to the *ortion used or dwelling% the circumstance is
aggravating. <owever% in case the store is closed% dwelling is aggravating since
here% the store is not a *ublic *lace as in the irst case.
Ealcon! is *art o the dwelling because it is a**urtenant to the house
#welling is aggravating in robber! with homicide because the crime can be
committed without necessaril! transgressing the sanctit! o the home (Peo!le
v. 'e Los Reyes@ decided 8cto1er 00@ ,CC0).
#welling is aggravating where the *lace is% even or a brie moment% a :home;%
although he is not the owner thereo as when victim was shot in the house o
his *arents.
<and
,n band% there should at least be our *ersons. 4ll o them should be armed.
@ven i there are our% but onl! three or less are armed% it is not a band.
5henever !ou tal= o band% alwa!s have in mind our at least. #o not sa! three
or more because it is our or more. "he wa! the law deines a band is
somewhat conusing because it reers sim*l! to more than 0% when actuall! it
should be + or more.
Correlate this with 4rticle 08' - Erigandage. "he crime is the band itsel. "he
mere orming o a band even without the commission o a crime is alread! a
crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itsel is
the wa! to commit brigandage.
<owever% where brigandage is actuall! committed% band becomes aggravating.
$ninha1ited !lace
,t is determined not b! the distance o the nearest house to the scene o the
crime but whether or not in the *lace o the commission o the oense % there
was a reasonable *ossibilit! o the victim receiving some hel*.
Ill*stration5
4 is on board a banca% not so ar awa!. E and C also are on board on their
res*ective bancas. )uddenl!% # showed u* rom underwater and stabbed E. ,s
there an aggravating circumstance o uninhabited *lace hereJ ?es% considering
the act that 4 and C beore being able to give assistance still have to Cum* into
the water and swim towards E and the time it would ta=e them to do that% the
chances o E receiving some hel* was ver! little% des*ite the act that there
were other *ersons not so ar rom the scene.
@vidence tending to *rove that the oender too= advantage o the *lace and
*ur*osel! availed o it is to ma=e it easier to commit the crime% shall be
necessar!.
Ni"httime
5hat i the crime started during the da!time and continued all the wa! to
nighttimeJ "his is not aggravating.
4s a rule% the crime must begin and end during the nighttime. Crime began at
da! and ended at night% as well as crime began at night and ended at da! is
not aggravated b! the circumstance o nighttime.
#ar=ness is what ma=es this circumstance aggravating.
Ill*stration5
One evening% a crime was committed near the lam* *ost. "he )u*reme Court
held that there is no aggravating circumstance o nighttime. @ven i the crime
was committed at night% but there was light% hence% dar=ness was not *resent%
no aggravating circumstance Cust b! the act o nighttime alone.
@ven i there was dar=ness but the nighttime was onl! an incident o a chance
meeting% there is no aggravating circumstance here. ,t must be shown that the
oender deliberatel! sought the cover o dar=ness and the oender *ur*osel!
too= advantage o nighttime to acilitate the commission o the oense.
Nocturnit! is the *eriod o time ater sunset to sunrise% rom dus= to dawn.
'ifferent forms of re!etition or ha1it*ality of the offender
(1) Recidivism under 4rticle 1+ (>) 2 "he oender at the time o his trial
or one crime shall have been *reviousl! convicted b! inal Cudgment
o another embraced in the same title o the Revised Penal Code.
(9) Re*etition or reiteracion under 4rticle 1+ (18) 2 "he oender has been
*reviousl! *unished or an oense which the law attaches an eDual or
+vvver"a Pa"e :0 of ,--
greater *enalt! or or two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
*enalt!.
(0) <abitual delinDuenc! under 4rticle '9 (A) 2 "he oender within the
*eriod o 18 !ears rom the date o his release or last conviction o
the crimes o serious or less serious *h!sical inCuries% robo% hurto%
estaa or alsiication% is ound guilt! o the an! o said crimes a third
time or otener.
(+) Ruasi-recidivism under 4rticle 1'8 2 4n! *erson who shall commit a
elon! ater having been convicted b! inal Cudgment beore beginning
to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be
*unished b! the ma(imum *eriod *rescribed b! law or the new elon!.
'istinctions 1etween recidivism and ha1it*al delin)*ency
,n recidivism 2
(1) "wo convictions are enough.
(9) "he crimes are not s*eciiedK it is enough that the! ma! be embraced
under the same title o the Revised Penal Code.
(0) "here is no time limit between the irst conviction and the subseDuent
conviction. Recidivism is im*rescri*tible.
(+) ,t is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be oset b! an
ordinar! mitigating circumstance. , not oset% it would onl! increase
the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or the crime committed to its ma(imum
*eriod.
(A) "he circumstance need not be alleged in the inormation.
,n habitual delinDuenc! 2
(1) 4t least three convictions are reDuired.
(9) "he crimes are limited and s*eciied to6 (a) serious *h!sical inCuries%
(b) less serious *h!sical inCuries% (c) robber!% (d) thet% (e) estaa or
swindling and () alsiication.
(0) "here is a time limit o not more than 18 !ears between ever!
convictions com*uted rom the irst conviction or release rom
*unishment thereo to conviction com*uted rom the second conviction
or release thererom to the third conviction and so on . . .
(+) <abitual delinDuenc! is a s*ecial aggravating circumstance% hence it
cannot be oset b! an! mitigating circumstance. 4side rom the
*enalt! *rescribed b! law or the crime committed% an additional
*enalt! shall be im*osed de*ending u*on whether it is alread! the
third conviction% the ourth% the ith and so on . . .
(A) "he circumstance must be alleged in the inormationK otherwise the
court cannot acDuire Curisdiction to im*ose additional *enalt!.
Recidivism
,n recidivism% the em*hasis is on the act that the oender was *reviousl!
convicted b! inal Cudgement o a elon! and subseDuentl! ound guilt! o
another elon! embraced in the same title o the Revised Penal Code. "he law
considers this aggravating when a *erson has been committing elonies
embraced in the same title because the im*lication is that he is s*eciali.ing on
such =ind o crime and the law wants to *revent an! s*eciali.ation. <ence%
ordinaril!% when a *erson commits a crime under dierent titles% no aggravating
circumstance is *resent. ,t is im*ortant that the conviction which came earlier
must reer to the crime committed earlier than the subseDuent conviction.
Ill*stration5
,n 1>&8% 4 committed robber!. 5hile the case was being tried% he committed
thet in 1>&0. <e was ound guilt! and was convicted o thet also in 1>&0. "he
conviction became inal because he did not a**eal an!more and the trial or his
earlier crime which was robber! ended in 1>&+ where he was also convicted.
<e also did not a**eal this decision. ,s the accused a recidivistJ "he
subseDuent conviction must reer to a elon! committed later in order to
constitute recidivism. "he reason or this is as the time the irst crime was
committed% there was no other crime o which he was convicted so he cannot
be regarded as a re*eater.
,n recidivism% the crimes committed should be elonies. Recidivism cannot be
had i the crime committed is a violation o a s*ecial law.
Recidivism does not *rescribe. No matter how long ago the oender was
convicted% i he is subseDuentl! convicted o a crime embraced in the same title
o the Revised Penal Code% it is ta=en into account as aggravating in im*osing
the *enalt!.
Pardon does not erase recidivism% even i it is absolute because onl! e(cuses
the service o the *enalt!% but not the conviction.
, the oender has alread! served his sentence and he was e(tended an
absolute *ardon% the *ardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism
because there is no more *enalt! so it shall be understood as reerring to the
conviction or the eects o the crime.
Recidivism ma! be considered even though not alleged in the inormation
because this is onl! a generic aggravating circumstance.
,t is necessar! to allege recidivism in the inormation% but i the deense does
not obCect to the *resentation o evidence during the trial and the same was
*roven% the court shall consider such aggravating circumstance because it is
onl! generic.
,n recidivism% although the law deines it as a circumstance where a *erson
having been convicted b! inal Cudgement was *reviousl! convicted also b! inal
Cudgement or a crime embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code% it
is necessar! that the conviction must come in the order in which the! are
committed.
E*estion F Answer
,n 1>$A% the oender committed robber!. 5hile the same was being
tried in 1>$&% he committed thet. ,n 1>&8% he was convicted o thet and he
did not a**eal this decision. "he trial or robber! ended in 1>&1. /a! the Cudge
in im*osing the *enalt! or robber! consider the accused a recidivist
considering that he was alread! convicted in 1>&8 or the crime o thet which
is under the same title o the Revised Penal Code as that o robber!J
No% because the robber! which was committed earlier would be
decided later. ,t must be the other wa! around. "his is because in 1>$A when
he committed the robber!% there was no crime committed !et. "hus% even
though in im*osing the *enalt! or the robber!% there was alread! a *revious
conviction% i that conviction is subseDuent to the commission o the robber!% he
is not a recidivist. , !ou will inter*ret the deinition o recidivism% this would
seem to be covered but that is not so.
Ha1it*al delin)*ency
5e have to consider the crimes in it and ta=e note o the titles o crimes in the
Revised Penal Code.
, the oender had committed and was convicted o each o the crimes under
each categor! so that no two crimes all under the same title o the Revised
Penal Code% !ou have a situation where the oender is a habitual delinDuent
but not a recidivist because no two crimes all under the same title o the Code.
, the irst conviction is or serious *h!sical inCuries or less serious *h!sical
inCuries and the second conviction is or robber!% thet or estaa and the third is
or alsiication% then the moment the habitual delinDuent is on his ourth
conviction alread!% !ou cannot avoid that he is a habitual delinDuent and at the
same time a recidivist because at least% the ourth time will have to all under
an! o the three categories.
5hen the oender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinDuent%
the *enalt! or the crime or which he will be convicted will be increased to the
ma(imum *eriod unless oset b! a mitigating circumstance. 4ter determining
the correct *enalt! or the last crime committed% an added *enalt! will be
im*osed in accordance with 4rticle '9.
<abitual delinDuenc!% being a s*ecial or s*eciic aggravating circumstance must
be alleged in the inormation. , it is not alleged in the inormation and in the
course o the trial% the *rosecution tried to *rove that the oender is a habitual
delinDuent over the obCection o the accused% the court has no Curisdiction to
consider the oender a habitual delinDuent. @ven i the accused is in act a
habitual delinDuent but it is not alleged in the inormation% the *rosecution
when introducing evidence was obCected to% the court cannot admit the
evidence *resented to *rove habitual delinDuenc! over the obCection o the
accused.
On the other hand% recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. ,t need
not be alleged in the inormation. "hus% even i recidivism is not alleged in the
inormation% i *roven during trial% the court can a**reciate the same. , the
*rosecution tried to *rove recidivism and the deense obCected% the obCection
should be overruled. "he reason is recidivism is a generic aggravating
circumstance onl!. 4s such% it does not have to be alleged in the inormation
because even i not alleged% i *roven during trial% the trial court can a**reciate
it.
Right now% the *resent rule is that it can be a**reciated even i not alleged in
the inormation. "his is the correct view because recidivism is a generic
aggravating circumstance. "he reason wh! habitual delinDuenc! cannot be
a**reciated unless alleged in the inormation is because recidivism has nothing
to do with the crime committed. <abitual delinDuenc! reers to *rior conviction
and thereore this must be brought in the inormation beore the court can
acDuire Curisdiction over this matter.
-enerall!% the *rocedure !ou =now that when the *rosecutor alleges habitual
delinDuenc!% it must s*eci! the crimes committed% the dates when the! were
committed% the court which tried the case% the date when the accused was
convicted or discharged. , these are not alleged% the inormation is deective.
<owever% in a relativel! recent ruling o the )u*reme Court% it was held that
even though the details o habitual delinDuenc! was not set orth in the
inormation% as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a
habitual delinDuent% that is enough to coner Curisdiction u*on the court to
consider habitual delinDuenc!. ,n the absence o the details set orth in the
inormation% the accused has the right to avail o the so-called bill o
*articulars. @ven in a criminal case% the accused ma! ile a motion or bill o
*articulars. , the accused ails to ile such% he is deemed to have waived the
reDuired *articulars and so the court can admit evidence o the habitual
delinDuenc!% even though over and above the obCection o the deense.
Reiteracion
"his has nothing to do with the classiication o the elonies. ,n reiteracion% the
oender has alread! tasted the bitterness o the *unishment. "his is the
*hiloso*h! on which the circumstance becomes aggravating.
,t is necessar! in order that there be reiteracion that the oender has alread!
served out the *enalt!. , the oender had not !et served out his *enalt!%
orget about reiteracion. "hat means he has not !et tasted the bitterness o lie
but i he had alread! served out the *enalt!% the law e(*ects that since he has
alread! tasted *unishment% he will more or less rerain rom committing crimes
again. "hat is wh! i the oender committed a subseDuent elon! which carries
with it a *enalt! lighter than what he had served% reiteracion is not aggravating
because the law considers that somehow% this ellow was corrected because
instead o committing a serious crime% he committed a lesser one. , he
committed another lesser one% then he becomes a re*eater.
)o% in reiteracion% the *enalt! attached to the crime subseDuentl! committed
should be higher or at least eDual to the *enalt! that he has alread! served. ,
that is the situation% that means that the oender was never reormed b! the
act that he alread! served the *enalt! im*osed on him on the irst conviction.
<owever% i he commits a elon! carr!ing a lighter *enalt!K subseDuentl!% the
law considers that somehow he has been reormed but i he% again commits
another elon! which carries a lighter *enalt!% then he becomes a re*eater
because that means he has not !et reormed.
?ou will onl! consider the *enalt! in reiteracion i there is alread! a second
conviction. 5hen there is a third conviction% !ou disregard whatever *enalt! or
the subseDuent crimes committed. @ven i the *enalt! or the subseDuent
crimes committed are lighter than the ones alread! served% since there are
alread! two o them subseDuentl!% the oender is alread! a re*eater.

<owever% i there is onl! a second conviction% *a! attention to the *enalt!
attached to the crime which was committed or the second crime. "hat is wh! it
is said that reiteracion is not alwa!s aggravating. "his is so because i the
*enalt! attached to the elon! subseDuentl! committed is not eDual or higher
than the *enalt! alread! served% even i literall!% the oender is a re*eater%
re*etition is not aggravating.
E*asi>recidivism
"his is ound in 4rticle 1'8. "he oender must alread! be convicted b! inal
Cudgement and thereore to have served the *enalt! alread!% but even at this
stage% he committed a elon! beore beginning to serve sentence or while
serving sentence.
,llustration6
Oender had alread! been convicted b! inal Cudgement. )entence was
*romulgated and he was under custod! in /untinlu*a. 5hile he was in
/untinlu*a% he esca*ed rom his guard and in the course o his esca*e% he
=illed someone. "he =illing was committed beore serving sentence but
convicted b! inal Cudgement. <e becomes a Duasi-recidivist because the crime
committed was a elon!.
"he em*hasis here is on the crime committed beore sentence or while serving
sentence which should be a elon!% a violation o the Revised Penal Code. ,n so
ar as the earlier crime is concerned% it is necessar! that it be a elon!.
,llustration6
"he oender was convicted o homicide. 5hile serving sentence in /untinlu*a%
he was ound smo=ing mariCuana. <e was *rosecuted or illegal use o
*rohibited drugs and was convicted. ,s he a Duasi-recidivistJ No% because the
crime committed while serving sentence is not a elon!.
Reverse the situation. 4ssume that the oender was ound guilt! o illegal use
o *rohibited drugs. 5hile he was serving sentence% he got involved in a Duarrel
and =illed a ellow inmate. ,s he a Duasi-recidivistJ ?es% because while serving
sentence% he committed a elon!.
"he em*hasis is on the nature o the crime committed while serving sentence
or beore serving sentence. ,t should not be a violation o a s*ecial law.
Ruasi-recidivism is a s*ecial aggravating circumstance. "his cannot be oset b!
an! mitigating circumstance and the im*osition o the *enalt! in the ma(imum
*eriod cannot be lowered b! an! ordinar! mitigating circumstance. 5hen there
is a *rivileged mitigating circumstance% the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or the
crime committed shall be lowered b! 1 or 9 degrees% as the case ma! be% but
then it shall be im*osed in the ma(imum *eriod i the oender is a Duasi-
recidivist.
In consideration of a !rice@ reward or !romise
"he )u*reme Court rulings beore indicate that this circumstance aggravates
onl! the criminal liabilit! o the *erson who committed the crime in
consideration o the *rice% *romise% or reward but not the criminal liabilit! o
the *erson who gave the *rice% reward or consideration. <owever% when there
is a *romise% reward or *rice oered or given as a consideration or the
commission o the crime% the *erson ma=ing the oer is an inducer% a *rinci*al
b! inducement while the *erson receiving the *rice% reward or *romise who
would e(ecute the crime is a *rinci*al b! direct *artici*ation. <ence% their
res*onsibilities are the same. "he! are both *rinci*als and that is wh! the
recent rulings o the )u*reme Court are to the eect that this aggravating
circumstance aects or aggravates not onl! the criminal liabilit! o the receiver
o the *rice% reward or *romise but also the criminal liabilit! o the one giving
the oer.
<y means of in*ndation or fire
3ire is not aggravating in the crime o arson.
5henever a =illing is done with the use o ire% as when to =ill someone% !ou
burn down his house while the latter is inside% this is murder.
"here is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. "he crime
committed is onl! murder.
, the victim is alread! dead and the house is burned% the crime is arson. ,t is
either arson or murder.
, the intent is to destro! *ro*ert!% the crime is arson even i someone dies as a
conseDuence. , the intent is to =ill% there is murder even i the house is burned
in the *rocess.
,llustration6
4 and E were arguing about something. One argument led to another until 4
struc= E to death with a bolo. 4 did not =now that C% the son o E was also in
their house and who was *ee*ing through the door and saw what 4 did. 4raid
that 4 might =ill him% too% he hid somewhere in the house. 4 then dragged ELs
bod! and *oured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. 4s a
conseDuence% C was burned and eventuall! died too.
4s ar as the =illing o E is concerned% it is homicide since it is noted that the!
were arguing. ,t could not be murder. 4s ar as the =illing o C is concerned%
the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house onl!.
No such crime as arson with homicide. Law enorcers onl! use this to indicate
that a =illing occurred while arson was being committed. 4t the most% !ou
could designate it as :death as a conseDuence o arson.;
Evident !remeditation
3or evident *remeditation to be aggravating% the ollowing conditions must
concur6
(1) "he time when the accused determined to commit the crimeK
(9) 4n act maniestl! indicating that the accused has clung to his
determinationK
(0) )uicient la*se o time between such determination and e(ecution% to
allow him to relect u*on the conseDuences o his act.
Ill*stration5
4% on /onda!% thought o =illing E on 3rida!. 4 =new that E is coming home
onl! on 3rida! so 4 decided to =ill E on 3rida! evening when he comes home.
On "hursda!% 4 met E and =illed him. ,s there evident *remeditationJ None
but there is treacher! as the attac= was sudden.
Can there be evident *remeditation when the =illing is accidentalJ No. ,n
evident *remeditation% there must be a clear relection on the *art o the
oender. <owever% i the =illing was accidental% there was no evident
*remeditation. 5hat is necessar! to show and to bring about evident
*remeditation aside rom showing that as some *rior time% the oender has
maniested the intention to =ill the victim% and subseDuentl! =illed the victim.
,llustrations6
4 and E ought. 4 told E that someda! he will =ill E. On 3rida!% 4 =illed E. 4
and E ought on /onda! but since 4 alread! suered so man! blows% he told E%
M"his wee= shall not *ass% , will =ill !ou.M On 3rida!% 4 =illed E. ,s there evident
*remeditation in both casesJ None in both cases. 5hat condition is missing to
bring about evident *remeditationJ @vidence to show that between /onda!
and 3rida!% the oender clung to his determination to =ill the victim% acts
indicative o his having clung to his determination to =ill E.
4 and E had a Duarrel. 4 bo(ed E. 4 told E% M, will =ill !ou this wee=.M 4 bought
irearms. On 3rida!% he waited or E but =illed C instead. ,s there evident
*remeditationJ "here is aberratio ictus. )o% Duali!. ,nsoar as E is concerned%
the crime is attem*ted murder because there is evident *remeditation.
<owever% that murder cannot be considered or C. ,nsoar as C is concerned%
the crime is homicide because there was no evident *remeditation.
@vident *remeditation shall not be considered when the crime reers to a
dierent *erson other than the *erson *remeditated against.
5hile it is true that evident *remeditation ma! be absorbed in treacher!
because the means% method and orm o attac= ma! be *remeditated and
would be resorted to b! the oender. #o not consider both aggravating
circumstances o treacher! and evident *remeditation against the oender. ,t
is onl! treacher! because the evident *remeditation is the ver! conscious act o
the oender to ensure the e(ecution.
Eut there ma! be evident *remeditation and there is treacher! also when the
attac= was so sudden.
+vvver"a Pa"e :: of ,--
4 and E are enemies. "he! ought on /onda! and *arted wa!s. 4 decided to
see= revenge. <e bought a irearm and *racticed shooting and then sought E.
5hen 4 saw E in the restaurant with so man! *eo*le% 4 did not dare ire at E
or ear that he might hit a stranger but instead% 4 saw a =nie and used it to
stab E with all suddenness. @vident *remeditation was not absorbed in
treacher! because treacher! reers to the manner o committing the crime.
@vident *remeditation is alwa!s absorbed in treacher!.
"his is one aggravating circumstance where the oender who *remeditated% the
law sa!s evident. ,t is not enough that there is some *remeditation.
Premeditation must be clear. ,t is reDuired that there be evidence showing
meditation between the time when the oender determined to commit the
crime and the time when the oender e(ecuted the act. ,t must a**ear that the
oender clung to his determination to commit the crime. "he act that the
oender *remeditated is not *rima acie indicative o evident *remeditation as
the meeting or encounter between the oender and the oended *art! was
onl! b! chance or accident.
,n order or evident *remeditation to be considered% the ver! *erson7oended
*art! *remeditated against must be the one who is the victim o the crime. ,t is
not necessar! that the victim is identiied. ,t is enough that the victim is
determined so he or she belongs to a grou* or class who ma! be *remeditated
against. "his is a circumstance that will Duali! a =illing rom homicide to
murder.
Ill*stration5
4 *erson who has been courting a lad! or several !ears now has been Cilted.
Eecause o this% he thought o =illing somebod!. <e% then bought a =nie%
shar*ened it and stabbed the irst man he met on the street. ,t was held that
evident *remeditation is not *resent. ,t is essential or this aggravating
circumstance or the victim to be identiied rom the beginning.
4 *remeditated to =ill an! member o *articular raternit!. <e then =illed one.
"his is murder 2 a homicide which has been Dualiied into murder b! evident
*remeditation which is a Duali!ing circumstance. )ame where 4 *lanned to =ill
an! member o the ,glesio ni Bristo.
"here are some crimes which cannot be aggravated b! evident *remeditation
because the! reDuire some *lanning beore the! can be committed. @vident
*remeditation is *art o the crime li=e =idna**ing or ransom% robber! with
orce u*on things where there is entr! into the *remises o the oended *art!%
and estaa through alse *retenses where the oender em*lo!s insidious means
which cannot ha**en accidentall!.
Craft
4ggravating in a case where the oenders *retended to be bona ide
*assengers o a Cee*ne! in order not to arouse sus*icion% but once inside the
Cee*ne!% robbed the *assengers and the driver (Peo!le v. Lee@ decided on
'ecem1er 0-@ ,CC,).
A1*se of s*!erior stren"th
"here must be evidence o notorious ineDualit! o orces between the oender
and the oended *art! in their age% si.e and strength% and that the oender
too= advantage o such su*erior strength in committing the crime. "he mere
act that there were two *ersons who attac=ed the victim does not *er se
constitute abuse o su*erior strength (Peo!le v. Car!io@ ,C, CRA ,0).
%reachery
"reacher! reers to the em*lo!ment o means% method and orm in the
commission o the crime which tend directl! and s*eciall! to insure its
e(ecution without ris= to himsel arising rom the deense which the oended
*art! might ma=e. "he means% method or orm em*lo!ed m! be an
aggravating circumstance which li=e availing o total dar=ness in nighttime or
availing o su*erior strength ta=en advantage o b! the oender% em*lo!ing
means to wea=en the deense.
Ill*stration5
4 and E have been Duarreling or some time. One da!% 4 a**roached E and
beriended him. E acce*ted. 4 *ro*osed that to celebrate their renewed
riendshi*% the! were going to drin=. E was having too much to drin=. 4 was
Cust waiting or him to get into(icated and ater which% he stabbed E.
4 *retended to beriend E% Cust to into(icate the latter. ,nto(ication is the
means deliberatel! em*lo!ed b! the oender to wea=en the deense o the
oended *art!. , this was the ver! means em*lo!ed% the circumstance ma! be
treacher! and not abuse o su*erior strength or means to wea=en the deense.
5hat is the essence o treacher!J
"he essence o treacher! is that b! virtue o the means% method or orm
em*lo!ed b! the oender% the oended *art! was not able to *ut u* an!
deense. , the oended *art! was able to *ut u* a deense% even onl! a to=en
one% there is no treacher! an!more. ,nstead some other aggravating
circumstance ma! be *resent but not treacher! an!more.
Ill*stration5
4 and E Duarreled. <owever 4 had no chance to ight with E because 4 is much
smaller than E. 4 thought o =illing E but then he cannot Cust attac= E because
+vvver"a Pa"e := of ,--
o the latterLs si.e. )o% 4 thought o committing a crime at nighttime with the
cover o dar=ness. 4 *ositioned himsel in the dar=est *art o the street where
E *asses on his wa! home. One evening% 4 waited or E and stabbed E.
<owever% E *ulled a =nie as well and stabbed 4 also. 4 was wounded but not
mortal so he managed to run awa!. E was able to wal= a ew ste*s beore he
ell and died. 5hat crime was committedJ
%he crime is only homicide 1eca*se the a""ravatin" circ*mstance is
only noct*rnity and noct*rnity is not a )*alifyin" circ*mstance. %he
reason why treachery cannot 1e considered as !resent here is 1eca*se
the offended !arty was a1le to !*t *! a defense and that ne"ates
treachery. In treachery@ the offended !arty@ d*e to the means@ method
or form em!loyed 1y the offender@ the offended !arty was denied the
chance to defend himself. If 1eca*se of the cover of dar6ness@ < was
not a1le to !*t *! a defense and A was a1le to flee while < died@ the
crime is m*rder 1eca*se there is already treachery. In the first
sit*ation@ the crime was homicide only@ the ni"httime is "eneric
a""ravatin" circ*mstance.
,n the e(am*le where 4 *retended to beriend E and invited him to celebrate
their riendshi*% i E des*ite into(ication was able to *ut u* some ight against
4 but eventuall!% E died% then the attendant circumstance is no longer
treacher! but means em*lo!ed to wea=en the deense. Eut in murder% this is
also a Duali!ing circumstance. "he crime committed is murder but then the
correct circumstance is not treacher! but means em*lo!ed to wea=en the
deense.
,n the same manner% i the oender avails o the services o men and in the
commission o the crime% the! too= advantage o su*erior strength but
somehow% the oended *art! ought bac=% the crime is still murder i the victim
is =illed. 4lthough the Duali!ing circumstance is abuse o su*erior strength and
not treacher!% which is also a Duali!ing circumstance o murder under 4rticle
9+&.
"reacher! is out when the attac= was merel! incidental or accidental because in
the deinition o treacher!% the im*lication is that the oender had consciousl!
and deliberatel! ado*ted the method% means and orm used or em*lo!ed b!
him. )o% i 4 and E casuall! met and there and then 4 stabbed E% although
stabbing ma! be sudden since 4 was not shown to have the intention o =illing
E% treacher! cannot be considered *resent.
"here must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. ,t is not enough to
show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. @(am*le6 4 had a gunshot
wound at the bac= o his head. "he )C ruled this is onl! homicide because
treacher! must be *roven. ,t must be shown that the victim was totall!
deenseless.
)uddenness o the attac= does not b! itsel constitute treacher! in the absence
o evidence that the manner o the attac= was consciousl! ado*ted b! the
oender to render the oended *art! deenseless (Peo!le v. Ila"an@ ,C,
CRA :32).
Eut where children o tender !ears were =illed% being one !ear old and 19 !ears
old% the =illing is murder even i the manner o attac= was not shown (Peo!le
v. /ahon@ decided on A!ril 2-@ ,CC,).
,n Peo!le v. La!an@ decided on G*ly :@ ,CC0@ the accused was *rosecuted
or robber! with homicide. Robber! was not *roven be!ond reasonable doubt.
4ccused held liable onl! or the =illings. 4lthough one o the victims was barel!
si( !ears old% the accused was convicted onl! or homicide% aggravated b!
dwelling and in disregard o age.
"reacher! not a**reciated where Duarrel and heated discussion *receded a
=illing% because the victim would be *ut on guard (Peo!le v. /*!o). Eut
although a Duarrel *receded the =illing where the victim was ato* a coconut
tree% treacher! was considered as the victim was not in a *osition to deend
himsel (Peo!le v. %ori1io).
'istinction 1etween i"nominy and cr*elty
,gnomin! shoc=s the moral conscience o man while cruelt! is *h!sical.
,gnomin! reers to the moral eect o a crime and it *ertains to the moral
order% whether or not the victim is dead or alive. Cruelt! *ertains to *h!sical
suering o the victim so the victim has to be alive. ,n *lain language% ignomin!
is adding insult to inCur!. 4 clear e(am*le is a married woman being ra*ed
beore the e!es o her husband.
,n a case where the crime committed is ra*e and the accused abused the
victims rom behind% the )u*reme Court considered the crime as aggravated b!
ignomin!. <ence% ra*ing a woman rom behind is ignominous because this is
not the usual intercourse% it is something which oends the moral o the
oended woman. "his is how animals do it.
,n a case o homicide% while the victim ater having been =illed b! the oender%
the oender shoved the bod! inside a canal% ignomin! is held aggravating.
4ter having been =illed% the bod! was thrown into *ile o garbage% ignomin! is
aggravating. "he )u*reme Court held that it added shame to the natural eects
o the crime.
Cruelt! and ignomin! are circumstances brought about which are not necessar!
in the commission o the crime.
Ill*stration5
4 and E are enemies. 4 u*on seeing E *ulled out a =nie and stabbed E '8
times. 5ill that act be considered as an aggravating circumstance o cruelt!J
+vvver"a Pa"e :A of ,--
No% there is cruelt! onl! when there are evidence that the oender inlicted the
stab wounds while enCo!ing or delighted to see the victim in *ain. 3or cruelt!
to e(ist as an aggravating circumstance% there must be evidence showing that
the accused inlicted the alleged cruel wounds slowl! and graduall! and that he
is delighted seeing the victim suer in *ain. ,n the absence o evidence to this
eect% there is no cruelt!. )i(t! stab wounds do not i*so acto ma=e them
aggravating circumstances o cruelt!. "he crime is murder i '8 wounds were
inlicted graduall!K absence o this evidence means the crime committed is onl!
homicide.
Cruelt! is aggravating in ra*e where the oender tied the victim to a bed and
burnt her ace with a lighted cigarette while ra*ing her laughing all the wa!
(Peo!le v. L*cas@ ,A, CRA 2,7).
$nlawf*l entry
Gnlawul entr! is inherent in the crime o robber! with orce u*on things but
aggravating in the crime o robber! with violence against or intimidation o
*ersons.
Motor vehicle
"he )u*reme Court considers strictl! the use o the word :committed;% that the
crime is committed with the use o a motor vehicle% motori.ed means o
trans*ortation or motori.ed watercrat. "here is a decision b! the Court o
4**eals that a motori.ed bic!cle is a motor vehicle even i the oender used
onl! the oot *edal because he does not =now how to o*erate the motor so i a
bic!cle is used in the commission o the crime% motor vehicle becomes
aggravating i the bic!cle is motori.ed.
"his circumstance is aggravating onl! when used in the commission o the
oense. , motor vehicle is used onl! in the esca*e o the oender% motor
vehicle is not aggravating. "o be aggravating% it must have been used to
acilitate the commission o the crime.
4ggravating when a motori.ed tric!cle was used to commit the crime
8r"ani(ed or syndicated crime "ro*!
,n the same amendment to 4rticle '9 o the Revised Penal Code% *aragra*hs
were added which *rovide that the ma(imum *enalt! shall be im*osed i the
oense was committed b! an! *erson who belongs to an organi.ed or
s!ndicated crime grou*.
4n organi.ed or s!ndicated crime grou* means a grou* o two or more *ersons
collaborating% conederating or mutuall! hel*ing one another or *ur*oses o
gain in the commission o a crime.
5ith this *rovision% the circumstance o an organi.ed or s!ndicated crime grou*
having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a s*ecial
aggravating circumstance. "he circumstance being s*ecial or Duali!ing% it
must be alleged in the inormation and *roved during the trial. Otherwise% i
not alleged in the inormation% even though *roven during the trial% the court
cannot validl! consider the circumstances because it is not among those
enumerated under 4rticle 1+ o the Code as aggravating. ,t is noteworth!%
however% that there is an organi.ed or s!ndicated grou* even when onl! two
*ersons collaborated% conederated% or mutuall! hel*ed one another in the
commission o a crime% which acts are inherent in a cons*irac!. 5here
thereore% cons*irac! in the commission o the crime is alleged in the
inormation% the allegation ma! be considered as *rocedurall! suicient to
warrant receiving evidence on the matter during trial and conseDuentl!% the
said s*ecial aggravating circumstance can be a**reciated i *roven.
Alternative circ*mstances
9o*r alternative circ*mstances
(1) Relationshi*K
(9) ,nto(icationK
(0) #egree o instructionK and
(+) @ducation.
Gse onl! the term alternative circumstance or as long as the *articular
circumstance is not involved in an! case or *roblem. "he moment it is given in
a *roblem% do not use alternative circumstance% reer to it as aggravating or
mitigating de*ending on whether the same is considered as such or the other.
, relationshi* is aggravating% reer to it as aggravating. , mitigating% then
reer to it as such.
@(ce*t or the circumstance o into(ication% the other circumstances in 4rticle
1A ma! not be ta=en into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing
on the crime committed. )o the court will not consider this as aggravating or
mitigating sim*l! because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that
was committed.
#o not thin= that because the article sa!s that these circumstances are
mitigating or aggravating% that i the circumstance is *resent% the court will
have to ta=e it as mitigating% i not mitigating% aggravating. "hat is wrong. ,t
is onl! the circumstance o into(ication which i not mitigating% is automaticall!
+vvver"a Pa"e :C of ,--
aggravating. Eut the other circumstances% even i the! are *resent% but i the!
do not inluence the crime% the court will not consider it at all. Relationshi*
ma! not be considered at all% es*eciall! i it is not inherent in the commission o
the crime. #egree o instruction also will not be considered i the crime is
something which does not reDuire an educated *erson to understand.
Relationshi!
Relationshi* is not sim*l! mitigating or aggravating. "here are s*eciic
circumstances where relationshi* is e(em*ting. 4mong such circumstances
are6
(1) ,n the case o an accessor! who is related to the *rinci*al within the
relationshi* *rescribed in 4rticle 98K
(9) 4lso in 4rticle 9+$% a s*ouse does not incur criminal liabilit! or a crime
o less serious *h!sical inCuries or serious *h!sical inCuries i this was
inlicted ater having sur*rised the oended s*ouse or *aramour or
mistress committing actual se(ual intercourse.
(0) "hose commonl! given in 4rticle 009 when the crime o thet%
malicious mischie and swindling or estaa. "here is no criminal
liabilit! but onl! civil liabilit! i the oender is related to the oended
*art! as s*ouse% ascendant% or descendant or i the oender is a
brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law o the oended *art!
and the! are living together. @(em*ting circumstance is the
relationshi*. "his is an absolutor! cause.
)ometimes% relationshi* is a Duali!ing and not onl! a generic aggravating
circumstance. ,n the crime o Dualiied seduction% the oended woman must be
a virgin and less than 1& !rs old. Eut i the oender is a brother o the
oended woman or an ascendant o the oended woman% regardless o
whether the woman is o bad re*utation% even i the woman is '8 !ears old or
more% crime is Dualiied seduction. ,n such a case% relationshi* is Duali!ing.
Into4ication
"his circumstance is i*so acto mitigating% so that i the *rosecution wants to
den! the oender the beneit o this mitigation% the! should *rove that it is
habitual and that it is intentional. "he moment it is shown to be habitual or
intentional to the commission o the crime% the same will immediatel!
aggravate% regardless o the crime committed.
,nto(ication to be considered mitigating% reDuires that the oender has reached
that degree o into(ication where he has no control o himsel an!more. "he
idea is the oender% because o the into(ication is alread! acting under
diminished sel control. "his is the rational wh! into(ication is mitigating. )o i
this reason is not *resent% into(ication will not be considered mitigating. )o
the mere act that the oender has ta=en one or more cases o beer o itsel
does not warrant a conclusion that into(ication is mitigating. "here must be
indication that because o the alcoholic inta=e o the oender% he is suering
rom diminished sel control. "here is diminished voluntariness insoar as his
intelligence or reedom o action is concerned. ,t is not the Duantit! o alcoholic
drin=. Rather it is the eect o the alcohol u*on the oender which shall be the
basis o the mitigating circumstance.
Ill*stration5
,n a case% there were two laborers who were the best o riends. )ince it was
*a!da!% the! decided to have some good time and ordered beer. 5hen the!
dran= two cases o beer the! became more tal=ative until the! engaged in an
argument. One *ulled out a =nie and stabbed the other. 5hen arraigned he
invo=ed into(ication as a mitigating circumstance. ,nto(ication does not sim*l!
mean that the oender has *arta=en o so much alcoholic beverages. "he
into(ication in law reDuires that because o the Dualit! o the alcoholic drin=
ta=en% the oender had *racticall! lost sel control. )o although the oender
ma! have *arta=en o two cases o beer% but ater stabbing the victim he hailed
a tric!cle and even instructed the driver to the *lace where he is slee*ing and
the tric!cle could not reach his house and so he has to alight and wal= to his
house% then there is no diminished sel control. "he )u*reme Court did not
give the mitigating circumstance because o the number o wounds inlicted
u*on the victim. "here were 11 stab wounds and this% the )u*reme Court said%
is incom*atible with the idea that the oender is alread! suering rom
diminished sel control. On the contrar!% the indication is that the oender
gained strength out o the drin=s he had ta=en. ,t is not the Duantit! o drin=
that will determine whether the oender can legall! invo=e into(ication. "he
conduct o the oender% the manner o committing the crime% his behavior ater
committing the crime must show the behavior o a man who has alread! lost
control o himsel. Otherwise into(ication cannot legall! be considered.
'e"ree of instr*ction and ed*cation
"hese are two distinct circumstances. One ma! not have an! degree o
instruction but is nevertheless educated. @(am*le6 4 has been living with
*roessionals or sometime. <e ma! Cust be a maid in the house with no
degree o instruction but he ma! still be educated.
It may ha!!en also that the offender "rew *! in a family of
!rofessionals@ only he is the 1lac6 shee! 1eca*se he did not want to "o
to school. <*t it does not follow that he is 1ereft of ed*cation.
, the oender did not go higher than -rade 0 and he was involved in a elon!%
he was invo=ing lac= o degree o education. "he )u*reme Court held that
although he did not receive schooling% !et it cannot be said that he lac=s
+vvver"a Pa"e =- of ,--
education because he came rom a amil! where brothers are all *roessionals.
)o he understands what is right and wrong.
"he act that the oender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not
mitigate his liabilit! i the crime committed is one which he inherentl!
understands as wrong such as *arricide. , a child or son or daughter would =ill
a *arent% illiterac! will not mitigate because the low degree o instruction has
no bearing on the crime.
,n the same manner% the oender ma! be a law!er who committed ra*e. "he
act that he has =nowledge o the law will not aggravate his liabilit!% because
his =nowledge has nothing to do with the commission o the crime. Eut i he
committed alsiication% that will aggravate his criminal liabilit!% where he used
his s*ecial =nowledge as a law!er.
CAE 98R G$%I9.IN/@ MI%/A%IN/ AN' A//RAVA%IN/
CIRC$M%ANCE

I. EL9>'E9ENE #PR8PIA 'E9ENA&.
PE8PLE vs. NARVAEJ
Be!words6 encing% :gaddemitW;% land dis*ute% sel-deense
,ssue6 Can the deendant% ater admitting having shot the deceased rom the
window o his house with a shotgun under the oregoing circumstances claim
that he did so in deense o his *erson and his rights and thereore he should
be e(em*ted rom criminal liabilit!.
#ecision6 No. deense o oneIs *erson or rights is treated as a Custi!ing
circumstance under 4rticle 11 % *aragra*h 1 o the RPC% but in order or it to be
a**reciated% the ollowing reDuisite should be *resent6 unlawul aggression%
reasonable necessit! o the means em*lo!ed to *revent or re*el it and lac= o
suicient *rovocation on the *art o the *erson deending himsel. "here is no
Duestion that there was aggression on the *art o the victims6 one o the
deceased ordering while the other actuall! *artici*ating in the encing. "he
third element is also *resent. <owever% reasonableness o the resistance is also
a reDuirement o the Custi!ing circumstance o sel-deense or deense o oneLs
rights under *aragra*h , o 4rticle 11% Revised Penal Code. 5hen the a**ellant
ired his shotgun rom his window% =illing his two victims% his resistance was
dis*ro*ortionate to the attac=. 4**ellant is thereore guilt! be!ond reasonable
doubt o onl! two (9) homicides% mitigated b! the *rivileged e(tenuating
circumstance o incom*lete sel-deense.
(1) 5<@N B,LL,N- 3OR <ONOR <@L# 1G)",3,@#.
(a) P,CB,N- GP BN,3@ O3 R4P,)" PR@P4R,N- "O L,@ 5,"<
4CCG)@# 4N# )"4EE,N- <,/).
P@OPL@ vs. LG4-G@
Be!word6 5oman about to be ra*ed while her husband was at wor=. Victim%
Cum*ing rom the window ell on some stones.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant is entitled on "ro*nds of le"itimate self>
defense.
#ecision6 ?es. "he deendantIs act constitutes a Custi!ing circumstance since6
4side rom the right to lie on which rests the legitimate deense o our *erson%
we have the right to *ro*ert! acDuired b! us% and the right to honor which is
not the least *ri.ed o our *atrimon!. 4ll the reDuisites o e(em*ting
circumstance are *resent and should be ta=en into consideration.
(9) 5<@N B,LL,N- <@L# GN1G)",3,@#.
/@R@ "OGC<,N- OR -R4)P,N- O3 4R/% 5,"<OG" ,N),)"@NC@ OR
R@P@",",ON 5<,C< COGL# E@ CON),#@R@# 4N 4""@/P" 4-4,N)"
<ONOR% @V@N ,3 ,N"RG#@R #,# NO" R@PL? 5<@N 4)B@# 5<O <@
54)

PE8PLE vs. APE/8
Be!word6 Paranoid sister% cou*le coming rom Nasugbu% husband stabbed at
the vital organ b! the sister with an =nie and ",N C4N).
,ssue6 57N the deendant can *lead com*lete sel-deense.
#ecision6 5hen a slee*ing woman is awa=ened at night b! some one touching
her or gras*ing her arm% and she% believing that some *erson is attem*ting to
abuse her as=s who the intruder is and receives no re*l!% attac=s the said
*erson with a *oc=et=nie% and the nature o the wound shows that she was
either standing u* or sitting u* at the time% it is concluded that%
notwithstanding the womanLs belie in the su**osed attem*t% there was not
suicient *rovocation to Custi! her in using a deadl! wea*onK although she
actuall! believed it to be the beginning o an attem*t against her% she was not
warranted in ma=ing such a deadl! assault% as the inCured *erson did not insist
or re*eat an! act which could be considered as an attem*t against her honor.
"he accused e(ceeded her right o sel-deense since there was reall! no need
o wounding the victim. "here was no reasonable cause or stri=ing a blow in
the center o the bod! where the vital *arts are located. "hus% in the
commission o the crime% there was *resent the circumstance o incom*lete
e(em*tion rom res*onsibilit! since the second reDuisite is missing.

B,LL,N- O3 P4R4/OGR NO" 4""R,EG"4EL@ "O 4""@/P" "O R4P@ 4CCG)@#
5<O /4,N"4,N@# ,LL,C," R@L4",ON 5,"< V,C",/ 3OR )O/@ ",/@
+vvver"a Pa"e =, of ,--
PE8PLE vs. P8%E%A
Be!words6 5oman =ills her *aramour who was not her live-in *artner sa!ing
that the latter tried to ra*e her.
,ssue6 57N the woman can *lead sel-deense considering that the man seems
to be aslee* when he was =illed.
#ecision6 5hen it is *roven that the deceased had or some time maintained
illicit relations with the accused% being accustomed to *ass the night in her
house% it cannot be believed that it was necessar! or him to resort to violence%
and thereore a statement alleging such violence is im*robable and inadmissible
as a basis or an e(em*tion rom liabilit!% u*on the ground that the accused in
committing the homicide acted in sel-deense. "he crime having been
committed b! the owner o the house against the *erson who had b! mutual
consent reDuented the house% and at a time when the! were both in bed% the
circumstance o nocturnit! cannot be considered because the nighttime was not
*ur*osel! selected b! the accused.
i. $nlawf*l A""ression
5hen *resent
4ttem*t to ra*e a woman
PE8PLE V. L$A/$E@ $PRA
$ vs. '8MEN
Be!word6 3ight over a carabao% stri=ing with a :1a*anese wood; and inlicting
with a tuba =nie causing the victimIs death.

,ssue6 57N there is a reasonable necessit! or the means em*lo!ed to re*el
the attac=.
'ecision5 .es. %here was reasona1le necessity for the means em!loyed
1y D to re!el the attac6. %he ancient common law r*le in homicide was
denominated Kretreat to the wallL. %his doctrine ma6e it the d*ty of a
!erson assailed to retreat as far as he can 1efore he is ;*stified in
meetin" force with force. %his !rinci!le has now "iven way in the $ to
Kstand "ro*nd when in the ri"htL r*le. Acc*sed did not !rovo6e the
assa*lt. %he law did not re)*ire the acc*sed to retreat. %he element of
!ractica1ility made it im!ossi1le for him to determine d*rin" the heat
of a s*dden attac6 whether he wo*ld increase or diminish the ris6 to
which e4!osed 1y standin" his "ro*nd or ste!!in" aside. %he
resistance was not disa!!ro!riate to the assa*lt th*s the acc*sed is
e4em!ted from criminal lia1ility 1eca*se he acted in le"itimate defense
of his !erson.
P@OPL@ vs. /O1,C4
Beywords5 Consta1*lary vers*s Police. 'efendant was a !olice
threatened 1y the consta1*lary.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can maintain that he 6illed the victim in
self>defense and that he is e4em!t from criminal lia1ility.
'ecision5 .es. %here was no !rovocation on the defendantMs !art. A
!oliceman in the !erformance of his d*ty m*st stand his "ro*nd and
cannot ta6e ref*"e in fli"ht when attac6ed. His d*ty re)*ires him to
overcome his o!!onent and the force he may e4ert therefore differs
somewhat from that which ordinarily may 1e offered in self>defense.
$nder the circ*mstances@ the force em!loyed 1y the defendant was
reasona1ly necessary and that he acted in le"itimate self>defense.
P@OPL@ vs. 4LCON-4
Beywords5 /am1lin"@ defendant cheated the victim. Victim 1ecame so
an"ry and threatened to inflict harm on the defendant. /*ards.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant is entitled to ac)*ittal for havin" 6illed the
victim in the e4ercise of his ri"ht of self>defense.
'ecision5 No. %here were two sta"es in the fi"ht. In the initial sta"e@
the deceased assa*lted the defendant 1*t the latter was a1le to resist
the a""ression. When the deceased retreated@ there was no lon"er any
dan"er to the life of the acc*sed 1*t the latter !*rs*ed him and
inflicted many additional wo*nds. An acc*sed was no lon"er actin" in
self>defense when he !*rs*ed and 6illed a fleein" adversary@ tho*"h
ori"inally the *nlawf*l a""ressor@ there 1ein" then no more a""ression
to defend a"ainst@ the same havin" ceased from the moment the
deceased too6 to his heels. ince one of the in"redients of self>defense
is missin"@ com!lete self>defense cannot 1e invo6ed.
P@OPL@ vs. L4GR@L
Beywords5 tolen 6iss. <oth men acc*sed each other for startin" the
fi"ht.
Iss*e5 W+N it was the defendant who was the assailant.
'ecision5 Considerin" the !recedin" relations 1etween the contendin"
!arties@ it is the offended !arty who was directly or indirectly affected
and who wo*ld nat*rally 1e interested in demandin" an e4!lanation
and therefore in see6in" the interview@ so that when they meet it is to
1e !res*med that s*ch offended !arty@ when not satisfied with the
+vvver"a Pa"e =0 of ,--
e4!lanation offered@ wo*ld 1e the a""ressor@ and this !res*m!tion is
confirmed 1y the evidence. %he victim then can invo6e self>defense.
P@OPL@ V). C4EGN-C4L
Beywords5 R8CB %HE <8A%N
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant is com!letely e4em!ted from all criminal
lia1ility.
'ecision5 .es. %he a!!ellant havin" acted in defense of his wife and
child and the other !assen"ers in the 1oat in stri6in" the deceased with
an oar in order to ma6e him desist from tryin" to *!set the 1oat@ and
the means em!loyed havin" 1een reasona1ly necessary in this defense@
while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased@ he is com!letely
e4em!t from criminal lia1ility.
G) vs. )GE,N-)GE,N-
Beywords5 =A year old man aided 1y another man to !arry the 1lows of
D who made *nchaste !ro!osals to the old manMs wife.
Iss*e5 W+N the !erson who aided the old man 1y f*rnishin" a wea!on
to the latter ma6es the former lia1le for homicide.
'ecision5 No. Where the one@ who *sed the wea!on@ was declared to
1e e4em!t from res!onsi1ility in re!ellin" the attac6 of which he was
the victim and in wo*ndin" his assailant therewith@ the lo"ical
conse)*ence of that declaration of e4em!tion from res!onsi1ility is
that the other@ who f*rnished the le"itimate wea!on *sed in his
defense sho*ld 1e also ac)*itted and declared e4em!t from any
res!onsi1ility.
If one who defends a third !erson *nder the conditions and with the
re)*isites the !enal law lays down for e4em!tin" him from
res!onsi1ility sho*ld 1e ac)*itted of the char"e in a case !rosec*ted
a"ainst him@ then when a !erson who did nothin" more than f*rnish a
wea!on to one whom he saw in !eril and in "reat need of defendin"
himself and re!ellin" a serio*s assa*lt@ it is illo"ical and *n;*st to deny
to said assistant the same e4em!tion from res!onsi1ility and the
e4oneration "ranted the slayer on the "ro*nds of self>defense@ as was
held in the same ;*d"ment to 1e lawf*l and ri"ht.
P@OPL@ vs. #@L,/4
Beywords5 Esca!ee who was 6illed 1y a !oliceman while orderin" the
latter to s*rrender.
Iss*e5 W+N the !oliceman sho*ld 1e held lia1le
'ecision5 No. %he 6illin" was done in the !erformance f a d*ty. %he
deceased was *nder the o1li"ation to s*rrender and had no ri"ht after
evadin" service of his sentence@ to commit assa*lt and diso1edience
with a wea!on in the hand@ which altho*"h the !oliceman to resort to
s*ch an e4treme means which@ altho*"h it !roved to 1e fatal@ was
;*stified 1y the circ*mstance. Policeman committed no crime.
V4LCORS4 vs. P@OPL@
Beywords5 'etention !risoner char"ed of stealin" chic6ens. Po*ltry
area. Police only tried to hit the victim on the le" 1*t *nfort*nately hit
him on the 1ac6. %he deceased did not head several warnin" shots.
Iss*e5 W+N the action of the defendant can 1e ;*stified.
'ecision5 %he act !erformed was committed in the !erformance of
official d*ty and was more or less necessary to !revent the esca!in"
!risoner from s*ccessf*lly el*din" the officers of the law. %o hold the
acc*sed "*ilty of homicide may have the effect of demorali(in" !olice
officers dischar"in" official f*nctions identical or similar to those in the
!erformance of which !etitioner was en"a"ed at the time he fired at
the deceased@ with the res*lt that thereafter@ there wo*ld 1e half>
hearted and dis!irited efforts on their !art to com!ly with s*ch official
d*ty. %his wo*ld 1e a "reat detriment to !*1lic interest.
P@OPL@ vs. EONO4N
Beywords5 1ar1ersho!@ insanity KIMll 6ill yo*L@ KIMll !ay yo*L
Iss*e5 W+N the !rosec*tion have the 1*rden of !rovin" that the
acc*sed was sane at the time he committed the crime.
'ecision5 No. In the Phili!!ines@ the 1*rden@ to 1e s*re@ is on the
!rosec*tion to !rove 1eyond a reasona1le do*1t that the defendant
committed the crime@ 1*t sanity is !res*med@ and when a defendant in
a criminal case inter!oses the defense of mental inca!acity@ the 1*rden
of esta1lishin" that fact rests *!on him. In the case at 1ar@ the defense
inter!osed 1ein" that the defendant was insane at the time he 6illed
the deceased@ the o1li"ation of !rovin" that affirmative alle"ation rests
on the defense.
<O5 ,N)4N,"? ,) PROV@#
In order to ascertain a !ersonOs mental condition at the time of the act@
it is !ermissi1le to receive evidence of the condition of his mind a
reasona1le !eriod 1oth 1efore and after that time. 'irect testimony is
not re)*ired nor are s!ecific acts of deran"ement essential to esta1lish
insanity as a defense. Mind can only 1e 6nown 1y o*tward acts.
%here1y@ we read the tho*"hts@ the motives and emotions of a !erson
and come to determine whether his sets conform to the !ractice of
!eo!le of so*nd mind. %o !rove insanity@ therefore@ circ*mstantial
evidence@ if clear and convincin"@ s*ffice #Peo!le vs. <onoan&.
P@OPL@ vs. R@N@-4#O
Beywords5 Insane sec*rity "*ard. lave>driver teacher who as6ed the
"*ard to ty!e test )*estionnaires.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can 1e ac)*itted with the ar"*ment that he
sho*ld 1e e4em!ted from criminal lia1ility on acco*nt of insanity.
'ecision5 No. 9or !*r!oses of dis!osin" of a!!ellantOs defense it
1ecomes necessary to restate certain 1asic !rinci!les in criminal law@
vi(. that a !erson is criminally lia1le for a felony committed 1y himH
that a felonio*s or criminal act #delito doloso& is !res*med to have
1een done with deli1erate intent@ that is@ with freedom intelli"ence@
and malice 1eca*se the moral and le"al !res*m!tion is that freedom
and intelli"ence constit*te the normal condition of a !erson in the
a1sence of evidence to the contraryH that one of the ca*ses which will
overthrow this !res*m!tion of vol*ntariness and intelli"ence is
insanity in which even the actor is e4em!t from criminal lia1ility as
!rovided for in Article ,0@ !ara"ra!h ,@ of the Revised Penal Code. In
the eyes of the law@ insanity e4ist when there is a com!lete de!rivation
of intelli"ence in committin" the act@ that is@ the acc*sed is de!rived of
reason@ he acts witho*t the least discernment 1eca*se there is a
com!lete a1sence of the !ower to discern@ or that there is a total
de!rivation of freedom of the willH mere a1normality of the mental
fac*lties will not e4cl*de im!*ta1ility. %he on*s !ro1andi rest *!on him
who invo6es insanity as an e4em!tin" circ*mstances and he m*st
!rove it 1y clear and !ositive evidence. A!!lyin" these !rinci!les@
defense fails.
G) vs. BN,-<"
Beyword5 cha*ffer of $ Army. Child was r*n over while the defendant
was tryin" to overta6e.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant sho*ld 1e char"ed for reason of rec6less
ne"li"ence.
'ecision5 No. 8ne !erson is not com!elled to travel 1ehind another on
the hi"hway@ and one has not the e4cl*sive ri"ht to !recede another.
%he traveler may !ass to the front when he has "ood and s*fficient
"ro*nds to 1elieve that he can do so in safety. Whatever may have
1een the ca*se of an a*tomo1ile accident@ if it cannot 1e attri1*ted to
the miscond*ct or the ne"li"ence of the o!erator in the mana"ement of
his machine@ he cannot 1e held lia1le either civilly or criminally.
G) vs. @L,C4N4L
Beyword5 Ca!tain 6illed 1y shi!mates. Im!*lse of *ncontrolla1le fear
of a "reater in;*ry sho*ld the defendant ref*se.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can invo6e that he was actin" *nder the
im!*lse if an *ncontrolla1le fear of a "reater in;*ry.
'ecision5 Chief mate did not e4ercise infl*ence over the acc*sed.
<efore a force can 1e considered to 1e an irresisti1le one@ or m*st
!rod*ce s*ch an effect *!on the individ*al that in s!ite of all
resistance@ it red*ces him to a mere instr*ment. %he defense in a
criminal action that the defendant in committin" the crime acted *nder
the im!*lse of an *ncontrolla1le fear !rod*ced 1y a threat of an e)*al
or "reater in;*ry to himself can 1e held to 1e s*stained@ it m*st a!!ear
that the threat which ca*sed the fear was of an evil "reater that@ or at
least e)*al to that which he was re)*ired to commit and that it
!romised an evil of s*ch "ravity and imminence that it mi"ht 1e said@
that the@ ordinary man wo*ld have s*cceeded to it.
G) vs. V,C@N",LLO
Beywords5 ille"al detentionH *nfort*nate circ*mstances than
!rolon"ed the detentionH trivial crime committed 1y D to a m*nici!al
!resident.
Iss*e5 W+N the m*nici!al !resident can 1e fo*nd "*ilty of Kille"al and
ar1itrary detentionL of the acc*sed for a !eriod of three days.
'ecision5 No. %he case of $. . vs. 9ortale(a followed as to the
a*thority of a m*nici!al !resident to ma6e an arrest witho*t a warrant
for an offense committed in his !resence@ the m*nici!al !resident
1ein" held to have all the *s*al !owers of a !*1lic officer for the
ma6in" of arrests witho*t warrant. $nder all the circ*mstances of this
case@ as set forth in the o!inion@ the defendant@ after havin" arrested
the com!lainin" witness witho*t a warrant@ 1ro*"ht him 1efore a
;*stice of the !eace as soon as P!ractica1leP thereafter@
notwithstandin" the fact that three days were e4!ended in doin" so. In
the a1sence of all evidence to the contrary@ this co*rt will not !res*me
that@ in a !artic*lar case of defiance of local a*thority 1y the *nlawf*l
violation of a local ordinance even where the offense th*s committed
is@ in itself@ trivial and *nim!ortant@ it may not have 1een necessary or
at least e4!edient to ma6e an arrest and 1rin" the offender forthwith
1efore the !ro!er ;*dicial officer.
P@OPL@ vs. E4N#,4N
Beywords5 infanticideH 1a1y 6illed 1y animal 1itesH a1andonment
Iss*e5 W+N the mother can 1e held lia1le for infanticide and or
a1andonment of a minor.
'ecision5 Infanticide and a1andonment of a minor@ to 1e !*nisha1le@
m*st 1e committed willf*lly or conscio*sly@ or at least it m*st 1e the
res*lt of a vol*ntary@ conscio*s and@ free act or omission. Even in cases
where said crimes are committed thro*"h mere im!r*dence@ the
!erson who commits them@ *nder said circ*mstance@ m*st 1e in the f*ll
en;oyment of his mental fac*lties@ or m*st 1e conscio*s of his acts@ in
order that he may 1e held lia1le. %he law e4em!ts from criminal
lia1ility any !erson who acts *nder the circ*mstances in which the
a!!ellant acted in this case@ 1y "ivin" 1irth to a child in a thic6et and
later a1andonin" it@ not 1eca*se of im!r*dence or any other ca*se than
that she was overcome 1y severe di((iness and e4treme de1ility@ with
no fa*lt or intention on her !art. he has in her favor the fo*rth and
seventh e4em!tin" circ*mstances.
P@OPL@ vs. #GN-O
Beywords5 confined in a mental hos!ital for insanity 1*t fo*nd sane
while !er!et*atin" the crime. Hidin" a deadly wea!on and em1ar6in"
to evade arrest are conscio*s ado!tion of the !attern to 6ill. 'AR
em!loyee 6illed.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can 1e ac)*itted on the "ro*nds of insanity.
'ecision5 8ne who s*ffers from insanity at the time of the commission
of the offense char"ed cannot in a le"al sense entertain a criminal
intent and cannot 1e held criminally res!onsi1le for his acts. His
*nlawf*l act is the !rod*ct of a mental disease or a mental defect. In
order that insanity may relieve a !erson from criminal res!onsi1ility@ it
is necessary that there 1e a com!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence in
committin" the act@ that is@ that the acc*sed 1e de!rived of co"nitionH
that he acts witho*t the least discernmentH that there 1e com!lete
a1sence or de!rivation of the freedom of the will #Peo!le vs. P*no&.
%he fact that the defendant remem1ered his acts !roves that he was
not insane or if insane@ his insanity admitted of l*cid intervals.
Insanity in law e4ists when there is a com!lete de!rivation of
intelli"ence.
#,)",N-G,)< ,N)4N,"? 3RO/ )4N,"?
It is diffic*lt to distin"*ish from insanity. %here no definite defined
1order 1etween sanity and insanity. $nder forei"n ;*risdiction@ there
are three ma;or criteria in determinin" the e4istence of insanity@
namely5 del*sion test@ irresisti1le im!*lse test@ and the ri"ht and wron"
test. Insane del*sion is manifested 1y a false 1elief for which there is
no reasona1le 1asis and which wo*ld 1e incredi1le *nder the "iven
circ*mstances to the same !erson if he is of com!os mentis. $nder the
del*sion test@ an insane !erson 1elieves in a state of thin"s@ the
e4istence of which no rational !erson wo*ld 1elieve. A !erson acts
*nder an irresisti1le im!*lse when@ 1y reason of d*ress or mental
disease@ he has lost the !ower to choose 1etween ri"ht and wron"@ to
avoid the act in )*estion@ his free a"ency 1ein" at the time destroyed.
$nder the ri"ht and wron" test@ a !erson is insane when he s*ffers
from s*ch !erverted condition of the mental and moral fac*lties as to
render him inca!a1le of distin"*ishin" 1etween ri"ht and wron". o
far@ *nder o*r ;*risdiction@ there has 1een no case that lays down a
definite test or criterion for insanity. However@ We can a!!ly as test or
criterion the definition of insanity *nder ection ,-2C of the Revised
Administrative Code@ which states that insanity is Pa manifestation in
lan"*a"e or cond*ct@ of disease or defect of the 1rain@ or a more or less
!ermanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality@
f*nctional or or"anic@ and characteri(ed 1y !erversion@ inhi1ition@ or 1y
disordered f*nction of the sensory or of the intellective fac*lties@ or 1y
im!aired or disordered volition.P Insanity as defined a1ove is evinced
1y a deran"ed and !erverted condition of the mental fac*lties@ which is
manifested in lan"*a"e or cond*ct. An insane !erson has no f*ll and
clear *nderstandin" of the nat*re and conse)*ence of his act. %h*s@
insanity may 1e shown 1y s*rro*ndin" circ*mstances fairly throwin"
li"ht on the s*1;ect@ s*ch as evidence of the alle"ed deran"ed !ersonOs
"eneral cond*ct and a!!earance@ his acts and cond*ct inconsistent
with his !revio*s character and ha1its@ his irrational acts and 1eliefs@
and his im!rovident 1ar"ains.
Evidence of insanity m*st have reference to the mental condition of the
!erson whose sanity is in iss*e@ at the very time of doin" the act@ which
is the s*1;ect of in)*iry. However@ it is !ermissi1le to receive of his
mental condition for a reasona1le !eriod 1oth 1efore and after the
time of the act in )*estion. 'irect testimony is not re)*ired nor the
s!ecific acts of deran"ement essential to esta1lish insanity as a
defense. %he va"aries of the mind can only 1e 6nown 1y o*tward acts5
there1y we read the tho*"hts@ motives and emotions of a !ersonH and
thro*"h which we determine whether his acts conform to the !ractice
of !eo!le of so*nd mind.
<O5 COGR") )<OGL# CON),#@R EGR#@N O3 PROO3 ,N C4)@) ,NVOLV,N-
PL@4 O3 ,N)4N,"?
/enerally@ in criminal cases@ every do*1t is resolved in favor of the
acc*sed. However@ in the defense of insanity@ do*1t as to the fact of
insanity sho*ld 1e resolved in favor of sanity. %he 1*rden of !rovin"
the affirmative alle"ation of insanity rests on the defense. %h*s5 In
considerin" the !lea of insanity as a defense in a !rosec*tion for crime@
the startin" !remise is that the law !res*mes all !ersons to 1e of
so*nd mind. 8therwise stated@ the law !res*mes all acts to 1e
vol*ntary@ and that it is im!ro!er to !res*me that acts were done
*nconscio*sly. Whoever@ therefore@ invo6es insanity as a defense has
the 1*rden of !rovin" its e4istence.
%he )*ant*m of evidence re)*ired to overthrow the !res*m!tion of
sanity is !roof 1eyond reasona1le do*1t. Insanity is a defense in a
confession and avoidance@ and as s*ch m*st 1e !roved 1eyond
reasona1le do*1t. Insanity m*st 1e clearly and satisfactorily !roved in
order to ac)*it an acc*sed on the "ro*nd of insanity. A!!ellant has not
s*ccessf*lly dischar"ed the 1*rden of overcomin" the !res*m!tion that
he committed the crime as char"ed freely@ 6nowin"ly@ and intelli"ently.
Lastly@ the tate sho*ld "*ard a"ainst sane m*rderer esca!in"
!*nishment thro*"h a "eneral !lea of insanity. #Peo!le vs. '*n"o&.
P@OPL@ vs. R434N4N
Beywords5 chi(o!hrenic !erson !leadin" not "*ilty for the crime of
ra!e. Acc*sed confined in the mental hos!ital after the incident.
ecl*sive who alle"e that he hears so*nds@ which he descri1ed as
K!aran" i1on@ tini" n" i1onL.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can 1e ac)*itted of the char"e of ra!e on
the "ro*nd that he was s*fferin" from a mental disorder called
schi(o!hrenia at the time he committed the crime.
'ecision5 No. %he alle"ation of insanity or im1ecility m*st 1e clearly
!roved. Witho*t !ositive evidence that the defendant had !revio*sly
lost his reason or was demented@ a few moments !rior to or d*rin" the
!er!etration of the crime@ it will 1e !res*med that he was in normal
condition. Acts !enali(ed 1y law are always ref*ted to 1e vol*ntary@
and it is im!ro!er to concl*de that a !erson acted *nconscio*sly@ in
order to relieve him from lia1ility@ on the 1asis of his mental condition@
*nless his insanity and a1sence of will are !roved. %he standard set o*t
in 9ormi"ones were commonly ado!ted in s*1se)*ent case@ namely5
#a& the tests of co"nition>Pcom!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence in
committin" the QcriminalR act@P and #1& the test of violation>Por that
there 1e a total de!rivation of freedom of the will.P <*t o*r case law
shows common reliance on the test of co"nition@ rather than on the test
relatin" to Pfreedom of the willHP e4amination of the case law has failed
to t*rn *! any case where this Co*rt has e4em!ted an acc*sed on the
sole "ro*nd that he was totally de!rived of Pfreedom of the will@P i.e.@
witho*t an accom!anyin" Pcom!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence.P %his
is !erha!s to 1e e4!ected since !ersonOs volition nat*rally reaches o*t
only towards that which is !resented as desira1le 1y his intelli"ence@
whether that intelli"ence 1e diseased 1e healthy. In any case@ where
the acc*sed failed to show com!lete im!airment or loss of intelli"ence@
the Co*rt has reco"ni(ed at most a miti"atin"@ not an e4em!tin"@
circ*mstance in accord with Article ,2#C& of the Revised Penal Code.
P*ch illness of the offender as wo*ld diminish the e4ercise of the will>
!ower of the offender witho*t however de!rivin" him of the
conscio*sness of his Acts.P %he law !res*mes every man to 1e sane. A
!erson acc*sed of a crime has the 1*rden of !rovin" his affirmative
alle"ation of insanity.
4--4RV4",N- 4N# /,",-4",N- C,RCG/)"4NC@)
G) vs. <,CB)
Beyword5 Afro>American soldier and Moro woman havin" an illicit
affair. %he woman fo*nd another man. Gealo*sy. Evident
!remeditation.
Iss*e No ,5 W+N m*rder was committed.
'ecision5 %he a1ove>stated facts@ which have 1een f*lly !roven in the
!resent case@ constit*te the crime of m*rder@ defined and !*nished 1y
article 3-2 of the Penal Code@ in that the woman A"*stina ola met a
violent death@ with the )*alifyin" circ*mstance of treachery #alevosia&@
she 1ein" s*ddenly and ro*"hly attac6ed and *ne4!ectedly fired *!on
with a 37>cali1er revolver@ at close@ if not !oint 1lan6 ran"e@ while the
in;*red woman was *narmed and *n!re!ared@ and at a time when she
was listenin" to a conversation@ in which she was concerned@ 1etween
her a""ressor and a third !erson@ and after *s*al and c*stomary words
had !assed 1etween her and her a""ressor. 9rom all of the fore"oin" it
is lo"ically inferred that means@ manners@ and forms were em!loyed in
the attac6 that directly and s!ecially ins*red the cons*mmation of the
crime witho*t s*ch ris6 to the a*thor thereof as mi"ht have 1een
offered 1y the victim who@ owin" to the s*ddenness of the attac6@ was
do*1tless *na1le to flee from the !lace where she was standin"@ or
even esca!e or divert the wea!on.
Iss*e No. 05 W+N Evident !remeditation can 1e a!!reciated.
'ecision5 .es. %he circ*mstance of !remeditation can 1e a!!reciated
1*t sho*ld only 1e considered as merely a "eneric one. Premeditation
is@ however@ manifest and evident 1y reason of the o!en acts e4ec*ted
1y the acc*sed. All the fore"oin" circ*mstances concl*sively !rove that
the acc*sed@ deli1erately and after d*e reflection had resolved to 6ill
the woman who had left him for another man@ and in order to
accom!lish his !erverse intention with safety@ notwithstandin" the fact
that he was already !rovided with a clean and well>!re!ared wea!on
and carried other loaded cartrid"es 1esides those already in his
revolver@ he entered the ho*se@ "reetin" everyone co*rteo*sly and
conversed with his victim@ in what a!!eared to 1e a !ro!er manner@
dis"*isin" his intention and calmin" her 1y his a!!arent re!ose and
tran)*ility@ do*1tless in order to s*ccessf*lly accom!lish his criminal
desi"n@ 1ehavin" himself !ro!erly as he had !lanned to do 1eforehand.
+vvver"a Pa"e =: of ,--
Iss*e No 25 W+N the acc*sed can invo6e loss of reason and self>
control !rod*ced 1y ;ealo*sy.
'ecision5 No. %he only ca*ses which miti"ate the criminal
res!onsi1ility for the loss of self>control are s*ch as ori"inate from
le"itimate feelin"s@ not those which arise from vicio*s@ *nworthy@ and
immoral !assions.
G) vs. #@L4 CRGS
Beywords5 '*e to heat of !assion@ a man 6ills his conc*1ine *!on
discoverin" that she had carnal comm*nication with another man.
Iss*e No. ,5 W+N the circ*mstances can 1e considered an e4ten*ation
of his criminal lia1ility.
'ecision5 .es. %he commission of the offense of which defendant was
convicted was mar6ed with the e4ten*atin" circ*mstance defined in
s*1section = of article C@ in that defendant Pacted *!on an im!*lse so
!owerf*l as nat*rally to have !rod*ced !assion and o1f*scation@P the
evidence disclosin" that in the heat of !assion he 6illed the deceased@
who had theretofore 1een his )*erida #conc*1ine or lover&@ *!on
discoverin" her in fla"rante in carnal comm*nication with a m*t*al
ac)*aintance.
Iss*e No 05 W+N this case can 1e decided 1ased on Hic6Ms case.
'ecision5 No. In the former case the ca*se of the alle"ed P!assion and
o1f*scationP of the a""ressor was the convictOs ve4ation@
disa!!ointment and an"er en"endered 1y the ref*sal of the woman to
contin*e to live in illicit relations with him@ which she had a !erfect
ri"ht to do@ his reason for 6illin" her 1ein" merely that she had elected
to leave him and with his f*ll 6nowled"e to "o and live with another. In
the case at 1ar the im!*lse *!on which the defendant acted@ and which
nat*rally !rod*ced P!assion and o1f*scation@P was not that the woman
declined to have illicit relations with him@ 1*t the s*dden revelation
that she was *ntr*e to him@ and his discovery of her in fla"rante in the
arms of another. As said 1y the s*!reme co*rt of !ain in the a1ove
cited decision@ this was a Ps*fficient im!*lseP in the ordinary and
nat*ral co*rse of thin"s to !rod*ce the !assion and o1f*scation which
the law declares to 1e one of the e4ten*atin" circ*mstances to 1e
ta6en into consideration 1y the co*rt.
P@OPL@ vs. ?G/4N
Beyword5 Man ref*sed to "o 1ac6 to his live>in !artner. Kthat womanLH
!en6nife
Iss*e No. ,5 W+N the woman committed a crime.
'ecision5 .es. Her act of mortally wo*ndin" her lover had not 1een
!recede 1y a""ression on the !art of the latter. %here is no occasion to
s!ea6 her of the Kreasona1le necessity of the means em!loyed to
!revent or re!el itP@ nor is it necessary to in)*ire whether or not there
was Ps*fficient !rovocationP on the !art of the one invo6in" le"itimate
self>defense 1eca*se 1oth circ*mstances !res*!!ose *nlawf*l
a""ression@ which@ we re!eat@ was not !resent in the instant case.
Iss*e No. 05 W+N a sli"ht !*shin" of the head which h*rt the woman
can 1e considered a miti"atin" circ*mstance5
'ecision5 No. A sli"ht !*sh of the head with the hand>which@
accordin" to her was the ca*se that led her to sta1 him@ s*ch act does
not constit*te the *nlawf*l a""ression mentioned 1y the Code@ to re!el
which it is lawf*l to em!loy a means of defense which may 1e
reasona1ly necessary. PConsiderin" that an *nlawf*l a""ression. as a
f*ndamental re)*isite of self>defense is not necessarily im!lied in any
act of a""ression a"ainst a !artic*lar !erson@ when the a*thor of the
same does not !ersist in his !*r!ose or when he desists therefrom to
the e4tent that the !erson attac6ed is no lon"er in !eril.
Iss*e No. 25 W+N she is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance of lac6 of
intention to ca*se "rave in;*ry. .
'ecision5 No. %he sta1>wo*nd inflicted *!on the deceased 1y the
acc*sed was not only mortal@ 1*t the victim th*s wo*nded and r*nnin"
away was also !*rs*ed 1y the acc*sed@ 6nife in hand@ and> the latter
wo*ld !erha!s have inflicted *!on him other wo*nds had it not 1een
for the timely arrival of !oliceman who calmed her 1ellicose attit*de
and !laced her *nder arrest. %his mar6ed o1stinacy of the acc*sed in
her a""ression clearly reveals her intention to ca*se to its f*ll e4tent
the in;*ry she has committed.
Iss*e No. 35 W+N the defendant is entitled to a miti"atin"
circ*mstance that she acted *nder o1f*scation.
'ecision5 .es. %his miti"atin" circ*mstance sho*ld 1e ta6en into
consideration in favor of the acc*sed@ in view of the !ec*liar
circ*mstances of the case@ es!ecially the fact that the acc*sed had
1een a1andoned 1y the deceased after livin" to"ether for three or fo*r
years@ and the harsh treatment which the deceased "ave the acc*sed
on the afternoon of the day in )*estion@ a short time 1efore the
a""ression.
Iss*e No 75 W+N she entitled to the miti"atin" circ*mstance of
vol*ntary s*rrender to the a*thorities.
+vvver"a Pa"e == of ,--
'ecision5 No. $nder the circ*mstance@ it wo*ld 1e an error to ta6e into
consideration this circ*mstance.
Iss*e No. :5 W+N she is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance of lac6 of
instr*ction.
'ecision5 .es. %he defendant is a mere wa"e>earner and co*ld not
even si"n her statement 1efore the !olice and had to affi4 her th*m1
mar6.
P@OPL@ vs. E@LLO
Beyword5 8ld manH 6ain"eroH ind*ced his yo*n" 1ride to wor6 as a
!*1lic hostess. Woman ref*sed to "ive s*!!ort and was seein" another
man. 7 "lasses of t*1aH White slave trade.
Iss*e No.,5 W+N treachery can 1e a!!reciated in order to )*alify the
crime to m*rder.
'ecision5 While it cannot 1e denied that Alicia was sta11ed at the 1ac6@
the wo*nd was 1*t a !art and contin*ation of the a""ression. %he fo*r
#3& sta1 wo*nds were inflicted indiscriminately@ witho*t re"ard as to
which !ortion of her 1ody was the s*1;ect of attac6. %he trial co*rt
itself fo*nd that the sta1 in the 1ac6 was inflicted as the victim was
r*nnin" away. 9or this reason@ treachery cannot 1e im!*ted
Iss*e No. 05 W+N there is evident !remeditation.
'ecision5 Evident !remeditation was@ li6ewise@ not esta1lished.. %he
acc*sed had 1een carryin" a 1alison" with him for a lon" time as a
!reca*tion a"ainst dr*n6ards@ and witho*t any !resent !lan or intent
to *se it a"ainst his commonlaw wife. %hat he watched her movements
daily manifested his ;ealo*s character@ 1*t there is no evidence that
from this ;ealo*sy s!ro*ted a !lan to sn*ff o*t her life.
Iss*e No. 25 W+N the crime can 1e )*alified 1y a1*se of s*!erior
stren"th.
'ecision5 No. %he evidence does not show@ either@ any s*!erior
stren"th on the !art of the acc*sed@ and@ not !ossessin" it@ he co*ld not
ta6e advanta"e of it. %r*e that he was armed with a 1alison"@ 1*t he
was old and 1aldado #invalid&@ while Alicia was in the !rime of her
yo*th@ and not infirm. %he facts are not s*fficient to draw a com!arison
of their relative stren"th. Possession of a 1alison" "ives an a""ressor a
formida1le advanta"e over the *narmed victim@ 1*t the !hysi)*e of the
a""ressor o*"ht also to 1e considered. At any rate@ ta6in" into acco*nt
the emotional e4citement of the acc*sed@ it is not clearly shown that
there was PintenciSn deli1erada de !revalerse de la s*!erioridad
a!rovecharse intencionadamente de la mismaP i.e.@ deli1erate intent to
ta6e advanta"e of s*!erior stren"th.
Iss*e No. 35 W+N ni"httime may1e a!!reciated as a""ravatin"
circ*mstance.
'ecision5 No. %he crime was committed at ni"httime@ 1*t the acc*se
did no see6 or ta6e advanta"e of it to 1etter accom!lish his !*r!ose.
In fact@ the !lace was 1ri"ht and well li"htedH hence the circ*mstance
did not a""ravate the crime.
Iss*e no. 75 W+N the can 1e a""ravatin" circ*mstance of a1*se of
confidence and o1vio*s *n"ratef*lness.
'ecision5 No. %here is nothin" to show that the assailant and his
common>law wife re!osed in one another any s!ecial confidence that
co*ld 1e a1*sed@ or any "ratit*de owed 1y one to the other that o*"ht
to 1e res!ected@ and which wo*ld 1ear any relation@ or connection@
with the crime committed. None is infera1le from the fact that the
acc*sed was m*ch older than his victim@ or that he was !enniless while
she was a1le to earn a livin" and occasionally "ave him money@ since@
1oth lived to"ether as h*s1and and wife. Neither is it shown that the
acc*sed too6 advanta"e of any s*ch s!ecial confidence in order to
carry o*t the crime.
Iss*e No. :5 W+N the acc*sed can claim a miti"atin" circ*mstance of
havin" acted on !rovocation stron" to ca*se !assion and o1f*scation.
#ecision6 ?es. ,t will be recalled that the lower court ound that the accused
had *reviousl! re*roved the deceased or allowing hersel to be caressed b! a
stranger. <er loose conduct was orcibl! driven home to the accused b! a
remar= he heard on the ver! da! o the crime that the accused was the
husband Mwhose wie was being used b! /aring or *ur*oses o *rostitutionM% a
remar= that so dee*l! wounded the a**ellantLs eelings that he was driven to
consume a large amount o wine (tuba) beore visiting the deceased to *lead
with her to leave her wor=. 4liciaLs insulting reusal to renew her liaison with
the accused% thereore% was not motivated b! an! desire to lead a chaste lie
henceorth% but showed her determination to *ursue a lucrative *roession that
*ermitted her to distribute her avors indiscriminatel!. 5e can not see how the
accusedLs insistence that she live with him again% and his rage at her reCection
o the *ro*osal% can be *ro*erl! Dualiied as arising rom immoral and unworth!
*assions. @ven without beneit o wedloc=% a monogamous liaison a**ears
morall! o a higher level than gainul *romiscuit!.
PE8PLE vs. MAC<$L
Beywords5 ha1it*al delin)*entH stealin" two sac6s of !a!ers which
1elon" to the Provincial /overnment of *l*. Miti"atin" circ*mstance
of !lea of "*ilt and e4treme !overty.
+vvver"a Pa"e =A of ,--
Iss*e5 W+N the co*rt erred in considerin" the defendant a ha1it*al
delin)*ent.
#ecision6 ?es. 4 *erson shall be deemed to be habituall! delinDuent% i within
a *eriod o ten !ears rom the date o his release or last conviction o the
crimes o robo% hurto% estaa% or alsiicaciXn% he is ound guilt! o an! o said
crimes a third time or otener.M "hereore% a**ellantLs irst conviction% cannot be
ta=en into account because his second conviction too= *lace ourteen !ears
later. <ence within the *urview o habitual delinDuents% one *revious conviction
against him% namel!% that last one.
,ssue No. 96 57N e(treme *overt! can be a**reciated as a mitigating
circumstance.
#ecision6 ?es. "his court a**roves it% recogni.ing the immanent *rinci*le that
the right to lie is more sacred than a mere *ro*ert! right. "hat is not to
encourage or even countenance thet but merel! to dull somewhat the =een
and *ain-*roducing edges o the star= realities o lie.
P@OPL@ vs. #? POL
Beyword5 falsification of !*1lic doc*mentH red*ction of !enalty d*e to
miti"atin" circ*mstance of !lea of "*ilty and lac6 of irre!ara1le
material dama"e.
Iss*e5 W+N the acc*sed is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance of !lea
of "*ilt.
'ecision5 .es. %he !lea of "*ilty s!ontaneo*sly entered 1y the
acc*sed !rior to the !resentation of the evidence for the !rosec*tion
constit*tes miti"atin" circ*mstance.
Iss*e No. 05 W+N the acc*sed can invo6e the fact that no irre!ara1le
material dama"e was ca*sed to the offended !art in the commission of
the crime.
'ecision5 No. %he miti"atin" circ*mstance so invo6ed@ which is that
the crime committed 1y the acc*sed has ca*sed no irre!ara1le material
dama"e to the offended !arty@ is not reco"ni(ed 1y the RPC. Neither is
it amon" those which may 1e considered as similar nat*re and
analo"o*s to those e4!ressly reco"ni(ed in accordance with Article ,2
section ,- and therefore it cannot correctly 1e ta6en into
consideration.
P@OPL@ vs. ON-
Beyword5 'e1tH Bidna!!ed@ sta11ed to death and 1*ried. Victim even
made a !ro!osal of love to the wife of the acc*sed in lie* the latterMs
"am1lin" de1t.
Iss*e5 W+N the acc*sed 1e held lia1le for the crimes of 6idna!!in"
and m*rder.
#ecision6 No. "he crime was murder onl!. "here was no illegal detention and
victim was =illed and *rom*tl! buried. On the basis o the oregoing evidence%
the accused can hardl! be held liable or =idna**ing as well. ,t ma! not be
amiss to state that an accused is entitled to acDuittal unless his guilt is shown
b! *roo be!ond reasonable doubt. (Rule 100% )ection 1% Revised Rules o
Court). "he evidence at hand hardl! satisied the reDuirement o *roo be!ond
reasonable doubt as to the charge o =idna**ing. "he necessar! result is that
the accused can he held liable onl! or the =illing o the victim. ,n other words%
the time interval when the deceased was actuall! de*rived o his libert! was
short and the same was onl! incidental to the main obCective o murdering him.
,ssue No 96 57N treacher! can be a**reciated in Duali!ing the crime to
murder.
#ecision6 ?es. "reacher! (alevosia) Dualiied the =illing to murder. Gndis*uted
acts show that the victimIs hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a
lannel cloth beore he was stabbed twice with an ice*ic= and buried in a
shallow grave near a cree=. "hese acts *ortra! well that the tied hands o the
victim rendered him deenseless and hel*less thereb! allowing the accused to
commit the crime without ris= at all to their *erson.
,ssue6 57N treacher! can be a**reciated as regards the two other accused
who did not do the actual stabbing.
'ecision5 Cons!iracy@ connivance and *nity of !*r!ose and intention
amon" the acc*sed were !resent thro*"ho*t in the e4ec*tion of this
crime. %he fo*r !artici!ated in the !lannin" and e4ec*tion of the crime
and were at the scene in all its sta"es. %hey cannot esca!e the
conse)*ence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail
from what they ori"inally tho*"ht of. Cons!iracy im!lies concert of
desi"n and not !artici!ation in every detail of e4ec*tion. %h*s@
treachery sho*ld 1e considered a"ainst all !ersons !artici!atin" or
coo!eratin" in the !er!etration of the crime.
,ssue No. 06 57N the aggravating circumstance o nighttime can be absorbed
in treacher!.
+vvver"a Pa"e =C of ,--
#ecision6 ,t is clear that a**ellants too= advantage o nighttime in committing
the elonies charged. ,nasmuch as the treacher! consisted in the act that the
victimsL hands were tied at the time the! were beaten% the circumstance o
nighttime is not absorbed in treacher!% but can be *erceived distinctl!
thererom% since the treacher! rests u*on an inde*endent actual basis. 4
s*ecial case thereore is *resent to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in
treacher! does not a**l!. "his aggravating circumstance was correctl!
a**reciated b! the lower court regardless o whether or not the same was
*ur*osel! and deliberatel! sought b! the accused or it is clear that the
dar=ness o the night acilitated the commission o the crime and was ta=en
advantage o b! them.
,ssue6 57N the *ur*osive selection o uninhabited *lace be a**reciated.
#ecision6 "he *lace was ideal not merel! or bur!ing the victim but also or
=illing him or it was a *lace where the *ossibilit! o the victim receiving some
hel* rom third *ersons was com*letel! absent. "he accused sought the
solitude o the *lace in order to better attain their *ur*ose without intererence%
and to secure themselves against detection and *unishment. "he *ur*osive
selection o an uninhabited *lace is thus clear rom the evidence.
,ssue No. A6 57N the aggravating circumstance o abuse o conidence can be
a**reciated.
#ecision6 ,n order or this circumstance to obtain% it is necessar! that there be
a relation o trust and conidence between the accused and the one against
whom the crime was committed% and that the accused made use o such
relation to commit the crime. ,t is essential too that the conidence be a means
o acilitating the commission o the crime% the cul*rit ta=ing advantage o the
oended *art!Ls belie that the ormer would not abuse said conidence. "he
accused and the victim were together that night in the nightclub as well as in
the car not because o said conidence. ,t was merel! because the accused had
some accounts to settle with him.
,ssue No. '6 57N the use o motor vehicle be a**reciated as aggravating
circumstance.
#ecision6 ?es. "he motor vehicle acilitated the star= ha**ening. ,t has been
held that the use o a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said
vehicle was used in trans*orting the victim and the accused.
,ssue No. $6 57N cruelt! can be a**reciated as an aggravating circumstance.
#ecision6 No. Cruelt! (ensaYamiento)% is an aggravating circumstance% cannot
be considered here. "he brie o the 4cting )olicitor -eneral agrees with that o
the accused in den!ing the attendance o cruelt! as an aggravating
circumstance. ,ndeed% as it a**ears rom the record% the grou* intended merel!
to =ill the victim% bur! him% and lee rom the locale o the earul crime. 3or
cruelt! to e(ist% it must be shown that the accused enCo!ed and delighted in
ma=ing their victim suer slowl! and graduall!% causing him unnecessar!
*h!sical or moral *ain in the consummation o the criminal act. @ven granting
that the victim died because o as*h!(iation when he was buried and not
hemorrhage rom stab wounds% it a**ears that the victimLs burial was not
meant to ma=e him suer an! longer but sim*l! to conceal his bod! and the
crime itsel.
,ssue No. &6 57N there is evident *remeditation.
#ecision6 ?es. the Duali!ing circumstance o evident *remeditation
(*remeditacion conocida) attended the commission o the crime. "he accused
meditated and tenaciousl! *ersisted in the accom*lishment o the crime and
were not *rom*ted merel! b! the im*ulse o the moment.
,ssue6 57N the *lead o guilt can be used as a mitigating circumstance.
#ecision6 ?es. )ince the =idna**ing *ortion o the crime cannot be
a**reciated be!ond reasonable doubt% it would a**ear that the *lead o guilt!
to this inormation naturall! would be most unair to the accused since the
*enalt! would be that o ca*ital *unishment. "he accused showed signs o
remorseulness u*on his arrest when he coo*erated with the *olice authorities
in the solution o the crime.
,ssue6 57N the accused can be credited with an! mitigating circumstance.
#ecision6 "he accused EenCamin Ong is li=ewise is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance that is analogous to *assion and obuscation (4rt. 10% *ar. 18%
Revised Penal Code).
$ vs. /AMA8
Be!words6 Priest =illed in e(change o a sum o mone!. ,nducement b! the
uncleK ne*hew reused the mone! but nonetheless carried on with the crime.
,ssue6 57N the aggravating circumstance that the accused orced or induced
his ne*hew to murder the *riest b! hire or reward be a**reciated.
#ecision6 No. "he record does not show be!ond a reasonable doubt that the
accused was orced or induced to commit this crime. ,t is true that he owed his
uncle a sum o mone! and the latter could have used these obligations in order
to orce his ne*hew to commit the crime but it has not been shown be!ond
reasonable doubt that the uncle actuall! hired his ne*hew to =ill the deceased
since the ne*hew reCected the oer.
,ssue No. 96 5as the crime *ro*erl! classiied as murderJ

+vvver"a Pa"e A- of ,--
#ecision6 ?es. "he deceased received the atal blow while he was in the dar=
s*ace between the door and the stairs leading to the u**er *ortion o the
convent. <e was unable to see b! whom the blow was struc=. <e had no
o**ortunit! to oer an! resistance whatever. "he murderer ta=ing advantage o
the dar=ness was l!ing in wait or his victim% thereb! em*lo!ing means or
methods in the e(ecution o this crime which tended directl! and s*eciall! to
insure its e(ecution without ris= to himsel% arising rom the deense which the
*riest might ma=e. "hese acts clearl! establish the Duali!ing circumstance o
alevosia in so ar as the accused is concerned.
,ssue No. 06 57N e(treme ignorance can be used as a mitigating circumstance.
#ecision6 ?es. Owing to his e(treme ignorance% the )C was com*elled to give
him the beneits o the mitigating circumstance o lac= o discretion since it was
shown the ne*hew was a *oor ignorant isherman and onl! de*ends on his
uncle or subsistence.
,ssue No. +6 57N the uncle should be considered as a *rinci*al b! induction.
#ecision6 ?es. "he ne*hew merel! de*ends on his uncle or his subsistence
while the latter was ound to be a man o great inluence. <e hated the Roman
Catholic Church and called a meeting in his house where the Duestion o
murdering the *riest was discussed. <e selected his ne*hew to commit the
crime and dominated all who were *resent. "he inluence e(ercised b! the
uncle over his ne*hew was so great and *owerul that the latter could not resist
it. "here can be no Duestion that the latter was directl! induced b! his uncle to
=ill the *riest.
PE8PLE vs. 'E LA R8A
Be!words6 demonstrationK 3@4",K securit! guard threw a *illbo( hitting one o
the demonstrators in the head.
,ssue No. 16 57N the act o the accused can be characteri.ed as murder and
multi*le attem*ted murder
#ecision6 ?es. "he crime committed is murder with multi*le attem*ted murder
Dualiied b! the use o e(*losive.
,ssue No. 96 57N the aggravating circumstance o treacher! be a**reciated as
well.
#ecision6 ?es.
,ssue No 06 57N the accused be credited with aggravating circumstance o lac=
o intention to commit so grave a wong as that actuall! done.
#ecision6 No.
I. IN%8DICA%I8N
A. WHEN MI%I/A%IN/.
(a) NO" <4E,"G4L
i) PR@)G/P",ON ,N 34VOR O3 NON-<4E,"G4L C<4R4C"@R O3
,N"OT,C4",ON

$ vs. 9I%J/ERAL'
9acts5 %he acc*sed and the victim had a dis!*te in a distillery. It can
1e ded*ced that 1oth are into4icated. %he victim #Marsh& str*c6
9it("erald@ which 6noc6ed the latter down. 9it("erald immediately
arose@ and sayin" KI will show yo* sons of 1Ts@L ran toward the ice
!lant in search of a revolver and ret*rned. After which@ he saw Marsh
and fired at him. Marsh died soon after.
Iss*e5 W+N a miti"atin" circ*mstance can 1e considered.
#ecision6 ,n the *resence o *roo to the contrar!% it will be *resumed that
into(ication is not habitual% and the act that the accused was drun= at the time
o the commission o the crime must then be considered as a mitigating
circumstance.
4lso% where it a**ears that the accused ired a loaded revolver at the deceased
and =illed him% it must be *resumed that he intended the natural conseDuences
o his act% and he is not entitled to the beneit o the mitigating circumstance
established b! the Penal Code.
Provocation on the *art o /arsh cannot be considered as a mitigating
circumstance since there was no evidence how the Duarrel arose. Nor can the
act that the homicide was immediatel! *receded b! an ara! between the
deceased and the deendant ma! be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
No other mitigating circumstance can be a**reciated in his avor or one who
attac=s another with a deadl! wea*on as a revolver must =now that the most
*robable result o such an aggression is the death o the *erson attac=ed.
4ccused is onl! entitled to a mitigating deense o into(ication.

ii) #@3,N,N- <4E,"G4L #RGNB4R# 4) ON@ -,V@N "O
,N"OT,C4",ON E? @TC@)),V@ G)@ O3 ,N"OT,C4",N- #R,NB)
,,. G.). vs. /C/4NN
3acts6 /c/ann and on /cBa! (one the victims) were *ac=ers at Cam* Vicars in
/indanao. /c/ann and /cBa! went to the house o a /oro to get some
matches with which to light their cigarettes however% the owners o the house
would not allow them to enter. /c/ann then saw another /oro who was
carving the head o a bolo. /c/ann snatched the bolo cutting the latterIs
+vvver"a Pa"e A, of ,--
ingers. "he moro then re*orted /c/ann to the authorities. "hereater% the
/oro% /c/ann and /cBa! ound themselves waiting in a room (not clear i the!
were waiting to be investigated% but the! were all together during that time).
/c/ann suddenl! ired at /cBa! hitting the latter. 5hen the /oro tried to run%
/cmann also ired at him.
,ssue6 57N into(ication ma! be considered a mitigating circumstance.
#ecision6 ,t is unli=el! that the shooting was accidental since he witnesses
testiied that the! sa! /c/ann aiming the gun at /ac Ba!Is head. ,t is
*robable that /c/ann was actuall! going to shoot the /oro but because he was
drun= at that time% =illed /ac Ba! instead. Clearl!% deendant cannot claim lac=
o intention.
"he court also held that the deendant was drun= at the time the crime was
committed. Eut into(ication in this case cannot be considered as a mitigating
circumstance since the deendant is a habitual drun=ard.
<abitual drun=ard is deined as one who habituated to intem*erance whenever
the o**ortunit! oered
4CCG)@# )@@N #RGNB "5@LV@ ",/@) OR /OR@
PE8PLE vs. <AL8N'8
Be!words6 CannibalK Gncle =illed his niece to taste human leshK banana
leaves.
,ssue No. 16 57N it can be contended that three !ears ater the commission o
the crime% that the court should have subCected the accused to some *s!chiatric
test to determine his sanit!.
#ecision6 No. "he record constitutes suicient Custiication or the conclusion
that the accused was not insane at the time o the commission o the crime.
"he accused had made several statements which were reduced into writing and
signed b! him. "he acts and circumstances narrated b! the accused in those
dierent statements tall! in im*ortant details. "he accused voluntaril!
admitted his guilt. )ince the accused was charged o having =illed the
deceased or more than three !ears ago% it is not *ossible now to ascertain the
mental condition o the deendant as o the time when he committed the crime
o which he is charged.
,ssue No. 96 57N the accused used su*erior strength.
#ecision6 ?es. "he attendant circumstance Dualiies the crime committed as
murder.
,ssue No. 06 57N se( can be a**reciated as an aggravating circumstance
against the accused.
#ecision6 ?es. "he commission o the crime was attended b! aggravating
circumstance o disregard o the res*ect due the oended *art! on account o
her se(.
,ssue No. +6 57N ,gnomin! can be added to the natural eects o the act.
#ecision. No. Nothing in the record shows that beore the deceased died% she
was subCected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suering.
,ssue No. A6 57N the act that the victim was the niece o the accused
aggravate the crime.
#ecision6 No. "he alternative circumstance o relationshi* shall be ta=en into
consideration onl! when the oended *art! is the s*ouse% ascendant%
descendant% legitimate% natural or ado*ted brother or sister or relative b!
ainit! in the same degree o the oended.
,ssue No. '6 57N there are an! mitigating circumstance that can be
a**reciated in avor o the accused.
#ecision6 ?es. "he circumstance o his having made a voluntar! *lea o guilt
beore the court o evidence b! the *rosecution.
PER8N WH8 ARE CRIMINALL. LIA<LE
Gnder the Revised Penal Code% when more than one *erson *artici*ated in the
commission o the crime% the law loo=s into their *artici*ation because in
*unishing oenders% the Revised Penal Code classiies them as6
(1) *rinci*alK
(9) accom*liceK or
(0) accessor!.
"his classiication is true onl! under the Revised Penal Code and is not used
under s*ecial laws% because the *enalties under the latter are never graduated.
#o not use the term *rinci*al when the crime committed is a violation o
s*ecial law. Onl! use the term :oender.; 4lso onl! classi! oenders when
more than one too= *art in the commission o the crime to determine the
*ro*er *enalt! to be im*osed. )o% i onl! one *erson committed a crime% do
not use *rinci*al. Gse the :oenders%; :cul*rits%; or the :accused.;
5hen a *roblem is encountered where there are several *artici*ants in the
crime% the irst thing to ind out is i there is a cons*irac!. , there is% as a
general rule% the criminal liabilit! o all will be the same% because the act o one
is the act o all.
+vvver"a Pa"e A0 of ,--
<owever% i the *artici*ation o one is so insigniicant% such that even without
his coo*eration% the crime would be committed Cust as well% then
notwithstanding the e(istence o a cons*irac!% such oender will be regarded
onl! as an accom*lice. "he reason or this ruling is that the law avors a milder
orm o criminal liabilit! i the act o the *artici*ant does not demonstrate a
clear *erversit!.
4s to the liabilit! o the *artici*ants in a elon!% the Code ta=es into
consideration whether the elon! committed is grave% less grave% or light.
5hen the elon! is grave% or less grave% all *artici*ants are criminall! liable.
Eut where the elon! is onl! light onl! the *rinci*al and the accom*lice are
liable. "he accessor! is not.
Eut even the *rinci*al and the accom*lice will not be liable i the elon!
committed is onl! light and the same is not consummated unless such elon! is
against *ersons or *ro*ert!. , the! are not and the same is not consummated%
even the *rinci*al and the accom*lice are not liable.
"hereore it is onl! when the light elon! is against *erson or *ro*ert! that
criminal liabilit! attaches to the *rinci*al or accom*lice% even though the elon!
is onl! attem*ted or rustrated% but accessories are not liable or liable or light
elonies.
Princi!al 1y indis!ensa1le coo!eration distin"*ished from an
accom!lice
,t is not Cust a matter o coo*eration% it is more than i the crime could hardl!
be committed. ,t is not that the crime would not be committed because i that
is what !ou would im*l! it becomes an ingredient o the crime and that is not
what the law contem*lates.
,n the case o ra*e% where three men were accused% one was on to* o the
woman% one held the hands% one held the legs% the )u*reme Court ruled that all
*artici*ants are *rinci*als. "hose who held the legs and arms are *rinci*als b!
indis*ensable coo*eration.
"he accused are ather and son. "he ather told his son that the onl! wa! to
convince the victim to marr! him is to resort to ra*e. )o when the! saw the
o**ortunit! the !oung man grabbed the woman% threw her on the ground and
*laced himsel on to* o her while the ather held both legs o the woman and
s*read them. "he )u*reme Court ruled that the ather is liable onl! as an
accom*lice.
"he *oint is not Cust on *artici*ation but on the im*ortance o *artici*ation in
committing the crime.
,n the irst situation% the acts indicate that i the ellow who held the legs o
the victim and s*read them did not do so% the oender on to* could hardl!
*enetrate because the woman was strong enough to move or resist. ,n the
second situation% the son was much bigger than the woman so considering the
strength o the son and the victim% *enetration is *ossible even without the
assistance o the ather. "he son was a robust arm bo! and the victim
undernourished. "he act o the ather in holding the legs o the victim merel!
acilitated the *enetration but even without it the son would have *enetrated.
"he basis is the im*ortance o the coo*eration to the consummation o the
crime. , the crime could hardl! be committed without such coo*eration% then
such coo*eration would bring about a *rinci*al. Eut i the coo*eration merel!
acilitated or hastened the consummation o the crime% this would ma=e the
coo*erator merel! an accom*lice.
,n a case where the oender was running ater the victim with a =nie. 4nother
ellow came and bloc=ed the wa! o the victim and because o this% the one
chasing the victim caught u* and stabbed the latter at the bac=. ,t was held
that the ellow who bloc=ed the victim is a *rinci*al b! indis*ensable
coo*eration because i he did not bloc= the wa! o the victim% the oender
could not have caught u* with the latter.
,n another case% 4 was mauling E. C% a riend o E tried to a**roach but #
sto**ed C so that 4 was able to continuousl! maul E. "he liabilit! o the ellow
who sto**ed the riend rom a**roaching is as an accom*lice. Gnderstandabl!
he did not coo*erate in the mauling% he onl! sto**ed to other ellow rom
sto**ing the mauling.
,n case o doubt% avor the lesser *enalt! or liabilit!. 4**l! the doctrine o *ro
reo.
Princi!al 1y ind*cement
Conce*t o the inducement 2 one strong enough that the *erson induced could
hardl! resist. "his is tantamount to an irresistible orce com*elling the *erson
induced to carr! out the e(ecution o the crime. ,ll advised language is not
enough unless he who made such remar= or advice is a co-cons*irator in the
crime committed.
5hile in the course o a Duarrel% a *erson shouted to 4% :Bill himW Bill him.; 4
=illed the other ellow. ,s the *erson who shouted criminall! liable. ,s that
inducementJ No. ,t must be strong as irresistible orce.
"here was a Duarrel between two amilies. One o the sons o amil! 4 came
out with a shotgun. <is mother then shouted% :)hootW;. <e shot and =illed
someone. ,s the mother liableJ No.
@(am*les o inducement6
:, will give !ou a large amount o mone!.;
:, will not marr! !ou i !ou do not =ill E;(let us sa! he reall! loves the inducer).
"he! *racticall! become co-cons*irators. "hereore !ou do not loo= into the
degree o inducement an!more.
,n Peo!le v. <alderrama@ @rnesto shouted to his !ounger brother Oscar%
:Eirahin mo na% birahin mo na.; Oscar stabbed the victim. ,t was held that
there was no cons*irac!. 1oint or simultaneous action *er se is not indicia o
cons*irac! without showing o common design. Oscar has no rancor with the
victim or him to =ill the latter. Considering that @rnesto had great moral
ascendanc! and inluence over Oscar being much older% 0A !ears old% than the
latter% who was 1& !rs old% and it was @rnesto who *rovided his allowance%
clothing as well as ood and shelter% @rnesto is *rinci*al b! inducement.
,n Peo!le v. A"a!inay@ ,A: CRA A,0@ the one who uttered :Bill him% we will
bur! him%; while the elonious aggression was ta=ing *lace cannot be held liable
as *rinci*al b! inducement. Gtterance was said in the e(citement o the hour%
not a command to be obe!ed.
,n Peo!le v. Madali@ ,AA CRA :C@ the son was mauled. "he amil! was not
in good graces o the neighborhood. 3ather challenged ever!bod! and when
neighbors a**roached% he went home to get a rile. "he shouts o his wie
:<ere comes another% shoot him; cannot ma=e the wie the *rinci*al b!
inducement. ,t is not the determining cause o the crime in the absence o
*roo that the words had great dominance and inluence over the husband.
Neither is the wieIs act o beaming the victim with a lashlight indis*ensable to
the commission o the =illing. )he assisted her husband in ta=ing good aim% but
such assistance merel! acilitated the elonious act o shooting. Considering
that it was not so dar= and the husband could have accom*lished the deed
without his wieIs hel*% and considering urther that doubts must be resolved in
avor o the accused% the liabilit! o the wie is onl! that o an accom*lice.
Accessories
"wo situations where accessories are not criminall! liable6
(1) 5hen the elon! committed is a light elon!K
(9) 5hen the accessor! is related to the *rinci*al as s*ouse% or as an
ascendant% or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate%
natural or ado*ted or where the accessor! is a relative b! ainit!
within the same degree% unless the accessor! himsel *roited rom the
eects or *roceeds o the crime or assisted the oender to *roit
thererom.
One cannot be an accessor! unless he =new o the commission o the crime.
One must not have *artici*ated in the commission o the crime. "he accessor!
comes into the *icture when the crime is alread! consummated. 4n!one who
*artici*ated beore the consummation o the crime is either a *rinci*al or an
accom*lice. <e cannot be an accessor!.
5hen an oender has alread! involved himsel as a *rinci*al or accom*lice% he
cannot be an accessor! an! urther even though he *erorms acts *ertaining to
an accessor!.
4ccessor! as a ence
"he Revised Penal Code deines what manners o *artici*ation shall render an
oender liable as an accessor!. 4mong the enumeration is :b! *roiting
themselves or b! assisting the oender to *roit b! the eects o the crime;.
)o the accessor! shall be liable or the same elon! committed b! the *rinci*al.
<owever% where the crime committed b! the *rinci*al was robber! or thet%
such *artici*ation o an accessor! brings about criminal liabilit! under
Presidential #ecree No. 1'19 (4nti-3encing Law). One who =nowingl! *roits or
assists the *rinci*al to *roit b! the eects o robber! or thet is not Cust an
accessor! to the crime% but *rinci*all! liable or encing under Presidential
#ecree No. 1'19.
4n! *erson who% with intent to gain% acDuires and7or sell% *ossesses% =ee*s or
in an! manner deals with an! article o value which he =nows or should be
=nown to him to be the *roceeds o robber! or thet is considered a :ence; and
incurs criminal liabilit! or :encing; under said decree. "he *enalt! is higher
than that o a mere accessor! to the crime o robber! or thet.
Li=ewise% the *artici*ation o one who conceals the eects o robber! or thet
gives rise to criminal liabilit! or :encing;% not sim*l! o an accessor! under
*aragra*h 9 o 4rticle 1> o the Code. /ere *ossession o an! article o value
which has been the subCect o robber! or thet brings about the *resum*tion o
:encing;.
Presidential #ecree No. 1'19 has% thereore% modiied 4rticle 1> o the Revised
Penal Code.
E*estions F Answers
1. /a! one who *roited out o the *roceeds o estaa or
malversation be *rosecuted under the 4nti-3encing LawJ
No. "here is onl! a ence when the crime is thet or robber!. , the
crime is embe..lement or estaa% still an accessor! to the crime o estaa% not a
ence.
9. , *rinci*al committed robber! b! snatching a wristwatch and
gave it to his wie to sell% is the wie criminall! liableJ Can she be *rosecuted
as an accessor! and as a enceJ
"he liabilit! o the wie is based on her assisting the *rinci*al to *roit
and that act is *unishable as encing. )he will no longer be liable as an
accessor! to the crime o robber!.
,n both laws% Presidential #ecree No. 1'19 and the Revised Penal Code% the
same act is the basis o liabilit! and !ou cannot *unish a *erson twice or the
same act as that would go against double Ceo*ard!.
Ac)*irin" the effects of !iracy or 1ri"anda"e
,t is relevant to consider in connection with the criminal liabilit! o accessories
under the Revised Penal Code% the liabilit! o *ersons acDuiring *ro*ert! subCect
o *irac! or brigandage.
"he act o =nowingl! acDuiring or receiving *ro*ert! which is the eect or the
*roceeds o a crime generall! brings about criminal liabilit! o an accessor!
under 4rticle 1>% *aragra*h 1 o the Revised Penal Code. Eut i the crime was
*irac! o brigandage under Presidential #ecree No. A00 (4nti-*irac! and 4nti-
<ighwa! Robber! Law o 1>$+)% said act constitutes the crime o abetting *irac!
or abetting brigandage as the case ma! be% although the *enalt! is that or an
accom*lice% not Cust an accessor!% to the *irac! or brigandage. "o this end%
)ection + o Presidential #ecree No. A09 *rovides that an! *erson who
=nowingl! and in an! mannerN acDuires or receives *ro*ert! ta=en b! such
*irates or brigands or in an! manner derives beneit thereromN shall be
considered as an accom*lice o the *rinci*al oenders and be *unished in
accordance with the Rules *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code.
,t shall be *resumed that an! *erson who does an! o the acts *rovided in this
)ection has *erormed them =nowingl!% unless the contrar! is *roven.
4lthough Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% in amending 4rticle 199 o the Revised Penal
Code% incor*orated therein the crime o *irac! in Phili**ine territorial waters
and thus corres*ondingl! su*erseding Presidential #ecree No. A09% )ection + o
the #ecree which *unishes said acts as a crime o abetting *irac! or
brigandage% still stands as it has not been re*ealed nor modiied% and is not
inconsistent with an! *rovision o Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>.
'estroyin" the cor!*s delicti
5hen the crime is robber! or thet% with res*ect to the second involvement o
an accessor!% do not overloo= the *ur*ose which must be to *revent discover!
o the crime.
"he cor*us delicti is not the bod! o the *erson who is =illed% even i the cor*se
is not recovered% as long as that =illing is established be!ond reasonable doubt%
criminal liabilit! will arise and i there is someone who destro!s the cor*us
delicti to *revent discover!% he becomes an accessor!.
Har1orin" or concealin" an offender
,n the third orm or manner o becoming an accessor!% ta=e note that the law
distinguishes between a *ublic oicer harboring% concealing or assisting the
*rinci*al to esca*e and a *rivate citi.en or civilian harboring concealing or
assisting the *rinci*al to esca*e.
,n the case o a *ublic oicer% the crime committed b! the *rinci*al is
immaterial. )uch oicer becomes an accessor! b! the mere act that he hel*ed
the *rinci*al to esca*e b! harboring or concealing% ma=ing use o his *ublic
unction and thus abusing the same.
On the other hand% in case o a civilian% the mere act that he harbored
concealed or assisted the *rinci*al to esca*e does not i*so acto ma=e him an
accessor!. "he law reDuires that the *rinci*al must have committed the crime
o treason% *arricide% murder or attem*t on the lie o the Chie @(ecutive. ,
this is not the crime% the civilian does not become an accessor! unless the
*rinci*al is =nown to be habituall! guilt! o some other crime. @ven i the
crime committed b! the *rinci*al is treason% or murder or *arricide or attem*t
on the lie o the Chie @(ecutive% the accessor! cannot be held criminall! liable
without the *rinci*al being ound guilt! o an! such crime. Otherwise the eect
would be that the accessor! merel! harbored or assisted in the esca*e o an
innocent man% i the *rinci*al is acDuitted o the charges.
,llustration6
Crime committed is =idna**ing or ransom. Princi*al was being chased b!
soldiers. <is aunt hid him in the ceiling o her house and aunt denied to
soldiers that her ne*hew had ever gone there. 5hen the soldiers let% the aunt
even gave mone! to her ne*hew to go to the *rovince. ,s aunt criminall!
liableJ No. 4rticle 98 does not include an auntie. <owever% this is not the
reason. "he reason is because one who is not a *ublic oicer and who assists
an oender to esca*e or otherwise harbors% or conceals such oender% the
crime committed b! the *rinci*al must be either treason% *arricide murder or
attem*t on the lie o the Chie e(ecutive or the *rinci*al is =nown to be
habituall! guilt! o some other crime.
"he crime committed b! the *rinci*al is determinative o the liabilit! o the
accessor! who harbors% conceals =nowing that the crime is committed. , the
*erson is a *ublic oicer% the nature o the crime is immaterial. 5hat is
material is that he used his *ublic unction in assisting esca*e.
<owever% although under *aragra*h 0 o 4rticle 1> when it comes to a civilian%
the law s*eciies the crimes that should be committed% !et there is a s*ecial law
which *unishes the same act and it does not s*eci! a *articular crime.
Presidential #ecree No. 1&9>% which *enali.es obstruction o a**rehension and
*rosecution o criminal oenders% eective 1anuar! 1'% 1>&1% *unishes acts
commonl! reerred to as :obstructions o Custice;. "his #ecree *enali.es under
)ection 1(c) thereo% the act% inter alia% o
:(c) <arboring or concealing% or acilitating the esca*e o an! *erson he =nows
or has reasonable ground to believe or sus*ect% has committed an! oense
under e(isting *enal laws in order to *revent his arrest% *rosecution and
conviction.;
<ere% there is no s*eciication o the crime to be committed b! the oender or
criminal liabilit! to be incurred or harboring% concealing% or acilitating the
esca*e o the oender% and the oender need not be the *rinci*al 2 unli=e
*aragra*h 0% 4rticle 1> o the Code. "he subCect acts ma! not bring about
criminal liabilit! under the Code% but under this decree. )uch an oender i
violating Presidential #ecree No. 1&9> is no longer an accessor!. <e is sim*l!
an oender without regard to the crime committed b! the *erson assisted to
esca*e. )o in the *roblem% the standard o the Revised Penal Code% aunt is not
criminall! liable because crime is =idna**ing% but under Presidential #ecree No.
1&9>% the aunt is criminall! liable but not as an accessor!.
5hether the accom*lice and the accessor! ma! be tried and convicted even
beore the *rinci*al is ound guilt!.

"here is an earlier )u*reme Court ruling that the accessor! and accom*lice
must be charged together with the *rinci*al and that i the latter be acDuitted%
the accom*lice and the accessor! shall not be criminall! liable also% unless the
acDuittal is based on a deense which is *ersonal onl! to the *rinci*al.
4lthough this ruling ma! be correct i the acts charged do not ma=e the
*rinci*al criminall! liable at all% because there is no crime committed.

?et it is not alwa!s true that the accom*lice and accessor! cannot be criminall!
liable without the *rinci*al irst being convicted. Gnder Rule 118 o the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure% it is reDuired that all those involved in the
commission o the crime must be included in the inormation that ma! be iled.
4nd in iling an inormation against the *erson involved in the commission o
the crime% the law does not distinguish between *rinci*al% accom*lice and
accessor!. 4ll will be accused and whether a certain accused will be *rinci*al or
accom*lice or accessor! will de*end on what the evidence would show as to his
involvement in the crime. ,n other words% the liabilit! o the accused will
de*end on the Duantum o evidence adduced b! the *rosecution against the
*articular accused. Eut the *rosecutor must initiate *roceedings versus the
*rinci*al.
@ven i the *rinci*al is convicted% i the evidence *resented against a su**osed
accom*lice or a su**osed accessor! does not meet the reDuired *roo be!ond
reasonable doubt% then said accused will be acDuitted. )o the criminal liabilit!
o an accom*lice or accessor! does not de*end on the criminal liabilit! o the
*rinci*al but de*ends on the Duantum o evidence. Eut i the evidence shows
that the act done does not constitute a crime and the *rinci*al is acDuitted%
then the su**osed accom*lice and accessor! should also be acDuitted. , there
is no crime% then there is no criminal liabilit!% whether *rinci*al% accom*lice% or
accessor!.
Gnder *aragra*h 0% 4rticle 1>% ta=e note in the case o a civilian who harbors%
conceals% or assists the esca*e o the *rinci*al% the law reDuires that the
*rinci*al be ound guilt! o an! o the s*eciied crimes6 treason% *arricide% etc.
"he *aragra*h uses the *articular word :guilt!;. )o this means that beore the
civilian can be held liable as an accessor!% the *rinci*al must irst be ound
guilt! o the crime charged% either treason% *arricide% murder% or attem*t to
ta=e the lie o the Chie @(ecutive. , the *rinci*al is acDuitted% that means he
is not guilt! and thereore% the civilian who harbored% concealed or assisted in
the esca*e did not violate art. 1>. "hat is as ar as the Revised Penal Code is
concerned. Eut not Presidential #ecree No. 1&9>. "his s*ecial law does not
reDuire that there be *rior conviction. ,t is a malum *rohibitum% no need or
guilt% or =nowledge o the crime.
,n %aer v. CA@ accused received rom his co-accused two stolen male carabaos.
Cons*irac! was not *roven. "aer was held liable as an accessor! in the crime
o cattle rustling under Presidential #ecree No. A00. P"aer should have been
liable or violation o the 4nti-encing law since cattle rustling is a orm o thet
or robber! o large cattle% e(ce*t that he was not charged with encing.F
,n Enrile v. Amin@ a *erson charged with rebellion should not be se*aratel!
charged under Presidential #ecree No. 1&9>. "he theor! o absor*tion must
not conine itsel to common crimes but also to oenses *unished under s*ecial
laws which are *er*etrated in urtherance o the *olitical oense.
PENAL%IE
Meas*res of !revention not considered as !enalty
"he ollowing are the measures o *revention or saet! which are not
considered *enalties under 4rticle 9+6
(1) "he arrest and tem*orar! detention o accused *ersons as well as
their detention b! reason o insanit! or imbecilit! or illness reDuiring
their coninement in a hos*ital.
(9) "he commitment o a minor to an! o the institutions mentioned in art.
&8 or the *ur*oses s*eciied therein.
(0) )us*ension rom the em*lo!ment or *ublic oice during the trial or in
order to institute *roceedings.
+vvver"a Pa"e A: of ,--
(+) 3ines and other corrective measures which% in the e(ercise o their
administrative disci*linar! *owers% su*erior oicials ma! im*ose u*on
their subordinates.
(A) #e*rivation o rights and re*arations which the civil laws ma! establish
in *enal orm.
5h! does the Revised Penal Code s*eci! that such detention shall not be a
*enalt! but merel! a *reventive measureJ
"his article gives Custiication or detaining the accused. Otherwise% the
detention would violate the constitutional *rovision that no *erson shall be
de*rived o lie% libert! and *ro*ert! without due *rocess o law. 4nd also% the
constitutional right o an accused to be *resumed innocent until the contrar! is
*roved.
Re!eal of Article A-
When may a minor 1e committed to a reformatoryU
, the minor is between > - 1A !ears old and acted with discernment%
sentence must irst be sus*ended under the ollowing conditions6
(1) Crime committed is not *unishable b! death or reclusion *er*etuaK
(9) <e is availing o the beneit o sus*ension or the irst timeK
(0) <e must still be a minor at the time o *romulgation o the sentence.
Correlatin" Article 03 with Article 0C
4lthough under 4rticle 9+% the detention o a *erson accused o a crime while
the case against him is being tried does not amount to a *enalt!% !et the law
considers this as *art o the im*risonment and generall! deductible rom the
sentence.
5hen will this credit a**l!J , the *enalt! im*osed consists o a de*rivation o
libert!. Not all who have undergone *reventive im*risonment shall be given a
credit
Gnder 4rticle 9+% *reventive im*risonment o an accused who is not !et
convicted% but b! e(*ress *rovision o 4rticle9+ is not a *enalt!. ?et 4rticle 9>%
i ultimatel! the accused is convicted and the *enalt! im*osed involves
de*rivation o libert!% *rovides that the *eriod during which he had undergone
*reventive detention will be deducted rom the sentence% unless he is one o
those disDualiied under the law.
)o% i the accused has actuall! undergone *reventive im*risonment% but i he
has been convicted or two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not% or
when he has been *reviousl! summoned but ailed to surrender and so the
court has to issue a warrant or his arrest% whatever credit he is entitled to shall
be oreited.
, the oender is not disDualiied rom the credit or deduction *rovided or in
4rticle 9> o the Revised Penal Code% then the ne(t thing to determine is
whether he signed an underta=ing to abide b! the same rules and regulations
governing convicts. , he signed an underta=ing to abide b! the same rules
and regulations governing convicts% then it means that while he is suering
rom *reventive im*risonment% he is suering li=e a convict% that is wh! the
credit is ull.
Eut i the oender did not sign an underta=ing% then he will onl! be subCected
to the rules and regulations governing detention *risoners. 4s such% he will
onl! be given &8O or +7A o the *eriod o his *reventive detention.
3rom this *rovision% one can see that the detention o the oender ma! subCect
him onl! to the treatment a**licable to a detention *risoner or to the treatment
a**licable to convicts% but since he is not convicted !et% while he is under
*reventive im*risonment% he cannot be subCected to the treatment a**licable
to convicts unless he signs and agrees to be subCected to such disci*linar!
measures a**licable to convicts.
#etention *risoner has more reedom within the detention institution rather
than those alread! convicted. "he convicted *risoner suers more restraints
and hardshi* than detention *risoners.
Gnder what circumstances ma! a detention *risoner be released% even though
the *roceedings against him are not !et terminatedJ
4rticle 9> o the Revised Penal Code has been amended b! a Eatas Pambansa
eective that tool eect on )e*tember 98% 1>&8. "his amendment is ound in
the Rules o Court% under the rules on bail in Rule 11+ o the Rules on Criminal
Procedure% the same treatment e(actl! is a**lied there.

,n the amendment% the law does not s*ea= o credit. 5hether the *erson is
entitled to credit is immaterial. "he discharge o the oender rom *reventive
im*risonment or detention is *redicated on the act that even i he would be
ound guilt! o the crime charged% he has *racticall! served the sentence
alread!% because he has been detained or a *eriod alread! eDual to i not
greater than the ma(imum *enalt! that would be *ossibl! be im*osed on him i
ound guilt!.
, the crime committed is *unishable onl! b! destierro% the most the oender
ma! be held under *reventive im*risonment is 08 da!s% and whether the
*roceedings are terminated or not% such detention *risoner shall be discharged.
+vvver"a Pa"e A= of ,--
Gnderstand the amendment made to 4rticle 9>. "his amendment has been
incor*orated under Rule 11+ *recisel! to do awa! with arbitrar! detention.
Pro*er *etition or habeas cor*us must be iled to challenge the legalit! o the
detention o the *risoner.
E*estions F Answers
, the oender has alread! been released% what is the use o
continuing the *roceedingsJ
"he *roceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. ,
he was criminall! liable% it ollows that he is also civill! liable. "he civil liabilit!
must be determined. "hat is wh! the trial must go on.
'*ration of !enalties
Recl*sion !er!et*a
5hat is the duration o reclusion *er*etuaJ
#o not answer 4rticle 9$ to this Duestion. "he *ro*er answer would be that
reclusion *er*etua has no duration because this is an indivisible *enalt! and
indivisible *enalties have no durations.
Gnder 4rticle 9$% those sentenced to reclusion *er*etua shall be *ardoned ater
undergoing the *enalt! or 08 !ears% unless such *erson% b! reason o his
conduct or some other serious cause% shall be considered b! the Chie @(ecutive
as unworth! o *ardon.
Gnder 4rticle $8% which is the "hree-3old Rule% the ma(imum *eriod shall in no
case e(ceed +8 !ears. , a convict who is to serve several sentences could onl!
be made to serve +8 !ears% with more reason% one who is sentenced to a singl!
*enalt! o reclusion *er*etua should not be held or more than +8 !ears.
"he duration o +8 !ears is not a matter o *rovision o lawK this is onl! b!
analog!. "here is no *rovision o the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced to
reclusion *er*etua cannot be held in Cail or +8 !ears and neither is there a
decision to this eect.
'estierro
5hat is the duration o destierroJ
"he duration o destierro is rom si( months and one da!% to si( !ear% which is
the same as that o *rision correcional and sus*ension. #estierro is a *rinci*al
*enalt!. ,t is a *unishment whereb! a convict is vanished to a certan *lace and
is *rohibited orm entering or coming near that *lace designated in the
sentence% not less than 9A Bms.. <owever% the court cannot e(tend be!ond
9A8 Bms. , the convict should enter the *rohibited *laces% he commits the
crime o evasion o service o sentence under 4rticle 1A$. Eut i the convict
himsel would go urther rom which he is vanished b! the court% there is no
evasion o sentence because the 9+8-Bm. limit is u*on the authorit! o the
court in vanishing the convict.
Gnder the Revised Penal Code% destierro is the *enalt! im*osed in the ollowing
situations6
(1) 5hen a legall! married *erson who had sur*rised his or her s*ouse in
the act o se(ual intercourse with another and while in that act or
immediatel! thereater should =ill or inlict serious *h!sical inCuries
u*on the other s*ouse% and7or the *aramour or mistress. "his is
ound in 4rticle 9+$.
(9) ,n the crime o grave threat or light threat% when the oender is
reDuired to *ut u* a bond or good behavior but ailed or reused to do
so under 4rticle 9&+% such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so
that he would not be able to carr! out his threat.
(0) ,n the crime o concubinage% the *enalt! *rescribed or the concubine
is destierro under 4rticle 00+.
(+) 5here the *enalt! *rescribed b! law is arresto ma!or% but the oender
is entitled *rivileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the
*rescribed *enalt! b! one degree% the *enalt! one degree lower is
destierro. "hus% it shall be the one im*osed.
Civil Interdiction
Civil interdiction is an accessor! *enalt!. Civil interdiction shall de*rive the
oender during the time o his sentence6
(1) "he rights o *arental authorit!% or guardianshi* either as to the
*erson or *ro*ert! o an! wardK
(9) /arital authorit!K
(0) "he right to manage his *ro*ert!K and
(+) "he right to dis*ose o such *ro*ert! b! an! act or an! conve!ance
inter vivos.
+vvver"a Pa"e AA of ,--
Can a convict e(ecute a last will and testamentJ ?es.
Primary classification of !enalties
Princi!al !enalties and accessory !enalties
"he *enalties which are both *rinci*al and accessor! *enalties are the
ollowing6
(1) Per*etual or tem*orar! absolute disDualiicationK
(9) Per*etual or tem*orar! s*ecial disDualiication.
E*estions F Answers
1. , the *enalt! o sus*ension is im*osed as an accessor!% what
is the durationJ
,ts duration shall be that o the *rinci*al *enalt!.
9. , the *enalt! o tem*orar! disDualiication is im*osed as
*rinci*al *enalt!% what is the durationJ
"he duration is si( !ears and one da! to 19 !ears.
0. 5hat do we reer to i it is *er*etual or tem*orar!
disDualiicationJ
5e reer to the duration o the disDualiication.
+. 5hat do we reer to i it is s*ecial or absolute disDualiicationJ
5e reer to the nature o the disDualiication.
"he classiication o *rinci*al and accessor! is ound in 4rticle 9A.
,n classi!ing the *enalties as *rinci*al and accessor!% what is meant b! this is
that those *enalties classiied as accessor! *enalties need not be stated in the
sentence. "he accessor! *enalties ollow the *rinci*al *enalt! im*osed or the
crime as a matter o course. )o in the im*osition o the sentence% the court will
s*eci! onl! the *rinci*al *enalt! but that is not the onl! *enalt! which the
oender will suer. Penalties which the law considers as accessor! to the
*rescribed *enalt! are automaticall! im*osed even though the! are not stated
in the Cudgment. 4s to the *articular *enalties that ollow a *articular *rinci*al
*enalt!% 4rticles +8 to +A o the Revised Penal Code shall govern.
, as=ed what are the accessor! *enalties% do not Cust state the accessor!
*enalties. )tate the *rinci*al *enalt! and the corres*onding accessor!
*enalties.
Penalties in which other accessor! *enalties are inherent6
(1) 4rticle +8. #eath - *er*etual absolute disDualiication% and civil
interdiction during 08 !ears ollowing date o sentenceK
(9) 4rticle +1. Reclusion *er*etua and reclusion tem*oral - civil
interdiction or lie or during the *eriod o the sentence as the case
ma! be% and *er*etual absolute disDualiicationK
(0) 4rticle +9. Prision ma!or - tem*orar! absolute disDualiication
*er*etual s*ecial disDualiication rom the right o surageK
(+) 4rticle +0. Prision correccional - sus*ension rom *ublic oice% rom
the right to ollow a *roession or calling% and *er*etual s*ecial
disDualiication rom the rights o surage i the duration o said
im*risonment shall e(ceed 1& months.
(A) 4rticle ++. 4rresto - sus*ension o the right to hold oice and the
right o surage during the term o the sentence.
"here are accessor! *enalties which are true to other *rinci*al *enalties. 4n
e(am*le is the *enalt! o civil interdiction. "his is an accessor! *enalt! and% as
*rovided in 4rticle 0+% a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suers certain
disDualiication during the term o the sentence. One o the disDualiications is
that o ma=ing a conve!ance o his *ro*ert! inter vivos.
,llustration6
4 has been convicted and is serving the *enalt! o *rision ma!or. 5hile serving
sentence% he e(ecuted a deed o sale over his onl! *arcel o land. 4 creditor
moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not Dualiied to
e(ecute a deed o conve!ance inter vivos. , !ou were the Cudge% how would
!ou resolve the move o the creditor to annul the saleJ
Civil interdiction is not an accessor! *enalt! in *rision ma!or. "he convict can
conve! his *ro*ert!.
E*estions F Answers
5hat accessor! *enalt! is common to all *rinci*al *enaltiesJ
Coniscation or oreiture on the instruments or *roceeds o the crime.
+vvver"a Pa"e AC of ,--
<ond to 6ee! the !eace
One o the *rinci*al *enalties common to the others is bond to =ee* the *eace.
"here is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this *enalt!.
<ond for "ood 1ehavior
Eond or good behavior is *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code or the crimes
o grave threats and light threats under 4rticle 90+. ?ou cannot ind this
*enalt! in 4rticle 9A because 4rticle 9A onl! *rovides or bond to =ee* the
*eace. Remember that no elon! shall be *unished b! an! *enalt! not
*rescribed b! law *rior to its commission *ursuant to 4rticle 91.
E*estions F Answers

1. , bond to =ee* the *eace is not the same as bond or good
behavior% are the! one and the same bond that dier onl! in nameJ
No. "he legal eect o each is entirel! dierent. "he legal eect o a
ailure to *ost a bond to =ee* the *eace is im*risonment either or si( months
or 08 da!s% de*ending on whether the elon! committed is grave or less grave
on one hand% or it is light onl! on the other hand. "he legal eect o ailure to
*ost a bond or good behavior is not im*risonment but destierro under 4rticle
9&+. "hus% it is clear that the two bonds are not the same considering that the
legal eect or the ailure to *ut u* the bond is not the same.
'ivisi1le and indivisi1le !enalties
5hen we tal= o *eriod% it is im*l!ing that the *enalt! is divisible.
,% ater being given a *roblem% !ou were as=ed to state the *eriod in which the
*enalt! o reclusion *er*etua is to be im*osed% remember that when the
*enalt! is indivisible% there is no *eriod. #o not tal= o *eriod% because when
!ou tal= o *eriod% !ou are im*l!ing that the *enalt! is divisible because the
*eriod reerred to is the minimum% the medium% and the ma(imum. , it is
indivisible% there is no such thing as minimum% medium and ma(imum.
%he ca!ital !*nishment
?ou were as=ed to state whether !ou are in avor or against ca*ital *unishment.
Gnderstand that !ou are not ta=ing the e(amination in "heolog!. @(*lain the
issue on the basis o social utilit! o the *enalt!. ,s it beneicial in deterring
crimes or notJ "his should be the *remise o !our reasoning.
'esi"nation of !enalty
)ince the *rinci*al *enalties carr! with them certain accessor! *enalties% the
courts are not at libert! to use an! designation o the *rinci*al *enalt!. )o it
was held that when the *enalt! should be reclusion *er*etua% it is error or the
court to use the term :lie im*risonment;. ,n other words% the courts are not
correct when the! deviate rom the technical designation o the *rinci*al
*enalt!% because the moment the! deviate rom this designation% there will be
no corres*onding accessor! *enalties that will go with them.
,llustration6
5hen the Cudge sentenced the accused to the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua%
but instead o sa!ing reclusion *er*etua% it sentenced the accused to lie
im*risonment% the designation is wrong.
Recl*sion !er!et*a as modified
Eeore the enactment o Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% which made amendments to
the Revised Penal Code% the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua had no i(ed
duration. "he Revised Penal Code *rovides in 4rticle 9$ that the convict shall
be *ardoned ater undergoing the *enalt! or thirt! !ears% unless b! reason o
his conduct or some other serious cause% he is not deserving o *ardon. 4s
amended b! )ection 91 o Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% the same article now
*rovides that the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua shall be rom 98 !ears to +8
!ears. Eecause o this% s*eculations arose as to whether it made reclusion
*er*etua a divisible *enalt!.
4s we =now% when a *enalt! has a i(ed duration% it is said to be divisible and%
in accordance with the *rovisions o 4rticles 'A and $'% should be divided into
three eDual *ortions to orm one *eriod o each o the three *ortions.
Otherwise% i the *enalt! has no i(ed duration% it is an indivisible *enalt!. "he
nature o the *enalt! as divisible or indivisible is decisive o the *ro*er *enalt!
to be im*osed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines
whether the rules in 4rticle '0 or the rules in 4rticle '+ should be observed in
i(ing the *enalt!.
"hus% consistent with the rule mentioned% the )u*reme Court% b! its 3irst
#ivision% a**lied 4rticle 'A o the Code in im*osing the *enalt! or ra*e in
Peo!le v. Conrado L*cas@ /R No. ,-A,=0>=2@ May 07@ ,CC3. ,t divided
the time included in the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua into three eDual *ortions%
with each *ortion com*osing a *eriod as ollows6
/inimum - 98 !ears and one da!% to 9' !ears and eight monthsK
/edium - 9' !ears% eight months and one da!% to 00 !ears and our monthsK
/a(imum - 0+ !ears% our months and one da!% to +8 !ears.
+vvver"a Pa"e C- of ,--
Considering the aggravating circumstance o relationshi*% the Court sentenced
the accused to im*risonment o 0+ !ears% our months and one da! o reclusion
*er*etua% instead o the straight *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua im*osed b! the
trial court. "he a**ellee seasonabl! iled a motion or clariication to correct
the duration o the sentence% because instead o beginning with 00 !ears% our
months and one da!% it was stated as 0+ !ears% our months and one da!. "he
issue o whether the amendment o 4rticle 9$ made reclusion *er*etua a
divisible *enalt! was raised% and because the issue is one o irst im*ression
and momentous im*ortance% the 3irst #ivision reerred the motion to the Court
en banc.
,n a resolution *romulgated on 1anuar! >% 1>>A% the )u*reme Court en banc
held that reclusion *er*etua shall remain as an indivisible *enalt!. "o this end%
the resolution states6
4ter deliberating on the motion and re-e(amining the
legislation histor! o R4 $'A>% the Court concludes that
although )ection 1$ o R4 $'A> has i(ed the duration o
Reclusion Per*etua rom twent! !ears (98) and one (1) to
ort! +8 !ears% there was no clear legislative intent to alter its
original classiication as an indivisible *enalt!. ,t shall then
remain as an indivisible *enalt!.
Veril!% i reclusion *er*etua was classiied as a divisible
*enalt!% then 4rticle '0 o the Revised Penal Code would lose
its reason and basis or e(istence. "o illustrate% the irst
*aragra*h o )ection 98 o the amended R4 No. '+9A
*rovides or the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua to death
whenever the dangerous drugs involved are o an! o the
Duantities stated herein. , 4rticle '0 o the Code were no
longer a**licable because reclusion *er*etua is su**osed to
be a divisible *enalt!% then there would be no statutor! rules
or determining when either reclusion *er*etua or death
should be the im*osable *enalt!. ,n ine% there would be no
occasion or im*osing reclusion *er*etua as the *enalt! in
drug cases% regardless o the attendant modi!ing
circumstances.
Now then% i Congress had intended to reclassi! reclusion
*er*etua as divisible *enalt!% then it should have amended
4rticle '0 and 4rticle $' o the Revised Penal Code. "he
latter is the law on what are considered divisible *enalties
under the Code and what should be the duration o the
*eriods thereo. "here are% as well% other *rovisions o the
Revised Penal Code involving reclusion *er*etua% such as
4rticle +1 on the accessor! *enalties thereo and *aragra*hs
9 and 0 o 4rticle '1% which have not been touched b! a
corres*onding amendment.
Gltimatel!% the Duestion arises6 :5hat then ma! be the reason or the
amendment i(ing the duration o reclusion *er*etuaJ; "his Duestion was
answered in the same case o Peo!le v. L*cas b! Duoting *ertinent *ortion o
the decision in Peo!le v. Reyes@ 0,0 CRA 3-0@ thus6
"he im*uted duration o thirt! (08) !ears or
reclusion *er*etua% thereo% is onl! to serve as the basis or
determining the convictIs eligibilit! or *ardon or or the
a**lication o the three-old rule in the service o *enalties.
)ince% however% in all the graduated scales o *enalties in the
Code% as set out in 4rticle 9A% $8 and 91% reclusion *er*etua
is the *enalt! immediatel! ne(t higher to reclusion tem*oral%
it ollows b! necessar! im*lication that the minimum o
reclusion *er*etua is twent! (98) !ears and one (1) da! with
a ma(imum duration thereater to last or the rest o the
convictIs natural lie% although% *ursuant to 4rticle $8% it
a**ears that the ma(imum *eriod or the service o *enalties
shall not e(ceed ort! (+8) !ears. ,t would be legall! absurd
and violative o the scales o *enalties in the Code to rec=on
the minimum o Reclusion Per*etua at thirt! (08) !ears since
there would thereb! be a resultant lacuna whenever the
*enalt! e(ceeds the ma(imum twent! (98) !ears o Reclusion
"em*oral but is less than thirt! (08) !ears.
Innovations on the im!osition of the death !enalty
4side orm restoring the death *enalt! or certain heinous crimes% Re*ublic 4ct
No. $'A> made innovations on the *rovisions o the Revised Penal Code
regarding the im*osition o the death *enalt!6
(1) 4rticle +$ has been reworded to e(*ressl! include among the
instances where the death *enalt! shall not be im*osed% the case o
an oender who is below 1& !ears old at the time o the commission
o the oense. Eut even without this amendment% the death *enalt!
ma! not be meted out on an oender who was below 1& !ears o age
at the time o the commission o the crime because 4rticle '& the
lowers the im*osable *enalt! u*on such oenders b! at least one
degree than that *rescribed or the crime.
(9) ,n the matter o e(ecuting the death *enalt!% 4rticle &1 has been
amended and% thus% directs that the manner o *utting the convict to
death b! electrocution shall be changed to gas *oisoning as soon as
the acilities are *rovided% and the sentence shall be carried out not
later that one !ear ater the inalit! o Cudgment.
(0) "he original *rovision o 4rticle &0% anent the sus*ension o the
e(ecution o the death *enalt! or three !ears i the convict was a
+vvver"a Pa"e C, of ,--
woman% has been deleted and instead% limits such sus*ension to last
while the woman was *regnant and within one !ear ater deliver!.
*1sidiary !enalty
,s subsidiar! *enalt! an accessor! *enalt!J No.
, the convict does not want to *a! ine and has so man! riends and wants to
*rolong his sta! in Cail% can he sta! there and not *a! ineJ No.
4ter undergoing subsidiar! *enalt! and the convict is alread! released rom Cail
and his inancial circumstances im*rove% can he be made to *a!J ?es% or the
ull amount with deduction.
4rticle 0> deals with subsidiar! *enalt!. "here are two situations there6
(1) 5hen there is a *rinci*al *enalt! o im*risonment or an! other
*rinci*al *enalt! and it carries with it a ineK and
(9) 5hen *enalt! is onl! a ine.
"hereore% there shall be no subsidiar! *enalt! or the non-*a!ment o
damages to the oended *art!.
"his subsidiar! *enalt! is one o im*ortant matter under the title o *enalt!. 4
subsidiar! *enalt! is not an accessor! *enalt!. )ince it is not an accessor!
*enalt!% it must be e(*ressl! stated in the sentence% but the sentence does not
s*eci! the *eriod o subsidiar! *enalt! because it will onl! be =nown i the
convict cannot *a! the ine. "he sentence will merel! *rovide that in case o
non-*a!ment o the ine% the convict shall be reDuired to save subsidiar!
*enalt!. ,t will then be the *rison authorit! who will com*ute this.
)o even i subsidiar! *enalt! is *ro*er in a case% i the Cudge ailed to state in
the sentence that the convict shall be reDuired to suer subsidiar! *enalt! in
case o insolvenc! to *a! the ine% that convict cannot be reDuired to suer the
accessor! *enalt!. "his *articular legal *oint is a bar *roblem. "hereore% the
Cudgment o the court must state this. , the Cudgment is silent% he cannot
suer an! subsidiar! *enalt!.
"he subsidiar! *enalt! is not an accessor! *enalt! that ollows the *rinci*al
*enalt! as a matter o course. ,t is not within the control o the convict to *a!
the ine or not and once the sentence becomes inal and e(ecutor! and a writ o
e(ecution is issued to collect the ine% i convict has *ro*ert! to lev! u*on% the
same shall answer or the ine% whether he li=es it or not. ,t must be that the
convict is insolvent to *a! the ine. "hat means that the writ o e(ecution
issued against the *ro*ert! o the convict% i an!% is returned unsatisied.
,n Peo!le v. *1ido@ it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve%
or not to *a! the ine and instead serve the subsidiar! *enalt!. 4 subsidiar!
*enalt! will onl! be served i the sheri should return the e(ecution or the ine
on the *ro*ert! o the convict and he does not have the *ro*erties to satis!
the writ.
E*estions F Answers
"he *enalt! im*osed b! the Cudge is ine onl!. "he sheri then tried
to lev! the *ro*ert! o the deendant ater it has become inal and e(ecutor!%
but it was returned unsatisied. "he court then issued an order or said convict
to suer subsidiar! *enalt!. "he convict was detained% or which reason he
iled a *etition or habeas cor*us contending that his detention is illegal. 5ill
the *etition *ros*erJ
?es. "he Cudgment became inal without statement as to subsidiar!
*enalt!% so that even i the convict has no mone! or *ro*ert! to satis! the ine%
he cannot suer subsidiar! *enalt! because the latter is not an accessor! and
so it must be e(*ressl! stated. , the court overloo=ed to *rovide or subsidiar!
*enalt! in the sentence and its attention was later called to that eect%
thereater% it tried to modi! the sentence to include subsidiar! *enalt! ater
*eriod to a**eal had alread! ela*sed% the addition o subsidiar! *enalt! will be
null and void. "his is tantamount to double Ceo*ard!.
, the ine is *rescribed with the *enalt! o im*risonment or an! de*rivation o
libert!% such im*risonment should not be higher than si( !ears or *rision
correccional. Otherwise% there is no subsidiar! *enalt!.
ii. When is s*1sidiary !enalty a!!lied
(1) , the subsidiar! *enalt! *rescribed or the non-*a!ment o ine which
goes with the *rinci*al *enalt!% the ma(imum duration o the
subsidiar! *enalt! is one !ear% so there is no subsidiar! *enalt! that
goes be!ond one !ear. Eut this will onl! be true i the one !ear *eriod
is higher than 170 o the *rinci*al *enalt!% the convict cannot be made
to undergo subsidiar! *enalt! more than 170 o the duration o the
*rinci*al *enalt! and in no case will it be more than 1 !ear - get 170 o
the *rinci*al *enalt! - whichever is lower.
(9) , the subsidiar! *enalt! is to be im*osed or non *a!ment o ine and
the *rinci*al *enalt! im*osed be ine onl!% which is a single *enalt!%
that means it does not go with another *rinci*al *enalt!% the most that
the convict will be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! im*risonment is si(
months% i the elon! committed is grave or less grave% otherwise% i
the elon! committed is slight% the ma(imum duration o the subsidiar!
*enalt! is onl! 1A da!s.
+vvver"a Pa"e C0 of ,--
"here are some who use the term subsidiar! im*risonment. "he term is wrong
because the *enalt! is not onl! served b! im*risonment. "he subsidiar!
*enalt! ollows the nature o the *rinci*al *enalt!. , the *rinci*al *enalt! is
destierro% this being a divisible *enalt!% and a *enalt! with a i(ed duration% the
non-*a!ment o the ine will bring about subsidiar! *enalt!. "his being a
restriction o libert! with a i(ed duration under 4rticle 0> or the non*a!ment
o ine that goes with the destierro% the convict will be reDuired to undergo
subsidiar! *enalt! and it will also be in the orm o destierro.
,llustration6
4 convict was sentenced to sus*ension and ine. "his is a *enalt! where a
*ublic oicer antici*ates *ublic duties% he entered into the *erormance o
*ublic oice even beore he has com*lied with the reDuired ormalities.
)u**ose the convict cannot *a! the ine% ma! he be reDuired to undergo
subsidiar! *enalt!J
?es% because the *enalt! o sus*ension has a i(ed duration. Gnder 4rticle 9$%
sus*ension and destierro have the same duration as *rision correccional. )o
the duration does not e(ceed si( !ears. )ince it is a *enalt! with a i(ed
duration under 4rticle 0>% when there is a subsidiar! *enalt!% such shall be 170
o the *eriod o sus*ension which in no case be!ond one !ear. Eut the
subsidiar! *enalt! will be served not b! im*risonment but b! continued
sus*ension.
, the *enalt! is *ublic censure and ine even i the *ublic censure is a light
*enalt!% the convict cannot be reDuired to *a! the ine or subsidiar! *enalt! or
the non-*a!ment o the ine because *ublic censure is a *enalt! that has no
i(ed duration.
#o not consider the totalit! o the im*risonment the convict is sentenced to but
consider the totalit! or the duration o the im*risonment that the convict will be
reDuired to serve under the "hree-3old Rule. , the totalit! o the im*risonment
under this rule does not e(ceed si( !ears% then% even i the totalit! o all the
sentences without a**l!ing the "hree-3old Rule will go be!ond si( !ears% the
convict shall be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! *enalt! i he could not *a! the
ine.
,llustration6
4 collector o N454)4 collected rom A8 houses within a certain localit!. 5hen
he was collecting N454)4 bills% the charges o all these consumers was a
minimum o 18. "he collector a**ro*riated the amount collected and so was
charged with estaa. <e was convicted. Penalt! im*osed was arresto ma!or
and a ine o P988.88 in each count. , !ou were the Cudge% what *enalt! would
!ou im*oseJ /a! the convict be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! *enalt! in case
he is insolvent to *a! the ineJ
"he "hree-3old Rule should not a**lied b! the court. ,n this case o A8 counts
o estaa% the *enalt! im*osed was arresto ma!or and a ine o P988.88.
4rresto ma!or Z P988.88 ( A8. 4rresto /a!or is si( months ( A8 [ 9A !ears.
P988.88 ( A8 [ P18%888.88. "hus% , would im*ose a *enalt! o arresto ma!or
and a ine o P988.88 multi*lied b! A8 counts and state urther that :as a
Cudge% , am not in the *osition to a**l! the "hree-3old Rule because the "hree-
3old Rule is to be given eect when the convict is alread! serving sentence in
the *enitentiiar!. ,t is the *rison authorit! who will a**l! the "hree-3old Rule.
4s ar as the court is concerned% that will be the *enalt! to be im*osed.;
3or the *ur*oses o subsidiar! *enalt!% a**l! the "hree-3old Rule i the *enalt!
is arresto ma!or and a ine o P988.88 multi*lied b! 0. "his means one !ear
and si( months onl!. )o% a**l!ing the "hree- 3old Rule% the *enalt! does not go
be!ond si( !ears. <ence% or the non- *a!ment o the ine o P18%888.88% the
convict shall be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! *enalt!. "his is because the
im*risonment that will be served will not go be!ond si( !ears. ,t will onl! be
one !ear and si( months% since in the service o the sentence% the "hree-3old
Rule will a**l!.
,t is clearl! *rovided under 4rticle 0> that i the means o the convict should
im*rove% even i he has alread! served subsidiar! *enalt!% he shall still be
reDuired to *a! the ine and there is no deduction or that amount which the
convict has alread! served b! wa! o subsidiar! *enalt!.
Articles :2 and :3
, crime committed is *arricide% *enalt! is reclusion *er*etua. "he accused%
ater committing *arricide% voluntaril! surrendered and *leaded guilt! o the
crime charged u*on arraignment. ,t was also established that he was
into(icated% and no aggravating circumstances were *resent. 5hat *enalt!
would !ou im*oseJ

Reclusion *er*etua% because it is an indivisible *enalt!.
5hen there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance% *enalt! to be im*osed shall be one degree lower to
be im*osed in the *ro*er *eriod. #o not a**l! this when there is one
aggravating circumstance.
,llustration6
"here are about our mitigating circumstances and one aggravating
circumstance. Court osets the aggravating circumstance against the
mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances.
Eecause o that% the Cudge lowered the *enalt! b! one degree. ,s the Cudge
correctJ
No. ,n such a case when there are aggravating circumstances% no matter how
man! mitigating circumstances there are% ater osetting% do not go down an!
degree lower. "he *enalt! *rescribed b! law will be the *enalt! to be im*osed%
but in the minimum *eriod. Cannot go below the minimum *eriod when there
is an aggravating circumstance.
-o into the lowering o the *enalt! b! one degree i the *enalt! is divisible. )o
do not a**l! the rule in *aragra*h A o 4rticle '+ to a case where the *enalt! is
divisible.
Article ::
5hen there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the
*enalt! is onl! ine% when it is onl! ordinar! mitigating circumstance and
aggravating circumstance% a**l! 4rticle ''. Eecause !ou determine the
im*osable ine on the basis o the inancial resources or means o the oender.
Eut i the *enalt! would be lowered b! degree% there is a *rivileged mitigating
circumstance or the elon! committed is attem*ted or rustrated% *rovided it is
not a light elon! against *ersons or *ro*ert!% because i it is a light elon! and
*unishable b! ine% it is not a crime at all unless it is consummated. )o% i it is
attem*ted or rustrated% do not go one degree lower because it is not
*unishable unless it is a light elon! against *erson or *ro*ert! where the
im*osable *enalt! will be lowered b! one degree or two degrees.
Penalt! *rescribed to a crime is lowered b! degrees in the ollowing cases6
(1) 5hen the crime is onl! attem*ted or rustrated
, it is rustrated% *enalt! is one degree lower than that *rescribed b!
law.
, it is attem*ted% *enalt! is two degrees lower than that *rescribed b!
law.
"his is so because the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or a crime reers to
the consummated stage.
(9) 5hen the oender is an accom*lice or accessor! onl!
Penalt! is one degree lower in the case o an accom*lice.
Penalt! is two degrees lower in the case o an accessor!.
"his is so because the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or a given crime
reers to the consummated stage.
(0) 5hen there is a *rivilege mitigating circumstance in avor o the
oender% it will lower the *enalt! b! one or two degrees than that
*rescribed b! law de*ending on what the *articular *rovision o the
Revised Penal Code states.
(+) 5hen the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime committed is a divisible
*enalt! and there are two or more ordinar! mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever% the *enalt! ne(t lower
in degree shall be the one im*osed.
(A) 5henever the *rovision o the Revised Penal Code s*eciicall! lowers
the *enalt! b! one or two degrees than what is ordinaril! *rescribed
or the crime committed.
Penalt! commonl! im*osed b! the Revised Penal Code ma! be b! wa! o
im*risonment or b! wa! o ine or% to a limited e(tent% b! wa! o destierro or
disDualiication% whether absolute or s*ecial.
,n the matter o lowering the *enalt! b! degree% the reerence is 4rticle $1. ,t
is necessar! to =now the chronolog! under 4rticle $1 b! sim*l! =nowing the
scale. "a=e note that destierro comes ater arresto ma!or so the *enalt! one
degree lower than arresto ma!or is not arresto menor% but destierro. /emori.e
the scale in 4rticle $1.
,n 4rticle 9$% with res*ect to the range o each *enalt!% the range o arresto
menor ollows arresto ma!or% since arresto menor is one to 08 da!s or one
month% while arresto ma!or is one month and one da! to si( months. On the
other hand% the duration o destierro is the same as *rision correccional which
is si( months and one da! to si( !ears. Eut be this as it is% under 4rticle $1% in
the scale o *enalties graduated according to degrees% arresto ma!or is higher
than destierro.
,n homicide under 4rticle 9+>% the *enalt! is reclusion tem*oral. One degree
lower% i homicide is rustrated% or there is an accom*lice *artici*ating in
homicide% is *rision ma!or% and two degrees lower is *rision correccional.
"his is true i the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is a whole
divisible *enalt! -- one degree or 9 degrees lower will also be *unished as a
whole. Eut generall!% the *enalties *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code are
onl! in *eriods% li=e *rision correcional minimum% or *rision correcional
minimum to medium.
4lthough the *enalt! is *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code as a *eriod% such
*enalt! should be understood as a degree in itsel and the ollowing rules shall
govern6
(1) 5hen the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Code is made u* o a
*eriod% li=e *rision correccional medium% the *enalt! one degree lower
is *rision correccional minimum% and the *enalt! two degrees lower is
arresto ma!or ma(imum. ,n other words% each degree will be made
u* o onl! one *eriod because the *enalt! *rescribed is also made u*
onl! o one *eriod.
(9) 5hen the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Code is made u* o two *eriods o
a given *enalt!% ever! time such *enalt! is lowered b! one degree !ou
have to go down also b! two *eriods.
,llustration6
, the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime is *rision correccional medium
to ma(imum% the *enalt! one degree lower will be arresto ma!or
ma(imum to *rision correccional minimum% and the *enalt! another
degree lower will be arresto ma!or minimum to medium. @ver!
degree will be com*osed o two *eriods.
(0) 5hen the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is made u* o
three *eriods o dierent *enalties% ever! time !ou go down one
degree lower% !ou have to go down b! three *eriods.
,llustration6
"he *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is *rision ma!or
ma(imum to reclusion tem*oral medium% the *enalt! one degree lower
is *rision correccional ma(imum to *rision ma!or medium. 4nother
degree lower will be arresto ma!or ma(imum to *rision correccional
medium.
"hese rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
"hese rules reer to the lowering o *enalt! b! one or two degrees. 4s to how
mitigating or aggravating circumstances ma! aect the *enalt!% the rules are
ound in 4rticles '0 and '+. 4rticle '0 governs when the *enalt! *rescribed b!
the Revised Penal Code is indivisible. 4rticle '+ governs when the *enalt!
*rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is divisible. 5hen the *enalt! is
indivisible% no matter how man! ordinar! mitigating circumstances there are%
the *rescribed *enalt! is never lowered b! degree. ,t ta=es a *rivileged
mitigating circumstance to lower such *enalt! b! degree. On the other hand%
when the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is divisible% such
*enalt! shall be lowered b! one degree onl! but im*osed in the *ro*er *eriod%
when there are two or more ordinar! mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggravating circumstance whatsoever.
Article =7 ? 9ines
5ith res*ect to the *enalt! o ine% i the ine has to be lowered b! degree
either because the elon! committed is onl! attem*ted or rustrated or because
there is an accom*lice or an accessor! *artici*ation% the ine is lowered b!
deducting 17+ o the ma(imum amount o the ine rom such ma(imum without
changing the minimum amount *rescribed b! law.
,llustration6
, the *enalt! *rescribed is a ine ranging rom P988.88 to PA88.88% but the
elon! is rustrated so that the *enalt! should be im*osed one degree lower%
17+ o PA88.88 shall be deducted thererom. "his is done b! deducting
P19A.88 rom PA88.88% leaving a dierence o P0$A.88. "he *enalt! one
degree lower is P0$A.88. "o go another degree lower% P19A.88 shall again be
deducted rom P0$A.88 and that would leave a dierence o P9A8.88. <ence%
the *enalt! another degree lower is a ine ranging rom P988.88 to P9A8.88. ,
at all% the ine has to be lowered urther% it cannot go lower than P988.88. )o%
the ine will be im*osed at P988.88. "his rule a**lies when the ine has to be
lowered b! degree.
Article ::
,n so ar as ordinar! mitigating or aggravating circumstance would aect the
*enalt! which is in the orm o a ine% 4rticle '' o the Revised Penal Code shall
govern. Gnder this article% it is discretionar! u*on the court to a**l! the ine
ta=ing into consideration the inancial means o the oender to *a! the same.
,n other words% it is not onl! the mitigating and7or aggravating circumstances
that the court shall ta=e into consideration% but *rimaril!% the inancial
ca*abilit! o the oender to *a! the ine. 3or the same crime% the *enalt! u*on
an accused who is *oor ma! be less than the *enalt! u*on an accused
committing the same crime but who is wealth!
.
3or instance% when there are two oenders who are co-cons*irators to a crime%
and their *enalt! consists o a ine onl!% and one o them is wealth! while the
other is a *au*er% the court ma! im*ose a higher *enalt! u*on the wealth!
*erson and a lower ine or the *au*er.
Penalt! or murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion tem*oral
ma(imum to death. )o% the *enalt! would be reclusion tem*oral ma(imum 2
reclusion *er*etua 2 death. "his *enalt! made u* o three *eriods.
%he %hree>9old R*le
Gnder this rule% when a convict is to serve successive *enalties% he will not
actuall! serve the *enalties im*osed b! law. ,nstead% the most severe o the
*enalties im*osed on him shall be multi*lied b! three and the *eriod will be the
onl! term o the *enalt! to be served b! him. <owever% in no case should the
*enalt! e(ceed +8 !ears.
"his rule is intended or the beneit o the convict and so% !ou will onl! a**l!
this *rovided the sum total o all the *enalties im*osed would be greater than
the *roduct o the most severe *enalt! multi*lied b! three but in no case will
the *enalties to be served b! the convict be more than +8 !ears.
4lthough this rule is =nown as the "hree-3old rule% !ou cannot actuall! a**l!
this i the convict is to serve onl! three successive *enalties. "he "hree-3old
Rule can onl! be a**lied i the convict is to serve our or more sentences
successivel!. , the sentences would be served simultaneousl!% the "hree-3old
rule does not govern.
"he chronolog! o the *enalties as *rovided in 4rticle $8 o the Revised Penal
Code shall be ollowed.
,t is in the service o the *enalt!% not in the im*osition o the *enalt!% that the
"hree-3old rule is to be a**lied. "he three-3old rule will a**l! whether the
sentences are the *roduct o one inormation in one court% whether the
sentences are *romulgated in one da! or whether the sentences are
*romulgated b! dierent courts on dierent da!s. 5hat is material is that the
convict shall serve more than three successive sentences.
3or *ur*oses o the "hree-3old Rule% even *er*etual *enalties are ta=en into
account. )o not onl! *enalties with i(ed duration% even *enalties without an!
i(ed duration or indivisible *enalties are ta=en into account. 3or *ur*oses o
the "hree-3old rule% indivisible *enalties are given eDuivalent o 08 !ears. ,
the *enalt! is *er*etual disDualiication% it will be given and eDuivalent duration
o 08 !ears% so that i he will have to suer several *er*etual disDualiication%
under the "hree-3old rule% !ou ta=e the most severe and multi*l! it b! three.
"he "hree-3old rule does not a**l! to the *enalt! *rescribed but to the *enalt!
im*osed as determined b! the court.
,llustration6
Penalties im*osed are 2
One *rision correcional 2 minimum 2 9 !ears and + months
One arresto ma!or - 1 month and 1 da! to ' months
One *rision ma!or - ' !ears and 1 da! to 19 !ears
#o not commit the mista=e o a**l!ing the "hree- 3old Rule in this case. Never
a**l! the "hree-3old rule when there are onl! three sentences. @ven i !ou add
the *enalties% !ou can never arrive at a sum higher than the *roduct o the
most severe multi*lied b! three.
"he common mista=e is% i given a situation% whether the "hree-3old Rule could
be a**lied. , as=ed% i !ou were the Cudge% what *enalt! would !ou im*ose%
or *ur*oses o im*osing the *enalt!% the court is not at libert! to a**l! the
"hree-3old Rule% whatever the sum total o *enalt! or each crime committed%
even i it would amount to 1%888 !ears or more. ,t is onl! when the convict is
serving sentence that the *rison authorities should determine how long he
should sta! in Cail.
,llustration6
4 district engineer was sentenced b! the court to a term o >1+ !ears in *rison.
4 *erson was sentenced to three death sentences. )igniicance6 , ever
granted *ardon or 1 crime% the two remaining *enalties must still be e(ecuted.
"his rule will a**l! onl! i sentences are to be served successivel!.
Act No. 3-,2 #Indeterminate entence Law&@ as amended
"hree things to =now about the ,ndeterminate )entence Law6
(1) ,ts *ur*oseK
(9) ,nstances when it does not a**l!K and
(0) <ow it o*erates
,ndeterminate )entence Law governs whether the crime is *unishable under
the Revised Penal Code or a s*ecial Law. ,t is not limited to violations o the
Revised Penal Code.

,t a**lies onl! when the *enalt! served is im*risonment. , not b!
im*risonment% then it does not a**l!.
P*r!ose
"he *ur*ose o the ,ndeterminate )entence law is to avoid *rolonged
im*risonment% because it is *roven to be more destructive than constructive to
the oender. )o% the *ur*ose o the ,ndeterminate )entence Law in shortening
the *ossible detention o the convict in Cail is to save valuable human
resources. ,n other words% i the valuable human resources were allowed
*rolonged coninement in Cail% the! would deteriorate. Pur*ose is to *reserve
economic useulness or these *eo*le or having committed a crime -- to
reorm them rather than to deteriorate them and% at the same time% saving the
government e(*enses o maintaining the convicts on a *rolonged coninement
in Cail.
, the crime is a violation o the Revised Penal Code% the court will im*ose a
sentence that has a minimum and ma(imum. "he ma(imum o the
indeterminate sentence will be arrived at b! ta=ing into account the attendant
mitigating and7or aggravating circumstances according to 4rticle '+ o the
Revised Penal Code. ,n arriving at the minimum o the indeterminate sentence%
the court will ta=e into account the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime and go one
degree lower. 5ithin the range o one degree lower% the court will i( the
+vvver"a Pa"e C: of ,--
minimum or the indeterminate sentence% and within the range o the *enalt!
arrived at as the ma(imum in the indeterminate sentence% the court will i( the
ma(imum o the sentence. , there is a *rivilege mitigating circumstance which
has been ta=en in consideration in i(ing the ma(imum o the indeterminate
sentence% the minimum shall be based on the *enalt! as reduced b! the
*rivilege mitigating circumstance within the range o the *enalt! ne(t lower in
degree.
, the crime is a violation o a s*ecial law% in i(ing the ma(imum o the
indeterminate sentence% the court will im*ose the *enalt! within the range o
the *enalt! *rescribed b! the s*ecial law% as long as it will not e(ceed the limit
o the *enalt!. ,n i(ing the minimum% the court can i( a *enalt! an!where
within the range o *enalt! *rescribed b! the s*ecial law% as long as it will not
be less than the minimum limit o the *enalt! under said law. No mitigating
and aggravating circumstances are ta=en into account.
"he minimum and the ma(imum reerred to in the ,ndeterminate )entence Law
are not *eriods. )o% do not sa!% ma(imum or minimum *eriod. 3or the
*ur*oses o the indeterminate )entence Law% use the term minimum to reer to
the duration o the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum% and
when we sa! ma(imum% or *ur*oses o ,)L45% we reer to the ma(imum limit
o the duration that the convict ma! be held in Cail. 5e are not reerring to an!
*eriod o the *enalt! as enumerated in 4rticle $1.
Courts are reDuired to i( a minimum and a ma(imum o the sentence that the!
are to im*ose u*on an oender when ound guilt! o the crime charged. )o%
whenever the ,ndeterminate )entence Law is a**licable% there is alwa!s a
minimum and ma(imum o the sentence that the convict shall serve. , the
crime is *unished b! the Revised Penal Code% the law *rovides that the
ma(imum shall be arrived at b! considering the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances in the commission o the crime according to the *ro*er rules o
the Revised Penal Code. "o i( the ma(imum% consider the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances according to the rules ound in 4rticle '+. "his
means 2
(1) Penalties *rescribed b! the law or the crime committed shall be
im*osed in the medium *eriod i no mitigating or aggravating
circumstanceK
(9) , there is aggravating circumstance% no mitigating% *enalt! shall be
im*osed in the ma(imumK
(0) , there is mitigating circumstance% no aggravating% *enalt! shall be in
the minimumK
(+) , there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances% the!
shall oset against each other. 5hatever remains% a**l! the rules.
(A) , there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating
circumstance% *enalt! ne(t lower in degree shall be the one im*osed.
Rule under 4rt '+ shall a**l! in determining the ma(imum but not in
determining the minimum.
,n determining the a**licable *enalt! according to the ,ndeterminate )entence
Law% there is no need to mention the number o !ears% months and da!sK it is
enough that the name o the *enalt! is mentioned while the ,ndeterminate
)entence Law is a**lied. "o i( the minimum and the ma(imum o the
sentence% *enalt! under the Revised Penal Code is not the *enalt! to be
im*osed b! court because the court must a**l! the ,ndeterminate )entence
Law. "he attendant mitigating and7or aggravating circumstances in the
commission o the crime are ta=en into consideration onl! when the ma(imum
o the *enalt! is to be i(ed. Eut in so ar as the minimum is concerned% the
basis o the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code% and go one degree
lower than that. Eut *enalt! one degree lower shall be a**lied in the same
manner that the ma(imum is also i(ed based onl! on ordinar! mitigating
circumstances. "his is true onl! i the mitigating circumstance ta=en into
account is onl! an ordinar! mitigating circumstance. , the mitigating
circumstance is *rivileged% !ou cannot ollow the law in so ar as i(ing the
minimum o the indeterminate sentence is concernedK otherwise% it ma!
ha**en that the ma(imum o the indeterminate sentence is lower than its
minimum.
,n one )u*reme Court ruling% it was held that or *ur*oses o a**l!ing the
,ndeterminate )entence Law% the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code
and not that which ma! be im*osed b! court. "his ruling% however% is obviousl!
erroneous. "his is so because such an inter*retation runs contrar! to the rule
o *ro reo% which *rovides that the *enal laws should alwa!s be construed an
a**lied in a manner liberal or lenient to the oender. "hereore% the rule is% in
a**l!ing the ,ndetermiante )entence Law% it is that *enalt! arrived at b! the
court ater a**l!ing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should
be the basis.
Crimes *unished under s*ecial law carr! onl! one *enalt!K there are no degree
or *eriods. /oreover% crimes under s*ecial law do not consider mitigating or
aggravating circumstance *resent in the commission o the crime. )o in the
case o statutor! oense% no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will
be ta=en into account. 1ust the same% courts are reDuired in im*osing the
*enalt! u*on the oender to i( a minimum that the convict should serve% and
to set a ma(imum as the limit o that sentence. Gnder the law% when the crime
is *unished under a s*ecial law% the court ma! i( an! *enalt! as the ma(imum
without e(ceeding the *enalt! *rescribed b! s*ecial law or the crime
committed. ,n the same manner% courts are given discretion to i( a minimum
an!where within the range o the *enalt! *rescribed b! s*ecial law% as long as
it will not be lower than the *enalt! *rescribed.
#isDualiication ma! be divided into three% according to 2
+vvver"a Pa"e C= of ,--
(1) "he time committedK
(9) "he *enalt! im*osedK and
(0) "he oender involved.
"he ,ndeterminate )entence Law shall not a**l! to6
(1) Persons convicted o oense *unishable with death *enalt! or lie
im*risonmentK
(9) Persons convicted o treason% cons*irac! or *ro*osal to commit
treasonK
(0) Persons convicted o mis*rision o treason% rebellion% sedition%
es*ionageK
(+) Persons convicted o *irac!K
(A) Persons who are habitual delinDuentsK
(') Persons who shall have esca*ed rom coninement or evaded
sentenceK
($) "hose who have been granted conditional *ardon b! the Chie
@(ecutive and shall have violated the term theretoK
(&) "hose whose ma(imum term o im*risonment does not e(ceed one
!ear% but not to those alread! sentenced b! inal Cudgment at the time
o the a**roval o ,ndeterminate )entence Law.
4lthough the *enalt! *rescribed or the elon! committed is death or reclusion
*er*etua% i ater considering the attendant circumstances% the im*osable
*enalt! is reclusion tem*oral or less% the ,ndeterminate )entence Law a**lies
(Peo!le v. Cem!ron@ ,A= CRA 0=A).
Presidential 'ecree No. C:A #Pro1ation Law&
4mong the dierent grounds o *artial e(tinction o criminal liabilit!% the most
im*ortant is *robation. Probation is a manner o dis*osing o an accused who
have been convicted b! a trial court b! *lacing him under su*ervision o a
*robation oicer% under such terms and conditions that the court ma! i(. "his
ma! be availed o beore the convict begins serving sentence b! inal Cudgment
and *rovided that he did not a**eal an!more rom conviction.
5ithout regard to the nature o the crime% onl! those whose *enalt! does not
e(ceed si( !ears o im*risonment are those Dualiied or *robation. , the
*enalt! is si( !ears *lus one da!% he is no longer Dualiied or *robation.
, the oender was convicted o several oenses which were tried Cointl! and
one decision was rendered where multi*le sentences im*osed several *rison
terms as *enalt!% the basis or determining whether the *enalt! disDualiies the
oender rom *robation or not is the term o the individual im*risonment and
not the totalit! o all the *rison terms im*osed in the decision. )o even i the
*rison term would sum u* to more than si( !ears% i none o the individual
*enalties e(ceeds si( !ears% the oender is not disDualiied b! such *enalt!
rom a**l!ing or *robation.
On the other hand% without regard to the *enalt!% those who are convicted o
subversion or an! crime against the *ublic order are not Dualiied or *robation.
)o =now the crimes under "itle ,,,% Eoo= 9 o the Revised Penal Code. 4mong
these crimes is 4larms and )candals% the *enalt! o which is onl! arresto
menor or a ine. Gnder the amendment to the Probation Law% those convicted
o a crime against *ublic order regardless o the *enalt! are not Dualiied or
*robation.
/a! a recidivist be given the beneit o Probation LawJ
4s a general rule% no.
@(ce*tion6 , the earlier conviction reers to a crime the *enalt! o which does
not e(ceed 08 da!s im*risonment or a ine o not more than P988.88% such
convict is not disDualiied o the beneit o *robation. )o even i he would be
convicted subseDuentl! o a crime embraced in the same title o the Revised
Penal Code as that o the earlier conviction% he is not disDualiied rom
*robation *rovided that the *enalt! o the current crime committed does not go
be!ond si( !ears and the nature o the crime committed b! him is not against
*ublic order% national securit! or subversion.
4lthough a *erson ma! be eligible or *robation% the moment he *erects an
a**eal rom the Cudgment o conviction% he cannot avail o *robation an!more.
)o the beneit o *robation must be invo=ed at the earliest instance ater
conviction. <e should not wait u* to the time when he inter*oses an a**eal or
the sentence has become inal and e(ecutor!. "he idea is that *robation has to
be invo=ed at the earliest o**ortunit!.
4n a**lication or *robation is e(clusivel! within the Curisdiction o the trial
court that renders the Cudgment. 3or the oender to a**l! in such court% he
should not a**eal such Cudgment.
Once he a**eals% regardless o the *ur*ose o the a**eal% he will be disDualiied
rom a**l!ing or Probation% even though he ma! thereater withdraw his
a**eal.
+vvver"a Pa"e CA of ,--
, the oender would a**eal the conviction o the trial court and the a**ellate
court reduced the *enalt! to sa!% less than si( !ears% that convict can still ile
an a**lication or *robation% because the earliest o**ortunit! or him to avail o
*robation came onl! ater Cudgment b! the a**ellate court.
5hether a convict who is otherwise Dualiied or *robation ma! be give the
beneit o *robation or not% the courts are alwa!s reDuired to conduct a hearing.
, the court denied the a**lication or *robation without the beneit o the
hearing% where as the a**licant is not disDualiied under the *rovision o the
Probation Law% but onl! based on the re*ort o the *robation oicer% the denial
is correctible b! certiorari% because it is an act o the court in e(cess o
Curisdiction or without Curisdiction% the order den!ing the a**lication thereore is
null and void.
Probation is intended to *romote the correction and rehabilitation o an
oender b! *roviding him with individuali.ed treatmentK to *rovide an
o**ortunit! or the reormation o a *enitent oender which might be less
*robable i he were to serve a *rison sentenceK to *revent the commission o
oensesK to decongest our CailsK and to save the government much needed
inance or maintaining convicts in Cail
Probation is onl! a *rivilege. )o even i the oender ma! not be disDualiied o
*robation% !et the court believes that because o the crime committed it was
not advisable to give *robation because it would de*reciate the eect o the
crime% the court ma! reuse or den! an a**lication or *robation.
-enerall!% the courts do not grant an a**lication or *robation or violation o
the #angerous #rugs Law% because o the *revalence o the crime. )o it is not
along the *ur*ose o *robation to grant the convict the beneit thereo% Cust the
individual rehabilitation o the oender but also the best interest o the societ!
and the communit! where the convict would be sta!ing% i he would be released
on *robation. "o allow him loose ma! bring about a lac= o res*ect o the
members o the communit! to the enorcement o *enal law. ,n such a case%
the court even i the crime is *robationable ma! still den! the beneit o
*robation.
Consider not onl! the *robationable crime% but also the *robationable *enalt!.
, it were the non-*robationable crime% then regardless o the *enalt!% the
convict cannot avail o *robation. -enerall!% the *enalt! which is not
*robationable is an! *enalt! e(ceeding si( !ears o im*risonment. Oenses
which are not *robationable are those against natural securit!% those against
*ublic order and those with reerence to subversion.
Persons who have been granted o the beneit o *robation cannot avail thereo
or the second time. Probation is onl! available once and this ma! be availed
onl! where the convict starts serving sentence and *rovided he has not
*erected an a**eal. , the convict *erected an a**eal% he oreits his right to
a**l! or *robation. 4s ar as oenders who are under *reventive
im*risonment% that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime
committed% although bailable% the! cannot aord to *ut u* a bail% u*on
*romulgation o the sentence% naturall! he goes bac= to detention% that does
not mean that the! alread! start serving the sentence even ater *romulgation
o the sentence% sentence will onl! become inal and e(ecutor! ater the la*se
o the 1A-da! *eriod% unless the convict has waived e(*ressl! his right to
a**eal or otherwise% he has *artl! started serving sentence and in that case%
the *enalt! will alread! be inal and e(euctor!% no right to *robation can be
a**lied or.
Probation shall be denied i the court inds6
(1) "hat the oender is in need o correctional treatment that can be
*rovided most eectivel! b! his commitment to an institutionK
(9) "hat there is undue ris= that during the *eriod o *robation the
oender will commit another crimeK or
(0) Probation will de*reciate the seriousness o the crime.
"he *robation law im*oses two =inds o conditions6
(1) /andator! conditionsK and
(9) #iscretionar! conditions.
iii. Mandatory conditions5
(1) "he convict must re*ort to the Probation Oicer (PO) designated in the
court order a**roving his a**lication or Probation within $9 hours
rom recei*t o Notice o such order a**roving his a**licationK and
(9) "he convict% as a *robationer% must re*ort to the PO at least once a
month during the *eriod o *robation unless sooner reDuired b! the
PO.
"hese conditions being mandator!% the moment an! o these is violate% the
*robation is cancelled.
#iscretionar! conditions6
"he trial court which a**roved the a**lication or *robation ma! im*ose an!
condition which ma! be constructive to the correction o the oender% *rovided
the same would not violate the constitutional rights o the oender and subCect
to this two restrictions6 (1) the conditions im*osed should not be undul!
restrictive o the *robationerK and (9) such condition should not be
incom*atible with the reedom o conscience o the *robationer
+vvver"a Pa"e CC of ,--
ED%INC%I8N 89 CRIMINAL LIA<ILI%.
4lwa!s *rovide two classiications when answering this Duestion.
Criminal liabilit! is totall! e(tinguished as ollows6
(1) E! the death o the convict as to *ersonal *enaltiesK and as to
*ecuniar! *enalties% liabilit! thereore is e(tinguished onl! when the
death o the oender occurs beore inal Cudgment
(9) E! service o sentenceK
(0) E! amnest! which com*letel! e(tinguished the *enalt! and all its
eectsK
(+) E! absolute *ardonK
(A) E! *rescri*tion o the crimeK
(') E! *rescri*tion o the *enalt!K
($) E! the marriage o the oended women as in the crimes o ra*e%
abduction% seduction and acts o lasciviousness.
Criminal liabilit! is *artiall! e(tinguished as ollows6
(1) E! conditional *ardonK
(9) E! commutation o sentenceK
(0) 3or good conduct% allowances which the cul*rit ma! earn while he is
serving sentenceK
(+) ParoleK and
(A) Probation.
%otal e4tinction of criminal lia1ility
4mong the grounds or total e(tinction as well as those or *artial e(tinction%
!ou cannot ind among them the election to *ublic oice. ,n one case% a *ublic
oicial was charged beore the )andiganba!an or violation o 4nti--rat and
Corru*t Practices 4ct. #uring the ensuing election% he was nevertheless re-
elected b! the constituents% one o the deenses raised was that o condonation
o the crime b! his constituents% that his constituents have *ardoned him. "he
)u*reme Court ruled that the re-election to *ublic oice is not one o the
grounds b! which criminal liabilit! is e(tinguished. "his is onl! true to
administrative cases but not criminal cases.
'eath of the offender
5here the oender dies beore inal Cudgment% his death e(tinguishes both his
criminal and civil liabilities. )o while a case is on a**eal% the oender dies% the
case on a**eal will be dismissed. "he oended *art! ma! ile a se*arate civil
action under the Civil Code i an! other basis or recover! o civil liabilit! e(ists
as *rovided under 4rt 11A$ Civil Code. (Peo!le v. <ayotas@ decided on
e!tem1er 0@ ,CC3)
Amnesty and !ardon
"he eects o amnest! as well as absolute *ardon are not the same. 4mnest!
erases not onl! the conviction but also the crime itsel. )o that i an oender
was convicted or rebellion and he Dualiied or amnest!% and so he was given
an amnest!% then !ears later he rebelled again and convicted% is he a recidivistJ
No. Eecause the amnest! granted to him erased not onl! the conviction but
also the eects o the conviction itsel.
)u**ose% instead o amnest!% what was given was absolute *ardon% then !ears
later% the oended was again ca*tured and charged or rebellion% he was
convicted% is he a recidivistJ
?es. Pardon% although absolute does not erase the eects o conviction.
Pardon onl! e(cuses the convict rom serving the sentence. "here is an
e(ce*tion to this and that is when the *ardon was granted when the convict
had alread! served the sentence such that there is no more service o sentence
to be e(ecuted then the *ardon shall be understood as intended to erase the
eects o the conviction.
)o i the convict has alread! served the sentence and in s*ite o that he was
given a *ardon that *ardon will cover the eects o the crime and thereore% i
he will be subseDuentl! convicted or a elon! embracing the same title as that
crime% he cannot be considered a recidivist% because the *ardon wi*es out the
eects o the crime.
Eut i he was serving sentence when he was *ardoned% that *ardon will not
wi*e out the eects o the crime% unless the language o the *ardon absolutel!
relieve the oender o all the eects thereo. Considering that recidivism does
not *rescribe% no matter how long ago was the irst conviction% he shall still be
a recidivist.
,llustrations6
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-- of ,--
5hen the crime carries with it moral tur*itude% the oender even i granted
*ardon shall still remain disDualiied rom those alling in cases where moral
tur*itude is a bar.
Pedro was *rosecuted and convicted o the crime o robber! and was sentenced
to si( !ears im*risonment or *rision correccional. 4ter serving sentence or
three !ears% he was granted absolute *ardon. "en !ears later% Pedro was again
*rosecuted and convicted o the crime o thet% a crime embraced in the same
title% this time he shall be a recidivist. On the other hand% i he has served all
si( !ears o the irst sentence% and his name was included in the list o all
those granted absolute *ardon% *ardon shall relieve him o the eects o the
crime% and thereore even i he commits thet again% he shall not be considered
a recidivist.
,n Monsanto v. 9actoran@ Gr.@ ,=- CRA ,C,@ it was held that absolute
*ardon does not i*so acto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the *ublic
oice oreited b! reason o his conviction. 4lthough *ardon restores his
eligibilit! or a**ointment to that oice% the *ardoned convict must rea**l! or
the new a**ointment
.
Pardon becomes valid onl! when there is a inal Cudgment. , given beore this%
it is *remature and hence void. "here is no such thing as a *remature
amnest!% because it does not reDuire a inal CudgmentK it ma! be given beore
inal Cudgment or ater it.
Prescri*tion o crime and *rescri*tion o the *enalt!
Prescri*tion o the crime begins% as a general rule on the da! the crime was
committed% unless the crime was concealed% not *ublic% in which case% the
*rescri*tion thereo would onl! commence rom the time the oended *art! or
the government learns o the commission o the crime.
:Commission o the crime is *ublic; -- "his does not mean alone that the crime
was within *ublic =nowledge or committed in *ublic.
,llustration6
,n the crime o alsiication o a document that was registered in the *ro*er
registr! o the government li=e the Registr! o Pro*ert! or the Registr! o
#eeds o the Civil registr!% the alsiication is deemed *ublic rom the time the
alsiied document was registered or recorded in such *ublic oice so even
though% the oended *art! ma! not reall! =now o the alsiication% the
*rescri*tive *eriod o the crime shall alread! run rom the moment the alsiied
document was recorded in the *ublic registr!. )o in the case where a deed o
sale o a *arcel o land which was alsiied was recorded in the corres*onding
Registr! o Pro*ert!% the owner o the land came to =now o the alsiied
transaction onl! ater 18 !ears% so he brought the criminal action onl! then.
"he )u*reme Court ruled that the crime has alread! *rescribed. 3rom the
moment the alsiied document is registered in the Registr! o Pro*ert!% the
*rescri*tive *eriod alread! commenced to run.
5hen a crime *rescribes% the )tate loses the right to *rosecute the oender%
hence% even though the oender ma! not have iled a motion to Duash on this
ground the trial court% but ater conviction and during the a**eal he learned
that at the time the case was iled% the crime has alread! *rescribed% such
accused can raise the Duestion o *rescri*tion even or the irst time on a**eal%
and the a**ellate court shall have no Curisdiction to continue% i legall!% the
crime has indeed *rescribed.
"he *revailing rule now is% *rescri*tion o the crime is not waivable% the earlier
Curis*rudence to the contrar! had alread! been abrogated or overruled.
/oreover% or *ur*oses o *rescri*tion% the *eriod or iling a com*laint or
inormation ma! not be e(tended at all% even though the last da! such
*rescri*tive *eriod alls on a holida! or a )unda!.
3or instance% light elon! *rescribes in '8 da!s or two months. , the '8
th
da!
alls on a )unda!% the iling o the com*laint on the succeeding /onda! is
alread! atal to the *rosecution o the crime because the crime has alread!
*rescribed.
"he rules on Criminal Procedure or *ur*oses o *rescri*tion is that the iling o
the com*laint even at the *ublic *rosecutorIs oice sus*ends the running o the
*rescri*tive *eriod% but not the iling with the baranga!. )o the earlier rulings
to the contrar! are alread! abrogated b! e(*ress *rovision o the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure.
"he *rescri*tion o the crime is interru*ted or sus*ended 2
(1) 5hen a com*laint is iled in a *ro*er baranga! or conciliation or
mediation as reDuired b! Cha*ter $% Local -overnment Code% but the
sus*ension o the *rescri*tive *eriod is good onl! or '8 da!s. 4ter
which the *rescri*tion will resume to run% whether the conciliation or
mediation is terminated or notK
(9) 5hen criminal case is iled in the *rosecutorIs oice% the *rescri*tion
o the crime is sus*ended until the accused is convicted or the
*roceeding is terminated or a cause not attributable to the accused.
Eut where the crime is subCect to )ummar! Procedure% the *rescri*tion o the
crime will be sus*ended onl! when the inormation is alread! iled with the trial
court. ,t is not the iling o the com*laint% but the iling o the inormation in
the trial which will sus*end the *rescri*tion o the crime.
On the *rescri*tion o the *enalt!% the *eriod will onl! commence to run when
the convict has begun to serve the sentence. 4ctuall!% the *enalt! will
*rescribe rom the moment the convict evades the service o the sentence. )o
i an accused was convicted in the trial court% and the conviction becomes inal
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-, of ,--
and e(ecutor!% so this ellow was arrested to serve the sentence% on the wa! to
the *enitentiar!% the vehicle carr!ing him collided with another vehicle and
overturned% thus enabling the *risoner to esca*e% no matter how long such
convict has been a ugitive rom Custice% the *enalt! im*osed b! the trial court
will never *rescribe because he has not !et commenced the service o his
sentence. 3or the *enalt! to *rescribe% he must be brought to /untinlu*a%
boo=ed there% *laced inside the cell and thereater he esca*es.
5hether it is *rescri*tion o crime or *rescri*tion o *enalt!% i the subCect could
leave the Phili**ines and go to a countr! with whom the Phili**ines has no
e(tradition treat!% the *rescri*tive *eriod o the crime or *enalt! shall remain
sus*ended whenever he is out o the countr!.
5hen the oender leaves or a countr! to which the Phili**ines has an
e(tradition treat!% the running o the *rescri*tive *eriod will go on even i the
oender leaves Phili**ine territor! or that countr!. Presentl! the Phili**ines
has an e(tradition treat! with "aiwan% ,ndonesia% Canada% 4ustralia% G)4 and
)wit.erland. )o i the oender goes to an! o these countries% the *rescri*tive
*eriod still continues to run.
,n the case o the *rescri*tion o the *enalt!% the moment the convict commits
another crime while he is ugitive rom Custice% *rescri*tive *eriod o the
*enalt! shall be sus*ended and shall not run in the meantime. "he crime
committed does not include the initial evasion o service o sentence that the
convict must *erorm beore the *enalt! shall begin to *rescribe% so that the
initial crime o evasion o service o sentence does not sus*end the *rescri*tion
o *enalt!% it is the commission o other crime% ater the convict has evaded the
service o *enalt! that will sus*end such *eriod.
Marria"e
,n the case o marriage% do not sa! that it is a**licable or the crimes under
4rticle 0++. ,t is onl! true in the crimes o ra*e% abduction% seduction and acts
o lasciviousness. #o not sa! that it is a**licable to *rivate crimes because the
term includes adulter! and concubinage. /arriages in these cases ma! even
com*ound the crime o adulter! or concubinage. ,t is onl! in the crimes o
ra*e% abduction% seduction and acts o lasciviousness that the marriage b! the
oender with the oended woman shall e(tinguish civil liabilit!% not onl!
criminal liabilit! o the *rinci*al who marries the oended woman% but also that
o the accom*lice and accessor!% i there are an!.
Co-*rinci*als who did not themselves directl! *artici*ate in the e(ecution o the
crime but who onl! coo*erated% will also beneit rom such marriage% but not
when such co-*rinci*al himsel too= direct *art in the e(ecution o the crime.
/arriage as a ground or e(tinguishing civil liabilit! must have been contracted
in good aith. "he oender who marries the oended woman must be sincere
in the marriage and thereore must actuall! *erorm the duties o a husband
ater the marriage% otherwise% notwithstanding such marriage% the oended
woman% although alread! his wie can still *rosecute him again% although the
marriage remains a valid marriage. #o not thin= that the marriage is avoided
or annulled. "he marriage still subsists although the oended woman ma! re-
ile the com*laint. "he )u*reme Court ruled that marriage contem*lated must
be a real marriage and not one entered to and not Cust to evade *unishment or
the crime committed because the oender will be com*ounding the wrong he
has committed.
Partial e4tinction of criminal lia1ility
/ood cond*ct allowance
"his includes the allowance or lo!alt! under 4rticle >&% in relation to 4rticle
1A&. 4 convict who esca*es the *lace o coninement on the occasion o
disorder resulting rom a conlagration% earthDua=e or similar catastro*he or
during a mutin! in which he has not *artici*ated and he returned within +&
hours ater the *roclamation that the calamit! had alread! *assed% such convict
shall be given credit o 17A o the original sentence rom that allowance or his
lo!alt! o coming bac=. "hose who did not leave the *enitentiar! under such
circumstances do not get such allowance or lo!alt!. 4rticle 1A& reers onl! to
those who leave and return.
Parole
"his corres*ondingl! e(tinguishes service o sentence u* to the ma(imum o
the indeterminate sentence. "his is the *artial e(tinction reerred to% so that i
the convict was never given *arole% no *artial e(tinction.
CIVIL LIA<ILI%. 89 %HE 899EN'ER
Civil liabilit! o the oender alls under three categories6
(1) Restitution and restorationK
(9) Re*aration o the damage causedK and
(0) ,ndemniication o conseDuential damages.
Restit*tion or restoration
Restitution or restoration *resu**oses that the oended *art! was divested o
*ro*ert!% and such *ro*ert! must be returned. , the *ro*ert! is in the hands
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-0 of ,--
o a third *art!% the same shall nevertheless be ta=en awa! rom him and
restored to the oended *art!% even though such third *art! ma! be a holder
or value and a bu!er in good aith o the *ro*ert!% e(ce*t when such third
*art! bu!s the *ro*ert! rom a *ublic sale where the law *rotects the bu!er.
3or e(am*le% i a third *art! bought a *ro*ert! in a *ublic auction conducted b!
the sheri levied on the *ro*ert! o a Cudgment creditor or an obligation% the
bu!er o the *ro*ert! at such e(ecution sale is *rotected b! law. "he oended
*art! cannot divest him thereo. )o the oended *art! ma! onl! resort to
re*aration o the damage done rom the oender.
)ome believed that this civil liabilit! is true onl! in crimes against *ro*ert!% this
is not correct. Regardless o the crime committed% i the *ro*ert! is illegall!
ta=en rom the oended *art! during the commission o the crime% the court
ma! direct the oender to restore or restitute such *ro*ert! to the oended
*art!. ,t can onl! be done i the *ro*ert! is brought within the Curisdiction o
that court.
3or e(am*le% in a case where the oender committed ra*e% during the ra*e% the
oender got on o the earrings o the victim. 5hen a**rehended% the oender
was *rosecuted or ra*e and thet. 5hen the oender was as=ed wh! he got
on o the earrings o the victim% the oender disclosed that he too= one o the
earrings in order to have a souvenir o the se(ual intercourse. )u*reme Court
ruled that the crime committed is not thet and ra*e but ra*e and unCust
ve(ation or the ta=ing o the earring. "he latter crime is not a crime against
*ro*ert!% this is a crime against *ersonal securit! and libert! under "itle ,T o
Eoo= ,, o the RPC. 4nd !et% the oender was reDuired to restore or restitute
the earring to the oended woman.
Pro*ert! will have to be restored to the oended *art! even this would reDuire
the ta=ing o the *ro*ert! rom a third *erson. 5here *ersonal *ro*ert! was
divested rom the oended *art! *ursuant to the commission o the crime% the
one who too= the same or acce*ted the same would be doing so without the
beneit o the Cust title. )o even i the *ro*ert! ma! have been bought b! the
third *erson% the same ma! be ta=en rom him and restored to the oended
*art! without an obligation on the *art o the oended *art! to *a! him
whatever he *aid.
"he right to recover what he has *aid will be against the oender who sold it to
him. On the other hand% i the crime was thet or robber!% the one who
received the *ersonal *ro*ert! becomes a ence% he is not onl! reDuired to
restitute the *ersonal *ro*ert! but he incurs criminal liabilit! in violation o the
4nti-3encing Law.
, the *ro*ert! cannot be restituted an!more% then the damage must be
re*aired% reDuiring the oender to *a! the value thereo% as determined b! the
court. "hat value includes the sentimental value to the oended *art!% not onl!
the re*lacement cost. ,n most cases% the sentimental value is higher than the
re*lacement value. Eut i what would be restored is brand new% then there will
be an allowance or de*reciation% otherwise% the oended *art! is allowed to
enrich himsel at the e(*ense o the oender. )o there will be a corres*onding
de*reciation and the oended *art! ma! even be reDuired to *a! something
Cust to cover the dierence o the value o what was restored to him.
"he obligation o the oender transcends to his heirs% even i the oender dies%
*rovided he died ater Cudgment became inal% the heirs shall assume the
burden o the civil liabilit!% but this is onl! to the e(tent that the! inherit
*ro*ert! rom the deceased% i the! do not inherit% the! cannot inherit the
obligations.
"he right o the oended *art! transcends to heirs u*on death. "he heirs o
the oended *art! ste* into the shoes o the latter to demand civil liabilit! rom
the oender.
Re!aration of the dama"e ca*sed
,n case o human lie% re*aration o the damage cause is basicall! PA8%888.88
value o human lie% e(clusive o other orms o damages. "his PA8%888.88
ma! also increase whether such lie was lost through intentional elon! or
criminal negligence% whether the result o dolo or cul*a. 4lso in the crime o
ra*e% the damages awarded to the oended woman is generall! P08%888.88 or
the damage to her honor. ,n earlier rulings% the amount varied% whether the
oended woman is !ounger or a married woman. )u*reme Court ruled that
even i the oended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage% court
can ta=e Cudicial notice o the act that i a woman was ra*ed% she inevitabl!
suers damages. Gnder the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure% a *rivate
*rosecutor can recover all =inds o damages including attorne!Is ee. "he onl!
limitation is that the amount and the nature o the damages should be
s*eciied. "he *resent *rocedural law does not allow a blan=et recover! o
damages. @ach =ind o damages must be s*eciied and the amount dul!
*roven.
,ndemniication o conseDuential damages
,ndemniication o conseDuential damages reers to the loss o earnings% loss o
*roits. "his does not reer onl! to conseDuential damages suered b! the
oended *art!K this also includes conseDuential damages to third *art! who
also suer because o the commission o the crime.
"he oender carna**ed a bridal car while the newl!-weds were inside the
church. )ince the car was onl! rented% conseDuential damage not onl! to the
newl!-weds but also to the entit! which rented the car to them.
/ost im*ortantl!% reer to the *ersons who are civill! liable under 4rticles 189
and 180. "his *ertains to the owner% *ro*rietor o hotels% inns% taverns and
similar establishments% an obligation to answer civill! or the loss or *ro*ert! o
their guests.
Gnder 4rticloe 189% two conditions must be *resent beore liabilit! attaches to
the in=ee*ers% tavern=ee*ers and *ro*rietors6
(1) "he guest must have inormed the management in advance o his
having brought to the *remises certain valuables aside rom the usual
*ersonal belongings o the guestK and
(9) "he guest must have ollowed the rules and regulations *rescribed b!
the management o such inn% tavern% or similar establishment
regarding the sae=ee*ing o said valuables.
"he )u*reme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obe! the rules and
regulations *rescribed b! the management or sae=ee*ing o the valuables%
this does not absolve management rom the subsidiar! civil liabilit!. Non-
com*liance with such rules and regulations but the guests will onl! be regarded
as contributor! negligence% but it wonIt absolve the management rom civil
liabilit!.
Liabilit! s*eciall! attaches when the management is ound to have violated an!
law or ordinance% rule or regulation governing such establishment.
@ven i the crime is robber! with violence against or intimidation o *ersons or
committed b! the in=ee*erIs em*lo!ees% management will be liable% otherwise%
not liable because there is duress rom the oender% liable onl! or thet and
orce u*on things.
Gnder 4rticle 180% the subsidiar! liabilit! o an em*lo!er or master or the
crime committed b! his em*lo!ee or servant ma! attach onl! when the
ollowing reDuisites concur6
(1) "he em*lo!er must be engaged in business or in trade or industr!
while the accused was his em*lo!eeK
(9) 4t the time the crime was committed% the em*lo!ee-em*lo!err
relationshi* must be e(isting between the twoK
(0) "he em*lo!ee must have been ound guilt! o the crime charged and
accordingl! held civill! liableK
(+) "he writ o e(ecution or the satisaction o the civil liabilit! was
returned unsatisied because the accused-em*lo!ee does not have
enough *ro*ert! to *a! the civil liabilit!.
5hen these reDuisites concur% the em*lo!er will be subsidiaril! civill! liable or
the ull amount that his em*lo!ee was adCudged civill! liable. ,t is alread!
settled in Curis*rudence that there is no need to ile a civil action against the
em*lo!er in order to enorce the subsidiar! civil liabilit! or the crime
committed b! his em*lo!ee% it is enough that the writ o e(ecution is returned
unsatisied. "here is no denial o due *rocess o law because the liabilit! o the
em*lo!er is subsidiar! and not *rimar!. <e will onl! be liable i his em*lo!ee
does not have the *ro*ert! to *a! his civil liabilit!% since it is the law itsel that
*rovides that such subsidiar! liabilit! e(ists and ignorance o the law is not an
e(cuse.
Civil liabilit! o the oender is e(tinguished in the same manner as civil
obligation is e(tinguished but this is not absolutel! true. Gnder civil law% a civil
obligation is e(tinguished u*on loss o the thing due when the thing involved is
s*eciic. "his is not a ground a**licable to e(tinction o civil liabilit! in criminal
case i the thing due is lost% the oender shall re*air the damages caused.
5hen there are several oenders% the court in the e(ercise o its discretion
shall determine what shall be the share o each oender de*ending u*on the
degree o *artici*ation 2 as *rinci*al% accom*lice or accessor!. , within each
class o oender% there are more o them% such as more than one *rinci*al or
more than one accom*lice or accessor!% the liabilit! in each class o oender
shall be subsidiar!. 4n!one o the ma! be reDuired to *a! the civil liabilit!
*ertaining to such oender without *reCudice to recover! rom those whose
share have been *aid b! another.
, all the *rinci*als are insolvent% the obligation shall devolve u*on the
accom*lice(s) or accessor!(s). Eut whoever *a!s shall have the right o
covering the share o the obligation rom those who did not *a! but are civill!
liable.
"o relate with 4rticle 0&% when there is an order or *reerence o *ecuniar!
(monetar!) liabilit!% thereore% restitution is not included here.
"here is not subsidiar! *enalt! or non-*a!ment o civil liabilit!.
)ubsidiar! civil liabilit! is im*osed in the ollowing6
(1) ,n case o a elon! committed under the com*ulsion o an irresistible
orce. "he *erson who em*lo!ed the irresistible orce is subsidiaril!
liableK
(9) ,n case o a elon! committed under an im*ulse o an eDual or greater
inCur!. "he *erson who generated such an im*ulse is subsidiaril!
liable.
"he owners o taverns% inns% motels% hotels% where the crime is committed
within their establishment due to noncom*liance with general *olice
regulations% i the oender who is *rimaril! liable cannot *a!% the *ro*rietor% or
owner is subsidiaril! liable.
3elonies committed b! em*lo!ees% *u*ils% servants in the course o their
em*lo!ment% schooling or household chores. "he em*lo!er% master% teacher is
subsidiaril! liable civill!% while the oender is *rimaril! liable.
,n case the accom*lice and the *rinci*al cannot *a!% the liabilit! o those
subsidiaril! liable is absolute.
C8MPLED CRIME
Philoso*h! behind *lural crimes6 "he treatment o *lural crimes as one is to be
lenient to the oender% who% instead o being made to suer distinct *enalties
or ever! resulting crime is made to suer one *enalt! onl!% although it is the
*enalt! or the most serious one and is in the ma(imum *eriod. Pur*ose is in
the *ursuance o the rule o *ro reo.
, be com*le(ing the crime% the *enalt! would turn out to be higher% do not
com*le( an!more.
@(am*le6 /urder and thet (=illed with treacher!% then stole the right).
Penalt!6 , com*le( 2 Reclusion tem*oral ma(imum to death.
, treated individuall! 2 Reclusion tem*oral to Reclusion Per*etua.
Com*le( crime is not Cust a matter o *enalt!% but o substance under the
Revised Penal Code.
Pluralit! o crimes ma! be in the orm o6
(1) Com*ound crimeK
(9) Com*le( crimeK and
(0) Com*osite crime.
4 com*ound crime is one where a single act *roduces two or more crimes.
4 com*le( crime strictl! s*ea=ing is one where the oender has to commit an
oense as a means or the commission o another oense. ,t is said that the
oense is committed as a necessar! means to commit the other oense.
:Necessar!; should not be understood as indis*ensable% otherwise% it shall be
considered absorbed and not giving rise to a com*le( crime.
4 com*osite crime is one in which substance is made u* o more than one
crime% but which in the e!es o the law is onl! a single indivisible oense. "his
is also =nown as s*ecial com*le( crime. @(am*les are robber! with homicide%
robber! with ra*e% ra*e with homicide. "hese are crimes which in the e!es o
the law are regarded onl! as a single indivisible oense.
iv. Com!osite Crime+!ecial Com!le4
Crime
"his is one which in substance is made u* o more than one crime but which in
the e!es o the law is onl! a single indivisible oense. "his is also =nown as a
s*ecial com*le( crime. @(am*les are robber! with homicide% robber! with
ra*e% and ra*e with homicide.
"he com*ound crime and the com*le( crime are treated in 4rticle +& o the
Revised Penal Code. Eut in such article% a com*ound crime is also designated
as a com*le( crime% but :com*le( crimes; are limited onl! to a situation where
the resulting elonies are grave and7or less grave.
5hereas in a com*ound crime% there is no limit as to the gravit! o the
resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes.
)trictl! s*ea=ing% com*ound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave
elonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes.
,llustration6
4 *erson threw a hand grenade and the *eo*le started scam*ering. 5hen the
hand grenade e(*loded% no on was seriousl! wounded all were mere wounded.
,t was held that this is a com*ound crime% although the resulting elonies are
onl! slight.
,llustration o a situation where the term :necessar!; in com*le( crime should
not be understood as indis*ensable6
4betting committed during the encounter between rebels and government
troo*s such that the homicide committed cannot be com*le(ed with rebellion.
"his is because the! are indis*ensable *art o rebellion. (Caveat6 Ortega sa!s
rebellion can be com*le(ed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion)
"he com*le( crime lies actuall! in the irst orm under 4rticle 1+&.
"he irst orm o the com*le( crime is actuall! a com*ound crime% is one where
a single act constitutes two or more grave and7or less grave elonies. "he basis
in com*le(ing or com*ounding the crime is the act. )o that when an oender
*erormed more than one act% although similar% i the! result in se*arate
crimes% there is no com*le( crime at all% instead% the oender shall be
*rosecuted or as man! crimes as are committed under se*arate inormation.
5hen the single act brings about two or more crimes% the oender is *unished
with onl! one *enalt!% although in the ma(imum *eriod% because he acted onl!
with single criminal im*ulse. "he *resum*tion is that% since there is onl! one
act ormed% it ollows that there is onl! one criminal im*ulse and correctl!% onl!
one *enalt! should be im*osed.
Conversel!% when there are several acts *erormed% the assum*tion is that each
act is im*elled b! a distinct criminal im*ulse and or ever criminal im*ulse% a
se*arate *enalt!. <owever% it ma! ha**en that the oender is im*elled onl! b!
a single criminal im*ulse in committing a series o acts that brought about more
than one crime% considering that Criminal Law% i there is onl! one criminal
im*ulse which brought about the commission o the crime% the oender should
be *enali.ed onl! once.
"here are in act cases decided b! the )u*reme Court where the oender has
*erormed a series o acts but the acts a**eared to be im*elled b! one and the
same im*ulse% the ruling is that a com*le( crime is committed. ,n this case it
is not the singleness o the act but the singleness o the im*ulse that has been
considered. "here are cases where the )u*reme Court held that the crime
committed is com*le( even though the oender *erormed not a single act but
a series o acts. "he onl! reason is that the series o acts are im*elled b! a
single criminal im*ulse.
C8N%IN$E' AN' C8N%IN$IN/ CRIME
,n criminal law% when a series o acts are *er*etrated in *ursuance o a single
criminal im*ulse% there is what is called a continued crime. ,n criminal
*rocedure or *ur*oses o venue% this is reerred to as a continuing crime.
"he term :continuing crimes; as sometimes used in lieu o the term :continued
crimes;% however% although both terms are analogous% the! are not reall! used
with the same im*ort. :Continuing crime; is the term used in criminal
*rocedure to denote that a certain crime ma! be *rosecuted and tried not onl!
beore the court o the *lace where it was originall! committed or began% but
also beore the court o the *lace where the crime was continued. <ence% the
term :continuing crime; is used in criminal *rocedure when an! o the material
ingredients o the crime was committed in dierent *laces.
4 :continued crime; is one where the oender *erorms a series o acts
violating one and the same *enal *rovision committed at the same *lace and
about the same time or the same criminal *ur*ose% regardless o a series o
acts done% it is regarded in law as one.
,n Peo!le v. de Leon% where the accused too= ive roosters rom one and the
same chic=en coo*% although% the roosters were owned b! dierent *ersons% it
was held that there is onl! one crime o thet committed% because the accused
acted out o a single criminal im*ulse onl!. <owever *erorming a series o acts
but this is one and the same intent )u*reme Court ruled that onl! one crime is
committed under one inormation.
,n Peo!le v. Lawas@ the accused constabular! soldiers were ordered to march
with several muslims rom one barrio to another *lace. "hese soldiers eared
that on the wa!% some o the /uslims ma! esca*e. )o Lawas ordered the men
to tie the /uslims b! the hand connecting one with the other% so no one would
run awa!. 5hen the hands o the /uslims were tied% one o them *rotested% he
did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a <aCCi%
so the <aCCi remonstrated and there was commotion. 4t the height o the
commotion% Lawas ordered his men to ire% and the soldiers mechanicall! ired.
@leven were =illed and several others were wounded. "he Duestion o whether
the constabular! soldiers should be *rosecuted or the =illing o each under a
se*arate inormation has reached the )u*reme Court. "he )u*reme Court
ruled that the accused should be *rosecuted onl! in one inormation% because a
com*le( crime o multi*le homicide was committed b! them.
,n another case% a band o robbers came across a com*ound where a sugar mill
is located. "he wor=ers o said mill have their Duarters within the com*ound.
"he band o robbers ransac=ed the dierent Duarters therein. ,t was held that
there is onl! one crime committed 2 multi*le robber!% not because o 4rticle +&
but because this is a continued crime. 5hen the robbers entered the
com*ound% the! were moved b! a single criminal intent. Not because there
were several Duarters robbed. "his becomes a com*le( crime.
"he deinition in 4rticle +& is not honored because the accused did not *erorm
a single act. "here were a series o acts% but the decision in the Lawas case is
correct. "he conusion lies in this. 5hile 4rticle +& s*ea=s o a com*le( crime
where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave oenses% even
those cases when the act is not a single but a series o acts resulting to two or
more grave and less grave elonies% the )u*reme Court considered this as a
com*le( crime when the act is the *roduct o one single criminal im*ulse.
, conronted with a *roblem% use the standard or condition that it reers not
onl! to the singleness o the act which brought two or more grave and7less
grave elonies. "he )u*reme Court has e(tended this class o com*le( crime to
those cases when the oender *erormed not a single act but a series o acts
as long as it is the *roduct o a single criminal im*ulse.
?ou cannot ind an article in the Revised Penal Code with res*ect to the
continued crime or continuing crime. "he nearest article is 4rticle +&. )uch
situation is also brought under the o*eration o 4rticle +&.
,n Peo!le v. /arcia@ the accused were convicts who were members o a
certain gang and the! cons*ired to =ill the other gang. )ome o the accused
=illed their victims in one *lace within the same *enitentiar!% some =illed the
others in another *lace within the same *enitentiar!. "he )u*reme Court ruled
that all accused should be *unished under one inormation because the! acted
in cons*irac!. "he act o one is the act o all. Eecause there were several
victims =illed and some were mortall! wounded% the accused should be held or
the com*le( crime o multi*le homicide with multi*le rustrated homicide.
"here is a com*le( crime not onl! when there is a single act but a series o
acts. ,t is correct that when the oender acted in cons*irac!% this crime is
considered as one and *rosecuted under one inormation. 4lthough in this
case% the oenders did not onl! =ill one *erson but =illed dierent *ersons% so it
is clear that in =illing o one victim or the =illing o another victim% another act
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-: of ,--
out o this is done simultaneousl!. )u*reme Court considered this as com*le(.
4lthough the =illings did not result rom one single act.
,n criminal *rocedure% it is *rohibited to charge more than one oense in an
inormation% e(ce*t when the crimes in one inormation constitute a com*le(
crime or a s*ecial com*le( crime.
)o whenever the )u*reme Court concludes that the criminal should be
*unished onl! once% because the! acted in cons*irac! or under the same
criminal im*ulse% it is necessar! to embod! these crimes under one single
inormation. ,t is necessar! to consider them as com*le( crimes even i the
essence o the crime does not it the deinition o 4rt +&% because there is no
other *rovision in the RPC.
#u*licit! o oenses% in order not to violate this rule% it must be called a
com*le( crime.
,n earlier rulings on abduction with ra*e% i several oenders abducted the
woman and abused her% there is multi*le ra*e. "he oenders are to be
convicted o one count o ra*e and se*aratel! charged o the other ra*es.
,n Peo!le v. Gose@ there were our *artici*ants here. "he! abducted the
woman% ater which% the our too= turns in abusing her. ,t was held that each
one o the our became liable not onl! or his own ra*e but also or those
committed b! the others. @ach o the our oenders was convicted o our
ra*es. ,n the e!es o the law% each committed our crimes o ra*e. One o the
our ra*es committed b! one o them was com*le(ed with the crime o
abduction. "he other three ra*es are distinct counts o ra*e. "he three ra*es
are not necessar! to commit the other ra*es. "hereore% se*arate
com*laints7inormation.
,n Peo!le v. Pa1asa@ the )u*reme Court through 1ustice 4Duino ruled that
there is onl! one count o orcible abduction with ra*e committed b! the
oenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. "his
was onl! a dissenting o*inion o 1ustice 4Duino% that there could be onl! one
com*le( crimeo abduction with ra*e% regardless o the number o ra*es
committed because all the ra*es are but committed out o one and the same
lewd design which im*elled the oender to abduct the victim.
,n Peo!le v. <o;as@ the )u*reme Court ollowed the ruling in Peo!le v. Gose
that the our men who abducted and abused the oended women were held
liable or one crime 2 one count or orcible abudction with ra*e and distinct
charges or ra*e or the other ra*es committed b! them.
,n Peo!le v. <*laon"% the )u*reme Court ado*ted the dissenting o*inion o
1ustice 4Duino in Peo!le v. Pa1asa@ that when several *ersons abducted a
woman and abused her% regardless o the number o ra*es committed% there
should onl! be one com*le( crime o orcible abduction with ra*e. "he ra*es
committed were in the nature o a continued crime characteri.ed b! the same
lewd design which is an essential element in the crime o orcible abduction.
"he abuse amounting to ra*e is com*le(ed with orcible abduction because the
abduction was alread! consummated when the victim was ra*ed. "he orcible
abduction must be com*le(ed therewith. Eut the multi*le ra*es should be
considered onl! as one because the! are in the nature o a continued crime.
Note6 "his is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much
ra*e as the! can% ater all% onl! one com*le( crime o ra*e would arise.
,n adulter!% each intercourse constitutes one crime. 4**arentl!% the singleness
o the act is not considered a single crime. @ach intercourse brings with it the
danger o bringing one stranger in the amil! o the husband.
4rticle +& also a**lies in cases when out o a single act o negligence or
im*rudence% two or more grave or less grave elonies resulted% although onl!
the irst *art thereo (com*ound crime). "he second *art o 4rticle +& does not
a**l!% reerring to the com*le( crime *ro*er because this a**lies or reers onl!
to a deliberate commission o one oense to commit another oense.
<owever% a light elon! ma! result rom criminal negligence or im*rudence%
together with other grave or less grave elonies resulting thererom and the
)u*reme Court held that all elonies resulting rom criminal negligence should
be made subCect o one inormation onl!. "he reason being that% there is onl!
one inormation and *rosecution onl!. Otherwise% it would be tantamount to
s*litting the criminal negligence similar to s*litting a cause o action which is
*rohibited in civil cases.
4lthough under 4rticle +&% a light elon! should not be included in a com*le(
crime% !et b! virtue o this ruling o the )u*reme Court% the light elon! shall be
included in the same inormation charging the oender with grave and7or less
grave elonies resulting rom the negligence o rec=less im*rudence and this
runs counter to the *rovision o 4rticle +&. )o while the )u*reme Court ruled
that the light elon! resulting rom the same criminal negligence should be
com*le(ed with the other elonies because that would be a blatant violation o
4rticle +&% instead the )u*reme Court stated that an additional *enalt! should
be im*osed or the light elon!. "his would mean two *enalties to be im*osed%
one or the com*le( crime and one or the light elon!. ,t cannot se*arate the
light elon! because it a**ears that the cul*a is crime itsel and !ou cannot s*lit
the crime.
4**l!ing the conce*t o the :continued crime;% the ollowing cases have been
treated as constituting one crime onl!6
(1) "he thet o 10 cows belonging to two dierent *ersons committed b!
the accused at the same *lace and *eriod o time (Peo!le v. %*mlos@
:= Phil. 20-)K
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-= of ,--
(2) "he thet o si( roosters belonging to two dierent owners rom the
same coo* and at the same *eriod o time (Peo!le v. Garanillo)K
(0) "he illegal charging o ees or service rendered b! a law!er ever! time
he collects veteranIs beneits on behal o a client who agreed that
attorne!Is ees shall be *aid out o such beneits (Peo!le v. a11*n@
,- CAR ,7:). "he collections o legal ees were im*elled b! the
same motive% that o collecting ees or services rendered% and all acts
o collection were made under the same criminal im*ulse.
On the other hand% the )u*reme Court declined to a**l! the conce*t in the
ollowing cases6
(1) "wo @staa cases% one which was committed during the *eriod rom
1anuar! 1> to #ecember% 1>AA and the other rom 1anuar! 1>A' to
1ul! 1>A' (Peo!le v. 'ich*!a@ ,2 Phil 2-:). )aid acts were
committed on two dierent occasionsK
(2) )everal malversations committed in /a!% 1une and 1ul! 1>0' and
alsiications to conceal said oenses committed in 4ugust and
October% 1>0'. "he malversations and alsiications were not the
result o one resolution to embe..le and alsi! (Peo!le v. CIV@ ::
Phil. 27,)K
(0) )event!-ive estaa cases committed b! the conversion b! the agents
o collections rom the customers o the em*lo!er made on dierent
dates.
,n the thet cases% the trend is to ollow the single larcen! doctrine% that is
ta=ing o several things% whether belonging to the same or dierent owners% at
the same time and *lace% constitutes one larcen! onl!. /an! courts have
abandoned the se*arate larcen! doctrine% under which there was distinct
larcen! as to the *ro*ert! o each victim.
4lso abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to
*rosecute the accused or one oense or or as man! distinct oenses as there
are victims ()antiago v. 1ustice -architorena% decided on #ecember 9% 1>>0).
<ere% the accused was charged with *erorming a single act 2 that o a**roving
the legali.ation o aliens not Dualiied under the law. "he *rosecution
maniested that the! would onl! ile one inormation. )ubseDuentl!% 09
amended inormations were iled. "he )u*reme Court directed the *rosecution
to consolidate the cases into one oense because (1) the! were in violation o
the same law 2 @(ecutive Order No. 09+K (9) caused inCur! to one *art! onl! 2
the governmentK and (0) the! were done in the same da!. "he conce*t o
delito continuado has been a**lied to crimes under s*ecial laws since in 4rticle
18% the Revised Penal Code shall be su**lementar! to s*ecial laws% unless the
latter *rovides the contrar!.
ED%INC%I8N 89 CRIMINAL LIA<ILI%.
#eath o the convict as to the *ersonal *enalties beore inal Cudgment
E! service o the sentence
E! amnest! which com*letel! e(tinguishes the *enalt! and all its eects
E? *rescri*tion o the crime
E! *rescri*tion o the *enalt!
E! the marriage o the oended *art! (ra*e)
$ vs. MA'LAN/<A.AN
Be!word6 s*!K amnest!K crime *oliticall! motivated
,ssue6 57N the civil as*ect is e(tinguished too on account o amnest!.
#ecision6 No. "he dismissal o the criminal action does not e(tinguish the civil
res*onsibilit!. "he idea o amnest! wi*es out the crime cannot not be carried
to the e(tent o sa!ing% or the *ur*ose o de*riving a *erson o a legal civil
right to which he was entitled% that the criminal act never e(isted.
,ssue6 )hould the case be dismissed and accused acDuitted since the crime
was *oliticall! motivated.
#ecision6 No.. "he accused must irst show com*liance with the reDuirements
or availing himsel o the beneits li=e ta=ing the reDuired oath. G*on iling in
the court% the oath% the case will be dismissed. #ismissal o the case will not
be without *reCudice to the right o the widow to enorce the civil liabilit! o the
accused.
AR%ICLE C, #PRECRIP%I8N&
Period o *rescri*tion shall run rom the da! on which the crime is discovered
b! the oended *art!. "he authorities% or their agents and shall be interru*ted
b! the illing o the com*laint or inormation and shall commence to run again
when such *roceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
acDuitted. Prescri*tion shall not run when oender is not in the Phili**ines.
PEOPLE vs. SA!"#A$A%A
Be!word6 "orrensK registration o *ublic document
,ssue6 57N the act charged has alread! *rescribed.
#ecision6 ?es. "he date o the violation o the law becomes the o*erative date
or the commencement o the *eriod o *rescri*tion. "he date o com*uting
the *eriod o *rescri*tion would be rom the date o the iling o the a**lication.
@ven i the ten !ear *eriod commenced to run rom the registration and
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-A of ,--
issuance o the ree *atent title b! the register o deed% registration being a
constructive notice to the whole word% the *rescri*tive *eriod would la*se on
1>&' or A months beore the iling o the com*laint.
PE8PLE vs. RE.E
3eyword( prescription of crime4 filling in the register of deeds
,ssue6 57N the crime *rescribed
#ecision6 ?es. "he criminal action has been e(tinguished b! *rescri*tion. "he
title% once registered is a notice to the world. 4ll *ersons must ta=e notice.
Considering the la*se o more than 98 !ears% the crimes charges alread!
*rescribed.
,ssue6 #oes 4rt. >1 cannot be construed in such manner as to admit
a**lication o the rule on construction.
#ecision6 No. 4lthough caution should be observed in a**l!ing the rule o
construction in civil cases% the court will not hesitate to do so i the actual and
legal circumstance so warrant. "he a**lication o the rule on constructive
notice in the construction o 4rticle >9 o the RPC would most certainl! be
avorable to the accused since the *rescri*tive *eriod o the crime shall have to
be rec=oned with earlier. "he criminal oense o alsiication o *ublic
document has alread! *rescribed.
M8NAN%8 vs. 9AC%8RAN
Be!words6 @staaK alsiication o *ublic documents.
9$LL and A<8L$%E 9REE'8M6
)ubCect to the limitations im*osed b! the constitution% the *ardoning *ower
cannot be restricted or controlled b! the legislative action. 4bsolute *ardon
dies not blot out the crime committed. Pardon i granted beore conviction% it
*revents an! *enalties and disabilities% conseDuent u*on condition% rom
attaching. , granted ater conviction% it removes *enalties and disabilities and
restores him to all his civil rights. "he ver! essence o *ardon is orgiveness
and remission o guilt. Pardon im*lies guilt% thus% it does no erase the crime
and the conviction thereo. "his is the reason wh! the em*lo!ee is not entitled
to bac=*a! when *ardoned.
AR%ICLE ,--
@ver! *erson criminall! liable or a elon! in also civill! liable.
%EIME%J vs. VAL'EJ
Be!word6 9 vehicles collided in intersectionK victim cannot collect rom the
driver.
,ssue6 57N the driverIs em*lo!er can be civill! liable.
#ecision6 No. the em*lo!er is not engaged in business or industr! and merel!
uses automobile or *rivate ends. "he em*lo!er was also no in the automobile
when the accident ha**ened and when it e(ercised due diligence in choosing a
driver% the em*lo!er cannot be civill! liable.
MARE$EJ vs. CA%ILL8
Be!word6 Chauer% /C the em*lo!er did not =now his car was used. "he
victim died.
,ssue6 Can the em*lo!er be held liable.
#ecision6 No. 5here it admitted that the em*lo!er did not =now that his
chauer was using the car that da! and the he e(ercised due diligence in hiring
the chauer% the em*lo!er can not be held liable. "he subsidiar! liabilit! o the
master onl! ta=es *lace when the servant% subordinate or em*lo!ee commits a
*unishable criminal act while in the actual *erormance o his own ordinar!
duties and he was innocent thereb! rendering inca*able o satis!ing b! himsel
his own liabilit!.
VARELA vs. 9INNICB
Be!word6 @staa o CewelsK *awned instead o selling them.
,ssue6 57N the Cewels can be recovered.
#ecision6 ?es. @ver! *erson criminall! liable or a crime or misdemeanor is also
civill! liable. "he owner has an absolute right to the Cewels rom the
*ossession o whoever holds them% in accordance with the Cudgment entered in
the aoresaid cause or estaa.
RE.E vs. R$IJ
Be!word6 #eraudK Cewels
,ssue6 57N the owner o the Cewels direct our *awnsho*s to restore the
Cewels without indemnit! on the *art! o the *etitioner.
#ecision6 ?es. 4mong the civil res*onsibilities incurred b! a *erson
committing estaa is that o restoring the thing ta=en. "he Cewels were *awned
without the =nowledge o the owner thus must be restored b! the *awnsho*
owners. , restitution is im*ossible% the! ma! re*atriate or the inCur! or
indemni! the owner.
$ vs. VILLAL8<8
Be!word6 "het o carabao. 4nother *erson aided in *rocuring registration
certiicate.
,ssue6 57N that *erson is mere accessor! to the thet or *rinci*al.
+vvver"a Pa"e ,-C of ,--
#ecision6 ?es. 4 number o stolen carabao were ound in the *ossession o a
*erson who =e*t them hidden or a time and% a ew da!s *rior to their recover!%
altered the brands on the animals. "hus% unless it be satisactoril! shown that
the *ro*ert! was stolen b! some other *erson% he must be *resumed to be the
author o the thet and not merel! an accessor!. <is *artici*ation as an
accessor! cannot be admitted. <e is *rinci*al to the crime. 4lthough stolen
*ro*ert! is acDuired in good aith b! a third *art!% he can not lawull! withhold
the *ossession thereo rom the true owner and insist u*on reimbursement%
beore deliver!.
PE8PLE vs. <A.8%A
Be!word6 Ra*eK )C dismissed the criminal as*ect
,ssue6 #oes death o the accused *ending a**eal o his conviction e(tinguish
his civil liabilit!.
#ecision6 ?es. "he case o Peo*le v. Castillo% this issue was settled in the
airmative. 5ith reerence to CastilloLs criminal liabilit!% them is no Duestion.
"he law is *lain. )tatutor! construction is unnecessar!. )aid liabilit! is
e(tinguished. "he civil liabilit!% however% *oses a *roblem. )uch liabilit! is
e(tinguished onl! when the death o the oender occurs beore inal Cudgment.
,t should be stressed that the e(tinction o civil liabilit! ollows the e(tinction o
the criminal liabilit! under 4rticle &>% onl! when the civil liabilit! arises rom the
criminal act as its onl! basis. )tated dierentl!% where the civil liabilit! does not
e(ist inde*endentl! o the criminal res*onsibilit!% the e(tinction o the latter b!
death% i*so acto e(tinguishes the ormer% *rovided% o course% that death
su*ervenes beore inal Cudgment. "he said *rinci*le does not a**l! in instant
case wherein the civil liabilit! s*rings neither solel! nor originall! rom the
crime itsel but rom a civil contract o *urchase and sale.
1. #eath o the accused *ending a**eal o his conviction e(tinguishes his
criminal liabilit! as well as the civil liabilit! based solel! thereon.
9. Corollaril!% the claim or civil liabilit! survives notwithstanding the death o
accused% i the same ma! also be *redicated on a source o obligation other
than delict.
0. 5here the civil liabilit! survives% as e(*lained in Number 9 above% an action
or recover! thereore ma! be *ursued but onl! b! wa! o iling a se*arate civil
action and subCect to )ection 1% Rule 111 o the 1>&A Rules on Criminal
Procedure as amended. "his se*arate civil action ma! be enorced either
against the e(ecutor7administrator or the estate o the accused% de*ending an
the source o obligation u*on which the same is based as e(*lained above.
+. 3inall!% the *rivate oended *art! need not ear a oreiture o his right to
ile this se*arate civil action b! *rescri*tion% in cases where -during the
*rosecution o the criminal action and *rior to its e(tinction% the *rivate-
oended *art! instituted together therewith the civil action. ,n such case% the
statute o limitations on the civil liabilit! is deemed interru*ted during the
*endenc! o the criminal case% conormabl! with *rovisions o the Civil Code%
that should thereb! avoid an! a**rehension on a *ossible *rivation o right b!
*rescri*tion.
+vvver"a Pa"e ,,- of ,--

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER Padilla Cases and Notes Ortega Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER Padilla Cases and Notes Ortega Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V.

You might also like