\

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

THE REVISED PENAL CODE

(Act. No. 3815 as Amended)
 AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of representatives of the Philippines in Legislature assembled by the
authority of the same:
Preliminary Article – This law shall be known as “The Revised Penal Code.”
BOOK ONE
GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES, THE PERSONS LIABLE AND THE
PENALTIES

Preliminary Title: DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. - This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and
thirty-two.

ABBREVIATIONS
(1) NCC – New Civil Code (5) E.O No. – Executive Order Number
(2) FC – Family Code (6) B.P. Blg. – Batas Pambansa Bilang
(3) RPC – Revised Penal Code (7) R.A. No. – Republic Act Number
(4) P.D. No. – Presidential Decree Number

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Criminal Law
 Criminal Law – the branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment.
 Crime – act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
Elements of Crime
(1) Actus Reus (physical act of the crime) – a guilty act that is conscious and voluntary
(2) Mens Rea (specific intent) – evil intent
(3) Concurrence of actus reus and mens rea – a guilty mind and a guilty act in commissioning a the crime

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law

(1) The RPC and its amendments
(2) Special penal laws
(3) Penal Presidential Decrees

Common Law

 Common laws crimes are known in the US and England as the body of principles, usages and rules of action, which do
not rest their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislation. Common law is a legal
system based on applying legal precedent (stare decisis) to present and future decisions made by judges.
 The Philippines do not recognize common law crimes; unless there is a particular provision in the penal code or special
law that defines and punished the act, even if it is socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its
commission. Court decisions are not sources of criminal law because they merely interpret and apply the laws enacted.

Police Power
 Police power is the capacity of the State to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment
of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.
 The State has the power to define and punish crimes and lay down the rules of criminal procedures (adjudication
process of the criminal law), as well as create and define criminal offences.
Constitutional Limitations on the Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws
The Bill of Rights (Art. 3, 1987 Constitution) imposes the following limitations:
(1) No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted
o Ex Post Facto Law – a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or
relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. 
a. makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an
act [retroactive laws]
b. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed
c. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed
d. alters the legal rules of evidence, ad authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at
the time of the commission of the offense
e. assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something
which when done was lawful
f. deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

o Bill of Attainder – a legislative act which declares a person or a group of persons guilty of some crime and inflicts
punishment without trial; its essence is the substitution of judicial determination of guilt.

(2) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process – the limitation requires that criminal
laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes

Characteristics of Penal Laws, Legal Basis and Exceptions

(1) GENERAL – criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Art.14, Civil Code)
The Philippines is a sovereign country with the obligation and the right to uphold its laws and maintain order within its
domain, and punish persons for offenses committed with its territory, regardless of the nationality of the offender.
Legal Basis
(a) The provisions of RPC shall be enforced within Philippine archipelago without reference to the person or persons who
might violate its provisions. (Art.2, RPC)
(b) Penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (Art.14, New Civil Code)

Exception:
(a) Treaty Stipulations – [Republic of the Philippines and United States of America Visiting Forces Agreement]
(b) Laws of Preferential Application – (or diplomatic immunity) provides immunity to accredited foreign representatives

Exception to Laws of Preferential Application

o Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial or economic representatives do not possess immunity.
o The provision will not be applicable when foreign country adversely affected does not provide the same protection to
duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the Republic of the Philippines (grant of immunity must be
reciprocal).

(c) Principles of Public International Laws – sovereigns and other chief of states, ambassadors, public ministers and their
official retinue possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued,
arrested or punished by the law of that country.

*General Rule: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused.
Exception: Unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
*General Rule: Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines [even at time of war].
Exception: (1) Provided that in the place of commission of the crime, no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are
functioning.
(2) The ARTICLES OF WAR will prevail over the RPC or other penal laws when the military court takes
cognizance (acknowledge) of the case when the offense, as determined before the arraignment by the civil court is
service- connected offenses or crimes (e.g. conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman), in which case the offense
shall be tried by court-martial.
Exception to the Exception: Provided that the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at
any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts (Sec. 1, RA 7053).

NOTE:
 The prosecution of an accused before a court martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because
the latter would place the accused in double jeopardy.
 Offenders accused of war crimes, during incident of war even after cessation of armed hostilities, so long as a
technical state of war continues, are triable by military commissions, like that of a National War Crimes Office,
which prescribes rules and regulations governing the trial of war criminals.

(2) TERRITORIAL – criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within its territory.

Legal Basis: The provisions of RPC shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone (Art. 2, RPC)

Exceptions:
Provisions of RPC shall be enforced, even outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines, against those who:
(a) should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
(b) should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by
the Philippine government
(c) should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number
(d) while being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
(e) should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of RPC.

(3) PROSPECTIVE – a penal law cannot make an act punishable when the acts were not punishable when committed
(crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission).

Legal Basis
(a) no felony shall be punishable by any penalty NOT prescribed by law prior to its commission (Art.21, RPC)
(b) no ex post facto law shall be enacted (Sec. 22, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution)

Exception – whenever a new statue dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused,
it can be given a retroactive application

Exceptions to the Exception

(a) where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action
(b) where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Art.62, RPC (Art. 22, RPC)

Rules of Repeal of Penal Laws

Different Effects of Repeal on Penal Law
(1) If the repeal makes a lighter penalty in the new law, the new law shall be applied
Exception: (a) the offender is a habitual delinquent
(b) the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action
(2) If the law imposes heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission shall be applied.
(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable, the crime is obliterated

Types of Repeal of Law

A. Absolute and Partial Repeal
(1) Total or Absolute Repeal – repeal of law which decriminalize an act or omission that was a crime when committed.
Consequences:
(a) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the crime shall be dismissed, even though
the accused may be a habitual delinquent.
Exception: Repeal of law by its reenactment (bringing a law into effect again), even without a saving clause, will not
destroy criminal liability.
(b) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the convict is not a
habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release. If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for
habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in jail.
Exception: The repeal will not apply to the case if there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to
those serving sentence at the time of the repeal.  
(c) If the case is decided and the convict is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the
fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed.  This is so because penal laws should
be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents. 

(2) Partial or Relative Repeal – repeal of law does not decriminalize a crime, which means that the repeal merely
modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law.
Consequences:
(a) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to
the accused, it shall be the one applied to him, whether he is a habitual delinquent or not.
Exception: It will not apply if there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of
action.
(b) If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the repealing law is
partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the
effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply
to them.

Express and Implied Repeal

(1) Express Repeal – the repealing clause identifies or designates the Act or acts that are intended to be repealed.
*When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not thereby revived unless
expressly so provided, so the act or omission will no longer be penalized.
(2) Implied Repeal – the repeal exists where a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature
to repeal a prior act on the subject.
*When a law which impliedly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the prior law shall thereby be revived, unless the
repealing law provides otherwise, so the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be
revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal, they may not be punishable.       
          
(These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have automatic termination. An example is the
Rent Control Law which is revived by Congress every two years.)
 Other Rules of Repeal:
o Where an Act of the legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former Act which penalized the same offense,
such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter, depriving the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence
offenders charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. This is because both acts are not favorable to the
accused, the penalty being the same.
o Where the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, accused cannot be convicted under the new
law.
o A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished under the repealing statute.
o A new law dealing on the same subject of an old law operates as repeal of anything that is not included in the
amendatory act. The principle that when the grounds that gave rise to a law cease to exist, the law itself ceases to exist:
cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself ceases)
o Self-repealing laws are statures that provide for its own expiration date.

Rules of Construction of Penal Laws

(1) Liberally construed (interpreted) in favor of the accused – This may be invoked only when there is ambiguity in the
law and there is doubt as to its interpretation.
(2) Strictly against the State when the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation
(3) No act should be considered criminal unless it is clearly made so by the law.
(4) Equipoise Doctrine – when the evidence of the prosecution and of the defense is equally balanced, the scale should be
tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the presumption of innocence, therefor he should be acquitted since his quilt
has not been proven with moral certainty.
(5) Void-for-vagueness Doctrine – statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient
definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. This can be
invoked only on laws that are vague in its face or those which cannot be clarified either by saving clause (limits the scope
of repeal of prior statutes) or by construction.
(6) Doctrine of Pro Preo – when a circumstance is susceptible to two interpretations, one favorable and the other against
the accused, the interpretation favorable to him shall prevail.

Theories of Criminal Law

(1) Classical Theory - basis of criminal liability is free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. The theory is
applied to heinous crimes.
o Heinous Crime - hateful offense which by reason of its inherent or manifest wickedness and atrocity, is regarded as
seriously outrageous to the common standards or norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and orderly
society.
(2) Positivist Theory – basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the
offense is expressed and the adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law.
The theory recognizes man is not born a criminal but is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrains him to do wrong contrary to his volition, thus, recognizes the redeemable good in the accused, hence penalty is
imposed for preventive and corrective purposes.
(3) Eclectic or Mixed Theory – combination of the positivist and classical theories wherein crimes that have economic and
social causes should be dealt with the modicum of compassion.
The theory applies to economic and social crimes (eg. theft)
(4) Utilitarian or Protective Theory – the effect that the primary purpose of punishment in criminal law is the protection of
society from actual and potential wrongdoers.
**************************************************************************************************
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 presiding 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.

APPLICATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC

A. Territorial and Extraterritorial
(1) Territorial – Philippine penal laws apply to crimes committed within its territory.

(2) Extraterritorial – the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries
(a) Offenders who commit offense while on a Philippine ship or airship within 3 miles
Exception:
o When the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, he will be subject to the laws of the
foreign country.
o When the vessel is not registered or licensed in the Philippines (Bureau of Customs) even if it is owned by a Filipino
citizen, the court has no jurisdiction over the case
(b) Offenders who forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or make false treasury or bank
notes or other obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government, even in a foreign country.
(c) Offenders who are liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number
(d) Offenders who, while being public officers or employees, commit an offense in the exercise of their functions, even
they are working abroad
Example: bribery, frauds against public treasury, malversation of public funds or property, illegal use of public funds, etc
(e) Offenders who commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of RPC.
Crimes against national security and the law of the nations
(1) Treason - betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
(2) Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason
(3) Misprision of Treason - deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony.
(4) Espionage - practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.
(5) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
(6) Violation of Neutrality
(7) Correspondence with Hostile Country
(8) Flight to Enemy's Country
(9) Piracy in General and Mutiny on High Seas or in Philippine Waters
(10) Qualified Piracy

B. Rules on Foreign Merchant Ship or Airship

(1) French Rule – crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in foreign territorial waters are not triable in the courts
of the host country
Jurisdiction: the flag country of the vessel has jurisdiction over crimes which merely affect things within the vessel or
when they only refer to internal management.

Exceptions:
a. Commission of crimes affects the peace and security of the territory or when the safety of the State is endangered.
b. Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel
(2) English Rule - crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in foreign territorial waters are triable in the courts of
the host country.
Jurisdiction: Host country has jurisdiction over crimes that affect public order within its territory.
Exceptions: When the crime merely affects things within the vessel or they refer to internal management
Philippines observe the English rule; hence, courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach of public order
aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine jurisdictional waters.

C. Rules on Foreign Warships

Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of
another state.

RA 9372/ Human Security Act

Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any
law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply:
(1) to individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial domain,
interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines;
(2) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot
to commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines;
(3) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said
crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship;
(4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging
to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity;
(5) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes
against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of the crime; and
(6) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes
directly against the Philippine government.
**************************************************************************************************
Title One: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.
Felonies are committed not only be 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.
 Felonies (Delitos) are acts and omissions that are punishable by the Revise Penal Code.

FELONIES AND ITS BASIC ELEMENTS

Elements of Felony
(1) There must be an act or omission
(a) ACT must have a direct connection with the felony intended to be committed and must be overt or external in nature,
because internal acts (e.g. criminal thoughts or mere intention) are beyond the sphere of penal law (e.g. stabbing, firing a
gun or falsification)
NOTE: killing a person: Homicide or Murder/ taking property unlawfully: Theft or Robbery

(b) OMISSION or inaction or failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do and there must be a law
requiring the performance of an act (e.g. abandonment of person in danger, failure to issue receipt)

(2) The act or omission must be punishable by the Revise Penal Code.
 NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE – there is no crime where there is no law
o Punished by law means “punished by the Revised Penal Code and not by special laws.
o Crimes and offense are applied by infractions of the law punished by special laws.

(3) The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
(a) Dolo or deceit involves malice or deliberate intent (conscious doing of wrong)
(b) Culpa or fault results from negligence or imprudence/ lack of skill or lack of foresight

(4) The act or omission must be voluntary

/When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act.
* Murder, treason, robbery and malicious intent are crimes that cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence

KINDS OF FELONIES AND THEIR REQUISITES

Classification of Felonies
(1) Intentional Felonies  felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice
Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea – the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.
o Act or omission of the offender is malicious (with malice or deliberate intent)
o The offender, in performing the act or incurring the omission, has voluntarily and intentionally cause injury to person,
property or right of another.
o The word “deceit” is not the proper translation of dolo, but dolus, which is equivalent to malice or the intent to do an
injury to another.

Requisites of Dolo or Malice

1. FREEDOM - voluntariness on the part of the offender
A person who acts without freedom is no longer a human but a tool; thus, his liability is that of the knife that wounds or a
torch that sets fire.
The following has no freedom and is exempt from criminal liability: (a) a person who acts under the compulsion of
irresistible force and (b) impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (Art. 12)

2. INTELLIGENCE - capacity to know and understand the consequence of an act.

Necessary to determine the morality of human acts, thus its absence means no crime can exist.
The following are exempt from criminal liability
(a) An imbecile or insane, unless the latter has acted during lucid interval
(b) A child 15 years of age (minor)
(c) A child above 15 but below 18, unless he acted with discernment, in which case, he’ll be subject to intervening
program provided for RA 9344 (Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System).

3. INTENT - purpose to use a particular means to achieve the objective.

 Mens Rea – wrongful criminal intent
 Actus Rea – wrongful act
 Intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption arises from the
proof of commission of an unlawful act, but is negated by mistake of fact.
 Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the overt act.
 Criminal intent is necessary in intentional felonies because of legal maxims –
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act

General and Specific Intent

(a.) General Intent Crimes – requires that the person intended to perform the act in question.
 does not require proof that a person intended to cause the harm or the result that occurred. Rather, the prosecution
only needs to prove the defendant intended to commit the act and that it wasn’t an accident.
Example: Battery is a general intent crime because it is defined as “the intentional and harmful physical contact of
another person.” The intent element is satisfied if the defendant intends to cause harmful physical conduct and
actually does so. It doesn’t matter if the defendant intended to seriously injure or hurt the other party. If Joe punches
John in the face after John says something offensive and breaks his nose, John most likely committed battery. The
prosecution only has to show that Joe intentionally punched John, they don’t need to prove if Joe intended to hurt
John, since the law assumes as much.

(b) Specific Intent Crimes - requires that the person had a subjective desire or knowledge that their actions would bring
about illegal conduct.
 used to describe a state of mind which exists where circumstances indicate that an offender actively
desired certain criminal consequences or objectively desired a specific result to follow his act or failure
to act.
 Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from
the circumstances of the actions of the accused as established by the evidence on record.
 The perpetrator committed an act with a specific purpose. The prosecution must prove that the defendant
had a motive for their actions. The requisite intent is listed in the statute or code governing the crime.
 Determining specific intent in criminal law relies on the mental state, or mens rea, that an individual has
when committing a crime. The defendant’s mental state can’t be inferred from merely doing the act.
There must be a specific reason or objective. Specific intent crimes include: Murder, Assault, Forgery
and Embezzlement
Example: Auto theft is defined as the act of taking a car with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently.
In an auto theft case, the prosecution must prove that defendant intended to steal the car, as well as the intent to
permanently deprive the owner of it. Joe stole John’s car as a part of a harmless prank; thus, Joe didn’t have
intent to deprive Joe of his car permanently. Since he didn’t have this specific intent, Joe cannot be convicted of
the crime.

(2) Culpable Felonies  felonies committed by means of fault or culpa.

o Act or omission of the offender is unconscious and unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed
without malice.
o Wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight and lack of skill.
1.Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action as in a person who fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
person or damage a property (lack of skill).
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform
such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

2.Negligence indicates deficiency of perception as in a person who fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in
foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused (lack of foresight).
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be
caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.

Requisites for Culpable Felonies to be considered Voluntary

(1) accused must have freedom while doing the act or omission
(2) accused must have intelligence while doing the act or omission
(3) accused in imprudent, negligent or lacks foresight or skill while doing the act or omission

Honest Mistake of Fact

Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who caused injury to another, however, it relieves
the accused from criminal liability due to absence of criminal intent (ignorantia facti excusat).
The perpetrator performs an act which would be lawful had the facts been as he believed them to be.
o Mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
o Mistake of fact is untenable in culpable felonies because there is no intent to consider. Mistake of fact would be
relevant only when the felony would have been intentional.

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense

(1) The act done would have been lawful had been the facts been as the accused believe them to be,
(2) The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful,
(3) The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. 
Exception
(1) when there is mistake in identity
(2) when there is negligence on the part of the accused
(3) when the accused committed a culpable felony

(3) Crimes defined and penalized by special laws  crimes prohibited by special laws, including ordinances.
o Intent to commit a crime is unnecessary, it is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited
by the special law, as the act, by the very nature of things, the crime itself.
o Intent is immaterial in violation of special laws, the act done freely and consciously, irrespective of its motive,
constitutes the offense.
o Prohibition of an act by a special law is done when the act is injurious to public welfare and the prohibited act is the
crime itself.
o Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws.

MALA IN SE & MALA IN PROHIBITIA

 Mala In Se (singular: malum in se) - violations of the Revised Penal Code which literally means, that the act is
inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful (evil in nature)
- crimes so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation from its members
- criminal intent governs (e.g. Homicide, Murder and Theft, Rape)

 Mala Prohibita (singular: malum prohibitum)  violations prohibited by special laws.

- violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of the society.
- intent is immaterial, thus good faith and lack of intent are not valid defenses.
Ex. PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms) & RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

* Acts done with malice and intent to injure another are inherently immoral, hence, they are mala in se, even if punished
under special laws (e.g. tampering of electoral results). Therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

*When the special laws require that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to
be proved before criminal liability may arise.

MOTIVE
o Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to affect such result/ the reason which prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal activity.
o Motive is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately
after the commission of the offense. Such deeds or words may indicate the motive.
o Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no reliable evidence from which it may be
reasonably deduced that the accused is the malefactor.
o When the identity of the assailant is in dispute, motive becomes relevant, and when it is supported with
sufficient evidence for a conclusion of guilt, a conviction is sustainable.

Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws
(1) As to moral trait of the offender
RPC – the moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in
the commission of the punishable act.
Special Laws – the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily
done.
(2) As to use of good faith as defense
RPC – good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa
Special Laws –, good faith is not a defense
(3) As to degree of accomplishment of the crime
RPC – the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are
attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime.
Special Laws –, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages,
unless the special law expressly penalizes the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.
(4) As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances (stages of execution)
RPC – mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of
the offender is considered.
Special Laws –, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty.
(5) As to degree of participation
RPC – when there is more than one offender, the degree of are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory.
Special Laws –, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered.  All who perpetrated the prohibited act are
penalized to the same extent.  There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.
**************************************************************************************************

Art. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Factors Affecting Intent/Criminal Liability
(a) Wrongful act done different from that intended – a person committing a felony is criminally liable although the
consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him.
o El que es causa de la causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused) – one is
not relieved from criminal liability for the natural and logical consequences of one’s illegal acts, merely because one
does not intend to produce such consequences.
o When act done is not a felony, a person is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended.

(1) Aberratio Ictus  mistake in the blow

o Offender intending to do an injury on a person inflicts it to another
o The transferred intent rule is applied, that is, a person intent to kill a person but has killed another the offender is
liable for attempted homicide for his intended victim and homicide for his actual victim.
o Three persons are involved: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim. The act may result in two or
more felonies, but considering a single act was performed, the accused is liable for a complex crime.
o The penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum period. (Art. 48)

(2) Error in Personae  mistake in the identity of the victim

o Offender is liable even if the victim turns out to be different from the intended victim.
o The penalty imposable is the penalty prescribed for the offense which has a lesser penalty in its maximum period.
o The transferred intent rule results when the actual victim turns out to be different from the intended victim. The
intent to kill or the intent to cause injury is deemed transferred to the actual victim.

(Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended.  In mistake of identity,
if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the
criminal liability of the offender.  But if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply
and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied.  In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where
Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a
mitigating circumstance.)

(3) Praeter Intentionem  injurious result is greater than that intended

o Takes place when the result of an act is graver than what was intended, a mitigating circumstance due to lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13.
o Offender is liable for the felony actually committed but the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Ex. Offender boxed another intending to inflict a lump, the victim fell on the ground and was hit by an oncoming car and
died. The offender is liable for physical injury, but not of the death of the victim which is caused by an intervening cause,
the car.
Requisite of Criminal Liability
In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated by criminal intent.
The offender may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which intended to commit if:
1. the felony was intentionally committed (must be punishable by RPC)
 act must be punishable by the RPC and is not covered in any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in
Article 11
 any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something
resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.

2. the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the DIRECT, NATURAL & LOGICAL consequence of the felony
committed by the offender.
 Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is,
calculated to destroy or endanger life. This is true even though the immediate cause of the death was erroneous
or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.
 Unless it appears that the injury would not have caused death and would have healed the ordinary course of
events; and is shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to malicious or careless acts of the injured person
or a third person, the accused is not liable.
 However, the offended party is not obliged to submit to surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
natural and ordinary results of his crime.
 The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed
(proximate cause) to the death of the victim.

Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the
particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessarily produce the event. It is the cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.
(a) Natural – an occurrence in the ordinary course of life
(b) Logical – a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage
The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor.
Requisites:
1. the direct, natural, and logical cause
2. produces the injury or damage
3. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
4. without which the result would not have occurred

Requisite for Presumption that blow was the natural consequences of death  
Where there has been an injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the presumption
arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:
1. victim was in normal health at the time the physical injuries was inflicted
2. death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted
 3. death ensued within a reasonable time

 Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough
that the offender generated in the mind (a state of mind) of the offended party an immediate sense of danger which
made the latter risk himself, thus resulting into injuries. The offender is liable for the resulting injuries.

Proximate Cause is Negated by:

1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused (including acts
originating from the fault or carelessness of the injured person), which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

(b) Impossible Crime  acts which would be an offense against persons and property were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on the account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
o The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency of a person, which
makes him a potential criminal. The society must be protected from the so called "socially dangerous person."
o Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime.
o Impossible Crimes constitutes a criminal liability, in order to, punish the criminal intent/ tendency.
o Impossible crime can be committed if no other crime is committed in the process. The act should not constitute another
offense punished by law, particularly a felony against persons and property.
o The penalty for impossible crime is provided in Art. 59 of RPC
Requisites
(1) act would be an offense against persons (parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, abortion, duel, physical injuries
and rape) or property (robbery, brigandage, theft, usurpation, culpable insolvency, swindling, chattel mortgage, arson
and malicious mischief)
(2) act was done with criminal or evil intent
(3) accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual (not producing any or the desired effect)
means were employed.
 Employment of inadequate means (not enough): A used poison to kill B, believing he had put enough quantity. 
However, B survived because A used small quantities of poison – A is liable.
 Employment of ineffectual means (does not produce desired effect): A aimed his gun at B.  When he fired the
gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empty.  A is liable.
(4) Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law.
(5) Act should not cause injury to the intended victim

Inherent Impossibility of Accomplishment

 act intended by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment
1. Factual or physical impossibility - occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the perpetrator prevent the
commission of the intended crime.
i. act performed by the offender would have been an offense against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility.
Ex: offender intended to kill another thinking the victim is only sleeping when he is already dead is liable despite the
inherent impossibility to kill someone who is already dead because the offender has criminal tendency.
ii. act performed by the offender would have been an offense against property were it not for the inherent impossibility
Ex: Offender trying to steal from a safety deposit box is liable for an impossible crime even if box turns out empty.

2. Legal impossibility - occurs when an essential element of a crime is not present during its commission making it
impossible of accomplishment.
Ex: Offender took a watch from another which turns out to be his is not liable for theft but of impossible crime.
3. Employment of Inadequate Means
Ex: small amount of poison believed to be sufficient

4. Employment of Ineffectual Means

Ex: mistakenly using sugar as poison or using an empty revolver
**************************************************************************************************
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
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.

 “In connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law.” – constitutes a trial of a
criminal case.
When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and
the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.
o Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege –there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
Requisites:
(1) Act committed by the accused appears not punishable by the 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
(4) The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reason
which induce him to believe that the said act should be made a subject of a penal legislation.

 “In cases of excessive penalties.”

Requisites:
(1) The court after trial finds the accused guilty and/or (2) The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes
for the crime committed 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.
(4) The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending
executive clemency.
o Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of
firearms or drugs.  There can be no executive clemency (the power of a President in criminal cases to pardon a person
convicted of a crime, commute the sentence (shorten it, often to time already served) or reduce it to another lesser
sentence) for these crimes.
o The courts should interpret and apply the laws as they find them on the statute books, regardless of the manner their
judgements are execute and implemented by the executive department.
o The duty of courts is to apply the law disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused – DURA LEX SED
LEX – the law may be harsh, but such is the law
o Judge of lower court may state his opinion on the application of a doctrine promulgated by the Supreme Court, but
must not suspend execution of the sentence as it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the
land, and that any deviation from principle laid down by the former would unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnecessary
inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants.
**************************************************************************************************

Art. 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 or over acts, and does not perform
all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME

o Consummated Felony – a felony consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
o Frustrated Felony – 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.
o Attempted Felony – an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and
does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.

Development of Crime - from the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing a crime up to the realization of
the same, his act passes through certain stages.
(1) Internal Acts - exist in the mind and are not punishable

(2) External Acts – must have a direct connection with the crime intended to commit.
a. Preparatory Acts - initial acts of a person who has conceived the idea of committing a crime, but which cannot
themselves logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense, thus, they do not constitute the attempted stage of the
acts of execution.
Ex. possession of a gun for killing & preparing false vouchers and receipts.
o Preparatory acts considered as independent/distinct crimes are punishable by law, but are not punishable unless there is
a specific law that punishes the act.
Ex: Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, rebellion and sedition
o Overt acts may not be by physical activity
Ex: Making an offer of money to a public officer for the purpose of corrupting him.

b. Acts of Execution - directly connected to the intended crime and is punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Usually
overt act with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense.

Indeterminate Offense
o An offense where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is uncertain. Its nature in relation to its
objective is ambiguous.
o The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his
admission
o Acts with double interpretation, one on favor and the other against the accused, the one in favor must prevail.

Stages of Development of a Felony and their Elements

 Two Phases of Felony

(1) Subjective Phase – 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 in
between these two points, the offender is stopped by reason of a cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is only in the attempted stage.
(2) Objective Phase – portion of the acts of the offender, where he has no more control over his acts, including their
natural course. All acts of execution have been performed by him.

 Three Stages of execution of a felony:

(1) Attempted Felony – an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and
does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
o Preparatory Act – acts that have no direct connection with the intended crime. (e.g. buying poison)
o Overt Act - physical activity indicating an intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles, nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will logically ripen into concrete offense. (e.g. mixing
poison with the victim’s food)
o Desistance - cessation or discontinuance of the crime which comes from the person who has begun it and he stops of
his own free will. Desistance on the part of the offender, made before all acts of execution are performed, negates
criminal liability.
o The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime intended to be committed, but that
does not exempt from the crime the crime committed prior to desistance.
o Attempted felony never passes the subjective phase of the offense.

Elements of Attempted Stage

(a) offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts
(b) offender does not perform all acts of execution which should produce felony
(c) offender’s act can be stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
(d) non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance
Requisites
(a) There be external acts
(b) External acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

Crimes with no Attempted Stage

(a) Impossible Crimes

(2) Frustrated Felony – 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.
o The start of the objective phase where all acts will produce fatal, mortal or serious wounds.
o The belief of the accused is not taken to account, but whether all the acts of execution performed by the offender
would produce the felony as a consequence.
o If the crime is not committed by reason of causes dependent of the will of the accused, he will not be held liable.
o Frustration due to inadequate or ineffectual means is placed on the same footing as an impossible attempt.
o The possibility of accomplishment of a malefactor’s evil intent is what distinguished the attempted and frustrated
felony from an impossible crime. The impossibility of accomplishment of evil intent is the deterrence of the
commission of the crime, while intervention of certain cause or accident in which the offender has no part that prevents
the accomplishment of the crime.

Elements:
(a) The offender performs all acts of execution,
 (b) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence,
(c) But the felony is not produced,
(d) By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Requisites:
(a) the offender performs all acts of execution, which would produce the felony
(b) the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator’s will.

Crimes with no Frustrated Stage

(a) Rape (g) Illegal possession of prohibited articles
(b) Robbery or Theft (h) Felonies by omission
(c) Abuses against chastity (e.g. adultery) (i) Arson
(d) Acts of lasciviousness (j) Corruption of public official
(e) Attempted flight to enemy country (k) Perjury
(f) Impossible crime (l) Failure to render account of

(3) Consummated Felony – all the elements necessary for THE execution and accomplishment of felony are present.
o subjective and objective phases of execution are both present.

When Elements of Felony Not Proved

1. felony is not shown to have been consummated – absence of death in homicide means the crime is not committed
2. felony is not shown to have been committed – absence of intent to gain in alleged theft means the crime is not
committed
3. another felony is shown to have been committed – element of lewd design is disproved in prosecution for forcible
abduction, then another crime is committed – kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

Three Criteria Involved in Deciding Stage of Crime

1. nature of the crime itself (basic or inherent features; characteristics)
2. elements of the crime (elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment)
3. manner of committing the crime

Stages of a Crime does not apply in:

1. formal crimes – consummated by a single act in an instant; no attempt (e.g., slander, adultery, false testimony etc.)
o between the thought and the deed there is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link.
2. crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal by overt act – attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason,
corruption of minors.
3. felonies by omission cannot have an attempted stage because the malefactor does not execute acts, but omits in
performing an act the law requires.
4. Crimes requiring intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement - betting in
sports (endings in basketball), corruption of public officers (bribery).
5. offenses punishable by special penal laws, unless the otherwise is provided for.
6. impossible crimes – cannot be consummated

**************************************************************************************************
ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
Light Felony
o Light felonies are infractions of law for the commission of which penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding or a
fine not exceeding Php 200.00, or both
General Rule: Light felonies are only punishable when consummated
Exceptions: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated

Light Felonies Punished by RPC

a. slight physical injuries (Art. 266) d. malicious mischief
b. theft (Art. 309, pars. 7 – 8) e. intriguing against honor
c. alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313)
**************************************************************************************************
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in
the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
(1) Conspiracy to commit a felony (2) Proposal to commit a felony
Conspiracy: Proposal:
Treason Treason
Rebellion Rebellion
Insurrection Insurrection
Arson Coup de etat
Coup d’etat Terrorism
Sedition
Terrorism
Highway Robbery
Espionage

Conspiracy and Proposal

o Conspiracy or proposal to commit felony is considered a felony only in cases in which the law specifically provides a
penalty therefor.

I. Conspiracy
o Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.
o The existence of a conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the malefactors when
a felony is committed by the perpetrators in a resolute execution of a common scheme.
o Conspiracy arises when the person to whom a proposal was made, accepted the proposal.
o Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotter agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit felony and forthwith decide
to pursue it.
Requisites
(1) two or more persons come to an agreement: presupposed as meeting of the minds
(2) the agreement concerns the commission of a felony: to act on what was already been conceived and determined
(3) the execution of the felony is decided upon: determination to commit the crime

General Rules and Exceptions

(a.) General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable.
 Exception: Except in cases in which the law (RPC) specifically provides a penalty therefor.
 Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts, and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
(b.) General Rule: If there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear
shall be presumed to have desisted, therefore, he is not criminally liable.
o Exception: If such person who did not appear was the mastermind, he will not be exempted from criminal liability.

(c.) General Rule: For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet.  But when
one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable.
o Exception: A co-conspirator who was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent
the commission of the crime is not liable.
Example of Conspiracy as a Felony Penalized by RPC
The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against State and economic security.
(1) Conspiracy to commit Treason - the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or
overthrow the government [Prision Mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment) & fine not exceeding 10,000 (115)]
(2) Conspiracy to commit Coup d’etat, Rebellion or Insurrection (Art. 136)
o Coup d’etat - sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group, through the control of all or part
of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements to seize or diminish state control.
Punishment: Prision Mayor in its min. period & fine not exceeding 8,000
o Rebellion/ Insurrection - an act of violent or open resistance to remove from the allegiance to the Philippines or to its
laws committed by multitudes rising publicly and taking up arms against an established government or ruler.
Punishment: Prision Coreccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) & fine not exceeding 5,000
(3) Conspiracy to commit Sedition - conduct or speech that willfully urge, incite, or advocate people to rebel against the
authority of a state. [Prision Mayor in its medium period fine not exceeding 2,000 (Art. 141)]
(4) Monopolies (enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service) and Combinations (mergers) in restraint of Trade
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the
form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the
market.
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, xxx shall combine, conspire xxx with any person xxx for the purpose
of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price xxx of any such merchandise xxx

Two Kinds of Conspiracy

(1) Conspiracy as a Crime: No overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the
crime itself because the law (RPC) expressly punishes the mere conspiracy
Example: Conspirators does not need to commit treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition, mere agreement to the
commission of the felony is already punishable.
o Conspiracy is punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty, therefore, conspiracy
becomes a felony if there is a law making it a felony.
o Conspiracy as a crime must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence.  Every crime must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, thus, conspiracy, must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or
speculations.
o Mere knowledge, acquiescence to (reluctant acceptance of something without protest), or approval of the act, without
cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional
participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective.
o When the conspiracy itself is a crime and the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime
would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself and the conspiracy is only the manner of incurring criminal
liability and is not punishable as a separate offense.

(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring (become subject) criminal liability

o When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of incurring criminal
liability, that is, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
o When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co-
conspirators become criminally liable. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no
crime yet.  But when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was
absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime.
Example: Conspiracy to commit treason is not a separate offense, but is the manner of incurring criminal liability, if the
felony is committed, that is, all the conspirators who carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution are
equally liable.

NOTE:
o Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes of treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat, but any of them is
actually committed, the conspiracy is not a separate offense; it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that is,
all conspirators who carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution are equally liable.
o There is no crime as conspiracy to commit felony when there is no law punishing it (e.g. conspiracy to commit murder)

Indications of Conspiracy
o When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing another part so as to complete it, with a
view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court
will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.
o For a collective responsibility among the accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all
of them acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design and although only one of them executed
the deed, the act of one is deemed to be the act of all.
o The acts must show a common design –unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective.
o Neither joint nor simultaneous action per se is sufficient proof of conspiracy.

Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

(1) There is an agreement.
(2) There is an implied agreement. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously, the fact that their acts
complimented each other is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective.
The existence of a conspiracy shall be deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of
shall be the act of all. (The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such
acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective.)

Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy.

o Conspiracy can be presumed and proven when the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime point to a joint purpose and design, concerted (in harmony) action and community (common)
of interest, regardless of the extent and character of their participation, because in the contemplation of law, the act of
one is the act of all.

Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy.

o A conspiracy must be established by positive (direct proof of fact, does not arise from a presumption) and conclusive
(beyond dispute or question, cannot be refuted) evidence. (Prove evidence BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT).
o Must be shown to exist as clearly as the commission of the crime. Evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
o Mere presence at the scene or close relationship with the accused is insufficient ground to establish conspiracy.

Other Conspiracies
(1) Multiple Conspiracy; (2) Will Conspiracy – plunder cases & (3) Chain Conspiracy – drug cases
II. Proposal
o Proposal is when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
o Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the
proposal.  Once the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. 
o Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.
o In proposal to commit treason or rebellion , the crime of treason or rebellion should not be actually committed by
reason of the proposal. If the crime was actually committed after and because of the proposal, then the proponent
would be liable for treason or rebellion as a principal by inducement and in such case the proposal is not a felony but
the overt act itself.

Requisites:
(1) That a person has decided to commit a felony
(2) That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons

Example of Proposal as a Felony Penalized by RPC

The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against State and economic security.
(1) Proposal to commit Treason - threat to external security [Prision Coreccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) & fine
not exceeding 5,000 (115)]
(2) Proposal to commit Coup d’etat, Rebellion or Insurrection - threat to internal security (Art. 136)
o Coup d’etat - Punishment: Prision Mayor in its min. period & fine not exceeding 8,000
o Rebellion/ Insurrection - Punishment: Prision Coreccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) & fine not exceeding 2,000
(3) Monopolies and Combination in restraint – threat against economic security

There is no criminal proposal when –

(1) The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony
(2) There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
(3) It is not the execution of the felony that is proposed. (BUT THE PREPARATORY ACTS)

Desistance from the Proposal to Commit a Felony

o Desistance of proponents of rebellion before any rebellious act is actually performed by the would-be material
executors, informing the authorities and aiding in the arrest of their fellow plotters would exempt them from penalties
for the law would rather prevent than punish crimes and encouragement should be given to hose ho hearken to the
voice of conscience.
o Once a proposal to commit rebellion (or other crimes) is made by the proponent to another person, the crime of
proposal to commit a felony is committed and desistance cannot legally exempt proponent from criminal liability.
o The law does not require that the proposal be accepted by the person to whom the proposal is made, making of
proposal is enough to make the proponent liable.
o The crime in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the State or economic security.
o The proposal in attempted bribery is an overt act of the crime of corruption of public officer.
*************************************************************************************************
*
 Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
Classifications of Felonies According to their Gravity
(1) Grave Felonies - felonies to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25, RPC.
Punishment: six years and one day to reclusion perpetua (life); (Capital punishment – death penalty)
(2) Less Grave Felonies - felonies to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with Art. 25
Punishment – one month and one day to six years
(3) Light Felonies  infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
200 or both.
Punishment – arresto menor (one day to 30 days).

Afflictive Penalties for Grave Penalties

o Death is the capital punishment
o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest
penalty in must be an afflictive penalty.
o When the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods corresponding to different divisible penalties, the
higher or maximum period must be that of an afflictive penalty.

1. Reclusion Perpetua 
The imprisonment shall be from 20 years and one day to 40 years (Art. 27, as amended by RA 7659). The penalties
of reclusion perpetua shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the
case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Art. 41) If the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua, the convict may be pardoned after serving the penalty for 30 years. However, the longest term of
imprisonment cannot exceed 40 years. (Art. 70)
Distinction: 

Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment

1. Penalty provided for in the RPC, and some special laws, RA

1. Penalty usually provided for in special laws.
6425 & PD 1860.

2. Duration of 20 years and one day to 40 years. 2. No duration.

 3. Maybe reduced by one or 2 degrees. 3. Cannot be reduced by degrees.

4. Has accessory penalties. 4. Does not have any accessory penalties.

2. Reclusion Temporal – imprisonment shall be from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years (Art. 27, as amended by RA 7659).
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification -
4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification.
These penalties (Nos. 3 & 4) are included by law in the classification of principal and accessory penalties.  If it is the
penalty provided in the RPC for the offense, it is a principal penalty; if not, it is only an accessory penalty.
5. Prision Mayor – imprisonment of 6 years and one day to 12 years. (Art. 27, as amended by RA 7659) 
The penalty of prision mayor shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage (vote) which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Art. 42)
Correctional Penalties for Less Grave Felonies
1. Prision Correctional – duration of the penalty shall be from 6 months and one day to 6 years (Art. 27)
The penalty of prision correctional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a
profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said
imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. (Art. 43)
2. Arresto Mayor – duration of the penalty shall be from one month and one day to 6 months
The penalty of arresto mayor shall carry with it that of suspension of the right to hold public office and the right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence. (Art. 44)
3. Destierro – banishment or prohibition from residing within the radius of 25 km
Any person sentenced shall not be permitted to enter the place(s) designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall not be more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.   (Art. 87) The
duration of the penalties shall be from 6 months and one day to 6 years. (Art. 27, amended by RA 7659)

Light Penalties
o Penalty of arresto menor and a fone of Php 200.00 is provided for light felonies.
o Fine exceeding Php 200.00 is provided for less grave felony since the Code provides that a fine not exceeding Php
6,000.00 is a correctional penalty.
o Article 9 which defines light felonies should prevail over Article 26 which provides that a fine not les than Php 200.00
is a correctional penalty because the latter classifies felonies according to gravity while the former classifies the fine
according to the amount thereof.
o Felony punishable by a fine not exceeding Php 200.00 and censure (Art. 365, par. 4) is a light felony because public
censure is a light penalty.

1. Arresto Menor – duration of the penalty shall be one day to 30 days. (Art. 27, as amended by RA 7659) 
The penalty shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of
an officer of the law, when the court so provided in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the
offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it. (Art 88)
2. Public Censure
If the accused is acquitted, the court has no authority to censure him, because censure, no matter how light a punishment it
may be, is repugnant and essentially contrary to an acquittal.

Accessory Penalties 
1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
The penalties of disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:
a. deprivation of the public offices and employment which the offender may have held, even if conferred by popular
election.
b. deprivation of the right to vote in any election for popular elective office or to be elected to such office.
c. disqualification for the offices or public employment and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraph (b) and (c) of this article shall last
during the term of the sentence.
d. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held. (Art. 30)
All of these effects last during the lifetime of the convict and even after the service of the sentence except as regards pars.
(b) and (c) of the above in connection with temporary absolute disqualification.
2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
The penalties of disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects:
a. deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected.
b. disqualification for holding similar offices   or employment either perpetually or during the term of the sentence,
according to the extent of such disqualification. (Art. 31)
The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender
perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular
election for any public office or to be elected to such office.  Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any
public office during the period of his disqualification. (Art. 32)
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
If suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, the duration is the same as that of the principal penalty.  The person
suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during the period of his suspension.
4. Civil Interdiction
Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or
guardianship, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any
act or any conveyance inter vivos (between living people) (Art. 34)
5. Indemnification - pecuniary liabilities of the offender:
a. Reparation of the damage caused. c. Fine
b. Indemnification of consequential damages. d. Cost of the proceedings. (Art. 38)
These pecuniary liabilities must be satisfied in the order mentioned.  This article is applied only if the property of the
offender is not sufficient to pay his pecuniary liabilities.  If the offender does not have any property, he is to undergo
subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in
the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court, for his failure to meet the
pecuniary liability of fine.
6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government unless they be
property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be
destroyed.
7. Payment of costs.
a. Fees b. Indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings.

Importance of Knowing Gravity of Felonies

(1) to know if the crime can be a complex crime with another felony
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases in which the
felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which
case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
(2) to know the felony prescribed and penalty prescribed (grave and less grave felonies cannot be in one filed
crime)
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By
harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
*************************************************************************************************
*
Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable
under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless
the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Special Laws
 Penal laws which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the RPC
 statutes, which are penal in nature, enacted by the legislative branch
 laws which are considered mala prohibita (unlawful act only by virtue of statute)
 life imprisonment is a penalty under special laws.

o Offenses under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, but the RPC shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. Said clause only restates the elemental rule of
statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail over general ones – lex specialis derogant generali
o The RPC cannot be suppletory when there is a legal impossibility of application, either by express provision or by
necessary implication.
o Penalties imposed by special laws do not provide minimum, medium or maximum periods, which makes it impossible
to consider the modifying circumstances whose main function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance
with the rules of Art. 64 of RPC.
o If a special law follows the nomenclature of penalties under RPC, the provisions of the latter can be applied to the
special law.
o The attempted or frustrated stage of the execution of an offense penalized by a special law is not punishable, unless the
special law provides a penalty therefor. The penalty for the consummated crime cannot be imposed when the stage of
the acts of execution is either attempted or frustrated, because the penalty for the latter is one or two degrees lower.
Special laws do not provide for a lower degree than that of a consummated offense.
o When special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the
penalty provided by the law.
o The Article is not applicable to punish an accomplice. To be able to do so, the rules of graduation of penalties must be
resorted to. But special law with a single penalty standing by itself without any provision therein as to degrees of
penalties imposable makes it a legal impossibility to determine what penalty is to be imposed upon a mere accomplice.
o Circumstances modifying criminal liability (mitigating or aggravating) are not applicable to offenses punishable under
special laws because the latter prescribes penalties which are usually indeterminate and does not come into periods.
o In imposing the penalty for the offenses under special laws, the rules mitigating or aggravating circumstances under
the RPC cannot and should not be followed, unless the special law follows the nomenclature (system) of penalties
under the RPC, the provisions of the latter may apply to the special law.
o Special laws amending the RPC are subject to its provisions.
o When a special law adopted penalties from the RPC, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the
proper period should be applied.
o The suppletory application of RPC, by virtue of Article 10, finds relevance only when the provisions of the special are
silent on a particular matter

Chapter II
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability:
(1) Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
(2) Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12) and other Absolutory Causes and Extenuating Causes
(3) Mitigating Circumstances (Art 13)
(4) Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
(5) Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)
o Imputability – the quality by which any act may be ascribed (assigned) to a person as its author or owner; implied that
the act committed has been freely and consciously done and, may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.
o Responsibility – the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime; obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequence of a crime.
o Guilt – an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer the consequences of a crime unless he is
guilty.

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Justifying Circumstances – circumstances where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that as such
is person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
(There is only civil liability in par. 4 (state necessity) where others benefitted from the act performed.
(1) Self-Defense (5) Fulfillment of Duty (7) The Battered Woman
(2) Defense of a Relative (6) Obedience to a lawful order of Syndrome (RA 9262)
(3) Defense of Stranger a superior
(4) State of Necessity

Burden of Proof: the burden of proof is on the accused who must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. He must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
Nature: No criminal liability is incurred because the act is lawful.

I. SELF-DEFENSE
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or right, provided the following circumstances concur: UN-REA-L
(a) UNlawful aggression (from the victim)
(b) REAsonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
(c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Reason for the Lawfulness of Self-Defense
The State cannot afford to give 24-hour protection to its inhabitants and cannot always come to aid of the person under
attack. The state recognizes the inherent right of a person to defend himself by following his instinct of self- preservation.
Parens Patriae – the principle that political authority carries with it the responsibility for protection of citizens.

Rights included in Self-Defense

Self- defense includes not only the defense of the person who is assaulted but also that of his rights protected by law.
(1) Defense of right to honor
 A slap is considered an unlawful aggression because the face represents a person and his dignity.
 The assault of a deceived husband is natural and lawful for the reason that it was meant to defend his honor.
 Slander by deed is a crime against honor, which is committed by performing any act, which casts dishonor,
discredit, or contempt upon another person.
(2) Defense of right to property - Can be invoked if the attack upon the property is coupled with an attack from the one
getting the property and the person defending it.
(3) Defense of right to chastity - An attack to a woman’s honor is considered an unlawful aggression
(4) Defense of home - Violent entry to one’s home constitutes to unlawful aggression.

Unlawful Aggression: First Requisite

o Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non ("without which nothing") for upholding the justifying circumstance
of self-defense.
o Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or at least a positively and offensive
threat to inflict injury or imminent danger and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
o A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by outward and material aggression, is not unlawful
aggression, because it is required that the act be offensive and positively strong. Showing the wrongful intent of the
aggressor to cause injury.
o Unlawful aggression depends on the perception of the person defending himself.
o If any of the respondent plead not guilty, ask for reverse trial.
o There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent.

(a) Peril to One’s Life

 Actual – the danger must be present and is actually in existence
Ex: The victim attacked and the defendant, in self-defense, killed the aggressor
 Imminent – the danger impending or at the point of happening
Ex: An imminent blow repelled by a knife stab is a self-defense
(b) Peril to One’s Limb
 Peril to the safety of one’s person from physical injury.
 The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with weapon.
(c) Peril to One’s Right
 A slap in the face is considered an unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity and slapping
it is a serious personal attack coupled with willful disregard of an individual’s personality.

Not Considered Unlawful Aggression

(1) The absence of imminent or real danger constitutes to no unlawful aggression (a real threat)
(2) “Foot-kicking” greeting is not unlawful aggression or a serious attack, but can be a provocation.
(3) Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient, nor an intimidating or threatening attitude or stance.
(4) Oral threats and verbal abuse without physical attack are not unlawful aggressions.
(5) Unlawful aggression no longer exists when the aggressor run away from the attack, or when the weapon has been wrested from the aggressor who
has manifested refusal to fight.
(6) Mere cocking of a gun without aiming it does not constitute to unlawful aggression.
(7) Agreement to fight constitutes to no unlawful aggression because the aggression is not unexpected.

Retaliation
(1) A person insulted, slightly injured or threatened and made a strong retaliation by the one who gave the insult, caused
slight injury or made the threat, the former became the offender and the insult, injury or threat should be considered only
as a provocation mitigating his liability.
(2) Retaliation is not a self- defense, since the aggression made by the injured party ceased to exist when the accused
attack him. When unlawful aggression ceased, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the former
aggressor. Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray.
(3) Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray, because unlawful
aggression ceases when the danger or risk ceases, which means the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound
the former aggressor.

Reasonable Necessity of Defense of Person or Right: Second Requisite

o Necessity of defense of person or right presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression because without the latter
there will be no reason “to prevent” or “to repel”
o A threat to inflict real injury poses an imminent danger (prevent), while an actual physical assault place an actual
danger (repel)
o Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in favor
of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from lawless individuals

Elements:
(1) there be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense depends on:
(a) physical attributes of the aggressor and the person defending himself
(b) place and occasion of the assault considered
(c) darkness of the night and the surprise which characterized the assault considered
* reasonableness of necessity of the course of action depends on the existence of unlawful aggression
Example:
o The killing of an unlawful aggressor may still be justified as long as the mortal wound was inflicted at a time
when the elements of complete self-defense are still present.
o A person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his blow since the instinct of the
person is merely self-preservation.
o There is no necessity of defense of person or right when unlawful aggression ceases as in when the aggressor fled
or when the aggressor is disarmed, which means there is no more risk or danger on the former’s person.
(2) there be a necessity of the means used
* reasonableness of means employed depends on:
(a) nature and quality of weapon
(b) physical condition, character and size of the person making a defense and the aggressor
(c) imminence of danger
o The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful
aggression
(3) reasonableness of action/s taken

Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the Person Defending Himself: Third Requisite
o Provocation can be a mitigating circumstance against the person who is making a self-defense plea.
o The exercise of a right does not give rise to sufficient provocation
(1) no provocation was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
(2) provocation given was not sufficient
(3) provocation was sufficient but was not given by the person defending himself
(4) provocation was given by the person defending himself but was not the proximate and immediate to the aggression

II. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE

“Victim-survivors who are found by courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission
of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrist, psychiatrist and psychologist in determining the state of
mind of the woman.” Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004
o Battered Woman – a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
man in order to coerce her to do something he wants or her to do without concern for her rights.
o Characterized by the so-called cycle of violence: terror building – battery – tranquil (twice)
o Mere sight of the husband is considered unlawful aggression.

III. DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

Relatives who can be defended: SADBroSAC (relationship by affinity survives death of the spouse)
(1) Spouse
(2) Ascendants (Ancestor, Parent)
(3) Descendants (Children, Grandchildren)
(4) Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. Death of spouse
terminates the relationship by affinity.
*Relatives by Affinity – marriage or in-laws
(5) Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Requisites:
(a) Unlawful aggression (can be made upon the honest belief of the person making a defense)
(b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
(c) In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense must have no part in it

IV. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER

Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a person
Requisites:
(1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
(3) The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive (merely by generous motive)
o Strangers are anyone outside of the kin.
V. STATE NECESSITY
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another
Requisites:
(1) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
(2) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
*the greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence by the actor or a violation of law
(3) There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

VI. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
Requisites:
(1) The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
(2) The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office
Self-Help
A legal doctrine which states citizens, if no legal recourse is available, may be permitted to perform acts unilaterally to
protect themselves or their rights

VII. OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER OF A SUPERIOR

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
(1) An order has been issued by a superior
(2) The order must be for some lawful purpose
(3) The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
o Both person who gives the order and the person who execute the order act within the limits prescribed by the law.
o The subordinate who carry out an illegal order from his superior is not liable if he is not aware of its illegality and
with no negligence because he had no criminal intent.
o If the officer believe that the order is lawful, it is justifying.
**************************************************************************************************
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court
shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus, afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.**
When such minor is adjudged to criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and
the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in
Article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.

Exempting Circumstances – circumstances that exempt a person from criminal liability because there is an absence in
the agent of the crime any of the conditions that would make the act voluntary or intelligent.
(a) intelligence (c) intent
(b) freedom (d) absence of negligence on the part of the accused
Burden of Proof – the burden of proof is on the accused who must prove the claim to the satisfaction of the court.
Nature: there is a crime but there is no criminal liability (there is civil liability except in par. 4) because of the absence of
free will (freedom), an element of voluntariness
I. IMBECILE AND INSANE PERSON
Elements: (1) complete absence of intelligence and (2) voluntariness
 Imbecile – a person who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two
and seven years of age and is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing a crime (exempt in all criminal
 Insane person – a person with complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, that is, that the accused
be deprived of reason, that he acts without the least discernment, or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the
will.
Exception: when the insane person acts during lucid interval (full mental capacity), during which the insane acts with
intelligence, he is criminally liable.
 Imbecility and insanity renders total lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased/victim.
 The court shall order the confinement of imbecile or insane who committed a crime in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus, afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of
the same court.
 The court has no power to permit the insane to leave the asylum without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of
Health that he may be released without danger.
 The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, because the
presumption is always in favor of sanity (the normal condition of human mind)
Effects of Insanity of the Accused
(1) At the time of the commission of the crime – exempting
 evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of execution.
(2) During trial – criminal proceeding will be suspended until the mental capacity of the accused is restored to afford him
a fair trial.
(3) After judgement or while serving sentence – the execution of judgement of conviction shall be suspended and the
court shall order that the accused be committed to a hospital.

Other State of Mind/ Cases of Lack of Intelligence Covered by the Provision

(1) Dementia praecox – a form of psychosis that results to homicidal tendencies during which a person has no control over
his acts
(2) Schizoprenia– a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguished reality and fantasy often
accompanied with hallucinations and delusions.
(3) Kleptomania – a person inflicted with irresistible impulse to take another’s property.
(4) Epilepsy – chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring intervals, attended by convulsive motions of the
muscles and loss of consciousness.
(5) Committing a crime while in a dream
(6) Somnambulism or Sleepwalking
(7) Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria – the illness affects the nervous system and causes
complications such as acute melancholia and insanity

II. PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE (MINORITY)

Children under nine years is totally exempt from criminal liability due to his minority
Exempting Circumstance: complete absence of intelligence

Periods of Criminal Responsibility

(1) The age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below (infancy)
(2) The age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
(3) The age of full responsibility – 18 years or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
(4) The age of mitigated responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years with discernment); 70 years (senility)

III. PERSON OVER NINE AND UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE

A child of 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability, but not
from civil liability. The child shall be subjected to an intervention program as provided in the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006, RA 9344.
Burden of Proof: Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the law has the burden of proving the age of
child.
Exempting Circumstance: complete absence of intelligence

Children above 15 but under 18 years of age

(1) If the child has acted without discernment, he shall incur no criminal liability.
(2) If the child has acted with discernment, he shall be criminally liable. (a child in conflict with the law)
o Discernment – capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the crime to understand the difference between
right and wrong and the consequence of the wrongful act. It may be shown by
(a) manner the crime was committed.
(b) conduct of offender after its commission

IV. PERSON PERFOMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE (accident)

Exempting Circumstance: lack of negligence and intent
Elements:
(1) person performing lawful act (3) causes injury to another by mere accident
(2) with due care (4) without fault or intention of causing it

o Accident – something that happens outside the sway of will, and although it comes about through some act of our
will, lies beyond the bound of humanly foreseeable consequence. It is a situation where a person is in fact in the
act of doing something legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence, but in the process produces harm or
injury to someone or to something not in the least mind of the actor – an accidental result flowing out of a legal
act.
Exceptions:
(1) Repeated blows negated claim of wounding by mere accident.
(2) Accidental shooting is negated by threatening words preceding it and still aiming the gun at the prostrate body of the
victim, instead of helping the victim.

V. PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Exempting Circumstance: complete absence of freedom, of voluntariness
Elements:
(1) compulsion is by irresistible force
(2) physical force must be irresistible
(3) physical force must come from a third person

o A force can be considered irresistible if it produces such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it
reduces him to a mere instrument, and as such, incapable of committing a crime.
o The force, which come from a third person, must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not
only without will but against his will.
o The compulsion must leave the actor with no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

VI. PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER IMPULSE OF UNCONTRLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER
INJURY
Exempting Circumstance: complete absence of freedom, of voluntariness
“An act done by me against my will is not my act.”
Elements:
(1) the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which the actor is required to do
(2) the threat promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
Requisites:
(1) existence of an uncontrollable fear
(2) fear must be real and imminent
(3) fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed
o Duress as a valid defense should be based in real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should
not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
o The fear must be insuperable and the person who acts under insuperable fear is completely deprived of freedom.
o The compulsion must leave the actor with no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
o Fear with the absence of proof of actual, physical or moral compulsion to act is not sufficient to exempt the
accused from criminal liability.

VII. PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME
LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
Exempting Circumstance: act without intent
Elements:
(1) an act is required by law to be done
(2) a person fails to perform such act
(3) his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Insuperable cause – a cause which prevents a person to do what the law requires.
*************************************************************************************************

o Justifying Circumstances – a person who acts by virtue of justifying circumstance does not transgress the law, that is,
he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, both the act and the intention of the actor is lawful, thus there is
neither a criminal or civil liability.
o Exempting Circumstance – the act is not justified but is not criminally liable, although there is a civil liability.
o Absolutory Causes – acts committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
imposed (operates the same as exempting circumstance).
1. Article 20 in relation to Article 19
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be
imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within
the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners: 
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission
of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have
passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
3. Instigation – inducing the would-be accused into the commission of the offense shall render acquittal of the accused.
NOTE:
(a)If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both he and the one induced
are criminally liable for the crime committed: the former, as principal by injunction; and the latter, as principal by direct
participation.
(b) It is distinguished from entrapment (ways and means a peace officer resorted to apprehend a person who has
committed a crime and the intent to commit the crime originates from the mind of the criminal).
4. Spontaneous Desistance
Characterized by the cessation or discontinuance of the crime which comes from the person who has begun it and he stops
of his own free will.
o Extenuating Circumstance - surrounding or mitigating factors that reduce a party's level of responsibility or guilt,
whether in a civil or criminal trial. Successfully showing extenuating circumstances might result in a lower damage
award, a more lenient punishment, or a lesser charge.
Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed
upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor,
she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed
for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.
Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. — Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse
with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the
marriage be subsequently declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. If the person guilty of adultery
committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in
degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
**************************************************************************************************

Chapter III
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 13. Mitigating circumstance. – The following are mitigating circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provision of Article 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act,
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however
depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature or analogous to those above-mentioned.
Mitigating Circumstances – circumstances which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the
actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
(1) Ordinary Mitigating – those enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 of Article 13.
(2) Privileged Mitigating
 (a)Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. — When the offender is a minor under
eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this
Code, the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court
having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees
at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed, but always in the proper period.
(b) Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by one or
two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some
of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article
11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period
which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
(c) Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties,
each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating
circumstances: xxx
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances. xxx
Distinction
(1) Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while Privileged mitigating cannot
be offset by aggravating circumstance.
(2) Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an aggravating circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the penalty
provided by the law for the crime in its minimum period; whereas Privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing
upon the offender the penalty lower by one to two degrees than that provided by the law for the crime.
I. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
Mitigating Circumstance: Not all requisites to justify or exempt from criminal liability is present.
WHEN ALL REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY THE ACT ARE NOT PRESENT
(1) Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of stranger
Requisites of Self-defense
(a) UNlawful aggression (from the victim)
(b) REAsonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
(c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Requisites of Defense of Relatives
(a) Unlawful aggression (can be made upon the honest belief of the person making a defense)
(b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
(c) In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense must have no part in it.
Requisites of Defense of Strangers
(1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
(3) The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive (merely by generous motive)
NOTE:
o Unlawful aggression is indispensable requisite, but the absence of either or both of the last requisite is mitigating
o If two of the three requisites are present in a case, it will not be considered an ordinary mitigating but a privileged
mitigating circumstance referred to in Art. 69 of RPC.

(2) Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury (State Necessity)
Requisites:
(1) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
(2) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
*the greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence by the actor or a violation of law
(3) There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

(3) Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty

Requisites:
(1) The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
(2) The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office

(4) Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order

Requisites:
(1) Order has been issued by a superior
(2) The order must be for some lawful purpose
(3) The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

WHEN ALL REQUISITES NECESSARY TO EXEMPT THE ACT ARE NOT PRESENT
(1) Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and under 18 years of age.
NOTE: If the child in conflict of law acts with discernment, he is only entitled to a mitigating circumstance
(2) Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident

Elements:
(1) person performing lawful act (3) causes injury to another by mere accident
(2) with due care (4) without fault or intention of causing it
nd th
o If the 2 requisite and the first part of the 4 requisite (fault) are absent, the case will fall under Art. 365 which
punishes a felony by negligence or imprudence. In effect, the penalty is mitigated and is lowered than that of
intentional felony.
o If the 1st requisite and the second part of the 4th requisite (negligence) are absent, it will be an intentional felony.
(3) Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
II. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provision of Article 80.
Mitigating Circumstance: minority diminishes intelligence, a condition of voluntariness
Application: if the minor 15 or over but under 18 years of age act with discernment, such child is in conflict with law and
shall undergo diversion programs.
Diversion
o Diversion – an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of child in conflict
with the law on the basis of his social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resulting
to formal court proceeding
o Diversion program – program that a child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after he is found responsible
for an offense without resulting to formal court proceeding
o Intervention – series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense.

Contract of Diversion
 The diversion program shall be developed if during the conferencing, mediation and conciliation, the child voluntarily
admits the commission of the act and the prescription of the offense shall be suspended. (the admission shall not be
used against the child) The program shall be effective and binding once the parties concerned write an acceptance
letter.
 The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during the effectivity of the diversion program, but not
exceeding a period of two years.
System of Diversion
 Children in conflict with law shall undergo diversion programs without undergoing court proceeding subject to the
following conditions pursuant of RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Welfare System
(a) If the imposable penalty for the crime committed is not more than six years imprisonment the law enforcement office
or Punong Baranggay with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer or other member of the Local
Councils for the Protection of Children shall conduct family conferencing and conciliation, where both the child and his
family shall be present.
(b) In victimless crime (offenses where there is no private offended party) where the imposable penalty is not more than
six years imprisonment of the local social welfare and development officer shall meet with the child and his parents or
guardians for the development of the appropriate diversion and rehabilitation program, in coordination with the Barangay
Council for the Protection of Children
(c) If the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds six years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted
to only by the court.

Periods of Criminal Responsibility

(1) The age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below (infancy)
(2) The age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
(3) The age of full responsibility – 18 years or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
(4) The age of mitigated responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years with discernment); 70 years (senility)

Legal Effects of Various Ages of Offender

o 15 and below – exempting
o Privileged mitigating circumstance
 Above 15 but under 18 – exempting unless acted with discernment – But even with discernment, penalty is reduced
by one (1) degree lower than that imposed. (Art 68, par 2, amended by RA 9344)
 Minor delinquent under 18 years of age – sentence suspended (Art 192, PD 603 as amended by PD 1179, referred
to as Children in Conflict with the Law under RA 9344).
 Child in Conflict with the Law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or being adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine laws.
o 18 years or over – full criminal responsibility
o 70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of death penalty if already imposed execution of death penalty is
suspended and committed
III. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Mitigating Circumstance: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is diminished
[Disproportion of the means employed to execute the crime and the consequence produced]
Application: only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means
employed to execute the criminal acts and its consequence.
Elements:
(1) act that resulted to a graver injury than intended (2) physical injuries and material harm
Praeter Intentionem – the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong
o The intention, as an internal act is judged not only by the proportion of the means employed by the accused to the evil
produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body
(a) weapon used – e.g. deadly weapons such as knife or gun
(b) the part of the body injured – e.g. head, chest or stomach
(c) the injury inflicted – e.g. mortal, serious or fatal wound from which death can be anticipated
(d) manner the blow is inflicted – e.g. inflicting wounds in rapid succession/ brute force
o The intention of the offender at the precise moment when he is committing or executing the crime which is considered,
not his intention during the planning stage.
o The mitigating circumstance is applicable if the injury inflicted by the offender could not have resulted to naturally and
logically in the actual death of the victim.
Not applicable to:
(1) Physical Injuries – in crimes against person who does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces felony to
physical injuries, but does not constitute a mitigating circumstance.
(2) Felonies by negligence – there is a lack of intent that may be diminished.
(3) Defamation or slander

IV. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act,
Mitigating Circumstance: provocation diminishes of intelligence and intent
Requisites:
(1) provocation must be sufficient
(2) provocation must originate from the offended party
(3) provocation must be immediate to the act
o Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating any
one
o Provocation as a mitigating circumstance pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party; while as an element
of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending himself.
Provocation must be sufficient
o Sufficient – adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
o Provocation is sufficient depending upon the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person
provoked, the place and the time when the provocation is made.
 When the aggression is in retaliation for an insult, injury or threat, the offender cannot successfully claim self-
defense, but at most, he can be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance.
Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime
o There should be no interval time between provocation and the commission of the crime, because the interval time may
allow the defendant the time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control.
o Threat can be considered a provocation and must precede the act

Exception to the mitigating circumstance of provocation:

(1) When the defendant sought the victim, the challenge to fight by the victim is not provocation because the defendant
was ready and willing to fight.
(2) The performance of a duty is not a source of provocation.
V. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees.
Mitigating Circumstance: diminution of intent and intelligence, conditions of voluntariness
Requisites:
(1) there is a grave offense done to the defendant his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
NOTE:
o The relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse
survives death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity.
o The grave offense must not be general in nature and must specifically directed to the defendant or to his kin.
o Grave offense is a catch all provision.

(2) the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

NOTE: A lapse time is allowed between the vindication and the commission of the grave offense.
o The interval if time is allowed because the influence of the grave offense, which give rise to mind perturbation (mind
unease), by reason of its gravity and the circumstance under which it was inflicted, lasted until the commission of the
crime. Vindication is due to the fact that it concerns the honor of a person.
o The gravity of the offense is determined based on the social standing of the person, the place and the time when the
insult was made.
Provocation and Vindication
(1) Grave offense may be committed against the offender’s relatives and would still constitute a Vindication; while
Provocation is made directly only to the person committing felony.
(2) The offended party must commit a grave offense to constitute a vindication; while a grave offense is not needed in
provocation.
(3) There can be an interval of time between the grave offense and the commission of the crime to constitute a
vindication;
while provocation or threat must be immediately preceded the act.

VI. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Mitigating Circumstance: passion or obfuscation (obscure) diminishes intelligence and intent
Elements:
(1) the defendant acted upon an impulse
(2) the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in the defendant.
The crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury.

Requisites:
(1) There is an unlawful and sufficient act from the offended party to produce passion or obfuscation
(2) The act producing obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of
time, during which the defendant might have recovered his normal equanimity. The influence of passion must last until
the moment the crime is committed.
NOTE: the lapse in time will allow the offender to recover his normal equanimity.

Rules of Application:
(1) The crime committed by the accused must be provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the injured party.
(2) Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when it arose from lawful sentiments
Ex: A husband who killed his wife after he found the latter in bed with another man.
(3) It is not applicable where the offender:
(a) acts in spirit of lawlessness
(b) acts in a spirit of revenge
(4) The offender must act under the impulse of special motives (legitimate and natural cause of indignation and anger)
(5) Jealousy can only be mitigating if the relationship is legitimate or is an amorous relationship
(6) The cause producing passion or obfuscation must come from the offended party
(7) Passion or obfuscation may also arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender
(8) Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
circumstance. Passion or obfuscation is produced by an impulse which may be caused by provocation
(9) Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation because one single fact cannot be made the
basis of different modifying circumstance.
Exception: When there are facts, although closely connected with the fact upon which one is premised, the other
circumstance may be appreciated as based on other fact.
Example: 1. elopement, which is a grave offense to a family of old customs (vindication) and 2. refusal of the victim to
face the defendant (passion and obfuscation)
(10) Passion and obfuscation may co-exist with lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
Not applicable when:
(1) Exercise of a right or fulfillment of a duty is not proper source of passion or obfuscation.
(2) Mitigating circumstance is not applicable where the crime is planned and calmly meditated.
(3) Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery and premeditation
(4) The impulse upon which the defendant acted was deliberately instigated or provoked by himself for a considerable
amount of time.
Exception:
(1) Passion and obfuscation may build up strengthen over time until it can no longer be repressed and will ultimately
motivate the commission of the crime.
(2) Sudden revelation of an affair, even for common-law spouses
(3) Harsh treatment of the victim against the offender
 Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with irresistible force because whereas passion is in the offender himself
and must rise from lawful sentiments, irresistible force must come from a third person and is unlawful
 Passion and obfuscation is different from provocation in a sense that passion

VII. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Mitigating Circumstance: voluntary surrender and plea of guilty diminished the offender’s perversity
Two Mitigating Factors
NOTE:
o The two are separate and independent circumstances even if present in the same case.
(1) Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents

Requisites of Voluntary Surrender

(a) offender had not been actually arrested
(b) offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agents
(c) the surrender was voluntary

Rule of application:
o Surrender must be spontaneous that it will show the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to
acknowledge his guilt or an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense for his search and capture.
o Surrender must be made to a person in authority charged with the maintenance of public order.
o Issuance of arrest warrant is no bar to the consideration of the mitigating circumstance because the law does not
require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest.
o Surrender is not required to be made where the crime is committed.
o Surrender must be by reason of the commission for which the accused is prosecuted.
o Surrender is made through an intermediary or through another person.
o When record shows that arrest warrant is unserved.
General Rule: The accused should surrender before he is served with an arrest warrant to afford the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
Exception:
(a) When the accused, having opportunity to escape, voluntarily waited for the authorities and gave himself up.
(b) When the accused voluntarily brought his victim to the hospital where he was arrested.
(c) When the arrest happened after the accused voluntary surrendered.
Mitigation not applied when:
(a) surrender is motivated by an intention to insure his safety as in the fear from retaliation from the relatives of the victim
or the arrest is inevitable as in the case of a fugitive.
(b) accused did not resisted arrest or tried to free himself from the authorities.
(c) offender imposed a condition before he surrenders.

(2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for prosecution
Requisites of Voluntary
(a) offender must spontaneously confess his guilt
(b) confession of guilt was made in open court (the competent court that will try his case)
(c) confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution

General Rule: Plea of guilty must be made prior to trial or presentation of evidence.
Exception: Offender is willing to plead guilty for a lesser offense in view of an entirely new information and no evidence
was presented in connection with the charges made therein before the accused plead guilty for the lesser offense.

Rules of application:
(a) Withdrawing “not guilty” plea for plea of guilty is mitigating if made prior to the presentation of evidence or witness
(b) Plea of guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecution failed to present the aggravating evidence is mitigating
(c) Plea of guilty to the offense charged in the amended information for a lesser offense in the original information is
mitigating.
(d) The court should conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequence of his
plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and precise degree of culpability and the accused may present
evidence in his behalf

Mitigation not applied:

(a) when plea of guilt is made after arraignment and after trial has begun
(b) when plea of guilty is made on appeal to another court because it must be made at the first opportunity.
(c) when plea is made after preliminary investigation.
(d) extrajudicial confession made outside of court
(e) offender made a conditional plea of guilt in the sense that he admits his guilt provided that a certain penalty be
imposed upon him.

Exception: Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies and in crimes punished by special laws
o Culpable Penalty – Article 365 of RPC which prescribes penalty for culpable felonies provides that imposition of
penalties with disregard to the rules prescribed in Article 64. The article states, among others, that when there is
mitigating circumstance without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty will be imposed in the minimum
period.
o Special Laws – Article 64 is not applicable because the penalty prescribed by special laws is usually not divisible
into three periods.

VIII. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings.
Mitigating Circumstance: incomplete freedom of action (diminution of the element of voluntariness)
o Physical Defect – armless, cripple or stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or communicate with his
fellow beings are limited.
o Physical defect must restrict means of action, defense or communication with fellow beings.

IX. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however
depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
Requisites:
(1) the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will power
(2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts
o Refers to diseases of pathological state that trouble the conscience or will
Examples:
(1) manic depressive psychosis
(2) dementia praecox
(3) feeble mindedness

X. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature or analogous to those above-mentioned.