University of Mindanao, College of Legal Education

Criminal Law I
Atty. Ahmedsiddique B. Dalam
SYLLABUS
SY: 2020-2021

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
Textbook: Anything that will make you pass the subject. You are given the full discretion as to the
textbook or materials that you’d be using for this subject.

No. of exams: A total of four (4) exams for this semester.

Matrix of percentage of exams:

4th exam: 35%
3rd exam: 15%
2nd exam: 15%
1st exam: 15%
Quizzes: 10%
Recitations: 10%
100%

Note: The coverage for Finals (4th Exam) is “cover to cover”.

Note: Special exam/s is/are allowed only for just and reasonable grounds and only when the
professor is informed three (3) days before the scheduled exam.
Note: Every meeting/class is deemed scheduled for a quiz, as such, there is no need to
announce that a quiz will be given.
Note: This is not the final list of cases to be included in the discussion as there may be several
other important cases elaborating on important legal application that may be useful in the Bar
Examination.

INTRODUCTION
Law, definition,
Classification of Laws
A. Either substantive law or procedural law.
B. Either public law or private law.

Criminal Law, definition.

Crimes, defined.
Felony, defined.
Crimes vs. Felony.

Common Law Crimes, definition, concept.

U.S. vs. Taylor, Dec. 8, 1914.

Sources of Criminal Law

1. RPC
2. Special Penal Laws enacted by Congress
3. Presidential Decrees and Batas Pambansa issued under Marcos regime

Some important principles in criminal law

1. In dubio pro reo. Please see the case of Intestate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong
vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11. 2010.

Page 1 of 41
 2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
3. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
4. El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
5. Nullum crimen nulla peona sine lege.

Main concerns in Criminal Law

A. Definition of Crimes
B. Treats of the nature of the crimes
C. Rules on Penalties

Main concern in Criminal Law I.

A.Treats of the nature of the crimes
B. Rules on Penalties

School of thoughts in Criminal Law

A. Positivist view
B. Classical view
People vs. Sandiganbayan, July 16, 1997.
C. Eclectic/Mixed view

Characteristics of Criminal Law

A. Generality
See Art. 14, Civil Code
Exceptions: Art. 2, RPC, Introductory part only.
A. Laws of Preferential Application
1. Presidential Immunity, See the case of
Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15

2. Warship Rule, See the case of

Arigo vs. Swift, 2015
U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614

3. P.D. 1083, See the cases of:

• Marbilla-Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509,
July 31, 2000.
• Nollora, Jr., vs. People. G.R. No. 191425,
September 7, 2011.

4. Military Offenders under R.A. 7055, See the cases

of:
• US. vs. Smith, G.R. No. 14057, January 22,
1919.
• U.S. vs. Sweet, G.R. No. 448, September 20,
1901.
However, please try to differentiate these cases
with the case of Navales vs. Abaya, G.R. No.
162318, October 25, 2004.

5. R.A. 75, See the case of:

• Schneckenburger vs. Moran, G.R.No. 44896,
July 31, 1936.
• Minucher vs. Hon. C.A., G.R. No. 142396,
February 11, 2006.

Page 2 of 41
 (Note: Exemption allowed to the above mentioned
officials [except the military men] is based on the
“Par in parem imperium“principle in international
law).

6. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

7. The Vienna Convention on Consular Officials

8. See the case of Liang vs. People, G.R. No. 125865,

January 28, 2000.

B. Treaty Stipulation.
1. Visiting Forces Agreement signed on February 10,
1998.
Please see the case of Bayan Muna vs. Zamora, G.R.
No. 138570, October 10, 2000.

B. Territoriality
What constitutes Philippine Territory?
1. Art. I, 1987 Constitution
2. Technical Description of National Territory under R.A. 9522;
3. Article 27, UNCLOS
4. Reservations made upon ratification of UNCLOS.

See Art. 2, RPC: This is the general rule on territoriality!

There are certain exemptions though, they are:
1. Extra-territorial crimes under Art. 2. RPC. (Please memorize this, I am
begging, thank you)
a. Crimes committed in ship or airship of Philippine registry.
b. Forgeries of Philippine currency notes, obligations and
securities.
c. Function related crimes.
d. National Security.
e. Universal Crimes. Please see the case of:
• People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. February 22,
1922.
• People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, Aug. 30, 2001.

2. Those Extra-Territorial Application provided by Special Penal Laws,

such as:
a. Plunder under R.A. 7080 (since it is function related crime).
b. R.A. 3019 (since it is function related crime).
c. Trafficking in Persons (Section 26-A of R.A. 9208 as
amended by R.A. No. 10364).
d. Terrorism (Section 58, R.A. 9372 as amended).

3. Those recognized under international law, such as:

a. Laws of Preferential application (already thoroughly
explained).
b. Treaty stipulations (already thoroughly explained).

`English Rule and French Rule; Territoriality principle.

Please see the cases of:

Page 3 of 41
 • U.S. vs. Bull, Jan. 15, 1910 (French Rule).
• People vs. Wong Cheng, Oct. 19, 1922 (English Rule)

C. Prospectivity
Reason for prospectivity: So as not to violate Ex Post Facto prohibition.
See Art. 21, RPC, please see the case of People vs. Derito, April 18, 1997.
General rule under Art. 21, RPC: Prospective application
Exemption: If it is favorable to the accused, then retroactive application is
allowed. Please see the case of Escalante vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 483, 485.
Exemptions to the exemption (See Art. 22, RPC):
a. Habitual delinquency, please See Art. 62, par. 5, RPC.
(Note: The exemption and the first exemption [letter “a” herein] to the
exemption is provided under Art. 22, RPC. Ahright?! )

b. Even if favorable to the accused, and even if he is not a habitual delinquent, a

favorable retroactive application may still not be allowed if so (expressly)
provided by the law that is favorable to the accused. Please see R.A. No. 4661,
or the Act amending Rules on Libel.

Read also the curious case of People vs. Carballo, 62 Phil. 651.

Acts of Congress that affects criminal liability of the accused

1. Enactment of penal law (either favorable or unfavorable to the accused);
2. Amendment of penal law (either favorable or unfavorable to the accused);
3. Repeal of the law;
3.a. Absolute Repeal
3.b. Partial Repeal
4. Decriminalization of an act formerly punished by a penal law.
Interpretation of Criminal law
a. Spanish Text vs. English Text (Translation). Please read People vs. Nocum, G.R. No. L-482,
February 25, 1847.
b. Title of the penal law vs. the Body of the penal law. Please read People vs. Yabut,
September 27, 1933.

Constitutional Limitations on the Power of the Congress to enact penal laws

1. Due Process
2. Equal Protection
3. Non-imposition of cruel and unusual penalty, or excessive fines. Please read Mendoza vs.
People, G.R. No. 183891
4. Bill of attainder
5. Ex post facto law.
Six types of ex post facto law

Article 3, RPC (Felonies)

What are Felonies?

What are the types of felonies under Art. 3, RPC?

Elements of Felony.
1. Act or Omission
2. The act or omission must be punishable by law. Please see the case of People vs.
Bernardo, 123 SCRA, 365.
3. There is deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa)
Types of Felony based on the third element

Page 4 of 41
 A. Intentional felonies
What is meant by intent?

In whose perspective intent is determined?

Please read the case of People vs. Belbes, G.R. No. 124670

Classification of intent
a. Specific criminal intent
b. General criminal intent
Please read:
• U.S. vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272
• People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257

What are the types of intentional felonies?

a. by act
b. by omission

When is intent essential?

What is motive?
Please read People vs. Paguntalan,
G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995.

When is motive essential?

Intent vs. Motive

Mistake of fact principle

Please read:
• U.S. vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272
• People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257

Mistake of fact vs. Mistake of law

Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita

Please read the following cases:
• Garcia vs. CA, G.R. No. 15171, March 14, 2006.
• Ysidoro vs. People, G.R. No. 192330, Nov. 14,
2012

B. Culpable felonies
What are the types of Culpable felonies?
a. Negligence (lack of foresight or care)
a.1. Simple negligence
a.2. Extraordinary or gross negligence
b. Imprudence (lack of skill or deficiency in action)
b.1. Simple imprudence
b.2. Reckless imprudence

4. Voluntariness
Elements of Voluntariness in intentional felony
Elements of Voluntariness in culpable felony

Effect of absence of voluntariness

Page 5 of 41
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus

Article 4, RPC (Again mga amigo y amiga, pakimemorize po ito por favor!)

Who incurs criminal liability?

a. General manner of incurring criminal liability
“Although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended”
Please read the cases of:
• People vs, Tomotorgo, No. L-4791, April 30, 1985
• People vs. Monleon, No. L-36282
• People vs. Belbes, G.R. No 124670

a.1. Error in personae

Please read
• People vs. Oanis 74 Phil. 257
• People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605

a.2. Abberatio ictus.

Please read
• Matic vs. People, G.R. No. 180219
• People vs. Mabugat, 51 Phil. 967

a.3. Praeter intentionem.

Please read People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524

Doctrine of Proximate Cause (El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado)
Please read the following cases:
• People vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011.
• U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497
• People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524
• People vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801
• Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1
• Bataclan vs. Medina, G.R. No. L-10126, October 22.
• People vs. Palalon, 49 Phil. 177
• U.S. vs. Sornito, 4 Phil. 357
• People vs. Page, 77 SCRA 348, 355.

Efficient intervening cause

Please read:
U.S. vs. Delos Santos

Impossible Crimes
Employment of inadequate means
Employment of ineffectual means

Elements of Impossible crime

Please read the following cases:

• Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 152540. July 13, 2009.
• Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119

“Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment”

Either:

Page 6 of 41
 a. Legal Impossibility
b. Physical Impossibility

Penalty for impossible crime

Please check Art. 59, RPC.

Article 5. RPC
Please read the case of Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 183891, October 2011.

Article 6. RPC (Stages of Execution, Please Memorize this!)

Development of Crime
a. Internal acts
b. External acts
b.1. Preparatory acts
b.2. Acts of Execution

Consummated Felony, defined, elements.

Frustrated Felony, defined, elements.

Please read People vs. Honrado, 62 Phil. 112

Attempted Felony, defined, elements.

Please read:
• U.S. vs. Bien, 20 Phil. 354
• People vs. Kabalo, et. Al, 59 Phil. 715
• People vs. Malisce, G.R. No 190921, Jan. 12, 2015
• Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, Jan. 25, 2006

Subjective phase in commission of the crime

Objective phase in the commission of the crime

Please read:
ARSON
• People vs. Go Kay, C.A. 54 O.C. 2225 (attempted)
• U.S. vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 14128, Dec. 10, 1918 (frustrated)
• People vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 100699, July 5, 1996 (consummated)

RAPE
• Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, Oct. 08, 2014 (attempted)
• People vs, Butiang, G.R. No. 168932 (consummated)

Please compare People vs. Butiang with:

• People vs. Sanico, G.R. No. 2086469, Aug. 13, 2014
• People vs. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, Dec. 11, 2013
• People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos. 148673-75, Oct. 17, 2003.

Doctrine of Supervening event

Please read:
People vs. Petilla, G.R. No. L-5070, Dec. 29, 1952.

Manner of Committing a Crime.

a. Formal Crimes
See People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990.
Article 276, RPC.

Page 7 of 41
 Article 277, RPC.
b. Felony by omission
c. Material Crimes
d. Felonies with attempted and consummated but without

Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

Conspiracy and Proposal, definition. (Memorize!!)

Conspiracy as a means of committing a crime vs. Conspiracy as a crime itself.

Express and implied conspiracy.

• People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968.
• People and AAA vs. Court of Appeals, February 25, 2015.

In conspiracy, DIRECT PROOF OF PREVIOUS AGREEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY!

• Yongco and Lańojan vs. People, G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014.
• Quintos vs. People, G.R. No. 205298

Detaching from conspiracy.

1. Before the commission of the crime, effect thereof.
People vs. Nuńez, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997.
2. While the commission of the crime is in progress.
People vs. Nuńez, ibid, and People vs. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 4412.
3. After the Commission of the crime.
People vs. Bacbac, G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007.

Imputability doctrine.
In the crime of malversation- People vs. Ponte, G.R. No. L-5952, October 11, 1911.
In the crime of rape through sexual assault- People vs. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 121213,
Januray 13. 2004.
Violation of B.P. 22.- Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005.
Violation against women- Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 20, 2008.

Exceptions to the imputability doctrine.

1. People vs. Bucsit, G.R. No. 17865, March 15, 1922- (Parricide)
2.Qualified theft, if one of the perpetrators is an employee of the victim.

wheel conspiracy vs. chain conspiracy.

Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. 148965, February 26, 2002

Relevant Jurisprudence explaining conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

• People vs. Ventura, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004
• People vs. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028, April 2, 2003.
• People vs. Hamiana, G.R No. L-3491-94, May 30. 1951.
• People vs. Canturia, G.R. No. 108480, June 22, 1995.

Article 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies, and Light Felonies.

Definition of Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies, and Light Felonies.
See Article 25, RPC.
Article 7. When Light Felonies are punishable. (memorize)

Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provision of this Code (Suppletory Application of RPC)

Page 8 of 41
 Rules on Suppletory application of RPC
• Ladong vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005.
• People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA, 555 (1994).
• People vs. Panida 310 SCRA 66.
• Abarquez vs. CA, G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003.

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Justifying Circumstances (Article 11);

2. Exempting Circumstances and other absolutory causes (Article 12 and other absolutory causes
such as Articles 20, 124 last paragraph, 280 last paragraph, 334, 344, 247, spontaneous desistance
in attempted stage of a felony, etc.;
3. Mitigating circumstances (Article 13);
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Article 14);
5. Alternative Circumstances (Article 15).

Imputability, as a concept.
Responsibility, as a conscept.
Imputability vs. Responsibility.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Article 11, RPC)

Soplente vs. People, G.R. No. 152715, July 29, 2005.
Burden of proof shifts in case of admission of justifying circumstance.
1. Self-defense.
Rights included in self-defense.
• Rugas vs. People, G.R. No. 147789. January 14, 2004.
• People vs. Narvaez, G.R. No. L-3346-67, April 20, 1983.
Requirements/Elements.
1. Unlawful Aggression
• People vs. Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, Nov. 12, 2012.
• People vs. Monteroso, G.R. No. 28538, August 4, 1928.
• People vs. Del Pilar, C.A. 44 O.G. 596.
• Severino Justo vs. CA, 53 O.G. 4083.
• U.S. vs. Carreo, G.R. No. 3956, January 10, 1908.
• People vs. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April 27, 1967.
• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, April 27, 1967.
• People vs. Boral, 11 C.A. Rep. 914.
• Sabay vs. People, G.R. No. 19215, October 1, 2014.
Goku vs. Freeza, since 1997, atik lang! hahahaha. ☺

Two types of unlawful aggression

Please read the case of People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, Jan 25, 2012 (very
important!)
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed.
• Jayme vs. People, G.R. No. 124506, September 9, 1999
• People vs. Alconga and Bracamonte G.R. No. No. L-162, April 30, 1947

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

c. Self Defense vs. Retaliation.

2. Defense of Relatives.
a. Requisites/Elements:

Page 9 of 41
 1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part therein.

b. Relatives contemplated under the law

c. self-defense vs. defense of a relative.

3. Defense of strangers.
a. Requisites/elements.
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity. . . . ;
3. The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

b. Note: Motive is relevant in order to refute this kind of defense.

4. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury (State of Necessity Doctrine)

a. Requisites/ elements.
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exist;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

b. Person claiming defense under this provision incurs civil liability (exception to the general rule
that there is no civil liability in justifying circumstance because there is no criminal to speak of in
justifying circumstance).

5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.

a. Doctrine of self-help, Article 429, Civil Code.
People vs. Narvaez, G.R. No. L-3346-67, April 20, 1983.

b. Requisites/elements:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office;
2. That the injury caused of the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of such right.

• People vs. Delima, G.R. No 18660, December, 1922.

• People vs, Oanis, 74 Phil. 257
You vs. The whole world, since time immemorial! ☺

6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose.

a. Requisites/Elements:
1. That an order must be for some lawful purpose;
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
3. That the means employed or used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

a. Definition. (See Section 3[c], R.A. 9262)
b. Bettery, defined (See Section 3[b], R.A. 9262)
b. Cycle of Violence.
People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

c. Four (4) characteristics of BWS.

d. Battery, defined.

Page 10 of 41
 Doctrine of self-help (Art. 429, if you can, memorize this Article of Civil Code, please do)
Please read the case of People vs. Narvaez, G.R. No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (ARTICLE 12, RPC)

a. Concept of exempting circumstances.
b. Basis of exemption: Lack or absence of intelligence, freedom, etc. Meaning, the elements of
voluntariness were not met in the commission of the felonious act.
c. Exempting circumstances vs. Justifying Circumstances
As to their effects.
As to their nature.
As to their application.
Par. 1. Insanity or imbecility.
Basis of exemption: Complete absence of intelligence
Insanity vs. Imbecility
Presumption is that every individual is sane (See Artcle 800, Civil Code, first paragraph)
People vs. Dungo, 199 SCRA 660
Certain kinds of mental conditions/defects.
People vs. Bonoan, G.R. No. L-45130, Feb. 17, 1937 – Dementia Praecox (Schizophrenia)
People vs. Niancao, 48 Phil. 887 – Epilepsy. Note: We must consider the felonious act
committed in relation to the epileptic fit. Like kung physical injuries lang, okay, we can consider it as
exempting circumstances akin to insanity, but if the crime committed act is difficult to perpetrate, like
murder, homicide, rape, or treason, then it cannot be allowed! REASON: Such felonious acts generally
require planning and conscious effort to facilitate their execution. It is almost impossible for an insane
individual to commit rape, diba? Meaning, the execution of such particular acts would establish that the
actor have had voluntarily committed the act. Meaning, the intelligence and freedom to do an act, as
elements of voluntariness, are present. Yannnnn! That’s the science of it my dear children. And because
of that, you need to read the case of:
People vs. Pambid. G.R. No. 124453
People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 251 - Somnambulism (Sleepwalking).
Two Test of Insanity as provided in the case of People vs. Rafanan, Jr. G.R. No. 54135, Nov. 21,
1991.
1. Test of Cognition.
2. Test of Volition.

Test of Insanity as provided in other jurisdictions.

1. Delusion Test.
2. Irresistible Test.
3. Right and wrong Test.
Note: We do not apply this in our jurisdiction (WE DO NOT BUY THIS SHIT!). REASON:
Because our test of insanity is absolute. Meaning dapat completely deprived of intelligence ang actor by
reason of his insanity. Meaning, the distinction should be straightforward! It’s either buang ang actor, or
not at all. Walang middle grounds. Oh yeah? Ahright!

Definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code of the Philippines
(Not important really, just know that what it really means is that complete deprivation of intelligence by
reason of some mental illness or defect manifested by the actors behavior, conduct, etc.).
Occurrence of Insanity and its effects.
1. At the time of the commission of the crime, see Article 12, par. 1, RPC.
2. During arraignment, see Section 11, Rule 116, Rules of Court.
3. During trial, see Section 3(f) Rule 119, in relation to Section 4 Rule 119 of ROC.
4. After judgment or while serving of sentence- execution of the sentence, or service or
sentence will be suspended See Art. 79, RPC.

Page 11 of 41
 Note: It is important to take note that under Section 24, Rule 119, ROC, the court may reopen a
proceeding or criminal action in case the issue of insanity has not been touched upon during trial
(Meaning, sa inato nga pagka-istorya, nagtinanga ang counsel sa accused. Wala niya na raise ang fact nga
nabuang iyang client sometime during the course of the trial). Your ground here would be to avoid
miscarriage of justice. This has not been tried in court, but it is the humble opinion of your professor that
it can be allowed. Take note that our ground in asking for continuance under Sections 3(f) and 4 of Rule
119, ROC is to avoid miscarriage of justice. This necessarily includes insanity of the accused during the
pendency of the criminal action. Because an accused has the right to know the course of the criminal
action against him and to know and meet personally the witnesses against him. How can he exercise these
rights if he is insane during that period of the criminal action? Now, avoiding miscarriage of justice is also
the ground cited under Section 24, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. By way of necessary implication, it also
follows that insanity can be used as a ground in suspending the execution of judgment or serving the
sentence, and in the alternative, ask for reopening of the proceedings in the court. (Remember this! Trial
technique yan. If you’ll have the chance, use this against me sa sunod pag magmeet ta sa korte as opposing
counsels. I will wait! ☺)

Pars. 2 and 3 Minority

Pars. 2 and 3 of this provision have been amended by R.A. No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice Act
of 2006.
Minimum age of responsibility. (Section 6, R.A. 9344)

a. Child 15 years old or under.

The child must be subjected to intervention. If after intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be
returned to court. The latter shall either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention (we will not
discuss diversion muna ha, because diversion, in theory is considered as mitigation of the penalty,
meaning, it is considered as mitigating circumstance.)

Now, this is very crucial ha? if you’d be asked, what is the minimum age of responsibility under
R.A. No. 9344? Do not say 15 and 1 day or 16. A 15-year-old child may be considered liable for his acts if
he acted with discernment. Discernment? Do we mean to say discernment is still essential in determining
liability even if the child is 15 or below? Is it not the exemption is automatic? Is it not na pag 15 and below
ang bata, automatic exempted na under R.A. 9344? “Bakit kailangan pa ng discernment?”, one may ask.
Well clearly my child, you did not understand the law. When we say 15 or below with discernment, we
are talking about that part of the law which states that: “The latter (the court) shall either decide on the
sentence or extend the intervention”. Meaning, at the time the child in conflict with the law would be
arrested again for the second time after the first intervention process, the court MAY determine whether
or not the child in conflict of the law, AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE FIRST OFFENSE, has
acted with discernment AS PROVEN BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONSIDERATIONS AT THE TIME HE
VIOLATED A PENAL LAW FOR THE SECOND TIME AFTER THE INTERVENTION PROCESS. At the second
instance of violation, the judge MAY say “Oyyy, violator jud ka sa law dong, I will thereby hold you liable
and render you the proper penalty for the first violation that you committed”. Now what is the conclusion
here? Is it not that the decision of the judge in this instance constituted a determination of discernment?
Diba?

But take note that the determination of discernment here is not automatic, unlike in cases of child
above 15 but below 18. The first step in this instance is to put the child under intervention process, after
that, if he committed anew a violation, then it is where the court may determine the discernment of the
child 15 years old or below. Take note also that the determination of discernment here is discretionary on
the part of the judge as the word used by the law is “MAY”. The judge may opt to determine discernment
or extend the intervention process. Based on my experience, pag theft lang, the child will be recommitted
to intervention, pag medyo heinous ang crime, like the first offense is robbery with homicide, and later
the child will commit rape, basically, the discretionary determination of discernment would be well in
order. What if theft ang una na crime, tapos rape or robbery with homicide ang second? What if rape or

Page 12 of 41
robbery with homicide ang nauna, and theft lang ang second violation? Use your imagination. Oh yeah?
Ahright!
So at first violation, conditional exemption (meaning, exempted provided intervention process
has been complied with). Here, the exemption has no qualification. After that, if there is another
violation, then discretionary determination of discernment MAY be undertaken by the court. Klaro?
Ahright!
b. Child above 15 but below 18, who acted with discernment.
Look, the word “discernment” here is apparent. It is paired to a particular set of actors. They are
those children above 15 but below 18. So as already mentioned, the determination of discernment here
is automatic. The apparent question here is who are these individuals? Child above 15 but below 18? Well,
the language of the law is clear. Fifteen and above! Fifteen years and one-day old weak ass teenage boys
and girls will fall under this category. Some would argue that it should be interpreted as 16 years of age
because of the principle that criminal laws must be interpreted in favor of the accused. However, we also
have this principle that where the law is clear, we cannot interpret it otherwise. “Children above 15” ang
sabi ng law, not “Sixteen but below 18”. Diba? Anyways, the principle that criminal laws must be
interpreted in favor of the accused has two particular applications only. That is, 1) if the law is clearly in
favor of the accused, and 2) in case of doubtful application of the penal law, which is anchored from the
Latin maxim, In dubio, pro reo. When in doubt, rule in favor of the accused. Yan, so ganyan lang yan. Oh
yeah? Ahright.
Important thing to remember here is that the determination of discernment here is mandatory!
So you can be asked in the exam to differentiate discretionary determination of discernment and
mandatory determination of discernment of these children in conflict with the law. Oh yeah? Ahright!
Cases to read here.
• People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011.
• People vs. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013.
• Jose vs. People, G.R. No 162052, January 13, 2005 - Conspiracy among weak-ass evil
teenage boys!
• People vs. Doquena, G.R. 46539 – Evident premeditation in the commission of the
crime.
• People vs. Alcabao, C.A., 44 O.G. 5006

Burden of proving minority.

Sierra vs. People, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009. – it is the defense who has the burden of proof
in establishing minority. Try to distinguish this with the case of:
People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002.

Evidence of Minority
1. Birth Certificate, 2. Baptismal Certificate, school records, etc. 3. Testimony of the child and
his/her relatives.
Discernment
Definition.
Discernment vs. Motive vs. Intent
Neglected Child.
Neglected child vs. child in conflict with the law.

Par. 4. Accident without fault or intention of causing it.

Basis: lack of negligence and intent.

Elements (Memorize). (See the case of People vs. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 4002,
joke lang, 2004 na siya.)
• U.S. vs. Tanedo, G.R. No. L-5418, February 12, 1910.
• People vs. Nocum, G.R. No. L-482, Feb. 15, 1947 – you’ve read this case already.
• US vs. Tanedo vs. People vs. Nocum ☺

Page 13 of 41
Par. 5 and 6. Irresistible Force (compulsion) and Uncontrollable fear.
Elements of irresistible force (Memorize)
Elements of uncontrollable fear (Memorize).
People vs. Baldogo, G.R. No. 128106-07, Jan. 24, 2003.
Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear.
• People vs. Moreno, G.R No. L-64, October 28, 1946.
• Manansala vs. People. G.R. No. 215424, Dec. 9, 2015.
• People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. L-32265, May 16, 1983.

Par. 7. Lawful and Insuperable Cause.

Basis: Lack of intent.
Elements (Memorize).
• U.S. vs. Vicentillo, G.R. No. 6082, March 18, 1911.
• People vs. Bandian, G.R. No. 45186.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Definition of absolutory causes.
Absolutory causes vs. exempting circumstances
Enumeration of absolutory causes:
1. Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6);
2. Attempted or frustrated light felonies not constituting crime against persons or
property (Art. 7);
3. Instigation;
4. Homicide, slight or less serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247);
5. Marriage of offender and the offended party (Art. 344);
6. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20) and in light felonies;
7. Consent and pardon under Art. 344 for concubinage and adultery;
8. Exemption under Art. 332; and
9. Trespass under Art. 280, par 2.
Entrapment.
Instigation.
Entrapment vs. Instigation.
People vs. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819. July 23, 2009.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 13, RPC)

a. Concept of MITIGATING circumstances.
c. Exempting circumstances vs. Justifying Circumstances VS. Mitigating Circumstances
As to their effects.
As to their nature.
As to their application.

Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances vs. Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances.
• People vs. Magpantay, C.A. No. 46 O.G. 1655
• People vs. Oanis (same)

Diversion (see Sections 4(j) and 21, R.A. 9344)

2. Over 15, and 18, if there is discernment, or over 70 years old.
Important consideration: age at the time of the commission of the crime.
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (Praeter Intentionem, see article 4(1), rpc!).
• U.S. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, Sept. 1917
• People vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801 March 27, 1974.
• People vs. Pajenado. G.R. L-26458, Jan. 30 1976.

Page 14 of 41
 • People vs. Galacgac. C.A. 54 OG 1207
• People vs. Boyles, G.R. No L-15308, May 29, 1964 –very important case!

4. Provocation or threat
Provocation.
Elements.
Threats.
Elements
Considerations in determining provocation.
• U.S. vs. Carrero, G.R. No. 3956
• U.S. vs. Guy-Sayco, G.R. No. 4912, May 25, 1909.
• People vs. Centeno, G.R. No. 33284, April 20, 1989- The proximate
cause doctrine was applied here. So the perpetrator is liable for the
natural, ordinary, and direct consequences of his acts. Kinarate ni
Chief ang pobreng mama. Patay!
People vs. Flores, G.R. No. 116524, January 18, 1996. – Here, a drunk person
was lying on a pavement, and the accused kicked him. As a result, the victim died.
Centeno case vs. Flores case.

5. Vindication of grave offense.

Elements.
• People vs. Dagatan, G.R. No. L-10851, August 28, 1959.
• People vs. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, February 13, 19975.
“Immediate”, as applied in this provision.
“Grave offense”, as used in this provision.

6. Passion or obfuscation.
Elements.
• People vs. Guhiting, G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951.
• U.S. vs. Hicks, G.R. No. 4871, September 23, 1909
• People vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000.
• U.S. vs. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 7094, March 29. 1912.
• Hicks case vs. De La Cruz case
• People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011.

Passion/obfuscation vs. Provocation

7. Surrender and confession of guilt.

Voluntary surrender, elements.
• People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, Dec. 14, 2011.
• People vs. Salle, G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010.
• People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2018.
• People vs. Verceles, G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003.
• People vs. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-02, October 19, 1994.
Voluntary Confession, Elements.
• People vs. Juan, G.R. No. 152289, January 14, 2004.
• People vs. Yturriaga, G.R. No L-2816, May 31, 1950.
• People vs. Dawaton G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002.
• Yturriaga case vs. Dawaton case.
• People vs. Oandasan, G.R. No. L-29532, September 28, 1968.

8. Physical defect.
Concept of the mitigating circumstance.

Page 15 of 41
 People vs Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996.

9. Illness of the offender.

Elements.

10. Analogous or similar circumstance

• People vs. Macbul, G.R. No. 48976, October 11, 1943
• People vs. Verges, G.R. No. L-36882-84, July 24, 19981.

• Observe the aberration in the case of People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 164763, February 12,
2008.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 13, RPC)

a. Concept of MITIGATING circumstances.
c. Exempting circumstances vs. Justifying Circumstances VS. Mitigating cCircumstances
As to their effects.
As to their nature.
As to their application.

Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances vs. Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

Par. 1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances.
• People vs. Magpantay, C.A. No. 46 O.G. 1655
• People vs. Oanis (same)

Diversion (see Sections 4(j) and 21, R.A. 9344)

Par. 2. Over 15, and 18, if there is discernment, or over 70 years old.
Important consideration: age at the time of the commission of the crime.

Par. 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (Praeter Intentionem, see article 4(1), rpc!).
• U.S. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, Sept. 1917
• People vs. Brana, G.R. No. L-29210, October 31, 1969.
• People vs. Yu, No. G.R. No. L-13780, Jan. 28, 1961.
• People vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801 March 27, 1974.
• People vs. Pajenado. G.R. L-26458, Jan. 30 1976.
• People vs. Galacgac. C.A. 54 OG 1207
• People vs. Boyles, G.R. No L-15308, May 29, 1964 –very important case!
• People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, Oct. 03, 2011.

Par. 4. Provocation or threat

Provocation.
Elements.
Threats.
Elements
Considerations in determining provocation.
• U.S. vs. Carrero, G.R. No. 3956
• U.S. vs. Guy-Sayco, G.R. No. 4912, May 25, 1909.
• People vs. Centeno, G.R. No. 33284, April 20, 1989- The proximate
cause doctrine was applied here. So the perpetrator is liable for the
natural, ordinary, and direct consequences of his acts. Kinarate ni
Chief ang pobreng mama. Patay!

Page 16 of 41
 • People vs. Flores, G.R. No. 116524, January 18, 1996. – Here, a drunk
person was lying on a pavement, and the accused kicked him. As a
result, the victim died.
• Centeno case vs. Flores case.

Par. 5. Vindication of grave offense.

Elements.
• People vs. Dagatan, G.R. No. L-10851, August 28, 1959.
• People vs. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, February 13, 19975.
“Immediate”, as applied in this provision.
“Grave offense”, as used in this provision.

Par. 6. Passion or obfuscation.

Elements.
• People vs. Guhiting, G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951.
• U.S. vs. Hicks, G.R. No. 4871, September 23, 1909 and People vs. Lopez, G.R.
No. 132168, October 10, 2000.
• U.S. vs. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 7094, March 29. 1912.
• Hicks case vs. De La Cruz case
• People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011.

Passion/obfuscation vs. Provocation

Par. 7. Surrender and confession of guilt.

Voluntary surrender, elements.
• People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, Dec. 14, 2011.
• People vs. Salle, G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010.
• People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2018.
• People vs. Verceles, G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003.
• People vs. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-02, October 19, 1994.
Voluntary Confession, Elements.
• People vs. Juan, G.R. No. 152289, January 14, 2004.
• People vs. Yturriaga, G.R. No L-2816, May 31, 1950.
• People vs. Dawaton G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002.
• Yturriaga case vs. Dawaton case.
• People vs. Oandasan, G.R. No. L-29532, September 28, 1968.

Par. 8. Physical defect.

Concept of the mitigating circumstance.
People vs Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996.

Par. 9. Illness of the offender.

Elements.

Par. 10. Analogous or similar circumstance

• People vs. Macbul, G.R. No. 48976, October 11, 1943
• People vs. Verges, G.R. No. L-36882-84, July 24, 19981.

Observe the aberration in the case of People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 14, RPC)

a. Concept of Aggravating circumstances.
b. Exempting circumstances vs. Justifying Circumstances vs. Mitigating Circumstances

Page 17 of 41
 As to their effects.
As to their nature.
As to their application.
Generic Aggravating Circumstance vs. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances.
Other types of Aggravating Circumstances
Specific aggravating circumstances
Inherent Aggravating circumstances
Special Aggravating circumstances
Art. 48, RPC.
Art. 49, RPC.
Art. 62, 1(a), RPC.
Art. 62, 5, RPC.
Art. 160, RPC.
Section 29, R.A. 10591
Sec. 23, R.A. 7659
Section 25, R.A. No. 9165

Aggravating circumstances, how proven?

Quantum of evidence required.
Formal requirements of alleging aggravating circumstance.
See Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court and the case of People vs.
Lapore, G.R. No. 19119, June 22, 2015.

Rules on aggravation
As to Aggravating Circumstances
• People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, Dec. 14, 2011.
• People vs. Boyles, March 29, 1964.

Par. 1. Taking advantage of public position and membership in an organized/syndicated crime

group.
Again, see Sec. 23, RA 7659, and Art. 62 1(a) – Actually children, Section 23 is the exact
codification of Art. 62 1(a), in the RPC.

• See People vs. Mandolado, G.R. No.L-51304, June 29, 1983

• U.S. vs. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452, Sep. 18, 1912.
• U.S. vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-3873, October 18, 1907.
• Layno vs. People, September 1992.
• Crisostomo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398, April 14, 2005.

Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

People vs. Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156

Par. 3. That the act be committed:

1. With insult or disregard of the respect due to offended party on account of his rank;
2. Disrespect due to age;
3. Disregard of respect due to sex; and
4. That it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.

• People vs. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127850, Nov. 29. 1999

• People vs. Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156.
• People vs. Mil. 92 SCRA 89.
• People vs. Benito, 62 SCRA 351

Page 18 of 41
 • People vs. Aragon, 107 Phil. 706
• People vs. de Leon, 69 Phil. 298
• People vs. Hollero, 88 Phil. 167.
• People vs. Torrecarreoni, CA 52 OG 7644.
• People vs. Godinez, 106 Phil. 597.
• People vs. Torres, G.R. No. L-4642, May 29, 1953.
• People vs. Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768 April 20, 1983.

Not applicable in the instances:

• People vs. Ibanes, C.A. G.R. No. 1137-R, March 30, 1948
• People vs. Valencia, C.A. 43 O.G. 3740.
• People vs. Lopez, G.R. No. L-14347, April 29, 1960.

Dwelling:
• People vs. Magnaye, G.R. No. L-3510. May 30, 1951.
• People vs. Rios G.R. No. 132636, June 19, 2000.
• People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, Aug. 3. 1953.
• People vs. Tubog, G.R. No. L-26284, Nov. 17, 1926
• People vs. Daniel, G.R. L-40330, Nov. 20, 1978.
• People vs. Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990.
• People vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-28108. March 27, 1974.
• People vs, Suspense, G.R. No., L-9346. Oct. 30, 1957.
• People vs. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001.

Dwelling not aggravating in the following instances:

• People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No., 148991, Jan. 21, 2004.
• U.S. vs. Cas, G.R. No. 5071, Aug. 18, 1909.

But applicable in the following instances:

• People vs. Cabato, G.R. No. L-347400, April 15, 1988.
• People vs. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, 1990.

• People vs. Dequina, G.R. No. Aug. 9. 1934

• People vs. Ambis. G.R. No. 46298, Septmeber 30, 1939.
• People vs. Atienza, G.R. No. L-39777 Aug. 31, 1982.
• People vs. CA, G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999.
• People vs. Cordero, G.R. No. 97229, Jan. 5, 1993.

Par. 4. That the act be committed with:

1. Abuse of confidence; or
2. Obvious ungratefulness.

• People vs. Zea, G.R No. L-23109, June 29, 1984.

• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-38624, July 25, 1975
• People vs. Verdad, G.R. No. 51707, May 16, 1983.
• People vs. Arojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 21, 2001.

• People vs. Floresca, G.R. No. L- 8614-15, May 31, 1965.

• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-38624, July 25, 1975 (Supra)
• People vs. Lupangco, G.R. No. L-32633, Nov. 12, 1981

Par. 5. That the crime be committed:

1. In the palace of the Chief Executive;

Page 19 of 41
 2. In his presence;
3. Where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties;
4. In a place dedicated to religious worship.

• People vs. Jarigue, G.R. No. CA No. 384, Feb. 21, 1946.
• People vs. Canoy, G.R. No. L-6037, September 30, 1954.

Par. 6. That the crime be committed:

1. Nighttime (Nocturnidad);
2. In an uninhabited place (Desplobado);
3. By a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the
offense.

• People vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-4189, May 21, 1952.

• U.S. vs. Dowdell, G.R. No. 419`, July 18, 1908.
• People vs. Laguardia, G.R. No. L-63243, February 27, 1987.

• People vs. Moral, G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1989.

• People vs. Clarino, G.R. No. 134634, July 31, 2001.
• People vs. Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004.
• People vs. Berbal, et. al, G.R. No. 71527, Aug. 10, 1989.
• People vs. Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983.

• People vs. Demate, G.R. No. 132310. Jan. 20, 2004.

• People vs. Luchico, G.R. No. 267170, Dec. 1926.
• People vs. Berdida, G.R. No. L-20183, June 30, 1966.
• People vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. L-12718, Feb. 24, 1960.
• People vs. Nulla. G.R. No. L-69346, Aug. 31, 1987.
• People vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-38512, Nov. 16, 1979.

Band
• People vs. Corpus, C.A. 43 O.G. 2249
• People vs. LAoto, G.R. No. 29530, Dec. 8, 1908.
• People vs. Lozano, September 29, 2003, G.R. No. 137370-71
• People vs. Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, Jan. 26, 1989.

Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic.

• People vs. Corpus, C.A. 43 O.G. 2249 (Supra)

• U.S. vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1991.
• U.S. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911.
• People vs. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789. April 25, 1969.
• People vs. Penjan, C.A. 44 O.G. 3349.
• People vs. Lao. G.R. No. L-16379, Dec. 17, 1966

Par. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of:

1. Armed men;
2. Persons who insure or afford impunity.

• People vs. Lozano, G.R. No.137370-71, September 29, 2003 (Nota Buene: This
is an En Banc Decision!)
• People vs. Carino. G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004.

Page 20 of 41
 • People vs, Licop, G.R. No. L-6061, April 29, 1954.

Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist (Reincidencia)

• People vs. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991.

• Galang vs., People, G.R. No. L-45688, Dec. 18, 1937.
• People vs. Jaranilla. G.R. No. L-28547, Feb. 22, 1947.
• U.S. vs. Sotelo, G.R. No. 9791, October 3, 1914.
• People vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320. September 4, 1991.
• People vs. Bernal, G.R. No. 44988, October 31, 1936.

Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for:
a. An offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty; or
b. For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

• People vs. Race, Jr. G.R. No. 93143, Aug. 4, 1992.

• People vs. Molo, G.R. No. L-44660, Jan. 11, 1978.
• People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995.

FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION

Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14, RPC) – generic agg circumstance

Reitaration or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14, RPC) – generic agg circumstance
Multi-recidivism or Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62, par. 5) – special aggravating circumstance
Quasi-Recidivism (Art. 160) – special aggravating circumstance
• People vs. Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757, Jan. 24, 1983.
• People vs. Alicia, G.R. No. L-38176, Jan. 22, 1980.

Par. 11. That the crime has been committed in consideration of a price, reward, or a promise.
• People vs. Alincastre, G.R. No. L-29891, Aug. 30, 1971.
• U.S. vs. Parro, 36 Phil. 923-924.

Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of fire, inundation, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, by use of any other artifice involving
great waste and ruin, or derailment of a locomotive.

• People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994

• People vs. Lao Wan Sing, G.R. No. L-16379, Dec. 17, 1966.
• U.S. vs. Bulfa, G.R. No. 8468, Aug. 20, 1913.

Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

• People vs. Alinao, G.R. No. 191256, Sept. 18, 2013.
• People vs. Apigao, G.R. No. 14495, June 18, 2003.
• U.S. vs. Manolinte, G.R. No. 5292, Aug. 28, 1909.
• People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 18, 1988.
• People vs. Belchez, G.R. No. L-21196, March 29, 1968.
• U.S. vs. Caranto, G.R. No. 1677, March 13, 1905.
• U.S. vs. Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, Aug. 28, 1909.
• U.S. vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911.
• People vs. Dueno, G.R. No. L-31102, May 5, 1979.
• People vs. Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, Aug. 10, 1926.
• People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 37408, Oct. 13, 1933.
• People vs. Racaza, G.R. No. L-365, Jan. 21, 1949.

Page 21 of 41
 Par. 14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
• People vs. Lab-eo, G.R. No. 133438, Jan. 16, 2002
• People vs. Rizal, G.R. No. L-43487-89, Feb. 26, 1981.
• People vs. Feliciano, Jr., G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649, March 9, 1998
• People vs. Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993.
• U.S. vs. Guy-Sayco, G.R. No. 4912, March 23, 1909.
• People vs. Pingol, G.R. No. L-26931, May 28, 1970.
• People vs. Forneste, G.R. No. L-32860, September 30, 1982.
• People vs. Revotoc, G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981.
• People vs. de Leon, G.R. No. 2687, Aug 10, 1927.

Par. 15. That:

1. Advantage be taken of superior strength;
2. Means be employed to weaken the defense.

• People vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994.

• People vs. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39305-05, Aug. 1, 1978.
• People vs. Datun, G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997.
• U.S. vs. Devela, G.R. No. 1542, April 9, 1904.
• People vs. Siaotong, G.R. No. L-9242, March 29, 1957.
• People vs. Ducusin, 53 Phil. 280, 289.
• People vs. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010

Par. 16. Treachery (Alevosia)

• People vs. Reyes, 47 Phil. 635
• People vs. Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, Aug. 14, 2002.
• U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 335, 1919.
• People vs. Quiban, G.R. No. L-57809-10, Aug. 28, 1984.
• People vs. Cando, G.R. No. 128114, Oct. 25, 2000.
• People vs. Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, March 14, 2003.
• People vs. Abdul, G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999.
• People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011.
• People vs. Clarino, G.R. No. 134634, July 31, 2001,.
• People vs. Pasensoy, G.R. No. 1406634, September 12, 2002.
• People vs. Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999.
• People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014.
• People vs. Latag, G.R. No. 153213, January 22, 2004.

Special Notes in Treachery*1

Treachery
Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, Treachery may still be
appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate (People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 181247, March 19, 2010.
Del Castillo case).

Example.

1
Taken from personal notes of Atty. Ahmedsiddique B. Dalam.

Page 22 of 41
 Josh, together with Bimby and three other companions, passed by the group of James.
The latter shouted “ano, gusto nyo, away?” and then stabbed Josh with an ice pick at the back.
Bimby attempted to help but he was also stabbed by a companion of the James. Josh died
because of the incident. An Information was filed charging James with the crime of murder,
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The defense argued that there was no treachery because the victim was forewarned of
the attack when the appellant shouted “ano, gusto nyo, away?”. It also claimed that the
prosecution failed to prove that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack as to insure
its commission without risk to himself.

Held:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself.
It may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his
person since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Here, there is no doubt that the victim was surprised
by the attack coming from the James. The shout of James immediately before stabbing the
victim could not be deemed as sufficient warning to the latter of the impending attack on his
person. After challenging him to a fight, appellant immediately lunged at him and stabbed him
at the back.

All told, under the circumstances, the victim was indisputably caught off guard by the
sudden and deliberate attack coming from the appellant, leaving him with no opportunity to
raise any defense against the attack. The mode of the attack adopted by the appellant rendered
the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself (People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 181247,
March 19, 2010. Del Castillo case).

Note: There is no altercation here! Warning is not the same with the concept of
altercation.

Note: The ruling here must be distinguished from so many cases of SUDDEN ATTACKS
where the SC said that there is no treachery in cases where there is altercation! Another
example here is the case of Rolito Go when he went bonkers in an unfortunate road rage
incident which claimed the life of a mother and an unborn child inside her(mother’s) womb.
The SC also used the general rule that in cases where there is altercation between the attacker
and the victim, treachery cannot be appreciated against the accused. The same is true with
respect to the case of Jason Ivler when he shot at the vehicle of the son of a hi-ranking public
official. Without the knowledge of Ivler, the wife of the driver was also inside the car. The said
victim died, now the husband sued Ivler for murder. Again, the SC made it clear that in instances
where altercation before the attack is established, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery will not lie against the accused.

Although the Supreme Court did not expand its explanation on this matter, it is the
humble opinion of the author that treachery is available against the accused in this case (Napalit
case) as an aggravating (qualifying) circumstance due to the fact that treachery, just like evident
premeditation, and fraud requires mental preparation or at least thoughtful execution (See
People vs. Alvarez, which is a Del Castillo case). Remember that treachery is a work of the mind
made succinct through acts reflective of the treacherous character of the manner of the
commission of the crime itself, and the deprave mentality of the actor. It is not entirely based
on circumstances of the place, time, or the kind of the weapon used in the commission of the

Page 23 of 41
crime. It is the malicious nature of the mind itself being expressed in the manner of the
commission of the crime, that is, depriving the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, and
exploiting every advantage so as to prevent any harm on the part of the accused/attacker.
Treacherous bahhhhh!!! Traydoranay iyang trip!!!! Ana gud!!! Under normal circumstance,
makapatay ka kay nag-away mo. Meaning, both parties are aware sa ilang ginabuhat. Unsa man
na? Naga-away sila, pareho sila kabalo na pwede mamatay ang isa. That is not the case in
treachery. In treachery, ginaliba nimu imong kaaway, so that, dili siya kabantay sa imong attack.
The manner of imagining the treacherous way of attacking is the working of the mind. Here, the
basis of qualification of the felony committed is the suddenness of the attack. Given that there
is no altercation here, it follows that the mere suddenness of the attack will most likely qualify
the act into murder, BECAUSE there was no means on the part of the victim to defend himself.

So kung naa’y altercation before the sudden attack, by legal fiat, it is deemed that the
victim is aware of the intent of the accused to utilize every possible means of attacking and
taking the life of the said victim, and effectively negates the notion that the accused
thoughtfully designed the attack. Put it differently, it is a sudden attack, but because of the
prior altercation, the same could not be considered as treacherous, because of the absence of
thoughtful execution or utilization of the means of committing the crime. Sudden lang,
hanggang diyan lang. Pero hindi treacherous. So remember, altercation + sudden attack =
unqualified felony, meaning homicide only if the charge is murder. In the Napalit case, sudden
lang ang attack, but there was no altercation, as such, the net result is that aggravating
circumstance may be appreciated against the accused, in this case, Napalit.

Forms of treachery

1. Traditional form, as in cases of ambush where the perpetrator planned his attack. This
is where treachery is more akin to evident premeditation where the accused planned his attack
before the actual execution. Here, remember that altercation is immaterial since there is
reasonable interval of time where the accused planned his treacherous attack. Take note also
that there are two (2) aggravating circumstances here. Evident premeditation (if the elements
are present, like the duration of time to plan, actual commission of the offense, and the
materiality of the duration of the time and the actual execution thereof) and treachery.
Remember also that Treachery does not absorb evident premeditation, as such, we have a
possible scenario here of two (2) aggravating circumstances, one is evident premeditation, the
other, treachery (although only one will be used to qualify the act into Murder, Frustrated
Murder, or Attempted Murder, as the case maybe).

Tapos, if this scenario is present, meaning dalawa talaga ang aggravating circumstance,
do not commit the mistake of mentioning that “treachery will absorb evident
premeditation,”: no, that is not the correct principle. You mention instead, “here, only one
will be used to qualify the crime, either treachery or evident premeditation, and the other will
be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance (- and if in case the felony committed is
murder, you continue like this instead- but since the felony is punishable by single indivisible
penalty, we follow the rule provided by Art. 63 of the RPC, hence, only one will be considered
to qualify the felony committed, that is, either treachery or evident premeditation, but
definitely not both). There is no absorption of one aggravating circumstance by the other that
will happen here. And please, do not explain Art. 63, RPC anymore. It is enough that you
mention it. The examiner will know that you know what you are writing/discussing. Okay?
Ahright!

Page 24 of 41
 2. Expanded form, as in cases of sudden attacks like in the case of People vs. Napalit,
where the attack is so sudden that the victim is left with no opportunity of defending himself.
Here, altercation is material since its presence will determine whether or not treachery may be
appreciated against the accused. In Napalit, since there is no altercation, and the attack was
sudden, there was a finding treachery. Madali lang man, paki-imagine nalang.

Additional cases in treachery:

Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and
specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the
offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor on the unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and
thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.

In this case, Accused-appellant Bug-aatan, rode a motorcycle to Labogon, Mandaue City

and waited in the corner outside Pastor Papauran's house to act as back-up. Maramara and
accused-appellant Labandero arrived at Labogon and proceeded to the house of Pastor
Papauran (frontal but sudden well thought and planned acts, especially securing the result to
be obtained, namely, the death of the victim). Maramara shot Pastor Papauran once in the
head and then he and accusedappellant Labandero walked away and ran towards the highway
(Bug-atan vs. People, G.R. No. 175195, September 15 2010, Del Castillo case).

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the victim
might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim
no chance to resist or escape. In this case, there is no doubt that treachery was present. It was
established that Benny and Adriano were in the crime scene prior to the incident. They hid in a
dark portion of the road and assaulted Jesus with their bolos while he was urinating with his
back to them. They even held him by his shoulders to render him defenseless and unable to
resist the attack on him by his assailants. (IN SHORT, ambush ni mga tol and dzai! Traditional
form of treachery!) (People vs. Acbrillas and Cabtalan, G.R. No. 175980. Feb. 15, 2012, Del
Castillo case).

Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim
who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it (People vs. Amora, G.R. No. 190322,
Nov. 26, 2014, Del Castillo Case).

For treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) conditions must be present: (1) at the
time of the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender
consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed (People vs.
Alvarez, G.R. No. 191060, Feb.2, 2015, Del Castillo case).

Par. 17. That means be employed to or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act (Ignominy).
• People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-62116, March 20, 1990.
• People vs. Siao, G.R. No. 126021, March 3, 2000.
• U.S. vs. de Leon, 1 Phil. 163, 164.
• People vs. Carmina, G.R. No. 81404. Jan. 28, 1991.

Page 25 of 41
Par. 18. That the crime be committed after unlawful entry.
People vs. Bandoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18, 1993.

Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
• U.S. vs. Matanug, 11 Phil. 188, 189, 192.
• People vs. Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, Oct. 23, 1981.

Par. 20. That the crime be committed:

1. With the aid of persons under 15 years of age; or
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

• People vs. Espejo, G.R. No. L-27708, Dec. 19, 1970.

• People vs. Munoz, G.R. No. L-38016, September 10, 1981
• People vs. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979.
• People vs. Bagtas, et, al., C.A. G.R. No. 10823-R, September 12, 1955.

Par. 21. That wrong be done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission (Cruelty).
• People vs. Dayug, G.R. No. 25782
• People vs. Pacris, G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991.
• People vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, Feb. 11, 1931 -This is a very important
day!
• People vs. Balisteros, G.R. No. 110289, Oct. 7, 1994.

EFFECTS OF AGGRAVATING and MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

See Art. 64, RPC.

• People vs. Fabros, G.R. No. 90603, October 19, 1992.
• People vs. Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998.

However, see also Art. 63, RPC.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 15)

Relationship
Intoxication
Degree of Instruction and education of the offender.

Relationship
• People vs. Bersabal, G.R. No. 24532, Dec. 11, 1925.
• People vs. Lamberte, G.R. No. L-65153, July 11, 1986.
• People vs. Alisub, G.R. No. 46588, Jan. 20, 1940.

Intoxication
• People vs. Boduso, G.R. No. L-30450-51, September 30, 1974.
• People vs. Camano, G.R. No. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982.
• People vs. Fortich, G.R. No. 80399-404, Nov. 13, 1977.

Instruction or Education

Page 26 of 41
 • People vs. Nabong, G.R. No. 172324, April 3, 2007.
• U.S. vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 3777, Jan. 6, 1908.

TITLE TWO: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

Art. 16. Who Criminally Liable?

For grave and less grave felonies.
For light felonies.

Relate this provision with Art. 7, RPC. This is an order!

PARTIES IN CRIMES
Active Parties
Passive Parties.

CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Absolute Collective Responsibility
Quasi-Collective Responsibility (Sometimes referred to as Pseudo-Collective
Responsibility)

Art. 17. Principals

• People vs. Janjanlani et. al., G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011.
• People vs. Dulay, G.R. No. 192854, September 24, 2012.
Principal by direct participation
Principal by inducement
Principal by inducement thru duress, violence, force, or compulsion
Principal by inducement thru reward, promise, or consideration
Principal by inducement thru command
Principal by indispensable cooperation.

Principal by direct participation.

• People vs. Cortez, G.R. No. L-31106, May 31, 1974.
• People vs. Izon, 104 Phil. 690
• Quintos vs. People, G.R. No. 205298, September 10, 2014.
• Yongco and Lanojan vs. People, G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014.

• People vs. Gensola, G.R. No. L-24491

• People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, G.R. No. 39086, Oct. 26, 1934.
• People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, Nov. 14, 1990.

Principal by inducement
Principal by inducement thru duress, violence, force, or compulsion
• People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 19238, July 26, 1966.
• U.S. vs. Elicanal, G.R. No. L-11439, October 28, 1916.

Principal by inducement thru reward, promise, or consideration

U.S. vs. Indanan, G.R. No. 8187, Jan. 29, 1913.

Page 27 of 41
 Principal by inducement thru command
• People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 19238, July 26, 1966.
• People vs. Kiichi Omine, G.R. No. 42576, July 24, 1935.
• People vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 18989, Nov. 17, 1922.
• People vs. Canial, G.R. No. L-31042-43, August 18, 1972.
• People vs. Madali, G.R. No. 67803-04, July 30, 1990.
• People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, G.R. No. 39086, Oct. 26, 1934 (Supra).
• People vs. Po Gok To, G.R. No. L-7236, Aug. 30, 1955.

Principal by indispensable cooperation

People vs. Aplegido, G.R. No. L-163, April 27, 1946.

Art. 18. Accomplices.

Requisites.

• People vs. de La Cerna, G.R. No. L-20911, October 30, 1977.

• People vs. Toling, G.R. No. L-28548, July 13, 1979.
• People vs. Sotto, G.R. No. 106083-84, March 29, 1996.
• People vs. Eusebio, G.R. No. 182152, Feb. 25, 2013.
• People vs, Gamboa, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013.
• People vs. Yau, G.R. No. 208170, Aug. 20, 2014.
• People vs. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009.

Material aid, concept.

People vs. Madali, G.R. No. 67803-04, July 30, 1990.

Moral aid, concept.

People vs. Arevalo G.R. Nos. 150542-87, Feb. 3, 2004.

Previous Cooperation.
People vs. Doble. G.R. No. L-30028, May 311, 1982.

Simultaneous Acts.
People vs. Manansala, Jr., G.R. No. 23514, Feb. 17, 1970.

Art. 19. Accessories.

Accessory by profiting
Accessory by concealing or destroying the corpus delicti
Accessory by affording impunity/escape

• Inovero vs. Coronel, C.A. 65 O.G. 3160

• People vs. Billon, C.A. 48 O.G. 1391
• People vs. Inovera, 65 O.G. 3168
• Vino vs. People, G.R. No. 84163, Oct. 19, 1989.
• People vs, Bayabas, G.R. No. 171222, Feb. 18, 2015.
• People vs. Dacillo, G.R. No. 149368, April 14, 2004.
• People vs. Asesor, G.R. No. L-2953 and L-4033, July 27, 1951.

Page 28 of 41
 Time of Participation.
• U.S. vs. Saulog, G.R. No. 8856, Nov. 21, 1913
• People vs. Paragas, G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002.

Accessory by profiting
Taer vs. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990.

See Presidential Decree 1612 (ANTI-FENCING LAW)

Who is a Fence? (2016 Bar)
• Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994.
• Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184, Jan. 25, 2012.

Accessory by preventing the discovery of the crime

• People vs. Devaras, G.R. No. 100938-39, Dec. 15, 1993.
• People vs. Galleto, G.R. No. l-1095, July 31. 1947.
• U.S. vs. Cuison, G.R. No. 6840, Nov. 01, 1911.
• U.S. vs. Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, March 09, 1905.

Accessory by affording impunity/escape

Public Officers who harbor or assist in the escape.
• People vs. Talingdang, G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978.
• U.S. vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 5502, March 7, 1910.
• U.S. vs. Yacat, G.R. No. 110, Oct. 24, 1902.

See Presidential Decree 1929 (DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION

AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS).

Angeles vs. Gaite, G.R. No. 165276, Nov. 25, 2009.

Art. 20. ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

Intestate Estate of Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, Feb. 11,
201
Correlate and compare this provision with Art. 7, RPC, and Art. 332, RPC.
TITLE FOUR
Chapter I
Art. 89, TOTAL EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
• Kimpo vs. Sanidganbayan, G.R. No. 95604, April 29, 1994.
• People vs, Nery, G.R. No. L-19567, February 5, 1964.
• Deganos vs. People, G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013.
• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Reynado, G.R. No.164538, Aug. 09.
2010.
• Milla vs. People, G.R. No. 188726, Jan. 25, 2012.
• Bautista vs. CA, G.R. No. 121683, March 26, 1998.

Death of the accused

• People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994.
See Rule 86 and 87 of the Rules of Court.
• People vs. Misola, 87 Phil 830.

Page 29 of 41
 • Torrijos vs. CA, No. L-40336, October 24, 1975.
• People vs. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014.
• Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995.

When does judgment become final for purpose of applying Art. 89, RPC?
See Section 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court. There are four (4) instances mentioned
there.
Alamin niyo para alam niyo rin paano i-apply ang Art. 89, par.1 (death) as a mode of
absolute extinguishment of criminal liability.

Prescription of crimes (Art. 90) and Computation of Prescription of Offenses (Art. 91).
• People vs. Balagtas, G.R. No. L-10210, July 29, 1958.
• People vs. Cruz, 108 Phil. 255-259.

*Prescription of offenses based on Fines2.

First step: Correlate Art. 26, RPC, to Art. 90, RPC.
Second step: See the amendment brought about by Section 2 of R.A. 10951, to wit:
“SECTION 2. Article 26 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
ART. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.— A fine, whether imposed
as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds One
million two hundred thousand (₱1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed One
million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but is not less than Forty thousand pesos
(₱40,000); and a light penalty, if it be less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000).”
Finally: Read the case of People vs. Basalo, 101 Phil. 57-61. (Provides for the rule of
the penalty as a fine is imposed as a SINGLE PENALTY).
See also the case of People vs. Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-16945, Aug. 31, 1962.

Computation of Prescription of offenses (Art. 91)

• People vs. Tamayo, 40 O.G. 2313.
• People vs. Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30, 1962.
• Yapdiangco vs. Hon. Buencamino, G.R. No. L-28841, June 24, 1983.
This case involves two legal queries on prescription of offenses, to wit:
1. If the last day in the period of prescription of a felony falls on a Sunday or legal
holiday, may the information be filed on the next working day?
2. If the penalty for the crime committed is compound one, what shall be the
proper basis of computation of prescription of offense/felony?

The Constructive Notice Rule.

• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 74226, July 27, 1989.
• Sermonia vs. CA, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994.

Interruption of the running of period (also under Art. 91, RPC).

Francisco vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983.
Remember the principle in the case of People vs. Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30,
1962.

Effect of amendment of the complaint or information.

LTB vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 41399, Aug. 9, 1934.

2
Very important discussion, taken from the author’s materials in Criminal Law.

Page 30 of 41
 Exemptions:
• People vs. Sabbun, G.R. No. L-18510, Jan. 31, 1964.
• People vs. Maneja, G.R. No. 47684, June 10, 1941.
• People vs. Carino, G.R. No. 33413, September 16, 1931.

Effect of improper jurisdiction of the court hearing the case.

• People vs. Galano, G.R. No. L-42925, January 31, 1977.
• Cruz vs. Enrile, G.R. No., L-75983, April 15, 1988.
• Francisco vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983.

Prescription of Special Penal Laws (Act No. 3326, as amended Act No. 3763)
Rule on application of Act No. 3326 as amended.
See Section 1, Act No. 3326 as amended.
Read the case of Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992.

Then read Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September
11, 2013. Tapos, because of that, you must check out:
Section 11, R.A. 3019.
Section 6, R.A. No. 7080.
Section 15 Art. XI, 1987 Constitution.

Commencement of prescriptive period under special penal laws and when interrupted
(See Sec. 2, Act No, 3326 as amended).
• People vs. Duque, G.R. No. No. 100285, Aug. 13, 1992.
• Panaguiton vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008.
• SEC vs. Interport Resources Corporation, October 6, 2008.
• Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, Supra.

The Blameless Ignorance Doctrine

See again Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, Supra.

Service of Sentence
Salgado vs. CA, G.R. No. 89606. Aug 30, 1990.
-Service of sentence does not extinguish civil liability.

Amnesty
You must know the definition. See Llamas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
99031, Oct. 15, 1991.

Tolentino vs. Catay, 82 Phil. 301.- Amnesty may be granted kahit na nakakulong ka na.
Yan lang man importante diyan.

Grants of Amnesty already rendered in our country:

1. Proclamation No. 51 (World War II traitors po ang covered dito. Trivia: Yong lolo ni
Ninoy, isa sa mga naka-avail nito);
2. Proclamation No. 76 (extended to the members of Hukbalahap and Pambansang
Kaisahan ng mga Magbubukid)
3. Proclamation No. 80 (Extended by Madame Cory Aquino to those who participated in
the coup d’etat spearheaded by Enrile the Immortal Man and Honasan my “Real Gringo”!)

Page 31 of 41
 4. Proclamation No. 75, Series of 2010 (Extended by President Noy to Trillanes and
company. Trivia ulit: Si Cory and Benigno ang kai-isang magnanay na nagging parehong
presidente and naggrant ng amnesty.

• Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S. 602- Nature of amnesty.

• US vs. Madlangbayan, 2 Phil. 426.

Absolute Pardon
• People vs. Pariarcha, Jr. G.R. No. 135457, September 29,2000.
• Avarez vs. Dorector of Prisons, 80 Phil. 43- Read this, very important. Ang issue
diyan, for example convicted na yong accused, tapos, tumakas, tapos, he was
granted an absolute pardon. What will be the effect of the pardon. Given that
the said accused committed the crime of evasion of sentence under Art. 157 of
the RPC. Yong pardon na inaward sa kanya, would it extend to the crime of
evasion of sentence committed by the accused? Answer: No!

• Pardon vs. Amnesty

• Absolute Pardon vs. Conditional Pardon
Pardon by the Private Offended Party under Art. 23 vs. Pardon under Arts. 89 and 94,
RPC, respectively.

Marriage.
Correlate this with Art. 344, last paragraph of Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code and
Art. 266-C of the Revised Penal Code.

Additional ground of absolute extinguishment of criminal liability

(See Section 16 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707)

Not causes of extinction of criminal liability

a. Re-election- See Oliveros vs. Judge Villaluz, G.R. No. L-34636, May 30, 1974.
See also Morales vs. CA and Binay, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015.
*In these cases, remember that re-election will not extinguish the criminal liability
committed during the incumbency of a re-elected public official. This is a complete abolition
of the so-called Doctrine of Condonation which provides that previous misconduct of public
official is deemed condoned by his re-election given that the electorate was already informed
of the nuances and ramification of the acts of the said officials. Thus, considering that they
(the electorate) opted to vote for him again, they have already condoned the said
misconduct. As such, any criminal or administrative proceeding for the determination of any
liability arising from the said misconduct must necessarily fail.

Nota Bene: Somebody in facebook told me that there is a jurisprudence recently

promulgated which resurrected from the province of the dead the said Doctrine of
Condonation. However, upon thorough verification and evaluation, I am yet to find the said
jurisprudence (Kaya nga matagal ang syllabus niyo kasi chinicheck ko pa, pero nonetheless,
sorry parin sa delay). So as of the moment, the safe bet is that this doctrine of condonation is
obsolete na talaga. Ahrighhhhttttt!!!!!!

b. Novation of Contract
People vs. Nery, G.R. No. L-19567, February 5, 1964.

Page 32 of 41
 • Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Reymundo, G.R. No. 164538, August
09, 2010.
• Deganos vs. People, G.R. No. 162826, Oct. 14, 2013.
• People vs, Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924, April 29, 1968.
• Milla vs. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012.

c. Desistance
Bautista vs. CA, G.R. No. 121683, March 26, 1998.

CHAPTER TWO, PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability.

Conditional Pardon
See Art. 95. Obligation incurred by a person granted conditional pardon.

Art. 96. Commutation of Sentence

Concept of Commuatation of Sentence
See the case of Biddle vs. Perovich, 274 US 480

Commutations which are not within the ambit of the clemency powers of the
President:

1. When the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of age (Art. 83, RPC)
2. When eight justices of the SC shall fail to reach a decision for the affirmance of
death penalty.

Art. 97. Allowance for Good Conduct, as amended by R.A. 10592.

See the case of People vs. Martin, 68 Phil. 122-125.
Also the case of Baking vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-30603, July 28, 1969.

Art. 98. Special Time Allowance, as amended by R.A. No. 10592.

Art. 97 vs. Art. 98.
Correlate Art. 98 with Article 158 of RPC.

Art. 99. Who grants time allowance

TITILE FIVE
Civil Liability

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of Felony.

Correlate with Art. 20, Civil Code
Art. 1161, Civil Code

See the case of:

Occena vs. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146, Jan. 22, 1990.

Damages that may be received/recovered in criminal cases:

See Art. 105 and 106 of RPC for crimes against properties.

Page 33 of 41
 For crimes against persons and other crimes covered under other titles of the
RPC:
Art. 2205, Civil Code.
Art. 2206, Civil Code.
Art. 2219, Civil Code.
Art. 2230. Civil Code.
See the case of Malilin vs. People, G.R. No. 215366, for crimes resulting
to death.

Commencement of criminal action as a condition for commencement or filing

of civil liability of the accused.
See the case of Alba vs. Acuna, 53 Phil. 380 387
However, see also Section 2(a) Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court
See also the case of Coquia et al., vs. Cheong, 103 Phil. 1170.

Art. 101. Rules regarding the civil liability in certain cases.

See Art. 221, Family Code.
See also the case of Amadora vs. CA, 160 SCRA 327
Also the case of Paleyan vs. Bangkili, G.R. No. L-22253, July 30, 1971.
See the case of US vs. Baggay, 20 Phil. 142-146.

Art. 102. Subsidiary liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and proprietors of

establishments.
See the elements under par. 1 of Art. 102.
See the elements under par. 2 of Art. 102.
See the case of De los Santos vs. Tam Khey, C.A. 58 O.G. 7693

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.

See the elements of the application of this provision.
Meaning of industry.

See the cases of:

• Yonaha vs. CA, G.R. No. 112346, March 29, 1996.
• Clemente vs. Foreign Mission Sisters
• Arambulo vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. 53229, October 23, 1990
• Basilio vs. CA. G.R. No. 113433, March 17, 2000.
• Heirs of Completo vs. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172200, July 6, 2010.

Art. 104. What is included in civil liability?

Art. 105. Restitution

See art. 559, Civil Code.
See Art, 1505, Civil Code.
See Art. 1518, Civil Code
See also Section 48, P.D. 1529 (for real properties)

See the cases of:

• People vs. Concepcion and Alejano, G.R. No. 3367.
• People vs, Logo, G.R. No. L-1317, February 27, 1948.

Page 34 of 41
 • US vs. Banilla G.R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911.
• US vs. Yambao, 4 Phil. 204-206.

Art. 106. Reparation of Damages.

See the cases of:
• People vs. Dalena, C.A. G.R. Nos. 11387-R and 11388-R, Oct. 25, 1954.
• US vs. Yambao, 4 Phil, 204-206.

Art. 107. Indemnification

See the cases of:
• Malilin vs. People, G.R. No. 215366, March 18, 2015.-Art. 2206, Civil
Code
• People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, October 23, 2006. – Art. 2206 par. 1,
Civil Code.

• People vs. Bantilan, G.R. No. 129286, September 14, 1996.

• People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003.
• PAL vs. CA, G.R. No. 54470, May 8, 1990.
• Cariaga vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L-11037, December
29, 1960.

Moral Damages under Art. 2217, Civil Code.

See the case of People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411.

Exemplary damages under Arts. 2229 and 2230 of the Civil Code.
• See the cases of: People vs. Moran, Jr., G.R. No. 170849. March 7, 2007.
• People vs. Cabinan, G.R. No. 176158, March 27, 2007
• People vs. Matrimonio, G.R. Nos. 82223-24 November 13, 1992
• People vs. Dante, G.R. No. 188106, Nov. 25, 2009.

Attorney’s Fees if warranted under Art. 2208, Civil Code.

Legal interest under Article 2209 of the Civil Code

See the case of People vs. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, Jan. 2010

Temperate Damages under Art. 2224, Civil Code.

▪ See the cases of: Pleno vs. CA, G.R. No. L-56505, May 9, 1988.
▪ People vs. Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010
▪ US vs. Heery, 25 Phil. 600-611

Art. 108. Obligation to make restorations, reparations for damages, or

indemnifications for consequential damages and action to demand the same. Upon whom it
devolves.
See the case of US vs. Madlangbayan, 2 Phil. 426-429

Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable.

See the case of People vs. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009.

Page 35 of 41
 Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices, and accessories of
felony. (Rule on Preference in Payment)
See Arts. 1207 to 1222 of the Civil Code

Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain case.

Art. 112. Extinction of Civil Liability

Art. 112 RPC vs. Arts. 89 and 94, RPC
See the case of Tejuco vs. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Phil., Corp., Phil. 594-595.

See also Art. 23 RPC, and Art. 344 of RPC.

See the case of US vs. Mambang, 36 Phil. 348-349 (See also Art. 1268, Civil
Code)

Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability.

Very self-explanatory.
RULES ON PENALTIES.

TITLE THREE: PENALTIES.

Definition of Penalty.
Concept of Penalty.
Juridical Conditions of Penalty.
Purpose of Penalty.
Theories justifying penalties.
Three-fold purpose of penalties.

When is penalty considered cruel?

Please see Section 19 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution.
Also, the cases of People vs. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906 and People vs, Dionision, G.R. No.
L-25513, March 27, 1968.

Art. 21 Penalties that may be imposed

• See the cases: of US vs. Parrone, 24 Phil 29
• US vs. Macasaet, 11 Phil. 447.

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws

• See the cases of: People vs. Sindiong, G.R. No. L-335, Feb. 12, 1947.
• People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715
• People vs. Romulado, 90 Phil. 734-744.

Art. 23. Pardon given by the private offended party.

See the case of People vs. Despavellador, 53 O.G. 21797

Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties.

Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed.

• See the cases of: US vs. Avillar, 28 Phil. 131, 134-135

Page 36 of 41
 • People vs. Baguio, April 30, 1991, 1996 SCRA, 459.

Art. 26. Fine as afflicive, correctional, or light penalty (amended by R.A. No. 10951)
` See the cases of:
• People vs. Mercadejas, C.A. 54 O.G. 5707
• People vs. Tabije, C.., 59 O.G. 1922

CHAPTER THREE
DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES

Art. 27. Duration of Penalties

See the case of People vs. Eduarte G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990- Nature of
Destierro as a penalty.
Art. 28. Computation of Penalties.
Art. 29. Period of Preventive Imprisonment as amended by R.A. No. 10592
Correlate this with Sec. 41 of R.A. No. 9344 in relation to Art. 68 of RPC.

Effects of Penalties
See Arts. 30 to 33, RPC.

Art. 34. Civil Interdiction

Effects of Civil Interdiction.

Art. 35. Effects of Bond to Keep the Peace

Art. 36. Pardon by the President: Its effects.

Art. 37. Costs

Art. 38. Pecuniary Liabilities

See the case of Domalaon vs. Yap, C.A. 59 O.G. 6675

Art. 39. Subsidiary Imprisonment as amended by R.A. No. 10159.

• See the cases of: Ramos vs. Gonong, G.R. No. L-42010, August 31. 1961
• Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 197582, June 29,
2015

Accessories to the Principal Penalties (Arts. 40-44, RPC)

Art. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds of the Crime.

CHAPTER FOUR: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES

Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon Principals in General.

Graduation of Penalties.

Art. 47. Cases wherein Death Penalty shall not be imposed

Suspended by reason of R.A. 9346.
See the cases of:
• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004
• People vs. Salome, G.R. No. 169077. August 31, 2006.

Art. 48. Complex Crimes.

Plurality of crimes.
Special Complex Crimes
See the case of People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 183091, June 19,
2013
Continuous Crimes
Complex Crimes

Page 37 of 41
Kinds of complex crimes
(1) Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
• See the cases of: People vs. Turla, G.R. No. 26388, February 14,
1927.
• People vs. Aplado, G.R. No. 31075, August 12, 1929
• People vs. Araneta, G.R. No. 24622, January 28, 1926.
• People vs. Caldito, G.R. Nos. 78432-33, February 9, 1990
• People vs. Patrolla, G.R. No. 112445, March 7, 1996
• People vs. Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950
• Compare Turla case with People vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050,
September 19, 2008.

See also and differentiate Turla and Gaffud with the cases of: People vs.
Lawas, G.R. No. L-7618-20, June 30, 1955 and People vs. Abella, G.R.
No. L-32205, August 31, 1979 – In Lawas and Abella, the SC was
compelled to apply Art. 48 since it is impossible to determine the
individual liabilitiesvof perpetrators.

See also the case of People vs. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June 29,
2010 -Effect of existence of Conspiracy in the application Art. 48 and
differentiate this with the Abella case.

People vs. Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, Dec. 10, 2012 -Rolling over a
van causing death to several victims constitutes compound crime of multiple
murders.

People vs. Estonilo, Jr., G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014- Direct
assault with homicide or murder as the case maybe.

Application of Art. 48 in libel cases, see the case of People vs. del
Rosario, G.R. No. L-2254. April 20, 1950.

(2) Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)

See the cases of:
• People vs. Hernadez, G.R. No. L-6025-26, July 18,1956
• Angeles, etc, vs. Jose, et. al. G.R. No. L-6494, November 24, 1954
• People vs. Yongco, C.A. G.R. No. 18252-CR, January 26, 1977
• People vs, Maribung, G.R. No. L-47500, April 29, 1987
• People vs. Oso, G.R. No. 42571, October 10, 1935, however, see
the case of People vs. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012
• People vs. Quitain, G.R. No. L-8227, May 25, 1956.
• People vs. Jose, G.R. No. L-282232, February 6, 1971.
• People vs. Geronimo, et al., G.R. No 8936, October 23, 1956

See also the case of Ivler vs. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, Nov. 17. 2010.

The Doctrine of Common Element (Relate to the Crimes Falsification of

Private Document, Malversation, Estafa, and Theft)
• See the cases of: Batulanon vs. People, G.R. No. 139857,
September 15, 2006.
• US vs. Chan Tiao, G.R. No. 12609, October 30, 1917.

Falsification of public, official, or commercial documents as a means to

conceal the crime of estafa, malversation, and theft.
See the cases of:
• People vs. Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33252-54, January 20, 1978.
• People vs. Monteverde, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002
• People vs. Benito, G.R. No. 36979, November 23, 1932

Distinguish these cases with the ruling of SC in cases of:

• Zafra vs. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014
• People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 06, 2014, and
• People vs. Silvanna, G.R. No. L-43120, July 27, 1935.

Page 38 of 41
 Comment: I would prefer the principle in the later cases of Zafra, Go, and
Silvanna.

Falsification of public, official, or commercial documents as a means to

commit the crime of estafa, malversation, and theft.
See the cases of:
• Ilumin vs. Sanidganbayan, G.R. No. 85667, February 23, 1995.
• Tanenggee va. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013
• Intestate Estate of Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, G.R. No.
181409, February 11, 2010.

Falsification of private documents as a means to

conceal the crime of estafa, malversation, and theft.
Rule to remember: In this instance, estafa, malversation, and theft will
absorb falsification of private document, hence the crime will only be
estafa, malversation, or theft, as the case may be. For this matter, please
see the case of People vs. Beng, 40 O.G. 1913.

Lastly, see also the case of:

People vs. Abay, G.R. No. 177752, February 24, 2009 – Application of
Complex Crimes if one crime is punishable under RPC and the other
under special penal law. Answer: It cannot be allowed.

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the Principals when the Crime Committed is
different from that intended. (Extraordinary circumstance of error in personae)

Art. 48, RPC vs. Art. 49, RPC

See the cases of:

• People vs. Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950
• People vs. Albuquerque, G.R. No. 38773, Dec. 19, 1933

Rules on graduating penalties, See Arts. 50-57, in relation to Art. 61.

(Arts. 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, and 69 will be discussed in relation to discussion on
Indeterminate Sentence Law)

Art. 65. Rules in cases of Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

Not so difficult. This will not be asked in the Bar Exam.

Art. 66. Imposition of Fines.

See the cases of:
• People vs. Manuel, CA, G.R. Nos. 14648-61-R, July 6, 1957.
• People vs. Quinto, G.R. No. 40934, August 16, 1934.
• People vs. Kuan, G.R. No. 4815, November 11, 1942.

Art. 70. Successive Service of Sentence

The three Fold Rule (3:4:40 Rule)
See also the case of:
Bagtas vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-3215, October 6, 1949.

Art. 71. Graduated Scales

Art. 72. Preference in the payment of civil libailities.

SECTION THREE
PROVISIONS COMMON IN THE LAST TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS

See Arts. 73 to 77 of the RPC.

CHAPTER FIVE
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES

Page 39 of 41
Art. 78. When and How Penalty is to be served.

Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of penalty in case of insanity

Art. 80 (Already repealed by Section 41 of R.A. 9344 as amended by R.A. 10630.

See the case of People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011.

Arts. 81 to 85 refers to execution of death penalty.

The important consideration here is that there is no more Automatic Review as

contemplated under second paragraph of Art. 83 of RPC in relation to Art. 47 of RPC.
For this purpose, again see the cases of:
• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004
• People vs. Salome, G.R. No. 169077. August 31, 2006.

Art. 86. Execution and Service of Sentence of other Penalties

Art. 87. Destierro

See:
Art. 247, RPC
Art. 284, RPC
Art. 334, RPC

See also the case of People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. L- 1414, April 16, 1948.

Art. 88. Arresto Menor.

Where served
Grounds for the exception.

ISLAW and Arts. 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, and 69 of the RPC.
Art. 64 (5)
See the case of People vs. Germina, May 1998.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

See the cases of:

• People vs. Ducosin, G.R. No. 38332, Dec. 14, 1933.
• Romero vs. People, G.R. No. 171644, Nov. 23. 2011.
However, distinguish the case of Romero with the case of:
People vs. Nang Kay, G.R. No. L-3655, April 20, 1951, which was reaffirmed in the case
of:
• People vs. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. L-25584-85, February 13, 1982. But see the case of:
• Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571, Dec. 16, 1984 where the SC did not apply
Nang Kay and Arroyo.

How to apply ISLAW in relation to RPC provisions on penalties

See the case of People vs. Temporado, G.R. No. 173473, Dec. 17, 2008.

See also the cases of:

• People vs. Simon, G. R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994.
• Escalante vs. People, G.R. No 192727, January 9, 2013.
• Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011.

Rule on Straight or Indeterminate Penalty

Coverage of ISLAW
See Section 2, as amended by R.A. 9344, and R.A. 10364

PROBATION ACT (P.D. No. 968 as amended)

Definition of Probation, See Section 3 of P.D. 968

Page 40 of 41
 Purpose of Probation, see the case of Facinal vs. Cruz. G.R. No. 50618, September 2,
1992.

Effect of Probation to accessory penalties, see the case of Villareal vs. People, G.R. No.
151258, Dec. 01, 2014.

Effect on the civil liabilities of the accused, see the case of People vs. Salgado, G.R. No.
89606, August 30, 1990.

See also the cases of:

• Yusi vs. Morales, G.R. No. 61958, April 28, 1983.
• Almero vs. People, G.R. No. 18891, March 12, 2014.
• Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748, Dec. 13. 2011- the basis of RA No. 10707,
approved on Nov. 26, 2015.

Period to apply for probation. See Section 4, of P.D. 968 as amended

Exception to this rule is a minor offender, whose right to apply for probation is
governed by Sec. 42 of R.A. 9344.

Disqualified offenders, See Sec. 9 of P.D. 968 as amended.

See also the cases of:

• Bala vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 67301, January 29, 1990.
• Budlong vs. Palisok, G.R. No. 60151, June 24, 1983.

See also Sections 24 and 70 of R.A. 9165 in relation to the case of Padua vs. People,
G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008.
-FIN-
Dear Students,
Sorry kung nalisdan mo. Believe me, we are doing this for purposes of securing
your Roll of Attorneys. I am hoping you’d continue to grow, improve, and most
importantly, discover yourselves.

Hoping all the best! Thanks for the opportunity in learning the depths and
nuances of Criminal Law I.

Yours truly,

(SGD)
A.B.D/67345
14/2016.

Good Luck and God Bless You All. 😊

Page 41 of 41