Sample Answer:
SWEET: jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military
Yes, X is Liable because Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code in order for a person to invoked Self-defense, The following
requisites must exist, The URL..
(Argument) In here there is no more unlawful aggression while it is true
Indeed X is liable because under the law there must be concurrence of
justifying circumstances to invoked self defense. Therefore X is
criminally liable.
CRIMINAL LAW – a branch of municipal law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
CRIME – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
forbidding or commanding it.
POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES: the State has the
authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to
lay down the rules of criminal procedure.
ex post facto law vs bill of attainder
Ex post facto law- Pertains to act, is a law that retroactively changes
the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or
relationships that existed, before the enactment of thPAe law.
Bill of Attainder- is a legislature act declaring a person, or a group of
persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1.Right to a speedy disposition of their cases.
2.No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
3.Right to bail: mist not be impaired.
4.Sec. 14: presumed innocent, etc.
5.No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
6.No excessive fines and cruel, degrading or inhuman punishments.
7.No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.
8.Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied by reason of poverty.
STATUTORY RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
1.Presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable
doubt
2.To be informed.
3.To be present and defend in person and by counsel.
4.To testify as a witness in his own behalf.
5.To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
6.To confront and cross-examine the witness against him.
7.To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses.
8.To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
9.To appeal in all cases.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
MAY BE WAIVED-The right of the accused to confrontation and cross-
examination. –It is personal rights
MAY NOT BE WAIVED- The right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. - Involve public
interest which may be affected.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
1. GENERAL-the law is binding to all persons who reside in the
Philippines.
LAW OF THE LAND- Refers to all of the laws in force within in a
country or region
PEOPLE VS. GALACGAC: no foreigner enjoys in this country extra-
territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction (exception:
heads of states and diplomatic representatives).
US VS.
character of the accused (assault of a prisoner of war by an employee
of the US Army and was charged with the crime of physical injuries).
The RPC or other penal law is NOT applicable when a military court
takes cognizance of the case → the Articles of War
JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS (tried by court- martial-
Members of the AFP and other persons subject to military law when the
offense is service- connected.
JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS- Members of the AFP and other
persons subject to military law who commit crimes and offenses
penalized under the RPC.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF CRIM LAW
1. ART 2, RPC: as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application
2. ART 14, NCC: subject to the principles of public international law
and to treaty stipulations.
3. Visiting Forces (VFA) between the Philippines and USA
EXAMPLES OF LAW OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION: RA 75 in
favor of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants.
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR CRIMINAL
LAWS:
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident,
and charges d’affaires.
A consul, vice-consul and other commercial representatives of foreign
nations are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
ambassador or minister in the absence of a treaty to the contrary.
(Schneckenburger vs Moran).
2. TERRITORIAL: law is binding to all crimes committed within the
National Territory of the Philippines.
EXCEPTIONS: instances enumerated under Article 2.
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number.
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the RPC.
3. PROSPECTIVE – the law does not have any retroactive
effect.
A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which
it was not punishable when committed.
A repeal is ABSOLUTE OR TOTAL when the crime punished under the
repealed law has been decriminalized by the repeal. Because of the
repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a
crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized
subversion.
A repeal is PARTIAL OR RELATIVE when the crime punished under
the repealed law continues to be a crime in spite of the repeal. This
means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the
crime under the repealed law. The modification may be prejudicial or
beneficial to the offender.
SELF-REPEALING LAW: where an act expires by its own limitation, the
effect is the same as though it had been repealed at the time of its
expiration.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
1. DOCTRINE OF PRO REO: whenever a penal law is to be construed
or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the
offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is
lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. It means that a
defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or
her guilt remain
2. NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE: there is no crime
when there is no law punishing it. This is true to civil law countries, but
not to common law countries. Because of this maxim, there is no
common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or
bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.
3. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA: the act cannot be
criminal where the mind is not criminal . This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim
is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or
those that result from negligence.
ARTICLE 1: Time When Act Takes Effect. — This Code shall take
effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
ARTICLE 2. Application of Its Provisions. — Except as provided in the
treaties and laws of preferential application , the provisions of this Code
shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including
its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside
of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
US VS. FOWLER: The Philippine court has NO jurisdiction over the
theft committed on high seas on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines.
US VS. BULL: In continuing crime committed on board, the forbidden
conditions existed during the time the shop was within the territorial
waters.
US VS. LOOK CHAW: Landing or using opium is an open violation of
the laws of the Philippines.
2: any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163) or
forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations in a foreign country
may be prosecuted before Philippine courts.
3: REASON: the introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and
securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
counterfeiting of the same, to the economical interest of the country.
4. Some of these crimes are bribery (direct and indirect), fraud against
national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, failure of
accountable officer to render accounts, illegal use of public funds or
property, failure to make delivery of public funds or property and
falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his
official position. When any of these felonies is committed abroad by
any of our public officers or employees while in the exercise of his
functions, he can be prosecuted here.
5. treason, conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, inciting to war
and giving motives for reprisals, correspondence with hostile country,
flight to enemy’s country, espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of
neutrality.
PUNISHABLE IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in
accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel
and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever
the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.
ARTICLE 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
1. That there must be an act or omission
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
3. That the act is performed on the omission incurred by means of dolo
and culpa
INTENTIONAL FELONIES VS CULPABLE FELONIES
Intentional Felonies (deceit)- The act or omission of the offender is
malicious. The offender has the intention to cause an injury to another.
Culpable Felonies (fault)- The act or omission of the offender is not
malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another person is
unintentional, it being simply an incident of another act performed
without malice.
US v DIVINO: While there was no intention to cause an evil to provide
a remedy, the defendant was liable for physical injuries through
impudence.
IMPUDENCE VS NEGLIGENCE
Imprudence- deficiency of action. A person fails to take the necessary
precaution to avoid injury to person or damage property. Lack of
foresight.
Negligence- deficiency of perception. A person fails to pay proper
attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damange
impeding to be caused. Lack of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence:
A man must use his common sense, and exercise due reflection in all
his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from
instinct, then thru fear of incurring punishment (US vs. Maleza, 14 Phil.
468, 470).
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent
PEOPLE VS TANEO: A person who suddenly got up in his sleep,
wounded someone is not criminally liable because his acts were not
voluntary, for having acted in dream had no criminal intent.
MISTAKE OF FACT is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
Requisites:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be;
2. Intention of the accused is lawful;
3. Mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
**** acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent
PEOPLE VS GONA: That the accused made a mistake in killing one
man instead of another cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility,
he having acted maliciously and willfully.
US vs. Ah Chong – There is an innocent mistake of fact committed
without any fault or carelessness the accused had no alternative but to
take the facts as they appeared to him, and such facts justified his act
of killing his roommate.
b. People vs. Oanis (74 Phil 257, 1943)
REQUISITES OF FAULT OR CULPA
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
ART 12, PAR 4, RPC: HE CAUSES AN INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT
WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT
THREE CLASSES OF CRIMES
1. Intentional Felonies
2. Culpable Felonies
3. Punished by Special Laws
MALA IN SE VS MALA PROHIBITA
Mala in se- there must be a criminal intent, wrongful from their nature
such as theft, rape, homicide. Those so serious in their effects on
society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members.
Refers to generally to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC. Act
are inherently immoral
Mala Prohibita- it is sufficient if the prohibited act was done
intentionally or wrong merely because prohibited by status such as
illegal possession of firearm. Are violations for mere rules of
convenience desgined to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs
of society. Made criminal by special laws
PEOPLE VS. ORQUIJO: mere unlicensed possession is sufficient to
sustain a conviction of illegal possession of firearms, regardless of the
intent of the unlicensed holder, since the offense is mallum prohibitum.
INTENT TO COMMIT- There must be criminal intent.
INTENT TO PERPETRATE- It is enough that the prohibited act is done
freely and consciously.
INTENT VS MOTIVE
INTENT - The purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
Is an element of the crime, except in unintentional felonies. (culpable).
Is essential in intentional felonies.
MOTIVE- The moving power which impels one to action for a definite
result. NOT an essential element of a crime and hence, need not be
proved for purposes of conviction. Is essential only when the identity of
the perpetrator is in doubt.
MERCY KILLING: the painless killing of a patient who has no chance of
recovery, the motive may be good, but it is nevertheless punished by
law.
HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED: established by the testimony of witnesses
on the acts and statements of the accused before or immediately after
the commission of the offense. Such deeds or words may indicate the
motive (Barrioquinto v Fernandez)
GENERAL CRIMINAL vs SPECIFIC CRIMINAL
General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong
act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to
prove that he acted without such criminal intent.
Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or
element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or
frustrated homicide/parricide/ murder. The prosecution has the burden
of proving the same.
INTENT vs DISCERNMENT
INTENT- The determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of
the mind. It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person
acts.
DISCERNMENT- The mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates
to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to
the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.
INTENT vs MOTIVE
Intent- Demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about
adesired result – it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a
crime.
Motive- Implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do
an act. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always
comes before the intent. But a crime may be committed without motive.
ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Paragraph 1: Criminal Liability for a felony different from that which is
intended to be committed.
People vs Mariano: A person wh o performs a criminal act is
responsible for all the consequences of said act regardless of his
intention
Rationale: El que es causa dela causa es causa del mal causa – He
who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.
REQUISITES OF PAR 1 ART 4
1. That an intentional felony has been committed
a. When the act or omission is not punishable by RPC; or
b. When the act is covered by any of the justifying
circumstances in Art. 11 of RPC.
2. That the wrong done to be aggrieved party be the direct,
natural and logical consequences of the felony committed by the
offender.
Person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended
1. Error in Personae-Mistake in the identity of the victim
2. Abberratio ictus-Mistake in the blow- when the offender
intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on
another
3. Praeter intentionem-The act exceeds the intent, that is, the
injurious result is greater than that intended.
Aberratio Ictus v. Error in personae
AI – the victim as well as the actual victim are both in the scene of the
crime; EIP – the supposed victim may or may not be in the scene of the
crime
AI –The offender delivers the blow to his intended victim but because of
poor aim landed on someone else; EIP – The offender delivers the
blow not to his intended victim
AI – generally gives rise to complex crime unless the resulting
consequence is not a grave or less grave felony; EIP – there is no
complex crime
Proximate Cause
It is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have occurred.
If the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer
of the original act can be held criminally liable.
The relation of cause and effect must be shown:
a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause
b. Accelerating cause
c. Proximate cause
NATURAL- occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or
events
LOGICAL-a rational connection between the act of the accused
and the resulting injury or damaged.
Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury
when:
a. There is an active force between the felony committed and the
resulting injury, such active force is distinct from the felony committed.
b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim, i.e. fault
or carelessness of the victim to increase the criminal liability of the
assailant.
Efficient Intervening Cause
It is the cause which interrupted the natural flow of events leading to
one’s death. This may relieve the offender from liability.
Par. 2: Impossible Crime- the offender intends to commit a felony
against persons or a felony against property and the act performed
would have been an offense against persons or property
Requisites:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or
property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; and
Inadequate It means is insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison).
Ineffectual It means employed did not produce the result expected (e.g.
pressed the trigger of the gun not knowing that it is empty).
4. That the act performed should NOT constitute a violation of another
provision of the RPC.
ARTICLE 5. Duty of the Court in Connection with Acts Which Should
Be Repressed but Which are Not Covered by the Law, and in Cases of
Excessive Penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by
law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of
penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through
the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper,
without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
Requisites:
1. The act committed by the accused appears NOT punishable by any
law;
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing
the case and acquitting the accused; and
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through
the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce him to
believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal
legislation.
Par. 2. Excessive Penalties
Requisites:
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty;
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the
crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because:
a. the accused acted with lesser degree of malice, and/or
b. there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity;
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence; and
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through
the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency.
ARTICLE 6. Consummated,, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. —
Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of
a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Frustrated Felony Elements:
a. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
b. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
(belief of accused as to whether or not he had performed all acts of
execution is immaterial)
c. But the felony is not produced; and
d. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Attempted Felony Elements:
a. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts;
b. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony;
c. He is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; and
d. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or
accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance.
Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following are
present:
a. That there be external acts;
b. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to
be committed.
Attempted stage
It marks the commencement of the subjective phase.
Subjective Phase
It is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the
point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that
point where he has still control over his acts, including their (acts)
natural course.
If between those two points the offender is stopped by reason of any
cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase
has not been passed and it is an attempt.
If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is 2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons
frustrated. (Proposal).
Frustrated stage
It is the end thereof and the start of the objective phase. RPC specially provides penalty for mere proposal in (TRIC)
Objective Phase 1. Treason,
It is the result of the acts of the execution, that is, the accomplishment 2. Rebellion,
of the crime. 3. Insurrection, and
If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is a 4. Coup d’ etat.
consummated felony.
There is NO crime of frustrated rape, only a frustrated rapist.
There is NO crime of frustrated theft, only a attempted and There is no criminal proposal when:
consummated 1. The person who proposes is NOT determined to commit the felony;
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal but a mere
ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. — Light felonies are suggestion;
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the 3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
exception of those committed against person or property.
PUNISHABLE AGAINST THE SECURITY OF THE
These are those infractions of law for the commission of which the STATE/ECONOMIC SECURITY
penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is 1. Treason
provided 2. Coup détat, rebellion and sedition
3. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade against
Reason for the exception: Such commission presupposes moral economic security
depravity.
a. The exception with regard to crimes against persons is actually ARTICLE 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies.
unnecessary, as the only light felony against persons is slight physical — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
injuries which in the first place is always consummated. punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
b. The exception can apply however to attempted or frustrated light accordance with article 25 of this Code.
felonies against property BUT only principal and accomplices are
criminally liable while accessories are exempt. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the
For light felonies, the only ones who can be held liable are the abovementioned article.
principals and accomplices.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which
ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. — the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both,
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the is provided.
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Grave felonies
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement 1. Reclusion perpetua,
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 2. Reclusion temporal,
3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification,
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony 4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification,
proposes its execution to some other person or persons. 5. Prision mayor,
6. Fines more than Php 6000.
Mere conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony is not punishable since
they are only preparatory acts. And the law regards them as innocent Less grave felonies
or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases. 1. Prision correccional,
2. Arresto mayor,
Requisites of Conspiracy: 3. Suspension,
1. That 2 or more persons came to an agreement; 4. Destierro,
2. That the agreement pertains to the commission of a felony; and 5. Fines equal to or more than Php 200 but less than Php 6000.
3. That the execution of the felony was decided upon.
Light felonies
People vs. Comadre: There must be participation with a criminal Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a person may only arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
make him liable as an accomplice
ARTICLE 10. Offenses Not Subject to the Provisions of this Code. —
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special
incurring criminal liability laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide
Conspirators should not actually commit treason, rebellion, etc., it being the contrary.
sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide to commit it.
Felony relates to a crime actually committed. Exceptions:
If the conspirators commit it, say, treason, they will be held liable for 1. Where the special law provides otherwise.
treason, and the conspiracy which they had before committing treason 2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of
is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not treated as a separate application, either by express provision or by necessary
offense. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. implication.

Requisites of Proposal: Imputability It the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony (Decision); and as its author or owner. It implies that the act committed has
 been freely and consciously done and may therefore be Requisites:
put down to the doer as his very own. 1. Unlawful aggression;
Responsibility It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil 2.Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
consequences of the crime. and
Guil It is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to 3.The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or
answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. other evil motive.

ARTICLE 11 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES State of Necessity. There’s still CIVIL LIABILITY
Justifying Circumstances Requisite:
Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, 1. Evil to be avoided actually exist
so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is 2.
free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except 2. Injury feared is GREATER than done to avoid it
in par. 4 of Art. 11 where the civil liability is borne by the persons 3. No other practical means to prevent it
benefited by the act.
Par. 5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
There is both NO crime and NO criminal. Requisite
1. Accused acted in Performance of duty
Par 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that 2. Injury caused be the necessary consequence of Due performance of
the following circumstances concur: duty
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or Par. 6.Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
repel it; Requisite:
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person 1. Order issued by Superior
defending himself. 2. Such order must be some Lawful purpose
3. The Means used by subordinate to carry out is lawful
RUGAS VS. PEOPLE: The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face
is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a ARTICLE 12
person and his dignity. It is a serious personal attack; a physical EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
assault, coupled with a willful disgrace; and it may, therefore, be NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
frequently regarded as placing in real danger a person’s dignity, rights
and safety Par. 1.Imbecility or Insanity
An insane person is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted
PEOPLE VS. NARVAEZ: The defense of property rights can be during a lucid interval. But an imbecile is exempt in all cases from
invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not criminal liability.
coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. 2 Tests of Insanity:
All the elements for justification must however be present 1. COGNITION – depravity of intelligence
2. VOLITION – depravity of freedom of will
PERSON-RIGHTS-PROPERTY-HONOR PEOPLE VS. FORMIGONES-feeblemindedness is not exempting but
can be considered as mitigating.
Under Republic Act 9262, known as the Anti- Violence against
Women and their Children Act of 2004: Basis: Complete absence of intelligence
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from
Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability Par 2. A person under nine years of age.
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 3. Persons over 9 & Under 15* years of age, acting without
9262) The law provides for an additional justifying circumstance. DISCERNMENT *Amended by R.A. 9344

Battered Woman Syndrome Child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral offense. The child shall be however subject to an intervention program
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.
of cumulative abuse.
fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18)
2. Defense of Relatives years old, who acted without discernment;
1. Spouse above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with
2. Ascendants discernment=proceed to diversion under the following without
3. Descendants undergoing court proceedings.
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers and Sisters, or
relatives by Affinity in the same degrees. Death of the spouse Offenses not applicable to children – Persons below 18 years of age
terminates the relationship by affinity. shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of:
5. Relatives a. Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC)
b. Mendicancy (P.D. No. 1563)
Requisites c. Sniffing of Rugby (P.D. No. 1619)
1. Unlawful aggression; PROVIDED, that said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or and treatment program
repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence.
one making the defense had no part therein.
Par. 4. Accident without fault or intention of causing it
3. Defense of Stranger
Elements: (LDMW) 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy
1. A person is performing a lawful act; years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
2. With due care; accordance with the provisions of article 80.
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it. 1. 15 and below – exempting
2. Above 15 but under 18 – exempting unless acted with discernment.
Basis: Lack of negligence and intent. But even with discernment, penalty is reduced by one (1) degree lower
than that imposed. (Art 68, par. 2, amended by RA 9344)
Par. 5. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force 3. Child in conflict with the law under 18 years of age who acted with
discernment – sentence suspended.(Art. 192, PD 603 as amended by
Elements: PD 1179, referred to as Children in Conflict with the Law under RA
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force; 9344)
2. Physical force must be irresistible; and 18 years or over – full criminal responsibility.
3. Physical force must come from a third person. 70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of death penalty; if already
imposed, execution of death penalty is suspended and commuted.
Basis: Complete absence of freedom.
Age of absolute irresponsibility – under 9 (Art. 12, par. 2)
Par. 6. Uncontrollable fear 2. Age of mitigated – over 9 & under 15, acting without discernment
(Art. 12, par. 3; Art. 68, par. 1)
Elements: 3. Minor delinquent (under 18) – PD 1179
1. Threat which causes fear is greater than or at least equal to an act 4. Under 18, privileged mitigating (Art. 68)
required to commit 5. Age of full responsibility – 18 or over, FULL Criminal liability
2. Evil promised is of such Gravity and imminence 6. The age of mitigated responsibility – 70 & over (art. 13, par. 2) no
imposition of death penalty
Requisites: (U-R-G-)
1. Existence of Uncontrollable fear Basis: Diminution of intelligence.
2. Fear must be Real and imminent
3. Fear of an injury is Greater than or equal to that committed Par. 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (Praeter Intentionem)

Basis: Complete absence of freedom. Intention may be ascertained by considering:

1. The weapon used
Par. 7. A person who fails to perform an act required by Law, w hen 2. The injury inflicted
prevented by some lawful Insuperable cause 3. The manner it is inflicted
4. The part of the body injured
1. Act is Required by law to be done
2. Person Fails to perform such act Basis: Diminution of intent.
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or Insuperable
cause Par. 4. Provocation or threat
Requisite:
Basis: Lack of intent. 1. Provocation must be Sufficient
2. Must originate from the Offended party
Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust operation 3. Must be Immediate to the commission of the crime by the person
conducted in connection with illegal drug-related offenses is a form of who is provoked
entrapment.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent.
ARTICLE 13
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Par. 5. Vindication of grave offense
Requisites:
Mitigating Circumstances 1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony,
Those which if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
penalty. 2. That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave
offense.
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the Basis: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness.
respective cases are not attendant.
Par. 6. Passion or obfuscation
a. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances
Applies when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt Requires that:
from criminal liability are NOT attendant. Provided, majority of the 1. Accused acted upon Impulse
requisites are present. 2. Impulse must be Powerful that it naturally produced passion or
obfuscation in him
“Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 9 and under 15
years of age” – a minor who is over 9 years of age and under 15 years Requisites:
old who acted with discernment, he is entitled to a mitigating 1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a
circumstance under Art. 68 but under RA 9344 said offender is exempt condition of mind;
from criminal liability. 2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity;
Exceptions:
Even when there is actually passion or obfuscation on the part of the
offender, there is no mit. circ. if:
a. Act committed in a spirit of lawlessness
b. Act committed in a spirit of revenge
Par. 1.That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
Par. 2.That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the
public authorities.

Basis: Diminution of intelligence of intent.

Par. 7. Surrender and confession of guilt
Two mitigating circumstances:
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution
Requisite
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions;
2. That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is
committed;
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority; and
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the
criminal act.

Requisites of voluntary surrender: Par. 3.That the act be committed:

1. The offender had Not been actually arrested; 1. With insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
2. The offender Surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the account of his
latter’s agent; and a. rank,
3. That the surrender was Voluntary. b. age, or
c. sex, or
People vs. Turalba-It is not required that, to be appreciated, it be prior 2. That it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter
to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. has not given provocation

Requisites of voluntary plea of guilty:
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before
the competent court that is to try the case;
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution; and
4. That the confession of guilt was to the offense charged in the
information.
People v. Balansi-it was held that the victim need not be the owner or
occupant of the dwelling where he was shot.
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling:
The provocation must be: (GSI)
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.

People vs. Ortiz-Where in the original information the accused pleaded
not guilty, but he pleaded guilty to the amended information, it is
considered a voluntary plea of guilty and considered a mitigating
circumstance.
Par. 8. Physical defect of offender
deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect
Basis: Diminution of freedom of action, therefore diminution of
voluntariness.
Par. 9. Illness of the offender
Requisites:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-
power; and
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness
of his acts.
Includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent.
Par. 10. Similar Nature or Analogous Circumstances
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating:
1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus
2. Mistake in the identity
3. Entrapment
4. Accused is over 18 years of age
5. Performance of righteous action
ARTICLE 14
Aggravating Circumstances
Those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to have
the penalty imposed in its maximum period provided by law
for the offense or change the nature of the crime.
Par. 4.That the act be committed with
1. Abuse of confidence, or
2. Obvious ungratefulness.
Requisites of abuse of confidence:
1. offended party had Trusted the offender;
2. offender Abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party;
3. the abuse of confidence Facilitated the commission of the crime.
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against
the offended party;
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
Par. 5.That the crime be committed:
1 In the palace of the Chief Executive, or
2. In his presence, or
3. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
or
4. In a place dedicated to religious worship.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by the place of the
commission of the crime, which must be respected.
Par. 6.That the crime be committed
1. In the nighttime, or
2. In an uninhabited place, or
3. By a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the
commission of the offense.
Basis: On the time and place of the commission of the crime and
means and ways employed.
Par. 7.That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

In the midst of a great calamity, the offender, instead of lending aid to
the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their
misfortune to despoil them. It is necessary that the offender took
advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of:
1. Armed men, or
2. Persons who insure or afford impunity.
Requisites:
1.That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
directly or indirectly;
2.That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them
when the crime was committed.
When this aggravating circumstance shall NOT be considered:
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally
armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same
purpose.
People vs. Licop: “Aid of armed men” includes “armed women”
Par. 9.That the accused is a recidivist (reincidencia)
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That the offender is convicted of the new offense;
4. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the
Same title of the Code.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished
1. For an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
or
2. For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
Requisites of reiteracion or habituality:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the
law attaches (not the penalty actually imposed):
a. Equalor greater penalty, or
b. For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that
for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
Par. 11.That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward
or promise.
To consider this circumstance, the price, reward or promise must be
the primary reason or primordial motive for the commission of the
crime.
US. V PARRO- The person who received the price or the reward, but
also the person who gave it
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of
1. Fire,
2. Inundation,
3. Poison,
4. Explosion,
5. Stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto,
6. By the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin,
7. Derailment of a locomotive.
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation
Requisities:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit crime
2. Act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination
3. Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. To
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
Par. 14 – That (CFD)
1. Craft,
2. Fraud, or
3. Disguise be employed
Par. 15.That
1. Advantage be taken of superior strength, or
2. Means be employed to weaken the defense.
Examples of “means employed to weaken defense”:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a cloak over
the head of his opponent and while in this situation he wounds or kills
him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand or dirt
upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons, and
sometimes against person and property, such as robbery with physical
injuries or homicide.
Par. 16.That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
Requisites:
1. That the time of attack, victim was not in position to defend himself
2. Offender consciously adopted particular means, method or form of
attacked employed
Par. 17.That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
Applicability:
1. Crime against chastity
2. Less serious physical injuries
3. Light or grave coercion
4. Murder
Par. 18.That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
Reason for aggravation: One who acts, not respecting the walls
erected by men to guard their property and provide for their personal
safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law
punishes him with more severity
Par. 19 .That as a means to the commission of a crime, a
(WaRooFDoW)
1. Wall,
2. Roof,
3. Floor,
4. Door, or
5. Window be broken.
resorted to any of said means to enter the house.
Par. 20. That the crime be committed:
1. with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or
2. by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused purposely and
deliberately used the motor vehicle in:
a. going to the place of the crime,
b. carrying away the effects thereof, and
c. in facilitating their escape.
Par. 21.That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission.
Requisites of cruelty:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other
wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the
purpose of the offender.

R.A 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

crime is committed by an offender who is under the influence of
dangerous drugs, such state shall be considered as a qualifying
aggravating circumstance.

Use of Unlicensed Firearm (PD No. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294)

1. (Sec. 1, par.3) If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
2. (Sec. 3) when a person commits any crime under the Revised Penal
Code or special laws with the use of explosives including but not limited
to pillbox, molotov cocktail bombs, denotation agents or incendiary
devices resulting in the death of a person, the same is aggravating.

Organized/Syndicated Crime Group under R.A. 7659

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed
by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.

Owner, driver or passenger of carnapped vehicle is killed or raped

The penalty of life imprisonment to death is imposed.

ARTICLE 15
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or

mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission.

Relationship
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the – (SADBroSA)
a. Spouse,
b. Ascendant,
c. Descendant,
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
e. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

Additional: Stepson/daughter

1.1 Mitigating – against Property

1.2 Aggravating – against Person

2. INTOXICATION – meant that the offender’s mental faculties must be

affected by drunkenness
2.1 Mitigating – not habitual intoxication
2.2 Aggravating – habitual intoxication

3. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION
3.1 Mitigating – Low Degree
3.2 Aggravating – High Degree EXCEPT in crimes which are
inherently wrong, of which every rational being is endowed to know and
feel

Treason-agg