Criminal Law Vallente Reviewer

( °□° !
!
!
! !
!
TABLE! Reminders:!
• Use!at!your!own!risk.!Although!it!is!made!with!
the!best!effort,!we!cannot!guarantee!its!
accuracy.!
TURNERS!
• We’d!appreciate!it!if!you!could!please!keep!this!
within!the!block!!!
!
!
PREPARED!BY:!
JOEL!ARZAGA!
KAYE!BALDONADO!
AILEEN!CRUZ!
IJ!CHAN3GONZAGA,!S.J.!
PHILIP!EVARDONE!
GELO!GENER!
RACHELLE!GUTIERREZ!
PONCE!LOPEZ!
ALYSSA!MICLAT!
IJJI!PARAS!
RAIZA!RADOC!
ADRIAN!TAN!
ERIKA!VALDEZ!
!
!
( °□° !
!
Criminal Law I Atty. Giovanni Vallente

Criminal Law in General o Bill of Attainder  a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution

of legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.
POINTS
 Cannot enact laws that punish people without due process.
I. Definitions

 What is criminal law?
VI. Why Ex Post Facto Laws are Prejudicial to the Accused
o Branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of
1. Makes criminal an act, which before the law’s passage was
their nature, and provides for their punishment.
innocent.
 What is crime?
2. Aggravates a crime.
o An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than the
forbidding or commanding it.
law annexed to the crime when committed.

4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
II. Sources of Criminal Law
upon less or different testimony than the law required at the
 Revised Penal Code
time of the commission of the offense.
 Special Penal Laws passed by the Legislative
5. Imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
 Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
when done was lawful.

6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection
III. Common Law Crimes
which he was entitled to, such as the protection from a former
 Crimes not written in the law but are understood as all to be
conviction or acquittal.
offenses.

 The Philippines does not have common law crimes. Thus, even if
VII. Constitutional and Statutory Rights
the act be socially or morally wrong, its commission incurs no
 Constitutional Rights (Article III, Bill of Rights, 1987
criminal liability if the act is not punishable by a particular
Constitution)
provision in penal law or special penal law.
o Bill of Rights states that the accused has the right to

speedy trial, due process, right against self
IV. Power to Define and Punish Crimes
incrimination, free access to the courts, etc.
 The state, as part of its police power, has a large measure of
 Statutory Rights are found in and created by statutes
discretion and possesses the authority to define and punish
o Section 1 Rule 115 of the Revised Rules in Criminal
crimes and lay down the rules of criminal procedure.
Procedure states that the accused have the right to be
 This power is given to the state by its people in order for the
informed of accusations against him, confront and
former to be able to look after the rights of the latter.
cross‐examine witnesses, make appeals, etc.

V. Limits to the Power of Law‐Making Bodies
VIII. Can an Accused Waive his Rights?
 No ex post facto law or a Bill of Attainder.
 YES but only those that affect only him and not society
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o He can waive his right to cross‐examine but he cannot  For a member of the military to be tried in military court, his
waive his right to be informed of the crime offense must be service‐ oriented (Articles of War).
o Article 63  Disrespect toward the President
IX. Characteristics of Criminal Law o Article 64  Disrespect toward superior court
 General o Article 67  Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a
o Binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Gentleman.
Philippines. o Article 97  General Article.
 Territorial  The Revised Penal Code is not applicable when the Military
o Criminal Law undertakes to punish crimes committed Court is in charge of the case though the said court can refer to
within Philippine territory the RPC when considering what penalty to give.
 Prospective  Once tried in a military court, that same case cannot be tried in
o Forward Looking and never retroactive a civil court and vice versa.
 War criminals are triable by Military Commission.
X. The Military
 General Rule: Jurisdiction of civil court over a case is not XI. Exceptions to the applicability of the RPC
affected by the military character of the accused.  Laws and Treaties of preferential application
o When the military courts takes cognizance of a case o Bases Agreement  March 14, 1947
involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of o RP‐US Visiting Forces Agreement February 10, 1998
War apply. The Revised Penal code and other penal law o Republic Act 75  October 21, 1946
is not applicable. Republic Act No. 75
 Members of the military can be tried under civil court because  RA No. 75 works in favor of diplomatic representatives and their
military courts and civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction. domestic servants (Section 4).
o This is true even in times of war provided that (a) the  Exception: When the process against servant (who is a citizen of
crime was not committed where hostilities are in the Philippines) is founded on debt contracted before he
progress, and (b) the civil courts are functioning. entered such service (Section 5).
o US v. Sweet  Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected
 Sweet was a member of the US military. He does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic
claimed that because of this, our courts had no representatives.
jurisdiction over him and the case filed against Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of
him. the principles of public international law
 The fact that he was a member of the US  II Hyde International Law: as a principle of international law,
military did not affect the jurisdiction of the civil the following are not subject to the operation of our criminal
courts unless special legislation said otherwise laws:
o Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers  If the new law fails to penalize an act (punishable under the old
resident, and charges d’affaires. law), it is no longer punishable.
o Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex
XII. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws: New  The reason for the law ceasing, the law itself
Statutes that are more lenient or favorable to the accused also ceases.
 Must be favorable to the accused in order for it to be followed o People v. Sindiong and Pastor
as long as (a) accused committed act before the new statute  Accused was prosecuted from neglecting to
came out, and (b) he is not a habitual criminal. make a return of the sales of newspapers and
magazines within time prescribed as stated in
XIII. Different Effects of Repeals on Penal Law law.
 If the penalty in the repeal is lighter, it shall be applied to the  While case was pending, a new law was passed
case except if accused is a habitual criminal. wherein the act of the accused was no longer
 If the penalty in the repeal is heavier, the law in force when the included as punishable.
offense was committed shall be applied.  The accused were acquitted.
 If the new law totally repeals the old law, the crime is  If someone is mistakenly accused and convicted under a
obliterated. repealed law, he may be tried again under the new law as long
o People v. Tamayo as such an offense still exists in the law.
 While the case was pending, the ordinance  Self repealing laws (laws with expiry dates) are self executing.
violated was repealed.
 The accused was acquitted. XIV. Construction of Penal Laws
 If the new law simply reenacts the old law, criminal liability is  Penal Laws are strictly construed against government and
not destroyed. liberally in favor of the accused.
o US v. Cuna o This does not apply if the law is clear and unambiguous.
 Accused was charged with selling opium o People v. Garcia
 While the case was pending, a new law against  Respondent accused of violating a law
opium was passed which still included the act prohibiting the selling of PCSO tickets without
done by the accused being authorized
 The new law does not take away the criminal  Accused claims he sold llave tickets
liability of the accused  Respondent is acquitted because the law does
 If both old law and new law punish the same offense, offender not expressly prohibit the selling of llave tickets
can be tried in the law which is more favorable to him –  The Spanish text is superior to the English text.
provided that the old law was still in place when he committed o People v. Mangulabnan
the offense.  Respondent fires a gun upwards while
committing a robbery.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Respondent ends up killing the owner of the II. Content
house who was situated on the floor above him  Book I
 Respondent is accused of robbery with. o Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Art. 1‐20)
homicide because though the English text says o Provisions on penalties including criminal and civil
that the killing should be intentional for it to be liability (Art. 21‐113)
homicide, the Spanish text says that homicide  Book II
can take place even by mere accident. o Definition of felonies with the corresponding penalties
(art. 114‐365)

The Revised Penal Code III. Theories that guided the RPC
 Classical
o The basis of criminal liability is free will and the purpose
I. History of the penalty is retribution.
 September 4, 1884  Royal Decree ordering penal code in the o Man is seen as an essentially moral creature. Thus,
Peninsula to be published and applied in the Philippines more emphasis on the act and its effect rather than on
 December 17, 1886  Royal Order directed the execution of the person who committed the act.
the September 4, 1984 decree o Establishment of a mechanical and direct proportion
 March 13 & 14, 1887  Penal Code published in the Official between crime and punishment.
Gazette of Manila  Positivist
 July 14, 1897  Penal Code takes effect o Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
 October 18, 1927  A committee was created by Department phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong in spite
of Justice Administrative Order No. 94 to revise the penal code, of or contrary to his volition.
taking into consideration the existing conditions and the special o Crime is a natural and social phenomenon; each case is
laws and ruling laid down by the Supreme Court. different.
o Anacleto Diaz as chairman, Quintin Paredes, Guillermo  The RPC is guided primarily by the Classical theory though it is
Guevara, Alex Reyes and Mariano H. De Joya. also partly influenced by the Positivist Theory.
o The RPC does not embody the latest progress of
criminal science, as the results of the application of
advanced and radical theories “still remains to be seen.”
 December 8, 1930  draft of the Revised Penal Code approved.
 January 1, 1932  RPC takes effect.
o Felonies and misdemeanors committed prior this were
punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at
the time of their commission, as directed by Article 366.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


PRELIMINARY TITLE – DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF o 3 miles from the coastline starting from the low water
THE PROVISIONS mark
o 12 miles measured in a straight line from headland to
Article 1. This code shall take effect on the first day of January, headland
nineteen hundred and thirty two. o Established through international treaties

Article 2. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential II. Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372)
application, the provisions of this code shall be enforced not only  Has provisions providing for extra‐territorial application subject
within the Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its internal to existing treaties and laws of preferential application
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against  The Act shall apply to:
those who: o Persons committing a crime within the Philippine
(1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; territory
(2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the o Persons involved in a crime within the Philippine
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the territory despite being physically outside of the territory
government of the Philippine Islands; o Persons who commit an offense while on a Philippine
(3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these ship or airship
Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding o Persons who commit crimes within our embassies,
number; consulates, and other diplomatic premises occupied by
(4) While being a public officers or employees, should commit an the Philippine government in an official capacity
offense in the exercise of their functions; or o Any person committing a hate crime against Filipinos
(5) Should commit any of the acts against national security and the law o Any person committing a crime directly against the
of nations, defined in title one of book two of this code. Philippine government

POINTS PAR. 1: The RPC with regards offenses on a Philippine ship or airship
 Does not apply when the ship or airship is within foreign
I. Important Phrases territory.
 Its atmosphere  Does not apply if ship or airship is not properly registered with
o Penal laws extend to all their air space which covers the the Philippine Bureau of Customs even if owner is Filipino.
territory, subject to the right of way or easement in  Does not apply if the crime is committed in high seas (i.e. areas
favor of foreign aircrafts. of the seas not belonging to any one country), BUT the vessel is
 Interior Waters not registered or licensed in the Philippines.
o Bodies of water within the 3 mile limit
 Maritime Zone I. The RPC and Foreign ships or airships
 Continuing offense:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Defined as forbidden conditions existing while the ship PAR. 2: SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY OF
or airship was in our territory even if such conditions THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY
already existed prior to its entry into our territory. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
o Continuing offense is punishable by our courts. “AND”
 When a foreign merchant vessel enters the 3‐mile limit, the PAR. 3: SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE
ship’s officers and crew are subject to the jurisdiction of our INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND
courts. SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING NUMBER.
o Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or
those on board are to be dealt exclusively by the I. Why are people who introduce forged or counterfeit obligations and
sovereignty of the home of the ship. securities being punished?
o Disturbances which may affect public peace of the  They are being punished because such acts have an effect on
Philippines may be suppressed and the offenders may our economy
be punished by Philippine authorities.  Thus, any person who makes counterfeits in a foreign country
 With regards foreign ships, the Philippines follows the English may be prosecuted before our courts for violation of Article 163
Rule: (coins or currency counterfeit) OR Article 166 (forging securities
o French Rule – crimes are not triable unless they affect or obligations) of the RPC.
the peace and security of the territory and safety of the ____________________
state. PAR. 4: WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES SHOULD
o English Rule – crimes are triable unless they only involve COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
matters within the vessel.
 Absolutely no jurisdiction over foreign war ships. I. Does the RPC apply to public servants and employees who commit
their offenses abroad?
II. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a  Yes as long as it was during the exercise of their functions.
foreign merchant vessel in transit are not triable by our courts ____________________
 Carrying opium on a ship which is in transit is not triable in our PAR. 5: SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
courts. BUT, when the opium is landed, it is within our SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE, BOOK
jurisdiction because such act is an open violation of the laws of TWO OF THIS CODE.
the Philippines (US v. Look Chaw).
 Smoking opium on a ship while it is in transit is triable because it I. Examples of offenses against national security and the law of nations
affects our territory (atmosphere) (People v. Wong Cheng).  Treason, conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, espionage,
 A person who is carrying opium and who is on board a foreign inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals, violation of
merchant ship may be liable for illegal importation of opium (US neutrality, correspondence with hostile country, flight to
v. Ah Sing). enemy’s territory, piracy and mutiny on the high seas.
____________________
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE ONE – FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL  There must be a law requiring the doing or
LIABILITY performance of an act
CHAPTER 1: FELONIES o Examples
 Article 275, par. 1  Abandonment of persons
Article 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. in danger.
 Article 213, par. 2[b]  Failure to issue receipts
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by  Article 116  Misprision of Treason.
means of fault (culpa). Are internal acts covered by the RPC?
 No because they are beyond the sphere of penal law. Thinking
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and of committing a felony does not constitute a felony unless you
there is fault when the act results from imprudence, negligence, lack act on it.
of foresight, or lack of skill.  Thus, only external act is punished.

POINTS III. SECOND Requisite: Said act or omission must be punishable by RPC
I. Elements of Felonies  Punishable by law
1. There must be an act or omission. o Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
2. Said act or omission must be punishable by RPC.  There is no crime when there is no law
3. Said act or omission must be performed by means of deceit or punishing it
fault.  Case: People v. Silvestre and Atienza
o Atienza threatens to burn down a house; Silvestre is
II. FIRST Requisite: There must be an act or omission standing right beside him.
Important words and phrases o Silvestre does nothing as Atienza commits the crime.
 “Act” o Court ruled that Silvestre is not criminally liable because
o Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime,
in the external world. mere silence, and a failure to give the alarm, without
 No need for it to actually be produced. evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable
Possibility of its production suffices.
o Must be defined as a felony in the RPC IV. THIRD Requisite: Said act or omission performed by means of
 At least an overt act  an act which has direct deceit or fault
connection with the felony to be committed. Classification of Felonies: Intentional v. Culpable
 “Omission” 1. Intentional Felonies
o Failure to perform a positive duty that one is bound to o Act is performed with deliberate intent (malice).
do o Offender has the intention to cause an injury to the
person, property or right of another.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Crimes which cannot be committed through o Reason for punishing acts of negligence:
imprudence or negligence such as murder, treason,  A man must use his common sense and exercise
robbery, and malicious mischief. due reflection in all his actions.
o Requisites of dolo (malice)  He is responsible for such results as anyone
 Freedom might foresee and for his acts which no one
• Without freedom, a person is no longer would have performed except through culpable
a human being, but a tool. abandon.
• There is no freedom if the offender is o Examples
under the compulsion of an irresistible  US v. Divina
force or uncontrollable fear. • Defendant who is not a medical
 Intelligence practitioner ties up a girl and sets her
• Intelligence is necessary to determine on fire. He claims he is trying to cure
the morality of human acts. Without her ulcer and that he acted in good
this, no crime can exist. faith.
• The imbecile, insane, infant under 9 • Defendant is guilty of physical injury
years of age, and minor between 9‐15 through imprudence
years of age have no criminal liability.  People v. Lopez
 Intent • A man runs over a girl with his truck
• This is presumed from the proof of the despite him not intending to do so.
commission of an unlawful act • Man convicted of reckless imprudence
2. Culpable Felonies • The driver should have taken the
o The injury caused is unintentional, it being simply the precaution necessary to avoid injury to
incident of another act performed without malice. persons because he was neither
 People v. Guillen compelled to refrain from or prevented
• Accused threw a grenade at the from doing so.
president in an attempt to kill him and o Definition of reckless imprudence  consists in
ended up killing other people voluntarily but without malice, doing or failing to do an
• Accused did not commit a culpable act from which material damage results.
felony because deliberate intent to do Both Intentional and Culpable Felonies are Voluntary
an unlawful act is essentially  Reasons
inconsistent with the idea of reckless o Man has free will.
imprudence o Man is a rational being who can distinguish between
o Acts resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of good and evil.
foresight, or lack of skill.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Intentional felonies were intended while culpable  The act itself does not make a man guilty unless
felonies resulted from acts, which were voluntary but his intentions were so.
not intended as felonies. Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo
 Acts cease to be voluntary when there is compulsion or  There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
prevention by force or intimidation  Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
o An act done by me against my will is not my act.
V. Intent o Example
 Intent is a mental state manifested through the overt acts of  People who commit crimes while sleepwalking
people. do not incur criminal liability because there was
o A person who causes an injury by mere accident does no intent (People v. Taneo).
not have intent therefore is not criminally liable. Distinction between general intent and specific intent
 When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are  Some felonies necessitate specific types of intent.
slow in concluding that some other result was intended o Robbery necessitates intent to gain.
o People v. Sia Teh Ban o Frustrated homicide necessitates intent to kill.
 Respondent stole a watch therefore showing  When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of
intent to gain. criminal intent is a plausible defense.
 Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime o If there is only error on the part of the accused, he does
are always presumed to exist on the part of the not act with malice and as such, he cannot be liable for
person who executes an act which the law intentional felony.
punishes, unless the contrary shall appear  Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in
 Lack of intent to kill the deceased because offender meant to felonies committed by means of culpa.
kill another person does not clear the offender of criminal
liability. VI. Mistake of Fact
 Lack of intent may be inferred from the facts of the case.  Ignorantia facti excusat
Presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the o Ignorance of fact relieves the accused from criminal
commission of an act which is not unlawful. liability.
 US v. Catolico  Mistake of fact  is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
o Judge orders money deposited by the defendants as a the person who injury to another. He is not criminally liable,
bond to be given to the plaintiff. Judge is subsequently because he did not act with criminal intent.
accused of malversation.  An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal
o It was ruled that his original act was not unlawful intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
therefore there was no criminal liability. Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a defense:
o Actus non facit reum, nisi mens set rea 1. Act would have been lawful is facts were as the accused
believed them to be.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o US v. Ah Chong  The act done by the accused would have constituted:
 Accused killed a man because after taking all of o A justifying circumstance (Article 11)
the necessary precautions, he thought that he o Absolutory clause (Article 247)
was being attacked by a robber o An involuntary act
 Acquitted by mistake of fact because had the  Resisting arrest is not a crime when there is a mistake of fact
facts been as the accused thought, his actions
would have constituted self defense. Also, the VII. Crimes Punishable by Special Laws
circumstances pressed him for immediate and  Includes crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances.
decisive action  Dolo is not required.
o People v. Oanis o It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
 Killed a sleeping man because he was mistaken consciously.
for an escaped felon. o The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes
 Accused was convicted because he did not take the offense.
all the necessary precautions needed to verify  People v. Bayona
the identity of the person and the accused had • Unwittingly but voluntarily brought a
no authority to shoot a sleeping man even if he gun into a polling place
was the escaped felon. Lastly, the • Convicted because no matter what his
circumstances did not press him for immediate intentions were, the act prohibited by
and decisive action. the special laws was committed
2. Intention of the accused must be lawful.  Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetuate the act
o When an unlawful act is done willfully, mistake of the must be distinguished
identity of an intended victim does not relieve the o If there is no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited,
accused of criminal responsibility (People v. Gona). there is no criminal liability
o Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made by
reckless imprudence (People v. Guillen). statutory enactment
3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the  The act in itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is
accused the evil.
o People v. De Fernando o Example: Law Prohibiting display of revolutionary flags
 Accused shot a man going up the stairs because  The evil to society and to the government does
he thought he was an escaped felon not depend upon the state of mind of the one
 Accused is guilty of homicide through reckless who displays the banner, but upon the effect
negligence because he failed to take all the which that display has upon the public mind.
necessary precautions to ensure the identity of  The public is not affected by the intention of the
the man he eventually shot offender but by the act itself.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is  In all cases mentioned, the absence of intent to violate the law
considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the was considered in favor of the accused.
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in VIII. Mala in se and Mala prohibita distinguished
crimes punished by special laws  General rule: Acts in mala in se, there must be a criminal intent;
 Since the offense is malam prohibitum, the performance of the but those in mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act
act itself will constitute the offense. was intentionally done.
 Exceptions:  Mala in se
o People v. Landicho  If it is done in order to comply o Wrongful from its nature.
with government policies. o Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on
 When there is a law prohibiting the carrying of society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation
loose firearms in relation to a man who was from its members.
authorized to buy and collect guns to be sold to o Punishable by RPC.
the authorities later on, that individual is not  Mala Prohibita
criminally liable. o Wrongful because it is prohibited by a statute.
 This is not the same if the man held on to the o Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to
firearms for a undue length of time when he secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society
had all the chances to surrender it to the proper o Found in special laws.
authorities. o Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
o People v. Asa & US v. Samson  Civilian guards who When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se even if
acted in good faith and never had any intention of punished under special law
committing an offense against the law prohibiting the  People v. Sunico et al.
carrying of loose firearms because they believed their o Voters names were omitted from the list.
position in the civilian guard association warranted the o The act was mala in se because the omission and failure
carrying of such firearms. to include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is
o Peope v. Mallari  When the accused has a pending not only wrong because it is prohibited, it is wrong per
application for permanent permit to possess a firearm se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of
and whose possession in not unknown to the his fundamental rights.
authorities who actually advised him to keep his firearm o For such an act to be punished, it must be shown that
for the meantime. said act was committed with malice.
o People v. Lucero  When accused was given authority
to carry a revolver in order to capture or kill a wanted IX. Intent distinguished from motive
person.  Motive  The moving power which impels one to action for a
definite result.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Intent  The purpose to use a particular means to effect such  Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
result. statements of the accused before or immediately after the
Motive: when relevant and when not need to be established commission of the offense.
 Not an essential element of a crime; need not be proven for  Establishment through the evidence presented.
purposes of a conviction.  Lack of motive may be aid in showing innocence.
o Even a strong motive cannot take the place of proof  Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction. It
beyond reasonable doubt. cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
 Good motives do not prevent an act from becoming a crime sufficient to overthrow presumption of innocence.
o Example: Mercy Killing
 Relevance: Article 4.
o When the identity of the perpetrator is being disputed, Criminal liability shall be incurred:
the motive is very relevant (People v. Murray). 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
 Not applicable if perpetrator has been positively wrongful act be different from that which he intended.
identified (People v. Gadiana). 2. By an person performing an act which would be an offense
 Not applicable if perpetrator admits to crime against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
(People v. Arcilla). impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the
o When ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
theories or versions of the killing (People v. Boholst‐
Caballero; People v. Lim; People v. Tabije) POINTS
o Where the identification of the accused proceeds from I. The manner of incurring criminal liability under the RPC is stated in
an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive Article 3
and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is  This article has not reference to the manner criminal liability is
necessary (People v. Beltran). incurred.
o When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion falls on a
lot of people (People v. Melgar). II. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the
o When evidence is merely circumstantial (People v. consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom,
Oquiño). whether foreseen or intended or not
 Not applicable if guilt is established by sufficient  One is not relieved from the criminal liability for the natural
evidence (People v. Corpuz). consequence of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does not
o When there is no doubt that the accused committed the intend to produce such consequences.
crime, his motives are unimportant (People v. Feliciano). o Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C
How motive is proved instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although the
one who fired the gun had no intention to injure C.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


III. Rationale of Article 4 o Examples
 El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado  People v. Mabugat
o He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil • Accused and B were sweethearts. They
caused. got into a fight and one night, accused,
with revolver in hand, waited for B and
IV. Important words her niece C to leave the house of D and
 “Committing a felony” head home. As they reached the house,
o Act or omission has to be punishable by the RPC. accused aimed and fired a shot at B but
o Necessitates malice because of the phrase “that which instead hit C.
he intended”. • Accused is criminally liable (frustrated
o Cannot therefore be an act or omission punished by a murder)
special law because the offender violating such a law  People v. Tomotorgo
may not have the intent to do an injury to another. • Accused, incensed by his wife, beats her
 US v. Divino until she falls to the ground and
• Defendant who is not a medical complains of chest pains. Accused
practitioner ties up a girl and sets her proceeds to take his wife home and
on fire. He claims he is trying to cure take care of her. Wife dies.
her ulcer and that he acted in good • Accused is guilty of parricide.
faith. • SC ruled that the fact that the accused
• He is not guilty of a felony because he intended to maltreat his wife only or
had no intent to harm. He is however inflict physical injuries does not exempt
guilty of physical injury through him from liability for the resulting and
imprudence and/or illegal practice of more serious crime of parricide
medicine. • Maltreatment inflicted by the accused
 “Although the wrongful act be different from that which he was the proximate cause of wife’s death
intended”
o Causes V. When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally
 Mistaken identity (error in personae)  A liable for the result which is not intended
shoots B because he thinks he is C.  US v. Villanueva
 Mistaken blow (aberration ictus)  A tries to o Accused, out of curiosity, snatched a bolo carried by the
shoot B but accidentally shoots C. victim in his belt. The victim was subsequently injured.
 The act exceeds the intent (praeter o Accused is not criminally liable because there is no
intentionem)  A only intends to injure B but provision punishing the act of snatching the property of
ends up killing him. another just to satisfy curiosity.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 People v. Bindoy o Example: People v. Salinas
o Accused, carrying a bolo in one hand, got into a heated  Accused, along with B, go to the house of C and
altercation with Pacas’ wife. Pacas attempted to take D. Accused enters the house, B stays outside. B
away the bolo from the accused and during the scuffle, challenges C to a fight and accused holds on to
an innocent bystander was injured. C to prevent him from going outside. A struggle
o Accused is not criminally liable because the law permits ensues and D, while holding a baby, attempts to
him to use necessary force to retain what belongs to free C from the accused. D ends up falling down
him. the stairs, baby in hand. The baby eventually
o If accused had been trying to strike Pacas and instead dies.
hit someone else, he would be criminally liable.  Accused cannot be criminally liable for holding
on to C and preventing him from engaging in
PAR. 1: BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY (DELITO), ALTHOUGH what would have been a bloody encounter with
THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE B because such an act is not punishable.
INTENDED.  Similarly, accused is not guilty of the death of
the baby because the death was not the direct
I. Requisites of Article 4 paragraph 1 consequence of a crime seeing as how accused
 In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony did not committing any crime.
different from that which he intended to commit: Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of
1. Intentional felony was committed danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the  People v. Toling
offender o Accused proceeds to commit robbery aboard a jeepney.
Accused threatens the passengers and subsequently, B
II. FIRST Requisite: Intentional felony was committed jumps out of the jeepney in order to escape. B ends up
No felony is committed when: hitting her head on the pavement and eventually dies.
 The act or omission is not punishable under RPC. o It was held that accused is guilty for the death of B
o Suicide is not punishable under the RPC (Article 253)  because he created an immediate sense of danger that
If A jumps off the building and lands on B, he is not prompted B to try and escape.
criminally liable for intentional homicide. o Similarly, if a person believing himself to be in danger of
 When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances death or great bodily harm jumps into the water and
in Article 11 drowns, the person who caused him to believe he was
o Self defense, fulfillment of duty, etc. in danger is criminally liable for his death
o These acts must still be exercised with due care
otherwise the accused will be liable for culpable felony.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


III. SECOND Requisite: Wrong done must be the direct, natural, and o People v. Martir  Injury was aggravated by infection
logical consequence of a felonious act (proximate cause).  An accused is liable for all the consequences of
 General Rule: A person is criminally responsible for acts his acts, and the infection of a wound he has
committed by him in violation of the law and for all the natural caused is one of the consequences for which he
and logical consequences resulting therefrom. is answerable
 Examples  Except if infection is due to the malicious act of
o US v. Valdez  Victim who was threatened or chased by the offended party (US v. De los Santos).
the accused with a knife, jumps into the water and  Cases
drowns because of the heavy current. o People v. Quianson
 Accused is criminally liable.  A injures B. While taking medical treatment, B
o People v. Quianson  Victim removes drainage from a removes the drainage from his wound in order
wound given to him by the accused in order to alleviate to alleviate immense pain. This results in the
great pain. Victim subsequently contracts an infection development of an infection which eventually
and dies. leads to the death of B.
 Accused is criminally liable because he directly  A contends that he was not involved in the
caused the great pain which victim was trying to taking out of the drainage which eventually led
alleviate. to the infection and subsequent death.
o People v. Moldes  A wound that was inflicted was  Court rules that A is criminally liable for the
dangerous or calculated to destroy human life. death of B because his removal of the drainage
Immediate cause of death was erroneous medical was due to the immense pain he felt from the
treatment. wounds inflicted by A.
 Even if erroneous medical treatment comes into o US v. Marasigan
play, the one who inflicted the wound is still  Accused strikes at B with a knife. In an attempt
criminally liable. to ward off the blow, the finger of B was
o People v. Illustre; People v. Rodriguez; People v. Reyes severed.
 Victim was suffering from an internal malady and  Claims of the accused that B can get surgery in
said malady was fatally aggravated by a blow from the order to restore his finger is not a valid defense
accused. because B is not obliged to receive surgical
 Accused is criminally liable. treatment in order to relieve accused of his
o US v. Marasigan  Victim refused to submit to surgical liability.
operation. o People v. Reloj
 Offended party is not obliged to submit to a  Accused stabs B with an ice pick. B undergoes a
surgical operation to relieve the accused from successful surgical operation but days later he
the natural and ordinary results of his crime. dies because of a condition that takes place as a
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


consequence of internal organs being exposed concomitant or concurrent conditions, or the
during surgery. conditions supervening the felonies.
 Accused is criminally liable because the  Exceptions (felony committed is not proximate cause when)
condition would not have come about if B did 1. There is an active force that intervened between the
not need to undergo surgery because of injuries felony committed and the resulting injury, and the
inflicted by the accused. active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
 If it clearly appears that the injury would not have caused from the felonious act of the accused.
death, in the ordinary course of events, but would have healed 2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the
in so many days and where it was shown beyond all doubt that victim.
the death was due to the malicious or careless acts of the  The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his
injured person or a third person, the accused is not criminally delictual (wrongful) act caused, accelerated, or contributed to
liable for homicide the death of the victim.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting How to determine the proximate cause
injury  Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina
 Proximate cause  is that cause which, in natural and o Passenger bus travelling in the province at 2 in the
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening morning turns over, trapping 4 passengers. Gasoline
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would begins to leak and spread all over the bus. Men with
not have occurred. torches come to help out the trapped passengers but
o Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course the fire from their torches (keep in mind the gasoline
of human life or events. that spread all around the bus) causes the bus to
o Logical means that there is a rational connection become engulfed in flames.
between the act of the accused and the resulting injury o It was ruled that the proximate cause was not the fire
or damage. from the torches but instead the turning over of the
 Proximate legal cause bus. The arrival of men carrying torches in the middle of
o That acting first and producing the injury, either the night to help the trapped passengers was a natural
immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all consequence seeing as how it was dark and they were
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, in the province.
each having a close causal connection with its o Furthermore, there is negligence on the part of the
immediate predecessor. agents of the carrier since they would have realized that
o There must be a relation of “cause and effect”, the gasoline was leaking (gasoline has a distinct scent) and
cause being the felonious act of the offended, the effect should have warned the men with torches.
being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim.  People v. Luces
 Not altered because of pre‐existing conditions, o Accused gave a fist blow to victim in the stomach,
predisposition of the offended party or the causing her to fall to the ground and become
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


unconscious. Victim never regains consciousness and  People v. Moldes  Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment
eventually dies. Autopsy shows that cardiac failure was as when the assault took place in an outlying barrio where
probable cause for death. proper modern surgical service was not available
o Accused argues that cardiac failure and not the fist blow  Case: People v. Piamonte, et al.
was not the cause of death. o A stabs B. B is successfully operated on but eventually
o Court rules that the fist blow was the primary and he contracts a condition due to his weakened state.
proximate cause of death because the cardiac failure o A is criminally liable because the stabbing was the
(incurred either directly because of the fist blow, while proximate cause of death.
falling to the ground, or while being unconscious) was When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical
caused by the fist blow. injuries inflicted
 He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of 1. The victim was in normal health when the injury was inflicted.
the evil caused. 2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
 Causes, not being efficient intervening causes, do not break the 3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
relation of cause and effect – the felony committed and the  Case: People v. Tammang
resulting injury. o Boy was in good health the morning of the incident.
The following are not efficient intervening causes Teacher assaults boy and boy complains about
 People v. Illustre & People v. Reyes  The weak or diseased experiencing oppressive pain to his mother later on. Boy
physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from vomits blood until he dies 3 days later.
tuberculosis or heart disease. o Teacher’s liability for homicide necessarily follows from
 People v. Almonte & People v. Quianson  Nervous the premises stated.
temperament, as when a person dies in consequence of an o Had it been proven that the boy died from
internal hemorrhage because he was moving around against hypochondria and not the injuries inflicted by the
doctors orders because of his nervous temperament due to the teacher, accused would have been acquitted on the
wound inflicted by the accused. charge of homicide.
 People v. Buhay, US v. Valdez  Causes inherent to the victim Not direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed.
o Victim does not know how to swim  If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act
o Victim is an alcoholic or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is
 US v. Marasigan & People v. Red  Neglect of the victim or a not responsible for such consequences.
third person.  A person is not liable criminally for all possible consequences
o Refusal of victim to undergo surgery which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for
o Failure of doctors to give anti‐tetanus injection to the such as are proximate:
injured person o People v. Rockwell
 A strikes B. B falls to the ground. A horse jumps
on B and kills him.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 A is not liable for the death of B o Such person is therefore a potential criminal.
o US v. De los Santos o The community must be protected from anti‐social
 A lightly injures B. B deliberately immerses activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid
himself in a cesspool of filth. The injuries of B type of man called “socially dangerous person”.
become greater.
 A is not liable for the worsened condition of B. II. Requisites of impossible crime
o People v. Palalon 1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property
 A strikes B with the back of his hand. Later on, B 2. Act was done with evil intent
dies. There is a prevalent sickness in the locality. 3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means
 A is not liable for the death of B because it is employed are inadequate or ineffectual
reasonable to believe that it could have been 4. Act is not a violation of another provision of the RPC
caused by the prevalent sickness in the locality.
o US v. Embate III. Important words and phrases
 Accused strikes a child who was seriously ill.  “Performing an act which would be an offense against persons
Child dies two days later. or property” (Requisite 1)
 Accused is not liable for child’s death because it o A felony against persons or property should not be
cannot be established if the illness or the strike actually committed, for, otherwise, offender would be
caused the death. liable for that felony. This means there is no impossible
o Urbano v. IAC crime to speak of.
 When medical findings lead to the possibility o Felonies against persons
that the infection of the wound was an efficient  Parricide (Article 246)
intervening cause (not a proximate cause), the  Murder (Article 248),
accused must be acquitted of the crime of  Homicide (Article 249),
homicide  Infanticide (Article 255),
____________________  Abortion (Article 256, 257, 258, and 259),
PAR. 2: BY ANY PERSON PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD BE AN  Duel (Article 260 and 261),
OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE  Physical injuries (Art, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266)
INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF IT’S ACCOMPLISHEMTN, OR ON  Rape (Article 266‐A)
ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL o Felonies against property
MEANS.  Robbery (Art. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303)
 Brigandage (Article 306 and 307)
I. Impossible Crimes  Theft (Article 308, 310, 311)
 The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal  Usurpation (Article 312 and 313)
propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor.  Culpable insolvency (Article 314)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Swindling and other deceits (Article 315, 316, • Trying to kill a person without knowing
317 and 318) that he is already dead  legal and
 Chattel mortgage (Article 319) physical impossibility.
 Arson and other crimes involving destruction, • Trying to poison a person with arsenic
malicious mischief (Article 327, 328, 329, 330 when it turns out, only salt was used.
and 331) • Stealing a watch even if it turns out the
o If the act performed would be an offense other than a said watch is actually yours  legal
felony against persons or property, there is no impossibility,
impossible crime • Attempting to steal money from a safe
 Act was done with evil intent (Requisite 2) that turns out to be empty.
o Offender must have the intent to do an injury to o Employment of inadequate and ineffectual means
another  Examples
 Stabbing a person’s corpse to satisfy a grudge is • A tries to poison B with a decent
not a crime if and when the accused knew that amount of arsenic but B does not die
the person was already dead because he has strong resistance to
o A takes the check payment meant for her company and arsenic
deposits it in her own account. The check bounces. • A tries to shoot B in the head only to
 Accused found guilty of an impossible crime find out the gun is not loaded when he
 There can be no question that as of the time pulls the trigger
accused took possession of said check, she had
performed all the acts to consummate the IV. Purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime
crime of theft, had it not been impossible of  To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies
accomplishment in this case  Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony but
o A peppers the bedroom of B with bullets. B was not in subjectively, he is a criminal
his bedroom.
 Convicted of an impossible crime Article 5. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may
 “Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall
accomplishment or on account of the employment of render the proper decision and shall report to the Chief Executive,
inadequate or ineffectual means” through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court
o Inherent impossibility of accomplishment to believe that said act should be the subject of legislation.
 Legal impossibility
 Physical impossibility In the same light, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
 Examples: through the Department of Justice, such statements as may be
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result 4. The judge should submit a statement to the chief
in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the recommending executive clemency.
offense. Cases
 People v. Monleon
POINTS o Accused maltreats his wife while inebriated. Wife dies.
I. First paragraph pertains to acts which should be repressed but which  Since the accused had no intent to kill his wife
are not punishable by law. and her death may have been hastened by lack
 Basis of Paragraph 1: Nulllum crimen, nulla poena sine lege of proper medical care, the punishment of
o There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.
(no matter how bad that act may be).  People v. Espino
 Trial of a criminal case requires the following: o Accused steals coconuts for his family’s consumption.
1. The act committed by the accused appears not  Punishment for the crime was 4 months and 1
punishable by any law. day of arresto mayor to 3 years, 6 months, and
2. The court deems it proper to repress such act. 21 days of prison correccional according to the
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision RPC.
by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.  In light of the circumstances surrounding the
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief case, the court recommended the accused be
Executive through the Secretary of Justice, stating the pardoned after serving 4 months of the
reasons which induce him to believe that the said act sentence
should be made the subject of penal legislation.  People v. Cabagsan
o Accused alters documents in order to show that a
II. Second paragraph pertains to excessive penalties person was arrested on a later day. Falsifications were
 Second paragraph requires the following: done in order to make it appear that there was no delay
1. The court of trial finds the accused guilty in the preliminary investigation being conducted on the
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court case.
imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly  It was ruled that there was an apparent lack of
excessive because malice and a total absence of injury
 The accused acted with lesser degree of malice  People v. Canja
 There is no injury or the injury caused is of o Battered wife kills her husband and confesses to doing
lesser gravity so
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the  Court recommended that the accused is
sentence. deserving of executive clemency, not of full
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


pardon but of a substantial if not radical  Judge sentences accused to life imprisonment
reduction or commutation of her life sentence when the law clearly states that the punishment
 People v. Manlapaz should be death.
o Accused committed simple rape • In this situation, the judge did not fulfill
 The penalty for simple rape was increased from his duty
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua as a
means to deter rampant cases of rape V. Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme
happening after WWII. Court
 It was recommended that after the accused  Judge must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as
shall have served a term of imprisonment interpreted by the Highest Court of the land, and that any
consistent with retributive justice, executive deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would
clemency may be extended to him. unavoidable cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences,
delays and expenses to the litigants
III. Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public  Judge is free to state his opinion on the matter if his views
policy contrast with those of the SC but he must still follow the
 People v. Estoista interpretation of the SC
o Rampant lawlessness justifies imprisonment for
promiscuous carrying and use of powerful firearms VI. Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy
when ordinarily such a penalty would seem excessive.  Dura lex sed lex
 People v. Tiu Ua o The law is hard but it is the law
o Heavy fines imposed by congress to repress profiteering
so that people would not take advantage of critical VII. Strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code
conditions (like a global recession, strong storms, etc.)  Article 5 may not be invoked for cases of mala prohibita
to make unusual profits. because it is expressly worded that Article 5 only applies to
strict enforcement of the provisions of the RPC
IV. Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law
 It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law, Article 6.
regardless of their private opinions. Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
o Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, or attempted are punishable.
morality of laws. Such questions fall exclusively within
the legislative that makes the law and the executive A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
who approves or vetoes it. execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
o Example the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the felony as a consequence but, which, nevertheless do not produce b. Acts of execution
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.  Punishable by law
 Stages of acts of execution:
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of • Attempted Frustrated
a felony, directly through overt acts, and does not perform all the acts Consummated
of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause  All stages of acts of execution are punishable
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
II. STAGE 1: Attempted Felony
POINTS Elements of attempted felony
I. Development of crime 1. Commencement of the commission of the felony directly by
 From the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing overt acts.
a crime up to the realization of the same, his act passes through 2. Offender does not perform all acts of execution which should
certain stages. produce the felony.
Stages: 3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
1. Internal acts desistance.
o Thoughts in the mind of the person; can never be 4. The non‐performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause
punishable no matter how evil they are. or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
o Mere intent to commit a crime cannot be punished if it Important words and phrases for attempted felony
produces no effect.  “Commences the commission of a felony”
o Intent and effect must concur. o Two requisites:
2. External acts i. There must be an external act committed.
a. Preparatory acts ii. External acts must be connected with the crime
 Ordinarily they are not punishable unless intended to be committed.
provided by law.  “Directly by overt acts”
• The act of buying poison is not o Only offenders who personally execute the commission
necessarily punishable. of a crime can be guilty of attempted felony.
• Carrying a picklock is punishable  If A tells B to kill C but B refuses –
because there is a provision against it. • A is not liable for attempted homicide
 BUT preparatory acts which are considered in since the attempt was not done directly
themselves by law as independent crimes are with physical activity
punishable.  If A tells B to kill C and B shoots at C and misses
• Article 304  The possession of • A and B are criminally liable of
picklocks is a preparatory act to the attempted felony because of
commission of robbery.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of one  Could have been caused by his conscience
is the act of all. o It does not matter if spontaneous desistance was due to
 “Does not perform all the acts of execution” either fear or remorse as long as act is stopped on
o If all the acts of execution are performed, it is account of the would‐be offender’s own free will.
automatically either frustrated or consummated. o Desistance must be made before the crime is
o If not all acts are performed, it is only attempted. committed.
 US v. Eduave  A steals a chicken & brings it back an hour later.
• If anything yet remained for him to do, • Robbery has already been committed
he would be guilty of an attempted therefore the return of the chicken does
crime. not free A from criminal liability.
 People v. Lamahang o Own spontaneous desistance exempts one from
• Accused did not enter the store criminal liability for the intended crime, and not from
therefore there was only an attempted any crimes which may have been committed before the
trespass. desistance.
 “By reason of some cause or accident”  A shoots B and misses. A decides not to shoot
o Cause anymore.
 A tries to pickpocket B but B catches him before • A is not guilty of attempted homicide
he can do so. because of his spontaneous desistance
• A has not done all the acts of execution but he is guilty of making grave threats
in relation to pick pocketing. which he had already committed.
o Accident Subjective phase of the offense
 A tries to shoot B but the gun jams.  In an attempted felony, the offender never gets past the
• A has not committed all the acts of subjective phase.
execution.  Definition
 “Other than his own spontaneous desistance” o That portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting
o You cannot be punished if you stop yourself from from the point where the offender begins the
committing a crime. commission of the crime to that point where he still has
o It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, control over his acts, including their natural cause.
having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of  As long as he does not commit the last act of
their conscience and return to the path of execution, offender is still in the subjective
righteousness. phase
o One who takes part in planning a criminal act but desists  Example: A tries to poison B with poisoned soup.
in its actual commission is exempt from criminal o Subjective phase ends as soon as the B swallows the
liability. soup.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 US v. Gloria
III. Overt acts o Offering money to a public officer with the purpose of
 Some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to corrupting him is an overt act in the crime of corruption
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or of a public officer.
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination External acts must have direct connection with the crime intended to
following its natural course, without being frustrated by be committed by the offender
external obstacles, nor by the voluntary desistance of the  People v. Lamahang
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete o Accused was caught making an opening in the wall of a
offense. store while the owners were asleep.
Distinguishing between preparatory acts and overt acts o Cannot be counted as attempted robbery because the
 Act of buying poison mere act of making an opening in the wall of the store
o On its own, this act is a mere preparatory act because it does not immediately mean that a robbery was taking
does not logically follow that he who buys poison place.
wishes to commit a felony. o The crime that the accused was convicted of was
o It becomes an overt act when he who buys poison attempted trespass given that when he was caught, the
begins to mix said substance into a soup which he will only act that he had committed so far was the making of
serve to his intended victim. In such case, there is clear an opening in the wall of the store.
intent to poison a person
 People v. Tabago IV. Indeterminable offense
o Accused seemed to be drawing his pistol while talking  It is one when the purpose of the offender in performing an act
to a policeman. is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
o Accused is not criminally liable for attempted homicide The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the
because merely drawing a pistol does not show intent acts executed by him, and not from his admission
to kill.  The intention of the accused must be ascertained from the facts
o To constitute attempted homicide, the person using a o It is necessary that the mind be able to directly infer
firearm must fire it, with intent to kill, at the intended from the facts the intention of the perpetrator to cause
victim without inflicting a mortal wound. a particular injury.
 US v. Simeon  People v. Lamahang
o Accused raised a bolo as if to strike at the offended o Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in
party. favor as well as against the accused, and which show an
o Not an overt act because there was no blow struck, and innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and
there is no proof that the accused issued threats to kill cannot furnish grounds by themselves for attempted
or to do bodily harm. crime.
Overt acts may not always be physical activities
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Acts must be shown to be directly aimed at the • A thinks he kills B and disposes of the
execution of the crime, and therefore they must have body in the bushes.
an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. • A is guilty of frustrated homicide
because he believed he had already
V. STAGE 2: Frustrated Felony killed B.
Elements of frustrated felony o The belief of the accused need not always be
1. Offender commits all acts of execution. considered.
2. All the acts performed would produce a felony.  What ought to be considered is whether or not
3. Felony is not produced. all the acts of execution that would produce the
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. felony as a consequence were performed.
Important words and phrases for frustrated felony  “Would produce the felony as a consequence”
 “Performs all the acts of execution” o All the acts of execution performed by the offender
o Nothing left to be done by the offender. could have produced the felony as a consequence.
 Homicide  Offender is able to afflict a fatal  A tries to stab B but instead stabs the back of
wound. the chair where B was sitting. Attempted
o The SC in some cases has emphasized the belief of the murder only because murder would not have
accused. been produced as a consequence of the actions
 People v. Sy Pio performed by A.
• A shoots at B. B escapes and A does not o Does not pertain to the stopping of the felony from
chase him. happening because the performance of the acts of
• A cannot be accused of frustrated execution were prevented.
homicide because he knew that he did  “Do not produce it”
not perform all the acts of execution o If the intended felony was produced, the act is
necessary to kill his victim. consummated.
• A is guilty of attempted murder.  “Independent of the will of the perpetrator”
 People v. Dagman o If the crime is not produced because of the timely
• A shoots at B. B pretends to be dead. A intervention of a third party (after all acts of execution
no longer shoots at B. have been committed).
• A is guilty of frustrated homicide o If the crime is stopped because of spontaneous
because he only stopped shooting desistance (perpetrator’s own will), there is no
because he thought he had already frustrated felony, because the 4th element is absent.
killed B. o Example:
 US v. Eduave  Doctor poisons wife but immediately
administers to her an adequate antidote.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Not guilty of frustrated parricide because the o People v. Domingo  Two physicians testifying could
intervening cause that saved the wife was not not agree on the seriousness of the wound. One of
independent of the will of the perpetrator. them said the wounds were not serious enough to
 Doctor is only guilty of physical injuries since produce death even if no medical assistance had been
the wife already ingested the poison before he given to the offended party.
administered the antidote. o People v. Somera  where the head of the offended
Is there frustration due to inadequate or ineffectual means? party was merely grazed by the shot which hit him, the
 Such a frustration would be tantamount to an impossible crime wound being far from fatal.
Distinguishing frustrated felony from attempted felony Distinguishing attempted or frustrated felony from impossible crime
 In frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective  In attempted or frustrated felony, the crime could have been
phase (completion of all acts of execution) while in attempted accomplished  in impossible crime, the crime can never be
felony, the offender has not made it past the subjective phase accomplished.
 In the following cases, the stage of execution was held to be  Attempted or frustrated felony are thwarted by external
frustrated, because the wound inflicted was mortal: reasons  impossible crime is thwarted by internal reasons
o People v. Honrada  Accused stabbed the offended such as the inherent impossibility of the crime or the
party in the abdomen, penetrating the liver, and in the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means by the
chest. offender.
o People v. Mercado  Accused wounded the victim in
the left abdomen with a sharp‐edged weapon which VI. STAGE 3: Consummated felony
was serious enough to have possibly caused death. Important words and phrases for consummated felony
o People v. David  Accused in firing his revolver at the  All the elements necessary for its execution and
offended party hit him and perforating the lungs. Victim accomplishment are present.
was only saved by timely medical attention. o Every crime has its own elements which must all be
 In the following cases, the stage of execution was held to be present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of
attempted, because there was no wound inflicted or the wound law.
inflicted was not mortal: What happens when not all the elements of a felony are proved?
o US v. Bien  Accused threw the victim, who didn’t  Felony is not shown to have been consummated.
know how to swim, into deep water. Victim held on the  Felony is not shown to have been committed.
boat, and the accused tried to hit him with the oar.  Another felony is shown to have been committed.
Accused was prevented from striking the victim, and  Examples
hence there was only attempted homicide. o Homicide  not consummated without death.
o People v. Kalalo  Not having hit the offended part o Theft  not consummated if no intent to gain.
despite firing four successive shots, the accused failed o Estafa  not consummated if there is no deceit or
to perform all acts of execution. abuse of confidence proven.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Can instead be found guilty of attempted or o Accused steal linen curtains and
frustrated estafa. put these items in the back of
o Robbery with violence  not consummated if no intent their truck. Accused gets caught
to gain. when they try to pass a
 Can instead be found guilty of grave coercion. checkpoint.
o Forcible abduction  not consummated if no element o Court rules they are guilty of
of lewd designs is proved. consummated theft.
 Can instead be found guilty of kidnapping and o Estafa
serious illegal detention.  The crime is consummated when the offended
party is actually damaged or prejudiced.
XX. How to determine between attempted, frustrated, and • US v. Dominguez
consummated o A receives money from a sale
 Nature of Crime which he should give to the
o Arson cashier. A puts the money in his
 Attempted  poured gasoline around the pocket with intent to
house but got caught before he could strike a misappropriate the amount.
match. o Court ruled that this is
 Frustrated  poured gasoline around the frustrated estafa because estafa
house and lit the fire but the house did not burn can only be consummated
 Consummated  poured gasoline around the when the offended party has
house and lit the fire. The house is burning. been damaged or prejudiced.
 Elements constituting the felony  Manner of committing crime
o Theft o Formal crimes  Consummated in one instant; no
 Consummated when thief is able to get hold of attempt.
object even if he is not able to carry it away  There are crimes like slander and false
• US v. Adiao testimony that are consummated by a single
o A steals a belt and keeps it in act. It is either consummated or not.
his desk. Belt is found in his o Crimes consummated by mere attempt
desk shortly after.  Flight to enemy’s country  a mere attempt is
o Court ruled that the theft had a consummated felony.
been consummated because A  Corruption of minors  a mere proposal to
was already in possession of the satisfy the lust of another will consummate the
belt. offense.
• People v. Espiritu o Felony by omission
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 There is no attempted stage because in this kind is generally held sufficient to warrant
of felony, the offender does not execute acts. conviction of the accused for the
o Crimes requiring the two or more persons is consummation of rape
consummated by mere agreement o People v. Orita  Perfect
 Corruption of a public officer  consummated penetration is not essential
if agreement is reached; attempted if offer is • Frustrated  There is doubt as to
rejected. whether accused succeeded in
 Cases penetrating the vagina.
• People v. Diego Quin • Attempted  The accused, on top of
o A gives B a bribe. B later returns the victim, firmly endeavored to have
the bribe. sexual intercourse with the victim but
o A is guilty of frustrated bribery the victim managed to get away.
because all the acts of  Homicide
execution were done but the • Consummated
end result was not attained o People v. Sazon
because the money was  A wounds B. A and B
returned grapple for the gun. C
• US v. Te Tong stabs B.
o A gives B a bribe. B accepts  Though it was C who
bribe because he will use it as inflicted the proximate
evidence against A later on. cause of death, A is
o A is guilty of frustrated bribery liable because of the
because all the acts of existence of a
execution were done but the conspiracy between A
end result was not attained and C.
because the money was • Attempted
returned o People v. Ramolete
o Material crimes  A shoots B but misses
 Crimes with 3 stages of execution all the vital organs.
• Attempted, frustrated, consummated  A is liable for attempted
 Rape: homicide because all
• Consummated  entry of the labia or the acts of execution
lips of the female organ without rupture were not done (you
of the hymen or laceration of the vagina have to mortally wound
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


your target in order to  It should be immaterial if the offender was able
complete all the acts of to freely dispose of the property stolen since
execution). the owner of the said property has already been
 Murder deprived.
• Frustrated  The unlawful taking is deemed complete from
o People v. Mision the moment the offender gains possession of
 A stabs B and C. B dies, the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
C lives. dispose of the same.
 A is liable for frustrated  People v. Del Rosario
murder in relation to C. o Accused entered the bodega through a hole in the floor
Frustrated theft but were caught before they could put a sack of sugar
 The Espiritu and Dino cases into the hole from whence they came.
o Both were claimed to be cases of frustrated theft o Accused liable for frustrated theft.
because they were unable to dispose freely of the  In robbery by the use of force upon things,
articles stolen offender must enter the building and exit it
 People v. Espiritu carrying the stolen goods.
• Accused stole a truck in a compound  In robbery with violence against or intimidation
surrounded by a tall fence. Accused was of persons, the crime is consummated the
caught before he left compound moment the offender gets hold of the thing
 People v. Dino taken and/or is in a position to dispose of it
• Court ruled that there was no freely.
consummated theft because the truck Attempted theft and Estafa
and van that were being stolen were  Attempted theft
still within the compound o People v. De la Cruz
o Supreme court says that there is no crime of frustrated  A tries to steal a jeep but he cannot do so
theft and that the Espiritu and Dino cases should not be because there was an iron bar on the gearshift.
adopted in this jurisdiction  A is guilty of attempted theft because he was
 Ability of the offender to freely dispose of the unable to perform all the acts of execution.
property stolen is not a constitutive element of  Attempted estafa
the crime of theft. o US v. Villanueva
 Theft is produced when there is deprivation of  A pretends to be of authority in order to collect
personal property due to its taking by one with money from B. B does not pay him the money.
intent to gain.  A is guilty of attempted estafa because he
began the acts of execution (pretending he was
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


an authority figure) but was not able to o People v. Malinao
complete it (because B did not give him the  A voluntarily leaves his victim after giving him a
money). thrashing.
Frustrated Estafa  Mere physical injuries and not murder because
 People v. Gutierrez there is no intent to kill that can be established.
o Accused makes false representations in order to get
money from B. Accused is able to receive money from B XXV. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime
but is arrested before he can receive the full amount.  In impossible crime, all the acts of execution were committed
o All acts of execution were committed; frustrated therefore an attempt is impossible.
because of the intervention of the policeman.  There is no frustrated impossible crime because the acts
 People v. Castillo performed by the offender are considered as constituting a
o Accused is able to receive money but is immediately consummated crime.
arrested because the whole situation was a setup  The act was completely carried out, the result was just
meant to catch him in the act of estafa. inherently impossible.

XXIV. Element of intent to kill when inflicting physical injuries Article 7. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
 If there is intent to kill, offender could be liable for attempted or consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons
frustrated parricide or murder. or property.
o US v. Joven
 Accused inflicts several wounds on the victim.
Accused utters “until I can kill you”. POINTS
 Attempted homicide, not physical injuries, I. What are light felonies?
because clear intent to kill can be established  Infractions of the law punished by arresto menor, a fine not
o US v. Maghirang exceeding 200 pesos, or both (Article 9, par. 3).
 Accused inflict wounds on shoulder and lips of  Light Felonies punished by the RPC:
the victim using a bolo and then stops. o Slight physical injury (Article 266)
 Not frustrated homicide but serious physical o Theft (Article 309, par. 7 & 8)
injuries because there is no intent to kill. o Alteration of boundary marks (Article 313)
o Mondragon v. People o Malicious mischief (Article 328, par.3; Art. 329, par.3)
 A hits B. B retaliates by hitting him with a bolo. o Intriguing against honor (Article 364)
A runs away.
 A is liable for less serious physical injuries II. General Rule
because there was no intent to kill since he ran  Punishable only when consummated unless committed against
away. persons or property
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Light felonies product such light, insignificant moral and There is proposal when the person who has decide to commit a felony
material injuries that the public is satisfied with proposes its execution to some other person or persons
providing a light penalty for their consummation.
 If they are not consummated, the wrong done is POINTS
so slight that there is no need to penalize it. I. Important words and phrases
 “Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony”
III. Reasons for the exception o Two different things: (1) conspiracy & (2) felony
 Light felonies against persons or property presupposes moral  “Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
depravity of the offender. therefore”
o For this reason, even attempted and frustrated light o There must be a specific provision in the RPC punishing
felonies against persons or property is punishable. a specific instance of conspiracy or proposal.
 Treason (Article 115)
IV. Examples  Rebellion (Article 136)
 Light felony against persons  Sedition (Article 141)
o Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Article 266)
 Light felony against property II. Reason for the rule
o Theft by hunting, fishing, or gathering of forest or farm  Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only
products within a enclosed area where trespass is preparatory acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at
prohibited and the value of items stolen is less than 5 least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
pesos (Article 309, No. 7)  As long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in
o Theft of items valued at less than 5 pesos where the furtherance of their malevolent designs, the sovereignty of the
offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the state is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains
difficulty of earning a livelihood (Article 309, No. 8) undisturbed.
o Altering boundary marks (Article 313)
o Malicious mischief where the damage less than 200 III. When a felony is committed, the existence of a conspiracy assumes
pesos or it cannot be estimated (Article 328, No.3) pivotal importance in determining who is criminally liable.

Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony – Conspiracy and IV. Treason, Rebellion, coup d’etat, Insurrection, Sedition must
proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which actually not be committed
the law specially provides a penalty therefore.  If they are committed, the charge is no longer proposal to or
conspiracy to commit but rather the act itself.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement o Ex:
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it  If A commits treason, he is guilty of treason and
not conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


because the act of treason has already been to prevent by artificial means free competition
committed. in the market.
 A cannot be charged with treason and  Any person who, being a manufacturer,
conspiracy to commit treason at the same time. producer, shall combine, conspire or agree with
 Though it must be said that the establishment of a conspiracy any person for the purpose of making
could be used to see who else is criminally liable. transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or
of increasing the market price of any such
V. CONSPIRACY merchandise.
Examples of conspiracy as a felony and conspiracy as a manner of Requisites of conspiracy
incurring criminal liability 1. Two or more persons came to an agreement
 A and B decide to rise publicly and take arms against the o Must be shown that defendant received or accepted the
government with the help of their followers. agreement
o If they carry out their plan, A and B are guilty of 2. Agreement concerned the commission of a felony
rebellion. 3. Execution of the felony be decided upon
o If they do not carry out their plan, A and B are guilty of Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy
conspiracy to commit rebellion.  Existence of conspiracy can be inferred from the collective acts
 A, B, and C conspire to kill D. of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
o If they do not carry out their plan, they are not crime
criminally liable because conspiracy to commit murder o Not necessary to show that all conspirators actually hit
is not punishable by law. and killed the victim
o If they carry out their plan, they are all liable for murder Indications of conspiracy
even if A was just a lookout or B was the only who really  When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
harmed D. one performing one part and the other performing the other so
 The fact that there was a conspiracy between A, as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same
B, and C is enough grounds to make all of them object, and their acts, though independent, were in fact
criminally liable for the murder of D. concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
Article 186 of the RPC punishing conspiracy association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments,
 Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants
o Penalty is prision correccional in its minimum period or were engaged in a conspiracy.
a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both. o At the time of the aggression, all of them acted in
 Any person who shall enter into any contract or concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy design to kill the victim, and although only one of them
or combination in the form of a trust or may have actually stabbed the victim, the act of that
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or one is deemed to be the act of all.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Acts of the defendants must show a common design.  Mere act of running away with the accused
o Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient does not automatically lead to a conspiracy
proof of conspiracy.
o Obedience to command does not necessarily show VI. PROPOSAL
concert of design, for at any rate it is the acts of the The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere proposal in Article 115
conspirators that show their common design. and 136
o Although defendants may be relatives and had acted  Article 115
with some degree of simultaneity in attacking their o Proposal to commit treason  prison correctional and a
victim, this fact alone does not prove conspiracy. fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos
 People v. Pugay  Article 136
o A and B are friends. A pours gasoline over B for fun. C o Proposal to commit coup d’etat  prision mayor in its
sets B on fire. minimum period and a find not exceeding 8,000 pesos
o Where there is nothing in the records showing that o Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection  prision
there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal correctional in its medium period and a fine not
purpose between A and C immediately before the exceeding 2,000 pesos
commission of the crime, no animosity between A and The felony must actually not be committed or else it would not count
B, and it is clear that A just wanted to have fun with B, as a mere proposal.
there is no conspiracy. Requisites of a proposal
o A is liable only for the act he committed, not for the act 1. Person has decided to commit a felony.
of C. 2. Person proposes the execution of that felony to others.
Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy Situations when there is no criminal proposal
 Elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable  Person who proposes the felony is not determined to commit
doubt. the felony.
o Evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere o A wants to overthrow the government but is afraid to
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required. do it. A suggests the overthrow of the government to
 A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive desperate people who would do it with the slightest
evidence. provocation. A is not liable for proposal to commit
o Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and rebellion because A has not decided to commit it.
convincingly as the commission of crime itself.  There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal.
o Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime o A mere suggestion to commit rebellion does not count
does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy as a formal proposal.
transcends companionship.  It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
o People v. Comadre
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o A wants to overthrow the government. A goes around  If the perpetrator succeeds in these crimes against the external
the country with his pals to convince people of the need and internal security of the state, they would obtain power and
to have a new government. therefore impunity for their crimes.
 Going around the country trying to convince o If A overthrows the government successfully, A will
people of the need for a new government is not likely not be punished for rebellion.
a crime therefore the proposal of it incurs no
criminal liability. Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies – Grave
 It can however be considered a preparatory act felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
for the commission of rebellion (still does not penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance
incur criminal liability). with article 25 of this code.
What if the proponents of the rebellion desist before rebellion is
committed? Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
 Once a proposal to commit rebellion is made by the proponent which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with
to another person, the crime of proposal to commit rebellion is the above mentioned article.
consummated and the desistance of the proponent cannot
legally exempt him from criminal liability Light felonies are those infractions of the law for the commission of
 Similarly, the law does not require that the proposal be which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
accepted by whoever it was proposed to. or both, is provided
o If it is accepted, it would become conspiracy and not
proposal because there was agreement POINTS
Proposal as an overt act I. Important words and phrases
 One who offers money to a public officer but is rejected is liable  “Capital punishment”
for attempted bribery o Death penalty
 “Penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive”
VIII. Reasons why proposal and conspiracy are punished o When the penalty prescribed includes an afflictive
 The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are penalty.
crimes against the security of the state or economic security.  A felony punishable by prision correccional to
o Treason  against external security. prision mayor is a grave felony because prision
o Coup d’etat, rebellion, sedition  against internal mayor is afflictive.
security, o If the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more
o Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade  periods corresponding to different divisible penalties,
against economic security, the higher or maximum period must be that of an
afflictive penalty.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 A felony punishable by prision correccional (in  200 pesos or less  light felony
its maximum period) to prision mayor (in its  201 pesos to 6,000 pesos  less grave felony
minimum period) is a grave felony because the  6,001 pesos and above  afflictive felony
minimum period of prision mayor is considered o Article 9 should take precedence over Article 26
afflictive. because the former classifies felonies according to their
o If both penalties prescribed are afflictive, it is a grave gravity while the other does it according to amount of
offense. money for fines.
 Penalties that are afflictive: Reclusion perpetua, o Arresto menor and public censure are also penalties for
reclusion temporal, perpetual or temporary light felonies
absolute disqualification, perpetual or
temporary special disqualification, prision Article 10. Offenses, which are or in the future may be punishable
mayor under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this code. This
 “Penalties which in their maximum period are correccional” code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
o When the penalty prescribed includes a correctional specially provide the contrary.
penalty.
 A felony punishable by arresto menor to
destierro is a less grave felony because POINTS
destierro is a correctional penalty. I. Meaning of Article 10
o When the penalty prescribed is composed of two or • Composed of 2 clauses
more periods corresponding to different divisible o First clause provides that the offenses under special
penalties, the higher or maximum period must be that laws are not subject to the provisions of this code.
of a correctional penalty.  Special penal laws prevail over general ones.
 A felony punished by arresto menor (in its o Second clause makes the RPC supplementary to the
maximum period) to destierro (in its minimum special laws unless the special laws say otherwise.
period) is a less grave felony because the higher
is a period of a correctional felony. II. Important words and phrases
o If both penalties prescribed are correctional, it is a grave  “Special laws”
offense. o A penal law which punishes acts not punished in the
 Penalties that are correctional: Prision RPC.
correccional, arresto mayor, suspension,  Enacted by the legislative
destierro.  Not a law which amends the RPC
 The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not exceeding 200  Usually follows the form of American penal law
pesos, or both is provided  “Supplementary”
o Fines
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o The RPC supplies what is lacking in the special laws  Act 4103 later amended under RA 4203 (Indeterminate
unless the latter provides for the contrary Sentence Law)
 Examples o If a penalty found in the RPC is imposed on an offense
• Article 39 of the RPC under special laws, the rules of the RPC governing said
o Imprisonment in case person penalty will be applied
convicted cannot pay fine  Example
• Article 45 of the RPC • If the special law imposes the penalty of
o Confiscation of instruments arresto mayor, the articles in the RPC
used in the commission of the that deal with arresto mayor shall be
crime applicable

III. Provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses V. Article 6 of the RPC (attempted, frustrated, consummated) cannot
punishable under special laws be applied to offenses punished by special laws
 Special laws do not provide a scale of penalties where a given  Special laws are mala prohibita which means you either commit
penalty can be lowered by one or two degrees. them or you don’t.
o Example:  Examples
 Mitigating circumstances and aggravating o Special law prohibiting interest in municipal contracts
circumstances cannot affect the penalties in the by councilors.
special laws unless expressly provided by said  US v. Basa
special law. • Acquitted because a mere attempt is
 People v. Noble not punishable by the special law.
• Even when accused pleaded guilty, o Remember that under the RPC
Article 13 of the RPC on mitigating Article 6, attempts are
circumstances did not automatically punishable.
take effect .  Navarra v. People
 Special laws use the term “imprisonment” rather than the other • Convicted because the deal was
terms ascribed to the penalties found in the RPC. approved by the municipal board thus
 Hence, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms under the the offense was committed.
special laws is imprisonment and not prision correccional
because the latter is peculiar to offenses punished in the RPC. VI. Special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime
before they can be punished
IV. If the special laws adopt the penalties found in the RPC, the rules  Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine legit.
for graduating penalties by degrees can be applied  The special law does not provide for a penalty one or two
degrees lower than that provided for that consummated stage.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 If the special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime • People v. Navarro
defined by it, then the mere attempt is punishable. o 13 year old girl sells cocoa for 11 cents more than the
o Law prohibiting the any attempt to export gold. price fixed by government
 Had this act been consummated, the exporter  Article 12 par. 3 was used as a basis
would already have been outside our • Prosecution failed to show that the
jurisdiction thus he is able to get away with the accused acted with discernment
offense. o Accused could not have been
able to act with intelligence
VII. Article 10 is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the because of her age
special law o For crimes that are mala
 Unless expressly provided, the penalty imposed is clearly prohibita, offense must be done
intended only for the one committing the offense. voluntarily
o People v. Padaong (dissenting opinion) o Accused could not have been
 If the special law does not prescribe a penalty able to act voluntarily because
for accomplices, it would be a legal impossibility of lack of intelligence
to determine what their penalty would be.
X. Suppletory Application of the RPC
VIII. RPC supplementary to special laws • Only applies if the provisions of the special law is silent on the
 People v. Moreno matter
o Accused was convicted of homicide through reckless o Subsidiary Penalty (Article 39)  imprisonment if
imprudence and violation the Motor Vehicle Law. cannot pay fine.
 Motor Vehicle Law is silent about indemnity to o Civil Liability (Article 100)  every person criminally
heirs of the deceased (art. 100) and subsidiary liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
imprisonment in case of insolvency (art. 39). o Rules on service of sentence (Article 70).
 Court rules that Article 39 and Article 100 can o Definitions on Principals, Accomplices, Accessories
be applied as supplementary to the Motor (Article 17‐19)  was used when the special laws cited
Vehicle Law. but did not on their own provide a definition for
 People v. Lardizabal principals, accomplices, and accessories.
o Article 39 of the RPC was applied if and when the o Principle of conspiracy (Article 8)  was used when the
person convicted could not pay the offended party the special laws cited but did not on their own provide a
indemnity that was awarded to the latter. definition for conspiracy.

IX. Example of Article 12 par. 3 of the RPC being applied in a special XI. RPC is not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are
law different from those under the RPC
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


• People v. Panida
o Court did not apply the provisions of the RPC
suppletorily because the anti‐carnapping law provides
for its own penalties which are distinct and without
reference to the RPC.

XII. Special laws amending the RPC are subject to its provisions
• If the special law is an amendment of a certain article in the
RPC, that special law will necessarily be covered by relevant
provisions in the RPC.
o Example:
 PD 533 amends the provision of the RPC
governing theft of large cattle.
 Since the special law (PD 533) is an amendment
of an existing provision in the RPC, all the other
provisions of the RPC such as mitigating
circumstances, etc. may be applied.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

CHAPTER 2: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES • Civil liability can however be applied if
WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY the person benefitted from the justified
act
I. Circumstances affecting criminal liability  Basis
 Justifying circumstances o Article 11 expressly states “the following do not incur
 Exempting circumstances and other absolutory causes criminal liability”
 Mitigating circumstances
 Aggravating circumstances Article 11: The following do not incur criminal liability:
 Alternative circumstances 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
that the following circumstances concur:
II. Imputability and Responsibility First, unlawful aggression;
 Imputability  act was committed freely and consciously and Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed
may be put down to the doer as his very own to prevent or repel it;
 Responsibility  obligation of suffering the consequences of Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
the crime person defending himself
 While Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
person, responsibility implies that the person must take the spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or
consequence of such a deed adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the
same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth
III. Guilt civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
 Guilt is an element of responsibility prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and
o A man cannot be made to answer for the consequences the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the
of his crime unless he is guilty person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
 Presumption of innocence therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
IV. Justifying circumstances stranger provided that the first and second requisites
 Definition mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present
o When the act of a person is said to be in accordance and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
with the law so that such person is deemed not to have resentment, or other evil motive.
transgressed the law 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act
 Person is therefore free from both criminal and which causes damage to another, provided that the following
civil liability requisites are present:
First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

Second, that the injury feared be greater than that  It is lawful because it would be quite impossible for the state in
done to avoid it; all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens (and even
Third, that there be no other practical and less harmful foreigners) and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked.
means of preventing it  It cannot be conceived that people should succumb to unlawful
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the aggression without offering any resistance
lawful exercise of a right or office.  The idea of self preservation
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose. III. Requisites of self‐defense
1. Unlawful aggression
POINTS 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
Main Ideas repel it.
 The persons cited in Article 11 are not criminals because their 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
acts do not incur any criminal liability defending himself
 The burden of proof lies with the accused
o Accused must prove that he falls under one of the IV. FIRST Requisite of Self‐Defense: Unlawful Aggression
categories mentioned in Article 11 Meaning of unlawful aggression
 Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
PAR. 1: SELF‐DEFENSE threatened assault of an immediate or imminent kind.
 Covered by the first paragraph of Article 11 o There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life,
 Self defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige o There must be an actually physical assault upon a
of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury.
 The plea of self defense cannot be justifiably entertained where o In case of threat, the same must be offensive and
it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause
evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful an injury.
o When there is no peril to one’s life, limb or right, there
I. Rights included in self‐defense is no unlawful aggression.
 Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense o Cases
of our person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and  People v. Flores
the right to honor which is not the lease prized of man’s • The act of the deceased in preventing
patrimony the accused from inflicting a retaliatory
blow is not unlawful aggression
II. Reason why penal law makes self‐defense lawful  US v. Padilla
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

• In the spirit of fun, A (who is a soldier)  People v. Gayrama
tells B (who is also a soldier) that the o Facts: Policeman throws stones at an escaping offender.
latter does not have a singing voice. o Ruling: The aggression is not unlawful. The fulfillment of
With the same spirit of fun, B puts a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent
seizes A by the throat. A ends up killing manner is an aggression that is lawful.
B using a rifle.  Valcorza v. People
• There is no unlawful aggression in this o Facts: Policeman fires warning shots in the air hoping
case of two companions in arms that the offenders would stop escaping. Offenders do
quartered in the same barracks not stop escaping and so the policeman shoots directly
 People v. Yncierto at the offenders.
• A kills B while trying to get the latter to o Ruling: The aggression is not unlawful. The fulfillment of
let go of his knife in order to avoid a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent
bloodshed. manner is an aggression that is lawful
• Since there was no unlawful aggression  A public officer exceeding his authority may become an
on the part of B, A is not justified in unlawful aggressor
killing B. o People v. Hernandez
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite  Sheriff exceeds his authority and takes the
 There can be no self‐defense, complete or incomplete, unless personal property of a debtor.
the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the  The debtor has every right to repel the unlawful
person defending himself. aggression of the Sheriff.
 For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be Peril to one’s life and limb
assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be  Peril to one’s life: must be ACTUAL and IMMINENT.
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent o Actual peril  the danger must be present, that is,
manner. actually in existence.
 If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or  US v. Jose Laurel
repel. º Facts: A kisses B’s sweetheart and runs
 The unlawful aggression must have come from the person who away. At a later date, B confronts A. B
was either injured or killed. eventually hits A with a cane. After
Aggression must be unlawful being hit with the cane, A grabs hold of
 Two kinds of aggression: a pocket knife and stabs B.
o Unlawful  see “Meaning of unlawful…” º Ruling: A was justified because he
o Lawful  The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a showed all three requisites for self
right in a more or less violent manner is an aggression, defense.
but it is lawful.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Imminent  the danger is on the point of happening. o Insults alone cannot constitute unlawful aggression (US
Not necessary that the attack already begins for it may v. Carrero).
thus be too late to prevent it. o A light push on the head with a hand or a mere push not
 People v. Cabungcal followed by other acts cannot constitute unlawful
º Facts: A and B are on a boat with many aggression (People v. Yuman).
people. B decides to shake the boat and o A foot‐kick greeting among friends does not constitute
A warns him not to do it. B continues to unlawful aggression (People v. Roxas).
shake the boat and A hits him with an  Aggression that is real and expected
oar that causes him to go overboard. B o Aggression must be real and not imaginary
manages to cling to the side of the boat o People v. De la Cruz
and persists in attempting to make the  Fats: A dislikes B. A goes to the house of B
boat shake vehemently. A hits him armed with a gun and sees the latter holding a
again with an oar and this time B dies knife. A shoots B to death.
from the blow  Ruling: There is no unlawful aggression in this
º Ruling: A was justified because B placed case because the aggression was not real since
everyone on the boat in imminent B was merely holding a knife.
danger with his actions  Aggression that is expected is real
 Peril to one’s limb  When a person is attacked, he is in o The expected aggression must be imminent
imminent danger of death or bodily harm. o US v. Batungbacal
o Peril to one’s limbs includes peril to the safety of one’s  When A chases B with the intent to harm him,
person from physical injuries. there is already aggression even if A has not yet
o An attack with fist blows can therefore count as raised his hand to discharge a blow.
unlawful aggression.  Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.
What constitutes unlawful aggression o Mere belief of an attack unsupported by evidence does
 If there is no imminent and real danger to the life or limb of the not constitute unlawful aggression.
accused, there is no unlawful aggression o Belief of the accused may be considered in determining
o People v. Riduca the existence of unlawful aggression
 Facts: A and B are in a kalesa. A tries to touch  Lloyd’s report as cited in US v. Ah Chong
B’s gun. As a result, B shoots A. • If A sees B running towards him with a
 Ruling: B is not justified in shooting A because gun, and A subsequently fears for his
there was no imminent and real danger to the safety and hits B with a club when the
life or limb of B. former gets closer to him, it would be
 There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon immaterial that the gun held by B had
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

fake bullets and thus A had every right  When threatening attitude of the aggressor is
to defend himself in this situation. offensive and positively strong, manifesting
 People v. Boral intent to cause an injury
• There is self‐defense even if the  When one aims a pistol at another with the
aggressor used a toy pistol provided intention of shooting the latter
that the accused believed it was a real  When one, through his motions, indicates his
gun. purpose to commit an assault with a weapon
 People v. Calip  Opening a knife and motioning as if to make an
• An officer forcibly pushing picketers attack
around in order to let company trucks  BUT when intent to attack is manifested, picking up a weapon is
enter the compound cannot be sufficient unlawful aggression
considered as unlawful aggression.  A slap on the face is considered unlawful aggression because…
 An intimidating or threatening attitude does not constitute o The face represents a person’s dignity therefore
unlawful aggression. slapping it is a serious personal attack.
o A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not Retaliation does not amount to self‐defense
preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not  Retaliation is not self‐defense.
unlawful aggression.  Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance
o It is required that the act be offensive and positively  Retaliation is done after the aggression has ended.
strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to o The aggression has already ceased thus the imminent
cause an injury for there to be unlawful aggression. and real danger to the life or limb of the accused has
o US v. Guy‐sayco also ceased
 Facts: Accused enters the house of the  In order to justify homicide on the ground of self defense, it is
deceased where accused’s husband is. essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be
Deceased is enraged and holding a knife. simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least
Accused lunges for the knife held by the both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of
deceased and a struggle ensues. Accused ends time
up killing the deceased. o People v. Ferrer
 Ruling: Accused was not acting in self defense  Facts: A has a gun. A is disarmed by B. After
because even if the deceased was holding a disarming A, B proceeds to grab a knife and stab
knife, a mere threatening or intimidating him in the abdomen.
attitude does not constitute unlawful  Ruling: B was acting in retaliation and not self‐
aggression. defense because the imminent and real danger
o Examples of threats to inflict real injury to B’s life ended when A was successfully
disarmed.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

Source of unlawful aggression  Facts: A shoots at B. A runs out of bullets and
 Unlawful aggression must have come from the person who flees. B pursues him and inflicts several wounds
attacked the accused. on him.
o If the unlawful aggression came from the accused, the  Ruling: B was not acting in self defense because
accused could not have been acting in self‐defense. A was fleeing and had ceased his unlawful
 Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the aggression.
claim of self‐defense. o BUT if it is clear that the aggressor merely retreats to
o People v. Diaz take a more advantageous situation, the unlawful
 Fact: Accused is armed with a gun and a bolo. aggression is still considered continuing and the one
Deceased had nothing but a pig, which he defending himself has the right to pursue and disable to
refused to give up. aggressor.
 Ruling: It is improbable that the deceased would  How to determine the unlawful aggressor
have began assaulting the accused given the o US v. Laurel
situation.  In the absence of direct evidence to determine
o People v. Ardisa who provoked the conflict, it shall be presumed
 Fact: Deceased is a 55 year old man with ulcer that:
who had already lost his right hand in the  In the nature of the order of things, the person
conflict with the accused. who was deeply offended by the insult was the
 Ruling: It is hard to believe that the deceased one who believed he had a right to demand
would have continued attacking the accused explanation of the perpetrator of that insult and
given the circumstances the one who struck the first blow when he was
 When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists not satisfied with the explanation
o When the unlawful aggression no longer exists because o People v. Berio
the aggressor runs away, the one defending no longer  The accused, not the deceased, had a greater
has a right to wound or kill the aggressor motive for committing the crime
o People v. Alconga Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused
 Facts: B provokes A and they fight. B runs away allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie claim of self‐defense
and A pursues him. A catches up to B and kills  The wound inflicted may be indicative of whether or not the
him. accused acted in self‐defense.
 Ruling: Court rules that A did not kill B out of  Cases
self defense because B had ceased his unlawful o People v. Mediavilla
aggression  Facts: Accused shows a small scar on his head.
o People v. Del Rosario  Ruling: Court says “who would not wound
himself slightly in order to escape the penalty of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

reclusion temporal prescribed for the crime of o If the accused does not agree to fight, there is unlawful
homicide?” aggression
o People v. Batas  Logic behind the rule on agreed fights
 Facts: Accused stabs the victims 21 times. o There can be no unlawful aggression in an agreed fight
 Ruling: 21 stabs shows more than just a desire because aggression is necessarily an incident in a fight
to defend one’s self. because it is bound to arise from any of the combatants.
o People v. Labis o There can be no fight without aggression.
 Facts: The wounds inflicted are inconsistent  Aggression (in relation to an expected fight) which is ahead
with reality. of the stipulated time and place is unlawful
 Ruling: The victims wounds had a right‐to‐left o If A agrees to fight B at a specified time and place, A
direction and could not have been inflicted by a is guilty of unlawful aggression if he attacks B
right‐handed person in front of the victim with a anywhere or any time other than those specified in
two‐feet long bolo. their agreement.
No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight o This is because B is only expected to be ready to fight at
 No unlawful aggression in concerted (mutually agreed) fight and during the agreed place and time.
o People v. Marasigan  Anyone who voluntarily joins a fight cannot claim they were
 Facts: A and B agreed to fight. A and B purchase acting in self‐defense
knives. A tells B that he no longer wants to fight Stand ground when in the right
but B does not mind his protestations and  The law does not require people to retreat when an
instead lunges at A with a knife. A subsequently assailant is rapidly advancing upon them
manages to kill B. o The reason for this is because those who flee incur the
 Ruling: There was no unlawful aggression in this risk of getting attacked from behind
instance because both parties agreed to fight  Better to stand your ground and defend
thus the aggression was reciprocal and yourself than run away
legitimate as between two contending parties. When the accused declines to give any statement to the police when
o People v. Monteroso he surrenders, his acts are inconsistent with the plea of self defense
 Facts: Accused is chased by deceased. Accused  People v. Manansala
reaches his house, picks up a weapon, taunts o A protestation of innocence or justification is the logical
the deceased, and then proceeds to attack and and spontaneous reaction of a man who finds himself in
kill him. such an unculpatory predicament as that in which the
 Ruling: There was no unlawful aggression in this policemen came upon him still clutching the death
instance because the accused, after arming weapon and his victim dying before him.
himself, decided to fight.  People v. De la Cruz
 The challenge to fight must have been accepted
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o The accused did not act in self defense because if he  The woman thus imperiled may kill her offender
had, he would have reported it to the police whom he if that is the only means left for her to protect
passed as he fled from the scene of the incident her honor from so grave an outrage.
Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted in self‐defense  Defense of property
 People v. Dorico o People v. Apolinar
o Fact: Accused said that deceased was stabbed as he  Facts: Accused is holding a shotgun. Accused
lunged forward for the bolo accused was holding. sees the deceased carrying a bundle over his
o Ruling: The court did not believe him because the shoulder and assumes that the deceased was
evidence showed that the deceased was stabbed from stealing the accused’s palay. Accused issues
the back. warning shots before subsequently killing the
 People v. Perez deceased.
o Ruling: Accused did not act in self‐defense because the  Ruling: The right to life is more important than
deceased was shot 13 times despite his gun still being the right to property. Thus, the accused could
tucked inside his waistband. Deceased was defenseless not have been justified in killing the deceased
when shot because the latter did not make any attempt to
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights attack the former.
 Attempt to rape a woman (defense of right to chastity) o There must be an attack by the person stealing the
o People v. De la Cruz property on the person defending it in order for the
 Embracing a woman, fondling her, and throwing shooting of the deceased to have been warranted.
her to the ground with intent to rape her would o Use of force to protect property
constitute an attack upon her honor and  The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
therefore it is considered unlawful aggression right to exclude any person from the enjoyment
o People v. Jaurigue and disposal thereof.
 Facts: Deceased puts his hand on the upper  For this reason, he may use such force as may
thigh of accused. Accused subsequently stabs be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
him with a knife. actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
 Ruling. Accused acted in self‐defense. Placing of or usurpation of his property.
hand by a man on the woman’s upper thigh is  US v. Merced
considered unlawful aggression. • Facts: Husband walks in on accused
o People v. Luague having an affair with his wife. Husband
 An attempt to rape a woman constitutes an assaults accused but accused manages
aggression sufficient to put her in a state of to kill husband. Accused claims self‐
legitimate defense. defense.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

• Ruling: Self‐defense is not applicable in person who tries to prevent an
this case because the husband was aggression that is expected.
merely defending his honor and rights  This requisite of self‐defense entails necessity.
therefore it was not unlawful o There be a necessity of the course of action taken by
aggression. Husband would not have the person making a defense.
been guilty of unlawful aggression had o There be a necessity of the means used.
he killed both the accused and his wife o The necessity to take a course of action and to use a
after catching them in bed means of defense
 Defense of home  US v. Molina
o People v. Mirabiles • The person attacked is not duty bound
 Violent entry of one into anther’s home while to expose himself to be wounded or
holding a bolo warrants unlawful aggression. killed.
 Owner of home does not need to wait for a  While the danger to his person or life subsists,
blow before he can start acting to prevent or he has a perfect and indisputable right to repel
repel the one who entered his home such danger by wounding his adversary, and if
o People v. Salatan necessary, to disable him completely so that he
 Accused assaults a robber who enters the house may not continue his assault.
of the accused in the darkness.  Either or both the course of action taken and the means used
 Even if accused did not see the robber with a must be reasonable.
weapon, he is still well within his rights to o The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the
exercise self defense because the entry of the circumstances
robber into his home constitutes unlawful A. NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN
aggression.  In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled,
human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but
V. SECOND Requisite of Self‐Defense: Reasonable necessity of the in obedience to the instinct of self‐preservation
means employed to prevent or repel it o People v. Ocana
 Presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression which is  Fact: Accused is attacked by deceased while the
either imminent or actual former is unarmed. Accused manages to find a
o If there is unlawful aggression, there is a need to lead pipe and strikes the deceased in a vital part
prevent or repel it because we are either in actual or of the body. Deceased is subsequently killed.
imminent danger  Ruling: Accused acted reasonably given the
 US v. Batungbacal circumstances. There was no time for Accused
• The law protects not only the person to aim for a less vital part of the body because
who repel aggression but also the his life was in danger
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 There is no necessity when there is no unlawful aggression  This ruling cannot be applied if the defendant
o People v. Masangkay inflicts a mortal would on the aggressor after
 After the accused disarmed the deceased, he the unlawful aggression has ceased.
was no longer acting reasonably in self‐defense  Person defending is not expected to control his blow.
when he stabbed and killed him. o Brownell v. People
o People v. Narvaez  One is not required to draw fine distinctions as
 Facts: Deceased is chiseling the walls of the to the extent of the injury which a reckless and
house of the accused. Accused gets a shotgun infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon
and kills the deceased. him.
 Ruling: The means used was not reasonable o U.S. v. Macasaet
because his resistance was disproportionate to  The accused, in the heat of the encounter at
the attack. close quarters, was not in a position to reflect
 Context of the assault matters coolly or to wait after each blow to determine
o US v. Ah Chong the effects thereof.
 When the aggressor is disarmed o U.S. v. Mack
o If aggressor when disarmed still shows intent to reclaim  In necessary circumstances, the accused could
the weapon, the aggressor is still showing aggression hardly be expected to take deliberate and
(People v. Datinguinoo), but if after being disarmed, the careful aim so as to strike a point less
aggressor shows a refusal to continue fighting, any vulnerable than the body.
attack on the aggressor by the defendant is no longer  When aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the
justified (People v. Alviar). one making a defense to determine what course of action to
 When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after the take.
unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still self‐ o People v. Pante
defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the  During the split second the accused had to think
requisites of self‐defense were present. and act to save his superior officer, the trial
o People v. Del Pilar court cannot demand him have been able to
 Minor wounds inflicted after the aggression control his blow.
ceased to exist are permitted as long as the  In preventing unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim
major wounds that led to the death of the at the assailant.
aggressor took place when the aggression had o People v. Galacgac
not yet ceased.  Facts: Galacgac was beaten twice by an iron bar
 This is because the proximate cause of death by one Pablo Soriano thereby causing him to
would be the major wounds and not the minor fire at random with his unlicensed revolver.
wounds.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Issue: whether his act of defense relieves him of o Perfect equality between the weapon used by the
criminal liability. defender and the aggressor is not required. What the
 Held: No. He was held liable for physical law requires is rational equivalence, the imminent
injuries. Because the accused did not aim at his danger and the instinct that moves or impels the
assailant but instead indiscriminately fired his defense.
deadly weapon, his act of defense was not o The reasonableness of the means employed will depend
exercised with due care. upon:
B. NECESSITY OF THE MEANS USED  The nature and quality of weapons
 The means employed by the person making a defense must be • The use of a knife when attacked by a
rationally necessary to prevent or repel an aggression. club, rod or stick is reasonable if it can’t
 Instances wherein there was no rational necessity to employ be shown that the person assaulted (1)
means used: had other available means or (2) if there
o U.S. v Apego was other means, he could coolly
 A sleeping woman, who was awakened by her choose. Use of a bayonet against a cane
brother‐in law grasping her arm, was not is not reasonable.
justified in using a knife to kill him as the latter • To use a firearm against a dagger or a
did not perform any other act which could be knife does not imply any difference
construed as an attempt against her honor. between such weapons.
o People v. Montalbo • When a person is attacked with fist
 When a person was attacked with fist blows blows, he must retaliate with fist blows
only, there was no reasonable necessity to IF both parties are of the same size and
inflict upon the assailant a mortal wound with strength.
danger.  Physical condition, character and size.
o People v. Jaurigue • People v. Ignacio  when defendant,
 When a man placed his hand on the upper thigh who was middle aged, was cornered by
of a woman seated on a bench in a chapel, three or four men bigger and stronger,
there was no reasonable necessity to kill him such person is justified in using a knife.
with a knife because there was no danger to her • People v. Sumicad  Killing an
chastity or honor at that moment. aggressor larger and stronger than the
 The test of reasonableness of the means used. defendant was justified.
o Whether the means employed is reasonable will depend • People v. Padua  Taking into
upon the nature and quality of the aggressor’s weapon, consideration the character of the
physical condition, character, size, other circumstances aggressor (troublesome, strong and
and the place and occasion of the assault. aggressive with criminal records), the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

CoA held that the striking of bolo was  To be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of
justified. self‐defense, the one defending himself must not have given
 Other circumstances considered cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct.
• US v. Batungbacal Cases in which 3rd requisite is considered present
o Facts: M killed P, who was 1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the
pursuing M’s children with a defending party (B was running amuck with a dagger rushing
bolo, by firing a shotgun at P towards A when A did nothing to provoke B)
and killing him at once. 2. When the provocation was insufficient (A asks B a harmless
o Ruling: Under such question that angered the latter who immediately attacked)
circumstances, the use of the o How to determine the sufficiency of provocation
shotgun was justified.  This means that the provocation must be
 Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel proportionate to the act of aggression and
unlawful aggression is to be interpreted in favor of law‐abiding adequate to stir the aggressor to its
citizens. commission.
 Rule regarding the reasonableness of the “necessity of the  Verbal argument cannot be considered
means employed” when the one defending himself is a peace sufficient provocation. It is not enough that the
officer. provocative act be unreasonable or annoying. A
o While the law on self‐defense allows a private individual petty question of pride does not justify the
to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of the peace wounding or killing of an opponent (People v.
officer requires him to overcome his opponent. Dolfo)
o A police officer is not required to afford a person o Requisite of “lack of sufficient provocation” refers
attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal exclusively to “the person defending himself”
struggle.  People v. Espino
o US v. Mojica • If the accused appears to be the
 A policeman is justified in using his revolver aggressor, it cannot be said that he was
against one who is armed with a knife. defending himself from the effect of
o US v. Mendoza another’s aggression.
 It was held that it is NOT reasonable for a 3. When the provocation that was sufficient was not given by the
policeman to kill his assailant who was using a defending party (C, not A, was the one who provoked B)
Calicut 4. When the provocation given by the defending party was not
proximate and immediate to the act of aggression. (A slapped B.
VI. THIRD requisite of self‐defense: Lack of sufficient provocation on Two days later, B attacks A where A defends himself. The
the part of the person defending himself. provocation (slapping) should be disregarded)
Reason for the third requisite of self –defense.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Provocation by the person defending himself not man in order to coerce her to do something he wants
proximate and immediate to the aggression (no.4) her to do without concern for her rights.
 People v. Dolfo o Personality traits of a battered woman‐
• Facts: B was A’s assistant. A called B. B  Low self‐esteem
replied “why are you calling me?” A  Traditional Beliefs about the home, family and
threw a wood to B. B threw the wood sex role
back. A battered B with the wood. A  Emotional dependence
mortally injures B with a screwdriver.  Tendency to accept responsibility
• Issue: (1) was the retort “why are you  False hopes
calling me?” sufficient provocation? (2) o A battered woman’s cycle of violence
was the defense using the screwdriver 1. The tension‐building phase
reasonable? 2. Acute battering incident
• Held: (1) It was not sufficient 3. Tranquil and loving phase
provocation. (2) The act of A ‘throwing  Effect of Battery on Appellant
a wood’ to B constituted unlawful o The cycle of violence immobilizes the woman’s ability to
aggression. B’s defense was reasonable. act decisively in her own interests, making her feel
The screwdriver was a reasonable trapped in the relationship with no means of escape.
means. o She also believes that he is capable of killing her, and
 People v. Boholst  A wife killed her husband that there is no escape. Battered women feel unsafe,
with a knife as an act of defense when her suffer from pervasive anxiety,, and usually fail to leave
husband choked her kneck. the relationship.
Flight after the commission of a crime is highly evidentiary of guilt and
VII. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense incompatible with self‐defense.
 RA 9262‐ “Anti‐Violence Against Women and their Children Act ____________________
of 2004” provided that: PAR. 2: DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
o Sec 26‐ Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a Defense‐
victim survivors suffering from BWS do not incur I. Relatives that can be defended
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence 1. Spouse
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of 2. Ascendants
self‐defense… (courts shall be assisted by psychiatrists) 3. Descendants
 Battered woman syndrome, explained 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives
o Battered woman‐ a woman who is repeatedly subjected by affinity in the same degrees
to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a o Relatives by affinity  because of marriage
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Relatives by consanguinity  blood relatives some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving the
relative.
II. Basis of justification  The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is
 The justification of this clause is formed not only upon a immaterial.
humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood
VII. Examples of defense of relatives
III. Requisites of defense of Relatives  People v. Ammalun
1. Unlawful aggression o The accused heard his wife shouting from their house.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or He rushed to the house and killed the man forcibly
repel it abusing his wife.
3. In case of provocation was given by the person attacked, the  US v Rivera
one making a defense had no part therein o Antonio Rivera kills the person who was attacking his
son.
IV. Defense of relatives also requires that there be unlawful ____________________
aggression. PAR. 3: DEFENSE OF STRANGER
 Of the 3 requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is
a sine qua non, for without it any defense is not possible or I. Requisites for defense of stranger:
justified. 1. Unlawful aggression
 When two persons are getting ready to strike each other, there 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
can be no unlawful aggression (People v. Moro Munabe). repel it
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment
V. Unlawful aggression can be made to depend upon the honest belief or other motive
of the one making a defense.
 When A attacked and wounded B with a dagger but B defended II. Third Requisite of defense of stranger
himself and seriously wounded A. (note: A is the unlawful  Such defense must be actuated by a disinterested or generous
aggressor) Then the sons of A came and believed in good faith motive, when it puts down “revenge, resentment or other evil
that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression. If motive”
they kill B, they are justified by a mistake of fact.  3rd requisite would be lacking if such person was prompted by
his grudge against the assailant
VI. Third requisite of defense of relative
 Reason for the rule  that although the provocation prejudices III. Persons deemed as strangers
the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender  Persons not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned
who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by in paragraph 2 of this article (close friend or distant relatives are
included).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Example: the necessity (of avoiding greater injury) was brought
o People v. Valdez about by his reckless imprudence.
 A heard a cry for help. He saw B attacking B’s  When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke
wife with a dagger. A defended B’s wife and the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or
inflicted wounds on B. Held: It was a valid injury.
defense of a stranger o People v. Ricohermoso
____________________  Facts: Pio and Severo attacked Geminiano who
PAR. 4: AVOIDANCE OF GREATER INJURY was wounded. Nearby, Juan embraced
Marianito, Geminiano’s son, who had a gun and
I. Requisites for avoidance of greater injury: grappled with him. Geminiano died. Pio, Severo
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. and Juan were persecuted for murder.
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it  Issue: Can Juan validly invoke the justifying
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of circumstance of avoidance of greater evil?
preventing it.  Held. No. His reliance on that justifying
circumstance is erroneous. He was not avoiding
II. Damage to another is required any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.
 This covers injury to persons and damage to property.  The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result
from a violation of law by the actor.
III. FIRST Requisite: Existence of evil sought to be avoided  There is civil liability under this paragraph. The civil liability is
 If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or borne by the persons benefited.
anticipated or may happen in the future, par. 4 is not applicable. ____________________
 Example of injury to person under par. 4: PAR. 5: FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR
o Guevara  A person was driving his car with due OFFICE
diligence when an incoming truck cause him to swerve
his car to the right thereby saving his life however killing I. Requisites fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of right or office:
a passerby. 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office
IV. SECOND Requisite: Injury feared by greater than that done to avoid 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the
 The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the
or imprudence of the actor. lawful exercise of such right or office.
o Driver drove his car at full speed, disregarding the
condition of the place, and although he saw the six‐by‐ II. Fulfillment of a duty
six truck at a distrance of 500 meters away, he didn’t  People v. Felipe Delima
not slacken his speed. He cannot invoke par. 4 because
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Facts: Felipe Delima pursued and shot Lorenzo Napilon III. Lawful exercise of right or office
who escaped from prison a few days prior to the  Of Right
incident. The policeman was tried and convicted by the o Under the Civil Code (Article 429) “the owner or lawful
Court of First Instance of homicide and sentenced him possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
to reclusion temporal. from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
o Held: The killing was done in performance of the duty. purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
In accordance with Article 8, No. 11 (now Article 11, par necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
5 of RPC) Felipe Delima committed no crime and is unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
acquitted. property.”
 Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but o If in protecting his possession, he injured the one trying
shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified to get it from him, he is justified under this paragraph.
 Legitimate performance of duty v. Illegal performance of duty  Of Office
o People v. Cabrera o The executioner of the Bilibid Prison cannot be held
 When the victim without apparent reason, but liable for murder for the execution performed by him
probably due to drunkenness, fired his gun because he was merely acting in the lawful exercise of
several times at the Alta Vista Club, the accused his office (Guevara).
and his partner had to intervene for they were o A surgeon who amputated the leg of a patient to save
with the NBI. They would have been remiss in him from gangrene is not liable for the crime of
their duty if they did not. It must be presumed mutilation, because he was acting in the lawful exercise
that both officers acted pursuant to the law of his office.
when they tried to discharge his duty as an NBI
agent. IV. The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance
o People v. Tan of possession or of a real dispossession
 The attitude adopted by the deceased in putting  If it’s mere disturbance of possession, force may be used against
his hands in his pocket is not sufficient to justify it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the
the accused to shoot him. The deceased was prescriptive period of an action of forcible entry.
unarmed and the accused could have first ____________________
warned him. PAR. 6: OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FROM SOME LAWFUL
 Distinguished from self‐defense and from consequence of PURPOSE
felonious act.
o The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may I. Requisites:
appear to be an aggressor but his aggression is not 1. That an order has been issued by a superior
unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill a duty. 2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order necessity of the means employed to repel the supposed
is lawful. unlawful aggression Article 11(1). As such, she has
overstepped the lawful exercise of her right to defend
II. SECOND Requisite: her property.
 Both the person who gives the order and the person who  What is the extent to which you can protect your property
executes it, must be acting within the limitations prescribed by without incurring criminal liability?
law. o The standard depends on the reasonable necessity of
 When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate the means used.
who obeyed it is criminally liable. o In the defense of property rights, there must be
 People v. Barroga unlawful aggression on the person of the owner.
o One who prepared a falsified document with full However, in the exercise of the right to protect your
knowledge of its falsity is not excused even if he merely property, no unlawful aggression on the person of the
acted in obedience to the instruction of his superior owner is necessary to entitle the accused to use
because the instruction was not for a lawful purpose. reasonable force to defend his or her property.
 People v. Margen  DEFENSE OF HOME: Thieves entered your home with a torch,
o Upon order, a soldier tortured to death the deceased which you mistook for aliens and thus fired your shotgun at
for bringing a kind of fish different from that he had them. Can you argue defense of property?
been asked to furnish. The order to torture was illegal o Issue: given that the situation took place in the house, is
so the accused was not bound to obey it. there a need for unlawful aggression in order to entitle
 The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of you to defend your property?
his superior if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and o Ruling: NO. The defense of one’s home does not require
he is not negligent. unlawful aggression towards the accused. Even if there
is not aggressive stance on the part of the victims, the
CLASS DISCUSSION owner can already exercise defense (so long as the
Self‐Defense means used was reasonable).
 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY: Lentejas punched a thief, who fell and  General rule for unlawful aggression in relation to defense of
died as a result, while she was trying to prevent the theft of her home: No need for unlawful aggression.
mobile phone. Belief of the accused
o She is not liable under Article 4 because she was  Facts: Friend who played a trick on you by grabbing you at night,
exercising a lawful right and not a felony. Therefore, she and you – thinking that it was a threat to your person – hit the
can claim defense in Article 11(1) and (5). person and he died.
o However, if she pulls out a gun and kills the thief using  Ruling: You are justified in your acts because you did not have
such, she may be criminally liable because it exceeds the intent to kill the person, and (assuming) you did not act
the second provision that there should be reasonable negligently.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

REASONABLE NECESSITY TO PREVENT OR REPEL AGGRESSION preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and
 Does it require equality? Such that if someone punches you, you custody of his family who shall be charged with his
may only just use your fists? surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed
o Not necessarily. See “B. Necessity of Means Used” to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said
 Mr. Arzaga is holding Mr. Bonifacio by the neck. Unknowing to Article 80.
him, Mr. Bonifacio had gotten hold of a cutter. If Mr. Bonifacio 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
uses the instrument against Mr. Arzaga, can he invoke the causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
defense that his means was reasonable and necessity? causing it
____________________ 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
force.
I. Exempting circumstances 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable
1. Definition: Are grounds for exemption from punishment fear of an equal or greater injury.
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
2. Basis The exemption from punishment is based on the complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the POINTS
absence of negligence on part of the accused.
I. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no
Article 12‐ Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. ‐ The criminal liability arises
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted  Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting
during a lucid interval. circumstances commits a crime, although by the complete
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
which the law defines as a felony, the court shall order his voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for  Circumstances mentioned in Art 12 is a matter of defense and
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to the same must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of
leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. the court.
2. A person under nine years of age ____________________
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he PAR. 1: AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON, UNLESS THE LATTER HAS
has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be ACTED DURING A LUCID INTERVAL.
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article
80 of this code. I. Basis of Paragraph 1
When such a minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible,  Complete absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

II. Imbecility distinguished from insanity  The defense must prove the insanity of the accused at the time
 Imbecile  is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental of the commission of the crime.
development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7  The presumption is always in favor of sanity.
years of age. Such person is exempt in ALL cases from criminal  How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the presumption
liability. of sanity?
 Insane  is one who is deprived completely of reason or o In order to ascertain a person’s mental condition at the
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of
the crime. Such person is not exempt if it can be shown that he the condition of his mind during a reasonable period
acted during a lucid interval (when the insane acts with both before and after that time.
intelligence). o Direct testimony is not required.
Evidence of insanity
III. To constitute insanity there must be complete deprivation of  The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the
intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the act under prosecution of to the very moment of its execution.
will  If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature, the
 Complete deprivation of intelligence‐ the accused is deprived of presumption of its continuance does not arise.
reason and without the least discernment.  Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will
 Mere abnormality of mental faculties is NOT enough, especially be presumed that the offense was committed in one of them.
if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. When a defense of insanity is not credible:
 People v. Renegado  Where appellant, Loreto, testified that
IV. Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony he was acting sanely that morning before he killed Lira after
 Court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or ‘being confused’ and ‘losing his senses’. Moreover, he was able
asylums established for persons afflicted. to recall most of the incidents that morning. The defense of
 Court has no power to permit the insane to leave such facility insanity is incredible.
without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that  People v. Ambal  Being able to recall significant events in the
he may be released. weeks prior to the crime, he was declared sane.
 People v. Magallano  Where psychiatrists who observed the
V. Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony distinguished accused for a month attested that he did not manifest any odd
from insanity at the time of the trial behavior and it was evident that he was coherent and
 When a person is insane at the time of the commission of the intelligent, the presumption of sanity holds.
felony, he is exempt from criminal liability.  People v. Puno  In spite of his schizophrenic reaction, his
 When he becomes insane only at the time of the trial, he is symptoms were “not socially incapacitating” and he could
criminally liable. adjust to his environment. He is not legally insane.
 People v. Aquino  The doctor attested that despite having
VI. Who has the burden of proof to show insanity? “organic mental disorder with psychosis”, the accused recalled
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

events prior to the commission of the crime. The presence of his  An accused must be undergoing an epileptic fit when he
reasoning faculties discounts any intimation of insanity. committed the crime in order to be acquitted (People v.
Mancao and Aguilar).
VII. Coverage of the terms Feeblemindedness is not imbecility.
Dementia praecox (schizophrenia) is covered by the term insanity  A feebleminded person can distinguish right from wrong, in
 When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis (a type of contrast to an imbecile or insane person who cannot do so.
dementia pracox) homicidal attack is common because of Pedophilia is not insanity
delusions. During the period of excitement, such person has not  Pedophiles can distinguish right from wrong. (People v. Diaz)
control whatever of his acts. Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the accused
 People v. Bonan  An irresistible homicidal impulse was  Amnesia, in itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is
considered embraced in the term “insanity”. It may be said that shown that the accused did not know the nature and quality of
a person who has lost the power of his will, at the moment, also his action.
lost consciousness of his acts. Other cases of lack of Intelligence
Schizophrenia, formerly called Dementia Praceox 1. Committing a crime while in a dream does not make one
 It is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to criminally liable (Somnambulism/ sleepwalking)
distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied a. Hypnotism ‐ whether this causes somnambulism
by hallucinations and delusions. 2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria does
 Schizophrenic reactions are recognizable through odd and not make one criminally liable for malaria affects the nervous
bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive system and causes complications such as melancholia and
destructiveness and immature and exaggerated emotionality, insanity.
often ambivalently directed. ____________________
Kleptomania PAR. 2: A PERSON UNDER 9 YEARS OF AGE
 If the unlawful act of the accused is due “to mental disease or a
mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the I. Basis of paragraph 2
accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will” the  Complete absence of intelligence
irresistible impulse should be considered covered by insanity.
 On the other hand, if the mental defect only “diminishes the II. Age of Absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of age
exercise of his will‐power” then kleptomania is only a mitigating  R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) raised the age of
circumstance. absolute irresponsibility from 9 to 15.
Epilepsy may be covered by insanity  Absolute irresponsibility exempts the offender from criminal
 This is a disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals, liability
attended by convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of ____________________
consciousness. PAR. 3: A PERSON OVER 9 AND UNDER 15, UNLESS HE HAS ACTED
WITH DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR SHALL BE
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF  The determination of discernment shall take into account the
ARTICLE 80 OF THIS CODE ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of
I. Basis of Paragraph 3 the wrongful act.
 Absence of Intelligence Discernment & intent distinguished
 Intent  refers to the desired act of the person
II. Par. 3, Art. 12 of the RPC impliedly repealed by R.A. 9344  Discernment  the moral significance that a person ascribes to
 The age bracket for conditional responsibility is now 15‐18 years the said act.
of age instead of 9‐15. Discernment may be shown by:
 The child is exempted from criminal liability, but not from civil 1. Manner of committing the crime (e.g. minor committed the
liability. crime during nighttime to avoid detection).
 It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor has 2. Conduct of the offender (e.g. a minor’s perverted character and
acted with discernment, in order for him to be deprived of this satisfaction upon the accomplishment of the act).
exempting circumstance. The allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information is sufficient
allegation of discernment
III. Periods of criminal responsibility  People v. Neito
Period Age o Facts: Alleged accused, with intent to kill, did then and
ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY 15 years and below there willfully, criminally and feloniously push 8½‐year‐
(infancy) old Lolita Padilla (victim) into a deep place thus causing
CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 15 years and 1 day to 18 years her death by drowning.
(Child in conflict with the law) o Ruling: The allegation clearly conveys the idea that she
FULL RESPONSIBILITY 18 years or over (adolescence) to knew what would be the consequence of her unlawful
70 (maturity) act of pushing her victim into deep water and that she
MITIGATED RESPONSIBILITY 15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the knew it to be wrong.
offender acting with discernment;
over 70 years of age. V. Burden of proof of Age
 Senility  the age over 70 years, although said to be the second  Any person alleging the age has the burden of proof.
childhood is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be Presumption of Minority
considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.  A child shall enjoy all the presumption of minority and all the
rights of a child until proven to be eighteen years or older at the
IV. Meaning of discernment time of the commission of the offense.
 Capacity of the child to understand the difference between right Determination of Age
and wrong and its consequences.  A child’s age shall be determined according to the ff rules:
Determination of discernment 1. Original or certified true copy of birth certificate.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

2. Similar authentic documents (baptismal certificates, school was cocked or uncocked the striking could not
records) have been done in any other manner. The act
3. Testimony of a member of the family related to the child by was a legitimate act of defense.
affinity or consanguinity, testimonies of other persons, physical  The fact that the gun fired because the hand of
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. the defendant was on the trigger when he hit
____________________ deceased was a mere accident without any fault
PAR. 4: ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH or intention of causing it.
DUE CARE, CAUSES INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR  People v. Reyta
INTENTION. o The act of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel
not being in self‐defense is unlawful. It is light threat
I. Basis of Paragraph 4 (Art. 285, par. 1).
 Lack of negligence and intent
 Under this circumstance, the person does not commit either an IV. SECOND Element: The person performing a lawful act must do so
intentional felony or a culpable felony. with due care, without fault or negligence
 Criminal liability exemption in this article cannot be invoked if
II. Elements: the appellant is guilty of negligence.
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. With due care V. THIRD Element: Causes injury by mere accident
3. He causes an injury by mere accident Examples of an accident:
4. Without fault or intention of causing it  US v. Tanedo
o Facts: the accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and
III. FIRST Element: The person must be performing a lawful act fired a shot. The slug recoiled and hit the tenant who
 People v. Galacgac was a relative of the accused, thereby killing him.
o The discharge of a firearm in a crowded place in Manila o Held: IF life is taken by misfortune or accident while the
being prohibited by Article 155, appellant Galacgac was actor is in performance of a lawful act executed with
not performing a lawful act. Hence, exemption cannot due care and without intention of doing harm, there is
be invoked. no criminal liability.
 Striking another with a gun in self‐defense, even if it fired and  US v. Tayongtong
seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act o A chauffer, while driving on the proper side of the road
o People v. Vitug at a moderate speed and with due diligence, suddenly
 When the defendant drew his gun and with it and unexpectedly hit a man. It was held that he is not
struck the diseased after the latter had given criminally liable, it being a mere accident.
him a fist blow on the shoulder, the defendant What is an accident?
was performing a lawful act. Whether the gun
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Something that happens outside the sway of our will, and 1. People v Taylaran  Repeated blows negate claim of wounding
although it comes about through some act of our will, lies by mere accident.
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. 2. People v. Reyes  Accidental shooting is negated by
o It is an event that does not necessarily and logically threatening words preceding it.
follow/result from one’s act. ____________________
 It is negligence when the consequences are foreseeable. PAR. 5: ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
VI. FOURTH Element: Without fault of intention of causing it
Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done. I. Basis of Paragraph 5
 The exempting circumstance of Article 12 refers to purely  Complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
accidental cases where there was absolutely NO intention to  Presumption: person is compelled by means of force or violence
commit the wrong done. to commit a crime.
Case of negligence, not accident
 People v. Nocum II. Elements:
o The defendant drew a pistol and shot twice in the air to 1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
get the attention of 2 persons fighting. He fired another 2. Physical force must be irresistible
shot that ricocheted and hit an innocent bystander. He o Before a force can be considered an irresistible one, it
was convicted of homicide through reckless must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in
imprudence. spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
 Comment: Such ruling was given because the consequences in instrument (reason why he’s incapable of committing
the given situation are foreseeable. the crime)
Accident and negligence, intrinsically contradictory o In spite of all resistance, it compels the person to obey
 Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals or act upon it.
o Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory. 3. Physical force must come from a third person
One cannot exist with the other. Example: US v. Caballeros
 People v. Ayaya  Facts: Baculi, one of the accused but is not part of the band
o Court held that the absence of any reasonable motive to which murdered the American school‐teachers, was at the
prompt said defendant to injure her husband compelled scene of the crime and was made to bury the bodies because he
the court to conclude that in thrusting her umbrella in was struck with the butts of the band’s guns.
the opening of the door, she did so to free her son from  Held: Baculi was not criminally liable because an outside
imminent danger of having his head crushed or being irresistible force compelled him to do the said act.
strangle; the injury was caused by a mere accident.
When claim of accident not appreciated: III. FIRST & SECOND Element: Compulsion of irresistible force
 NO Compulsion of irresistible force
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 People v Sarip 2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the
o Pretension of an accused to be threatened with a gun ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
by a friend doesn’t hold when the accused has a rifle at
hand. III. Requisites:
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear.
IV. THIRD Element: Physical force must come from a third person 2. Fear must be real or imminent.
 Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force 3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
 Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion or committed.
obfuscation. Irresistible force must consist of an extraneous Example: (US v. Exaltacion)
force from a third party.  Facts: Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco swore
allegiance to the Katipunan because of fear of death.
V. Nature of force required  Held: Cannot be held criminally liable because the impulse of an
 Irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury (penalty of
not only without will but against his will. rebellion is prision mayor or imprisonment for a period of 6‐12
 Duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent years and fine is less than the injury of death)
and impending to induce a well‐grounded apprehension of
death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. IV. Nature of duress as a valid defense (People v. Quilloy)
 Compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no  Should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s
opportunity to the accused for escape or self‐defense in equal life or limb.
combat.  Should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
____________________
PAR. 6: ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN V. The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self‐defense
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY  Compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self‐defense in equal
I. Basis of Paragraph 6 combat.
 Based on the complete absence of freedom; actus me invite  Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity
factus non est meus actus (“an act done by me against my will is to run away or resist when he wanted to because he was armed
not my act.”).  When several opportunities are present but accused did not act
 Presumption: a person is compelled to commit a crime by upon it, defense of being under intimidation is untenable.
means of intimidation or threat.  When the accused carries a much stronger weapon that the one
intimidating him, it’s held that accused did not act under
II. Elements: impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
1. Threat which causes the fear is an evil greater than or at least  Command of Hukbalahap killers – cause of uncontrollable fear
equal to that which he is required to commit. because of their ruthless killing nature (People v. Regala)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 In treason – nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, When prevented by some lawful cause
but the fear of imminent death.  (Vide, Sec. 24[d], Rule 130, Rules of Court)
A confessed to a Filipino priest that there’s an ongoing
VI. Speculative, fanciful, and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear conspiracy against the government, which he is a part of. Under
 Threat must be of a serious character and imminence as to the law, one is required to tell the government about the said
create in the mind of the defendant an uncontrollable fear and act. Non‐compliance of this law by the Filipino priest exempts
an infliction of an equal or greater evil would be done upon him him from criminal liability because he is bound by his
on non‐compliance. professional capacity for non‐disclosure of confessions.
 Absence of proof of actual physical or moral compulsion to act, When prevented by some insuperable cause
it not sufficient to exempt the accused from criminal liability.  Municipal president detained the offended party for three days
and was not able to comply with the 18‐hour requirement
VII. Real, imminent or reasonable fear because of the no means of transportation (US v. Vicentillo) –
 Case of US v. Exaltacion as an example insuperable cause is the no transportation.
 Threat of future injury is not enough  it must be clearly shown  A mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme
that the compulsion must be of such character as to leave NO debility left her child in a thicket who subsequently died is not
opportunity to escape liable for infanticide because of the impossibility to take the
child home. (People v. Bandian) – insuperable cause is the
VIII. Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear severe dizziness and extreme debility.
 Irresistible force (par. 5) uses violence or physical force ____________________
 Uncontrollable fear (par. 6) uses intimidation or threat
____________________ I. In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of
PAR. 7: ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY the crime
LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE  Intent presupposed the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence.
I. Basis of Paragraph 7
 Accused acts without intent. II. Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances
 Justifying circumstances
II. Elements: o Person does not transgress the law, he does not commit
1. Act is required by law to be done. any crime in the eyes of the law.
2. Person fails to perform such act. o There is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or intention.
insuperable cause o Act is in itself just and lawful.
o There is neither a crime nor a criminal.
III. When prevented by…
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o No civil liability except for par. 4 (causing damage to  Article 332 – The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
another in state of necessity). is committed against a relative.
 Exempting circumstances  Article 344, par. 4 – Marriage of the offender with the offended
o There is a crime but NO criminal liability. party when the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction,
o Act is not justified but the actor is not criminally liable. or acts of lasciviousness.
o There is civil liability except in pars. 4 and 7(causing Instigation is an absolutory cause
injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act  US v. Phelps
required by law when prevented by some lawful or o Facts: an internal revenue agent represented himself as
insuperable cause). a private individual and asked the accused to lead him
where he could smoke opium. Agent went to the
III. Absolute causes accused three times and insisted so much, hence the
 Definition: Those where the act committed is a crime but for accused brought him to a place where opium is
reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty available.
imposed. o Held: Accused not criminally liable because he was
Other absolutory causes (aside from Article 11 and 12) instigated to commit the crime of smoking opium.
 Article 6 – the spontaneous desistance of the person who  Suppose the agent induced the accused to sell him opium and
commenced the commission of a felony before he could accused did sell the agent opium, is the accused liable for illegal
perform all the acts of execution. possession of opium? YES, because mere possession of opium is
 Article 7 – Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is a crime in itself.
not against persons or property. Instigation must be made by public officers or private detectives
 Article 20 – The accessory is a relative of the principal.  A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn
 Article 124, last paragraph – legal grounds for arbitrary this practice by directing an acquittal whenever it appears that
detention. the public authorities or private detectives, with their
 Article 247, pars. 1 and 2 – Death or physical injuries inflicted cognizances, have taken active steps to lead the accused into
under exceptional circumstances. the commission of the act.
o Any legally married person who, having surprised his  If the one who made the instigation is a private individual who is
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with not performing a public function, both he and the one accused
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in is criminally liable for the crime committed.
the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon  Private individual as principal by induction.
them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty  Accused as principal by direct participation.
of destierro. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
o If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any  The general rule: no defense to the perpetrator of the crime
other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his
 Article 280, par. 3 – Legal grounds for trespass. way, or that the criminal act was done at the ‘decoy solicitation’
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives  Entrapment
feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently o Ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in that class of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution
cases where the offense is one of kind habitually committed, of his criminal plan.
and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of o No bar to prosecution and conviction of lawbreaker.
conduct. o Means originate from the mind of the criminal.
 People v. Lua Chua o No exemption in liability.
o Facts: The accused wrote to his correspondent in o Not a defense.
Hongkong to send him a shipment of opium, which had There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation of the
already been waiting for a ship to Cebu. The Collector of law is simply discovered
Customs of Cebu received information regarding the  People v. Tan Tiong
plan of the accused to land opium in the port. Juan o Facts: Accused sold a can of powder above the ceiling
Samson, a secret servicemen pretended to smooth the price and contended that the government agent
way for the importation, while the Collector of Customs induced him to violate the law by purchasing from him
received P20,000. the specified article.
o Ruling: It is true that Juan Samson smoothed the way o Held: agent did not induce the accused. Agent only
for the introduction of the prohibited drug, but that was knew the price difference when he bought from the
after the accused had already planned its importation accused. Accused was the one who charged and
and had made the order. collected the price. There was no entrapment.
o Alternative Scenario: Supposed the accused had not yet Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person
ordered for the opium, but after the assurance of the from criminal liability
Collector of Customs, he made the order.  Not even the President could give such assurance of immunity
 Ruling: There would be instigation. to any violator of the firearm law. His constitutional clemency
Entrapment and instigation distinguished can be exercised only after conviction.
 Instigation
o Instigator practically induces he would‐be accused into IV. Complete defense in criminal cases
the commission of the offense and instigator becomes a 1. The prosecution does not prove any of the essential elements of
co‐principal. the crime charged and elements proved do not constitute any
o Bar to prosecution and conviction of lawbreaker. crime.
o Law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime 2. Acts falling under justifying circumstances
and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and 3. Acts falling under exempting circumstances
carries it into execution. 4. Covered by any absolutory causes
o Exempts the criminal from liability. 5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt
o An absolutory cause. 6. Prescription of crimes
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal  Article 268, par. 3 ‐ Voluntary release of the
action in crime against chastity person illegally detained within 3 days without
the offender attaining his purpose and before
CLASS DISCUSSION the institution of criminal action (penalty is one
What allowance is granted by law to the person who uses a certain degree lower)
method to defend himself?  Article 333, par. 3 – abandonment without
 Instinct of self‐preservation is in play during actual emergencies justification of the spouse who committed
that pose danger to life and limb  Defendant is not required adultery (penalty is one degree lower)
to analyze the situation and – with mathematical precision and
equality – analyze the least harmful way to defend himself. His IV. Distinctions
instinct, not necessarily his formal reason, is in motion during  Ordinary mitigating circumstance
self‐defense. o Susceptible of being offset by any aggravating
circumstance.
CHAPTER 3: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY o When not offset by an aggravating circumstance,
produces only the effect of applying the penalty
I. Mitigating Circumstances provided by law for the crime in its minimum period, in
 Definition  those which, if present in the commission of the case of divisible penalty.
crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but  Privileged mitigating circumstance
serve only to reduce the penalty. o Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance.
 Basis  on the diminution of either freedom of action, o Produces the effect of imposing upon the offender the
intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided
offender. by law.

II. Classes of mitigating circumstances V. Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do not
 Ordinary mitigating  those enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 change the nature of the crime
of Article 13; those mentioned in subsection 1 of Article 13, if  Accused is charged with murder
Article 69, for instance, is not applicable. o The fact that there is a generic or privileged mitigating
 Privileged mitigating circumstance does not change the felony to homicide.
o Article 68 o If there is an ordinary or generic mitigating
o Article 69 circumstance not offset by any aggravating
o Article 64 circumstance – penalty imposed is reduced to the
o Privileged mitigating circumstances applicable only to minimum of the penalty for murder.
particular crimes
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance – penalty 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of
for murder will be reduced by one or two degrees the will‐power of the offender without however depriving him
lower. of the consciousness of his acts.
o In every case, the accused should be held guilty of 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
murder. analogous to those above mentioned.
o The mitigating circumstance reduces the penalty
provided by law but does not change the nature of the POINTS
crime. PAR. 1: THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, WHEN ALL
THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY OR EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT ATTENDANT.
circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the I. Important words and phrases
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal  “Those mentioned in the preceding chapter”
liability in the respective cases are not attendant. o This clause has reference to (1) justifying circumstances
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over and (2) exempting circumstances.
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded  Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give
against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80. place to mitigation:
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a Source Circumstance
wrong as that committed. Article 11, par. 1 Self‐defense
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the Article 11, par. 2 Defense of relatives
offended party immediately preceded the act. Article 11, par. 3 Defense of stranger
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a Article 11, par. 4 State of necessity
grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his Article 11, par. 5 Performance of duty
spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same Article 11, par. 6 Obedience to order of superior
degrees. R.A. No. 9344 Minority above 15 but below 18
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally years of age
to have produced passion or obfuscation. Article 12, par. 4 Causing by mere accident
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a Article 12, par. 6 Uncontrollable fear
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation  Article 12, par. 1 & 2 can’t give place to mitigation because
of the evidence for the prosecution;
there is no middle ground between sanity and insanity or
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
between the absence or presence of intelligence.
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means
of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Any illness which would diminish will‐power, without depriving snatched the rope from the deceased, he should not
the offender of consciousness of his acts which considered to be have wound it around her neck and tightened it, the
within the scope of Article 13, par. 9. defendant is only entitled to privileged mitigating
circumstance as there is incomplete self‐defense.
II. When all the requisites necessary to justify an act are not attendant 2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil
1. Incomplete self‐defense, defense of relatives and defense of or injury
stranger. o Avoidance of a greater evil or injury is a justifying
o Article 13, par. 1 is applicable ONLY when unlawful circumstance ONLY if all 3 requisites in Article 11, par.4
aggression is present but the other two requisites (in are present.
the cases referred to in Article 11, par. 1,2,3) are not o If any of the last two requisites is absent, there is ONLY
present. mitigating circumstance.
 If there is no unlawful aggression, there could 3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty.
be no self‐defense or defense of a relative, o People v. Oanis
whether complete or incomplete.  Facts: The deceased was killed while asleep, as
o When 2 of 3 requisites mentioned are present, the case he was mistaken to be Balagtas – a person who
should be considered under privileged mitigating was to be apprehended dead or alive if there is
circumstance (Article 69). resistance. The arresting officers through
 Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the impatience or their desire to take no chances
crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A thus killed the deceased.
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that  Issue: Whether or not there is mitigating
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed circumstance.
is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of  Ruling: Appellants are declared guilty of murder
some of the conditions required to justify the with the mitigating circumstance. The Supreme
same or to exempt from criminal liability in the Court considered one of the two requisites as
several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, constituting the majority.
provided that the majority of such conditions be 4. Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order.
present. The courts shall impose the penalty in o People v. Bernal
the period which may be deemed proper, in  Facts: Roleda fired at Pilones following the
view of the number and nature of the order of his superior Sgt. Benting. It was found
conditions of exemption present or lacking. that Roleda may have acted without
o People v. Martin  When there is unlawful aggression questioning his superior because he had a
on the part of the deceased, without sufficient feeling of resentment resulting from Pilones’
provocation by the defendant, but the defendant used having killed a member of the military police.
means not reasonably necessary, for after having
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Issue: Whether or not the absence of one of PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
two justifying circumstance requirements ARTICLE 80.
constitutes a mitigating circumstance.
 Ruling: The first circumstance (order by I. Basis of Paragraph 2
superior) is present, but the second (order is for  The diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
some lawful purposes) is wanting.
II. Article 13, par. 2 of RPC impliedly repealed by R.A. 9344
III. When all the requisite necessary to exempt from criminal liability  Under R.A 9344, a child above 15 but below 18 years of age
are not attendant shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and discernment.
under 18 years of age.  If the child acted with discernment, he shall undergo diversion
o If the minor is over 15 and under 18, but acted with programs.
discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating
circumstance. III. Diversion Programs (R.A. 9344)
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident.  If the child acted with discernment, he shall undergo diversion
o There are 2 requisites for Article 12, par. 4. programs.
o If the 2nd requisite (done with due care) and the first o Diversion  alternative child‐appropriate process of
part of the 4th requisite (no fault) are ABSENT, case will determining the responsibility and treatment of a child
fall under Article 365, which punishes a felony by in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
negligence or imprudence  mitigating because the cultural, economic, psychological, or educational
penalty is lower than that which punishes intentional background without resulting to formal court
felony. proceedings.
o If the 1st requisite (lawful act) and second part of the 4th o Diversion Program  refers to the program that the
requisite (intention of causing harm) are ABSENT, that is child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after
the person committed an unlawful act and had the he/she is found responsible for an offense without
intention of causing injury, it will be an intentional resorting to formal court proceedings
felony  no mitigating circumstance at all. System of Diversion
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear.  Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion
o If only 1 of 2 requisites of Article 12, par. 6 are present, programs without undergoing court proceedings
there only a mitigating circumstance.
____________________ Penalty Procedure
PAR. 2: THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEAR OF AGE OR Imposable penalty Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation
OVER SEVENTY YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE MINOR, HE SHALL BE for the crime is not and, where appropriate, adopt indigenous modes
more than 6 years of conflict resolution in accordance with the best
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

imprisonment. interest of the child with a view to accomplishing  The local social welfare and development officer shall supervise

the objectives of restorative justice. the implementation of the diversion.
 Diversion proceedings shall be completed in 45 days.
Involves:  Period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended until
(1) Law enforcement office/Punong Barangay the completion of the diversion.
(2) Local social welfare and development  Child shall present himself/herself to authorities who imposed
officer/other members of the Local Councils diversion program at least once a month for reporting and
for the Protection of Children (LCPC) evaluation of the effectiveness of the program.
(3) Child and his/her family  Failure to comply with the program shall give the offended party
Victimless crime Develop appropriate diversion and rehabilitation the option to institute appropriate legal action.
where imposable program.  Where it may be conducted  Katarungang Pambarangay
penalty is not during the investigation phase and during all levels of the
more than 6 years Involves: proceedings including judicial level.
imprisonment. (1) Coordinate with Barangay Council for the  Duty of the Punong Barangay or the Law Enforcement Officer
Protection of Children (BCPC) when there is no diversion  if the imposable penalty is over 6
(2) Local social welfare development officer years or the child/his parents do not consent to a diversion, the
(3) Child and his/her parents or guardians Punong Barangay shall forward the records of the case to the
Imposable penalty Diversion measure may be resorted only by the law enforcement officer, prosecutor or appropriate court within
exceeds 6 years court. 3 days.
imprisonment
IV. That the offender is 70 years of age is only a generic mitigating
Conferencing, Mediation, Conciliation circumstance
 A child in conflict with the law may undergo conferencing,  Article 68 (privileged mitigating circumstances) does not include
mediation or conciliation outside the criminal justice system or offenders over 70 years old.
prior to his entry into said system. ____________________
Contract of Diversion PAR. 3: THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NOT INTENTION TO COMMIT SO
 If during the conferencing, mediation or conciliation, the child GRAVE A WRONG AS THAT COMMITTED
voluntarily admits the commission of the act a diversion
program shall be developed when appropriate and desirable. I. Basis of Paragraph 3
 Such admission shall not be used against the child in any  Intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is
subsequent judicial, quasi‐judicial or administrative diminished.
proceedings.
 Diversion program shall be effective and binding by the written II. Rule for application
acceptance signed by authorities and parties concerned.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts have intended the natural consequences of his wrongful
proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion act (People v. Reyes).
between the means employed to execute the criminal act and o The weapon used, the force of the blow, the spot where
its consequences. the blow was directed and landed, and the cold blood in
o US v. Bertucio  The accused confined himself to giving which it was inflicted, all tend to negative any notion
a single blow with a bolo on the right arm of the victim that the plan was anything less than to finish the victim
and did not repeat the blow. The death of the victim (People v. Banlos).
was due to neglect and the lack of medical treatment, o Inflicting of five stab wounds in rapid succession
his death having resulted from hemorrhage which those negates pretense of lack of intention to cause so serious
who attended to him did not know how to stop or an injury. It brings forth in bold relief the intention of
control in time. the accused to snuff out the life of the deceased (People
o NOTE: There is still criminal liability (in consonance v. Braña).
with Article 4). It is simply mitigated.  Article 13, paragraph 3, is not applicable when the offender
employed brute force – It is the intention of the offender at the
III. Evidence of intention as a factor for mitigating circumstance moment when he is committing the crime which is considered.
 Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by external o Article 13, par. 3 “addresses itself to the intention of
acts  the intention, as an internal act is judged not only by the the offender at the particular moment when he
proportion of the means employed by him to the evil produced executes or commits the criminal act; not to his
by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not intention during the planning stage.”
aimed at a vital part of the body.  Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, mitigating in
 The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury robbery with homicide.
inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may show that the o People v. Abuega  it has not be satisfactorily
accused intended the wrong committed established that in forcing entrance through the door
o How to determine intent: which was then closed, with the use of pieces of wood,
 The kind of weapon used. the accused were aware that the deceased was behind
 The part of the body injured. the door and would be hurt, and there is not clear
 The kind/extent of the injury inflicted. showing that they ever desired to kill the deceased as
o Intention must be judged by considering the weapon they sought to enter the house.
used, the injury inflicted, and his attitude of the mind  Appreciated in murder qualified by circumstance based on
when the accused attacked the deceased (People v. manner of commission, not on state of mind of accused.
Flores). o People v. Enriquez
o When a person stabs another with a lethal weapon  Facts: Several accused decided to have the
upon a vital part of the body, death could presumably foreman beaten up. Foreman died as a result of
be anticipated and the accused must be presumed to hemorrhage.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Ruling: Murder results from presence of brother, while another portion went to his medications
qualifying circumstances (premeditation and for his debilitating diabetes.
treachery) based upon the manner of o Ruling: Petitioner is entitled to mitigating circumstance
committing the crime, not in the state of mind as petitioner restituted all by P 8,000 of the funds in less
of the accused. than one month and a half.
 Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery.
 Lack of intent to kill, not mitigating in physical injuries. IV. Is Article 13, par. 3 applicable to felonies where intention of the
o People v. Galacgac  In crimes against persons who do offender is immaterial?
not die as a result of the assault, the absence of the  People v. Cristobal  where the resulting abortion was not
intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical intended by the offender, this mitigating circumstance is not
injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating applicable.
circumstance.  People v. Flameño  where the accused pulled the hair of the
 Lack of intent to kill, mitigating when the victim dies. complainant with the intention to maltreat her, but thus caused
o People v. Pugay her to fall on her buttocks resulting into unintentional abortion,
 Facts: Accused set the deceased’s clothes on mitigating circumstance was given in favor of the accused.
fire with the intent of causing physical injuries ____________________
at the most. PAR. 4: THAT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON THE PART OF
 Ruling: Accused is guilty of the resulting death THE OFFENDED PARTY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT.
but he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as I. Basis of Paragraph 4
that committed.  Based on the diminution of intelligence and intent
 Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
o The reason is that in felonies through negligence, the II. Provocation
offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional  Provocation  any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of offended party, capable of exciting or inciting or irritating
foresight, or lack of skill in culpable felonies. anyone.
 Not applicable to felonies like defamation or slander (People v.  Requisites:
Galang de Bautista). Applicable ONLY to offenses resulting in 1. That the provocation must be sufficient
physical injuries or material harm. 2. That it must originate from the offended party
 Applied in malversation of public funds (Perez v. People). 3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e.,
o Facts: Petitioner misappropriated funds because he was to the commission of the crime by the person who is
impelled by the genuine love for his brother and his provoked.
family. He used the funds to pay off a debut owed by his  The provocation must be sufficient.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Sufficient  means adequate to excite a person to  Ruling: Inevitable conclusion is he did not feel
commit the wrong and must accordingly be sufficiently provoked at the time the alleged
proportionate to its gravity. provocation was made. His shooting the victim
o As to whether a provocation is sufficient depends upon the next day was a deliberate act of vengeance
the act constituting the provocation: and not the natural reaction of a human being
 The social standing of the person provoked. to immediately retaliate when provoked.
 The place and time when the provocation is o Threat immediately preceded the act
made.  The threat should not be offensive and
 Provocation must originate from the offended party. positively strong, because if it is, the threat to
o The reason for the requirement is that the law says that inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression,
the provocation is “on the part of the offended party”. which may give rise to self‐defense.
o People v. Reyes  Where the provocation did not come  Example: A was threatened by B with bodily
from the deceased but from his mother, the same may harm and because of the threat, A immediately
not be appreciated in favor of the accused. attacked and injured B, there was a mitigating
 Difference between sufficient provocation as requisite of circumstance of threat immediately preceding
incomplete self‐defense and as a mitigating circumstance. the act.
o Element of self‐defense  it pertains to its absence on  Vague threats are insufficient.
the part of the person defending himself. • Vague  “If you do not agree, beware.”
o Mitigating circumstance  pertains to its presence on • Clear  “Follow us if you dare and we
the part of the offended part. will kill you.”
 Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime. ____________________
o There should not be any interval of time between the PAR.5: THAT THE ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE
provocation of the offended party and the commission VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE TO THE ONE COMMITTING THE
of the crime of the person provoked. FELONY (DELITO), HIS SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS,
o When there is an interval of time between the LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR
provocation and the commission of the crime, the RELATIVES BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREES.
conduct of the offended party could not have excited
the accused to the commission of the crime, he having POINTS
time to regain his reason and to exercise self‐control I. Basis of Paragraph 5
o People v. Benito  Based on the diminution of the conditions of voluntariness.
 Facts: The accused had almost a day to mull o Grave offense must be directed to the accused
over the alleged provocation before he reacted o Vindication of a grave offense incompatible with
by shooting the victim. passion or obfuscation.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

II. Requisites: ng magnanakaw.” Accused killed the deceased at
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the 5:00pm. No mitigating circumstance.
felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural o Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a
or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the grave offense cannot be considered in favor of accused
same degrees because he had sufficient time to recover his serenity
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave (People v. Lopez).
offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and
the doing of the grave offense. IV. Provocation v. Vindication
Provocation Vindication
III. Application Made directly only to the person The grave offense may be
 Applies to grave offense committed against surviving spouse of committing the felony. committed also against the
deceased relative. offender’s relatives.
o If A (surviving husband of B) was killed by C, B’s brothers The cause that brought about the The offended party must have
would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of provocation need not be a grave done a grave offense to the
vindication of grave offense if they cause serious offense. offender or his relatives.
physical injuries to C immediately after learning of A’s Provocation or threat immediately Proximate, which admits an
death. preceded the act i.e. no interval interval time between the grave
 A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the time in between. offense time by the offended party
vindication. and the commission of the crime.
o The Spanish text uses “proxima” meaning next.  Reason for difference  This greater leniency in the case of
o The fact that the accused was slapped by the deceased vindication is due undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the
in the presence of many persons a few hours before the honor of a person, an offense which is more worthy of
former killed the latter, was considered a mitigating consideration than mere spite against the one giving the
circumstance that the act was committed in the provocation or threat.
immediate vindication of a grave offense (People v.
Parana). V. Basis to determine gravity of offense in vindication
 Interval time negating vindication.  Considerations in determining whether a certain personal
o People v. Lumayag  9 months had passed between offense was grave:
the infliction of physical injuries of the deceased on the o Social standing of the person.
accused and the act of the accused of murdering the o Place where the insult was made.
deceased. o Time when the insult was made.
o People v. Benito  At 11:00am, deceased told the  Considered grave offenses:
accused – in the presence of the latter’s officemates – o Sarcastic remark implying the accused was a petty
“hindi ko alam na itong Civil Service pala ay istambayan tyrant.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Remark of the injured party before the guests that the o That there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
accused lived at the expense of his wife  produce such a condition of mind.
consideration of place. o That said act which produced the obfuscation was not
o Just after the American forces reoccupied Manila, the far removed from the commission of the crime by a
offended party told the accused that the latter was a considerable length of time during which the
Japanese spy  consideration of time. perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
 The provocation should be proportionate to the damage caused
by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission. III. Reason why passion or obfuscation is mitigating
 Grave offense must be directed to the accused.  When there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful
o The supposed grave offense done by the victim was an excitement, he loses his reason and self‐control, thereby
alleged remark made in the presence of the accused diminishing the exercise of his will power.
that the Civil Service Commission is a hangout of  Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance
thieves. The remark itself was general and not alluding only when the same arose from lawful sentiments.
to anyone. People in the vicinity would not have known o For this reason, even if there is actually passion or
that the accused was possibly being insulted unless they obfuscation on the part of the offender, there is no
were aware that he was facing charges involving his mitigating circumstance when:
honesty and integrity (People v. Benito).  The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness.
____________________  The act is committed in a spirit of revenge.
PAR. 6: THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS
NATURALLY TO HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION IV. FIRST Requisite: The act of the offended party must be both
unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind.
I. Basis of Paragraph 6  “Unlawful or unjust act of the offended party”
 Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance because the o People v. Ancheta, et al.  mitigating circumstance
offender who acts with passion or obfuscation suffers a considered in favor of the owner who, upon seeing the
diminution of his intelligence and intent. person who stole his carabao, shoots the supposed
thief.
II. Requisites: o People v. Samonte  Deceased created trouble during
 Paragraph requires that: the wake of the departed father of the defendant.
o The accused acted upon an impulse. Considering the trouble created by the accused was
o The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate accused, his
produced passion or obfuscation in him. guilt is mitigated by passion or obfuscation.
 Requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or  Exercise of a right or fulfillment of a duty is not proper source of
obfuscation: passion or obfuscation.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o People v. Noynay, et al.  Where the accused killed the considerable length of time during which the perpetrator might
deceased when the latter was going to take his carabao recover his normal equanimity.
to the barrio lieutenant after the accused refused to pay  No passion or obfuscation when:
for the sugar cane destroyed by his carabao. The o 24 has elapsed between the alleged insult and the
deceased was within the rights of the deceased, and commission of the felony.
thus there is not mitigating circumstance. o Several hours passed between the cause of passion or
o US v. Taylor  Accused was making a disturbance on a obfuscation and the commission of the crime.
public street when a policeman came to arrest him. The o At least half an hour intervened between the previous
anger and indignation of the accused resulting from the fight and the subsequent killing of the deceased by the
arrest cannot be considered passion and obfuscation accused.
because the policeman was performing a lawful act.  Period that has lapsed is long enough for pause and reflection.
 “Act must be sufficient to produce such a condition of mind”
o If the cause of the loss of self‐control was trivial and VI. May passion or obfuscation lawfully arise from causes existing only
slight, obfuscation is not mitigating. in the honest belief of the offender?  YES
 Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and  US v. Ferrer  belief of the defendant that the deceased had
not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and caused his dismissal from his employment is sufficient to
resentment. confuse his reason and impel him to commit the crime.
o US v. De la Cruz  Accused was entitled to mitigating  US v. Macalintal  belief entertained in good faith by the
circumstance of passion or obfuscation because the defendants that the deceased cast upon their mother a spell of
impulse was caused by the sudden revelation that she withcraft which was the cause of serious illness is sufficient.
was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante
in the arms of a common acquaintance. VII. Other Notes
in contrast  Provocation and obfuscation when arising from one and the
o US v. Hicks  No mitigating circumstance when the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
cause of passion or obfuscation of the accused was his circumstance (p.309).
vexation, disappointment and anger engendered by the  Vindication of grave offense cannot co‐exist with passion and
refusal of the woman to continue living in illicit relations obfuscation.
with him which she had the perfect right to do. o Exception: when there are other facts, although closely
o Obfuscation arising from jealousy may be invoked if the connected i.e. where there are other facts, although
relationship is legitimate. But if it is illegitimate, it is not closely connected with the fact upon which one
mitigating (People. V. Olgado). circumstance is premised, the other circumstance may
be appreciated as based on the other fact (People v.
V. SECOND Requisite: That said act which produced the obfuscation Diokno)
was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a o Example: Two facts which are closely connected
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Elopement, which is a grave offense of a family III. Requisites
of old customs  vindication as mitigating.  Requisites for paragraph 7:
 Refusal to deal with him, a stimulus strong o Offender had not been actually arrested
enough to produce in his mind a fit of passion o Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority of
 passion as a mitigating circumstance. to the latter’s agent
 Vindication and obfuscation cannot be considered when the o Surrender is voluntary
person attacked is not the one who gave cause therefore.  Requisites of voluntariness:
 Passion or obfuscation compatible with lack of intention to o Same must be spontaneous in such a manner that it
commit so grave a wrong. shows the interest of the accused to surrender
 Passion or obfuscation incompatible with treachery. unconditionally to the authorities either because he
o While in passion or obfuscation, the offender loses his acknowledges his guilt or that he wants to save the
reason and self‐control, in the aggravating circumstance authorities the trouble and expenses of locating and
of treachery the mode of attack must be consciously capturing him.
adopted. o Accused must actually surrender in his own person to
 Passion and obfuscation cannot co‐exist with evident pre‐ the authorities, admitting complicity to the crime
meditation. o Must indicate a desire on his part to own the
____________________ responsibilities for the crime
PAR. 7: THAT THE OFFENDER HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED
HIMSELF TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS AGENTS, OR THAT HE IV. FIRST Requisite: Offender had not been actually arrested and
HAD VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED HIS GUILT BEFORE THE COURT PRIOR surrendered himself.
TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION  Cases of voluntary surrender
o People v. Tenorio  Upon seeing a policeman, the
I. Basis of Paragraph 7 accused surrendered and admitted he did the crime.
 Lesser perversity of the offender. There was intent and desire on his part to surrender.
o People v. Dayrit  Accused hid in the hotel not because
II. Two mitigating circumstances in paragraph: of the police but because of the relatives of the
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents. deceased. Upon seeing policemen, he readily admitted
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the ownership of the weapon and went with the policemen.
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. o People v. Benito  Instead of escaping, the accused
 Under Article 13, when both are present, they should have the called the police, voluntarily approached them when
effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances. they came though not revealing his identity, and said
 When they mitigate the penalty, when both are present, they that he will help the police find the suspect. Later on, he
should produce this effect to a greater extent. admitted that he was voluntarily surrendering himself.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o People v. Magpalay  Accused made several attempts o People v. Dela Cruz  Search for the accused lasted for
to surrender but somehow it got delayed because of 4 years, which belies the spontaneity of the surrender.
various reasons and so he only got to surrender after a o People v. Garcia  No other evidence was presented to
week. No defiance of law was present. establish indubitably that he deliberately surrendered
o People v. Torres  The accused had no opportunity to to the police.
surrender since the police already came but they o People v. Trigo  Accused only went to the police
already yielded their weapons at that time. station to report wife was stabbed and to protect
o People v. Radomes  There was no resistance on the himself out of fear.
part of the accused and even voluntarily gave his o People v. Rogales  Only went to the headquarters
weapon and gave himself up to the authorities before merely to report the incident which does not evince any
his arrest. desire to own the responsibility for the killing of the
o People v. Jereza  Accused brought his weapon to the deceased
police but it is unsure if he is also surrendering his o People v. Canoy  It does not appear that it was the
person. He is given the benefit of the doubt of voluntary idea of the accused to send for the police for the
surrender. purpose of giving himself up.
o People v. Braña  Nothing on records to show that a o People v. Canoy  Authorities were not looking for him,
warrant of arrest was issued and accused surrendered and would not have looked for him if he had not been
himself. present at the investigation by the Chief of Police.
 Cases not constituting voluntary surrender o People v. Rubinal  Upon being caught, accused
o El Pueblo contra Conwi  Warrant of arrest showed pretended to say that he was on his way to surrender
that accused was in fact arrested. himself to the authorities.
o People v. Roldan Accused surrendered only after the “Voluntarily surrendered himself” prior to being arrested
warrant of arrest was served upon him.  People v. Jose de Ramos
o People v.Velez  Even if the police used the word o Facts: After the incident, accused reported it to the
“surrender,” if the accused surrendered because of his councilor, even stayed in the councilor’s home for an
warrant of arrest. hour and submitting the bolo used but not his person to
o People v. Mationg  Accused went into hiding and only the authorities.
surrendered when they realized that the police are o Held: The law requires that the offender must have
closing in on them. “voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
o People v. Salvilla  Accused could no longer refuse to authority or his agents.”
surrender given the circumstances that they are in and  Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with voluntary
there was no chance of escaping. Their surrender is surrender.
motivated by their intent of insuring their safety.  Surrender not mitigating when the defendant is arrested.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o People v. Conwi  No voluntary surrender when the security of life and property and any person who comes
warrant of arrest showed that the defendant was in fact to the aid of persons in authority.
arrested.
o Possible exemption: VI. THIRD Requisite: Surrender is voluntary
 People v. Parana  When the accused after When is surrender voluntary?
committing the offense and having the chance  Must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
to escape, voluntarily waited for the authorities submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either:
and surrendered himself. 1. Because of acknowledgement of guilt or
 People v. Babiera  When the accused helped 2. Because he wished to save the trouble and expenses
in carrying his victim to the hospital where he necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
was disarmed and arrested. It is tantamount to  None of these 2 reasons and motivated by other intentions: not
voluntary surrender. voluntary!
 When the warrant of arrest had not been served or not The surrender must be spontaneous
returned unserved because the accused cannot be located the  Spontaneous  idea of an inner impulse, acting without
surrender is mitigating. external stimulus.
o The law does not require that the surrender be prior to  Conduct of the accused after the commission of the offense
the order of arrest  the mere filing of an information determines the spontaneity of the surrender.
and/or the issuances of a warrant of arrest will not  Intentions to surrender without actually surrendering, is not
automatically make the surrender “involuntary”. mitigating.
o The law requires that the accused must surrender
V. SECOND Requisite: Offender surrendered himself to a person in himself.
authority of to the latter’s agent.  There is spontaneity even if the surrender is induced by fear of
 The surrender must be made to a person in authority or his retaliation by the victim’s relatives
agent. o Does not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender, nor
o Person in Authority  one directly vested with alter the fact that by giving himself up, this accused
jurisdiction, that is a public officer who has the power to saved the State the time and trouble of searching for
govern and execute the laws whether as an individual or him until arrested. (People v. Clemente)
as a member of some court or governmental  When the offender imposed a condition or acted with external
corporation, board or commission. (Article 152 RPC as stimulus, his surrender is not voluntary.
amended by PD no. 299)  A surrender is not voluntary when forced by circumstances.
o Agent of a Person in Authority  person, who, by direct o Examples: belief that escape is impossible, impossibility
provision of the law, or by election or by appointment, of living in hostility.
by competent authority, is charged with the Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non‐flight
maintenance of public order, and the protection and
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 What the law considers as mitigating is the voluntary o Confession of guilt made prior to the presentation of
surrender of an accused before his arrest, showing either evidence for the prosecution.
acknowledgement of his guilt or an intention to save the  When it must be made:
authorities from the trouble and expense that his search and o The plea must be made before trial begins.
capture. o Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating when:
o Even if accused did not go into hiding and even  Plea of guilty must be made at the first
accompanied the police to the scene of the crime, such opportunity.
act is not voluntary surrender if he did not submit  Municipal Court to Court of First Instance does
himself or admit complicity to the crime. not restore the case to its original state: The law
 Time and place of surrender. requires a trial de novo, because a trial de novo
o RPC does not make any distinction among the various necessarily implies the existence of a previous
moments when the surrender may occur. trial where evidence was presented by the
o The law does not require the surrender to be prior to prosecution.
the order of the arrest.  Philosophy behind the rule:
 The surrender must be by reason of the commission of the o Spontaneous willingness of the accused to admit the
crime for which defendant is prosecuted commission of the offense charged must be present.
o Thus, if the defendant surrendered as a Huk to take  Reason why plea of guilty is mitigating:
advantage of the amnesty, but the crime for which he o Act of repentance and respect of the law
was prosecuted was distinct and separate from o Indicates a moral disposition favorable to the accused’s
rebellion, his surrender is not mitigating (People v reform
Semañada). The confession of guilt must be made in open court.
 Surrender through an intermediary  The extrajudicial confession is not the voluntary confession the
o Surrender of an accused through his father who acted Court contemplates. Such confession was made outside of
as mediator was appreciated to be mitigating (People v. courts.
De la Cruz).  The confession of guilt must be made prior to the presentation
of the evidence for the prosecution
VII. Confession of guilt before a court prior to the presentation of o Third requisite is lacking when plea of guilty is made
evidence by the prosecution after the fiscal had presented evidence.
Plea of Guilty o Benefit of plea of guilty undeserving by accused who
 Three requisites submits to the law only after the presentation of some
o Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt. evidence for the prosecution.
o Confession made in open court that is, before the o It is not necessary that all the evidence of the
competent court. prosecution have been presented.
Plea of guilty should be made prior to presentation of evidence
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Plea of not guilty at the preliminary investigation is no plea at  Held: plea of guilty to the lesser offense charged
all. in the amended information is mitigating
o Plea made in the court of competent jurisdiction is the o When the accused is charged with a grave offense, the
one recognized. court should take his testimony in spite of his plea of
 Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty before guilty
presentation of evidence by prosecution is still mitigating.  Because there is no law prohibiting the taking of
o All that the law requires is voluntary plea of guilty prior testimony after a plea of guilty, where a grave
to the presentation of the evidence by the prosecution. offence is charged, the Court has deemed such
o The change of plea should be made at the first taking of testimony the prudent and proper
opportunity. course to follow for the purpose of establishing
o A conditional plea of guilty is not a mitigating the guilt and the precise degree of culpability of
circumstance. the defendant.
 Plea of guilty to amended information  Death penalty changed to life imprisonment because of plea of
o An entirely new information arises and no evidence was guilty, even if done during the presentation of evidence
presented in connection with the charges made therein o Such an admission of guilt indicates his submission to
before the accused entered his plea of guilty. The the law and a moral disposition on his part to reform,
accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of hence the change in penalty.
plea of guilty.  Mandatory presentation of evidence in plea of guilty to capital
 Plea of guilty to lesser offense than that charged, not mitigating offense
o To be voluntary, the plea of guilty must be to the o Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 116, Sec. 3)
offense charged.  Where the accused pleads guilty to a capital
o If voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it is offense, that courts shall conduct a searching
not mitigating. inquiry into the voluntariness and full
 Plea of guilty to the offense charged in the amended comprehension of the consequences of his plea
information, which is lesser than that charged in the original and shall require the prosecution to prove his
information, is mitigating. guilt and the precise degree of culpability.
o People v. Intal Searching Inquiry
 Facts: The accused was charged with double  Guidelines:
murder and he pleaded not guilty to it. He then o Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was
moved the Court to withdraw his former plea of brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had
not guilty to guilty to the lesser crime of double the assistance of a competent counsel during the
homicide. Prosecution also changed its charge custodial and preliminary investigations and (c) under
to double homicide. what conditions he was detained and interrogated
during the investigations
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o Ask defense counsel a series of questions as to whether
he had conferred with and completely explained to the I. Basis of Par. 8:
accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of  Considers the fact that one suffering from physical defect does
guilty not have complete freedom of action, and therefore there is a
o Elicit information about the personality profile of the diminution of that element of voluntariness.
accused
o Inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment II. Physical defect must restrict means of actions, defense, or
or nature of penalty under the law and the certainty communication with fellow beings
that he will serve such sentence.  Physical defect in this paragraph: armless, cripple, or a stutterer,
o Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is whereby his means to act, defend himself or communicate with
charged and to fully explain to him the elements of the his fellow beings are limited.
crime which is the basis of his indictment  Paragraph does not distinguish between educated and
o Use language that is known and understood by the uneducated deaf‐mute or blind persons. The Code considers
accused them as being on equal footing.
o Trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused in ____________________
pleading guilty, is truly guilty. PAR. 9: SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH HIS
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies and in crimes EXERCISING OF THE WILL‐POWER OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT
punished by special laws HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS.
o Article 365, paragraph 5 of RPC: “in the imposition of
these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound I. Basis of Paragraph 9
discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in  The circumstance in paragraph 9 of Article 13 is mitigating
Article 64.” because there is a diminution of intelligence and intent.
o When there is a mitigating circumstance without any
aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is II. Requisites:
the minimum period of the divisible penalty. 1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his
o When the crime is punished by a special law, the court will‐power.
shall also exercise its sound discretion 2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of
o Article 64 is applicable only when the penalty has 3 consciousness of his acts.
periods.
____________________ III. Complete loss of will‐power may be an exempting circumstance.
PAR. 8: THAT THE OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND OR  A person with dementia praecox or manic depressive psychosis
OTHERWISE SUFFERING SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH THUS has no control over his acts during periods of excitement.
RESTRICTS HIS MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE OR COMMUNICATION  This may be an exempting circumstance if the accused is
WITH HIS FELLOW BEINGS. demented at the time he perpetrated the crime.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

____________________
IV. Illness of the mind is included PAR. 10: AND FINALLY, ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR
 The foregoing legal provision refers only to diseases of NATURE AND ANALOGOUS TO THOSE ABOVE‐MENTIONED.
pathological state that trouble the conscience or will.
 People v. Francisco I. Circumstances which are similar in nature and analogous to those
o It was held that paragraph 9 applies to defendant who mentioned in paragraphs 1‐9 of Article 13:
committed the crime while suffering from illness of the  This paragraph authorizes the court to consider in favor of the
body, the mind, the nerves or the moral faculty. accused “any other circumstance of a similar nature and
 Illness of the mind may give place to mitigation of punishment. analogous to those mentioned” in par. 1 – 9.
Similar/Analogous Article Content Par.
V. Examples where illness of the offender considered mitigating Extreme poverty Similar to incomplete Par. 1
 People v. Balneg justification based on state
o The mistaken belief of the accused that the killing of a Ex: People v. Macbul  The of necessity
witch was for the public good may be considered a accused, on account of
mitigating circumstance for the reason that those who extreme poverty pilfered 2
have obsession (that witches are to be killed) does not sacks of paper valued at 10
have real control over his will. pesos and sold it for 2.50. Such
 People v. Amit was considered a mitigating
o Although being mentally sane, the appellant is suffering circumstance
from a mild behavior disorder, which the court regarded Extreme poverty may mitigate a crime against property, such
as a mitigating circumstance. as theft, but not a crime of violence such as murder.
 People v. Carpenter Over 60 years old with failing Similar to 70 years old of age Par. 2
o One suffering from acute neurosis, which diminished sight
exercise of will power, is entitled to this mitigating Outraged feeling of owner of Analogous to vindication of a Par. 5
circumstance. animal taken for ransom grave offense
 People v. Formigones
o One who is feebleminded warrants the finding in his Ex: B took a carabao of the A
favor of the mitigating circumstance. and held it for ransom, and
 People v. Antonio thereafter B failed to fulfill his
o One suffering from schizo‐affective disorder or promise to give the carabao
psychosis, which diminishes the exercise of his will‐ back. When A kills B, A is
power but does not deprive him of the consciousness of entitled to mitigating
his acts, may be credited with this mitigating circumstance analogous to
circumstance. vindication of grave offense.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

Outraged feeling of creditor Similar to passion and Par. 6 Killing the wrong man is not mitigating

obfuscation
Impulse of jealous feeling Similar to passion and II. Not analogous mitigating Circumstance
obfuscation  In parricide, the fact that the victim was unworthy, bad or
Esprit de corps Similar to passion and quarrelsome is not analogous to any of those mentioned in Art
obfuscation 13 a mitigating circumstance.
Ex: People v. Villamora   People v. Dy
many of the soldiers who took o The accused who was charged with falsification,
part in the killing of the pleaded guilty and invoked as mitigating circumstance
deceased responded to the the lack of irreparable material damage. The court ruled
call and appeal of their that this is not recognized as a mitigating circumstance
lieutenant who urged them to  Not resisting arrest is not analogous to voluntary surrender.
avenge the outrage committed  The condition of running amuck is not mitigating
by the deceased. o People v. Salazar‐ The defense contended that running
Voluntary restitution of stolen Similar to voluntary Par. 7 amuck is a cult among the Moros that is age‐old and
property surrender deeply rooted. Court ruled that the mitigating
circumstances must be applied to all regardless of
Ex: People v. Navasca  The religion.
act of testifying for the
prosecution, by one of the III. Mitigating circumstances which are personal to the offenders
accused, should be considered  The following circumstances shall only serve to mitigate the
in his favor as a mitigating liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to
circumstance analogous to a whom such circumstances are attendant:
plea of guilty. 1. Mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral
Testifying for the prosecution Analogous to “guilty” plea attributes of the offender.
Manifestations of Battered Analogous to an illness that Par. 9 2. Mitigating circumstances which arise from the private
Wife Syndrome (BWS) diminished the exercise of relations of the offender with the offended party.
will power 3. Mitigating circumstances which arise from any personal
cause.
Restitution in malversation case is only a mitigating circumstance
 Payment or reimbursement is not a defense for exoneration in IV. Circumstances which are neither exempting or mitigating:
malversation; it may only be considered as a mitigating 1. Mistake in the blow.
circumstance because ‘damage’ is not an element of 2. Mistake in the identity of the victim.
malversation. 3. Entrapment of the accused.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

4. The accused is over 18 years of age.
5. Performance of righteous action (i.e. although the accused
saved the lives of a thousand, if he kills a single human being, he
is criminally liable People v. Victoria).

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE ONE – FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL 10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense
LIABILITY to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
CHAPTER 4: CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances – The following are aggravating reward, or promise.
circumstances: 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any other
the public authorities. artifice involving great waste and ruin.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, age, 14. That craft, fraud, or disguise is employed.
or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended 15. That the advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
party, if the latter has not given provocation. employed to weaken the defense.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
obvious ungratefulness. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
engaged in the discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
to religious worship. from the defense which the offended party might make.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
may facilitate the commission of the offense. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way
acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be not intended for the purpose.
deemed to have been committed by a band. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof,
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a floor, door, or window be broken.
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
calamity or misfortune. fifteen years of age, or be means of motor vehicle, airships, or
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or other similar means.
persons who insure or afford impunity. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
9. That the accused is a recidivist. deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, for its commission.
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of his Code.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


POINTS Examples where this aggravating circumstance is present
To be appreciated, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be  He could not have maltreated the victim if he was not a
alleged in the information. policeman on guard duty. Because of his position, he had access
 Every complaint or Information must state not only the to the cell where the victim, who was under his custody, was
qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances (2000 Revised confined (People v. Ural).
Rules of Criminal Procedure)  A police officer in the course of investigation of a charge against
o Rule can be given retroactive effect in the light of the him for grave threats shot the complainant in a treacherous
well‐established rule that statutes regulating the manner (People v. Reyes).
procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable  Used their authority as members of the police and constabulary
to actions pending and undetermined at the time of to disarm the victim before shooting him (People v. Asuncion).
their passage.  This aggravating circumstance is present when a councilor
collects fines and misappropriates them  US v. Torrida
If not alleged, they may still be considered in the award of damages. o Facts: The accused is a councilor of Aparri. After
____________________ entering upon his duties, he ordered that deaths of
PAR 1: THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC large animals must be reported to him as a councilman.
POSITION. Owners of said animals paid him thinking they are
required to do so. Accused in turn spent the fines given
I. Basis of Paragraph 1: to him.
 Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by o Held: The fact that the accused was councilor at that
the personal circumstance of the offender and also by means time placed him in a position to commit these crimes.
used to secure the commission of the crime. Because he was a councilor, people believed that he
had a right to impose and ask for fines and this is the
II. Applicable only when the offender is a public officer reason why they gave payment. The accused took
 “Public position” – points to a public officer. Paragraph 1 is advantage of his position to deceive and defraud others
applicable only to a public officer who takes advantage of such out of the money given to him. (Note: crime committed
public position. here is estafa with deceit.)
Examples where this aggravating circumstance is not present
III. Meaning of “advantage be taken by the offender of his public  This aggravating circumstance is not present when a
position.” Congressman offered resistance to a peace officer  People
 Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy vs. Veloso
which his office gives him as a means to attain his desired o Reason: Congressman did not take advantage of the
purpose (US v. Rodriguez). influence or reputation of his office.
 “Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the
crime?” – question to ask to know the essence of the matter.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 When the public officer did not take advantage of the There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his public
influence of his position, this aggravating circumstance is not position.
present  US v. Dacuycuy  What needs to be proven? Taking advantage of public position
o Facts: 39 people requested the accused who was a or using the influence, prestige, or ascendancy of said public
councilor, to purchase cedulas for them at P39. He only position.
bought 16, and spent the rest of the money.  In the absence of proof of advantage, the aggravating
o Ruling: When a public officer commits a common crime circumstance of abuse of public position could not be properly
independent of his official functions and does acts that appreciated.
are not connected with the duties of his office, he
should be punished as a private individual without this IV. Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office.
aggravating circumstance. (Note: in the case, Dacuycuy  If it is proven that one has failed in his duties as a public officer,
did not use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy of his this circumstance would warrant the aggravation of his penalty.
position when he committed estafa in the abuse of  The fact that the defendant was the vice president of a town at
confidence. He received the money in his private the time he voluntarily joined a band of brigands made his
capacity.) liability greater (US v. Cagayan).
 Peace officers taking advantage of their public positions.
o Fortuna v. People  Being police officers placed them V. Not aggravating when it is an integral element of, or inherent in, the
in a position to perpetrate the offense. It was on offense.
account of their authority that induces people to  Where taking advantage is an integral element of the crime:
comply with what they’re asking for. They could not o Article 217: Malversation
have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile o Article. 171: falsification of document committed by
patrol car and forced them to hand over their money. public officers
o People v. Madrid  Special agent of the military police o Article. 19, par. 3: Taking advantage of public position is
who committed robbery with homicide with the gun inherent in the case of accessories and in crimes
which he had been authorized to carry as a peace committeed by public officers.
officer. o Articles. 203‐245: Crimes committed by public officers.
o Wearing a uniform is immaterial in certain cases. Not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the crime without
o People v. Tongco  Even if the accused was in civilian occupying police position.
clothes, the victim was aware of his position, and thus  If the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
accused used this to impose illegally his authority. occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position.
o People v. Pantoja  Wearing a uniform is not sufficient  People v. Herrera  mere fact that the accused‐appellant is a
to establish that he misused his public position in the policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver
commission of the crime. to kill is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public
position in the commission of the crime.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


____________________ since the deceased was shot while in the performance of his
PAR. 2: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH official duty as barrio lieutenant.
INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. o The accused should have been prosecuted for and
convicted of a complex crime of homicide with direct
I. Basis of Paragraph 2: assault WITHOUT this aggravating circumstance.
 On the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack V. THIRD Requisite: Knowledge that a public authority is present is
of respect for the public authorities. essential.
 Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public
II. Requisites: authority is present indicates lack of intention to insult the
1. Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions public authority.
2. He who is engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the  Thus if A killed B in the presence of the mayor, but A was not
person against whom the crime is committed. aware of his presence, this circumstance cant be considered.
3. Offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing VI. FOURTH Requisite: Presence of public authority has not prevented
the criminal act. offender from committing the crime.
 An offense may have been said to be committed in contempt
III. Meaning of “public authority” when the offender proceeds with the criminal act even with the
 Public authority (sometimes also called a person in authority) full knowledge of a public authority’s presence.
o Public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of an agent
that is, a public officer who has the power to govern only.
and execute the laws.  Agent of a person in authority – “any person who, by direct
o Examples: councilor, mayor, governor. Barangay provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent
captain, and barangay chairman (Article 152, as authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and
amended by PD No. 1232). the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any
IV. FIRST and SECOND Requisite: The crime should not be committed person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.” (Article
against the public authority. 152, as amended by B.P. Blg. 873)
 If the crime is committed against a public authority while he is in ____________________
the performance of his official duty, the offender commits direct PAR. 3: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD
assault (Article 148) without this aggravating circumstance, OF THE RESPECT DUE TO THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
because it is not a crime committed “in contempt of or with RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR THAT IT BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF
insult” to him, but a crime directly committed against him. THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION.
 People v. Santok did not follow this where it was held that
homicide was committed with this aggravating circumstance
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


I. When all the four aggravating circumstances are present, must they • The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating.
be considered as one?
 Can be considered single or together. V. With insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
 If all the 4 circumstances are present, they have the weight of account –
one aggravating circumstance only. 1. of the rank of the offended party
 BUT see People v. Santos in Article 14(6). o There must be a difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party.
II. Basis of Paragraph 3: o Examples:
 On the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the  Attempt upon the life of a general of the Army
personal circumstances of the offended party and the place of is committed in disregard of his rank (People v.
the commission of the crime. Valeriano).
 Killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal; the
III. Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor. killing of the Assistant Chief of Personel
 In the case of the robbery of a thing belonging to the President, Transaction of the Civil Service Commission by a
the aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due the clerk therein; the murder by a pupil of his
offended party cannot be taken into account, because the mere teacher; the murder of a municipal mayor; the
fact that the thing belongs to the President does not make it murder of a city chief of police by the chief of
more valuable than the things belonging to a private person. the secret service division; assault upon a 66‐
 Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of year old CFI (now RTC) judge by a justice of
his rank, age or sex may be taken into account only in crimes peace (now municipal judge); the killing of a
against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime, consul by a mere chancellor; the killing of an
there is some insult or disrespect to rank, age or sex. army general (People v. Rodil)
 Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and o Meaning of rank ‐ refers to a high social position or
not against person. It is a mere incident of the robbery, the standing as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded
latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal (People official standing or social position or station; or to the
v. Pagal). order or place in which said officers are placed in the
army and navy in relation to others; or to the
IV. Meaning of “with insult or in disregard.” designation or title of distinction conferred upon an
• It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance in order officer in order to fix his relative position in reference to
that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance (People other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and
v. Valencia). sometimes of command or by which to determine his
• There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff
accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age officers; or to a grade or official standing, relative
of the offended party (People v. Mangsant). position in civil or social life, or in any scale of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or manifest any specific insult or disrespect
scale of comparison within a position. towards the sex.
o Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult
required. VI. Not applicable in certain cases
 There being no proof of the specific fact or 1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
circumstance that the accused disregarded the o People v. Ibañez  He could not have been conscious
respect due to the offended party, not does it that his act was done with respect to the offended
appeal that the accused deliberately intended party.
to insult the rank of the victim (People v. Taloy). 2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party
2. of the age of the offended party and the offender.
o The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in o People v. Valencia:
cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old Facts: After a decree of divorce, the wife got the
age. custody of their daughter. The accused wanted to visit
o Deliberate intent to offend or insult required. the kid but the wife didn’t agree. Accused pointed a gun
o Disregard of old age not aggravating in robbery with at the wife and she was injured.
homicide. Held: There still existed some relationship between the
 Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime accused and his divorced wife. The accused had to deal
against property and not against persons. with no other person but with his former wife to visit his
Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery. daughter.
3. Of the sex of the offended party 3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the
o Refers to the female sex commission of the crime.
o No disregard of respect due to sex o Sex is not aggravating in: parricide, rape, abduction, or
 Ex: A and B (f) were sweethearts. B broke up seduction.
with A so A killed her. o This is inherent in the crime of rape and therefore
Held: it was not proved or admitted by the cannot be considered aggravating (People v. Lopez).
accused that when he committed the crime, he Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery
had the intention or disregarded the sex of the  People v. Lapaz  aggravating circumstances of disregard of
victim. sex and age are not absorbed in treachery because treachery
o Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of refers to the manner of the commission of the crime, while
evidence that the accused deliberately intended to disregard of sex and age pertains to the relationship of the
offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed victim.
manifest disrespect to her womanhood.
 Killing a woman is not attended by the VII. That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party
aggravating circumstance if the offender did not
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for  If any of these conditions is not present, the offended party is
rest and comfort. deemed not to have given provocation, and the fact that the
o Combination of house and store or a market stall where crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is an
the victim slept is not dwelling (People v. Magnaye). aggravating circumstance.
 One’s dwelling is a sanctuary worthy of respect and that one There must be close relation between provocation and commission of
who slanders another in the latter’s house is more guilty than crime in the dwelling
he who offends him elsewhere (People v. Balansi).  Aggravating circumstance not applicable if provocation given by
 Basis: greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place the offended party  true only when there exists a close
of the commission of the offense and also because of the relation between the provocation and the commission of the
sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. crime in the dwelling of the person from whom the provocation
What dwelling includes came.
 Includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and enclosure  Because the provocation is not immediate, dwelling is
under the house. aggravating.
 If victim was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder o People v. Dequina
when he was assaulted, the aggravating circumstance of  Facts: Defendant learned that the deceased and
dwelling will not be applicable (People v. Sespene). defendant’s house were maintaining illicit
What aggravates the commission of the crime in one’s dwelling: relations. One night, he went to the house of
1. Abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the the deceased and killed him there. During the
offender by opening the door to him; trial, defendant claimed that deceased gave
2. Trespassing therein with violence or against the will of the provocation because of the illicit affair with his
owner. wife.
When the deceased had two houses where he used to live, the  Held: Provocation (illicit relations) not
commission of the crime in any of them is attended by the aggravating immediate to the commission of the crime and
circumstance of dwelling hence, dwelling is still aggravating. Provocation
did not take place in the house of the deceased.
VIII. Offended party must not give provocation  Owner of dwelling gave immediate provocation – dwelling not
 A condition sine qua non of this circumstance is that the aggravating
offended party “has not given provocation” to the offender. o Having given sufficient provocation, owner of the house
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling lost his right to the respect and consideration due to
 The provocation must be: him in his own house.
o Given by the owner of the dwelling Prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by the offended
o Sufficient party
o Immediate to the commission of the crime.  Provocation cannot be assumed, it must be shown by the
evidence of the prosecution.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 When the dwelling where the crime was committed did not
IX. Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this circumstance belong to the offended party
applies  Ground floor of a two‐storey building where it was not used as a
 It is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, private place of abode or residence
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate Dwelling was found aggravating in the following cases although the
the assault from without. crimes were committed not in the dwelling of the victims
Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating  Boarding house where victim is a bedspacer
provided that the commission of the crime began in the dwelling  Paternal home where they were guests at the time and did not
 The act performed cannot be divided or the unity resulting from reside there
its details be broken up.  House of aunt where victim was living – dwelling may mean
 Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal detention temporary dwelling
o Ex: victim was taken from his or her house and carried  Sleeping as guests in the house of another person
away to another place (dwelling is aggravating) Dwelling is aggravating when the husband killed his estranged wife in
o But not aggravating when deceased was called down the house solely occupied by her
from his house and he was murdered in the vicinity of In case of adultery
the house.  When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the husband,
even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is
X. Whether or not dwelling is aggravating aggravating because besides the latter’s breach of the fidelity
Dwelling not aggravating in the following cases: she owes her husband, she and her paramour violated the
 Both offender and offended party are occupants of the same respect due to the conjugal home and they both thereby injured
house; true even if offender is a servant of the house and committed a very grave offense against the head of the
 Robbery using force upon things since dwelling is inherent house.
o but dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence  Dwelling not aggravating in adultery when paramour also lives
against or intimidation of persons because this class of there
robbery can be committed without the necessity of o Defendants had a right to be in the house
trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house. o Aggravating circumstance present in such case is abuse
o Robbery with homicide – dwelling is aggravating of confidence
o 2 kinds of robbery: with violence against or intimidation Dwelling not included in treachery
of persons and with force upon things in inhabited ____________________
house. PAR. 4: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1) ABUSE OF
 Crime of trespass to dwelling CONFIDENCE OR (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
 Owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate
provocation Note: There are 2 aggravating circumstances in this paragraph.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


I. Basis of Paragraph 4: knife to have sexual intercourse with him. Though
 Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and accused betrayed the confidence reposed to him by the
ways employed. parents of the girl, it did not facilitate the commission of
the crime and hence, it’s not aggravating.
II. FIRST aggravating circumstance: Abuse of confidence  Killing of a child by an amah is aggravated by abuse of
 This circumstance exists only when offended party has given confidence
trust to offender who later abuses this trust by committing a o People v. Caliso  Killer of the child is the domestic
crime. servant of the family and sometimes the deceased
 Abuse of confidence – must be a means of facilitating the child’s amah. Aggravating circumstance of abuse of
commission of the crime. Offender taking advantage of the confidence is present.
offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said  Difference between the Crumb and Caliso case
confidence. o Crumb case: the offended girl could resist, although
Requisites: unsuccessfully, the commission of the crime.
1. Offended party had trusted the offender. o Caliso case: the nine‐month‐old victim could not resist
2. Offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the the commission of the crime.
offended party. The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be
3. Abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime. immediate and personal
Where confidence does not exist  Not applicable when public officer committed estafa against his
 People v. Luchico voters.
o Facts: Master made advances to his female servant. She  Abuse of confidence inherent in some felonies
refused, fled, and the master caught up with her and o Inherent in malversation (Articleicle 217)
committed the crime of rape. When the master raped o Qualified theft (Articleicle 310)
the victim, she had already lost her confidence in him o Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Articleicle
from the moment he made an indecent proposal and 315)
offended her with a kiss. o Qualified seduction (Articleicle 337)
o Held: The confidence must facilitate the commission of
the crime, the culprit taking advantage of offended III. SECOND aggravating circumstance: Ungratefulness must be obvious
party’s belief that the former would not abuse said i.e manifest and clear
confidence. No aggravating circumstance in this case.  Other aggravating circumstance: act be committed with obvious
Special relation of confidence between accused and victim ungratefulness.
 Betrayal of confidence is not aggravating  Examples where this aggravating circumstance is present:
o People v. Crumb  Parents left to the care of the o Accused killed his father‐in‐law whose house he lived
abused their daughter. One day, accused led the and who partially supported him (People v. Floresca).
daughter to an isolated place and threatened her with a
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Accused was living in the house of the victim who Public authorities in the Public authorities in the
employed him as an overseer and in charge of carpentry performance of their duties performance of their duties
work, and had free access to the house of the victim Public authorities in the Public authorities in the
who was very kind to him, his family, and who helped performance of their duties must performance of their duties
him solve his problems (People v. Lupango). be in their office outside of their office
o Security guard killed a bank officer and robbed the bank Public authority may be the Public authority should not be the
(People v. Nismal). offended party offended party
o Victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving
the assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast III. “That the crime be committed in the palace of the chief executive
(People v. Bautista). or in his presence”  Official or religious functions, not necessary.
 Example where this aggravating circumstance is not present:  Place is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or
o Mere fact that the accused and offended party lived in religious functions are held if it is Malacanang palace or a
the same house is not enough to prove abuse of church.
confidence where the house was not property of the  Chief Executive need not be in Malacanang palace. His presence
offended party (People v. Alqueza). alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough to
 Contrast: constitute the aggravating circumstance even if he is not
o Visitor commits robbery or theft in the house of his host engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place where the
o Mariano v. People  the act of stealing property of the crime is committed.
host is considered as committed with abuse of
confidence. IV. “Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
____________________ duties”  Other public authorities must be actually engaged in the
PAR. 5: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF performance of duty
EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE  As regards to the place where the public authorities are
ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES OR IN A PLACE engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some
DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP performance of public functions.
 This aggravating circumstance was appreciated in a crime of
I. Basis of Paragraph 5: murder in an electoral precinct during election day as it is a
 Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the place “where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
commission of the crime, which must be respected. their duties” on such day (People v. Canoy)

II. Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their V. “Or in a place dedicated to religious worship”
duties (par. 5), distinguished from contempt or insult to public  Cemeteries are not such place, however respectable they may
authorities (par.2) be, as they are not dedicated to the worship of God.
Par 5 Par 2
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 This aggravating circumstance was appreciated in a case where which would exclude the possibility of their being considered
the accused shot the victim inside the church or in a case of separately when their elements are distinctly perceived and can
unjust vexation where the accused kissed a girl inside a church subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.
when a religious service was being solemnized (People v. o People v. Cunanan  nighttime and band were
Añonuevo). considered separately.

VI. Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered III. When aggravating
the place  Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating when –
 People v. Jaurigue 1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime.
o Facts: At the time of the commission of the crime, both 2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure
deceased and defendant were inside the chapel. the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
Deceased placed his hand on the thigh of the impunity (People v. Pardo).
defendant, who got her fan knife and stabbed him. 3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the
o Held: There is no evidence to show that the defendant purpose of impunity (US v Billedo).
had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel  To take advantage of a fact or circumstance in committing a
on the fatal night. crime clearly implies an intention to do so. One does not avail
o Ruling also applies in cases of crime committed in oneself of darkness unless on intended to so (People v.
Malacanang palace or where public authorities are Matbagon & People v. Apduhan). Thus, aggravating
engaged in the discharge of their duties. circumstance of nocturnity should be applied when it appears
____________________ that the accused took advantage of the darkness for a more
PAR. 6: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN THE NIGHTTIME OR IN successful consummation of his plans.
(2) AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IV. Test to determine when “such circumstance may facilitate the
commission of the offense”
I. Basis of Paragraph 6: Par. 6 requires only that nighttime, uninhabited place, or band “may
 On the time and place of the commission of the crime and facilitate the commission of the offense”
means and ways employed.  Test fixed by the stature is an objective one.
 Nighttime may facilitate the commission of the crime  crime
II. Should these circumstances be considered as one only or three can be perpetrated unmolested, or interference can be avoided
separately? or there would be greater certainty in attaining the ends of the
 April 5, 1884  Supreme Court of Spain rules that all be treated offender (People v. Matbagon).
as one  Example: Nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime to
 People v. Santos (April 27, 1897)  Former ruling of only one such an extent that the defendant was able to consummate it
aggravating circumstance not an absolute and general rule
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


with all its details without anyone nearby becoming aware of its  “For the purpose of impunity”  means to prevent his
occurrence (People v. Villas). (accused’s) being recognized, or to secure himself against
Meaning of “especially sought for,” “for the purpose of impunity,” and detection and punishment.
"took advantage thereof.” o The crime was attended by the aggravating
 These are other tests for the application of this aggravating circumstance of nighttime because of the silence and
circumstance. darkness of the night which enabled the offender to
 “Especially sought for” take away the girl with impunity – something which he
o Nighttime not especially sought for, when the notion to could not have done in daytime (US v. Yumul).
commit the crime was conceived only shortly before its
commission (People v. Pardo) or when the crime was V. Nighttime
committed at night upon a mere casual encounter  Period of darkness beginning at end of dusk and ending at
(People v. Cayabyab). dawn. Nights are from sunset to sunrise (Articleicle 13, Civil
o Waited for nighttime to commit the crime  especially Code).
sought for (People v. Barredo). Nighttime by and of itself is not an aggravating circumstance.
o Accused lingered for almost 3 hours in the evening at  It becomes so only when it is especially sought for by the
the restaurant before robbing it (People v. Lungbos). offender or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the
o Where it is self‐evident that nighttime was sought to commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from
facilitate the commission of the offense when all the the capture.
members of the household was asleep (People v.  The information must allege that nighttime was sought for or
Berbal), thereby indicating the desire to carry out the taken advantage of by the accused or that it facilitated he
plot with the least detection or to insure its commission of the crime.
consummation with a minimum of resistance from the  The jurisprudence on this subject is to effect that nocturnity
inmates of the house (People v. Atencio). must have been sought or taken advantage of to improve the
o The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to chances of success in the commission of the crime or to provide
better attain their purpose without interference, and to impunity for the offenders.
secure themselves against detection and punishment o Other than the time of the crime, nothing else
(People v. Ong). whatsoever suggests that the aggravating circumstance
 Nighttime need not be specifically sought for when (1) it of nighttime was deliberately availed of by the
facilitated the commission of the offense, or (2) the offender appellants (People v. Boyles).
took advantage of the same to commit the crime o Darkness of the night merely incidental to the collision
o Nocturnity, even though not specially sought, if it between 2 vehicles which caused the heated argument
facilitated the commission of the crime and the accused and the eventual stabbing of the victim, nighttime is not
took advantage thereof to commit it, may be aggravating (People v. Velago).
considered as an aggravating circumstance. Not aggravating when the crime began at daytime
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Nocturnity is not aggravating where there is no evidence that nighttime was sought by the appellant when all the members of
the accused had purposely sought the cover of darkness of the the household were asleep.
night to commit the crime; nor is there evidence that nighttime
facilitated the commission of the crim aside from the fact that VI. Uninhabited place
the scene of the crime was illuminated. What is uninhabited place?
o Crime was a result of a succession of acts, which took  Where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
place within the period of 2 hours from 5pm to 7pm distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a
without a moment of interruption, it cannot be said that great distance from each other.
the thought of nighttime as being the most favorable It is the nature of the place that is decisive (People v. Bangug).
occurred to the accused (People v. Luchico).  Aggravating circumstance should not be considered when the
 Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in place where the crime was committed could not be seen and
the nighttime. the voice of the deceased could be heard from a nearby house.
o Although the safe was disposed of at nighttime, the (People v. Laoto)
theft of the money was during the daytime (US v.  How aggravating circumstance should be determined: whether
Dowdell) or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a
 The offense must be actually committed in the darkness of the reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
night.  Open sea is considered as uninhabited place as no help can be
o Defendants did not intentionally seek nighttime and expected by the victim from other persons and the offenders
they were carrying a light of sufficient brilliance which could easily escape punishment (People v. Nulla).
made it easy for people nearby to recognize them (US v. o The purely accidental circumstance that on the day in
Paraiso) question, another banca, namely, that of the witnesses
o No aggravating circumstance when robbery with for the prosecution, was also at see, is not an argument
homicide was committed at daybreak when they could against the consideration of such aggravating
be recognized (US v. Tampacan). circumstance (People v. Rubia).
 When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is  When the victims are the occupants of the only house in the
not aggravating. place, the crime is committed in an uninhabited place.
o The fact that the place was illuminated by light negates o A place about a kilometer from the nearest house or
the notion that the offenders intentionally sought or another inhabited place is considered an uninhabited
taken advantage the cover of nighttime in order to place (People v. Aguinaldo).
facilitate the crime (People v. Joson).  Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose
 However, The lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlight does o It must appear that the accused sought the solitude.
not negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime (People v. o The offenders must choose the place as an aid either (1)
Rogelio Soriano & People v. Berbal) as it is self‐evident that the to an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their
criminal designs, or (2) to insure concealment of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


offense, that he might thereby be better secured  Not applicable to crimes against chastity.
against detection and punishment. o Not considered in crime of rape by 4 armed persons
(People v. Corpus).
VII. By a band  “By a band” is inherent in brigandage
What is a band? o Aggravating circumstance of armed men should not be
 Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted considered because it is inherent in defining the crime.
together in the commission of an offense (Article 14(6), par.2).
 The armed men must act together in the commission of the VIII. When nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band did not facilitate
crime. the commission of the crime, was not especially sought for, or was not
o Stated in the definition of armed men that they “shall taken advantage of.
act together.”  Facts: 4 armed men casually met another group in an
o There must be more than 3 armed men  Even if there uninhabited place at nighttime. They quarreled and in the heat
are 20 persons, but only 3 are armed, this aggravating of anger, one from the other group was killed. Nighttime,
circumstance by a band cannot be considered. uninhabited place, and by a band are not aggravating
 “Stone” is included in the term “arms” circumstances here.
o There is intention to cause death if the accused throws  Reason: When the offenders attacked the group of the
a stone at the victims (People v. Bautista). deceased in the heat of anger, they could not have taken
If one of the four armed persons is a principal by inducement, they do advantage of such circumstances, and such circumstances could
not form a band. not have facilitated the commission of the crime as well.
 All the armed men, at least 4 in number, must take direct part in ____________________
the execution of the act constituting the crime (Article. 17, par. PAR. 7: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OF A
1, RPC). CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER
When this aggravating circumstance is applicable: CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
 Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in
aggravating circumstance of “by a band.” I. Basis of Paragraph 7:
o Aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their  Reference to the time of the commission of the crime
superior strength and with the use of firearms is
absorbed by the generic aggravating circumstance of II. Reason for the aggravation
the commission of the offense by a band.  Debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a
 “By a band” is aggravating in robbery with homicide calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their
 “By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil
persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason. them.
o Considered in crimes against property and in crimes
against persons. III. The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 If accused was provoked by the offended party to commit the aggravating circumstance when it appears that the
crime during the calamity or misfortune, this aggravating accused did not avail himself of their aid or rely upon
circumstance may not be taken into consideration for the them to commit the crime.
purpose of increasing the penalty because the accused did not  The armed men must take part directly or indirectly.
take advantage of it. o Accused stabbed the deceased to death alone, without
assistance from anyone, even though there were ten
IV. “Chaotic condition” as an aggravating circumstance men armed with daggers, and five without, but these
 “or other calamity or misfortune” – conditions of distress similar men took no part, directly or indirectly, in the
to those precedingly enumerated, that is “conflagration, commission of the crime. The accused therefore did not
shipwreck, earthquake, or epidemic.” avail himself of their aid or rely upon them to commit
 Chaotic conditions after liberation is not included in this the crime (US v. Abaigar).
paragraph (People v. Corpus). But in the case of People v. Examples of “with aid of armed men”
Penjan), the chaotic condition resulting from the liberation of  A secured the services of 3 armed Moros to kill her husband.
San Pablo was considered a calamity. During the act, A held the light and supplied the men with rope
 Development of engine trouble at sea is a misfortune but not while the 3 men clubbed her husband to death. A was charged
within the context of the phrase “other calamity or misfortune” with parricide with the aid of armed men (People v. Hane).
(People v. Arpa).  O and L were prosecuted for robbery with rape. They had
____________________ companions who were armed when they committed the crime.
PAR. 8: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF ARMED It was held that they were guilty of robbery with rape with
MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY. aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men (People v. Ortiz).
 Exceptions:
I. Basis of Paragrapn 8: o Aggravating circumstance shall not be considered when
 Means and ways of committing the crime. both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed.
II. Requisites: o Aggravating circumstance not present when the
1. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in
crime, directly or indirectly. the commission of the crime acted under the same plan
2. Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when and for the same purpose.
the crime was committed (see US v. Abaigar).
IV. “With the aid of armed men” (Par. 8), distinguished from “by a
III. Rule for the application of this circumstance band.” (Par. 6)
 Accused must have availed himself of the aid of armed men. Paragraph 8 Paragraph 6
o Casual presence of armed men near the place where Aid of armed men is present even “By a band” requires more than
the crime was committed does not constitute an if one of the offenders merely three armed malefactors have
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


relied on their aid. Actual aid is not acted together in committing the 4. Offender is convicted of the new offense.
necessary. offense.
III. “At the time of his trial for one crime.”
“Aid of armed men” is absorbed by “employment of a band”  What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the
 It is improper to be separately take into account against the commission of the crime.
accused the aggravating circumstance of (1) the aid of armed  It is not required that at the time of the commission of the
men, and (2) employment of a band in appraising the gravity if crime, the accused should have been previously convicted by
the offense, in view of the definition of band which includes any final judgment of another crime.
group of armed men, provided they are at least 4 in number. Meaning of “at the time of his trial for one crime”
 It is employed in its general sense, including the rendering of
V. “Aid of armed men” includes “armed women” the judgment. It is meant to include everything that is done in
 Aid of armed women is aggravating in kidnapping and serious the course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is
illegal detention (People v. Licop). announced by the judge in open court.
 Some use of arms or show of armed strength is necessary to  No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense
guard a kidnap victim to prevent or discourage escape and so in committed before the offense involved in the prior conviction.
a sense, it may be justly regarded as included in or absorbed by o The accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, estafa
the offense itself (People v. Villanueva). and robbery. Judgments for all three were rendered on
____________________ the same day. He is not a recidivist because the
PAR. 9: THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST. judgment of the first two were not final when he was
tried for the third offense.
I. Basis of Paragraph 9:  People v. Baldera
 Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination o Facts: The accused was convicted of robbery with
to crimes. homicide committed on Dec.23,1947. He was previously
convicted of theft committed on Dec.30,1947.
II. Who is a recidivist? o Held: The accused was not a recidivist
 One who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two felonies is
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime more than 10 years
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code  Recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating
(Articleicle 14(9), Paragraph 2). circumstance no matter how many years have intervened
Requisites: between the first and second felonies.
1. Offender is on trial for an offense.
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime. IV. “Previously convicted by final judgment”
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same
title of the Code.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal PAR. 10: THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED FOR
Procedure  except where the death penalty is imposed, a AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR GREATER
judgment in a criminal case becomes final. PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A
1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or LIGHTER PENALTY.
2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or
served, or I. Basis of Paragraph 10:
3. The accused has applied for probation.  Same as that of recidivism, i.e, the greater perversity of the
 Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal offender as shown by his inclination to crimes.
Procedure  an appeal must be taken within 15 days from
promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from. II. Requisites:
1. Accused is on trial for an offense.
V. The present crime and the previous crime must be “embraced in the 2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the
same title of this Code.” law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more
 When one offense is punishable by an ordinance or special law crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new
and the other by the Revised Penal Code, the two offenses are offense.
not embraced in the same title of the Code. 3. He is convicted of the new offense.
 But recidivism was considered aggravating in a usury case
where the accused was previously convicted of the same III. Reiteracion or Habituality
offense.  In reiteracion or habituality, it is essential that the offender be
o Articleicle 10 – Revised Penal Code as supplementing previously punished, that is, he has served sentence, for an
special laws of a penal character. offense in which the law attached, or provides for an equal or
Examples of crimes embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal greater penalty than that attached by law to the second
Code offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law attaches
 Robbery and theft (Title 10) a lighter penalty.
 Homicide and physical injuries (Title 8)  People v. Villapando  The records did not disclose that the
 The felonies defined and penalized in Book II of Revised Penal accused has been so previously punished. Reiteracion or
Code are grouped in different titles. habituality is not attendant.

VI. Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a IV. “Has been previously punished”
recidivist; but amnesty extinguished the penalty and its effects  Means that the accused previously served sentence for another
 This is the ruling in the case of US v. Sotelo. offense or sentences for other offenses before his trial for the
 Pardon does not prevent a former conviction form being new offense.
considered as an aggravating circumstance.  Second requisite is present:
____________________
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o When the penalty provided by law for the previous the penalty of prision mayor maximum is imposed, there is still
offense is equal to that for the new offense. habituality.
o When the penalty provided by law for the previous Reiteracion or habituality, not always aggravating.
offense is greater.  If penalty is death and the offenses for which the offender has
o Accused served at least two sentences even if the been previously convicted are against property and not directly
penalties provided by law for the crimes are lighter. against persons, courts should exercise its discretion in favor of
“Punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal x x x the accused by not taking this circumstance into account.
penalty.”
 A served sentence for forcible abduction punishable by VI. The four forms of repetition:
reclusion temporal then committed homicide after being 1. Recidivism (Articleicle 14, Par. 9)
released, which is also punishable by reclusion temporal. 2. Reiteracion or habituality (Articleicle 14, Par. 10)
“Punished for an offense to which the law attaches x x x greater 3. Multi‐recidivism or habitual delinquency (Articleicle 62, par. 5)
penalty.” 4. Quasi‐recidivism (Articleicle 160)
 A served sentence for homicide punishable by reclusion Recidivism and reiteracion distinguished
temporal then committed falsification after punishable by a Recidivism Reiteracion
penalty ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Enough that a final judgment has Necessary that the offender shall
 Suppose its falsification first then homicide after? No been rendered in the first offense have served out his sentence for
habituality, because the penalty for the first offense is less than the first offense
that for the second offense. The penalty for the first offense Requires that the offenses be Previous and subsequent offenses
must at least be equal to that for the second offense. included in the same title of the must not be embraced in the same
 Homicide before and homicide after? There is recividism, Code title of the Code.
because the first and the second offenses are embraced in the Always to be taken into Not always an aggravating
same title of the Code. consideration in fixing the penalty circumstance
“Punished xxx for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter to be imposed upon the accused
penalty.”  First 2  generic aggravating circumstances, 3rd is an
 The previous two offenses, the law provides lesser penalties. extraordinary aggravating circumstance. 4th is a special
aggravating circumstance
V. It is the penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually Habitual delinquency
imposed.  There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of
 Article 14, Par. 10  speaks of penalty attached to the offense, 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
which may have several periods. crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
 Even if the accused served the penalty of prision mayor in its estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a
minimum period and is not convicted of an offense for which third time of oftener.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 In habitual delinquency, he is either a recidivist or punished for the other accused for the reason that it was not she who
habituality (two or more crimes). committed the crime in consideration of said price or reward.
 He shall suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual  If the price, reward or promise is alleged in the information as a
delinquent. qualifying aggravating circumstance, it shall be considered
Quasi‐recidivism against all the accused.
• Any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such III. Application of this Paragraph: Price reward or promise must be for
sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new  For this aggravating circumstance to be considered against the
felony. (Articleicle 160) person, inducement must be primary consideration for the
____________________ commission of the of the crime by him (People v. Paredes).
PAR. 11: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONSIDERATION OF A  Evidence must show that one of the accused used money or
PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE other valuable consideration for the purpose of inducing
another to perform the deed (US v. Gamao).
I. Basis for Paragraph 11  If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the
 Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating crime has been committed as an expression of his appreciation
power itself. for the sympathy and aid shown by other accused, it should not
be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the
II. This aggravating circumstance presupposed the concurrence of two penalty (US v. Flores).
or more offenders ____________________
 There must be 2 or more principals, the one who gives or offers PAR. 12: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY MEANS OF
the price or promise, and the one who accepts it. INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR
 Both of whom are principals  to the former, because he INTENTIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT OF A LOCOMOTIVE,
directly induces the latter to commit the crime, the latter OR BY USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND
because he actually commits it. RUIN
Is this paragraph applicable to the one who gave the price or reward?
 YES. It affects not only the person who received the price of the I. Basis of Paragraph 11:
reward but also the person who gave it (US v. Parro). The  Reference to means and ways employed.
aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise thereof
affects equally the offeror and the acceptor (People v. II. Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal
Alincastre) purpose, any of the circumstance in Par. 12 cannot be considered to
BUT this is contrasted by People v. Talledo and Trimbreza increase the penalty or to change the nature of the offense
 But in the case of People v. Talledo and Timbreza, it was held  As generic aggravating circumstance.
that this aggravating circumstance cannot be considered against
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o In a crime of parricide, there is only a generic o If there is an explosion, and the wall is damaged thus
aggravating circumstance, because they cannot qualify endangering the lives of the people there, there is
the crime. damage of property (Articleicle 324).
o When another aggravating circumstance already o If there an explosion and people died, but there was no
qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating intent to kill, it will be a crime involving destruction but
circumstances shall be considered as generic the penalty will be death.
aggravating circumstance only. o If there is intent to kill and explosion is used, there is
 When there is no actual design to kill a person in burning a murder.
house, it is plain arson even if a person is killed. 3. By means of derailment of locomotive
o When the crime intended to be committed is arson and o Articleicle 330  defines and penalizes the crime of
somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply damage to means of communication, derailment of
arson and the act resulting in the death of that person is cars, collision or accident must result from damage to
not even an independent crime of homicide, it being railway, telegraph, or telephone.
absorbed (People v. Paterno). o This is without prejudice to criminal liability of other
o On the other hand, if the offender had the intent to kill consequences of criminal act:
the victim, burned the house where the latter was, and  Damage to means of communication is
the victim dies, the crime is murder, qualified by the committed if property is damaged as a result of
circumstance that the crime was committed “by means the derailment of cars.
of fire.” (Articleicle 248)  If death of a person also results without intent
to kill on part of the offender, it is a complex
III. When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is murder crime of damage to means of communication
1. By means of fire with homicide.
o In order to constitute a murder, there should be an  If there was intent to kill and the death results,
actual design to kill and that the use of fire should be it is murder because the derailment of cars was
purposely adopted as a means to that end (US v. Burns). the means used to kill the victim.
o If the purpose of the explosion, inundation, fire or  If this aggravating circumstance qualifies a
poison is to kill a predetermined person, this crime to murder, it can no longer raise the
aggravating circumstance will not be considered as it is penalty higher. (Articleicle 62, Par.1)
an integral element of the offense. The crime is murder.  It will be noted that each of the circumstances of fire, explosion
o If the house was set on fire after killing the victim, there and derailment of locomotive may be a part of the definition of
would be two separate crimes of arson and murder. particular crime. In these cases, they do not serve to increase
There is no aggravating circumstance “by means of fire”. the penalty, because they are already included by the law in
2. By means of explosion defining the crime.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


IV. Par. 12 distinguished from Par. 7 The premeditation must be “evident”
 Par 12 – crime is committed by means of any of such acts  There must be evidence showing that the accused meditated
involving great waste or ruin. and reflected on his intention between the time (1) when the
 Par 7 – the crime is committed on the occasion of a calamity or crime was conceived and (2) when it was actually perpetrated.
misfortune.  It cannot be merely suspected.
____________________
PAR. 13: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT V. Requisites of evident premeditation
PREMEDITATION 1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
I. Basis of Paragraph 13 determination.
 Ways of committing the crime, because it implies a deliberate 3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
planning of the act before executing it. execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of
II. Illustration of deliberate planning his will.
 A planned to kill B, where his plan could be deduced from the Example: US v. Manalinde (Where 3 requisites were present).
following outward circumstances:  (1st requisite) On a certain date, the accused accepted a
o He caused his co‐accused, C, to be drunk. proposition that he would go huramentado and to kill the 2
o He remarked that he had a grudge against B. persons he would meet.
o He supplied ammunition to C.  (2nd requisite) He undertook the journey to comply and provided
himself with the weapon, which manifests his determination to
III. Evident premeditation may be considered as to principal by commit the crime.
induction  (3rd requisite) He took a journey for a day and a night before
 When A directly induces persons B and C to kill D. killing the victims. Such duration is a sufficient lapse of time.
o The crime, in so far as A is concerned, was committed
with premeditation. VI. FIRST REQUISITE: The date and time when the offender determined
to commit the crime essential
IV. Essence of premeditation  This is because the lapse of time for the purpose of the 3rd
 Is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by requisite is computed from that date and time.
cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a VII. SECOND REQUISITE necessary: Manifest indication of clinging to
calm judgment. culprit’s determination
 Evident premeditation may NOT be appreciated absent any  The premeditation must be based upon external acts and not
proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what presumed from mere lapse of time.
time elapse before it was carried out.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o The criminal intent must be notorious and manifest and  The mere fact as soon as the accused heard that the deceased
the purpose and determination must be plain and have had escaped from stockade he prepared to kill him is insufficient
been adopted after mature consideration on the part of to establish evident premeditation. The proposition was nothing
the persons who conceived and resolved upon the but an expression of his own determination to commit the
perpetration of the crime, as a result deliberation, crime  differ from premeditation (People v. Carillo).
meditation and reflection sometime before commission.  There is no showing that, between the day the threat was given
 The rule is that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation is and the day the killing actually occurred, the appellant made
satisfactorily established only if it is proved that the defendant plans or sought the deceased to accomplish the killing. The
had deliberately planned to commit the crime, and had killing happened when the appellant was plowing the field and
persistently and continuously followed it, notwithstanding that the deceased unexpectedly appeared (People v. Sarmiento).
he had ample time to allow his conscience to overcome the
determination of his will, if he had so desired after meditation VIII. THIRD REQUISITE: Sufficient lapse of time
and reflection (People v. Sarmiento).  When the act was not prompted by the impulse of the moment.
Second requisite exists  When the accused had ample time to make necessary
 It can be said that the offender clung to their determination preparations.
when:  When there was ample time for meditation and reflection and
o Was carefully planned by the offenders. to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
o When the offenders previously prepared the means  When there was sufficient time for desistance.
which they consider adequate to carry out the plan.  When here was sufficient time to reflect upon the
o When the grave was prepared at an isolated place. consequences of the contemplated act.
o When the defendants’ made repeated statements of Existence of ill‐feeling or grudge alone is not proof of evident
their intention and armed themselves accordingly. premeditation
o When the defendant commenced to prepare his  A grudge or resentment is not a conclusive proof of evident
weapon. premeditation.
o When the defendant repeatedly attempted to take the Reason why sufficient time is required
life of the deceased.  To give the offender an opportunity to coolly and serenely think
o Where the accused repeatedly plotted the commission and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what
of murder. he planned to do, an interval long enough for his conscience
Mere threats without the second element does not show evident and better judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme.
premeditation There must be sufficient time between the outward acts and the actual
 A threat to kill, unsupported by other evidence which would commission of the crime
disclose the criminal state of mind of the accused is not a  The mere fact that the accused was lying in wait before the
resolution involved in evident premeditation (People v. attack is NOT sufficient to sustain a finding of evident
Fernandez).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


premeditation, in the absence of proof that he had been lying in It is not necessary that there is a plan to kill a particular person
wait for a substantial period of time.  When after careful and thoughtful meditation, the accused
decided to kill, at the first opportunity, whatever individual he
IX. Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation should meet. Evident premeditation is still present.
 When conspiracy is directly established, the existence of evident Differences in rulings
premeditation can be taken for granted.  1st case: When the offender decides to kill another but kills a
 EXCEPTION: When conspiracy is only implied, evident different person instead, it is not aggravating (Guillen).
premeditation my not be appreciated (in the absence of proof  2nd case: If the offender decides to kill ANY person, it is
as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched). aggravating (See People v. Timbol).
 3rd case: Where the victim belonged to the SAME CLASS, it is
X. Evident premeditation and price or reward can co‐exist aggravating (See US v. Zalos and Ragmacm supra)..
 The aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise may
be taken into consideration independently of the fact that XII. Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be
premeditation has already been considered . aggravating in robbery with homicide IF the premeditation “included”
 Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise (applicable the killing of the victim.
only to the inductor). • If the killing is only incidental because the original plan was only
o The mere fact that another executed the act on the to rob, this aggravating circumstance should be disregarded.
promise of reward does not necessarily mean that he ____________________
had sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of his PAR. 14: THAT (1) CRAFT, (2) FRAUD, OR (3) DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.
act.
I. Basis of Paragraph 14
XI. When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not  Means employed in the commission of the crime
aggravating
 Evident premeditation may not be properly taken into account II. Application of this paragraph
when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was  This circumstance is characterized y the intellectual or mental
different from the one who became his victim. rather than the physical means to which the criminal resorts to
Distinguish the ruling in the Timbol case from that in the Guillen case carry out his design.
 People v. Guillen  When the person killed is different from the
one intended to be killed, evident premeditation may NOT be III. Craft (Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
considered present. accused)
 People v. Timbol  Evident premeditation MAY BE considered  It is chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution
IF it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not of the crime.
only the intended victim but also any one who may help him put  Example:
a violent resistance.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o When the accused pretended to be bona fide How is craft distinguished from fraud?
passengers in the taxicab driven by the diseased in  When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or
order to not arouse his suspicion and then killing him, machinations, fraud is present.
there is craft (People v. Daos).  When the act of the accused was done in order not to arouse
o Accused lures victim out of his house (People v. the suspicion of the victim constitutes craft.
Barbosa) or into a false sense of security to make him
unmindful of the tragedy that would befall him (People VI. Disguise (Resorting to any device to conceal identity)
v. Rodriguez)  Example:
o Craft was used in rape when the accused offered a o Defendant blackened his face in order that he should
drugged but innocent looking chocolate to the victim, not be recognized (US v. Cofrada).
which did not arouse her suspicion, in order to weaken o The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus
and prevent her from resisting (People v. Guy, CA). paving the way for identification does not render the
Craft, when not an aggravating circumstance. aggravating circumstance of disguise inapplicable
 Where craft partakes of an element of the offense, the same (People v. Cabato).
may not be appreciated independently for the purpose of o Use of an assumed name in publication (People v.
aggravation. Adamos).
 Craft is not clearly established where accused and his Disguise, not considered
companions did not camouflage their hostile intentions and  When the disguise was not effective in concealing identity.
even announced their presence with shouts and gunshots  Even though the accused assumed a masquerade his face was
(People v. Cunanan). still recognizable due to their distinct features (People v. Reyes)
The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to conceal his
IV. Fraud (Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to identity
act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his  Muslim turbans are not disguises, since it is not intended to
design) conceal ones identity (US v. Rodriguez).
 Example  Disguise did not facilitate the consummation of the killing, nor
o Where the defendants induced their victims to give up taken advantage of by the malefactors in the course of the
their arms upon a promise that no harm would befall assault. Their mode of attack – i.e. arriving with shouts and
them (US v. Abelinde). gunshots – counteracted whatever deception might have arisen
from their disguise (People v. Cunanan).
V. Hairline distinction between craft and fraud ____________________
 There is craft OR fraud (either can be used) when by trickery, PAR. 15: THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR
accused gained entrance in the victim’s house by pretending (2) MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
they had pacific intentions (People v. Saliling).
I. Meaning of “advantage be taken”
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the  The mere fact of being a superiority of numbers is not sufficient
means of defense available to the person attacked. to bring the case within aggravating circumstance.

II. Illustrations IV. When abuse of superior strength is aggravating
Illustrations of no advantage of superior strength  This aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and
 One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does not strength of the parties.
take advantage of his superior strength.  It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of
 When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was forces between the victim and the aggressor which is taken
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were advantage of him in the commission of the crime.
engaged against each other as man to man. Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of superior
 When the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is no strength
abuse of superior strength (People v. Narciso).  There is no abuse of superior strength where the accused did
Illustrations of abuse of superior strength not cooperate in such a way as to secure advantage from their
 When a strong man has ill‐treated a child, an old decrepit combined strength. They did not exploit their superior strength
person, or one weakened by disease or where a person’s (People v. Ybañez).
physical strength has been overcome by the use of drugs or Instances of abuse of superior strength by numerical superiority
intoxicants.  When the assailants are armed and outnumber the victim.
 Present where the victim who died was a baby, and the other  When the assailants successively and simultaneously assaulted
wounded victims were children aged 5 and 12, because of the the victim and there was marked disparity between the strength
marked difference of physical strength between the offended of the victim and the strength of the aggressors.
parties and the offender.  When the assailants cooperated in such a way as to derive
Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a woman with a advantage from their combined strength.
weapon There is abuse of superior strength when weapon used is out of
 An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an proportion to the defense available to the offended party
unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of  Abuse of strength is present not only when (1) the offenders
superiority which his sex and the weapon used afforded him, enjoy numerical superiority or (2) there is a notorious inequality
and which the woman is unable to defend herself. of force between the victim and the aggressor;
 No abuse of superior strength in parricide against the wife. That  But also (3) when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is
the victim is a woman is inherent in parricide. out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party
 Simultaneous attack by two persons with revolvers against a
III. Evidence of relative physical strength necessary defenseless person is aggravated by superior strength (US v.
 There must be evidence that the accused were physically Bañagale).
stronger and that they abused such superiority. There is no abuse of superior strength when one acted as principal and
the other two as accomplices
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 It must appear that the accused cooperated together in some VI. “Means employed to weaken defense”
way designed to weaken the defense. This would make them  Example
guilty in the character of principals. o When one suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter’s
When there is an allegation of treachery, superior strength is absorbed eyes and then wounds or kills him (People v. Siaotong).
 Like nighttime, superior strength is inherent in treachery. Intoxicating the victim to weaken defense
Abuse of the superior strength is aggravating in coercion and forcible  This is for the purpose of materially weakening the latter’s
abduction, when greatly in excess of that required to commit the resisting power.
offense  If the state of intoxication is such that the victim cannot put up
 Although the commission of the crime of coercion or forcible any sort of defense, treachery may be considered
abduction presupposes superiority of force on the part of the
offenders, Yet when the strength availed of is greatly in excess VII. Applicable only to crimes against persons, etc.
of that required for the realization of the offense, as where the  This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons,
offenders were very much superior to the complainant and sometimes against person and property, such as robbery
Other crimes in which abuse of superior strength is aggravating with physical injuries or homicide (i.e. robbery with homicide).
 Illegal detention (Article 267 and 268) Means to weaken the defense absorbed in treachery
 Robbery with rape  In People v. Guy, employing means to weaken the defense is not
 Robbery with homicide the aggravating circumstance. It is craft.
____________________
V. The circumstance of “by a band” and that of “abuse of superior PAR. 16: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA).
strength, “distinguished
 Element of band is appreciated when the offense is committed I. Basis of Paragraph 16
by more than 3 armed malefactors regardless of the  Means and ways employed in the commission of the crime.
comparative strength of the victim.
o Requires: (1) at least four (2) all 4 are armed. II. Meaning of treachery
 In superior strength, what is taken into account is “not” the  When the offender commits any of the crimes against the
number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed BUT person employing means, methods or forms in the execution
their relative physical might vis‐à‐vis the offended party. thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
Aggravating circumstances absorbing band without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
 Abuse of superiority absorbs cuadrilla. offended party might make.
 The two concepts should NOT be treated separately and distinct  It means that the offended party was not given opportunity to
from abuse of superior strength. make a defense.
 The aggravating circumstance of by a band is absorbed in  Treachery is present when the attack is:
treachery. o Sudden
o Unexpected
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Without warning  Exceptions:
o Without giving the victim an opportunity to defend o When the victim was tied even without a witness (US v.
himself or repel the aggression Santos).
o Made when the deceased did not sense any danger as o In the killing of a child even if the manner of attack is
there was no grudge or misunderstanding not shown (People v. Retubado).
RULE 3: The mode of attack must be consciously adopted
III. Rules regarding treachery  Based on the words “employing, directly and specially”.
RULE 1: Applicable only to crimes against persons  This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill
 Based on the phrase “crime against the person”. the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the
RULE 2: It is not necessary that the mode of attack insures the crime or to make it impossible for the person to defend himself
consummation of offense  The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender and
 It is necessary only to insure its execution NOT accomplishment. must not spring from the unexpected turn of events
o It is sufficient that it tends to an intended end.  Examples where treachery is PRESENT:
 The treacherous character of the means employed does not o Act of shooting the victim at a distance, without the
depend upon its consummation otherwise there would be no least expectation on his part that he would be
attempted or frustrated murder qualified by treachery. assaulted.
 Treacherous character of the offense is dependent on the o The accused made a deliberate, surprise attack on the
MEANS itself, in connection with the aggressor’s purpose. victim.
 Treachery cannot be presumed o When the victims hands were raised and he was
o It is necessary that the existence of this qualifying or pleading for mercy with one of the assailants when
aggravating circumstance should be proven as fully as another struck him.
the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability or o When the assailant strategically placed himself in a
penalty incurred by the culprit. forested area and fired at the unsuspecting victim at a
 Illustrations – NO treachery in the following cases: distance.
o When no particulars are known to the commission of o When the victim was tied and gagged before being
the crime as the wound which resulted into the death of stabbed.
victim could have been accidental (US v. Perdon). o When the attack was deliberate, sudden, unexpected
o When the meeting of the victim and the assailant was from behind.
only accidental (People v. Velaga). o When the attack was made without warning.
o Where no witness saw how the deceased was shot  Examples where treachery is NOT present
(People v. Tiozon). o A frontal encounter without deliberate surprise attack.
o When the witness did not see how it all began and could o When the malefactors have him an ominous warning.
not provide details (People v. Narit). o When the accused did not camouflaged their intentions.
o Where the attack was frontal (People v. Tugba).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o When there is nothing in the record to show that the VI. Requisites of treachery
accused had pondered upon the mode or method to 1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
insure the killing or remove risk to himself. defend himself.
o When there is no evidence that the accused had, prior 2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
to the moment, resolved to commit the crime or there is method or form of attack employed by him.
no proof that the death of the victim was the result of The victim was not in a position to defend himself
meditation, calculation or reflection.  Examples:
 Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to constitute o When the victim was made to lie face down with hands
treachery, it must be deliberately chosen too. tied at the back (People v. Saquing).
 That the mode of attack was consciously adopted may be o When the victim was shot from behind (People v.
inferred from the circumstances. Berzuela).
o When the victim was shot while blindfolded (People v.
IV. Where the meeting between the accused and the victim is casual Jakosalem).
and the attack impulsively done, there is NO treachery o When the victim was ambushed in the dark.
 Treachery cannot be appreciated where there is nothing in the  There is treachery when the offenders made a deliberate
record to show that the accused had pondered upon the mode surprise or unexpected attack on the victim
or method to insure the killing of the deceased or remove or  There is NO treachery when the victim was already defending
diminish any risk to himself that might arise from the defense himself when he was attacked by the accused
that the deceased might make.  The fact that advantage was taken of relative confusion, so that
 Main characteristics: deliberate, sudden and unexpected the act and identity of the offender would not be detected, and
o Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to so that his escape would be facilitated DOES NOT adequately
constitute treachery. Such method or form of attack establish treachery.
must be deliberately chosen by the accused. Treachery does not connote the element of surprise alone
 Where the meeting between the accused and the victim is  Mere sudden and unexpected attack does not necessary give
casual and the attack impulsively done, there is not treachery rise to treachery. It could have been done on impulse, as a
reaction to an actual or imagined provocation offered by the
V. Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk (See p.447‐450) victim.
 Victim asleep
 Victim half‐awake or just awakened VII. Instances where treachery may or may not exist:
 Victim grappling or being held  When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare,
 Attack from behind there was no treachery.
o With a firearm  No treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning.
o With a bladed weapon o Calling attention of the victim not necessarily a warning.
 No treachery where shooting is preceded by heated discussion
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o This allows the victim to insure their safety before the IX. Must treachery be present at the beginning of the assault?
attack of the defendants.  It depends on the circumstances of the case
o Killing unarmed victim whose hands are upraised is  General rule: It must be shown that the treacherous acts were
committed with treachery. present and preceded the commencement of the attack which
o Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with caused the injury complained of.
treachery.  Exception: Even though in the inception of the aggression which
 There is treachery in killing a child ended in the death of the deceased, treachery was not present,
o This is so because the weakness of the victim due to his if there was a break in the continuity of the aggression and at
tender age. the time the fatal wound was inflicted on the deceased he was
 Intent to kill is not necessary in murder with treachery. defenseless, the circumstance of treachery must be taken into
o There is no incompatibility, moral or legal, between account.
aleviosa and the mitigating circumstance of not having Summary of the rules
intended to cause so great an injury (Article 13)  When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present
o But intent to kill is necessary in murder committed by at the beginning of the assault (People v. Cañete; p.461).
means of fire.  When the assault not continuous, in that there was an
 Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to face interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present at the
o This is possible where it appears that the attack was not moment the fatal blow was given (US v. Baluyot; p. 462).
preceded by a dispute and the offended party was
unable to prepare himself for defense. X. In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim was
 Flashing the beam of a flashlight on the face of victim the same person whom the accused intended to kill
o This momentarily blinds the victim and is aggravating  The purely accidental circumstance that as a result of the shots,
even if the attack was frontal and sudden a person other than the one intended was killed, does NOT
 If the intervention of the other persons did not directly and modify the nature of the crime nor lessen his criminal
especially insure the execution of the crime without risk to the responsibility.
accused, there is no treachery  Treachery may be taken into account despite mistake in
identity.
VIII. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence  The reason for this rule is that when there is treachery, it is
 Treachery is not to be presumed. There must be a clear showing impossible for either the intended victim or the actual victim to
from the narration of facts why the attack is said to be sudden. defend himself against the aggression
 Clear and convincing evidence is necessary.
Attack from behind is not always alevosia XI. When treachery is not to be considered as to the principal by
 It is necessary that the attack from behind was consciously induction
adopted and diminished risk to the offender  When it is NOT shown that the principal induced the killer to
adopt the means or methods actually used, because the former
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


left to the latter the details as to how it was to be accomplished, XIV. What is absorbed in treachery?
treachery CANNOT be taken into consideration as to the  Treachery absorbs (1) abuse of superior strength, (2) aid of
principal by induction. armed men, (3) by a band (4) nighttime (5) means to weaken
 It shall aggravate the liability of the actual killer ONLY. the defense (6) craft (7) murder by poison and (8) Age and sex
 When nighttime is not absorbed in treachery
XII. Treachery, abuse of superior strength, and means employed to o Since treachery rests upon an independent factual basis,
weaken the defense, distinguished the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed therein,
 In treachery, means, methods or forms of attack are employed but can be perceived distinctly therefrom.
to make it impossible or hard for the offended party to put up  Craft is included in and absorbed by treachery
any sort of defense. o Craft is included in and absorbed by the qualifying
 In abuse of superior strength, the offender does not employ circumstance of treachery, because it was used to
means, methods or forms of attack; he only takes advantage of insure the commission of the crime without risk to the
his superior strength. culprits.
 In means employed to weaken the defense, the offender, like in o When craft was employed in robbery with homicide,
treachery, employs means but the means employed only not with a view to make treachery more effective as
weakens the defense. nighttime or abuse of superior strength would in the
killing of the victim, it is NOT absorbed in treachery.
XIII. When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the  Age and sex are included in treachery
offenders.  Dwelling is not included in treachery
 Treachery should be considered against all persons participating  Defenseless condition of victims is included in abuse of
or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime, except when superior strength, not treachery.
there is no conspiracy among them.  Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength
 Treachery should be considered against “those persons who had are absorbed in Treason by killings.
knowledge” of the employment of treachery at the time of the  Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.  Treachery cannot co‐exist with passion or obfuscation
The mastermind should have knowledge of the employment of o In passion or obfuscation, the offender loses his reason
treachery if he was not present when the crime was committed and self‐control.
 The rule is that every conspirator is responsible for the acts of o In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously
the others in furtherance of the conspiracy adopted.
 Treachery should be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance against the mastermind even when he was absent ____________________
during the crime. PAR. 17: THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT
ABOUT WHICH ADD IGOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OR THE ACT.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


I. Basis of Paragraph 17: are condemned and their perpetration will be regarded as
 Means employed aggravating circumstances of ignominy.
____________________
II. Ignominy: a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds PAR. 18 THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN UNLAWFUL
disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime ENTRY.

III. Applicability: I. Basis of Paragraph 18:
1. Crimes against chastity,  Means and ways employed to commit the crime.
2. Less serious physical injuries,
3. Light or grave coercion, and II. Meaning of unlawful entry
4. Murder  There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a
way not intended for the purpose.
IV. “That means be employed”
 Example: wrapping the genital with cogon before rape to III. To effect entrance, not for escape
increase pain (People v. Torrefiel, et al., CA)  Unlawful entry must be a means to effect the entrance and not
for escape.
V. “That x x x circumstances be brought about.”
 Example: Where one rapes a married woman in the presence of IV. Reason for aggravation
her husband (US v. Iglesia) or betrothed (US v. Casañas).  One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard
their property and provide for their personal safety, shows a
VI. “Which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act” greater perversity.
 Means that the means or circumstances make the crime more
humiliating or to put the offended party to shame. V. Application of this circumstance
 It is incorrect to appreciate adding ignominy to the offence  Examples
where the victim is already dead when his body was o When rape is committed in a house after an entry
dismembered (People v. Carmina). through the window.
No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his wife  Unlawful entry is one of the ways of committing robbery with
 Because no means was employed nor did any circumstance force upon things.
surround the act tending to make the effects of the crime more  If the crime charged in the information was only theft, and the
humiliating (US v. Abaigar). prosecution proved unlawful entry, it is only a generic
Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide. aggravating circumstance (not robbery with force upon things).
 Though it is not specifically enumerated in Article 14, rape, Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders committed in
wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties a dwelling

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling PAR. 20: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) WITH THE AID OF
 Trespass to dwelling is committed when a private individual PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE, OR (2) BY MEANS OF MOTOR
shall enter the dwelling of another against the will of the latter VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS.
and may be committed by means of violence (Art. 280)
____________________ I. Basis of Paragraph 20:
PAR. 19: THAT AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, A  Means and ways employed to commit the crime.
WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.
II. Two different aggravating circumstances in paragraph 20
I. Basis of Paragraph 19:  First one tends to repress the frequent practice resorted to by
 Means and ways employed to commit the crime. professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking
 Aggravating circumstance of forcible entry advantage of their irresponsibility.
o Cutting of the canvas of the tent where soldiers are  Second one is intended to counteract the great facilities found
sleeping is covered by par. 19 (US v. Matanug). by modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee
and abscond once the same is committed.
II. “As a means to the commission of a crime.”
 It is not necessary that the offender should have entered the III. “With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age”
building. What aggravates the liability of the offender is the  Facts: A caused 14‐year‐old B to climb the wall of the house of
breaking of a part of the building as a means to the commission C, to enter through the window and steal items. B threw them
of the crime. outside and A retrieved them.
 Held: Par. 20 should be taken as an aggravating circumstance.
III. To effect entrance only
 The circumstance is aggravating ONLY in those cases where the IV. “By means of motor vehicles”
offender resorted to any of said means to enter the house. If the  Means that the vehicle is used (1) in going to the place of the
wall is broken in order to get out of the place, it is NOT an crime, (2) in carrying away the effects thereof and (3) in
aggravating circumstance. facilitating their escape.
 If the motor vehicle was used ONLY in facilitating the escape, it
IV. Where breaking of door or window is lawful should NOT be an aggravating circumstance. It should facilitate
 Rule 113, Section 11 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) An the commission of the crime.
officer … may break into any building in making arrests.  Estafa, which is committed by means of deceit or abuse of
 Rule 126, Section 7 (RCP) An officer may break open any outer confidence, cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle.
or inner door or window to execute a warrant.  Theft, which is committed by merely talking personal property
____________________ which need not be carried away, cannot be committed by
means of motor vehicles.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Examples of crimes committed by means of motor vehicle IV. “Be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong.”
 Forcibly taking and carrying away a woman by means of an  This phrase means that the accused at the time of the
automobile is aggravated forcible abduction. commission of the crime had deliberate intention to prolong the
 When the accused hires a taxi where he stabs his victim. suffering of the victim.

V. “Or other similar means” V. “Other wrong not necessary for its commission”
 The expression should be understood as referring to motorized  Facts: A and B struck C with their guns to make him point the
vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to place where he was keeping his money.
automobile or airplane.  Held: There was “other wrong” but it necessary for the
 Vehicles that are motorized (bicycles are not included) commission of the crime of robbery. No cruelty.

____________________ VI. Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely intended by
PAR. 21: THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME offender
BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT  This requires deliberate prolongation of the physical suffering of
NECESSARY FOR IT’S COMMISSION. the victim.
 Cruelty cannot be presumed.
I. Basis of Paragraph 21: When the series of acts causing unnecessary sufferings of victim took
 Ways employed in committing the crime. place in rapid succession, there may be no cruelty
 The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a
II. Cruelty: when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim person in order to cause his death, no appreciable time
suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the intervening between the infliction of one wound and that of
consummation of the criminal act. another to show that the offender wanted to prolong the
 It is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, is NOT sufficient for taking this
suffering of the victim. aggravating circumstance into consideration.
Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty
III. Requisites of cruelty:  In the absence of a showing that the other wounds found on the
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing body of the victim were inflicted to prolong his suffering before
other wrong. the fatal wound was dealt, it cannot be concluded that cruelty
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the was duly proven.
purpose of the offender. No cruelty when other wrong was done after the victim was dead
 For cruelty to be appreciated, it must be proven that the
wounds were inflicted while the victim was still alive in order to
prolong physical suffering.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


VII. Ignominy distinguished from cruelty
 Ignominy involves moral suffering
 Cruelty refers to physical suffering
Rapes, robbery and other forms of cruelties are aggravating
circumstances of ignominy and cruelty in treason
 Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of
cruelties are condemned and their perpetration will e regarded
as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of cruelty.
____________________
Aggravating circumstance peculiar to certain felonies.
 Nighttime peculiar in violation of domicile (Art 128)
 When direct assault is committed with a weapon or by a public
officer or when the offender the offender lays hands upon a
person in authority (Art 148)
 Cruelty peculiar in slavery (Art 272)
 When grave threats be made in writing or through a middleman
(Art 282)
 When robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
(except robbery with homicide or rape) is committed in an
uninhabited place or by a band (Art 295)
 If the robbery with the use of force upon things is committed in
an uninhabited place (Art 300)

CLASS DISCUSSION
Par. 18:
 If the entry was gained by unhinging the door the home. Would
that constitute unlawful entry under Par.18? Or would it
constitute forcible entry under Par.19?

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE ONE – FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL I. The alternative circumstances are:
LIABILITY 1) Relationship
CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES 2) Intoxication
3) Degree of Instruction and education of the offender
Article 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those,
which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating II. Relationship  The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other taken into consideration when the offended party is:
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, a) Spouse
intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the b) Ascendant
offender. c) Descendant
d) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into e) Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, Other relatives included
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or  Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter included
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and descendant.
 Adoptive parent and adopted child similar to ascendant and
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a descendant.
mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in  BUT uncle and niece is not covered.
a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the When mitigating and when aggravating
plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or  General rule: the relationship is mitigating in crimes against
intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. property:
o Robbery (Article 294‐302)
POINTS o Usurpation (Article 312)
I. Alternative Circumstances o Fraudulent insolvency (Article 314)
 Definition: Those which must be taken into consideration as o Arson (Article 321‐322, 325‐326)
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of  General Rule: It is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases
the crime and other conditions attending its commission. where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than
the offender, or when the offender and the offended party are
II. Basis: relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, brother‐in‐law, a
 The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions half‐brother, or adopted brother.
attending its commission.  No criminal but only civil liability shall result from the
____________________ commission of the crime of (1) Theft, (2) Swindling (3) Malicious
mischief.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o If committed or caused mutually by spouses, offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the
ascendants, descendants, or relatives by affinity in the offended party.
same line; brothers and sisters and brothers‐in‐law and  This is because of the nature and effect of the crime committed.
sisters‐in‐law, if living together. However, the rule may differ depending on attending
If the crime against persons is any of the serious physical injuries, the circumstances.
fact that the offended party is a descendant of the offender is NOT o US v. Ancheta  brother‐in‐law killed due to his
mitigating. adulterous relationships with the wife of the accused 
 When the crime against the persons is any of the serious relationship mitigating although the general rule is that
physical injuries (Article 263), even if the offended party is a such relationship is supposed to be aggravating.
descendant of the offender, relationship is aggravating. o US v. Velarde  with the desire to subdue his brother‐
o Article 263 provides a higher penalty for the in‐law who was then suffering an attack of insanity,
commission of serious physical injuries against persons accused struck him with a club and exceeded the limits
enumerated in Article 264 (father, mother, or child of his discretion in the heat of the struggle 
whether legitimate or illegitimate, any of his ascendants relationship is mitigating.
or descendants, or spouse).
 When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical III. Intoxication
injuries, the ordinary rule applies. General Rule:
o Mitigating if the offender is of lower degree.  Mitigating: (1)if intoxication is not habitual or (2) if intoxication
o Aggravating if the offender is of higher degree. is not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
 BUT when the crime against persons is homicide or murder,  Aggravating: (1) if intoxication is habitual; or (2) if it is
relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).
relative of lower degree. “When the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication”
o Relationship is aggravating when the stepmother killed  For an accused to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
her stepdaughter (People v. Portento). intoxication, it must be shown that (a) at the time of the
Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of
 Where the son‐in‐law believing his wife to be at her father’s alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a
house attempted to force an entry, relationship is mitigating. certain degree of control and (b) that such intoxication is not
Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when relationship habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
is an element of the offense.  Accused’s state of intoxication must be proved.
 Parricide, adultery, concubinage. o Once intoxication is established by satisfactory
In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating. evidence, absent contrary proof it is presumed to be
 In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, non‐habitual or unintentional.
relationship is always aggravating, regardless of whether the  Drunkenness must affect mental faculties
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o The RPC says nothing about the degree of intoxication Lack of instruction as mitigating
needed to mitigate; but obviously to produce such  Article 15 applies only to him who really has not received any
effect, it must diminish the agent’s capacity to know the instruction.
injustice of his acts,a nd his will to act accordingly.  Lack of sufficient intelligence is required in illiteracy.
“When the intoxication is habitual” o Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the
 A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use offender is a city resident who knows how to sign his
of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed. name (People v. Cabrito).
o Unnecessary that such habit is daily).  Lack of instruction must be directly and positively proved by the
“Or subsequent to the plan to commit a felony” defense.
 Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating when  The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the first
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. time in the appellate court.
 Evidence for intoxication to be aggravating  Ordinarily mitigating in all crimes
o Evidence that the intoxication was habitual, intentional o Exception: treason, murder, crimes against chastity,
or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony must be crimes against property such as estafa, theft, robbery,
proved by the prosecution. arson.
Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication o The exception to the exception depends on attending
 As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in the fact that circumstances.
when a person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of  Murder mitigated by low degree of instruction
will power is impaired. because it caused accused to believe in
 As an aggravating circumstance, because it is intentional, the witchcraft (People v. Laolao).
reason is that the offender resorted to it in order to bolster his High degree of instruction as aggravating
courage to commit a crime.  Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed
o It is aggravating when habitual because the constant himself or took advantage of it in committing the crime.
use of intoxicating liquor lessens the individual o Doctor using his knowledge prepared a certain kind of
resistance to evil thoughts and undermines the will poison that would avoid detection.
power making himself a potential evildoer against
whose activities, society has the right for its own V. Non‐habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and obfuscation are
protection to impose a more severe penalty. not to be taken separately
 As non‐habitual intoxication implies a disturbance of the
IV. Degree of Instruction and education of the offender reasoning powers of the offender, his lack of instruction cannot
 Low degree of instruction and education or lack f it is generally have any influence over him, and obfuscation which has the
mitigating. High degree of instruction and education is same effect on his reasoning powers cannot be considered
aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his learning in independently of non‐habitual intoxication.
committing the crime.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


CLASS DISCUSSION
Situationers
 Member of a cultural minority gets coconuts from what he
believes is part of his ancestral domain. However, the land was
titled to someone else. Is low degree of education mitigating?
 Accountant took a chance to get more petticash than was
actually asked by his/her boss. Did she take advantage of her
position?
o Possible answer: She wouldn’t have been entrusted
with all these things if she wasn’t an accountant.
 Position of financial adviser could be aggravating.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE TWO – PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES 3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies
(Article 16).
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally 4. Accessories are not liable for light felonies even if they are
liable for grave and less grave felonies: committed against persons or property (Article 16).
1. Principals
2. Accomplices IV. Active subject and passive subject of crime
3. Accessories  Active subject (criminal)
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: o Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime
1. Principals because of the highly personal nature of the criminal
2. Accomplices responsibility.
 Only natural persons because he along by his
POINTS act can set in motion a cause of by his inaction
I. Treble of Division of persons criminally liable make possible the completion of a modification
 The treble division of persons criminally liable for an offense of the external world.
rests upon the very nature of their participation in the  Only natural persons can act with malice
commission of the crime.  Juridical persons cannot commit crimes with
 When a crime is committed by many, without being equally willful purpose or malicious intent.
shared by all, a different degree of responsibility is imposed  Penalties consisting in imprisonment or
upon each and every one of them. In that case, they are deprivation of liberty can only be executed on
criminally liable either as principals, accomplices or natural persons
accessories. o Juridical persons, however, are criminally liable under
certain special laws.
II. Accessories are not liable for light felonies  Officers, not the corporation, are criminally
 Reason: in the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as liable.
well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is  As a general rule, a director or other officer of a
deemed not necessary for accessories. corporation is criminally liable for his acts
though in his official capacity, if he participated
III. Rules relative to light felonies: in the unlawful act either directly or as an aider,
1. Light felonies are punishable only hen they have been abettor or accessory, but is not liable criminally
consummated (Article 7). for the corporate acts performed by other
2. But when the light felonies are committed against persons or officers or agents thereof.
property, they are punishable even if they are only in the  It is a settled rule that since a corporation can
attempted or frustrated stage of execution. Only principals and only act through its officers and agents, the
accomplices are liable for light felonies (Article 7).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


president or manager can be held criminally PAR 1: THOSE WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE
liable for the violation of a law by the entity. ACT.” (Principals by direct participation.)
 Passive subject (injured party)
o The passive subject of a crime is the holder of the I. “Take a direct part in the execution of the act.”
injured right: the man, the juristic person, the state.  Principal by direct participation personally takes part in the
o General Rule: Corpse or animal cannot be passive execution of the act constituting the crime.
subject. As such, the dead and animals have no rights  Ex. One who shoots at and kills another (homicide) or one who
that may be injured. burns the house of another (arson) personally executes the act
o Exception: Article 353, the crime of defamation may be of killing another or the act of burning the house of another.
committed if the imputation tends to blacken the  The one who orders or induces another to commit a crime is a
memory of one who is dead. principal by induction while the other who follows the order and
executes the act constituting the crime is a principal by direct
Article 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals: participation. (People v. Lao)
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; II. Two or more offenders as principals by direct participation.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by  Two or more persons may take direct part in the execution of
another act without which it would not have been the acts constituting crime – principals by direct participation.
accomplished. Requisites for two or more persons to be considered as principals by
direct participation: (“co‐principals”)
POINTS 1. That they participated in the criminal resolution;
Two or more persons participating in the crime. 2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its
 Single individual committing a crime is always a principal by execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
direct participation (take direct part in the execution of the act).
 (par 1.) principal by direct participation III. First requisite – Participation in the criminal resolution.
(par 2.) principal by induction  Two ore more persons are said to have participated in the
(par 3.) principal by indispensible cooperation criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of
the commission of the crime.
Difference between a principal under any of the three categories  When there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and
enumerated in Article 17 and a co‐conspirator. intention in the commission of the crime – a person may be
 Principal in Article 17: criminal liability is limited to his own acts convicted for the criminal act of another.
 Co‐conspirator: (his) responsibility includes the acts of his fellow A. Conspiracy.
conspirators (People v. Peralta)  A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
____________________ agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it (Article 8., Par. 2).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 The conspiracy in this first requisite is not a felony but only a without previous knowledge of the criminal purpose (People v.
manner of incurring criminal liability. Cruz)
To be a party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to o People v. Ortiz and Zausa
participate in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the  Facts: Bancoyo (deceased) and Ortiz have known each other
common design and purpose. for a long time because their wives were sisters. After gathering
 To hold an accused guilty as co‐principal by reason of corn from the fields, Bancoyo asked Ortiz from outside his
conspiracy: it must be established that he performed an overt house for some water but Ortiz said that they couldn’t give him
act in furtherance of the conspiracy either by actively water because they had none. Bancoyo asked again to which
participating in the actual commission of the crime or by lending Ortiz replied that they had no water so he cannot compel them
moral assistance to his co‐conspirators by his presence at the to give him some water and immediately descended from his
scene of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the house carrying a shotgun and pointed it at Bancoyo. Bancoyo,
rest of the conspirators to move them into executing the seeing the aggressive attitude of Ortiz, flung himself over Ortiz
conspiracy. (People v. Cortez) and they struggled for the weapon. Zausa, when she saw this,
 Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act w/o was inside the house and grabbed her spear and rushed outside
cooperation or agreement to cooperate – not enough to and attacked Bancoyo by stabbing him on the left side of his
constitute one party to a conspiracy – there must be intentional abdomen and his intestines protruded. Bancoyo died of
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of peritonitis that night.
the common design and purpose. (People v. Izon)  Held: Ortiz should be acquitted because he did not take part
Silence does not make one a conspirator. in the attack of Zausa because it appears that there was no plan
 Silence is not a circumstance indicating participation in the or agreement between them to carry out the attach that caused
same criminal design. (People v. Gensola) Bancoyo’s death. Also, barely a few seconds elapsed which
Conspiracy transcends companionship. interval in insufficient to give rise to the criminal agreement.
 The fact that the two accused may have happened to leave  In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a
together, and one of them left a closing warning to the victim, crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts
cannot instantly prove a finding of conspiracy. (People v. directed against the same person is individual and not collective
Padrones) – each of the participants is liable only for the acts committed
Participation in the criminal resolution essential. by himself (United States v. Reyes and Javier).
 It is not enough that a person participated in the assault made o United States v. Reyes and Javier  There was no concerted
by another in order to consider him a co‐principal in the crime action between Javier and Reyes even though Javier was holding
committed. He must also participate in the criminal resolution the offended party and Reyes suddenly and unexpectedly
of the other. inflicted mortal wounds on said offended party. It was held that
 Cooperation which the law punished: assistance which is Javier was neither a principal nor an accomplice of the crime of
knowingly or intentionally given and which is not possible homicide convicted of Reyes because he had no reason to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


believe that Reyes would do a homicidal attack and that in confirmatory of the evidence independent therefrom (People v.
holding the off. Party he was voluntarily cooperating therein Castelo)
 In cases above: no anterior conspiracy = no unity of purpose and  Two or more extrajudicial confessions given separately,
intention immediately before the commission of the crime; their untainted by collusion, and which tally with one another in all
criminal responsibility is individual material respects, are admissible as evidence of the conspiracy
 In the absence of concerted action pursuant to a common of the declarants. (People v. bernardo)
criminal design, each of the accused – responsible only for the  To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proofs to
consequences of his own acts. the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime – it is
o Araneta, Jr. v. CA  The accused who inflicted the mortal sufficient that the malefactors shall have acted in concert
wound was held guilty of murder while the other assailants are pursuant to the same objective. (People v. San Luis)
only guilty of slight physical injuries/less serious physical Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several persons
injuries. not necessary in conspiracy.
 In conspiracy, no formal agreement among the conspirators is
B. Existence of conspiracy. necessary, not even previous acquaintance among themselves –
 Existence of conspiracy does not require an agreement for an sufficient that their minds meet understandingly to bring about
appreciable length of time prior to the execution of its purpose. an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense
From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists is at the time of the charged.
commission of the offense the accused had the same purpose  Sufficient that at the time of the aggression all accused
and were united in its execution. (People v. Binasing) manifested in their acts a common intent or desire to attack to
 Conspiracy arises on the very instant that the plotters agree so that the act of one becomes the act of all (People v. Gupo).
expressly or impliedly to commit the felony and forthwith  Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence (need not be
decide to pursue it. – each and everyone of the conspirators is shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in
made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by express terms to enter into and pursue a common design) – can
anyone of them. (People v. Monroy) be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances when taken
together indicate they are parts of a complete whole
C. Proof of conspiracy. o Example: Two or more persons aimed at the
 Direct evidence of conspiracy: interlocking judicial confessions accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
of several accused and the testimony of one accused who is doing a part so that their acts even though apparently
discharged and made a witness against his co‐accused who did independent were connected and cooperative, showing
not make any confession. a closeness of personal assoc. and concurrence of
 In the absence of any collusion among the declarants, their sentiment – a conspiracy may be inferred though no
confessions may form a complete picture of the whole situation actual meeting among them is proved (People v. Mateo)
and may be considered collectively as corroborative and/or  People v. Garduque  All the accused were already armed
when they met, they went together in a jeep to the house
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


where they robbed the offended party and raped his maids – participations in the felonious act. (Two of which are only liable
their conspiracy is implied even though some of the accused as accomplices.)
were only there to show the location of the house  People v. Madera  Two appellants not co‐principals nor
 People v. Catubig  Offenders were all present at the scene of accomplices – they were not armed, did nothing to help co‐
the crime, acted in concert in attacking, assaulting, beating, appellant, mere passive presence at scene of the crime (they
chasing, and stabbing the victims and robbing them then fleeing were just standing behind co‐appellant when he shot victim)
going to their separate ways – they showed through their Conspiracy shown by circumstances.
concerted actions that they acted in unison and cooperated  People v. Vinas  Brothers Nelson and Norman Vinas conspired
with each other to accomplish a common felonious purpose (to to carry out the killing even though it was only Norman who had
rob victims) a grudge against the deceased because Nelson assaulted the
Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. deceased and they both told Sumpay their plan to kill Varela.
 While conspiracy may be implied from circumstances attending  People v. Manzano  A community of design to kill: three
the commission of the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that brothers and nephew avenged their father (or grandfather)
conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive showing concerted actions in committing the crime
evidence (People v. Ancheta)  People v. Saliling  The four appellants were linked to each
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt = degree of proof to prove other by friendship or some sort of relationship = conspiracy
conspiracy (same as degree of proof to establish the crime); it (They all had a specific role in the commission of the crime)
must be established by positive and conclusive evidence;  People v. Umbrero  Conspiracy may be shown by the
conspiracy cannot be appreciated when facts are consistent appellants’ actuations immediately prior to, during, and right
with the non‐participation of the accused in the fancied cabal after the shooting of the victim
(People v. Furugganan)  People v. Timbol 
 Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its ‐ Facts: Three accused arrived together at the Pasudeco offices.
commission is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy They menacingly demanded approval of their 60‐40 share of the
(People v. Tacca) mill denied by the Board of Directors of Pasudeco. They shot
No conspiracy, as shown by the acts of the defendant. Pres. De Leo, Gonzales (of Pasudeco) and Capt. Olivas (peace
 People v. Quiosay  Appellant stabbed the deceased once on officer) and fled the scene together.
the arm and ran away and his brother was the one who cut off ‐Held: Circumstances demonstrate conspiracy when the accused
the deceased’s head. Appellant is answerable only for his have all met together days before the crime.
individual act – there was no conspiracy because he didn’t stay Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and
to liquidate the deceased with his brother. were united in its execution.
 People v. Lacao  Spontaneity of respective reactions of o People v. Damaso 
several accused, resulting in an attack where they all Facts: The deceased slapped the face of one of the three
participated, rules out the existence of conspiracy. Respective appellants in front of a carinderia. The appellants boarded a taxi
liabilities shall be determined by the nature of their individual and borrowed a gun of a security guard at Greenhills and came
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


back to the carinderia where the deceased was shot by one of Reason: He had no time to see that the other intended to case
the appellants from inside the taxi. Afterwards, the three the deceased the wound he did (People v. Manalo)
returned the weapon and proceeded to the headquarters of the o Simultaneity per se is not a badge of conspiracy if the
Rizal Security and Protective Agency. requisite concurrence of wills is absent. It is not
Held: There is unity of purpose and unity of execution sufficient that the attack is joint and simultaneous; it is
establishing conspiracy. necessary that the assailants are animated by one and
o People v. Delgado  Community of purpose on part of three the same purpose. – in situations where assaults are not
accused inferable from the circumstances: they came together simultaneous but instead successive, greater proof is
to the scene of the occurrence and they each acted against the needed to establish concert of criminal design (People
victim then left together to the house of another person, leaving v. Tividad)
the victim unconscious on the ground. (2) People v. Macabuhay
Facts: A, B, C, D, and E were in F’s house. Someone threw a
D. Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime is stone at that house. All 5 went to G’s house 40 yards away
shown in the following cases: (Evidences of joint responsibility) to avenge the stone‐throwing. They suspected the deceased
a. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of who was in G’s house to be the stone‐thrower and they
the crime sufficient to create joint responsibility. seized him and E stabbed him.
Example: Held: A, B, C, D, E – all liable as principals by direct
 Acceptance of two accused of the challenge posted by participation for death of deceased – same motive: avenge
the deceased and their concert attack on the same stone‐throwing.
clearly showed a community of purpose and design. (3) People v. Cruz, Jr.  Conspiracy was well‐established: one
(People v. Ibanez) of the appellant’s companions announced the holdup while
b. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the appellant and his other companions proceeded to rob
the crime. the victims.
(1) Facts: A struck deceased, B whipped lips of deceased, C (4) People v. Carpio  Conspiracy manifested in the
seized deceased’s left hand while D held the right, E stabbed coordinated acts of the assailants: one held hand of victim,
deceased with knife. another stabbed him, third gave fist blows and the first one
Held: No proof of anterior conspiracy but the manner in finally shoots deceased
which accused cooperated in the perpetration of the c. Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common
homicide shows they were moved by a common motive and criminal intent.
their intention was to kill deceased (1) People v. Agbuya 
Dissenting: Only individual responsibility in this case for only Facts: Family feud between Palisoc (family of C = deceased)
E gave the fatal blow and Agbuya (family of A and D = accused)
 No participation in the criminal design when the act of one Held: Homicide was committed by the act of the one of the
came so close upon the heels of that of the other. two accused in shooting the deceased with a gun which was
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


given by the co‐accused, his father, and where it also Held: It is if no importance that the accused did not himself
appeared that the latter contributed to the commission of strike the blow or blows by which the prisoners were killed.
the homicide by various other significant acts – both father It is sufficient that he was present at the place of the
and son were properly convicted as principals in the crime. commission of the act, augmenting with his arms and
There was common criminal intent in the case because presence the power of the band, thus aiding the common
father and son took common cause (family feud) act of all – he was considered as a principal by direct
(2) People v. Mancao  Wounds which caused deceased’s participation in the crime prosecuted.
death were not inflicted by Mancao himself but by co‐ Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is committed by a band.
accused Aguilar but Mancao having been the instigator and  U.S. v. Asilo  Accused was a member of a band that went to
aggressor by calling his harvesters to his aid (one of which the house of the deeased to kill him. Even if there was no
was Aguilar) – and wanting them to carry out the criminal evidence that the accused fired a shot at the deceased, he is still
act started by him – Mancao is not only liable for his own liable for homicide.
acts but also for the acts of those who aided him ‐ A band = presumptive of a previous understanding between
Mancao contributed the following positive acts: one offender and the others who formed the band; accused lent
‐ Being the instigator his thought and action for the realization of the criminal object
‐ Being the aggressor increasing the offensive strength of said band
‐ Calling his harvesters  People v. Bazar  Robbery was committed by a band: all the
d. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and members of the band are presumed to be conspirators or co‐
lending moral support thereto, also create joint responsibility principals also in the assaults committed by the band in the
with the material executors. absence of a showing that appellants attempted to prevent the
(1) U.S. v. Ancheta  There were 7 defendants in this case. killing of the victim they are equally guilty of his death at the
Held: All of them previously concerted action, met together hands of their companions.
and witnessed the capture and later, the violent killing of  Exception  U.S. v. Fresnido  When at the start of the
the deceased. Some took a direct part in the actual encounter the accused fled from the scene of the fight between
commission of the crime, others were determined the constabulary and the insurgent band – he is not criminally
instigators who induced the former to commit it, while the liable
remainder cooperated in the same by their presence and e. Where one of the accused knew of the plan of the others to kill
lending their moral support. – all are thus directly the two victims and he accepted the role assigned to him,
responsible for the consequences and incidents of the same which was to shoot one of the victims, and he actually
(2) U.S. v. Santos  performed that role, he is a co‐principal by direct participation
Facts: A band of 25 men captured American soldiers and in the double murder (People v. De La Cruz).
detained them somewhere. The soldiers were killed by
some of the members of the band in front of the accused. E. There may be conspiracy even if there is no evident premeditation
on the part of the accused.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Even if appellants were unarmed, which may indicate lack of  When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 
evident premeditation, this does not necessarily negate the Collective criminal responsibility
existence of conspiracy because conspiracy does not necessarily  U.S. v. Bundal  Defendants after conspiring together to kill
require an agreement for an appreciable time prior to the deceased, went to his house for purposes of carrying out their
occurrence. intent and prepared to cooperate to that end (even though
 From legal viewpoint conspiracy exists if: at time of commission having different roles in the commission) all will be held equally
of offense – accused had same purpose and were united in its guilty as principals irrespective of the individual participation of
execution (People v. Binasing) each in the material act of the murder
 Conspiracy adequately proven = all conspirators – liable as co‐
F. When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for principals. The degree of actual participation by each of the
the act performed by him.  People v. Castillo conspirators is immaterial. As conspirators, each is equally
 Facts: Guarino was quarreling with Terencia and policeman responsible for the acts of their co‐conspirators. (People v. De la
Machica tried to stop them. Guarino stabbed Machica instead. Cruz)
Then Policeman Campos was able to bring Guarino to the Liability of a conspirator for another conspirator’s acts which differ
municipal building where another Policeman Boco hit Guarino. radically and substantially from that which they intended to commit.
Chief of Police Castillo came and shot to death Guarino in front  Conspirator should necessarily be liable for the acts of another
of the three policemen Machica, Campos, and Boco (who all had conspirator even though such acts differ radically or
inflicted serious physical injuries to Guarino) substantially from that which they intended to commit. (People
 Held: Only Chief Castillo was guilty of murder qualified by v. Enriquez)
treachery. Machica, Campos, and Boco were liable for serious  Boyd v. U.S.  Wound made with the knife on leg of person
physical injuries only because there was no competent proof assaulted was the primary cause of death and the author of this
that the three policemen intended to kill Guarino – no injury has not been identified (the attorneys of the accused
conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention among them plus defended that the infliction of injury by means of a cutting
Chief Castillo. The three did not participate in the shooting by instrument was not within the scope of the agreement and that
Castillo and could not have stopped it even if they wanted to the one who should be held liable is the one who inflicted the
because Chief Castillo just drew out his gun and fired. wound).
 In homicide, immediate participation in the criminal design Held: The Court did not agree. Accused had undoubtedly
entertained by the slayer, is essential to the responsibility of conspired to do so grave personal injury to the deceased which
one who is alleged to have taken a direct part in the killing even have resulted in death, the accused cannot escape from the
if he has not himself inflicted an injury materially contributing to legal effects of their acts that a wound was inflicted in a
the death (People v. Tamayo) different way from that which they intended.
 As has been said by the US Supreme Court: “If a number of
G. Liability of participants where there is conspiracy. persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a
crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


all of them are responsible for the death of a person that ensues A conspirator is not liable for another’s crime which is not an object of
as a consequence” the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical consequence
 U.S. v. Patten  Conspirators who join in a criminal attack on a thereof.
defenseless man with dangerous weapons – victim knocked  People v. Umali  Only the Huks (allies of defendant Umali)
down – tries to escape – pursues him with increased numbers – committed robbery which was NOT an object of the conspiracy
continue the assault – are liable for manslaughter when the Held: Defendant Umali not liable for robbery BUT liable for
victim is killed by a knife wound inflicted by one of them during sedition, arson, and murder – the objects of the conspiracy
the beating, although in the beginning they did not contemplate Other defendants not held liable for the killings of persons not covered
the use of a knife by the conspiracy.
 People v. Espiritu  Four assailants acted in conspiracy,  People v. De la Cerna  Appellant cannot be held liable for the
pretended to look for a lost carabao in Bernardo’s house and killing od the deceased (Cabizares) even though there was a
then killed him. As conspirators, they are each liable for the conspiracy between him and his co‐conspirator because the
attack on Bernardo, regardless of who actually pulled the trigger conspiracy was to kill Rafael only and no one else.
or wielded the club that killed him The rule has always been that co‐conspirators are liable only for
 Liability of offenders in robbery if committed by a band: any acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.
member of a band (at least four armed men) is liable for any For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co‐
assault committed by the other member of the band, unless it conspirators or which are not necessary and logical
be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. (Article 296 consequences of the intended crime, only the actual
of RPC) perpetrators are liable.
Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the conspirators are When the conspirators selected a particular victim and another
liable for its consequences. person was killed by one of them, only that conspirator who
 People v. Villamora  There was no conspiracy to kill deceased killed another person is liable.
and Barauel only hit him with an iron bar.  Versus People v. Enriquez & People v. Rosario  Conspirators
Held: Since there was conspiracy to punish Acuna, with resulted are liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such
to his death, ALL the conspirators are responsible for the acts differ radically and substantially from that which they
consequences that arose from the punishment. intend to commit (in accordance to provision of Art. 4 par. 1 of
Note: The ruling is in accordance with the provision of Article 4, RPC)
par. 1, of the RPC. A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted before the crime
Conspiracy may cover persons previously undetermined. was committed by the others, is not criminally liable.
 If it appears that there was a general plan to kill anyone who  People v. Timbol  Appellant was a member of the conspiracy
might put up violent resistance, then the accused are liable for but desisted before the crimes were committed (left the
all the natural and inherent consequences of such plan (People Pasudeco offices long before killings took place)
v. Timbol)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Held: Appellant Dalmacio Timbol is not criminally liable. All are liable for the crime of abduction, even if only one acted with
“Conspiracy alone without the execution of its purpose is not a lewd designs.
crime punishable by law except in special instances” (Art. 8)  Essential element of the crime of abduction: lewd designs on
 People v. Mappala  An act of a conspirator who ran away as the part of the offender (Art. 342 – forcible abduction; Art. 343
soon as the aggression was started by his co‐conspirators, and – consented abduction)
called for help of other people who responded is an act of  People v. Loyola  Canaria conspired with Loyola to forcibly
desistance which removes the case from the established rule abduct Caridad and Canaria made positive over acts necessary
that the act of one is the act of all. to the realization of the abduction
When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary to ascertain the specific Held: Even though Loyola alone acted with lewd designs,
act of each conspirator. Canaria was still liable for abduction because in a conspiracy the
 It is not necessary to ascertain the specific acts of aggression act of one is the act of all
committed by each of the culprits since having participated in In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other rapes.
the criminal resolution the act of one is the act of all. (People v.  Each defendant is responsible not only for rape personally
Mendoza) committed by him but also for the rape committed by the
 Conspiracy having been established: it is immaterial who of the others because they cooperated in the commission of rape
conspirators fired the fatal shot (People v. Canoy) perpetration by the others, by acts without which would not
 All persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as have been accomplished
principals. (Even though not all accused took part in actual
commission of every act constituting the crime – each is H. Exceptions: (from equal liability)
responsible for all the acts of others done in furtherance of the 1. Crime of parricide – element of relationship must be present as
conspiracy) The degree of actual participation is immaterial. regards all the offenders
(People v. Maranion)  Ex. Wife and son of deceased conspired and did kill latter –
When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of the offense is not both are guilty of parricide BUT if wife and a stranger conspired
present as regards one of the conspirators is immaterial. and killed deceased, only the wife is guilty of parricide and the
 U.S v. Hernandez  Complex crime of seduction by means of stranger will be guilty of homicide or murder
usurpation of official functions; One of the accused pretended  Reason for exception: Art. 62 par. 3 provides that
to be a minister and fake‐married the other accused with a girl aggravating circumstances which arise from private relations of
in order for the girl to have marital relations with the other offender with offended party shall serve to aggravate only
accused liability of principals, accomplices, and accessories to whom
Held: Element of performance of official functions was present such circumstances are attendant. Provision applies when
with accused only. But the other accused was sentenced to the element of felony arises from private relation of offender with
penalty for and the same crime complexed with seduction offended party.
which he actually committed. 2. Crime of murder where treachery is an element of the crime –
all offenders must at least have knowledge of the employment
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


of treachery at time of execution of act or their cooperation There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through
therein negligence.
o Ex. A and B conspired to kill C but carried out their plan  Conspiracy presupposes an agreement and a decision to commit
without previously considering the means, methods, or a felony, when it appears that the injuries inflicted on the
forms, in killing C; only A employed treachery but since offended party were due to the reckless imprudence of two or
B was present when A employed treachery – both are more persons, it is not proper to consider conspiracy between
liable for murder BUT if B remained outside so that he or among them.
did not know that A employed treachery – only A is In cases of criminal negligence or crimes punishable by special law,
liable for murder and B is liable for homicide allowing or failing to prevent an act to be performed by another,
o Reason for exception: Art. 62 par 4. Provides that makes one a co‐principal.
circumstances which consist in the material execution of  People v. Santos  professional driver of passenger truck let his
the ac, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall conductor drive the truck and they had an accident with a
serve to aggravate the liability of only those persons jeepney which resulted to the death of one its passengers
who had knowledge of them at the time of the Held: Both the driver and the conductor were held liable as co‐
execution of the act or their cooperation therein principals of homicide and damage to property through reckless
imprudence under Act. No 3992 and Art. 365 of RPC.
I. Participation in another’s criminal resolution must either precede or  U.S. v. Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong  a storeowner’s employee
be coetaneous with the criminal act. (Coetaneous: of the same age or sold adulterated coffee and the storeowner did not know that
duration)  People v. Tan Diong the coffee was sold by his employee
 Facts: Diong in order to avoid an execution of judgment against Held: Both the storeowner and the employee were held liable as
him in a civil case transferred his properties by conveyance to principals (criminally liable under the Pure Food and Drugs Act)
Baranda who only participated by falsely testifying in court that
he acquired said properties with sufficient consideration IV. Second requisite (of principals by direct participation): That the
 Held: Baranda’s alleged participation in the fraud only consists culprits “carried out their plan and personally took part in its
of his assertion of ownership in the properties conveyed which execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.”
does not justify his conviction as a participant in the fraud. His
resolution to accept the benefit of the fraudulent conveyances A. The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the
may have been formed only after the act of Diong. His guilt as crime, personally taking part in its execution.
co‐conspirator in the fraud is, therefore not proved.  General Rule: Principal by direct participation must personally
 Note: Baranda would be liable as co‐principal if he concurred take part in executing the criminal plan to be carried out. This
with Diong at the time or before the execution of the deeds of means that he must be at the scene of the commission of the
conveyance. crime, personally taking part in its execution.
 People v. Ong Chiat Lay  Held that one of the accused not a
principal by direct participation because he was absent from the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


scene of the fire when the crime of arson was committed by direct participation. He is in fact present, aiding, and abetting in
other accused the commission of the crime.
 Exception to the rule  People v. Santos Exception: People v. Samano
o There was conspiracy to kidnap and kill the victim and  Facts: Accused jointly tried for murder of three persons. They
only one of the conspirators kidnapped the victim and were members of a guerilla unit and were being charged of
after turning him over to his co‐conspirators for taking the deceased to their headquarters and beating him to
execution, left the spot where the victim was killed. death while investigating him on charges of espionage. Accused
o Held: The one who kidnapped the victim was liable for Samano and Alcantara acted as guards at place of crime but did
murder committed by the others because he already so in obedience to superior orders and without knowledge that
performed his part and the killing was done by his co‐ the deceased under investigation would be killed. There was no
conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy. evidence that there was conspiracy between those who pleaded
guilty and the present appellants.
B. The acts of each offender must directly tend to the same end.  Held: When there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose
 While principals by direct participation personally take part in and intention indicating participation in the criminal resolution,
the execution of their common purpose, it is not necessary that mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime does not
each of them should perform a positive act directly contributing constitute complicity.
to the accomplishment of their common purpose.
 People v. Mandagay  Murder case where offenders previously C. When the second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy.
agreed to commit said crime, not only the one who inflicts the  Review of second requisite: persons who have participated in
fatal wound is considered a principal but also the others to held the criminal resolution, must carry out their plan and personally
the victim or stood guard outside. The acts of each and every take part in its execution by acts which directly tend to the same
one of the offenders are all directed to the same end, which is end.
the killing of the victim. Criminal responsibility in such a case is  IF this 2nd requisite is lacking: there is, at most, only conspiracy
collective. among several defendants who participated in criminal
Only serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by resolution; if the crime they agreed and decided to commit is
direct participation. not treason, rebellion or sedition, they are not criminally liable.
 People v. Canumay  Appellants were part of plan to rob  People v. Asaad  Four accused merely attended conferences
victim. At time of robbery they stood guard outside the house. and assented out of respect and fear and after commission of
Held: They are equally liable as the others. murders they joined other accused in celebrating with a fiesta,
 U.S. v. Reogilon  One who stands guard outside the house to by way of custom, they were neither co‐principals nor
keep others away or warning fellow conspirators while the accomplices
latter are murdering the occupant – takes direct part in  This is why Dalmacio Timbol was acquitted of the charge of
commission of crime of murder and is guilty as a principal by murder because he merely conspired with his co‐accused to kill
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


deceased but left the place before they began shooting him (1) By directly forcing another to commit a crime.
(People v. Timbol) Two ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime:
 People v. Pelagio  G’s participation in the first meeting 1. By using irresistible force.
involved him in the conspiracy because he told the other the 2. By causing uncontrollable fear.
location of the house to be robbed, this however is inadequate o In these cases (using force or causing fear), there is no
to make him criminally liable as a conspirator. This because conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and
conspiracy alone without execution of its purpose is not a crime intention. Only the one using force or causing fear is
punishable by law except in special instances which does not criminally liable. The material executor is not criminally
include robbery. (Art. 8) liable because of Art. 12 par. 5 and 6.
____________________ (2) By directly inducing another to commit a crime.
PAR 2: “THOSE WHO DIRECTLY FORCE OR INDUCE OTHERS TO COMMIT Two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime:
IT.” (Principals by induction.) 1. By giving price, or offering reward or promise.
o Both the one giving the price or offering reward or
I. Paragraph No. 2 of Article 17 provides for the second class of promise and the one committing the crime in
principals. consideration thereof are principals (former by
 Second class of principals = “those who directly force or induce inducement and latter by direct participation). There is
others to commit it (the act)” (Art. 17 RPC). collective criminal responsibility.
 Those who directly induce others to commit the act are called 2. By using words of command.
“principals by inducement” or “principals by induction” from the o Both the person who used the words of command and
Spanish “autores por induccion”. the persons who commits the crime (because of the
 “inducement” comprises price, promise of reward, command words of command) are equally liable. There is also
and pacto (opinion of Viada and SC of Spain). collective responsibility.

II. The principal by induction becomes liable only when the principal IV. Requisites to be considered a principal by inducement
by direct participation committed the act induced. 1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of
 People v. Ong Chiat Lay  One cannot be held guilty of having procuring the commission of the crime; and
instigated the commission of the crime without first being 2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the
shown that the crime was actually committed by another. commission of the crime by the material executor.
 U.S. v. Idanan  To constitute inducement, there must be on
III. Two ways of becoming principal by induction. the part of the inducer the most positive resolution and the
Under Article 17 par. 2: most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime
(1) by directly forcing another to commit a crime, and together with the presentation to the person induced of the
(2) by directly inducing another to commit a crime. very strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


V. Illustration of the first (and second) requisite. imprudent and ill‐conceived advice is not sufficient; the person
 People v. Otadora: did not have the intention of procuring the commission of the
(First requisite) – It was clear that she had the intention of crime.
procuring the commission of the crime when she furnished her
co‐accused the gun to kill the deceased VII. The inducement may be by acts of command, advice, or through
(Second requisite) – The accused promised her co‐accused influence, or agreement for consideration.
pecuniary gain which was the determining cause of the  Inducement and the commission of the crime wherein the
commission of the crime inducer becomes the principal (with same extent and effect as if
 People v. Alcontin: he had physically committed the crime) may exist in:
(First requisite) – A married woman suggested to her paramour o acts of command
that he kill her husband; Held: the proposition of the woman o of advice
constituted something more than mere counsel or advice that o agreement for a consideration
her co‐defendant was entirely free to accept or not o through an influence so effective that it alone
(Second requisite) – The married woman’s promise of being determines the commission of the crime
able to freely live together with the paramour was the The words of advice or the influence must have actually moved the
determining cause of the commission of the crime hands of the principal by direct participation.
 An inexperienced boy of tender age was persuaded by a person
VI. A thoughtless expression without intention to produce the result is to steal the jewels of his grandmother; the person was found
not an inducement to commit a crime. guilty of theft by inducement
 A chance word spoken without reflection/ a wrong appreciation  Minors under 15 are easily susceptible to suggestions of inducer
of a situation/ an ironical phrase/ a thoughtless act may give because they have no discernment or judgment of their own so
birth to a thought or resolution to commit a crime in the mind when they are induced to commit a crime, the influence of the
of one – without the one who spoke the word or performed the inducer is the determining cause of the commission of the crime
act having any expectation that his suggestion would be Words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime.
followed or any real intention that it produce the result.  Moral influence of the words of a father (his words of
 In such a case, the one who spoke the word or performed the command) may determine the course of conduct of a son
act would not be guilty of the crime committed by the other. (because of the obedience due to him)
(U.S. v. Idanan)  Versus: same words coming from a stranger which would make
Example of imprudent advice, not constituting sufficient inducement. no impression
 A decision of the SC of Spain (cited in U.S. v. Idanan) held that a  People v. Bautista  The accused (exercising dominance and
woman who robbed her husband because a person told her that ascendancy) compelled his 3‐year old son to throw a stone at
that’s the only thing to do to him because he was stingy and another boy which caused injury to the latter’s eye was a
treated her badly – the person was not guilty of the crime principal by inducement.
committed of the crime of robbery by inducement because an
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


VIII. Meaning of the second requisite. enough to be the determining cause of committing the
 It is necessary that the inducement be the determining cause of crime
the commission of the crime by the principal by direct By using words of command.
participation – that, without such inducement the crime would  People v. Gensola  With respect to command – it must be the
not have been committed. (Decision of SC of Spain) moving cause of the offense. The evidence showed that the
 Inducement exists if the nature of the command or advice is accused would have acted on his own volition even without the
that without its concurrence – the crime would not have words of command (“Rufino, strike him!”)
materialized (People v. Cruz)  People v. Agapinay  An utterer will not be liable as principal
 The second requisite does not exist if the principal by direct by inducement if the imprudent utterance was said in the
participation had personal reason to commit the crime (such excitement of the hour or in heat of anger (and not in a nature
that he would commit the same even without the inducement) of a command that had to be obeyed)
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so  It must appear that the inducement was of such nature and was
influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the act would made in such a way as to become the determining cause of the
not have been performed. crime and that such inducement was uttered with the intention
 Price given to the principal by direct participation after the of producing the result. (People v. Castillo)
commission of the crime, without prior promise to give a price  The inciting words must have great dominanc and influence
or reward, could not be an inducement. over the person who act; they ought to be direct and as
 The one charged of inducing the commission of the crime is not efficacious or powerful as physical or moral coercion or violence
liable if the person who actually committed a crime had a itself. (People v. Canial)
reason of his own to commit the crime All five requisites must be present in order that a person using words
 People v. Castillo of command be held liable as principal by inducement:
o Facts: Marincho Castillo (son) was slapped on the face 1. That the one uttering the words of command must have the
by the deceased Vargas. After 2 months, appellant intention of procuring the commission of the crime.
Castillo (father) was talking to Vargas while holding a 2. That the one who made the command must have an
revolver (but not pointed to him). Suddenly, Marincho ascendancy or influence over the person who acted.
came from behind and hacked the head of Vargas. o Illustration: U.S. v. Ganao  When B (a very influential
When he was about to hack him the second time, his figure in their community) selected A (his nephew who
father told him “You kill him” and then they was poor and depended on him) to commit the crime –
surrendered to the authorities. the influence exercised by B over A was so great and
o Held: Castillo is not guilty of being a co‐principal by powerful that the latter could not resist it.
inducement because Marincho has already given Vargas 3. That the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so
a fatal blow on the head before Castillo allegedly said powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion.
“You kill him” because the utterances must be sufficient o Illustration:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(a) Efficacious – a person who makes accused believe  Held: Appellant was acquitted because he lacked the first
that the person to be killed was the one who stole requisite because there was nothing to show that appellant had
the accused’s property = guilty as principal by any reason to have Olipmo killed; lacked second requisite
inducement; even though the accused seem to because he had no sufficient moral influence over co‐accused to
have a personal reason, it was the inductor who make him obey blindly; and fourth requisite was lacking because
made him believe so his co‐accused had already boloed the victim before he uttered
(b) Powerful – U.S. v. Ganao (supra) the words
4. The words of command must be uttered prior to the  Can a person who is present during a homicide but has no direct
commission of the crime. part in the act can be held criminally liable for inciting and
o This requisite is lacking when the commission of the encouraging another with expressions like “go ahead”, “hit
crime has already been commenced when the words of him”, “there you have him”, “now is the time”?
inducement are uttered. o It depends upon whether these words were spoken
o A son who was already in combat with another was told under conditions that give them a direct and
by the father “Hit him” – the father was not determinative influence upon the mind of the principal
responsible for the injuries inflicted after advice given actor. (People v. Tamayo)
5. The material executor of the crime has no personal reason to
commit the crime. X. Ascendancy or influence as to amount to moral coercion is not
o If the principal by direct participation has a personal necessary when there is conspiracy.
reason to commit the crime, the supposed words of  To consider as principal by induction one who advises or incites
inducement cannot be the determining cause. another to perpetrate an offense, it is essential to show that the
o People v. Kiichi Omine  advisor had so great an ascendancy or influence that his words
Facts: Omine shouted “pegale y matale” to Autor and were so efficacious and powerful as to amount to moral
he struck the deceased on the breast but before the coercion.
utterance he had already struck the deceased with a  Proof of such extremes is usually required to justify such
fist blow on the right eye conclusion.
Held: Omine was not a principal by induction because  Proof in unnecessary where the principal actor admits being
Autor had already struck beforehand and the utterance impelled and that he acted pursuant to a previous plan or
was not sufficient because it doesn’t show that Omine conspiracy to kill and promise to condone his indebtedness
has any particular influence over Autor. Autor = guilty (People v. Ulip)
of serious physical injuries and Omine was acwuitted.  There is collective criminal responsibility when words of
Requisites considered in determining the liability of a person accused a inducement were used.
principal by inducement.  People v. Caimbre One who planned the crime committed by another is a principal by
 Facts: Appellant was being prosecuted for uttering “you had inducement.
better kill him” when his co‐accused was attacking the victim.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Persons who planned the crime committed by other persons are proposal is made should NOT
guilty as authors by inducement. commit the crime
Inducement involves ANY crime Must involve ONLY treason and
XI. If the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given, the rebellion to be punishable
inducement is not material and not the determining cause thereof. 
People v. Lawas XIII. Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon the
 Facts: Accused Lawas was head of the home guards in a barrio liability of principal by inducement.
in Lanao and he orderd his men to shoot at Moros suspected of (1) Conspiracy is negative by acquittal of co‐defendant.
having killed 11 Christian residents. Some of the home guards (2) It must be shown that the crime has actually been committed by
fired at women and children at the second floor of the house. another otherwise, one cannot be guilty of instigating the crime
 Held: Lawas is not guilty of murder for the killing of the women  If the one charged as principal by direct participation was
and children as principal by induction because his order was to acquitted because he acted without criminal intent or malice –
fire at Moros on the ground and clearly did not intend for his acquittal is not ground for acquitting the principal by
women and children to be fired at. inducement
Principal by induction in falsification.  Reason for rule: in exempting circumstances, when the act is
 People v. Po Giok To  The employee did the overt act of not voluntary because of lack of intent – there is a crime
entering false facts on the residence certificate of the accused committed but no criminal; in intentional felonies, act of a
because the accused induced him to do so by supplying him person does not make him criminal unless his mind be criminal
those facts.
Held: Accused was a principal by inducement. The employee XIV. Possessor of recently stolen property is a principal.
was a mere innocent agent of performing the act constituting  Possessor of a recently stolen article is considered a principal,
the crime hence employee was not criminally liable because he not an accessory or accomplice, unless he proves otherwise
had no knowledge of the falsity of the facts supplied by the satisfactorily and that another person who gave him the article
accused. was the one who stole it (Section 5(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court)
____________________
XII. Distinguish principal by inducement from the offender who made PAR. 3: “THOSE WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
proposal to commit a felony. OFFENSE BY ANOTHER ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE
Principal by inducement Offender who proposed to BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.” (Principals by indispensible cooperation.)
commit a felony
There is inducement to commit a There is inducement to commit a I. Meaning of the term “cooperate”.
crime crime  To cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing. The
Liable only when crime is Mere proposal to commit a felony common will or purpose does not necessarily mean pervious
committed by principal by direct is punishable in treason or understanding because it can be explained or inferred from the
participation rebellion; person to whom circumstances of each case. (People v. Apelgido)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


II. Requisites:  Law says “by another act” which means it should not be the act
1. Participation in the criminal resolution – there is either anterior of one who would be classified as principal by direct
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention participation.
immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and Examples:
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing (1) U.S. v. Javier
another act, without which it would not have been o Facts: C was the one who forced and dragged the girl to
accomplished. the back of the house where J was waiting to
perpetrate the crime. C had a previous agreement with
III. FIRST REQUISITE: Participation in the criminal resolution J. After delivering the girl, C left so that J can
 Co‐delinquency in par. 3 requires participation in the criminal consummate the prearranged rape.
resolution – there must be conspiracy (same as Art 17. par. 1) o Held: C cooperated in the perpetration of the crime by
 But concurrence with the principal by direct participation in the acts without which its commission would not have
purpose of the latter is sufficient because the cooperation is been accomplished.
indispensible to the accomplishment of the commission of the  Act of cooperation: forcible taking of the girl to the place of
offense. commission of rape by other accused
May there be cooperation by acts of negligence?  Act of execution: sexual intercourse with the woman against her
 A person becomes a co‐principal through acts of negligence will
cooperates in the commission of estafa through falsification or (2) U.S. v. Lim Buanco 
malversation through falsification (without which the o Facts: R, employee of a bank, indorsed upon a check
commission of the crime could not have been accpomlished) drawn by B so that B, even without sufficient funds in
 The one who cooperated in the commission of the crime was the bank, may still draw the amount of the check when
held guilty of the same crime through reckless imprudence he presents it to the cashier of the bank. The
(Samson v. CA) indorsement of R was in connivance with B knowing he
didn’t have funds but indorsed it still.
IV. SECOND REQUISITE: Cooperation must be indispensible without o Held: R was a principal by indispensible cooperation.
which the commission of the crime would not have been  Act of cooperation: Certification that the check was
accomplished. entitled to payment
 If the cooperation is not indispensible, the offender is only an  Act of execution: Crime of estafa by B committed as
accomplice. principal by direct participation – the fraudulent
“Cooperate x x x by another act” cashing of the cash that damaged the bank
 Act of the principal by indispensible cooperation should be  In the 2 cases, the cooperation of the other accused was the
different from the act of the principal by direct participation. performance of an act different from the act of execution of the
crime committed by the other accused.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 If cooperation of one accused consists in doing an act necessary o Principal by indispensible cooperation with the principal
in the execution of the crime = principal by direct participation by direct participation.
Ex. In a homicide case one of the offenders held the victim while
the other was stabbing him = one who held victim was principal Individual Criminal responsibility.
by direct participation BUT there are cases where the Supreme  If there is no previous conspiracy/ unity of criminal purpose and
Court considered such accused as a principal by indispensible intention immediately before commission of crime/ community
cooperation of criminal design = criminal responsibility arising from different
acts directed against one and the same person is individual and
V. Liability of conspirators who took turns in raping a girl. not collective.
 People v. Villa  Four persons took turns in raping a girl; others  Each of the participants is liable only for the act committed by
held her while one had intercourse with her. him.
Held: Each of them is responsible for his own act of rape and Example of individual responsibility.  cited in People v. Martinez
also for the acts of the others. Four sentences were imposed on  Facts: Deceased assaulted a group of three individuals, in their
each accused. (incomplete) self‐defense, two of them caused less serious
____________________ physical injuries on the assailant deceased while one inflicted a
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any of the three fatal wound.
concepts defined in Article 17.  Held: Only the one who gave the fatal wound would be
 A person who assists one who commits the crime of arson and principally liable for homicide and the others liable only for less
who knows the latter’s purpose (but whose participation in the serious physical injuries.
arson is not known) may not be considered as a principal
because his acts were neither direct nor absolutely necessary Article 18. Accomplices — Accomplices are those persons who, not
for the commission of the offense nor did it induce the said being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
commission (SC of Spain decision) by previous or simultaneous acts.

Collective criminal responsibility. POINTS
 Present when offenders are criminally liable in the same I. Quasi‐collective criminal responsibility.
manner and to same extent; penalty imposed must be same for  Between collective and individual criminal responsibility 
all. quasi‐collective criminal responsibility.
 Who has collective criminal responsibility?  In quasi‐collective: some are principals and others are
o Principals by direct participation. accomplices.
o Principal by induction with the principal by direct
participation (EXCEPT the principal by induction who II. The participation of an accomplice presupposes the commission of
directly forced another to commit a crime). the crime by the principal by direct participation.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Principal element of complicity: concurrence of will of IV. An accomplice does not have previous agreement of understanding
accomplice with the will of the author of the crime (principal). or is not in conspiracy with the pricipal by direct participation.
 Accomplice cooperates by: previous or simultaneous acts in the  Accomplice does not enter into conspiracy with principal by
execution of the offense by the principal. direct participation nor does he have a previous agreement or
understanding with him to commit a crime BUT he participates
III. “Not being included in Article 17.” to a certain point in the common criminal design.
 An accomplice does not fall under any of the three concepts NOTE: An accomplice gets a penalty one degree lower than that
defined in Article 17. provided for the principal in a consummated felony (Article 52).
 Those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts cannot
be held liable as principals but as accomplices. Distinction between accomplice and conspirator.
In case of doubt as to whether principal or accomplice.  Common to both: Knowing and agreement with criminal design.
 In case of DOUBT – participation of offender is considered as Conspirator Accomplice
accomplice rather than principal. Knowledge of the criminal Gets knowledge of the criminal
 People v. Celemente: eyewitness unable to assert if appellants intention is because they decided intent after principals have
hit the fallen man (uncertain participation in homicide) and the specific course of action reached the decision – and then
there was no conspiracy shown. they agree to cooperate in its
o Held: appellants declared accomplices only. execution
Where there is doubt as to whether accused acted as principal or as Decide that a crime should be Merely concurs to do the crime;
accomplice, accused should be held liable only as accomplice. committed merely assent to the plan and
 Mere presence at scene, knowledge of plan, and acquiescence = cooperate in its accomplishment
insufficient ground to hold a person as conspirator therefore Authors of a crime Instruments who perform acts not
will be held liable only as accomplice. essential to perpetration of
 Quantum of proof lacking = milder form of criminal liability: as offense
accomplice.
When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only as May a co‐conspirator be held liable as an accomplice only?
accomplice.  If technically the accused are co‐conspirators BUT their
 People v. Ubina: If a person assists in arson because he knows participation was not absolutely indispensible to the
the purpose of the principal, but his participation is undisclosed. consummation of the murder  court should favor milder form
 Held: His actions are neither direct nor absolutely necessary for of liability = accomplice.
the commission of the offense nor induce the crime.  People v. Anin: Held: Even with knowledge of criminal intent but
 In criminal cases: participation of accused must be proved by the overt acts of co‐accused was still not indispensible to the
positive and competent evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) BY crime of homicide = accused only an accomplice.
the prosecution ‐ can't be presumed.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 People v. Nierra  Held: Even with community of design but  (Shown in) People v. Lingad)  Taxi driver knowing that co‐
role in homicide or murder was of a minor character = accused were going to make a hold‐up let’s them use his cab to
accomplice only where the crime will be staged and waited for them after;
 versus People v. Manzano and People v. Mendoza Held: Once HELD: taxi driver is an accomplice
proved that accused had conspired with others accused, liability  (Not shown in) U.S. v. Bello  Sentry permitted some convicts
only as accomplice is untenable; the act of one is the act of all to go out of jail accompanies by guard then the convicts
committed robbery
Community of Design Participation in the Criminal HELD: Sentry not liable as accomplice because he had no
Resolution knowledge of their intention to commit robbery when he let
Does not necessarily mean that Implies conspiracy them out
there is conspiracy but it may
develop into one A. How an accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal design of
Mere concurrence with criminal Entering into an agreement and the principal.
purpose deciding to commit a felony 1. Principal informs or tells the accomplice of the former’s criminal
purpose.
V. In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the o U.S. v. Sotto  Master told his servant that he would
following requisites must concur. abduct the a girl under 18 years and he prompted said
1. There be community of design: knowing the criminal design of servant to induce the girl to leave her home and the
the principal by direct participation and concurs with him/her in servant did.
that purpose. HELD: Servant was an accomplice and master was a
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous principal by direct participation.
or simultaneous acts by supplying material or moral aid in the 2. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal.
execution of the crime in an efficacious way. o People v. Tamayo  Ramon was choking the deceased
3. There be a relation between the acts by the principal and the then Jose delivered a blow on the head of the deceased
accomplice. which Ramon saw but he still continued with choking
the deceased.
VI. FIRST REQUISITE: Community of design HELD: Ramon is an accomplice; showed that Ramon
 There must be a principal by direct participation before there approved/participated with the criminal design of Jose
could be an accomplice. because he continued choking deceased after the blow.
 The principal originates the design and the accomplice merely o People v. Cagalingan  A Cagalingan stabbed the
concurs with it. deceased first then J Cagalingan an Romina Jr. stabbed
 Cooperation which the law punishes: assistance knowingly or the deceased after.
intentionally given and which is not possible without previous HELD: Even if there shows a community of design with
knowledge of the criminal purpose. the principal, the stabbing of J Cagalingan and Romina
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Jr. were not indispensible to the commission of the got through theft. Limbo had no part nor knowledge nor share
crime because A Cagalingan’s stabbing was fatal in the sale of the stolen horses.
already, therefore the two are only accomplices. HELD: Limbo liable only for theft of bank certificates but was
o People v. Manansala:  Even after the first knife thrust neither a principal nor an accomplice nor an accessory of the
delivered to the deceased, the accused did not try to theft committed by the other defendants
stop the other accused either by word or overt act The accomplice intends by his acts, to commit or take part in the
HELD: Accused is an accomplice because even if his execution of the crime  Carino v. People
initial intent was free from guilt, it became tainted after  FACTS: Appellant was the close friend of Dr. Lava (the accused in
he saw the first knife thrust delivered. crime of rebellion). Lava has been helping appellant’s family in
 In case there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal terms of health services and in return when accused Dr. Lava
purpose/intention among accused, what should be considered asked for shelter and food from appellant, he provided the
is the criminal design/intent entertained by the accused that same for Lava not knowing that he was helping a “rebel”. Lava
inflicted the more or most serious wound on the victim. This can was part of the Huks and appellant helped Lava open bank
be inferred from the nature of the weapon or the body part accounts and assisted them with money matters.
injured.  HELD: Appellant was not considered an accomplice to rebellion
Concurrence with the criminal purpose of another may make one a co‐ because his acts of helping did not fall under the definition of
principal. rebellion in RPC nor does he fall under Art 18’s definition of
 Even if only one of the accused originated the criminal design accomplice because his intent to rebel against the government
and the other merely concurred BUT BEFORE the actual was not proven and his assistance was not efficacious enough to
commission of the crime BOTH of them agreed and decided to make insurrection or rebellion successful.
commit it, then the other will now be held a principal and not
an accomplice because he has become a co‐conspirator. B. Community of design.
No knowledge of the criminal design of the principal – not an  People v. Maliao  Accused facilitated commission of crime by
accomplice. providing his house as the venue of the crime. Even though he
 People v. Ibanez  HELD: Even if the act of the accused (holding had no direct participation in the crime’s execution, he was
deceased’s neck from behind) coincided with the other present throughout it, and he did not do anything to stop the
accused’s act of stabbing, simultaneousness does not itself malefactors nor help the victim therefore he is guilty as
demonstrate the concurrence of will nor the unity of action and accomplice in crime of rape with homicide
purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of two or The community of design need not be to commit the crime actually
more individuals committed. It is sufficient if there was a common purpose to commit a
 U.S. v. Flores  Limbo was employee of the Bureau of Printing particular crime and that the crime actually committed was a natural
and stole bank certificates for cattle registration and sold to co‐ or probable consequences of the intended crime.
defendant Flores. Flores used these to sell horses, which they 1. People v. Largo  Verzo caused Salazar and Largo to load a time
bomb in a plane which killed the deceased and others
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


HELD: Salazar and Largo were accomplices in the crime of Verzo hand of victim and tried to take away his revolver while
who was the principal co‐defendant attacked victim
2. U.S. v. De Jesus  Three men entered Osete’s house to abduct o People v. Crisostomo  No conspiracy among the 6
his daughter but instead they ended up killing Osete. Two other persons – three detained offended woman were
men were stationed outside by the carriage which brought principals in crime of illegal detention and three others
them there to be lookouts. held victim’s companion to prevent latter from helping
HELD: The two are accomplices because even if the homicide victim were accomplices
was not part of the original plan, it was a possibility to carry out
the abduction A. The cooperation of an accomplice is not due to a conspiracy.
When the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a People v. Francisco
particular person, and the principal used it to kill another person, the  FACTS: Francisco (then Mayor in Isabela) was accompanied by
owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the victim. Berganio, Badua, Dasalla, and Tagasa when he brought Corpus
 People v. De la Cerna  Serapio borrowed the rifle of Sulpicio in from the municipal building to the constabulary and wanted the
order to kill Rafael (as per their agreement) but then Serapio Corporal to detain him there. But Corporal refused because they
used it to kill Casiano. There was no evidence that Sulipicio was didn’t have a detention cell and so they brought Corpus to
aware that Serapio would do so another Barrio and Corpus disappeared and was not seen
HELD: Sulpicio acquitted for the killing of Casiano anymore.
 HELD: Companions of Francisco were held as accomplices
VII. SECOND REQUISITE: Cooperates in the execution of the offense because even if there was no conspiracy, they helped Francisco
 The accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct being Corpus around in a jeep. Their acts constitute cooperation
participation BUT his cooperation is only necessary and not by simultaneous or previous acts.
indispensable.
 However if there is conspiracy: the nature of the cooperation B. When the acts of the accused are not indispensable in the killing,
becomes immaterial. they are merely accomplices.
Examples of cooperation by accomplice:  People v. Villegas  Nature of the killing was an offshoot of a
a. By previous acts. spontaneous turn of events – not a previously conceived
o Lending of a dagger or pistol to murderer knowing his ambush as seen by the use of stones of the accused. Held as
criminal purpose accomplices because they cooperated by simultaneous acts
o U.S. v. Flores  Pharmacist (knowing the criminal which were not indispensable.
purpose) furnishes the accused with the drug which he  People v. Resayaga  Acts of blocking the people who tried to
used in order to help him rape the victim help victim is one of help and cooperation to assailants but not
b. By simultaneous acts. indispensable to stabbing of victim. Held as accomplice
o People v. Escarro  No previous agreement or  People v. Parcon  No conspiracy but one acted as look‐out or
understanding with co‐defendant but defendant held guard in crime of robbery with homicide held as accomplice
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


C. The accomplice merely supplies the principal with material or moral 1. One who had the original criminal design is the person who
aid without conspiracy with the latter. committed resulting crime.
 People v. Balili  No proof appellant conspired with 2. The accomplice, after concurring in criminal purpose of
malefactors but he went with them, knew of criminal intent, principal, cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts.
and stayed outside of house while other robbed and killed If by simultaneous act – accomplice acts while crime is being
victim. Held: Appellant is an accomplice because he supplied committed by principal by direct participation or immediately
material and moral aid thereafter (ex. Principal already attacked the victim)
 People v. Vicente  Inflicting stab wounds to victim only after 3. Accomplice in crimes against persons does not inflict the more
victim fell on ground and only because he wanted to show a or most serious wounds.
feeling of camaraderie with other accused or a “show‐off” or an  Example: C stabbed B first, and as B was in dying condition, A
expression of sympathy – guilty only as accomplice because his gave a fist blow on B’s face – A is an accomplice
act was not necessary and indispensable for the criminal assault  Reason: When A gave a fist blow after C gave a mortal wound, it
shows that A concurred in the criminal purpose of C.
D. Wounds inflicted by an accomplice in crimes against persons should
not have caused the death of the victim. (Should not be fatal) F. Being present and giving moral support when a crime is being
 Accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound (or else committed will make a person responsible only as accomplice in the
liable as principal) crime committed.
 U.S. v. Zalsos  Both were liable as co‐principals because both  If knowledge of criminal purpose of principal is absent = giving
inflicted a mortal wound on the neck of the victim even if R aid or encouragement either morally or materially in
originated the intention to assault deceased and Z just assisted commission of crime or mere presence at scene of crime 
action of initiator of the crime does not make one an accomplice (People v. Toling)
Following cases – other accused were held as accomplices only –  People v. Ubina  Ubina conspired with five persons to kill
wound inflicted by them were not the cause of death: Carag because he lost in an election to him and he was also
 People v. Azcona  wounds inflicted did not materially insulted by Carag. The five persons brought 3 others where
contribute to death of deceased Carag was killed but they did not participate in the act of killing
 People v. Tamayo  wound inflicted not of a character that itself.
would result to death of deceased HELD: The 3 others’ presence and company was not
 People v. Cortes  accused armed with clubs struck victim, AS indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the murder
he fell by fatal blow made by principal, and he did not cause but they were present and they gave moral support =
serious injuries on deceased accomplices.
 People v. Antonio  stoning victim already mortally wounded The moral aid may be through advice, encouragement, or agreement.
by other accused  Material aid: external acts
 Moral aid: through advice, encouragement, or agreement
E. In these cases, the following rules are indicated:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 But the advice, encouragement, or agreement should not be the HELD: C is only guilty as accomplice in commission of simple
determining cause of the commission of the crime by the theft. A guilty of qualified theft because of the qualifying
principal by direct participation or else the one who gave it circumstance of grave abuse of confidence (this did not apply to
would be a principal by inducement, C because he wasn’t affiliated with NARIC)
 People v. Doble  Appellants joined in plan to rob by providing
VIII. THIRD REQUISITE: Relation between the acts banca for the robbery but there was killing committed in the
There must be a relation between the criminal act of the principal and course of the robbery by the principals (others)
the act of the one charged as accomplice. HELD: Appellants only accomplices because they couldn’t have
 Not enough that a person entertains an identical criminal design prevented the killing because they were left at the banca
as that of the principal – there must be a relation between the
criminal act of principal by direct participation and of person IX. Accomplice v. Principal
charged as accomplice. Distinguish accomplice from principal in general: Accomplice…
 People v. De la Cruz  Reyes attacked and passed his hand over  Does not take direct part in commission of act.
his girlfriend’s body and their families decided that the father of  Does not force nor induce others to commit it.
Reyes would punish him. Brother of the girl planned to avenge  Does not cooperate in the commission of the crime by another
the honor of his sister armed himself with a pistol. When he was act without which it would not have been accomplished.
about to attack Reyes, Reyes was stabbed by his sister and died.  Cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or
Brother was accused as accomplice. simultaneous actions.
HELD: No liability by reason of participation if there is no Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by cooperation.
relation between criminal act of principal by direct participation Accomplice Principal by Cooperation
(girl) and of the person charged as accomplice (brother). Participation of offender in a case Case of a co‐principal by
of complicity (accomplice) – cooperation – indispensible.
An accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that which the necessary only.
principal committed.  Ex. One lends dagger or pistol knowing borrower is going to
1. People v. Babiera  It was not shown that C and D knew of the commit murder – cooperation with a previous act but not
manner A attacked B but they knew that A had unlawfully indispensable cause offender could have borrowed or gotten
attacked B. weapon from someone/somewhere else
HELD: C and D were guilty as accomplices in crime of homicide  People v. Templonuevo  Accused (with knowledge of
(A was guilty of murder qualified by treachery) intention of other accused to kill the deceased) struck deceased
2. Other cases: on forehead with piece of wood facilitating subsequent slaying
 People v. Valdellon  NARIC guard A asked C to help him (A) of deceased because it made him unconscious
get some sacks of rice from the NARIC warehouse then A sold HELD: Accused is guilty as accomplice
them to D  People v. Geronimo  Romeo held the victim while the others
boloed him (without conspiracy among them)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


HELD: Romeo is only an accomplice because others could have
hacked deceased even without him holding POINTS
Distinguish accomplice from a principal by direct participation. I. Definition
1. U.S. v. Diris  Person entertained owner of a house (some  An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor
distance away from the said place) while robbers were cooperate in the commission of the felony, but with knowledge
assaulting it – so that owner will not return until after robbery of the commission of the crime he subsequently takes part in
has been consummated – an Accomplice in the crime because three ways mentioned in the article.
he cooperated by a simultaneous act but not indispensable.
 But if the person was in the same place talking to the owner of II. Important words and phrases in Article 19
the house (distracting him and serving as guard to warn “Having knowledge”
companions robbing the place) – he is a principal by direct  An accessory must have knowledge of the crime, and with that
participation knowledge took part in subsequent to its commission.
2. No clear‐cut distinction between acts of accomplice and acts of o In the absence of the purchaser’s knowledge at the time
principal by direct participation – in case of doubt: resolve in of transaction that such goods were of illegal origin, the
favor of less responsibility or as mere accomplice customer who purchases such goods cannot be held
3. Between or among principals liable for the same offense: there criminally responsible as accessory (People v. Labrador).
must be conspiracy  Mere possession of stolen property does not make the accused
Between principals and accomplices: there is NO conspiracy an accessory where the thief was already convicted.
o Rational: It is within the real of possibilities that the
Article 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having individual received the stolen property honestly, in the
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having legal course of transaction without knowing that it was
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part stolen (People v. Racimo).
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:  Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been committed is not
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by enough.
the effects of the crime. o Knowledge and suspicion are not synonymous terms:
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the  Suspicion  being the imagination of the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its existence of something without proof, or upon
discovery. very slight evidence or upon no evidence at all.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the  Knowledge  known actual facts.
principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse  Knowledge of the commission of a crime may be acquired
of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is subsequence to the acquisition of stolen property.
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the o US v. Montano
life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty  Facts: Robbers took and carried away a carabao.
of some other crime. These were found in the possession of A who
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


acquired them without knowing they had been  Held: No. A is principal by direct participation. C and D are
illegally taken. Owners informed A that they accomplices.
were stolen and agreed to pay half of what A “Take part subsequent to its commission”
had paid for them. When the owners returned  The accessory takes part after the crime has been committed.
with the payment, A said the carabaos were ____________________
returned to the seller. PAR 1: BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO
 Issue: Is A liable as an accessory? PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.
 Held: Yes. To declare the accused guilty as
accessory, it is not necessary that he should I. Note:
have acquired the property knowing at that  The crime committed by the principal in this paragraph may be
time that it had been stolen. It is sufficient that any crime.
after acquiring that knowledge, he concealed or  It must not be a light felony.
disposed of the property, thereby depriving the
owner thereof. II. “By profiting themselves by the effects of the crime”
 Knowledge of the commission of the crime may be established  Examples:
by circumstantial evidence. o One who received a property knowing it was stolen, and
o People v. Dalena  When a person knew his co‐accused used it (People v. Tanchoco).
had no legitimate business and there was no rational o One who shared the reward for the commission of the
reason for the accused to believe that his co‐accused’s crime profited through it (US v. Empainado).
possession of said goods were legitimate, the  The accessory should not take the property without the consent
conclusion is that he had knowledge of their illegal of the principal otherwise it would be theft
source.  When is profiting by the effects of the crime punished as the act
“Commission of the crime” of principal and not the act of accessory?
 The crime committed by the principal must be proved beyond o When a person knowingly acquired or received property
reasonable doubt. taken by the brigands (Article 307).
 People v. Pardito  where there is doubt as to whether the
woman committed the crime of parricide or not (i.e. not III. “Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime”
conclusively proven), the fact that the servant helped bury the  Examples:
body does not make him an accessory in parricide. o A person knowing the item was stolen, sells it for the
“Without having participated therein either as principals or thief (US v. Galanco).
accomplices” o Those who acted as runner or couriers in kidnapping for
 Facts: A attacked B, and B fell. C and D then each hit B with a ransom (People v. Magsino).
piece of wood. B died and was buried by all three.  An accessory should not be in conspiracy with the principal
 Issue: Can anyone be held as an accessory? (otherwise he would also be punished as principal).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o US v. Tan Tiap Co  Concealing or destroying the effects or instruments of the crime
o Facts: A conspired with others to steal goods, and to prevent its discovery.
agreed to pay upon delivery of goods. o Accused is an accessory has he helped hide the weapon
o Held: A is guilty of the crime of theft as principal, not used to kill. The pistol or knife is the instrument of the
just accessory. crime.
____________________
PAR. 2: BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO III. “To prevent its discovery”
PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY.  “Its” refers to the crime.
 What is being concealed is the body of the crime, the effects or
I. Note: instruments NOT the principal who committed the crime. There
 The crime committed by the principal in this paragraph may be must be an effort to prevent the discovery of the crime.
any crime. ____________________
 It must not be a light felony. PAR. 3: BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME.
II. “Body of the crime”
 Corpus Delicti  the body of the offense. I. Two classes of accessories contemplated in Par. 3
 A specific offense was in fact committed by someone.  Public Officers
 Examples: o Requisites:
o Assisting in the burial of the victim (US v. Leal).  The accessory is a public officer.
o Making it appear that the victim had to be killed  He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of
because he resisted by placing a gun in his hand when the principal.
already dead (US v. Cuison)  The public officer acts with abuse of his public
o The mere act of carrying the cadaver of one unlawfully functions.
killed when it was buried to prevent the discovery of the  The crime committed by the principal is any
crime, is sufficient to make him responsible as an crime, provided it is not a light felony.
accessory (People v. Galleto)  Private Persons
 There must be an attempt to hide the body of the crime. o Requisites:
o People v. De la Cruz  That the accessory is a private person
o Facts: Accused was ordered to board the jeep not  That he harbors, conceals or assists in the
knowing or even suspecting the reason for it. He did not escape of the author of the crime.
take part in the killing, nor profit, nor try to help conceal  That the crime committed by the principal is
it as the bodies were merely thrown in the ditch. either:
o Held: Accused must be acquitted. • Treason
• Parricide
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


• Murder o YES, if the crime was in fact committed, but the
• Attempt on the life of the President principal was acquitted because of Article 12.
• That the principal is known to be o See p. 590 – 591 for examples.
habitually guilty of some other crime.  Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not necessary
for the accessory to be held criminally liable.
II. “Habitually guilty of some other crime” o So long as the requisites for the existence of the crime
 Example: A person who previously punished for less physical are present and that someone committed them, the
injuries three times, and then commits estafa is a “habitually accessory may be held criminally liable.
guilty”, and whoever helps in his escape becomes an accessory. o In the same way, the trial of the accessory may be
o REQUISITE: The accessory must have knowledge of the resolved prior to that of the principal so long as the
principal being habitually guilty of some other crime. above is satisfied.
 A mayor who refused to prosecute the offender is an accessory. o The accessory may be prosecuted and convicted even if
o US v. Yacat  Mayor of the twon of Cabiao refused to the principal is not yet apprehended, so long as the
prosecute the crime of homicide thus making it possible crime has been proved to exist.
for the offender to escape.  The accused cannot be held liable as accessory if the principal
 One who kept silent with regard to the crime he witnessed is charged with murder died before trial because had he been
not an accessory. alive, he might have been found guilty of only homicide.
o US v. Caballeros  Person who saw the commission of
murder and kept silent and does not report to IV. Accessory distinguished from principal and from accomplice.
authorities, is not liable for anything. Principal Accomplice Accessory
o US v. Romulo  Person who volunteers false Takes direct part or cooperate or Does not take direct part or
information tended to deceive the prosecution and induce in the commission of the cooperate in or induce the
assist in concealing the guilty party is liable. crime commission of the crime
Cooperates in the commission of Does not cooperate in the
III. Accessories liability is subordinate and subsequent the offense prior, during or after. commission of the offense by acts
 Reason: The accessory’s participation therein is subsequent to either prior thereto or
the crime’s commission, and his guilt is directly related to that simultaneous therewith.
of the principal. Participation takes place prior, Participation always takes place
o If the facts alleged are not proven in the prosecution during and after AFTER the commission of the
instituted or do not constitute a crime, no legal grounds crime.
exist for convicting a defendant as an accessory since no
crime has been perpetrated (US v. Mendoza).
 Is conviction of accessory possible even if principal is acquitted?

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The  If the accessory performs the two acts mentioned, he is liable
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those even if the principal falls within the listed relatives because such
who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, acts are prompted not by affection but be detestable greed.
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by  Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 19 are
affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of exempt from criminal liability if they are related to the
accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next principals.
preceding article. o Examples of exemptions:
 A son who helps his father bury the body of the
POINTS murdered victim.
I. Basis for exemption  Grandson who having knowledge of the robbery
 Based on ties of blood, and preservation of the cleanliness of by his grandfather destroys the body of the
one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed crime.
by relatives so near as those mentioned in this article.  Person who helps his brother escape after the
latter committed treason.
II. Principals related to accessories exempt from criminal liability  Does concealing of the effects of the crime, not to prevent its
 When principal is his: discovery, but to obtain gain, fall under Article 19(2)?
o Spouse o Facts: Husband conceals the property stolen by his wife
o Descendant to profit from it later.
o Ascendant o Held: Husband is liable as an accessory since he is driven
o Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative not by affection for his wife, but profit.
by affinity within the same degree.  Liability of a public officer when related to the principal
o Facts: Public officer abused his office in order to assist
III. Extent of coverage the escape of his brother who had committed murder.
 Exemption applies even if the accessory is related to only two of o Issue: Is he liable as an accessory?
found principals guilty of murder (US v. Abanzado). o Held: He is an accessory BUT does not have criminal
 Relationship by affinity between surviving spouse and blood liability. Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more
relatives of the deceased spouse survives even after the death powerful incentive than the call of duty.
of the deceased spouse.
 Nephew or niece is not included among such relatives.

IV. Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the principal
is related to him if such accessory (1) profited by the effects of the
crime, or (2) assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES 2. Self‐defense  measure of such to protect society from the
CHAPTER 1: PENALTIES IN GENERAL threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal.
3. Reformation  object of punishment is to correct offender.
PENALTIES IN GENERAL 4. Exemplarity  to deter others from committing crimes.
5. Justice  retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right and
POINTS moral law violated by the criminal.
I. Definitions Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death
 Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the  When a person has proved to be a dangerous enemy of society,
transgression of a law. it must protect itself by taking the life in retribution for the
o Signifies pain i.e. suffering undergone because of the offense, and to serve as an example and warning to others.
action of human society, by one who commits a crime.
V. Three‐fold purpose of penalties under RPC
II. Different juridical conditions of penalty (acc. to the classical school) 1. Retribution or expiation  commensurate with the gravity of
1. Must be productive suffering – without affecting the integrity of the offense.
the human personality. 2. Correction or reformation  shown by the rules that regulate
2. Must be commensurate with the offense – different crimes the execution of penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
must be punished with different penalties. 3. Social defense  shown by inflexible severity to recidivists and
3. Must be personal – no one should be punished for the crime of habitual delinquents.
another.
4. Must be legal – it is the consequence of a judgment according VI. Constitutional restriction on penalties
to law.  “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel punishment
5. Must be certain. inflicted”
6. Must be equal for all. o Cruel and unusual  punishment that is so
7. Must be correctional. disproportionate to the offense so as to shock the moral
sense of all reasonable men.
III. State’s purpose for punishing crime o Constitutional stricture refers to penalties which are
 To secure justice  The state has… inhuman and barbarous, or shocking to the conscience
o An existence of its own to maintain. (Weems v. US), and fines and imprisonment are not in
o A conscience of its own to assert. this category (People v. Dionisio).
o Moral principles to be vindicated.

IV. Theories justifying penalty
1. Prevention  and suppress the danger to the State arising from
the criminal acts of the offender.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. – No felony shall be  Facts: Macasaet was charted and convicted for violating Act No.
punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its 1189 punishable by a fine. At that time, no law provided for
commission. imprisonment for failure to pay fine by reason of insolvency. Act
No. 1732 which provides such penalty, and took effect during
POINTS trial. The court imposed subsidiary imprisonment.
I. State policy about punishing crimes  Held: Subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed because it
 This article prohibits the government from punishing any person took effect AFTER the commission of the crime.
for any felony with any penalty, which has not been prescribed
by the law. Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws – Penal laws shall have a
o Has no application to the RPC, because all felonies retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony,
defined in the RPC has a prescribed penalty. who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
o May only be invoked when a person is being tried for an Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such
act or omission for which no penalty has been laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving
prescribed by law. the same.
 This is a guarantee to the citizen of this country that no act of
his will be considered criminal until the government has made it POINTS
so by law and has provided a penalty. I. Article 22 not applicable to provisions of Revised Penal Code
 Application to RPC may only be invoked where some former or
II. Reason for the provision subsequent law is under consideration.
 A law cannot be rationally obeyed unless it is first shown.  Article 10 doesn’t bar application of Article 22 to special laws.
 Man cannot be expected to obey an order that has not been o If by amendment to the RPC or special law, the
given. punishment is made less severe than provided for in this
Code, the accused may invoke Article 22.
III. Examples Must necessarily relate:
No penalty prescribed by law prior to its commission 1. To penal laws existing prior to the RPC, in which the penalty was
 US v. Yam Tung Way less severe than those of the code OR
 Facts: A allegedly reproduced and sold fraudulent copies of 2. To laws enacted subsequent to the RPC, in which the penalty is
another’s literary work. No copyright law. more favorable to the accused.
 Held: A cannot be punished because at that time no law defined
and penalized such act. II. GENERAL RULE: Give criminal laws prospective effect
Subsidiary penalty for a crime can’t be imposed if “not prescribed by  People v. Changco
law prior to its commission”  Facts: Before Article 365 (RPC) was amended, slight physical
 US v. Macasaet injuries through reckless imprudence was not punishable. On
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


September 21, 1954, accused committed such act. On June 21, V. Revised Penal Code was not given retroactive effect
1957, RA 1790 was approved thus making the amendments.  Thus, acts committed in violation of a conditional pardon (a
 Issue: Can accused be punished? violation of RPC) prior to the effectivity of the RPC cannot be
 Held: The amended Article 365 punishing the act cannot be punished (Peope v. Carballo).
given retroactive effect such as to punish the accused.
Giving a law retroactive effect, in unfavorable to the accused will VI. “Although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
violate the constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto law. sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same”
 See “Criminal Law in General” or p.608  Provision of Article 22 that penal laws shall have retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony is
III. EXCEPTION: to give criminal laws retroactive effect when favorable applicable even if the accused has already started or is serving
to the accused. his sentence.
 Lapuz v. Court of Appeals  The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the
 Facts: Bus driver convicted separately of (1) homicide with defendant in one of these three situations:
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence and (2) o The crime has been committed and prosecution begins.
damage to property through reckless imprudence for the o Sentence has been passed but service has not begun.
destruction caused to the other bus. RA 587 amending the o The sentence is being carried out.
Motor Vehicle law took effect after the incident, which made  In any case, the favorable new statute benefits him and should
the driver liable for only one complex crime under the RPC apply to him.
instead of two separate crimes.  Example: case of Robin Padilla where his sentence was
 Issue: Can RA 587 be used? shortened after the passing of a new law that decreased the
 Held: Even though RA 587 took effect after the incident, it can penalty of illegal possession of firearms.
be given retroactive effect.
Exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of crime. VII. “Who is not a habitual criminal?”
 Habitual criminals are not entitled to benefit of the provisions of
IV. Reason for the exception the new favorable statute.
 The sovereign in enacting a subsequent penal law more  A person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent if within a
favorable to the accused has recognized that the greater period of ten years from the date of his release or last
severity of the former law is unjust. conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
 However, the new law may provide otherwise injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty
o RA 4661 decreasing the prescription of libel from 2 of any said crimes a third time or oftener (Rule 5, Article 62)
years to 1 year provides that it shall not apply to cases
of libel already filed in court at the time of its approval.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


VIII. In connection to civil liability for the same crime. longer a crime.
Retroactive effect not applicable to civil liability Held Petition denied. The intent Case dismissed. A person
 The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far as they of the RPC was to insure cannot be prosecuted,
favor the culprit does not apply to the latter’s civil liability elimination of crimes convicted and punished for
because the rights of the offended party or innocent third penalized by former acts acts no longer criminal.
parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of the State. before its enforcement. It
BUT a new law INCREASING civil liability CANT be retroactive should not have the effect of
 Thus, CA 284 which increased the minimum indemnity for the pardoning the guilty.
death of a person by reason of the commission of a crime from
P1,000 to P2,000 was not given retroactive effect (People v. DISTINCTION:
Panaligan, CA). Lagrimas Tamayo
Legislature re‐enacted the The repeal (completely eliminating
IX. Article 22 v. Article 3661 provision of Article 251 of the old the section of the ordinance under
 The two articles mean that while felonies and misdemeanors Penal Code in the RPC, but does which the accused was being
committed prior to the date of effectiveness of the RPC shall be not punish an assault upon a prosecuted) was absolute.
punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the public school teacher anymore.
time of their commission, the same should not be the case IF Article 149 of the RPC did not
such Code or Acts are unfavorable to the guilty party for the absolutely repeal.
general principle on the retroactivity of favorable penal laws,
recognized in Article 22, should then apply. Where the repeal is by reenactment.
 Where the repeal is by reenactment, the court has jurisdiction
X. REPEAL OF LAWS: Lagrimas case v. Tamayo case to try and punish an accused person under the old law.
Lagrimas Tamayo Criminal liability under former law is obliterated when the repeal is
Facts  Petitioner convicted for  Accused was convicted for absolute
assault upon a public official violating a municipal  The repeal in the case of People v. Tamayo is absolute, not a
and penalized under Article ordinance. reenactment or repeal by implication. No saving clause too.
251 of the old penal code.  Pending his appeal, the Criminal liability under repealed law subsists:
 Article 149 of the RPC ordinance was repealed and 1. When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; or
does not prescribe a penalty the act complained of was no 2. When the repeal is by implication; or
3. When there is a saving clause
1
Article 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this Code. — Without  Right to punish offenses committed under an old penal law is
prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code, felonies and not extinguished if the offenses are still punished in the
misdemeanors, committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall repealing law.
be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their
commission.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Repeal of penal law which impliedly repealed an old penal law revives  Only the Chief Executive can pardon offenders (Article 36).
the old law. Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability
 Thus, when Act 1697 which repealed provisions of the old Penal  There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from
Code, was itself repealed by old Administrative Code, the an offense, but such compromise shall not extinguish the public
penalty of the old Penal Code which was lighter than Act 1697 action for the imposition of the legal penalty (Article 2034, Civil
was imposed (US v. Soliman, supra) Code).
No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards jurisdiction of court  A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the right to
 The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be prosecute an offense or waiving the criminal liability is void. The
determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the consideration or subject‐matter is illegal.
action, not at the time of the commission of the crime.
 Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the II. “Except as provided in Article 344 of this Code”
allegations of the complaint or information, not by the findings  The offended party in the crimes of adultery and concubinage
the court may make after trial. CANNOT institute criminal prosecution IF he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders.
XI. What penalty may be imposed for the commission of a felony? o In case of pardon, BOTH offenders must be pardoned.
 Only the penalty prescribed by law prior to the commission of o The pardon may be IMPLIED through continued inaction
the felony may be imposed (Article 21). of the offended party after learning the offense.
 Felonies are punishable under the laws in force at the time of  In the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
their commission (Article 366). lasciviousness, there shall be no criminal prosecution if the
 But the penalty prescribed by a law enacted after the offender has been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party
commission of the felony may be imposed, if it is favorable to or her parents, grandparents, or guardian.
the offender (Article 22). Pardon under Article 344 must be made before start of prosecution
 When complaint for the above crimes have been filed in court, a
Article 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the motion to dismiss based solely on pardon by the offended party
offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided given after the filing of the complaint will be denied by court.
in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest  The ONLY act that can extinguish the penal action after
of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. institution of criminal action is marriage between offender and
offended party.
POINTS Pardon under Article 344 is only a bar to criminal prosecution
I. “A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal  Article 89 providing for the total extinction of criminal liability
action” does not mention pardon by the offended party as one of the
 Crime committed is an offense against the state. In criminal causes of totally extinguishing criminal liability.
cases, the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited to
being witnesses for the prosecution.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


III. “But civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is  “THEIR” in the second clause of par.1 refers to “accused
extinguished by his express waiver” persons”.
 Two classes of injury:
o Social injury  disturbance and alarm resulting from II. They are not considered penalties
the offense.  Because they are not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings
o Personal injury  caused to the victim who suffered  Par. 1, 3 and 4 are preventive measures.
damage either to his person, property, honor or her  Par. 2 is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the court.
chastity. The imposition of the sentence in such case is suspended.
 Social injury is sought to be repaired by imposition of penalty.  Fines mentioned in Par. 4 should not be imposed by the court,
The state has an interest and therefore cannot be extinguished or else they will constitute a penalty.
by pardon of offended party.  Par. 5 is illustrate in the case of parents who are stripped of
 Personal injury is repaired through indemnity, which is civil in their parental authority if found guilty of the crime of corruption
nature, and can thus be EXPRESSLY waived. The State has not of their minor children.
reason to insist on its payment.

Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered
penalties. — The following shall not be considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as
well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or
illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions
mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the
trial or in order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of
their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may
impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws
may establish in penal form.

POINTS
I. “As well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility”
 Refers to “accused persons” who are detained “by reason of
insanity or imbecility”.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES ACCESSORY PENALTIES
CHAPTER 2: CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the
may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are profession or calling.
those included in the following: Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
SCALE Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Payment of costs.
Capital punishment:
Death. POINTS
I. “The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code x x x
Afflictive penalties: are those included” in Article 25 only
Reclusion perpetua,  The Revised Penal Codes does not prescribe the penalty of life
Reclusion temporal, imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, that
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, not by the RPC but by special law.
Prision mayor.  Examples:
o Sentence of “five years in Bilibid” is defective because it
Correctional penalties: does not specify the exact penalty prescribed in the RPC
Prision correccional, (US v. Avillar)
Arresto mayor, o Penalty of life imprisonment or cadena perpetua is
Suspension, erroneous as it has been abolished. The correct term is
Destierro. reclusion perpetua. (People v. Abletes).
 Reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment as the
Light penalties: Code does not prescribe life imprisonment as a penalty. It is a
Arresto menor, penalty used by special laws. Reclusion perpetua entailed
Public censure. imprisonment for at least 30 years after which the convict
becomes eligible for parole. It also carried with accessory
Penalties common to the three preceding classes: penalties such as perpetual special disqualification.
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace. II. R.A. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty
 Signed into law on June 24, 2006 and provided for the
imposition of penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC. V. Classification of penalties according to their gravity
1. Capital
III. Principal v. Accessory Penalties 2. Afflictive
 Two classifications 3. Correctional
o Principal Penalties  those expressly imposed by the 4. Light
court in the judgment of conviction.  Corresponds to Article 9: Grave, less grave, light felony
o Accessory Penalties  those that are deemed included
in the imposition of the principal penalties. VI. Public Censure is a penalty
 Principal Penalties according to their divisibility  Being a penalty, not properly imposed in acquittal.
o Divisible Penalties  are those that have fixed duration  The court may only impose a penalty if the accused is found
and are divisible into three periods guilty. The power to mete out punishments; a finding of guilt
o Indivisible Penalties  those which have no fixed must precede the punishment.
duration.
 Death VII. Court acquitting the accused may criticize his acts or conduct
 Reclusion Perpetua  The court, while acquitting an accused, may permit itself
 Perpetual absolute or special disqualification nevertheless to criticize or reprehend his acts or conduct in
 Public censure connection with the transaction out of which the accusation
Penalties are either principal or accessory arose.
 Perpetual or temporary absolute/special disqualification and
suspensions may be principal or accessory penalties, because Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. — A fine,
they are formed in two general classes. whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be
 Article 236  punishes the crime of anticipation of duties of considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
public office through suspension as principal penalty. correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less
 Article 226, 227 and 228  punishing infidelity of public officers than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
in the custody of documents, provide for temporary special
disqualification as a principal penalty. POINTS
I. “Whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty”
IV. Classification of penalties according to subject‐matter  Example: Article 144 punishing disturbance of proceedings, the
1. Corporal (death) penalty is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000.
2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto) Penalties cannot be imposed in the alternative
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro)  The law does not permit any court to impose a sentence in the
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension) alternative, its duty being to indicate the penalty imposed
5. Pecuniary (Fine) definitely and positively.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


II. Article 26 merely classifies fines and has nothing to do with the
definition of light felony
 If the fine prescribed by the law for a felony is exactly P200, it is
a light felony because Article 9, Par. 3 which defines light
felonies should prevail.

Fine is:
1. Afflictive – over P6,000
2. Correction ‐ P200 to P6,000
3. Light penalty – less than P200

Bond to keep the peace is by analogy:
1. Afflictive – over P6,000
2. Correctional – P200 to P6,000
3. Light penalty – less than P200
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES POINTS
CHAPTER 3: DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES I. Duration of each different penalties
SECTION 1: DURATION OF PENALTIES 1. Reclusion perpetua – 20 yrs. and 1 day to 40 yrs.
2. Reclusion temporal – 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs.
Article 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the 3. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification – 6 years. and 1
perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for day to 12 yrs, except when disqualification is accessory penalty,
thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty.
other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as 4. Prision correctional, suspension, and destierro – 6 months and 1
unworthy of pardon. day to 6 yrs, except when suspension is an accessory penalty in
which case its duration is that of the principal penalty.
Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from 5. Arresto mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
twelve years and one day to twenty years. 6. Arresto menor – 1 day to 30 days
7. Bond to keep the peace – the period during which the bond
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the shall be effective is discretionary on the court.
penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be
from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty II. Temporary disqualification and suspension when imposed as
of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its accessory penalties, have different durations – they follow the
duration shall be that of the principal penalty. duration of the principal penalty.

Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the III. In what cases is destierro imposed?
penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be 1. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional
from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is circumstances (Article 247).
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be 2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior (Article 284).
that of the principal penalty. 3. As a penalty for the concubine in concubinage (Article 334).
4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one or more
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
be from one month and one day to six months.
IV. Bond to keep the peace is not specifically provided so as a penalty
Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall for any felony and therefore cannot be imposed by the court.
be from one day to thirty days.  Bond for good behavior under Article 284 of the Code is only
required of a person making a grave or light threat, and not in
Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be other cases or crimes.
required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 28. Computation of penalties. ‐ If the offender shall be in  If not detained  Rule 3 applies
prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be Examples of temporary penalties:
computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall 1) Temporary absolute disqualification
have become final. 2) Temporary special disqualification
3) Suspension
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty
consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day III. Rules in cases of penalties consisting of deprivation of liberty
that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for  Not in prison  Rule 2 applies.
the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties  In prison (e.g. preventive imprisonment)  Rule 3 applies
shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant  Exemption: offender is entitled to deduction of full time or 4/5
commences to serve his sentence. of the time of his detention (See Article 29).
Examples of penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty:
POINTS 1) Imprisonment
I. Rules in computation of penalties: 2) Destierro
1. When the offender is in prison: the duration of temporary
penalties is from the day on which the judgment of conviction Article 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of
becomes final. imprisonment. ‐ Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive
o Reason for Rule 1  Computation begins from the date imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence
conviction becomes final and not from the day of his consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which
detention, because under Article 24 the arrest and they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention
temporary detention is not aconsidered a penalty. prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
o An accused who appealed will commence serving his rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
sentence from the date the appellate court 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously
promulgated its decision, NOT when the trial court twice or more times of any crime; and
promulgated it (Ocampo v. CA). 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their
2. When the offender is not in prison: the duration of penalties sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
consisting in deprivation of liberty, is from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of judicial authorities for the If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same
enforcement of the penalty. disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be
3. The duration of other penalties: the duration is from the day on credited in the service of his sentence with four‐fifths of the time
which the offender commences to serve his sentence. during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by Republic Act No. 6127, June 17, 1970).
II. Rules in cases of temporary penalties:
 If under detention  Rule 1 applies
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a III. The credit is given in the service of sentences “consisting of
period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of deprivation of liberty”
the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not  If the offense for which the offender is undergoing preventive
yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to imprisonment is punishable by imprisonment or a fine, and
the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the upon conviction the court imposed on him only a fine, there is
same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the not credit to be given.
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty  The fine imposed cannot be lessened in light of one’s preventive
(30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act imprisonment.
No. 6127, and further amended by E.O. No. 214, prom. July 10, 1987.)
When is there preventive imprisonment? IV. Destierro constitutes “deprivation of liberty”
 Although destierro is not imprisonment, a person penalized with
POINTS such may still be credited with the time he underwent
I. When is there preventive imprisonment? preventive imprisonment.
 The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when the  If destierro is the maximum penalty to which the accused may
offense charged is nonbailable, or even if bailable, he cannot be sentenced, he must still be released after serving whatever
furnish the required bail. prison sentence (for example arresto menor) is required, since
 Preventive penalties are considered even in the case of destierro is not served in prison (See p.634).
perpetual punishments. This article does not make any
distinction between temporal and perpetual penalties. V. The convict is to be released immediately if the penalty imposed
after trial is less than the full time or four‐fifths of the time of the
II. The full time or four‐fifths of the time during which the offenders preventive imprisonment.
have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be deducted from the  The accused is to be released immediately whenever he has
penalty imposed undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
 Full Time  if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in more than the possible maximum imprisonment for the
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon offenses charged.
convicted prisoners.
o Exception: Youthful offenders shall be credited in the VI. Offenders not entitled to the full time or four‐fifths of the time of
service of his sentence with the full time he spent in preventive imprisonment:
actual confinement and detention. The written consent 1. Recidivists or those previously convicted twice or more of any
to abide by the disciplinary rules is not necessary. crime (Habitual delinquent is included).
(Article 197, PD No. 603). 2. Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their
 4/5 Time  if the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by sentence, failed voluntarily to surrender.
said disciplinary rules.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES Article 32. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special
CHAPTER 3: DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage. ‐ The perpetual
SECTION 2: EFFECTS OF PENALTIES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of
NATURE suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of
the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to
Article 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected to
disqualification. ‐ The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any
disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects: public office during the period of his disqualification.
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which
the offender may have held even if conferred by popular Article 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office,
election. profession or calling, or the right of suffrage. ‐ The suspension from
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of
popular elective office or to be elected to such office. suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the
for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned. term of the sentence.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is
comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold
the term of the sentence. another having similar functions during the period of his suspension.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any
office formerly held. Article 34. Civil interdiction. ‐ Civil interdiction shall deprive the
offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental
Article 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any
disqualification. ‐ The penalties of perpetual or temporary special ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of
disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance
following effects: inter vivos.
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or
calling affected; Article 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. ‐ It shall be the duty of
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two
either perpetually or during the term of the sentence, sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not
according to the extent of such disqualification. commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the
court in its judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the
office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or
duration of the bond. (Read also Art. 284) employments perpetually or during the term of the
sentence.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall 3. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification
be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, if he for the exercise of the right to suffrage produce the following
shall have prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not effects:
exceed thirty days, if for a light felony. a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected to any
public office.
POINTS b. Cannot hold any public office during the period of
I. Perpetual v. Temporary disqualification.
 Perpetual  effective during the lifetime of the convict even 4. The penalties of suspension from public office, profession or
after serving his sentence. calling or the right to suffrage produce the following effects:
 Temporary  lasts during the term of the sentence and a. Disqualification from holding such office or exercising
removed after service of the same such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the
o Except: (1) Deprivation of public office or employment, term of the sentence.
and (2) loss of all rights to retirement pay or other b. If suspended from public office, the offender cannot
pension for any office formerly held. hold another office having similar functions during the
period of suspension.
II. Outline of the effects of penalties under Articles 30‐35 5. Civil interdiction shall produce the following effects:
1. The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute a. Deprivation of the rights of parental authority or
disqualification for public office produce the following effects: guardianship of any ward.
a. Deprivation of public offices and employments, b. Deprivation of marital authority.
even if by election. c. Deprivation of the right to manage his property and of
b. Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected. the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
c. Disqualification for the offices or public conveyance inter vivos.
employments and for the exercise of any of the 6. Bonds to keep the peace:
rights mentioned. a. The offender must present two sureties who shall
d. Loss of right to retirement pay or pension for any undertake that the offender will not commit the offense
office formerly held. sought to be prevented, and in that case that such
2. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special Disqualification offense be committed they will pay the amount
for public office, profession or calling produce the following determined by the court.
effects: b. The offender must deposit such amount with the clerk
a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or of court to guarantee said undertaking.
calling affected.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


c. The offender may be detained, if he cannot give the 2. It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
bond, for a perios not less than 6 months if prosecuted indemnity. The pardon cannot make an exception to this rule.
for grave or less grave felony, or for a period not to
exceed 30 days, if for a light felony. II. Limitation upon the exercise of the pardoning power:
1. That the power can be exercised only after conviction.
II. Disqualification if WITHHOLDING of a privilege, NOT denial of a right o Any application of pardon should not be accepted until
 Manifest purpose of the restrictions is to preserve the purity of the appeal is withdrawn.
elections. o Agencies and instrumentalities of the govt. must require
o One rendered infamous by conviction of a felony, or proof (e.g. certification of the court regarding
other base offense indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit withdrawal of such appeal).
to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. 2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment

III. What suspension from exercise of profession covers III. Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory
 Suspension, which deprives the offender of the right of penalties
exercising any kind of profession or calling covers such calling or  Only the effect of the principal penalty is extinguished.
trade as for instance that of broker, master plumber, etc.  Exception: Where facts show that the purpose of the Chief
Executive is precisely to restore lost rights.
IV. Bond to keep peace is not bail bond o When an absolute pardon is granted AFTER the term of
 Bond to keep the peace or for good behavior is imposed as a imprisonment has expired it removes all that is left of
penalty in threats (Article 284). the consequences of conviction.
 This differs from bail bond which aims to secure provisional  Suppose a pardon is granted after the convict served 30 years of
release pending final judgment. imprisonment. Does it also pardon the perpetual absolute
disqualification?
Article 36. Pardon; its effect. ‐ A pardon shall not work the restoration o No, because Article 30 is silent about the length and
of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such Article 36 requires that such restoration be EXPRESS.
rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
IV. Pardon of Chief Executive v. Pardon of offended party
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the Chief Executive Offended Party
civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Extinguishes criminal liability Doesn’t extinguish criminal liability
Doesn’t include civil liability Civil liability can be waived
POINTS Pardon should be AFTER Pardon should be BEFORE
I. Effects of pardon by the President conviction and to any of the institution of criminal prosecution
1. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public office or the offenders. and to both offenders.
right of suffrage.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 37. Cost. ‐ What are included. ‐ Costs shall include fees and 2. Indemnification of the consequential damages
indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be 3. Fine
fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or 4. Cost of proceedings
regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
II. When is Article 38 applicable?
POINTS  It is applicable “in case the property of the offender should not
I. The following are included in costs: be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities. The
1. Fees order of payment is provided in this article, and must be
2. Indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings observed.
 There is reparation in the crime of rape when the dress of the
II. Rules: woman was torn. This is distinct from indemnity (US v. Yambao).
1. Costs are chargeable to the accused in case of conviction.
a. Thus in case of acquittal, the costs are de oficio, each Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. ‐ If the convict has no property with
party bearing his own expenses. which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next
2. No costs against the Republic, unless the law provides the preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability
contrary (Sec. 1, Rule 142, Rules of Court) at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following
3. Payment of costs is discretionary (of the courts) rules:
a. Whether the costs should be assessed against the 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or
accused lie within the discretion of the court. The arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his
government may request the court to assess costs fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
against the accused, but not as a right. No attorney’s subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one‐third of the
fees shall be taxed as a cost against the adverse party. term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more
than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
Article 38. Pecuniary liabilities. ‐ Order of payment. ‐ In case the counted against the prisoner.
property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
1. The reparation of the damage caused. culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave
2. Indemnification of consequential damages. felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. The fine. 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision
4. The costs of the proceedings. correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
upon the culprit.
POINTS 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by
I. What are the pecuniary liabilities of persons criminally liable? confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed
1. The reparation of the damage caused duration, the convict, during the period of time established in
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
deprivation as those of which the principal penalty consists. III. “If accused has no property with which to meet the fine”
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have  Article 39 applies only when the accused has no property with
suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him from which to meet the fine. If the accused has enough property, he
the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As cannot choose subsidiary imprisonment instead of paying.
amended by Republic Act No. 5465, April 21, 1969.)
IV. The word “principal” should be omitted
POINTS  Spanish: cuando la pena impuesta  when the penalty imposed
I. What is Subsidiary Penalty?  Spanish text should be controlling.
 It is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict
who has NO property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of V. Rules:
one day for each eight pesos. 1. Prision Correcional or arresto and fine  Subsidiary
o Retroactive application of RA No. 5465: An act imprisonment not to exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence
amending Article 29 of RPC increasing the rate per day and in no case to continue for more than one year. Fraction or
of subsidiary penalty from two pesos and fifty part of a day not counted.
centavos to eight pesos. 2. Fine only‐ Subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed 6 months, if
 There is no subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of (1) reparation the culprit is prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and not
of the damage caused, (2) indemnity, and (3) costs of to exceed 15 days if for a light felony
proceedings. 3. Higher than Prision Correcional‐ NO subsidiary imprisonment
 It is the penalty prescribed or imposed by the court, not the 4. Penalty is not to be executed by confinement but of fixed
penalty provided for the Code which should be considered in duration‐ Subsidiary penalty shall consist in the same
determining whether or not subsidiary penalty should be deprivations as those of the principal penalty, under the same
imposed. rules as in Nos 1,2,3.
 Subsidiary imprisonment is not imprisonment for debt since it 5. In case the financial circumstances improve‐ He shall pay the
does not arise from an obligation to pay a sum of money arising fine notwithstanding the fact the convict suffered subsidiary
from a contract. personal liability therefor.

II. Judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprisonment VI. The penalty imposed must be (1) prision correccional, (2) arresto
 That the accused will undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case mayor, (3) arresto menor, (4) suspension, (5) destierro or (6) fine only
of insolvency can only be imposed if specifically imposed in the  If the penalty imposed by the court is not one of them,
judgment of conviction. subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed. There is no subsidiary
 Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty. penalty, if the penalty imposed by the court is prision mayor,
 The decision need not state that there should not be any reclusion temporal, or reclusion perpetua.
subsidiary imprisonment when the law forbids it.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o If imprisonment is 6 years and 1 day, it is prision mayor, XI. Subsidiary imprisonment under special laws
and therefore no subsidiary imprisonment can be  Persons convicted of violation of special laws are liable to
imposed. subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of
 Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has a fixed indemnity, except where the indemnity consists in unpaid
duration (e.g. suspension, destierro)  can impose subsidiary. internal revenue tax.
 Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has no fixed  Act No. 1732 (Rules in case the court shall impose a fine as a
duration (e.g. public censure)  cannot impose subsidiary. whole or as part of the punishment for any criminal offense
made punishable by any special law.)
VII. Additional penalty for habitual delinquency should be included in o These provisions are applicable to offense made
determining whether or no subsidiary penalty should be imposed punishable by acts of the Philippine Legislature.
 Even if the penalty imposed is not higher than prision  Rules
correctional, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who o When the court merely imposes a fine, the subsidiary
deserves an additional penalty of 12 years and 1 day of liability shall not exceed 6 months, at the ate of one day
reclusion temporal, there is no subsidiary imprisonment. of imprisonment for every P2.50
o In case both fine and imprisonment are imposed, the
VIII. The subsidiary penalty is the “same deprivation as those of which subsidiary liability shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of
the principal penalty consists” the imprisonment, and in no case shall it exceed 1 year.
 If the principal penalty is imprisonment, the subsidiary penalty o In case the imprisonment is for more than 6 years in
must also be imprisonment. addition to a tine, there shall be no subsidiary
 If the principal penalty is suspension, the subsidiary penalty imprisonment.
must also be suspension. o When a fine is imposed for violation of any municipal
ordinance or ordinances of the City of Manila, the rate is
IX. The convict who served subsidiary penalty may still be required to one day for ever P1.00, until the fine is satisfied,
pay the fine Provided, that the total subsidiary imprisonment does
 See Article 39, paragraph 5. not exceed 6 months if the penalty imposed is fine
alone; and not more than 1/3 of the principal penalty, if
X. No Subsidiary Penalty in the following cases: the it is imposed together with imprisonment.
1. When the penalty imposed is higher than Prision Correcional  Since the Tax Code does not provide for the imposition of a
2. For failure to pay the reparation of the damage caused, subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency, no subsidiary
indemnification and the costs of the proceedings imprisonment can be imposed.
3. When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution which has NO XII. Subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory penalties, not essential in
fixed duration determining jurisdiction

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 What determines jurisdiction of the Court in criminal cases is
the extent of the penalty, which the law imposes for the crime
charged in the information or complaint.
 It is settled rule that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory
penalties, is not essential in the determination of the criminal
jurisdiction of a court.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES Article 44. Arresto ‐ Its accessory penalties. ‐ The penalty of arresto
CHAPTER 3: DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES shall carry with it that of suspension of the right to hold office and the
SECTION 3: PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY PENALTIES ARE right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
INHERENT
POINTS
Article 40. Death ‐ Its accessory penalties. ‐ The death penalty, when it I. Outline of accessory penalties INHERENT in principal penalties:
is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it 1. Death, when not executed by reason of commutation or pardon
that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction  a) Perpetual absolute disqualification b) Civil Interdiction for
during thirty years following the date of sentence, unless such 30 years
accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. 2. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal  a) Civil
Interdiction for life or during the sentence 2) Perpetual absolute
Article 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. ‐ Their disqualification
accessory penalties. ‐ The penalties of reclusion perpetua and 3. Prision Mayor  a) Temporary absolute disqualification, b)
reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for perpetual special disqualification from suffrage
life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that 4. Prision Correcional  a) Suspension fro Public office, profession
of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer or calling, b) perpetual disqualification from suffrage if the
even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same duration of the imprisonment exceeds 18 months
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. 5. Arresto  a) suspension of the right to hold public office and
the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence
Article 42. Prision mayor ‐ Its accessory penalties. ‐ The penalty of
prision mayor shall carry with it that of temporary absolute II. Destierro has no accessory penalty
disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the
right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as III. “Unless expressly remitted in the pardon”
to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly  The accessory penalties in Article 40‐43 must be suffered by the
remitted in the pardon. offender, although pardoned as to the principal penalties. To be
relieved of them, it must be EXPRESSLY REMITTED in pardon.
Article 43. Prision correccional ‐ Its accessory penalties. ‐ The penalty
of prision correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from IV. Persons who served out the penalty may not have the right to
public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that exercise the right to suffrage:
of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the  General Rule:
duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The o Absolute pardon for any crime for which one year
offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this article imprisonment or more was meted out restores the
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall prisoner his political rights.
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Where the penalty is less than one year, the 2. The proceeds and instruments or tools are confiscated and
disqualification does not attach, except when the crime forfeited in favor of the government.
committed is one against property. 3. Property of a third person not liable for the offense is not
 A was prosecuted for physical injuries and subject to confiscation and forfeiture.
condemned to 10 months imprisonment. 4. Property not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
Though not pardoned, he is not disqualified.
 B was convicted of theft and served 10 months. II. No forfeiture where there is not criminal case
Unless given an absolute pardon, B can’t vote.  Although seizure may be made, the seized items cannot be
 C was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for disposed or destroyed until after conviction (Philips v. Municipal
physical injuries or estafa. Unless pardoned, he Mayor).
cannot exercise the right to suffrage. o The ruling is based on the phrase “every penalty
 Nature of the crime is immaterial when the penalty imposed is imposed”. A penalty cannot be imposed unless there is
one‐year imprisonment or more. a criminal case filed, tried and the accused convicted.
 Forfeiture cannot be ordered if the accused is acquitted,
V. Accessory penalties are deemed imposed because no penalty is imposed.
 Accessory penalties are understood to be ALWAYS imposed  Courts cannot order the confiscation of property belonging to a
upon the offender by the mere fact that the law fixes a certain third person if the latter is not indicted.
penalty for a given crime (See Article 73). o Instruments of the crime belonging to innocent third
person may be recovered.
Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments  Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in
of the crime. ‐ Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony evidence or placed at the disposal of the court.
shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the o US v. Filart
instruments or tools with which it was committed.  Facts: The accused planned to sell 450 tickets
for an automobile raffle. The court ordered the
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and confiscation of the automobile and the money
forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be the property of a obtained from selling the tickets. None of these
third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not were in the possession of the parties or the
subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. court that the time the order of confiscation
was made.
POINTS  Held: The court had not jurisdiction to order the
I. Outline of the provision of this article confiscation of the property not in the
1. Every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture of the possession of either the court itself or the
proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools used in the parties involved.
commission of the crime
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


III. Article which are forfeited when the order of forfeiture is already
final, cannot be returned even in case of an acquittal.
 Com. of Customs v. Encarnacion
 Facts: Article brought by a crew member of PAL were
confiscated by Customs for not having declared it. The order of
forfeiture became final while the crew member was charged
with violation of the RPC. The crew member was later acquitted,
and the court ordered the return of the articles.
 Held: The court erred in ordering the release of the articles
because such articles already belong to the government.

IV. Confiscation and forfeiture are additional penalties
 Where the penalty imposed did not include the confiscation of
the dollars involved, the confiscation and forfeiture sought
would be an additional penalty and would amount to an
increase of the penalty already imposed thereby placing the
accused in double jeopardy. Thus, it cannot be allowed (People
v. Alejandro Paet y Velasco).

V. Where the accused has appealed, confiscation and forfeiture not
ordered by the trial court may be imposed by the appellate court

Summary of Rules:
1. No forfeiture where there is no criminal case.
2. Courts cannot order the confiscation of property belonging to a
third person is the latter is not indicted.
3. Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in
evidence or placed at the disposal of the court.
4. Articles which are forfeited, when the order of forfeiture is
already final, cannot be returned even in case of an acquittal.
5. Confiscation and forfeiture are additional penalties.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES Article 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed;
CHAPTER 4: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES Automatic review of death penalty cases‐ The death penalty shall be
SECTION 1: RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES TO THE imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws,
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND FOR THE GRADUATION OF THE except when the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of
SAME. the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or
when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the SC, the
Article 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general‐ The required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death
penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the Court for
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms it automatic review and judgment by the court en banc, within 20 days
shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony. but not earlier than 15 days after promulgation of the judgment or
notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The
POINTS transcript shall also be forwarded within 10 days after the filing therof
I. GENERAL RULE: Penalty prescribed in general terms by the stenographic reporter (As amended by RA no. 2659)
 The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be
imposed: POINTS
1. Upon the principals I. Majority vote of the SC is required for the imposition of death
2. For consummated felony  The vote of 8 members is required (Art.VIII, Section4[1]).
Republic Act 296 Can be given retroactive effect
II. EXCEPTION: When the law fixes a penalty for frustrated or  This provides that 8 justices must concur in the imposition of
attempted felony death penalty. It is procedural and not substantive and
 The exception is when the penalty to be imposed upon the applicable to cases pending at the time of its approval.
principal in frustrated or attempted felony is fixed by law. The records of all cases imposing the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment shall be forwarded by the Court of
III. Graduation of penalties by degrees or by periods Appeals to the SC for review
 The graduation of penalties by degrees refers to stages of
execution (consummated, frustrated, attempted) and to the II. Court of Appeals to review death penalty cases
degree of the criminal participation of the offender (principal,  People v. Mateo  The Court now deems it wise and
accomplice or accessory). compelling to provide in death penalty cases a review by the
 The division of a divisible penalty refers to the proper period of Court of Appeals before it is elevated to the SC to minimize the
the penalty which should be imposed when aggravating or possibility of error in judgment (particularly of factual issues).
mitigating circumstances attend the commission of the crime.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


III. The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence, Death penalty shall not be imposed when guilty person is over 70 years
despite plea of guilty when the crime charged is punished with death  This refers to the time when the final decision is rendered.
 The essence of judicial review is that while society allows violent Exceptional cases in which death penalty was not imposed
retribution for heinous crimes, it always must make certain that  People v. Dela Cruz  Considering that the circumstances under
the blood of the innocent is not spilled or the guilty made to which the offense was perpetrated in light of the deplorable
suffer more than their just measure of punishment. conditions existing in the national penitentiary.
 A sentence of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a fair and  People v. Marcos  When the facts of the case tend to show
reasonable examination by the court. that the crime was NOT the result of any deliberate and well‐
formed nefarious conspiracy of a criminal group. Appellant
IV. The 1987 Constitution merely suspended the imposition of death obviously did not fully realize the gravity of the crime.
penalty
 Section 19, Article 3, 1987 Constitution does not expressly VII. Justification for death penalty
declare the abolition of the death penalty. 1. Social defense
 It merely suspended the imposition of death penalty. 2. Exemplarity
Death penalty not cruel and unusual
V. RA 7659 v. RA 9346  Death penalty is not excessive, unjust or cruel. Punishments are
 December 31, 1993  RA 7659 restored the death penalty. cruel when they involve torture or lingering death. Cruelty
 June 24, 2006  RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of death implies something inhuman and barbarous, that is more than
penalty, and in lieu of it, reclusion perpetua was imposed. the extinguishment of life.
Where the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed, in lieu of the Crimes where death penalty is imposed
death penalty, there is a need to perfect an appeal 1. Treason
 Perfecting an appeal means doing all the acts necessary to place 2. Piracy
the case on the court's calendar.1 3. Qualified piracy
4. Qualified bribery
VI. Imposition of Death Penalty 5. Parricide
Death penalty is not imposed in the following cases: 6. Murder
1. When the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of 7. Infanticide
the commission of the crime. 8. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age. 9. Robbery with homicide
3. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the SC, 10. Destructive arson
the vote of 8 members is not obtained for the imposition of the 11. Rape with homicide
death penalty. 12. Plunder
13. Certain violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act
1 Supreme Court of the State of New York, 14. Carnapping
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/faqs.shtml
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


c. Two or more less grave felonies
VIII. “Death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be Examples:
imposed under existing law.”  The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing murder
 As long as death penalty remains in the statute books, it is the and multiple attempted murder (People v. Guillen).
duty of the judicial officers to respect and apply the law  Placing a time bomb in a plane which caused it to explode mid‐
regardless of private opinion (People v. Limaco). air killing 13 persons is a complex crime of multiple murder and
destruction of property (People v. Largo).
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes – When a single act constitutes 2  See p.678 – 680b for other examples of compound crime.
or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary PEOPLE V. LAWAS (See p.680‐682)
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious  When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed,
there is only one single offense, there being a single criminal
POINTS impulse (People v. Lawas)
I. At least two crimes must be committed  NOTE: This rule is applicable only when there is no evidence at
 The commission of at least two crimes. But two or more grave all to show the number of persons killed by each of several
or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an defendants.
offense must be a necessary means for committing the other.  The “single criminal impulse” has no legal basis but is acceptable
when it is not certain who among the accused killed or injured
II. A complex crime is only one crime each of the several victims.
 Although two or more crimes are committed, they constitute  The ruling in People v. Lawas is not applicable when there was
only one crime in the eyes of the law  one criminal intent. conspiracy to perpetuate the killings.
 Two Kinds of Complex Crime: PEOPLE V. BERSAMIN
1. Compound Crime  When a single act constitutes two or more  When it is within the scope of possibility that the two victims
grave or less grave felonies. were killed by one and the same missile
2. Complex Crime Proper  When an offense is a necessary  Absent showing that the victims died from more than one
means for committing the other. bullet, the crime should be classified as a complex crime.
 Ruling in the Bersamin case is applicable only when there is no
III. “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave evidence as to how many wounds the victims received and
felonies” there is a possibility that they were killed by one and the same
 Requisites: missile.
1. That only a single act is performed by the offender. No single acts:
2. That the single act produces  Several shots from Thompson sub‐machine gun causing several
a. Two or more grave felonies or deaths, although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger
b. One or more grave and one or more less grave are considered several acts (People v, Desierto)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o It is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries through
considered as producing several felonies, but the reckless imprudence (People v. Castro).
number of bullets which actually produced them.
 Act directed against two different persons even though VII. “When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other”
resulting from one criminal impulse are distinct crimes (People  Complex crimes do not exist when the two crimes are punished
v. Alfindo). under different statutes.
 Two victims each received more than one bullet wound. They REQUISITES
were standing far apart from each other. Accused liable for two 1. That at least two offenses are committed.
separate murders (People v. Basarain). 2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit
the other.
IV. Crimes not covered by Article 48 3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same
Rape with homicide is a special complex crime not covered by Art. 48 statute.
 Article 266‐B punishes rape with homicide specifically. FIRST REQUISITE: THAT AT LEAST TWO OFFENSES COMMITTED
No complex crime of arson with homicide under Art. 48  People v. Barbas  The falsification of the cedula certificate
 Article 320 as amended by RA No.7659 provides a penalty. which is a crime under Article 171 was necessary to commit the
Theft of firearm and illegal possession of same firearm do not form a crime of malversation under Article 217, because the accused
complex crime – they are two distinct crimes had to falsify the duplicate of the cedulas to obtain from the
 Illegal possession requires intent to use not just own, which is taxpayers the money which he later misappropriated.
not the case in every theft (People v. Estoista).  People v. Manguiat  The crime of forcible abduction was a
necessary means for committing the crime of rape.
V. Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and SECOND REQUISITE: NECESSARY TO COMMIT THE OTHER
punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony  “Necessary” interpreted to not mean indispensable.
1. Several light felonies resulting from one single act – not complex  The phrase merely signified that, for instance, a crime such as
a. Collision between two automobiles resulting into simple estafa can be and ordinarily is committed in the manner
damage of property and slight physical injuries. defined in the RPC, but if the estafador resorts to or employs
2. When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight falsification, merely to facilitate and insure his committing
physical injuries are absorbed. estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of estafa thorugh
a. Slight physical injuries absorbed in rape. falsification.
THIRD REQUISITE: PUNISHED UNDER THE SAME STATUTE
VI. Applicable to crime through negligence  Homicide and illegal possession of firearms are punished under
 Art. 48 speaks of felonies which make it applicable to Art. 365 different statutes.
which defines and penalizes criminal negligence (fault).  RA No. 8294 made the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or
 Municipal mayor who accidentally discharges a gun in a school homicide not as a separate crime but as a special aggravating
program killing a girl and injuring a boy is liable for a complex circumstance.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


XI. Article 48 is intended to favor the culprit
VIII. In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he  It could have no better purpose than to prescribe a penalty
must have a single purpose lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if
 People v. Gallardo  to commit estafa, the accused had to imposed separately.
commit 17 falsifications.  When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the
 Gonzalez v. City Fiscal  27 vouchers were falsified not for the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said
single purpose of estafa. One or more offenses not necessary crimes through separate and distinct acts.
means for committing others.
XII. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious
IX. No complex crime: crime, the same is to be applied in its maximum period.
When two or more crimes are committed but (1) not by a single act  The same rule observed when an offense is a necessary means
and (2) one is not a necessary means for committing the other. for committing the other.
When in the definition of a felony one offense is a means to commit  But when one of the offenses, as a means to commit the other,
the other, there is no complex crime. was committed by one of the accused by reckless imprudence,
 No complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means that the accused who committed the offense by reckless
to commit a grave offense like rape, homicide or murder. imprudence is liable for his act only.
When one offense is committed to conceal the other  When the homicide, physical injuries, and the burning of the
 After committing homicide, the accused set the house where ti house are the result of one single act of negligence, there is only
was perpetrated on fire. one penalty, but there are three civil liabilities.
 The amount appropriated to himself was in the possession and When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by
at the disposal of the accused and he could have appropriated it imprisonment and fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment
to himself without the necessity of the falsified document. Two should be imposed.
crimes were committed. The falsification was a means to
conceal, not to commit malversation (US v. Geta). XIII. Article 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not provide a
In the crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery or other common definite specific penalty for a complex crime (See “IV”).
crimes ____________________
 Murder, arson and robbery are ingredients in the crime of PLURALITY OF CRIMES
rebellion and are absorbed and inherent in it. I. Definition
 Consists in the successive execution by the same individual of
X. When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet
the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the been declared.
court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
 An accused should not be harassed with various prosecutions II. Kinds of plurality of crimes
based on the same act by splitting it into various charges.  Formal or Ideal  one criminal liability
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Real or material  there are different crimes in the law as well III. Continued crime v. Transitory crime
as in the conscience of the offender. In such case, the offender  Transitory crime  “moving crime” like kidnapping a person for
will be punished for each and ever offense he committed. the purpose of ransom.
o Ex: A stabbed B with a knife. A also stabbed C. There are  When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal action may
two acts, two crimes. be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality, city or
province wherein any of the essential ingredients thereof took
III. Plurality of crime v. Recidivism place. The singleness of the crime, committed by executing tow
 Recidivism  there must be conviction by final judgment of the or more acts is not considered.
first or prior offense.
 Plurality  no conviction of any of the crimes committed. IV. Continued crime v. Real or material plurality
Real or material Continued crime
IV. 3 Groups of formal or ideal type Series of acts performed by the offender
1. When the offender commits complex crimes (Art. 48) Each act is a separate crime Different acts constitute only one
2. When the law specially fixes a single penalty for two or more generated by different criminal crime because all the acts arise
offenses committed. impulses. from one criminal impulse.
3. When the offender commits continued crime.
____________________ Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
CONTINUED CRIME committed is different from that intended‐ In cases in which the felony
I. Definition committed is different from that which the offender intended to
 A principle wherein a single crime consisting of series of acts but commit, the following rules shall be observed:
all arising from one criminal resolution. 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher
 Although there are a series of acts, there is only one crime than that corresponding to the offense which the accused
committed. One penalty should be imposed. intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter
 See p.702‐704 for examples shall be imposed in its maximum period.
o The series of acts born of a single criminal impulse may 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower
be perpetrated during a long period of time. than that corresponding to the one which the accused
o When two acts are deemed distinct from one another intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be
although proceeding from the same criminal impulse imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not
II. A continued crime is not a complex crime be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall
 In continued crimes, one offense is not a necessary means for also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if
committing another. As such, penalty imposed not in max. the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter
 The principle is applied in connection with two or more crimes offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempt
committed with a single intent.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in the maximum  If the intended crime and the crime actually committed are
period. punished with the same or equal penalties. Article 49 is NOT
applicable.
POINTS
I. Art. 14 has reference to the provision of the 1st paragraph of Art.4 IV. Article 49 distinguished from Article 48
 When the crime actually committed is different from that  In Article 49, the lesser penalty is to be imposed, to be applied
intended, the penalty to be imposed must be governed by this in the maximum period
article.  In Article 48, the penalty for the more or most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period
II. Article 14 applies only when there is mistake in identity of the victim
of the crime, and the penalty for the crime committed is different from V. Rule 3 in Article 49 is not necessary
that for the crime intended to be committed. • Because the cases contemplated in that paragraph may well be
 Paragraph 1 of Article 4 covers covered by Article 48, in view of the fact that the same act
1. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow)  A fired his gun at his committed by the guilty person, which gives rise to one crime,
father, with intent to kill him, but he missed) and hit C, killing also constitutes an attempt or a frustration of another crime.
the latter.
2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)  A, thinking that a Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime.
person was B, fired at the person who turned out to be C, the – The penalty lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
father of A. consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in a
3. Praeter intentionem (More serious consequence not intended) frustrated felony.
 A, without intent to kill, boxed B, who fell and hit the
pavement. B died due to the fracture of the skull. Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crime. –
 The rules stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 49 CANNOT The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
apply to cases involving (1) aberratio ictus and (3) praeter consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
intentionem. attempt to commit a felony.
 It is only applicable to (2) error in personae  since only one
crime is produced by the act of the offender, there could be no Article 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a consummated
complex crime (Article 38) which presupposes the commission crime. – The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law
of at least two crimes. for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in
the commission of a consummated felony.
III. Article 49 is applicable only when the intended crime and the crime
actually committed are punished with different penalties

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission  Other figures  degrees to which penalty must be lowered to
of a consummated felony. – The penalty lower by two degrees than meet different situations anticipated by law.
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed  For Articles 50, 51, 52, 53  Basis for reduction of penalty by
upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. one or two degrees: the penalty prescribed by law for
consummated crime.
Article 54. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated  For Articles 54‐55  Basis for reduction: penalty prescribed by
crime. – The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law law for frustrated felony.
for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the  For Articles 56‐57  basic penalty used for reduction by one or
commission of a frustrated felony. two degrees: for attempted felony.
 In making any reduction by one or two degrees: basis used is
Article 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated that already prescribed NOT as already reduced.
crime. – The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law  Under Article 51: penalty for attempted crime is that for
for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the consummated felony reduced by two degrees NOT penalty for
commission of a frustrated felony. the frustrated felony na reduced by one degree (De los Angeles
v. People)
Article 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted
crime. – The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law II. Examples:
for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the 1. Facts: A convicted of attempted homicide – A shot B with intent
accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony. to kill but without inflicting a mortal wound.
o Penalty for consummated homicide: reclusion temporal.
Article 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted o To find the penalty that is lower by one or more
crime. – The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law degrees: look in Scale No. 1 of Article 71.
for the attempt shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt  Held: Because A only committed attempted homicide: penalty
to commit a felony. to be imposed is that which is lower by two degrees than
reclusion temporal  which is prision correccional.
POINTS o Penalty for frustrated homicide: one degree lower than
I. Diagram of the application of Articles 50 to 57 reclusion temporal  which is prision mayor in the
Consummated Frustrated Attempted same Scale No. 1 of Article 71
Principals 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3 2. Facts: A (principal), B (accomplice), C (accessory) convicted of
Accessories 2 3 4 consummated homicide.
 “0”  penalty prescribed by law imposed on the principal in a  Held:
consummated offense (according to provisions of Article 46) o A’s penalty – reclusion temporal (as principal)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o B’s penalty – prision mayor (as accomplice: penalty next  For 1 (stages of execution) and 2 (participation of persons liable)
lower in degree than prescribed for consummated  penalty is graduated by degree.
homicide)
o C’s penalty – prision correccional (as accessory: two V. What is a degree in relation to penalty?
degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated  DEGREE: one entire/whole penalty; one unit of the penalties
homicide) enumerated in the graduates scales found in Article 71.
o Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
 In the examples – penalties shall be imposed in the proper remporal, prision mayor etc. IS a degree
period and shall be subject to the provisions of the  When there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance: penalty is
Indeterminate Sentence Law. lowered or increased by period only EXCEPT when penalty is
divisible and there are two ore more mitigating without
aggravating circumstances – if this happens, penalty is lowered
III. Exceptions to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. by a degree.
• Article 60  Articles 50‐57 shall not apply to cases where the
law expressly prescribes the penalty for a frustrated or VI. What is a period of penalty?
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or  PERIOD: one of the three equal portions (either minimum/
accessories. medium/ maximum) of a divisible penalty (Article 65).
The penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide, may be two A period of a divisible penalty, when prescribed by the Code as a
degrees lower; and the penalty for attempted parricide, murder, or penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree.
homicide may be three degrees lower.  (Example) In Article 140 – penalty for leader of a sedition is
• Article 250  The courts (in view of facts of case) may impose prision mayor in its minimum period and fine
upon person guilty of frustrated crime of parricide, murder, or  It (minimum period) being a degree – penalty lower than that
homicide – penalty lower by one degree than that which should penalty is prision correctional in its maximum period
be imposed under Article 50; Courts may reduce by one degree
penalty under Article 51 imposed for an attempt to commit any Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories.
of said crimes. – Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraph 3 of Article
19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions.
IV. What are the bases for the determination of the extent of penalty Shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual
to be imposed under the revised Penal Code? disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave
1. Stage reached by the crime in its development felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be
(attempted/frustrated/consummated). guilty of a less grave felony.
2. Participations therein of the persons liable.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended the
commission of the crime.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


POINTS POINTS
I. Additional penalties for public officers who are guilty as accessories I. Penalty for impossible crime.
under paragraph 3 of Article 19.  Penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine ranging
 Public officers who help the author of a crime by misusing their from 200 to 500 pesos.
office and duties shall suffer the additional penalties of:
1. Absolute perpetual disqualification – if principal offended guilty II. Basis for imposition of proper penalty: (1) social danger; and (2)
of grave felony. degree of criminality shown by the offender.
2. Absolute temporary disqualification – if principal offender guilty  Court must take into consideration the social danger and the
of less grave felony. degree of criminality shown by the offender (Article 59)
 Article 58 limits its provisions to grave or less grave felonies  (Example) Person fired revolver upon enemy 1 kilometer away
because it is not possible to have accessories liable for light shows stupidity rather than dangerousness.
felonies (Art. 16)  According to Positivist theory: such person should not be
punished – there is neither “social danger” nor “degree of
II. This article applies only to public officers who abused their public criminality” shown by him; act is absolutely harmless; “no”
functions. common sense.
 Accessories referred to in Article 58 – those falling within the  But one who discharged shotgun at another from 200 yards
term of paragraph 3 of Article 19 (recall: harboring, concealing, away – guilty of discharge of firearm (Article 254) not of
or assisting in the escape…). impossible crime – no proof of intent to kill on part of offender
 Additional penalty in Article 58 imposed only on accessories and it was possible of accomplishing the evil intent of offender
who misused his public office or authority in participating in (to frighten offended party) (People v. Agbuya).
crime (“who should act with abuse of their public functions”).
III. Is the penalty for impossible crime proper?
Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime  Penalty of arresto mayo or fine of P200‐500 – subject to
because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. – criticism because article uses words “offense” and “crime”
When the person intending to commit an offense has already which include light felony.
performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the  One who attempt to commit light felony of impossible
crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended materialization may be punished by penalty of arresto mayor
was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the (higher than the prescribed for consummated light felony or
means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce arresto menor).
the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger  Provision of Article 59 limited to cases where act performed
and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall imposed would be grave felonies or less grave felonies.
upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200‐500
pesos.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 60. Exceptions to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. – The  Furnishing the place for the perpetration of the
provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall crime is ordinarily the act of an accomplice.
not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the
penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be III. Accessory punished as principal
imposed upon accomplices or accessories.  Article 142  knowingly concealing certain evil acts are usually
acts of the accessory but under this article is punished as act of
POINTS the principal.
I. Articles 50 to 57 do not apply when the law expressly prescribes the Certain accessories are punished with a penalty one degree lower
penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony or to be imposed upon instead of two degrees
accomplices or accessories.  Article 162  Knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged
 On the occasion or in consequence of an attempted or signature or stamp of the President.
frustrated robbery, the offender commits a homicide – law  Article 168  Illegal possession and use of a false treasury note
provides in Article 297: the special penalty of reclusion or bank note.
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be  Article 173(3)  Using a falsified document.
imposed upon the offender.  Article 173(2)  Using a falsified dispatch.
 If not for this provision in Article 60 – penalty to be imposed is
reclusion temporal: penalty next lower in degree than reclusion Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of
perpetua to death – which is the penalty for consummated graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles
offense of robbery with homicide. 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty
 Reason: enormity of the offense of attempted or frustrated as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices
robbery with homicide = law provides special penalty therefore. or accessories, the following rules shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
II. Accomplice, punished as principal. indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that
 General rule: Accomplice punished by penalty one degree lower immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective
than penalty imposed upon principal. graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
 2 CASES that the Code punishes accomplice with same penalty 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two
upon principal are: indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be
o Article 346  Ascendants, guardians, curators, impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree
teachers, and any person who by abuse of authority or shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties
confidential relationship, shall cooperate as accomplices prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
in the crimes of rape, acts of lasciviousness seduction, 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one
corruption of minors, white slave trade or abduction. or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of
o Article 268  One who furnished the place for the another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal detention. shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the  Rules also apply in lowering penalty by one or two degrees by
proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that reason of presence of privileged mitigating circumstance (Art.
immediately following in said respective graduated scale. 68 & 69), or when the penalty is divisible and there are 2 or
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of more generic mitigating circumstances and NO aggravating
several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, circumstance (Art. 64)
the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of II. The lower penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in Article
the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty 71.
prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty  Scale No. 1 in Article 71 (penalties in order):
immediately following in the above mentioned respective 1. Death
graduated scale. 2. Reclusion perpetua,
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner 3. Reclusion temporal,
not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the 4. Prision mayo,
courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding 5. Prision correccional,
penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated 6. Arresto mayor,
felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon 7. Destierro,
accomplices and accessories. 8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
POINTS 10. Fine.
I. Article 61 provides for the rules to be observed in lowering the  Indivisible penalties: (1) death, (2) reclusion perpetua, (3) public
penalty by one or two degrees censure
 Article 46 provides that penalty prescribed by law in general  Divisible penalties: reclusion temporal down to arresto menor
terms shall be imposed upon principal in consummated felony  Divisible penalties divided into 3 periods: (1) minimum, (2)
 Articles 50‐57 provides that penalty prescribed by law for the medium, (3) maximum
felony shall be lowered one or two degrees: ____________________
(1) Principal in frustrated felony – one degree lower; Illustrations of the rules:
(2) Principal in attempted felony – two degrees lower; I. FIRST RULE: When the penalty is single and indivisible.
(3) Accomplice in consummated felony – one degree lower; and  Ex. Reclusion perpetua – penalty for kidnapping and failing to
(4) Accessory in consummated felony – two degrees lower. return a minor (Art. 270)
 Rules in Article 61 also applies in determining minimum of the  In Scale No. 1 of Article 71 – penalty immediately following
indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal (therefore it is the
 Minimum of the indeterminate penalty is within the range of penalty next lower in degree).
penalty next lower than prescribed by RPC for the offense

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


II. SECOND RULE: Reclusion Perpetua (1) Penalty for the
A. Penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties. 1. Maximum principal in
 Indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua to death Reclusion Temporal consummated felony.
 They are the penalties for parricide (Art. 246) 2. Medium (2) Penalty for
 Penalty immediately following lesser of the penalties (or 3. Minimum accomplice; or
reclusion perpetua)  reclusion temporal Prision Mayor 1. Maximum penalty for the
B. When the penalty is composed of one or more divisible penalties to principal in frustrated
be imposed to their full extent. felony.
 Divisible penalty imposed to full extent  reclusion temporal 2. Medium
o Penalty immediately following divisible penalty of 3. Minimum
reclusion temporal  prision mayor
 Two divisible penalties imposed to full extent  prision B. When the penalty is composed of one indivisible penalty and the
correccional to prision mayor. maximum period of a divisible penalty.
o Penalty immediately following the lesser penalty  Ex: Reclusion temporal in max period to reclusion perpetua
between prision correccional to prision mayor   Same rule observed in lowering penalty by 1‐2 degrees
arresto mayor (Scale No. 1 Art. 71)
III. THIRD RULE: IV. FOURTH RULE: When the penalty is composed of several periods.
A. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and the  “Several” mean ‘consisting in more than 2 periods’
maximum period of a divisible penalty.  Fourth rule: contemplates penalty composed of at least 3
 Penalty for murder (Art. 248)  reclusion temporal in periods.
maximum period to death.  Several periods MUST correspond to different divisible penalties
 Relcusion perpetua (= in between reclusion temporal & death)  Penalty composed of several periods corresponding to different
 included in penalty divisible penalties  prision mayor (medium period) TO
 Penalty for murder has: 2 indivisible penalties (reclusion reclusion temporal (minimum period)
perpetua – death) and 1 divisible penalty (reclusion temporal in  Period immediately following minimum (= prision mayor in
max period) medium period)  is prision mayor in minimum period
 Proper divisible penalty: reclusion temporal – penalty  Two periods next following are: max and med periods of prision
immediately following it: prision mayor correccional (=penalty next following scale in Article 71 since it
 Under third rule: penalty next lower  composed of medium & cannot be taken from penalty prescribed)
minimum periods of reclusion temporal and max period of Illustration:
prision mayor 1. Maximum
 (This the same penalty computed in People v. Ong Ta) Reclusion temporal 2. Medium
Illustration: 3. Minimum (1) Penalty for the
DEATH 1. Maximum principal in
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Prision mayor 1. Maximum consummated felony. Maximum Penalty next lower
2. Medium Arresto mayor Medium
3. Minimum (2) Penalty for Minimum
1. Maximum accomplice; or
Prision correccional 2. Medium penalty for the B. When the penalty has one period.
principal in frustrated  If penalty is any one of the 3 periods of a divisible penalty –
felony. penalty next lower in degree = is the period next following the
3. Minimum given penalty.
 Ex. Penalty immediately inferior to prision mayor in maximum
V. FIFTH RULE: By analogy, because “not specifically provided for in period is prision mayor in medium period
the four preceding rules”  If penalty is reclusion temporal in medium period – penalty next
A. When the penalty has two periods. lower in degree = reclusion temporal in minimum period
 Certain offenses in RPC: punished with penalty composed of two  Penalty prescribed by Code for a felony is a degree
periods:  If penalty prescribed for felony is 1 of 3 periods of divisible
o Either of same penalty: For abduction (Art. 343) – penalty  that period becomes a degree & the period
prision correccional in its minimum and medium immediately below is the penalty next lower in degree
periods.
o Or of different penalties: For physical injuries (Art. 263, VI. Simplified rules: (for rules in Par. 4 and 5 of Art. 61)
subsec. 4) – arresto mayor in max period to prision (1) If penalty prescribed by Code consists in 3 periods
correccional in minimum period (corresponding to different divisible penalties)  penalty next
 In these cases: penalty lower by one degree  is formed by 2 lower in degree is penalty consisting in 3 periods down the scale
periods taken from the same penalty prescribed (if possible) OR (2) If penalty prescribed by Code consists in 2 periods  penalty
from periods of penalty numerically following the lesser of the next lower in degree is the penalty consisting in 2 periods down
penalties prescribed the scale
 These cases – not covered by fourth rule (cause penalty (3) If penalty prescribed by Code consists in only 1 period 
contemplated in 4th rule must contain at least 3 periods) penalty next lower in degree is the next period down in the
 Penalty under fifth rule (by analogy) – contains 1 or 2 periods scale
only  If the given penalty is composed of 1/2/3 periods  penalty
Example: next lower in degree should begin where the given penalty ends
 Penalty next lower than prision correccional in its min and med (because otherwise if it were to skip over intermediate ones it
periods  is arresto mayor in its med and max periods would be lower but not NEXT lower in degree (People v. Haloot)
Maximum  U.S. v. Fuentes  Held: Penalty next lower in degree to prision
Prision correccional Medium Penalty prescribed for correccional in medium period = is arresto mayor in medium
Minimum the felony period.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Reason for ruling: a degree consists in 1 whole or 1 unit of the
penalties enumerated in the graduated scales in Article 71. To
lower a penalty by 1 degree – its necessary to keep a distance of
one whole penalty or one unit of penalties in Art. 71 between
one degree and another
 People v. Co Pao & People v. Gayrama  there is a distance of
only 1/3 of a degree (ruling in Fuentes case was superseded by
the rulings in these cases).

VII. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are disregarded in the
application of the rules for graduating penalties.
 NOTE: Each paragraph of Article 61 begins with “When the
penalty prescribed for the felony” or “crime”.
 In lowering the penalty – penalty prescribed by the RPC for the
crime is the basis (w/o regard to the mitigating or aggravating
circumstances w/c attended the commission of the crime)
 It is only after the penalty next lower in degree is already
determined that the mitigating and/or aggravating
circumstances should be considered.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such
CHAPTER 4: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES circumstances are attendant.
SECTION 2: RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES WITH REGARD 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of
TO MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HABITUAL the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve
DELINQUENCY to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who
had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
Article 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating or their cooperation therein.
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. – Mitigating or aggravating 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for (a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he
with the following rules: be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor
the penalty. in its minimum and medium periods; and
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
circumstances. prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was in its minimum period.
committed by any person who belongs to an Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the
organized/syndicated crime group. two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
one another for purposes of gain in the commission of the habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the
crime. date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or
circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. time or oftener. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7659.)
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the
moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations POINTS
with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, I. Effects of the attendance of aggravating or mitigating circumstances
shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the or of habitual delinquency.

1. Aggravating circumstances (generic and specific) have effect of using poison to kill victim included by law in defining the crime
 increasing penalty (w/o exceeding the max provided by law). of murder Art. 248, par. 3)
2. Mitigating circumstances have effect of  diminishing the III. When maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.
penalty. Max of penalty shall be imposed in the following cases:
3. Habitual delinquency has effect  increasing penalty (cause of 1. When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by
recidivism that is implied in habitual delinquency) PLUS the offender of his public position;
imposing an additional penalty. 2. If the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an
____________________ organized/syndicated crime group.
PARAGRAPH 1:
I. Aggravating circumstances that: IV. What is an organized/syndicated crime group?
(1) in themselves constitute a crime especially punished by law OR  Means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating
that confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of
(2) are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the gain in the commission of any crime
penalty therefor ____________________
‐ are not to be taken into account to increase the penalty PARAGRAPH 2:
 The same rule applies with respect to aggravating circumstances
II. Examples: which are inherent in the crime.
(1) Which in themselves constitute a crime.  Ex. Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and theft (U.S.
 That crime be committed “by means of fire” (Art. 14, par 2.) = Castroverde)
NOT considered as aggravating in arson ____________________
 That crime be committed by means of “derailment of a PARAGRAPH 3:
locomotive” (Art. 14, par 12.) = NOT considered as aggravating I. Aggravating or mitigating which arise from:
in crime known as “Damages and obstruction to means of (1) Moral attributes of offender
coomunication” (Art. 330 – which punishes the act of damaging (2) From his private relations with offended party
any railway resulting in derailment of cars) (3) From any other personal cause
 Serve to aggravate or mitigate liability of: principals,
(2) Which are included by law in defining a crime. accomplices, accessories  as to whom such circumstances are
 That crime was committed in the dwelling of offended party = attendant.
NOT aggravating in robbery with force upon things (Art. 299) II. Examples:
 Abuse of confidence is not aggravating in qualified theft (1) Moral attributes of offender:
committed with grave abuse of confidence (Art. 310)  A + B killed C.
 That crime was committed by means of poison (Art. 14, par. 12)  A acted w/ evident premeditation; B w/ passion and
= Not aggravating in crime of murder by means of poison (since obfuscation.

 Circumstances of evident premeditation + passion &  BUT if A was present or had knowledge of the treachery used,
obfuscation  arises from moral attributes of offenders. then A is also liable for murder qualified by treachery.
 Evident premeditation should only affect and aggravate only
penalty for A & passion and obfuscation mitigates only B’s (2) Means to accomplish the crime
liability.  A ordered B to kill C. B used poison without knowledge of A.
 Only B will suffer the aggravating circumstance.
(2) From his private relations with the offended party:
 A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. II. There is no mitigating circumstance relating to the means employed
o A  son of B. in the execution of the crime
o C  father of B.  It is impossible to conceive of any mitigating circumstance
 Alternative circumstance of relationship as aggravating will only which can properly be considered as to one of the defendants,
be against A (lower degree relative of B). but is not equally applicable to the rest, EVEN to those who had
 Alternative circumstance of relationship as mitigating will only no knowledge of the same at the time of the commission of the
be for C (higher degree relative of B). crime, or their cooperation therein.
 This ruling holds true even if there was conspiracy.
o The rule that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all III. Difference between (1) Circumstances relating to persons
does not mean that the crime of one is the crime of all participation in the same and (2) circumstances consisting in the
material execution of the means employed
(3) From any other personal cause: Persons Participation Material Execution / Means
 A and B committed a crime. Employed
o A was 16 i.e. minor Do not affect all the participants in Have a direct bearing upon the
o B was a recidivist the crime but only those to whom criminal liability of all the
 Each will carry the corresponding additional/mitigated penalty they particularly apply. defendants who had knowledge
____________________ thereof at the time of the
PARAGRAPH 4: commission of the crime, or of
 The circumstances which consist of (1) and (2) shall serve only their cooperation therein.
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who Example: People v. Villanueva
had KNOWLEDGE of them AT THE TIME of the execution.  Defendants though forming of the conspiracy of kidnapping,
were not the ones who actually kidnapped the victim.
I. Examples:  Thus, they are not bound or affected by the aggravating
(1) Material execution of the crime circumstance of nighttime UNLESS THEY KNEW about it prior.
 A induced B and C to kill D. B and C killed D using treachery not IV. Is it necessary that there be proof of cooperation or participation
previously agreed with A. with regard to the act of cruelty?
 A’s liability is not aggravated by treachery.  Two views:

o People v. Vocales  Although it may be considered as his last release or last conviction, he was again convicted of said
aggravating against one accused, it may not be so offenses, the third time or oftener.
against another UNLESS there is proof of conspiracy in
the commission of the main act, or there is proof of III. Computation of the 10‐year period
cooperation or participation on the part of the latter. NOTE: Defendant’s last conviction OR last release should be the starting
o In accordance with Article 62(4)  if cruelty is a means point from which the 10‐year period is to be counted.
employed to accomplish the act, only knowledge is  Rational: If the starting point is only the date of last conviction,
required for one to be liable for it. there will be a case where the offender cannot be considered a
 Note: Article 14 states that cruelty is that which is not necessary habitual delinquent.
for the commission of the crime.
o If so, it cannot be part of the “material execution” nor Crimes Committed Date of Conviction Date of Release
“means employed to accomplish it”. Theft June 1915 July 1916
o Therefore, People v. Vocales would be ruling. Swindling May 1920 October 1922
____________________ Attempted Robbery July 1928 August 1930
PARAGRAPH 5: Theft August 1937 September 1940
I. Habitual Delinquent Crime charged October 1946
 A person who within a period of 10 years from the date of his Explanation:
(last) release or last conviction of the crimes of  The 10‐year period should be counted from the date of LAST
1. serious or or less serious physical injuries (Art.263 & 265) conviction or release from the crime charged, which is August
2. robbery (Art. 193‐303) 1937 (conviction) or September 1940 (release).
3. theft (Art. 308‐311) o Note: Regardless of the gap between the first and
4. estafa (Art. 315‐318) second crimes, the accused will be considered a
5. falsification (Art. 170‐174) habitual delinquent if between the second and third
 He is found guilty of any of said crimes a 3rd time or oftener. crimes, there is a gap or 10 years or below.
 In the accusation of theft, only attempted robbery (conviction:
II. Requisites July 1928, release: August 1930) can be taken into consideration
1. That the offender had been convicted of any of the above‐ for the determination of habitual delinquency since it is the last
mentioned crimes. crime for which he was convicted for.
2. That after the conviction or after serving his sentence, he o A would not be a habitual delinquent since swindling is
against committed, and within 10 years, from his release or not one of the crimes listed.
prior conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time. IV. Subsequence crime must be committed AFTER CONVICTION of
3. That after his conviction or after serving sentence, for the former crime
second offense, he again committed, and within 10 years from

 If (1) the second crime was committed before his first conviction 3. The dates of the other previous conviction or releases.
and (2) the fourth before his third conviction, and (3) the fifth Effect of plea of guilty when allegations are insufficient
and sixth were committed on the same day, the six convictions  A plea of guilty to an information which fails to allege the dates
(although different in dates) are equivalent to only three. of commission of previous offenses, of convictions and of
 See p.737 for full illustration. releases is not an admission that the offender is a habitual
delinquent but only a recidivist (People v. Masonson).
V. “The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for Date of release not absolutely necessary
the last crime of which he be found guilty”  If preceding conviction is less than 10 years from date of
 If the accused is tried for robbery and previously convicted of conviction of the offense complained of (People v. Tolentino).
theft and estafa, robbery is the last crime and if found guilty the
penalty for robbery shall be imposed, while also be declared a VIII. See “Rulings on Habitual Delinquency” (p.739‐744)
habitual delinquent.
Additional penalty for habitual delinquency IX. Habitual Delinquency v. Recidivism
1. Upon 3rd conviction  additional penalty of prision correctional Habitual Delinquency Recidivism
in its medium and maximum periods. As to crimes The crimes are Sufficient that on date
2. Upon 4th conviction  additional penalty of prision mayor in its committed specified. of trial, accused shall
minimum and medium periods. have been previously
3. Upon 5th conviction  additional penalty of prision mayor in is convicted of another
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. crime in the same title.
Rational: As to period of Conviction must be 10 No period of time
 If after undergoing punishment for his previous crimes, he commission years from each other. necessary
continuous to commit said crimes, he is deemed to have shown As to number of Conviction must be 3rd That subsequent crime
a dangerous propensity to crimes. Hence, he is punished with a crimes committed time or oftener. is embraced in the
severer penalty for committing any of those crimes the third same title is sufficient.
time or oftener. As to their effects Additional penalty If not offset by
 Purpose of the law: to render more effective social defense and prescribed by law is mitigating, will increase
the reformation of multirecidivists. imposed. penalty to maximum
VI. Total penalties should not exceed 30 years only.
 Total  (1) the penalty for the last crime which is found guilty  A convict can be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist
and (2) the additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. if no two of the crimes committed are embraced in the same
title.
VII. In the information must be alleged:  The imposition of additional penalty is constitutional as it is
1. The dates of the commission of the previous crimes. simply punishment for future crimes, the penalty enhanced on
2. The dates of the last conviction or release account of criminal propensities of the accused.

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. – In all II. Article 63 applies only when the penalty prescribed by the Code is
cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be either one indivisible penalty or two indivisible penalties.
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating  Art. 63 does NOT apply if penalty prescribed: reclusion temporal
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. in max period to death (Because even if it includes 2 indivisible
penalties = it has 3 periods of RT max ‐min, RP ‐med, Death ‐
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two max)  Art. 64 shall apply in this case
indivisible penalties the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof: Example of single and indivisible penalty.
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one  Reclusion Perpetua for:
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. o Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270)
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating o Rape (Art 266‐B)
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser  Death for:
penalty shall be applied. o Kidnapping and serious illegal detention when purpose
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some of offender is to extort ransom (Art. 267 as amended by
mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating RA 7659)
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. o Rape with homicide (Art 266‐B)
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended
the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow Example of two indivisible penalties.
them to offset one another in consideration of their number  Reclusion perpetua to Death for:
and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in o Parricide (Art. 246)
accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of o Robbery with homicide (Art. 294, par. 1)
such compensation. o Kidnapping and serious illegal detention without
intention to extort ransom (Art. 267)
POINTS o Rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by
I. Outline of the rules. two or more persons (Art. 266‐B)
1. When penalty = 1 indivisible  applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances III. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the
2. When penalty composed of 2 indivisible penalties  ff rules: penalty cannot be lowered by one degree, no matter how many
(a) Only 1 aggravating = greater penalty shall be imposed mitigating circumstances are present.
(b) No aggravating nor mitigating = lesser penalty imposed  When there are 2 or more mitigating and NO aggravating 
(c) A mitigating and no aggravating = lesser penalty imposed court cannot proceed by analogy to provisions of subsection 5
(d) Both mitigating and aggravating = court will allow them to Article 64 (imposition of one degree lower penalty)
offset one another  US v. Relador: Commission of crime of parricide punishable of
RP to Death but attended by two mitigating (illiteracy and lack

of intention to commit so grave a wrong) and NO aggravating – 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
court imposed one degree lower penalty (Art. 64 subsection 5) circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law
HELD: Wrong penalty imposed – it should be Art. 63 applied in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
III. Exception: When a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
68 or Article 69 is present. minimum period.
 If circumstance present is a privileged mitigating circumstance 3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the
under Art. 68 or Art. 69 – offender may get a penalty one or two commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
degrees lower maximum period.
 Woman boxed by her husband stabbed him with knife in chest 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
 entitled to penalty one degree lower from RP to Death = RT present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
 People v. Galang: Imposable penalty for rape: RP. Accused had against the other according to their relative weight.
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority – imposable 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
penalty = RT in medium period (absent other mitigating or aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
aggravating circumstance) the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period
that it may deem applicable, according to the number and
IV. Moral value, not numerical weight of circumstances should prevail. nature of such circumstances.
 This is as regards par. 4 of Art. 63 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
V. Mitigating circumstance is not necessary to impose reclusion than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
perpetua when the crime is punishable with two indivisible penalties 7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the
of reclusion perpetua to death. extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of
 Reason: under Art. 63 when crime is penalized with 2 indivisible the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater
penalties (RP to death) – lesser penalty should be imposed even or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
when there is no mitigating circumstance present.
POINTS
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three I. Article 64 applies only when the penalty has three periods.
periods. – In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain  Art. 64 applies when penalty prescribed by law for offense 
three periods, whether it be a single divisible enalty or composed of RT, PM, PC, AM, Am, PC to RT, etc. = because they’re divisible
three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in into 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum).
accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall  When law prescribes single divisible penalty (ex. RT for
observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, homicide) as in Art. 76 – is distributed in 3 equal parts – each
according to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating part forms a period called min, med and max.
circumstances:  If penalty made up of 3 diff penalties: PC to RT

Each forms a period according to Art. 77 o One mitigating circumstance (surrender or guilty plead)
PC = min will offset aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
PM = med o Remaining mitigating will result in imposition of
RT = max minimum period.
PM is included bec. It’s between PC and RT in Scale No. 1 Art. 71
5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating – penalty next
II. Outline of the rules: lower, in the period applicable, according to the number and
1. No aggravating and no mitigating – medium period nature of such circumstances.
 Penalty by law: reclusion temporal max to reclusion perpetua
2. Only a mitigating – minimum period  Max of ISL: prision mayor max to reclusion tempora med.
 Min of ISL: prisio correctional max to prisio mayor med.
3. Only an aggravating – maximum period  In determining the proper “period applicable”, the mitigating
 People v. Toling: No generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstance can no longer be considered since it already
circumstances were proven = penalty for murder imposed in lowered the degree of the penalty.
medium period or RP. Death penalty imposed by trial court was
not warranted. 6. No penalty greater than the maximum period of the penalty
 Illustrations of Nos. 2 and 3: A is convicted of homicide prescribed by law shall be imposed, no matter how many
punishable by reclusion temporal (min, med, max). aggravating circumstances are present.
o No mitigating nor aggravating  medium  Thus, even if there are 4 generic aggravating circumstances, the
o A pleaded guilty, no aggravating  minimum maximum penalty for homicide is still reclusion temporal.
o Committed the crime in the dwelling, no mitigating 
maximum 7. The court can determine the extent of the penalty “within the
o 2 aggravating, no mitigating  still only maximum. limits of each period, according to the number” and “nature”
of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the
4. When there are aggravating and mitigating – offset those of greater or lesser “extent of the evil” produced by the crime.
one class against the other according to relative weight.  A committed a crime punished by arresto mayor with two
 Note: The mitigating circumstances must be ordinary not aggravating and one mitigating circumstance.
privileged. The aggravating circumstances must be generic or  Steps:
specific and not qualifying or inherent. o Apply “Rule 4” and offset = 1 aggravating left
 Illustration of No. 4: A committed homicide in nighttime on o Remaining aggravating will make the imposed penalty
purpose. He surrendered to the mayor of the town and pleaded arresto mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1
guilty. day to 6 months).
o Held:  Rule 7: the court can impose any length from 4 months and 1
day, 5 months or 6 months.

 “Extent of the evil produced” 4. Quotient added to minimum prescribed (elim 1 day) = total
o Court has the discretion to impose the penalty within represents max of minimum period.
the limits fixed by law.
o Taking into consideration the amount of damage caused II. Illustration: (See p. 756‐757 for more detailed computations)
on the economic life of a banking institution, it is proper
for the court to impose the maximum of the medium (1) Duration is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
degree of the penalty (People v. Velazco).
(2) Subtract minimum (disregarding 1 day) from the maximum
III. Cases where mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not 6 years – 6 months = 5 years and 6 months
considered in the imposition of the penalty
1. When the penalty is single and indivisible (Art. 63) (3) Divide difference by 3
2. In felonies through negligence such as reckless imprudence 5 years and 6 months .= 1 year and 10 months
(Art.365). 3
3. Penalty to be imposed upon a Moro or other non‐Christian
inhabitant (Sec. 6, Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu) (4) Minimum added with quotient = minimum period
4. When the penalty is only a fine impose by an ordinance. 6 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 2 years and 4 months
5. When the penalties are prescribed by special laws.
(5) Maximum of minimum added with quotient = medium period
Article 65. Rules in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three 2 years and 4 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 4 years and 2 months
periods. – In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not
composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained (6) Maximum of medium added with quotient = maximum period
in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time 4 years and 2 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 6 years
included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of
the three portions. Final:
 Minimum: 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
POINTS  Medium: 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months
I. Meaning of the rule.  Maximum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years.
1. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of the entire
penalty. Article 66. Imposition of fines. – In imposing fines the courts may fix
2. Time included in penalty prescribed – divided into 3 equal any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount
portions after subtracting minimum (eliminate 1 day) from in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and
maximum of penalty aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or
3. Min or minimum period should be the minimum of the given means of the culprit.
penalty (including 1 day)

POINTS  Art. 66 says mitigating and aggravating circumstances may also
I. Outline of this provision: be considered by court
1. The court can fix any amount of the fine within the limits  Also other factors such as:
established by law. o Gravity or seriousness of crime committed
2. The court must consider – o Heinousness of its perpetration
a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances; and o Magnitude of its effects on victim(s) (People v. Manuel)
b. More particularly, the wealth or means of the culprit. Position and standing of accused considered aggravating in gambling.
 US v. Salaveria  Person found guilty of violating Gambling Law
II. When the minimum if the fine is not fixed. with high standing in community = maximum penalty imposed
 When the law does not fix minimum of the fine   US v. Mercader  Accused in gambling case was municipal
determination of amount of fine to be imposed: left to the treasurer = Court imposed fine of P500 and 1 year
sound discretion of the court (provided it shall not exceed imprisonment (max penalty provided by law)
maximum authorized by law) (People v. Quinto).
Article 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of
II. Fines are not divided into three equal portions. exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present. – When
 The courts are not bound to divide the amount of fine all the conditions required in the circumstance number 4 of Article 12
prescribed by law into 3 equal portions (as in case of of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the
imprisonment imposed in relation to a divisible penalty). penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit, if he shall
III. Wealth or means of culprit is main consideration in fine. have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum
 Wealth or means of culprit is emphasized because fixed amount and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
of fine for ALL offenders of particular crime  result to
inequality (ex. P100 for rich versus poor man) POINTS
 Ex. Laborer earning P208/month who has to pay P20 versus I. Article 67 applies only when all the requisites of the exempting
Office worker with P800/month who has to pay P50 – fine for circumstance of accident are not present.
laborer more severe if ever  Circumstance No. 4 of Art. 12  Exempting circumstance of
 To impose same amount of fine for same offense upon persons accident.
differently circumstances  penalty of unequal severity =  Four conditions necessary to exempt from liability under
unjustly discriminatory (people v. Ching Kuan) Subsection 4 of Art. 12:
1. Act causing the injury be lawful; permitted not only by law
IV. But mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not entirely but also by regulations.
disregarded. Factors other than financial condition of accused may be 2. Performed with due care.
considered by court. 3. Injury be caused by mere accident (ex. By an unforeseen
event)

4. There be no fault or intention to cause the injury. Under Article 68 Under RA 9344
Offender over 9 yrs. but under 15 9‐15 year olds = exempt from
II. If all these conditions are not present: yrs. acting with discernment = NOT criminal liability  No penalty
 (Act considered as) reckless imprudence if act is executed exempt from criminal liability imposed
without taking precautions or measure that most common (discretionary penalty shall be
prudence would requires imposed – 2 degrees lower than
 (Act considered as) simple imprudence if it’s a mere lack of prescribed by law for crime
precaution where either the threatened harm is not imminent committed)
or danger is not openly visible ( this case will fall under Art. Offender over 15 but under 18 – 15‐18 year olds = exempt from
365, par. 1) penalty next lower than prescribed criminal liability UNLESS acted
 Penalty provided in Art. 67, same as in Art. 365 by law imposed with discernment  will undergo
diversion programs under Chap 2
Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of RA 9344
of age. – When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his  If court sees that objective of disposition measures imposed
case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the upon CICL (child in conflict with the law) was NOT fulfilled or
last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: CICL willfully failed to comply with conditions of his/her
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is disposition or rehab program  CICL will be brought to court
not exempted from liability by reason of the court having for execution of judgment.
declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary  Penalty imposed on CICL – provided in par. 2 of Art. 68 (or
penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at penalty next lower than prescribed by law)
least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he
committed. II. Probation as an alternative to imprisonment
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age  The court may place a CICL on probation in lieu of service of a
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be sentence taking into consideration the best interest of the child.
imposed, but always in the proper period.
Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not
POINTS wholly excusable. – A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
I. Article 68 has been partly repealed by Republic Act No. 9344. prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable
 Art. 68 of RPC (penalty for person under 18 y/o) = partly by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the
repealed by RA 9344  provides that: same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases
(1) Child 15 yrs. and below = exempt from criminal mentioned in Articles 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such
responsibility conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
(2) Child 15‐18 yrs. old = exempt from criminal liability UNLESS period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and
acted with discernment nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.

POINTS o Only unlawful aggression  1 penalty lower imposed
I. Unlawful aggression is indispensable in self‐defense, defense of (People v. Cabellon) BUT this decision is contrary to Art.
relatives and defense of stranger. 69 that provides that majority of conditions must be
 Unlawful aggression must be present (first circumstance in self‐ present
defense under subsections 1, 2, 3 of Art.11)
 Example. B was challenged by A to a fight. B attacked first with a IV. “A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by
knife and A retaliated by stabbing B. In the struggle, B killed A. law shall be imposed x x x in the period which may be deemed proper,
Can B be given one or two degrees lower penalty than in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption
prescribed for homicide? present or lacking.”
Even though conditions to justify the deed is present  Court has discretion to impose 1 or 2 degrees lower than
(Reasonableness of means employed and Lack of sufficient prescribed by law for offense.
provocation) – essential element of unlawful aggression was  In determining proper period of penalty that is 1 or 2 degrees
absent because there was agreement to fight = NOT entitled to lower = court must consider number and nature of conditions of
reduction (US v. Navarro) exemption or justification present or lacking.

II. “In the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12.” V. When the majority of the requisites of self‐defense and two
 Privileged mitigating circumstances in Art. 69 include: mitigating without aggravating circumstances are present, the penalty
incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting circumstances is three degrees lower.
BUT majority of the conditions must be present  If accused charged with homicide (punishable by RT) proved
unlawful aggression on deceased and another requisite of self‐
III. “Provided the majority of such conditions be present.” defense PLUS 2 mitigating circumstances (surrender and
 People v. Alvarez: CA refused to apply Art. 69 because only obfuscation) with NO aggravating = proper penalty is AM
unlawful aggression was present on the victim’s part BUT means medium (2 mos 1 day to 4 mos)
employed by accused = not reasonable and accused provoked
aggression Article 70. Successive service of sentences. – When the culprit has to
 Homicide case where provocation and unlawful aggression serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the
came from deceased + means employed by offender = not nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the following rules
reasonable: shall be observed:
o More than one of the requisites of self‐defense are
present In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective
o When 2 of the essential requisites for justification are severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or
present  penalty lower by 2 degrees may be imposed as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to
(People v. Dorado) the penalty of penalties first imposed, or should they have been
served out.

2. Otherwise = order of their respective severity shall be followed
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding 3. Respective severity of penalties is as follows:
paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined a. Death
in accordance with the following scale: b. Reclusion Perpetua
1. Death, c. Reclusion Temporal
2. Reclusion perpetua, d. Prision Mayor
3. Reclusion temporal, e. Prision Correccional
4. Prision mayor, f. Arresto Mayor
5. Prision correccional, g. Arresto menor
6. Arresto mayor, h. Destierro
7. Arresto menor, i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
8. Destierro, j. Temporary absolute disqualification
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, k. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
10. Temporary absolute disqualification, voted for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted l. Public censure.
for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
12. Public censure. The penalties which can be simultaneously served are:
(a) PAD
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the (b) PSD
maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than (c) TAD
threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the (d) TSD
penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be (e) Suspension
liable shall be inflicted after the sum of those imposed equals the said (f) Destierro
maximum period. (g) Public censure
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. (h) Fine and bond to keep the peace
(i) Civil Interdiction, and
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual (j) Confiscation and payment of costs.
penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As  Above penalties (except destierro) can be served simultaneously
amended by Com. Act No. 217.) with imprisonment
 Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty – cant be served
POINTS simultaneously by reason of the nature of such penalties
I. Outline of the provisions of this Article:
1. When culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties  serve them II. The order of the respective severity of the penalties shall be
simultaneously (if nature of penalties permit) followed so that they may be executed successively.

 Time of the second sentence does not commence to run until  No prisoner shall be required to remain in prison continuously
the expiration of the first (Gordon v. Wolfe). for more than 40 years. The duration of perpetual penalties is
 Imprisonment must be served before destierro. Thus, arresto 30 years.
menor must be served before destierro (People v. Misa).  If a sentence is indeterminate, the maximum term is the basis.

III. Three‐fold Rule VI. Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the penalty
 The maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be  The result from the three‐fold rule will be the aggregate
more than three times the length of time corresponding to the principal penalty which the principal has to serve. IN ADDITION,
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. he will have to pay all indemnities with or without subsidiary
o If the sum of the penalties does not exceed the most imprisonment PROVIDED the principal penalty does not
severe multiplied by 3, three‐fold rule doesn’t apply. exceed/is not higher than 6 years.
 The three‐fold rule applies even if by different courts at  Bagtas v. Director of Prisons
different times. o Facts: A guilty of 17 crimes. Most severe is 6 months
o The Rules of Court provide that an information must not and 1 day PLUS a fine of P1,000.
charge more than one offense. Necessarily, the various  Three‐fold rule: 18 months and 3 days max.
offenses punished with different penalties must be o Held: If the petitioner would not be able to pay the
charged under different information which may be filed finem the maximum duration of his imprisonment shall
in the same court or in different courts at the same time be 18 months and 3 days of the principal penalty PLUS 6
or at different times. months and 1 day subsidiary imprisonment.
 The three‐fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve at
least 4 sentences. VII. Different systems of penalty
 Material accumulation system  no limitation; all penalties for
IV. The phrase “the most severe of penalties” includes equal penalties all violations were imposed even if they reached beyond the
 Fact: Sentenced for 6 cases of estafa. Each of which is 3 months natural span of human life.
and 11 days of arresto mayor. o Article 70, Par. 1,2,3 follow this.
 Held: Accused cannot be made to suffer more than 9 months  Juridical accumulation system  Service of several penalties is
and 33 days. limited to not more than three‐fold the max and will not exceed
40 years.
V. Duration of the convict’s sentence refers to several penalties for o Article 70, Par. 4,5,6 follow this.
different offenses, not yet served out.  Absorption system  Observed in the imposition of the
 If the convict already served sentence for one offense prior to penalty in complex crimes (Art. 48), continuing crimes, and
the commission and/or conviction for another offense, the specific crimes like robbery with homicide, etc.
former will not be considered in the three‐fold rule.

Article 71. Graduated Scales. – In cases in which the law prescribes a o This has the effect of appropriately downgrading the
penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories,
penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in frustrated and attempted felonies to the level
graduating such penalty. consistent with the rest of the penal laws.
 Since this law bars the application of the death penalty, such
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated
which is comprised of the given penalty. scale of penalties under Article 71.
o There can be no harmony between RA No. 9346 and the
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty shall observe the RPC unless the later statute is construed as having
following graduated scales: downgraded those penalties attached to death by
reason of graduated scale under Article 71.
SCALE NO. 1 (Scale for personal penalties)
1. Death II. Destierro  next lower in degree from arresto mayor
2. Reclusion perpetua  The scale, which places destierro below arresto mayor, cannot
3. Reclusion temporal be disregarded.
4. Prision mayor  Their respective severities is judged not by duration but by the
5. Prision correccional degree of deprivation of liberty
6. Arresto mayor Who may impose destierro?
7. Destierro • The metropolitan and municipal trial courts shall exercise
8. Arresto menor exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
9. Public censure imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.
10. Fine Must destierro be applied only when it is specifically imposed by law?
• No. It may be imposed when it is the penalty next lower.
SCALE NO. 2 (Scale for penalties depriving political rights)
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification III. Articles 25, 70, 71 compared:
2. Temporary absolute disqualification Article 25 Article 70 Article 71
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted Classification of classifies classifies provides for the
for, and the right to follow a profession or calling penalties penalties into penalties scales which
4. Public censure principal and according to should be
5. Fine accessory severity. (For observed in
the purpose of graduating
POINTS the successive penalties in
I. Death shall no longer form part of the equation in Article 71 service of Article 61
 Pursuant to R.A. No. 9346 sentences)

Location of Destierro is Destierro is Destierro is
Destierro above arresto below arresto above arresto
menor menor menor

Article 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. – The civil
liabilities of a person found guilty of 2 or more offenses shall be
satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the final
judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of
time.

POINTS
I. Applicability
 This article applies when the offender who is found guilty of 2 or
more offenses is required to pay civil liabilities resulting from
the same.

II. Order of payment of Civil Liabilities
 The order is not based on the dates of the commission.
 It is based on the dates of the final judgment.

CLASS DISCUSSION
 Is it possible for the payment of civil liabilities to differ from how
the criminal liabilities are served?
 Is civil liability imposed/specified or considered as an attached
like accessory penalties? Or must it be expressly imposed?


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES  Death must be specifically imposed by law.
CHAPTER 4: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
SECTION 3: PROVISION COMMON TO THE LAST TWO PRECEDING II. Application of this article
SECTIONS  What is meant to here is that the judgment should not provide
that the convict should not be given the benefit of Article 27
Article 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory (that he should be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for 30
penalties. – Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which by years) until 40 years have elapsed; otherwise there would be no
provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to Article 40, difference at all between reclusion perpetua when imposed as a
41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of this Code, it must be understood that the penalty next higher in degree and when it is imposed as the
accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict. penalty fixed by law.

POINTS Article 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more
I. Accessory penalties are deemed imposed degrees. – Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the
 Means that a judgment need not make an express penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
pronouncement of the imposition of accessory penalties. reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one‐fourth of the maximum
amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.
II. Subsidiary imprisonment, not an accessory penalty
 Means that the judgment of conviction must expressly state The same rules shall be observed with regard to fines that do not
that subsidiary penalty would be imposed. consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.

Article 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. – In POINTS
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given I. Fines are graduated into degrees
penalty, without specifically designating the name of the former, if  For the accomplices and accessories
such higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the  For principals in frustrated and attempted felonies
accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher
penalty. II. To get the lower degree:
 MAXIMUM prescribed by law ‐ reduce by 1/4 for each degree.
POINTS  MINIMUM – remains the same.
I. Death cannot be the penalty next higher in degree when not Illustration
provided by law  Fine is from P200 to P2,000
 When a given penalty has to be raised and the resulting penalty  To lower by one degree:
is death, it cannot be imposed. o 2,000 / 4 = 500
 The given penalty and the accessory penalties of death (Art. 40) o 2,000 – 500 = 1,500
shall be imposed.

III. “Without changing the minimum” Article 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. – The legal
 The fine must have a minimum and a maximum fixed by law period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided
 This article does NOT apply when the law does not fix the into three parts, forming 3 periods, the minimum, the medium and the
minimum of fine. maximum in the manner shown in the following table.

IV. When the minimum is not fixed by law Table 1. Duration of divisible penalties and the time included in each
 When only the maximum is fixed, the determination of the period.
minimum is left to the sound discretion of the courts, without Penalties Whole Min Med Max
exceeding the maximum authorized by law. Penalty
Reclusion 12 yrs + 12 yrs + 14 yrs, 17 yrs and 4
V. Distinctions between fine with a minimum and fine without a Temporal 1day 1day 8mos and mos and 1
minimum. to 20 yrs to 14 yrs + 1day to 17 day to 20
 In both, the law fixes the maximum. 8 mos yrs and 4 yrs
 When the law fixes the minimum, the court cannot change that mos
minimum; when the law does not state the minimum, the court (1) PM 6 yrs + 1day 6 yrs + 1day 8 yrs + 1d 10 yrs + 1
can impose any amount not exceeding the maximum. (2)Ab. Disq. to 12 yrs to 8 yrs to 10 yrs day to 12
 When the law fixes both minimum and maximum, the court can (3)S. Temp. yrs
impose an amount higher than the maximum; when only the Disq.
maximum is fixed, it cannot impose an amount higher than the (1) PC, 6 mos + 6 mos + 2 yrs + 4 4 yrs, 2 mos
maximum. (2)Suspension 1day 1day mos + 1d to + 1d to 6
(3) Destierro to 6 yrs to 2 yrs + 4 4 yrs + yrs
VI. As to “fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made mos. 2mos
proportional” Arresto 1 mo. + 1 to 2 mos. 2 mos + 4 mos +
 This clause speaks of fines which are not of fixed amount but Mayor 1day 1day 1day
are made proportional to 6 mo. to 4 mos. to 6 mos.
o Example: (Article 365, negligence causing damage) Arresto 1 to 30 days 1 to 10 days 11 to 20 21 to 30
Where the fine shall be from an amount equal to the Menor days days
value of the damage up to 3 times such value, but shall
in no case be less than 25 pesos. POINTS
 Article 210  Direct Bribery I. Article 76 shows the manner divisible penalties are divided into 3
o Facts: Bribe was P2,300. periods
o Maximum: 2,300 x 3 = P6,900  Refer to article 65 supra for the process
o P6,900 should be the basis for lowering the penalty by
two degrees (penalty for attempted bribery).

II. When the penalty is composed of 3 periods corresponding to  Med‐ Reclusion Perpetua
different divisible penalties  Min‐ Reclusion Temporal
 It is clear that the duration of each of the periods of the divisible
penalties as fixed in the table is NOT controlling when the II. Application by analogy of rules
penalty prescribed is composed of 3 periods corresponding to 1. Article 114(3), provides a penalty of prision mayor to death.
different divisible penalties. a. Max  death (because it’s indivisible)
 Article 76 provides that “divisible penalties shall be considered b. Medium  reclusion perpetua (because it’s indivisible)
as divided into three parts, forming three periods,” without c. Minimum  prision mayor to reclusion temporal
stating that the three parts must be three equal portions of time 2. Article 294(2), provides penalty of reclusion temporal in its
included in the divisible penalties, but the time included in each medium period to reclusion perpetua.
of the divisible penalties mentioned in the table in that article, a. Max  reclusion perpetua (being indivisible)
except that of arresto mayor, is divided into three equal b. Medium  reclusion temporal in its maximum period
portions. c. Minimum  reclusion temporal in its medium period.

III. Distinction between “period” and “degree”
 Period‐ 3 equal parts of a divisible penalty
 Degree‐ diverse penalties mentioned by name in the RPC

Article 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three
distinct penalties. – In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of 3 distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the
lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and the
most severe the maximum period.

Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms
specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed,
applying by analogy the prescribed rules

POINTS
I. Complex penalty
 Penalty composed of 3 distinct penalties, each forming a period.
 Example:
o Reclusion temporal to death (Art. 114)
 Max‐ Death

TITLE THREE – PENALTIES Article 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in
CHAPTER 5: EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES case of insanity. ‐ When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile
SECTION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said
sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty,
Article 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. ‐ No penalty the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of
shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.

A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be
by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than those executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with
expressly authorized thereby. the provisions of this Code.

In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the
prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance,
and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts POINTS
among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may I. Rules regarding the execution of penalties in case of insanity
receive, and their diet. 1. Convict becomes insane/imbecile after final judgment 
sentence is suspended only as regards the personal penalty
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in 2. If he recovers his reason  sentence shall be executed unless it
different institutions, or at least into different departments, and also has prescribed
for the correction and reform of the convicts. 3. Even while serving sentence, the convict becomes insane/an
imbecile, Art. 79 shall be observed
POINTS 4. Civil or pecuniary liabilities shall not be suspended
I. Only penalty by final judgment can be executed.
 The judgment must be final before it can be executed, because II. Only execution of personal penalty is suspended in case of insanity;
the accused may still appeal within 15 days from its civil liability may be executed even in case of insanity of convict.
promulgation, but if he waives by writing his right to appeal, the
judgment becomes immediately final. III. An accused person may become insane (with effects):
 If the judgment does not confer subsidiary imprisonment in case 1. At the time of the commission of the offense
of insolvency, the accused cannot be required to suffer the o Exempted from criminal liability (Art. 12.1)
same in case of inability to pay the fine imposed on him. 2. At the time of trial
o Trial suspended until he recovers reason (Art. 12.1)
3. At the time of final judgment
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Personal penalty is suspended. The suspension of the proceedings against a minor may be extended
4. While serving sentence or shortened by the court on the recommendation of the Director of
o Personal penalty is suspended. Public Welfare or his authorized representatives or agents, or the
superintendent of public schools or his representatives, according as
Article 80. Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents. ‐ Whenever a to whether the conduct of such minor has been good or not and
minor of either sex, under sixteen years of age at the date of the whether he has complied with the conditions imposed upon him, or
commission of a grave or less grave felony, is accused thereof, the not. The provisions of the first paragraph of this article shall not,
court, after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead of however, be affected by those contained herein.
pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of a If the minor has been committed to the custody or care of any of the
public or private, benevolent or charitable institution, established institutions mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, with the
under the law for the care, correction or education of orphaned, approval of the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such
homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the custody or care conditions as this official in accordance with law may deem proper to
of any other responsible person in any other place subject to visitation impose, such minor may be allowed to stay elsewhere under the care
and supervision by the Director of Public Welfare or any of his agents of a responsible person.
or representatives, if there be any, or otherwise by the superintendent
of public schools or his representatives, subject to such conditions as If the minor has behaved properly and has complied with the
are prescribed hereinbelow until such minor shall have reached his conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance
majority or for such less period as the court may deem proper.(As with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in
amended by Republic Act No. 47.) order that the same may order his final release.

The court, in committing said minor as provided above, shall take into In case the minor fails to behave properly or to comply with the
consideration the religion of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in regulations of the institution to which he has been committed or with
order to avoid his commitment to any private institution not under the the conditions imposed upon him when he was committed to the care
control and supervision of the religious sect or denomination to which of a responsible person, or in case he should be found incorrigible or
they belong. his continued stay in such institution should be inadvisable, he shall be
returned to the court in order that the same may render the judgment
The Director of Public Welfare or his duly authorized representatives corresponding to the crime committed by him.
or agents, the superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
or the person to whose custody or care the minor has been The expenses for the maintenance of a minor delinquent confined in
committed, shall submit to the court every four months and as often the institution to which he has been committed, shall be borne totally
as required in special cases, a written report on the good or bad or partially by his parents or relatives or those persons liable to
conduct of said minor and the moral and intellectual progress made by support him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the court:
him. Provided, That in case his parents or relatives or those persons liable
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


to support him have not been ordered to pay said expenses or are III. Intervention Program
found indigent and cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in  PD 603:
which the offense was committed shall pay one‐third of said expenses;  Custody  child must be released to parents, guardian or
the province to which the municipality belongs shall pay one‐third; nearest relative. Absence thereof, duly registered
and the remaining one‐third shall be borne by the National nongovernmental or religious organizations, barangay official or
Government: Provided, however, That whenever the Secretary of a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of
Finance certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its share in the Children, DSWD.
expenses above mentioned, such share which is not paid by said  Appropriate programs  Created in cooperation with the local
municipality shall be borne by the National Government. Chartered social and welfare development officer.
cities shall pay two‐thirds of said expenses; and in case a chartered city  Involuntary commitment  if the child is abandoned, neglected
cannot pay said expenses, the internal revenue allotments which may or abused.
be due to said city shall be withheld and applied in settlement of said
indebtedness in accordance with section five hundred and eighty‐eight IV. Diversion Programs for children above 15 and below 18 who acted
of the Administrative Code. (As amended by Com. Act No. 99) with discernment (Art. 13.2)
Automatic Suspension of sentence under RA 9344
 When a child under 18 at the time of the commission of the
POINTS crime is found guilty of the offense, the court will determine any
I. The provisions of Article 80 have been repealed by Chapter 3 of PD civil liability, which may have resulted from the offense.
603, as amended by the provisions of RA 9344  However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the
 RA 9344: court will place the child under a suspended sentence, without
o “Child” = below 18 need of application
o “Child in Conflict with the Law” = alleged/accused  Provided that suspension of sentence shall be applied even if
of/adjudged as having committed an offense under the juvenile is already 18 or more at the time of the
Philippine Laws. promulgation of the sentence.
 PD 603 Suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law
o “Youthful Offender” = child/minor/youth, above 9 but reaches 21 years old
below 18, at the time of the commission of the offense.  Max age  21 years old.
 Involves Restoration, Rehabilitation, Reintegration
II. Minimum age of Criminal Responsibility  What matters is that the offender committed the offense when
 15 years old and below  exempt from criminal liability. he/she was still of tender age, not his/her age during conviction.
 Above 15, below 18  exempt from criminal liability but with Thus, a 25‐year old man may still be sentenced to a diversion
intervention program (but if acted with discernmentdiversion program if he acted with discernment when he committed the
program). crime when he was 17 years old.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


V. COURT PROCEEDINGS 7. Credit in Service of Sentence
1. Bail o Full time spent in actual commitment and detention.
o Consider the privileged mitigating circumstance of 8. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment
minority (Art. 68). o After conviction and sentence a child in conflict with the
2. Release on Recognizance law, the court may place the child under probation in
o Detained child: lieu of service of the sentence taking into consideration
 Released on recognizance to parents the best interests of the child.
 Release of Child in Conflict with Law with bail o Probation Law of 1976 is amended accordingly.
 Transfer of youth to rehab center
3. Detention of the Child Pending Trial VI. REHABILITATION & REINTEGRATION
o May be released on BAIL or RECOGNIZANCE 1. Objective of Rehabilitation & Reintegration
o Institutionalization/Detention  last resort and with o Intervention, approaches, strategies to improve their
the shortest possible time. social functioning  Reintegration into families,
o Youth detention home if detention is necessary  productive members of the community.
absent, DSWD or local rehabilitation center within court 2. Court Order required before receiving a child in a
jurisdiction. rehabilitation facility
4. Diversion Measures o Details shall be entered into a register
o If max is imprisonment of not more than 12 years o Must be complied with strictly
(regardless of fine if any)  court will determine WON 3. Separate facilities from adults
diversion is appropriate even before arraignment. o Separated from adults unless from same family
5. Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law o Home environment simulated for comfort
o Upon recommendation of social worker, the court shall 4. Female children
dismiss the case against the child. o Personal needs and problems attended to by female
o Final discharge of the child ordered if the objective of doctors, officers, and social workers
the disposition measures have been fulfilled. 5. Care and maintenance of the Child in Conflict with the Law
o These will not affect the civil liability of the child. o See paragraph 8
6. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court o Flow of financial responsibility:
o If disposition measures not fulfilled or child didn’t want o Parents/people liable for support (whole or in part)
to comply, child  returned to Court for judgment. o If #1 cannot pay:
o If child has reached 18, Court will determine  Municipality (1/3)
 Discharge  Province where municipality is located (1/3)
 Execute sentence  National Government (1/3)
 Suspend sentence for a time or until child turns o Note:
21.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 If Secretary of Finance says the municipality o Final report to be mdade, as well
can’t pay, the National Government shall pay 9. Civil liability of Youthful Offenders
(2/3) o Automatic:
 Chartered cities shall pay (2/3) of the expenses.  Father, if not
If it cannot pay, then the internal revenue  Mother, if not
allotments for that city shall be suspended and  Guardian
the money to be paid to the city shall be used o Voluntary:
for the city’s payments for the maintenance of  Relative
the confinement of the Child in Conflict with the  Family friend
Law, pursuant to Sec. 588 of the AC. 10. Liability of parents or guardian or any person in the
6. Confinement of convicted children in agricultural camps and commission of delinquent acts by their children or wards
other training facilities o A person whether the parent/guardian of the child or
o Confinement to such may be done by the court in lieu of not, knowingly or willfully,
confinement in a regular penal institution  Aids, causes, abets, or connives with the
o Such to be maintained by the Bureau of Corrections in commission by a child of a delinquency
coordination with the DSWD  Does any act producing, promoting, or
7. Rehabilitation of Children in Conflict with the Law contributing to a child’s being or becoming a
o Children in conflict with the law whose sentences are juvenile delinquent  P 500 / imprisonment < 2
suspended, my undergo any or a combination of years OR both at court’s discretion
disposition measures best suited to the rehab and 11. Confidentiality of records and proceedings
welfare of the child (SC Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with o Privileged and confidential.
the Law) o Public shall be excluded during the proceedings.
o Community‐based rehab  child shall be released to o Records shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
parents. Guardians, relatives, or any other responsible anyone by any of the parties/participants for any
person in the community. Under the supervision and purpose EXCEPT to determine the possible suspension
guidance of the local social welfare and development of the child in conflict with the law may have pursuant
officer (and in coordination with the abovementioned to the Probation Law of 1976.
people), the child in conflict with the law shall o Component authorities shall undertake all measures to
participate in community‐based programs protect the confidentiality of proceedings.
o Based on progress, a final report shall be forwarded to o Separate police blotter for cases involving children in
the local social welfare and development to be assessed conflict with the law.
by the court for final disposition of the case o Adoption of a system of coding to conceal material info
8. Youth Rehabilitation Center leading to child’s identity.
o 24‐hour group care with trained staff.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o A person who has been in conflict with the law as a child
shall not be held under any provision of law, to be guilty
of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by
reason of his/her failure to acknowledge the case or
recite any fact related in response to any inquiry made
to him/her for any purpose.
o PD 1179 shall not apply to those convicted of an offense
punishable by death or life imprisonment.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE THREE – PENALTIES  Article 84 – Place of execution and persons who may witness
CHAPTER 5: EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES the same.
SECTION 2: EXECUTION OF PRINCIPAL PENALTIES  Article 85 – Provisions relative to the corpse of the person
executed and its burial.
Article 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. ‐ The
death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other and III. Death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other
shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by penalty.
electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the  In accordance with Article 70 providing for successive service of
authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to sentences.
mitigate the sufferings of the persons under sentence during
electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. IV. Death sentence by lethal injection.
 This is in accordance with RA 8177. Prior to the enactment of
If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized at said RA, the death penalty was carried out by electrocution.
the moment of the execution.
V. When death sentence shall be carried out.
As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the method  Not earlier than 1 year nor later than 18 months after the
of carrying out the sentence shall be changed to gas poisoning. judgment becomes final and executory, without prejudice to the
The death sentence shall be carried out not later than one (1) year President’s exercise of pardon.
after the judgment has become final. (As amended by Sec. 24,
Republic Act No. 7659.) Article 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to
the culprit. ‐ The court shall designate a working day for the execution,
POINTS but not the hour thereof; and such designation shall not be
I. RA 9346 expressly repealed RA 8177, which prescribed death by communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and the
lethal injection. execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at least
 According to Sec. 1 of RA 9346, the imposition of the death eight hours following the notification, but before sunset. During the
penalty is prohibited. interval between the notification and the execution, the culprit shall,
in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in
II. Because the death penalty may not be imposed anymore, Articles order to be attended in his last moments by priests or ministers of the
81‐85 have no application. religion he professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order to
 Article 81 – When and how the death penalty is to be executed. make a will and confer with members of his family or persons in
 Article 82 – Notification and execution of the sentence and charge of the management of his business, of the administration of his
assistance to the culprit. property, or of the care of his descendants.
 Article 83 – Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


POINTS 4. Convict who becomes insane after final sentence of death has
I. A convict sentenced to death may make a will. been pronounced (Article 79).
 He has the right to consult a lawyer and make a will for the o But when he recovers his reason and before the penalty
disposition of his property. has been prescribed, he may be put to death.
 To know if the convict sentenced to death ay dispose of his
property inter vivos, it must first be ascertained if the death II. Article 83 vs. Article 47
penalty was not executed by reason of commutation or pardon Article 83 Article 47
(Article 40). Thus, if the death penalty is not executed because Purpose SUSPENSION of death When death penalty is
of commutation or pardon, civil interdiction as an accessory penalty NOT to be executed
penalty of Article 40 can be applied, and according to Article 34, Cases 1. Woman, while 1. Guilty person is more
shall deprive the offender to dispose of his property by any act pregnant than 70 y/o
or conveyance inter vivos. 2. Woman, within one 2. Upon
year after delivery appeal/automatic
Article 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. ‐ The 3. Person over 70 y/o review of the SC, the
death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is 4. Convict who majority vote is not
pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person becomes insane obtained to impose
over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be after final sentence death penalty
commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory of death has been 3. Convict is a minor
penalty provided in article 40. pronounced (Article (below 18)*
79)
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of *This may be added in
the case shall be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the view of Article 68
Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
(As amended by Sec. 25, Republic Act No. 7659.) III. RTC (formerly CF) can suspend execution of death sentence.
 Must be done:
POINTS o After the judgment has become final
I. Death sentence shall be suspended when the accused is o After the date has been fixed for execution
1. Woman, while pregnant o Upon petition on behalf of the prisoner
2. Woman, within one year after delivery (RA No. 7659) o Based upon grounds which does not challenge the
o Before it was after 40 days. validity of the judgment or involve a
3. Person over 70 years of age review/reconsideration of the proceedings:
o Suspension is necessary to give the President time to  Insanity or pregnancy of convict
act, because only the President can commute the  Alleged non‐identity of the prisoner with the
sentence. person actually convicted and sentenced
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Alleged lack of a suitable opportunity to be POINT
heard on an application for executive clemency I. The “burial of the body of a person sentenced to death” should not
o HOWEVER, the court cannot grant (PICpermanent, “be held with pomp.”
indefinite, conditional) suspension of the execution of  This is to prevent anyone from making a hero out of a criminal.
sentences in criminal cases.
Article 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
IV. Records to be forwarded to the Office of the President, when the prision correccional and arresto mayor. ‐ The penalties of reclusion
death sentence has become final. perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and
 For the possible exercise of the pardoning power. arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal
establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which
Article 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. ‐ may be provided by law in the future.
The execution shall take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in a space
closed to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the priests
assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his relatives, not  See table
exceeding six, if he so request, by the physician and the necessary
personnel of the penal establishment, and by such persons as the
Director of Prisons may authorize. Article 87. Destierro. ‐ Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be
permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor
within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250
 See table and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.

Article 85. Provision relative to the corpse of the person executed  See table
and its burial. ‐ Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit
shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the
execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or scientific Article 88. Arresto menor. ‐ The penalty of arresto menor shall be
research first applying for it, for the purpose of study and served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself
investigation, provided that such institute shall take charge of the under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so
decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the
order the burial of the body of the culprit at government expense, offender and other reasons, which may seem satisfactory to it.
granting permission to be present thereat to the members of the
family of the culprit and the friends of the latter. In no case shall the  See table
burial of the body of a person sentenced to death be held with pomp.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TABLE FOR ARTICLES 84, 86‐88

ARTICLE PLACE/S OF EXECUTION WITNESSES OTHER DETAILS
OR SERVICE
84 • Penintentiary • Priests
(Death Sentence) • Bilid Prison • Offender’s lawyers
• Offender’s relatives (not ‐‐‐‐‐‐
exceeding 6, if so requested)
• Physician
• Necessary personnel of the
establishment
86 • Places and penal
(Reclusión Perpetua, Reclusión establishments provided by ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
Temporal, Prision Mayor, Prision the AC in force or those that
Correccional, Arresto Mayor) may be provided in the future
87 • No place because said • Shall not be permitted to enter
(Destierro) convicted must leave the place ‐‐‐‐‐‐ the place/s designated, nor
itself w/in a radius specified
• Banishment shall be < 250 km,
but > 25 km from place
designated
88 • Municipal jail, or *** Under officer’s surveillance *** Only when the court so
(Arresto Menor) provides, subject to the offender’s
*** House of the defendant 1. Health
himself 2. Other reasons
satisfactory to it

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE FOUR – EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY I. Reason:
CHAPTER 1: TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY  One of the juridical conditions of penalty is that it’s personal.

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal II. Civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final
liability is totally extinguished: judgment
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as  Reason: civil liability exists only when the accused is convicted
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only by final judgment.
when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence; III. Criminal and civil liability is extinguished when the offender dies
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all before final judgment
its effects;  People v. Castillo, CA  When the accused died while the
4. By absolute pardon; judgment of conviction against him was pending, his civil and
5. By prescription of the crime; criminal liability was extinguished by his death.
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article IV. Definition of “Final Judgment”
344 of this Code.  As employed in the RPC, this means judgment beyond recall.
 As long as the judgment has not become executory, it cannot be
POINTS truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the felony.
I. Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically/necessarily  Judgment also becomes final:
mean that civil liability is also extinguished o After the lapse of the 15‐day period of perfecting appeal
 Extinction of criminal liability is a ground for motion to quash. o When the sentence is partially or fully served.
o The order sustaining such motion is a bar to another o When the defendant in writing, expressly waives in
prosecution for the same offense. waives his right to appeal.

II. Causes of extinction of criminal liability distinguished from causes of V. Effect of the death of the accused pending appeal on his criminal
justification or exemption and civil liability
 Causes of extinction of criminal liability arise AFTER the  General rule: Death of the accused pending appeal of his
commission of the offense. conviction extinguishes his the criminal liability and the civil
 Causes of justification or exemptions from criminal liability arise liability based solely on the offense committed.
from circumstances existing either BEFORE or AT THE MOMENT  Exception: The claim for civil liability survives if the same may
of it’s commission. also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict
____________________ such as law, contracts, quasi‐contracts and quasi‐delict.
PAR. 1: BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT  Examples:

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Civil liability for the offense of physical injuries is PAR. 3: BY AMNESTY
entirely separate from the criminal action.
 Right of the offended party to file separate civil action not lost I. Amnesty defined
by prescription when accused dies pending appeal.  An act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general
o In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil pardon for a past offense.
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of  Rarely exercised in favor of a single individual, and usually in
the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article behalf of certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but
1155 of the Civil Code. have not been convicted.

VI. When civil liability survives II. Amnesty completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects
 Action to recover damages from the same act or omission
complained of must be filed as a separate civil action. III. Amnesty may be granted after conviction
 It must be predicated not on the criminal liability previously  The amnesty proclamation (ex: Proclamation No. 51) in favor of
charged, but on other sources of obligation. the Hukbalahaps is applicable to those already undergoing
 Other sources of obligation: sentence upon the date of its promulgation.
o If the same act or omission complained of also arises
from quasi‐delict or may, by provision of law, result in IV. Civil liability not extinguished by amnesty
an injury to person or property  civil action must be  Amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of the crime, but does
filed against the executor or administrator of the estate not extinguish civil liability.
of the accused. (Sec.1, Rule 87, Rules of Court). ____________________
o If the same act or omission complained of also arises PAR. 4: BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
from contract  civil action must be filed against the
estate of the accused (Sec.5, Rule 86, Rules of Court). I. Pardon defined
 It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with
VII. Death of the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on
 The offense committed in a crime is against the state. whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for
____________________ the crime he has committed.
PAR. 2: BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE  Kinds: (1) absolute pardon & (2) conditional pardon.
 Delivery is an indispensable requisite. Until accepted, all that
I. Extinguishes criminal liability but NOT civil liability may have been done is a matter of intended favor and may be
 Crime is a debut incurred by the offender as a consequence of cancelled.
his wrongful act and the penalty is but the amount of his debt
which is extinguished once paid. II. Situations
____________________  Adultery case: US v. Guarin
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Facts: A was charged for adultery with a married ____________________
woman. The married woman was pardoned. PAR. 5&6: BY PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME AND BY PRESCRIPTION OF
o Issue: Is A also pardoned? THE PENALTY
o Held: No because it is within the discretion of the Chief
Executive on who is pardoned. I. Definitions:
 Adultery case: People v. Infante  Prescription of crime  forfeiture or loss of the right of the
o Facts: The one giving the pardon is the offended spouse. State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time.
o Held: Both offenders must be pardoned by the offended  Prescription of penalty  loss or forfeiture of the right of the
party for it to be effective. Government to execute the final sentence after lapse of time.
 Murder after evasion of sentence: Alvarez v. Director of Prisons
o Facts: A was convicted of murder. A evaded, and was II. Conditions necessary:
consequentially convicted of evasion of service. A was  That there be final judgment
pardoned for murder.  That the period of time prescribed by law for its enforcement
o Held: Pardon refers only to murder. It does not pardon has elapsed.
or remit the evasion of service of the sentence. ____________________
PAR. 7: BY THE MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN
III. Amnesty v. Pardon
Amnesty Pardon I. Reason:
Both do not extinguish civil liability  Marriage of the offended woman with the offender after rape,
Blanket pardon to classes or Includes any crime, and exercised seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness (Article 344) must
persons guilty of political offenses. individually by the President be contracted in good faith, and not as a means to avoid
May be exercised even before trial Exercised after conviction. criminal liability (devoid of legal effects).
or investigation.
Looks backward and abolishes the Looks forward and relives offender Article 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death,
offense itself. It is as though the from the consequences of the reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty
person did not commit any offense crime to which he is convicted. It years.
in the first place. does not work to restore rights.
Amnesty makes an ex‐convict no Pardon does not alter the fact that Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen
longer a recidivist as it obliterates the accused is a recidivist as it only years.
the crime extinguishes the personal effects.
Public act  the courts should Private Act  Must be proved by Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years;
take judicial notice. the person pardoned. with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall
prescribe in five years.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.  Simple slander  2 months
 Grave slander  6 months
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six
months. V. Crimes punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200
prescribe in 2 months
Light offenses prescribe in two months.  2 months means 60 days.
 Fine of P200 exact is still a light felony.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty
shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the VI. Prescription of crimes punishable by fines
first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA  Fines are classified as affliction, correctional or light (Article 26).
4661, approved June 19, 1966).  Subsidiary penalty should not be considered in determining the
prescriptive period of the crime.
POINTS
I. RA No. 4661 no applicable to cases already filed in court prior to VII. When the penalty is a compound one, the highest penalty is the
June 18, 1966 basis of the application of the rules in Article 90
 Amendatory act of reducing prescriptive period of libel from 2  When the fine is an alternative penalty higher than the other
years to 1 year. penalty which is by imprisonment – prescription of the crime is
based on the fine.
II. In computing the period of prescription, the first day is to be o People v. Crisostomo  penalty is arresto mayor
excluded and the last day included. (correctional) and fine P15,000 (afflictive), the
 Example: Offense committed on May 28, 1953. Filing was on prescription is 15 years.
July 27, 1953. The information is considered filed on 60th day.
o Prescription count: Day 1 begins on May 29, 2953. VIII. Prescriptive period of offense punished under special laws and
 A month is computed as a regular 30‐day month. The running municipal ordinances (Act No. 3763 amending Act No. 3326).
period of prescription will commence the day following the day 1. Only a fine or by imprisonment for not more than 1 month, or
on which the crime was committed. both  1 year.
 But as regards to the month of February of a leap year, 28th and 2. Imprisonment for more than 1 month, but less than 2 years 
29th are considered separate days in computing prescription. after 4 years.
3. Imprisonment for 2 years or more, but less than 6 years  after
III. Where the last day of prescription falls on a Sunday or legal holiday 8 years.
 The information can no longer be filed on the next day as the 4. Imprisonment for 6 years or more  after 12 years.
crim has already prescribed. 5. Offense under internal Revenue Law  after 5 years.
6. Violations of municipal ordinances  after 2 months.
IV. Prescription of oral defamation and slander by deed
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


7. Violations of regulations or conditions of certificate of Article 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of
convenience by the Public Service Commission  after 1 month. prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
 Act No 3326 is not applicable where the special law provides for discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
its own prescriptive period. shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and
 Prescription for violations penalized by special laws and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate
ordinances shall begin to run for the day of the commission of without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably
the violation of the law. If not known at that time, from the stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for
its investigation and punishment. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent
from the Philippine Archipelago.
IX. When prescriptive period is interrupted.
 When proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. POINTS
 Will resume running if the proceedings are dismissed for I. Outline of provisions
reasons no constituting jeopardy. 1. The period of prescription commences to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
X. Defense of prescription may be raised during the trial or during the authorities or their agents.
appeal 2. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information.
 If the accused failed to move to quash before pleading, he is 3. It commences to run again when such proceedings terminate
deemed to have waived all objections, and thus cannot apply fo without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are
the defense of prescription (which under Article 89 extinguishes unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
criminal liability). 4. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is
 Prescription although not invoked during trial may be invoked absent from the Philippines.
during appeal.
II. FIRST PARAGRAPH: WHEN PRESCRIPTION BEGINS TO RUN
XI. The accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than that Prescription commences to run from COMMISSION or DISCOVERY
charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the  The contrary view would be dangerous as the successful
information was filed. concealment of an offense during the period fixed for its
prescription would be the very means by which the offender
XII. Prescription does not divest court of jurisdiction; it is a ground for may escape punishment.
acquittal of the accused It is discovery of crime, not discovery of the offender.
 When there is a plea of prescription by the defense and the  The fact that culprit is unknown will not prevent he period of
same appears from the allegation of the information or is prescription from commencing to run.
established the court must jurisdiction holding the action to  It is not necessary that the accused be arrested.
have prescribed and acquit the accused. The crime is discovered by:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


1. The offended party  Institution of criminal action shall interrupt the period of
2. The authorities prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided
3. Their agents in special laws.
 Facts: A saw B kill C. The body of C was never found. A was The filing of the complaint in the municipal court even if it be merely
neither a relative of C, nor an authority or agent. for the purposes of preliminary examination or investigation,
 Issue: If a revealed the information 25 years later, can B be interrupts the period of prescription
prosecuted?  The complaint or information that will interrupt the period of
 Held: Yes. The period of prescription did not commence to run prescription must be the proper information or complain
until A revealed it to the proper authorities (1‐3 above). corresponding to the offense.
 Thus the filing of information containing elements for trespass
III. Period of prescription of continuing crime never runs to dwelling cannot be said to interrupt the prescription of
 Prescription period for continuing crime cannot begin to run another case containing information concerning unjust vexation
because there could be no termination of continuity and the (People v. Abuya).
crime does not end. Effect of filing amended complain or information upon period of
 Arches v. Bellasillo prescription
o Facts: Accused was charged with violation of municipal  If it is merely a correction of a defect, the date of the original
ordinance for having constructed dikes without complaint or information should be considered.
authorization. The dikes were built in 1939, and the
case filed in 1947. V. “Proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
o Held: There was nor prescription. acquitted”
 Exception: If the information alleged that the continuing crime  As such, the period of prescription commenced to run again.
only existed until a specific time (dikes were an obstruction until Termination of a criminal case contemplated in Article 91 on
a specific date only), then the crime ended on that moment and prescription of crimes refers to a termination that is final as to amount
prescription can be computed. to jeopardy that would bar a subsequence prosecution.

IV. Period of prescription was interrupted when preliminary VI. “Or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him”
examination was made by municipal mayor but the accused could not  If the proceedings are stopped for a reason imputable to the
be arrested because he was in hiding. accused, the period of prescription does not commence to run
 The proceedings in this case were stopped for reasons again.
imputable to the accused, that is, they fled to an unknown place  Example: When the accused evaded arrest and the case has to
making it difficult to arrest them for further proceedings. Thus, be archived by the court, the proceedings are stopped because
the prescriptive period does not resume to run. of the fault of the accused.
Filing of complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts running
period of the prescription of offense charged.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


VII. Term of prescription does not run when the offender is absent Article 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties
from the Philippines imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:
 Facts: A committed libel and immediately flew to Hong Kong 1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
after, where he stayed for three years. 2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
 Held: If A returns, he can still be prosecuted for libel as it 3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the
prescription period did not begin to run. penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
IX. Prescription of election offenses – (1) if discovery of offense is
incidental to judicial proceedings, prescription beings when such POINTS
proceeding terminates; otherwise (2) from date of commission. I. The penalties must be imposed by final sentence
 Thus, if falsification committed by inspectors in connection with  If the convict appealed and thereafter fled to the mountains,
counting the votes was known to the protestants and their the penalty imposed upon him would never prescribe because
election watchers BEFORE FILING of the election protests, the pending appeal the sentence is not final.
period of prescription began from the DATE OF COMMISSION of
the offense (People v. Cariño). II. In prescription of crimes, it is the penalty prescribed by law that
should be considered; in prescription of penalties, it is the penalty
X. Article 91 may apply when a special law (while providing a IMPOSED that should be considered.
prescriptive period) does not prescribe any rule for the application of  Facts: A committed a crime punishable by prision mayor. 12
that period. years elapsed before it was discovered.
 Facts: accused was prosecuted for violation of Usury Law.  Issue: Can A still be prosecuted?
 Held: The rules of Art.91 regarding the commencement of the o Yes. The prescriptive period of an afflictive penalty is 15
prescriptive period either from the day the offense was years.
committed (if known) or the day it was discovered can apply.  Facts: After proving two mitigating circumstances without
aggravating, the imposed penalty was prision correccional. A
XI. Prescription of the offense of false testimony – from time principal commenced to serve the sentence, but escaped and remained
case is finally decided at large for 12 years.
 The act of testifying falsely against the defendant does not  Issue: If A is caught, can he still be made to serve the remainder
constitute an actionable offense until the principal case is finally of his sentence?
decided. And before an act becomes a punishable offense, it o No. The prescriptive period of a correctional penalty is
cannot possibly be discovered as such by the offended party, 10 years.
the authorities or their agents (People v. Maneja).
III. Fine as a light penalty
 Where the issue is the prescription of a crime and not the
prescription of the penalty, Article 9 should prevail.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Facts: A committed a crime to which the penalty was 2. That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping
P200. during the term of his sentence.
o Held: the prescriptive period is 2 months. Anytime 3. That the convict who escaped from prison has not given himself
within that, A can be charged and convicted. up or been capture, or gone to a foreign country with which we
 The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine is have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime.
immaterial 4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time
o If the fine is P525.00, the penalty prescribes in 10 years. from the date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by
It being a correctional penalty. the convict.

Article 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period III. Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential element of
of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when prescription of penalties
the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be  The defense of prescription of penalties will not prosper if one
interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, received a conditional pardon because there was no evasion of
should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no the service of the sentence. Evasion presupposed escaping
extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the during the service of the sentence consisting in the deprivation
expiration of the period of prescription. of liberty.
o Acceptance of a conditional pardon interrupts the
POINTS prescription period (it will stop running).
I. Outline of the provisions  Period of prescription that ran during the time the convict
1. The period of prescription of penalties commences to run from evaded service of sentence is not forfeited upon his capture.
the date when the culprit ended the service of his sentence o The prescription that ran in his favor should be taking
2. It is interrupted if the convict into account.
a. Gives himself up
b. Be captured IV. “Should go to some foreign country with which this Government
c. Goes to a foreign country with which we have no has no extradition treaty”
extradition treaty  If the convict escapes to a country where the government has
d. Commits another crime before the expiration of the an extradition treaty, but that same treaty does not cover the
period of prescription. crime committed, the running of the prescriptive period will still
 Note: The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to be considered interrupted.
run again when the convict escapes again, after having been
captured and returned to prison. V. “Should commit another crime before the expiration of the period
of prescription”
II. Elements
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 This assumes that the convict will be arrested for having
committed such crime. He can thus be made to serve the
remainder of the sentence which he evaded.
 Evading the service of the sentence is not committing a crime
before the expiration of the period of prescription of penalties.
o This phrase “should commit xxx” refers to crime
committed when the prescription period has begun to
run.
 Period of prescription will commence to run from the date the
convict evades his sentence.

VI. Reason why evasion of service of sentence is taken in favor of the
convict in prescription of penalties
 During that period of prescription the escaped convict lives a life
of a hunted animal, hiding mostly in the mountains and forests
in constant mortal fear of being caught. His life far from being
happy, comfortable and peaceful is reduced to a mere existence
filled with fear, discomfort, loneliness and misery.
 The convict who evades sentence is sometimes sufficiently
punished by his voluntary and self‐imposed banishment and at
time, that voluntary exile is more grievous than the sentence he
was trying to avoid.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


TITLE FOUR – EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY  In commutation of sentence, consent of the offender is not
CHAPTER 2: PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY necessary. The public welfare, not his consent, determines what
shall be done. (Biddle v. Perovich)
Art 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal liability is
extinguished partially: III. For good conduct allowances.
1. By conditional pardon;  Allowances for good conduct are deductions from the term of
2. By commutation of the sentence; and sentence for good behavior. (Art. 97)
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while  Different from that provided in Art 29 which is an extraordinary
he is serving his sentence reduction of full time or four‐fifths of the preventive
imprisonment from the term of the sentence.
POINTS  A prisoner is also entitled to a special time allowance for loyalty.
I. Nature of conditional pardon. (Art 98) A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his sentence is
 Conditional pardon delivered and accepted is considered a granted to a loyal prisoner. (See Art 158)
contract between the sovereign power of the executive and the
convict that the executive will release the convict upon IV. Parole should be added as No. 4 in the enumeration of causes of
compliance with the condition. partial extinction of criminal liability.
Usual condition imposed upon the convict in conditional pardon.  The parole granted to a convict by the Parole Board should be
 In conditional pardon: the condition usually imposed upon the added. A parole may be granted to a prisoner after serving the
convict  “he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of minimum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
the Philippines” Definition of parole.
 Parole consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict
II. Commutation of sentence. after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty,
 Change of the decision of the court made by the Chief Executive without granting a pardon, prescribing the terms upon which
by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon the convict the sentence shall be suspended.
OR by decreasing the length of the imprisonment or the amount  If convict fails to observe the conditions of the parole, the Board
of the fine. of Pardons and Parole is authorized to direct his arrest and
Specific cases where commutation is provided for by the Code. return to custody and thereafter to carry out his sentence
1. When the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of age without deduction of the time that has elapsed between the
(Art. 83). date of the parole and the subsequent arrest.
2. When eight justices of the Supreme Court fail to reach a Is conviction necessary to revoke parole? YES.
decision for the affirmation of the death penalty.  The mere commission, not conviction by the court, of any crime
 In either case, the degree of the penalty is reduced from death is sufficient to warrant parolee’s arrest and reincarceration.
to RP. (Guevara)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 In a petition for habeas corpus, it was contended that the 2. Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in the
recommitment order was premature, because it came down revocation of the pardon. Under Sec. 64 (i), R.A.C., the Chief
before his convictions of the series of estafa committed by him Executive may order his arrest and reincarceration. (People v.
during the period of the parole. It was held that it was now Aglahi)
rather academic, even assuming that final conviction is 3. He becomes liable under Article 159. This is the judicial remedy.
necessary in order to constitute a violation of the condition of
the parole. (Fortunato v. Director) II. Condition of pardon is limited to the unserved portion of the
sentence, unless an intention to extend it beyond that time is
V. Conditional pardon distinguished from parole. manifest.
1. Conditional pardon, which may be given at any time after final  Duration of the conditions subsequent, annexed to a pardon 
judgment, is granted by the Chief Executive under the limited to the period of the prisoner’s sentence, unless an
provisions of the Administrative Code; parole, which may be intention to extend it beyond the term of his sentence was
given after the prisoner has served the minimum penalty, is manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in
granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole under the provision which it was imposed. (Infante v. Warden)
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
2. For Violation of the conditional pardon, the convict may be III. Illustration:
ordered rearrested or reincarcerated by the Chief Executive, or  If a convict was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day of RT (the
may be prosecuted under Article 159 of the Code for violation maximum term of the indeterminate penalty) and after serving
of the terms of the parole, the convict cannot be prosecuted 5 years ‐ he was granted a conditional pardon ‐ the condition
under Article 159. He can be rearrested and reincarcerated to being that he should not commit any crime in the future ‐ that
serve the unserved portion of his original penalty. condition must be complied with by him until the end of the 7
years from the grant of the conditional pardon, it being the
Article 95. Obligation incurred by a person granted conditional pardon. unserved portion of his sentence.
– Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the  If he commits a crime after the expiration of the 7 years, he is
obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein, not liable for violation of the conditional pardon. The condition
otherwise, his noncompliance with any of the conditions specified of the pardon is no longer operative when he commits a new
shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the provisions of offense.
Article 159 shall be applied to him.  But if he commits a crime before the expiration of the 7 years,
he is liable for violation of the conditional pardon.
POINTS
I. Outline of the provisions: Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. – The commutation of the
1. He must comply strictly with the conditions imposed in the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall
pardon. have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the
former.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct – The good conduct of any sentence is 4 years and 2 months, appellee Tan has an unserved
prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following portion of 11 months and 5 days.
deduction from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be II. No allowance for the good conduct while prisoner is released under
allowed a deduction of five days for each month of good conditional pardon.
behavior;  Reason  the good conduct time allowance is given in
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his consideration of the good conduct observed by the prisoner
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days while serving his sentence. In this case, the accused was
for each month of good behavior; enjoying liberty under a conditional pardon. He was not serving
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his the remitted penalty in prison. (People v. Martin)
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for  By a consideration of the terms of Article 96 alone, and also in
each month of good behavior; and conjunction with other parts of the Revised Penal Code, the
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, phrase “any prisoner” in Article 97 thereof is to be regarded as
he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month referring only to a prisoner serving sentence. (Baking v. Director
of good behavior. of Prisons)

POINTS Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one‐fifth
I. Application of the provisions of Article 97. of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who,
 People v. Tan: Release of appellee Tan by the provincial warden, having evaded the service of his sentence under the circumstances
after an imprisonment of only 2 years, 8 months and 21 days, mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the
was premature. authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
 Under paragraph No. 1, Art. 97 of the RPC, he may be allowed a announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred
deduction of 5 days for each month of good behavior during his to in said article.
first 2 years of imprisonment, which would be 24 months
multiplied by 5, or 120 days; POINTS
 Under paragraph No. 2, he may be allowed a deduction of 8 I. What is special time allowance for loyalty of prisoner?
days a month for the next 3 years.  It is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of the sentence of a
 For the balance of 8 months, multiplied by 8, we have 64 days; prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence during
so that the total credit for good behavior would be 184 days, the calamity or catastrophe mentioned in Article 158, gives
equivalent to 6 months and 4 days. The prisoner’s actual himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
confinement of 2 years, 8 months and 21 days, plus his possible issuance of the proclamation by the President announcing the
total credit of 6 months and 4 days, would give the result of 3 passing away of the calamity or catastrophe.
years, 2 months and 25 days. Since the maximum term of his

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


II. The deduction of 1/5 is based on the original sentence.
 While this article mentions “the period of his sentence,” it
should be understood that the convict is to be credited for
loyalty with 1/5 of his original sentence ‐‐ not of the unexpired
portion of his sentence.

III. Article 158 provides for increased penalty.
 Art 158: a convict who evaded the service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he had been confined, on
the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration,
earthquake, explosion or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny
in which he did not participate, is liable to an increased penalty
(1/5 of the time still remaining to be served – not to exceed 6
months), if he fails to give himself up to the authorities within
48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief
Executive announcing the passing away of the calamity.

Art. 99. Who grants time allowance. – Whenever lawfully justified, the
director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such
allowances once granted shall not be revoked.

POINTS
 Allowance for good conduct is not an automatic right.
 It must be granted by the Director or Prisons.
 Allowances for good conduct once granted by the Director of
Prisons cannot be revoked by him.

I. The authority to grant time allowance is exclusively vested in the
Director.
 There is no justification for the provincial warden’s usurping the
authority of the Director of Prisons in crediting the prisoner with
good conduct time allowance. Such authority is exclusively
vested in the Director. (People v. Tan)

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

TITLE FIVE – CIVIL LIABILITY  Civil liability under the RPC includes:
CHAPTER 1: PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES (1) restitution
(2) reparation of the damage caused
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES: (3) indemnification for consequential damages. (Art 104)
As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of injuries:
1. Social injury, produced by the disturbance and alarm which are II. Basis of civil liability.
the outcome of the offense.  Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally
2. Personal injury, caused to the victim of the crime who may have liable is also civilly liable is the view that from the standpoint of
suffered damage, either to his person, to his property, to his its effects, a crime has dual characters:
honor, or to her chastity. (1) As an offense against the state because of the disturbance of
 The social injury is sought to be repaired through the imposition the social order
of the corresponding penalty while the personal injury, through (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime
indemnity, which is civil in nature. unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage,
contempt ad others wherein no civil liability arises on the part
Art. 100 Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. – Every person of the offender either because there are no damages to be
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. compensated or there is no private person injured by the crime.
 In the ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil liability is
POINTS really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole the
I. Civil liability arising from offenses. damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission,
 Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or not
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the punishable by law. (Occena v. Icamina)
same. (Art. 20, NCC)
 Civil obligations arising from the criminal offenses shall be III. Damages that may be recovered in criminal cases.
governed by the penal laws. (Art. 1161, NCC)  Crimes against property  damages based on the price of the
 The civil liability arising from negligence under the RPC is thing and its special sentimental value to the injured party may
entirely separate and distinct from the responsibility for fault or be recovered, if the thing itself cannot be restored. (Art. 106
negligence called a quasi‐delict. (Art. 2176 NCC) But the party RPC)
claiming payment for the damage done cannot recover twice for  Crimes against persons (like the crime of physical injuries) 
the same act or omission of the defendant. (Art 2177, NCC) the injured party is entitled to be paid for whatever he spent for
 Thus, if A was convicted of serious physical injuries through the treatment of his wounds, doctor’s fees, and for medicine, as
negligence under the RPC, and B, the injured party, was well as the salary or wages unearned by him because of his
indemnified in the criminal case for the damages caused to him, inability to work due to his injuries.
the latter cannot recover damages in a separate civil action for
the same act or omission of A.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Damages may also be recovered for loss or impairment of
earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal V. A person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
injury. (Art. 2205, NCC) • Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Civil liability
 Moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense resulting arising from crimes (ex delicto) shall be governed by the penal
in physical injuries, in the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, laws, subject to the provisions of Articles 29 to 35, 2176, 2177,
or other lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or and 2202, 2204, 2206, 2216, 2230, 2233, and 2234 (regulating
arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal search, libel, slander or any damages) of the Civil Code and to the provisions of Rule 111,
other form of defamation, and in malicious prosecution. (Art Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2219, NCC)
 Exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be VI. Since a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, does his
imposed when the crime was committed with one or more acquittal in a criminal case mean extinction of his civil liability?
aggravating circumstances. (Art. 2230, NCC)  The RPC is silent on this point. But the Revised Rules of Criminal
 Damages for death caused by a crime have been raised to Php Procedure provide:
75,000.00. (People v. Lucero) In addition: o “The extinction of the penal action does not carry with
1. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning it extinction of the civil. However, the civil action based
capacity of the deceased, unless the deceased, on on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
account of permanent physical disability not caused by finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the
defendant, has no earning capacity; act or omission from which the civil liability cay arise did
2. He shall be liable to give support if the deceased was not exist.” (Sec 2 par 4 rule III, revised rules of criminal
obliged to give support under Article 291 of the NCC to procedure)
one not an heir of the deceased;  Thus, the dismissal of the information or the criminal action
3. He shall pay moral damages for mental anguish to the does not affect the right of the offended party to institute or
spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and continue the civil action already instituted arising from the
ascendants. (Art 2206, NCC) offense, because such dismissal or extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil one. (People v.
IV. But if there is no damage caused by the commission of the crime, Velez) In this case, there was a pending separate civil action,
the offender is not civilly liable. arising out of the same offense, filed by the offended party
 Thus, if felony committed could not or did not cause any against the same defendant.
damage to another = offender is not civilly liable even if he is  Though the death of an accused‐appellant during the pendency
criminally liable for the felony committed. of an appeal extinguished his criminal liability, his civil liability
 Example: A slapped the face of the mayor who was then in the survives. Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily
performance of his duty. Under Art 148, the crime committed is mean that the civil liability is also extinguished. Only the
direct assault. As the slapping did not cause any injury to the criminal liability, including the fine, which is pecuniary, but not
mayor, A is not civilly liable.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

civil, of the accused is extinguished by his death, but the civil 4. When there is only civil liability. –When the court finds and so
liability remains. (Petralba v. Sandiganbayan) states in its judgment that there is only civil responsibility, and
Civil liability may exist, although the accused is not held criminally not criminal responsibility, and that this finding is the cause of
liable, in the following cases: acquittal. (De Guzman v. Alva)
1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt. – When the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not
been roved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages
for the same act or omission may be instituted. (Art 29, Civil VII. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION ARISING FROM CRIME
Code) Provisions of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 111) on the
Award in judgment of acquittal. prosecution of civil action arising from offenses:
o The court may acquit an accused on reasonable doubt  Institution of criminal and civil actions – When a criminal action
and still order payment of civil damages already proved is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
in the same case without need for a separate civil arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
action. The reason is the accused has been accorded with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the
due process. To require a separate civil action would civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or
mean needless clogging of court dockets and institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
unnecessary duplication of litigation with all its o The criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg 22 shall be
attendant loss of time, effort, and money on the part of deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
all concerned. (Maximo v. Gerochi, Jr.) reservation to file such civil action shall be allowed.
 When civil action may proceed independently. – In the cases
2. Acquittal from a cause of non‐imputability –The exemption from provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of
criminal liability in favor of an imbecile or insane person, and a the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by
person under 15 years of age, or one over 15 but under 18 years the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
of age, who has acted without discernment, and those acting criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
under the compulsion of an irresistible force or under the evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
does not include exemption from civil liability. (Art. 101, RPC) criminal action. (Sec. 3)
 When separate civil action is suspended. –
3. Acquittal in the criminal action for negligence does not preclude a) After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate
the offended party from filing a civil action to recover damages, civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
based on the new theory that the act is a quasi‐delict. (Art 2177, judgment has been rendered in the criminal action;
Civil Code) b) If the criminal action is filed after said civil action has already
been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage
it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. arrangement between the latter and the offended party, and
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the that the liability of the defendant for the return of the amount
civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, so received arises from a civil contract, not from a criminal act,
be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the and may not be enforced in the criminal case. (People v.
criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already Miranda)
adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically  Since the court acquitted the accused on the ground that the
reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right money had been received or retained by appellant pursuant to
of the prosecution to cross‐examine the witnesses presented by an arrangement between the latter and the offended party, in
the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to order to conceal the transaction from the other offended party,
present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil it was improper and unwarranted to impose a civil liability in the
actions shall be tried and decided jointly. (Sec. 2) same criminal action. The liability of the defendant for the
 Judgment in civil action not a bar. –A final judgment rendered return of the amount so received arises from a civil contract,
in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not not from a criminal act, and may not be enforced in the criminal
bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act case but in a separate civil action. (People v. Miranda)
or omission subject of the civil action (Sec. 5)  People v. Lagman: Complainant appealed, through her private
 Suspension by reason or prejudicial question. – A petition for prosecutor, from the decision of the lower court, acquitting the
suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a accused on the ground of reasonable doubt, the Court of
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of Appeals
the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary Held: "With respect to the award of damages in favor of the
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court complainant, the rule is that in a criminal case, the accused is
for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same civilly liable only if he is found guilty. But not if he is declared
criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (Sec. 6) innocent. In the case before us, the accused was acquitted of
the crime charged. Therefore, the award of damages in favor of
VIII. Exception to the rule that extinction of the criminal action does the complainant should be set aside."
not extinguish civil action. o Ruling is erroneous for two reasons:
 The civil action reserved by the complainant during the o (1) Under Article 29 of the NCC, when the accused in a
prosecution of the criminal action will be allowed after criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
termination of the criminal proceedings, only when he as the guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil
right thereto, that is to say, when the judgment rendered is one action for damages for the same act or omission may be
of conviction, or, in case the accused is acquitted, the instituted.
complainant is based on some other fact was charged with the o (2) According to Section 2(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. The Court, extinction of the penal action does not carry with
court acquitted him from the charge on the ground that money it extinction of the Civil, and in that case the lower court
had been received or retained by him pursuant to an
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

did not make any declaration that the fact from which final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered"
the civil may arise did not exist does not contemplate the suspension of a judgment already
promulgated in a civil action by the filing of a criminal complaint
IX. Commencement of criminal action not a condition precedent to the with the prosecution attorney charging the winning party with
filing and prosecution of civil action arising from crime. having introduced false documentary evidence. (Tanda v.
 The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure permit the institution Aldaya)
of a civil action to demand civil responsibility arising from crime
before the institution of the criminal prosecution. Section 2 of Rule 111 applies only (1) when the claimant in the civil
 A contrary doctrine would render the right of the injured party action is the offended party in the criminal action and (2) both cases
to indemnity a myth, and justice a farce, for the guilty party arise from the same offense.
would be able to dispose of his property. (Alba v. Acuna)  Section 2 of Rule 111, Rules of Court (now Revised Rules of
But the civil action arising from crime cannot be instituted or Criminal Procedure), requiring the suspension of the civil action
prosecuted in the following cases: in view of the commencement of the criminal action applies
1. After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate only when the claimant in the civil action is the same offended
civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final party in the criminal action and both cases arise from the same
judgment has been entered in the criminal action (Sec. 2 Rule offense or transaction. (Belleza v. Huntington)
111 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)  Thus, if in the civil case, the plaintiff is the accused in the
2. If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has criminal case and the defendant in that civil case is the offended
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in party in the criminal case, the counterclaim covering not only
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. the sum of P24,000.00 advanced to the plaintiff to purchase jute
The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the bags but also the sum of P171,000.00 as damages which the
criminal action. (Sec. 2 Rule 111 Revised Rules of Criminal defendant claims to have sustained, and the information in the
Procedure) criminal case being merely confined to the former sum (P24k)
 The rule which requires the suspension of the civil case after the the claimant (plaintiff) is not the offended party in the criminal
criminal action has been commenced, refers to the case and both cases do not arise from the same transaction.
commencement of the criminal action in court and not to the (Belleza v. Hintington)
mere filing of a complaint with the prosecuting officer. (Coquia  The rule that a civil action shall be suspended until final
et al v. Cheong) judgment is rendered in criminal case, applies when the civil
Judgment in the civil case already promulgated cannot be suspended action arises from the offense charged in the criminal case.
by the filing of criminal action. (Alerta, et al. v. Medoza)
 The provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111, Rules of Court, that
"after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action Section 2(a) of Rule 111 applies only to civil liability arising from crime.
arising from the same offense can be prosecuted, and the same  Thus, when the cause of action in the civil case is based on culpa
shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found, until contractual and not on the civil liability arising from the offense
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

involved in the criminal case, Sec 2(a) of Rule 111 Rules of Court
does not apply and the trial court erred in suspending the X. Attachment in criminal cases.
hearing of the civil case until the final determination of the  When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action
criminal case. Section 2(a) of Rule 111 contemplates a case as provided in Rule 111 the offended party may have the
where the offended party desires to press his right to demand property of the accused attached as security for the satisfaction
indemnity from the accused in the criminal case which he may of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused in the
assert either in the same criminal case or in a separate civil following cases:
action. (Parker v. Panlilio) (a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
 Culpa contractual is the basis of a civil action against a (b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or
transportation company, for instance, for its failure to carry property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to
safely its passenger to his destination. The obligation to pay for the use of the accused who is a public officer, officer of a
damages arises from contract, and not from crime. corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the
Allegations of damages in information not necessary. course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a
 The court may sentence the accused to pay the offended party, fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
moral and material damages, even if there is no specific (c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his
allegation of such damages in the information, provided the personal property, or is about to do so;
offended party has not expressly waived such liability or (d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines.
reserved his right to have civil damages determined in a Writ of attachment, etc. may be issued in criminal cases.
separate civil action. (People v. Vigo)  Within the criminal action, with which the civil action is
 Under Article 100 of this Code, when an information or impliedly instituted, the offended party may obtain the
complaint is filed, even without any allegation of damages and preliminary writ of attachment. The court in which the civil
the intention to prove and claim them, it is to be understood action is pending is, after the filing of the information in the
that the offender is liable for them. (People v. Celorico) criminal case, not ipso facto deprived of the power to issue
Civil liability of the accused extends in favor of persons not mentioned preliminary and auxiliary writs, such as preliminary injunction,
in the information. attachment, appointment of receiver, fixing amounts of bonds,
 In criminal cases where the intervention of the aggrieved parties and other processes, of similar nature, which do not go into the
is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution, the civil merits of the case. (Ramcar, Inc. v. De Leon)
liability of the accused should not extend only in favor of the  Availability of provisional remedies ‐ The provisional remedies in
person or persons mentioned in the information. Unless the civil actions insofar as they are applicable may be availed of in
record shows that an omitted party has waived the civil liability connection with civil action deemed instituted with the criminal
or has reserved the right to file a separate civil action to recover action.
the same, such party's right to the civil liability arising from the From the judgment of conviction in criminal case, two appeals may be
offense is impliedly included in the criminal action. (People v. taken.
Despavellador)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 Every criminal case involves two actions: one criminal and  When a judgment convicting the accused is appealed, the
another civil. From a judgment of conviction, two appeals may, offended party has the right to be heard during appeal. If the
accordingly, be taken. The accused may seek a review of said Solicitor General asks for the reversal of the appealed judgment
judgment as regards both actions. Similarly, the complainant and the acquittal of the accused, the offended party has also
may appeal with respect only to the civil action. The right of the right to be heard. (People v. Villegas)
either to appeal or not to appeal is not dependent upon the
other. (People v. Coloma) Civil liability may be added within the 15‐day period, even if the
Remedy of offended party where fiscal asks for dismissal. convict has started serving sentence.
 If the criminal action is dismissed by the court on motion of the  Before the expiration of the 15‐day period for appealing, the
fiscal upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the offended trial court can amend the judgment of conviction by adding a
party has no right to appeal, his remedy being a separate civil provision for the civil liability of the accused, and this
action after proper reservation is made therefor. (People v. notwithstanding that the judgment became final because the
Lipana) accused had commenced the service of his sentence. (People v.
 The reason for the rule is that the continuation of the offended Rodriguez)
party's intervention in a criminal action depends upon the  This ruling applies even though an appeal from the judgment of
continuation of such action by the provincial fiscal. Once the conviction has already been perfected. (People v. Co Ko Tong)
criminal action is dismissed by the trial court on petition of the  But after the 15‐day period for appealing, the trial court cannot
provincial fiscal, the offended party's right to intervene ceases, amend its decision by adding thereto the civil liability. (Sese v.
and he cannot appeal from the order of dismissal, otherwise, it Montesa)
"would be tantamount to giving said offended party the
direction and control of the criminal proceeding." (People v. XII. An independent civil action may be brought by the injured party
Lipana) during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is
 But the offended party may rightly intervene by interposing an reserved.
appeal from the order dismissing the action upon a question of  In cases provided in Articles 31‐34 and 2176 of the Civil Code,
law. (People v. Maceda) the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
Right to appeal as to civil liability. party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and
 When the court found the accused guilty of criminal negligence, shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
but failed to enter judgment of civil liability, the private however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
prosecutor has a right to appeal for purposes of the civil liability the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. (Sec. 3,
of the accused. The appellate court may remand the case to the Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
trial court for the latter to include in its judgment, the civil Reservation of the right to institute separate civil action necessary in
liability of the accused. (People v. Ursua) the following cases:
Offended party has right to be heard during the appeal. 1. In any of the cases referred to in Article 32, Civil Code.
2. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 The words "defamation", "fraud" and "physical injuries" are reconsideration of, much less to appeal from the decision in the
used in their ordinary sense. The term "physical injuries" means criminal case, insofar as it decided the question of civil
bodily injury, not the crime of physical injuries. It includes indemnity, for appellant no longer had any standing in the case.
attempted homicide, frustrated homicide, or even death. (Tactaquin v. Palileo)
(Carandang v. Hon. Vicente Santiago)  Article 33 of the CC has modified the provisions of Rule 107,
 Estafa is included in the term "fraud". Rules of Court. Under said article, a civil action to recover
 Where fraud is the basis for both civil and the criminal actions, damages for physical injuries, distinct and separate from the
they are according to law, to proceed independently. IN the criminal action and of which it shall proceed independently,
same way that the civil suit can be tried, the criminal may be brought by the injured party; hence, the right to file said
prosecution has to run its course. (Rojas v. People) complaint for damages need not even be reserved. (Alvarez v.
Manalaysay)
3. When the civil action is against a member of a city or municipal If the offended party in the criminal case is represented by a private
police force for refusing or failing to render aid or protection to prosecutor, he cannot file an independent civil action.
any person in case of danger to life or property. Such peace • If the offended party elected to claim the civil liability in the
officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or criminal case by intervening therein through a private
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. (Art. 34, prosecutor and the court did not award any civil liability
Civil Code) because the offended party did not present evidence, he cannot
thereafter file an independent civil action for said civil liability.
4. In an action for damages arising from fault or negligence, there the matter is already res judicata in the criminal case. (Roa v. De
being no pre‐existing contractual relation between the parties la Cruz)
(quasi‐delict). (Art. 2176, CC) When the accused pleaded guilty during the arraignment, so that the
 Responsibility for such fault or negligence is entirely separate offended party could not have expressly renounced his right to file the
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under civil action or reserved the same, can the latter subsequently file a civil
the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice action for indemnity for physical and moral damages caused by the
for same act or omission of the defendant. (Art. 2177, CC) accused?
 The purpose of the reservation is to prevent the matter from • The mere appearance of a private prosecutor in the criminal
becoming res adjudicata. (Philippine Railway Co. v. Jalandoni) case does not necessarily constitute such intervention on the
part of the aggrieved party as could only import an intention to
Effect of reservation of right to intervene in prosecution of criminal press claim for damages in said criminal case and a waiver of the
case. right to file a separate civil action for damages, where the
 Once the offended party has reserved his right to institute a accused had pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was
separate civil action to recover indemnity, he thereby loses his immediately sentenced, there being no chance for the
right to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case. aggrieved party to present evidence in support of the claim for
Consequently, appellant no longer had any right to move for the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

damages and to enter a reservation in the record to file a predicated upon Priela's alleged negligence, which does not
separate civil action. (Reyes v. Sempio‐Diy) exist, according to said final judgment, it follows necessarily that
his acquittal in the criminal action carries with it the extinction
XIII. When the final judgment in a criminal case does not state "that of the civil responsibility arising therefrom. (Faraon v. Priela)
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist," extinction of
the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil.
 The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it XIV. Prejudicial Question
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on  This is another exception to the rule that the criminal action
delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final shall be decided first and that the civil action should be
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from suspended.
which the civil liability may arise did not exist.  Prejudicial questions must be decided before any criminal
 When the accused in a criminal case for estafa (RPC Art.315) prosecution may be instituted or may proceed. (Art. 36 new CC)
was acquitted because there was no conversion or  Petition for the suspension of the criminal action based upon
misappropriation, an element of the crime, then but the the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action, may be
evidence shows that she really received the jewelry, then the filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the
civil action is not extinguished. (Laperal v. Alvia) preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been
 But if in a criminal case for arson, the court states in its filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in
judgment of acquittal that "the accused cannot in any manner the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution
be held responsible for the fire," such declaration fits well into rests.
the exception of the rule and actually exonerates the accused  For the principle on prejudicial question to apply, it is essential
from civil liability. (Tan v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co.) that there be two cases involved, invariably a civil case and a
 The question is whether appellants may still recover damages criminal case. If the two cases are both civil or if they are both
from Priela, considering that he has been explicitly acquitted by criminal, the principle finds no application. (Malvar v. Cruz)
the trial court, upon the ground that "he has not been remiss in Prejudicial question defined.
his caution nor in his presence of mind trying to avoid" said  A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case, the
"freak accident." resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
Held: Pursuant to the Rules of Court: "Extinction of the penal in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the tribunal. (Jimenez v. Averia)
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that  It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist." In the intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
case at bar, the decision appealed from has not only acquitted innocence of the accused.
Priela; but also, declared that the collision, which resulted in the Elements of prejudicial question.
destruction of appellants' car, had not been due to any  The two essential elements of a prejudicial question are:
negligence on his part. SInce appellants' civil action is
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

a. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately said motion would be decided. At that stage of the case, appellee filed
related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and with the City Fiscal a complaint for falsification based on the same
b. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not document. Was it proper for the fiscal to proceed with the investigation
the criminal action may proceed. (Sec. 5 Rule 111 Rules of the criminal complaint for falsification?
of Court) Held: No. The Fiscal must wait until the case before the Supreme Court
is decided first, because if the Supreme Court should decide that the
1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case document is genuine and has not been substituted, such finding would
before the court; be contrary to the stand taken by the Fiscal. (De Leon v. Mabanag)
2. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another
tribunal. (People v. Aragon) (2) The pendency of a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of the
first marriage is not a prejudicial question in an action for bigamy. The
Venue of the actions. subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage is
 Spanish jurisprudence, from which the principle of prejudicial immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
question has been taken, requires that the essential element already been consummated. (Mercado v. Tan)
determinative of the criminal action must be cognizable by ‐ A case for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question to a bigamy
another court. This requirement of a different court is case if it is proved that the accused's consent to such marriage was
demanded in Spanish jurisprudence because Spanish courts are obtained by means of duress, violence and intimidation in order to
divided according to their jurisdictions, some courts being establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one
exclusively of civil jurisdiction, others of criminal jurisdiction. In and as such the same cannot be the basis for conviction. (Donato v.
the Philippines where our courts are vested with both civil and Luna)
criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be
applied even if there is only one court before which the civil When civil action not a prejudicial question. –
action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this  If it is the second wife who filed the civil action against the
case, the court, when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil accused charged with bigamy, alleging tha tthe accused by
action for the annulment of marriage, for example, is means of force and threats forced her to marry him, the
considered as a court distinct and different from itself when accused cannot properly claim that the civil action is a
trying the criminal action for bigamy. (Merced v. Diez) prejudicial question, beacuse even if the allegation in the civil
case is true, the fact remains that teh accused contracetd the
Examples of prejudicial question: second marriage voluntarily. If the second wife were the one
(1) There was a pending appeal before the Supreme Court wherein the accused of bigamy, she could perhaps raise force or intimidation
principal question involved was the genuineness of a certain document. as a defense in the charge of bigamy, because on her part there
After the presentation of the appellant's brief, appellee presented a was no consent to the marriage; but not the party, who used
motion alleging that said document was false. The Supreme Court the force or intimidation. The latter may not use his own
resolved that when the appeal was to be determined on the merits, the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act. which to buy a fishing boat and that instead of doing so, they
(People v. Aragon) misappropriated the money and refused to return it to him
upon demand. A claim to this effect is a matter of defense to be
(3) A civil case was filed for unpaid wages claimed by a number of interposed by the party charged in the criminal proceeding.
laborers. In that case, the obligation of defendants to pay wages was in (Jimenez v. Averia)
issue. There was then a criminal action pending against one of the
defendants in the civil case for protracted delay in the payment of
wages as penalized by Com.Act.No.303. The defendants asked for the When to plead prejudicial question.
suspension of the civil action until the criminal case be finally disposed  A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the
of. Must the court order the suspension of the trial of the civil action? pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed
No. The obligation to pay wages is a prejudicial question, for there can in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the
be no extended delay in the payment of such obligations unless the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been
obligation be first proved. (Aleria v. Mendoza) filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in
the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution
Compare the above case with the following case. rests. (Sec. 6 Rule 111 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
 A and B were accused of violation for the Copyright Law. Later,
A and B brought an action for cancellation of the copyrights a XVI. An acquittal in a criminal case is not evidence of innocence in
prejudicial question which must be decided first? No. Until subsequent civil action based upon the alleged criminal act.
cancelled, the copyrights are presumed to have been duly  In a civil case, the Solicitor General moved for the cancellation
granted and issued. (Ocampo v. Tancinco) of the certificate of naturalization issued in favor of the
 In the case of Aleria v. Mendoza, the ruling is consistent with petitioner, upon the ground that it was secured illegally and
the presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. In the fraudulently. Among the acts of misrepresentation and
case of Ocampo v. Tancinco, the ruling is based on the misconduct imputed to the petitioner was the alleged
presumption of regularity in the granting and issuance of the maltreatment by him of Mrs. Joist. It appeared that the
copyrights. Municipal Court which tried the maltreatment case acquitted
the defendant (petitioner). The court trying the civil case did not
When the question is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the take into account the evidence introduced in that civil case in
parties charged with estafa, it is not a prejudicial question. support of the charge of maltreatment.
 The alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the guilt  Held: The trial court erred in not taking into account the
or innocence of the parties charged with estafa. Even if the evidence introduced in the civil case in support of the charges of
execution of the receipt in the civil case was vitiated by fraud, maltreatment. The Supreme Court stated that the great weight
duress or intimidation, the guilt of the accused could still be of authority supports the rule that a judgment of acquittal is not
established by other evidence by showing that they actually effective under the doctrine of res judicata in later civil action
received from the complainant the sum of P20,000.00 with involving the same subject‐matter. An acquittal in a criminal
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

prosecution does not constitute a bar to a subsequent civil
action based upon the alleged criminal act. (Republic v. Asaad) Third. In cases cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12,
 But where the state is party to the civil action, the issues the persons using violence or causing fear shall be primarily liable and
determined by the conviction of the defendant are concluded in secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall
the civil action. be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt
from execution.
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. – The
exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, POINTS
5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does I. Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from
not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced civil liability.
subject to the following rules:  Exceptions:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability 1. No civil liability in par. 4 of Article 12 which provides for
for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person injury caused by mere accident.
under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of 2. There is no civil liability in par 7 of Article 12 which provides
age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those for failure to perform an act required by law when
having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
appears that there was no fault or negligence on their pArticle
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor II. Who are civilly liable for the acts of an insane or minor, exempt
under his authority, legal guardianship, or control or if such person be from criminal liability?
insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own  The civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane or
property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance minor exempt from criminal liability shall devolve upon the
with the civil law. persons having legal authority or control over them, if the latter
are at fault or negligent (primarily liable).
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons  If there is no fault or negligence on their part, or even if at fault
for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in or negligent but insolvent, or should there be no person having
proportion to the benefit which they may have received. such authority or control, the insane, imbecile, or such minor
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate shall respond with their own property not exempt from
amount for which each one shall be liable. execution.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even
approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, III. Persons civilly liable for acts committed by youthful offenders.
or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events,  Article 201 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code provides that
whenever damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities the civil liability for acts committed by a youthful offender shall
or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner devolve upon the offender’s father and, in case of his death or
prescribed by special or regulations.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

incapacity, upon the mother or in case of her death or the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in
incapacity, upon the guardian. case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless
 The final discharge of a child in conflict with the law does not committed by the innkeeper's employees.
obliterate his civil liability.
IV. Duty of the court in trying an insane POINTS
 Even though the courts exempt the insane from criminal I. Elements under Paragraph 1: (Subsidiary Civil Liability)
liability, they must fix the civil liability to be paid to the victim. 1. That the innkeeper, tavernkeeper or proprietor of
establishment or his employee committed a violation for
V. Who are civilly liable for acts committed by persons acting under municipal ordinance or some general or special police
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear? regulation.
 The persons using violence or causing fear are primarily liable. 2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern or establishment.
If there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable 3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
secondarily.  Presence of all the elements will render the innkeeper,
tavernkeeper or proprietor of the establishment subsidiarily
VI. There is no civil liability in justifying circumstances except in Par. 4 liable.
of Article 11.
 There is civil liability by the person benefited by the act which II. Elements under Paragraph 2:
causes damage to another. 1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper or the person
representing him of the deposit of their goods within the inn or
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and house.
proprietors of establishments. ‐ In default of the persons criminally 2. The guests followed the directions of the innkeeper or his
liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or representative with respect to the care of and vigilance over
corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their such goods.
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances 3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were taken by robbery
or some general or special police regulation shall have been with force upon things or theft committed within the inn or
committed by them or their employees. house.
 It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be actually
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods delivered to innkeeper. It is enough that they were within the
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging inn (De los Santos v. Tam Khey).
therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn;
and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. – The subsidiary o Provisions of Article 102 & 103 are deemed written into
liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to the judgments to which they are applicable.
employers, teachers, persons, and cor[porations engaged in any kind o No need for an express pronouncement.
of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,  “While in the discharge of his duties”
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. o The subsidiary liability does not arise from any and all
offenses that the employee may commit, but limited to
POINTS those which he shall be found guilty of in the discharge
I. Elements of his duties.
1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any
kind of industry. III. Enforcement of civil liability is upon motion for subsidiary writ of
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or execution.
employees commits a felony while in the discharge of their  The subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon motion for
duties. subsidiary writ of execution against the employer and upon
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil proof that the employee is insolvent.
liability.  No subsidiary liability of defendant‐employer under Article 103
if his employee has not been previously criminally convicted.
II. ELEMENTS:  The subsidiary liability of the employer is not determined in the
FIRST ELEMENT: Employee must be engaged in industry. criminal case against the employee.
 “Industry” is any department or branch of art, occupation or o Reservation to bring action by the injured party against
business; especially, one which employs so much labor and the employer is not necessary.
capital and is a distinct branch of trade. Hence, a person who
owns a truck and uses it in the transportation of his own IV. Employer has the right to take part in the defense of his employee.
products is engaged in industry.  It is his concern that his interested is protected by taking virtual
 Hospital not engaged in industry; nurses not servants. participation in the defense of his employee. The failure of his
 Private persons without business or industry, not subsidiarily employee is also the employer’s failure.
liable.
 Subsidiary liability of employers, etc., “for felonies committed V. Certified copy of decision sufficient to prove offense committed by
by their employees” servant or employee.
o “Committed” = implies a conviction.  Judgment of conviction of servant or employee in the absence
 No defense of diligence of a good father of the family. of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party
SECOND ELEMENT: The felony must be committed by the servant or binds the persons subsidiary liable. The plaintiff can rely solely
employee of the defendant in the civil case. on the judgment of the conviction.
 Decision convicting an employee is binding upon the employer
with respect to the civil liability and its amount.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

VI. THIRD ELEMENT: Employer is subsidiarily liable for the full amount  Articles 102 and 103 of the RPC no repealed by Article 2177 of
against employee. the new Civil Code (p.931).
 But this is without prejudice to the right of action against the
employee for contribution.

VII. Persons civilly liable in the absence of those criminally liable, the
civil responsibility being a necessary part of the criminal liability.
 Innkeeper, tavernkeeper and any other person or corporation
who committed violation of municipal ordinance or some
general or special police regulation, and the person who
committed a crime in his establishment cannot be found or is
insolvent.
 Innkeeper, for robbery with force upon things or theft of goods
of guests lodging therein, provided the guests notified the
innkeeper in advance of the deposit of their goods within the
inn, and provided further that such guests followed the
directions of the innkeeper with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods.
 The employer who is engaged in any kind of industry, for the
crime committed by his employee while in the discharge of his
duties.
 Those having an imbecile or insane person or minor exempt
from criminal liability under their legal authority or control, if
they are at fault or negligent, for acts committed by the
imbecile, insane or minor.
 Persons who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear are civilly liable of the
person who used violence or who caused the fear is insolvent or
cannot be found.

VIII. Other notes
 Articles 103 is applicable to violations of the Revised Motor
Vehicle Law
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

TITLE FIVE – CIVIL LIABILITY liabilities to be paid out of the property of the offender. In
CHAPTER 1: PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES restitution, there is nothing to pay in terms of money, as the
property unlawfully taken is returned, and;
Article 104. What is included in civil liability. – The civil liability o Pecuniary liabilities include (a) fine, and (b) the costs of the
established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes: proceedings. Civil liabilities do not include them.
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of damage caused; Article 105. Restitution – How made. – The restitution of the thing
3. Indemnification for consequential damages. itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
POINTS The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
I. Civil liability in criminal cases possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means,
 There are crimes where there is no civil liability. There are saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may
crimes where only one or none at all of these civil obligations is be liable to him.
possible.
 Example: Theft or robbery  when property is recovered only This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has
reparation, if it was damaged, will be allowed. been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the
o Restitution  return of property requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
o Reparation  pay the value of property stolen (if it cant
be recovered); payment of hospital bills of the offended POINTS
o Indemnification for consequential damages  loss of I. The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever
salary or earning. possible.
 The convict cannot, by way of restitution, give to the offended
II. When property taken away is not recovered, the court must order party a similar thing of the same amount, kind or species of
the accused to restore it to its owner or, as an alternative, to pay quality. The very thing taken must be returned.
its just value.
II. With allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value.
III. Civil liabilities distinguished from pecuniary liabilities.  The Court will assess the amount of the deterioration and, I
 Article 104, providing for three forms of civil liabilities, and addition to the return of the property, the culprit will be
Article 38, providing for the order of payment of pecuniary ordered to pay such amount representing the deterioration.
liabilities, may be distinguished as follows:
o Both include (a) the reparation of the damage caused, and III. The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
(b) indemnification for consequential damages; possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means.
o While civil liabilities include restitution, pecuniary liabilities
do not include restitution, because the latter refer to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

 General rule: The owner of the property illegally taken by the  Restitution is limited to crimes against property
offender can recover it from whomsoever is in possession o When a crime is not against property, no restitution or
thereof. reparation can be done.
 Under the Civil Code, the person who has lost any personal
property or has been unlawfully deprived thereof cannot VII. Salary of acquitted accused may not be ordered paid in criminal
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefore, cases.
only when the possessor thereof acquired it in (1) good faith  It devolves upon the head of the department concerned, and is
and at a (2) public sale. discretionary with him.
 Restitution cannot be ordered before final judgment. VIII. The Court has authority to order the reinstatement of the
IV. When the third person acquired the thing “in the manner and accused acquitted of a crime punishable by the penalty of
under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its perpetual or temporary disqualification.
recovery.
 Restitution shall not be ordered by the court when the thing has Article 106. Reparation – How made. – The court shall determine
been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the
circumstances, which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the
injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly.
V. When the liability to return a thing arises from contract, not from
a criminal act, the court cannot order its return in the criminal POINTS
case. I. Reparation will be ordered by the court if restitution is not possible
 This is applied in cases where the liability arose from a civil  When the stolen property cannot be returned because it was
contract such as loans. sold by the thief to an unknown person, he will be required by
the court, if found guilty, to pay the actual price of the thing +
VI. Restitution may be ordered, even if accused is acquitted, provided its sentimental value to its owner.
the offense is proved and it is shown that the thing belongs to  If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing unrecovered,
somebody else. reparation cannot be made (People v. Dalena, CA, GR Nos.
 As a rule, if the accused is acquitted, the court should not order 11387‐R and 11388‐R, October 25, 1954).
the return of the property to its alleged owner. But if it is shown
that the ring belonged to, and was in the possession of, II. Reparation includes
somebody else, and that it was stolen from him, but the identity  Repair of material damage caused by the robbers in breaking
of the thief was not established by the prosecution, and the doors, wardrobes, in addition to the value of the thing taken,
accused pawned it in the pawnshop from which it was may be assessed and included as part of the reparation to be
recovered, the court should order its return to the owner. In paid by the robbers.
this case, the offense was proved but not the identity of the  In a rape case, reparation includes the value of the woman’s
offender (People v. Alejano). torn garments.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


III. Civil damages are limited to those caused by and flowing from the II. Contributory negligence on the part of the offended party reduces
commission of the crime the civil liability of the offender
 Thus, the unpaid hire of the bicycle arose under the contract of
hire and did not result from the commission of the crime. The III. When civil indemnity may be increased on appeal
amount corresponding to the unpaid hire is recoverable in a civil  It may be increased only if it will not require an aggravation of
action (US v. Dionisio, 35 Phil. 141, 143). the decision in the criminal case on which it is based.

IV. Payment by the insurance company does not relieve the offender IV. Damages recoverable in case of death
of his obligation to repair the damage caused 1. P75,000  in recent cases
 That payment by the insurance company was not made on 2. Loss of the earning capacity of the deceased
behalf of the accused, but was made pursuant to its contract 3. Support in favor of a person to whom the deceased was obliged
with the owner of the car, but the insurance company is to give
substituted to the right of the offended party as regards the 4. Moral damages for mental anguish in favor of spouse,
damages (People v. Reyes, CA 50 O.G. 665). descendants and ascendants of the deceased
5. Exemplary damages in certain cases
Article 107. Indemnification – What is included – Indemnification of
consequential damages shall include (1) not only those caused the V. Damages in crimes and quasi‐delicts
injured party, but also (2) those suffered by his family or by a third  Art 2202, Civil Code – In crimes and quasi‐delicts, the defendant
person by reason of the crime. shall be liable for all damages, which are the natural and
probable consequences of the acts or omissions complained of.
POINTS  Art 2204, Civil Code – damages may be respectively increased
I. Indemnity v. Reparation or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating
 Indemnity – refers generally to crimes against persons. circumstances.
 Reparation – refers to crimes against property.  Art 2206, Civil Code – The amount of damages for death caused
Examples of indemnity by a crime or quasi delict shall be at least 50,000 pesos. In
 In physical injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for addition
whatever he spent for the o Defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
o Treatment of his wounds capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be
o Doctor’s fees, and for medicine paid to the heirs of the latter.
o Salary or wages unearned by him because of his inability o If the deceased was obliged to give support according to
to work due to the injuries the provisions of Article 291, the recepient may demand
 Note: Indemnity for medical services still unpaid may be support from the person causing the death.
recovered.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

o The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and VII. Indemnity for lost earnings
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral  Computed as follows:
damages. Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x (Gross annual income
– Living expenses)
VI. Effect of RA 9346 on civil indemnity of heinous crimes  Life expectancy is computed as:
 It should be understood that the debarring of the death penalty 2/3 x (80 – age of the deceased at the time of death)
by RA 9346 did not correspondingly declassify those crimes
previously catalogued as “heinous”. Documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for
Civil indemnity for murder and homicide loss of earning capacity
 Civil indemnity of 75,000 Php and 50,000 Php are awarded  Exception  damages may be awarded despite the absence of
automatically without need of allegation and proof. documentary evidence if there is testimony that the victim was
Civil indemnity for crimes qualified by circumstances where the death (1) self‐employed earning less than the minimum wage or (2)
penalty may be imposed employed as a daily‐wage worker earning less than the
 Award of 75,000 Php civil indemnity is not dependent on actual minimum wage under current labor laws.
imposition on the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying Computation of award for loss of earning capacity is based on the life
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty expectancy of the deceased
attended the commission of the offense.  Not the life expectancy of the heirs or beneficiaries.
Civil Indemnity for rape Compensation for loss of earning capacity, not required that the victim
 Qualified Rape  shall not be less than 75,000 Php is gainfully employed
 Simple Rape Shall not be less than 50,000 Php  Awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn.
Civil indemnity for rape with homicide
 Set at 100,000 Php VIII. Temperate Damages
Damages recoverable for rape with homicide  Article 2224 Civil Code – Temperate or moderate damages may
 100,000 as civil indemnity be recovered when the court fins that some pecuniary loss was
 75,000 as moral damage suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.
 25,000 as temperate damages  Temperate damages may be awarded in the following cases:
 100,000 as exemplary damages o If income is not sufficiently proved
Civil liability for rape by sexual assault o If the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
 Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral suffered but its amount cannot be proven with certainty
damages which is automatically granted in rape cases. o In lieu of actual damages (where actual damanges
 Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of proved amount to be less than P25,000, temperate
further pleading or proof. damages in the amount of P25,000 shall be awarded)
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime is increased from  To rule otherwise would be anomalous and
time to time by the SC unfair because the victim’s heirs who tried but
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

succeeded in proving actual damages below or compensatory damages before the court may consider the
P25,000 would be in a worse situation than question of whether or not exemplary damages should be
those who might have presented no receipts at awarded.
all but who would now be entitled to P25,000. Exemplary damages increased to 30,000 Php
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the circumstances of the
IX. Moral damages case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
 May be recovered in the following and analogous cases offender
o A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries  This is because exemplary damages are corrective in nature
o Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness Distinction between civil indemnity and moral damages
o Adultery or concubinage  Civil indemnity is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory
o Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest damages in civil law
o Illegal search  The civil liability provided by the RPC, that is restitution,
o Libel, slander or any other form of defamation reparation and indemnification, all corresponds to actual or
o Malicious prosecution compensatory damages in the Civil Code, since the other
 Note: parents of the seduced, abducted, raped or abused may damages provided therein are moral, nominal, temperate or
also recover moral damages. moderate, liquidated and exemplary or corrective damages,
 In crimes of rape, moral damages may additionally be awarded which have altogether different concepts and fundamentals.
to the victim, without need for pleading or proof of the basis Moral and exemplary damages do not require proof of pecuniary loss
thereof.  The assessment of such damages is left to the court discretion.
 Claim for moral damages does not determine court jurisdiction.
XI. Actual damages must be proved
X. Exemplary damages  Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
 Are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss suffered by him
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or as he has duly proved.
compensatory damages. (Article 2229, Civil Code)  Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
 Also called corrective, punitive, or vindictive damages. damages.
Exemplary damages may be given when one or more aggravating  Indemnity cannot be assessed on speculation or guesswork.
circumstances are present  Recovery of attorney’s fees in the are recoverable in the
 Such damages are separate and distinct form fines and s shall be concept of actual or compensatory damage.
paid to the offended party.
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right XII. Interest may be added to the damages awarded
 The court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated  Interest at the rate of 6% may likewise be added
 While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved,
the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

XII. Civil liability not part of the punishment  If death of the offender took place before any judgment, the
• As the liability is not part of the punishment for the crime, the action for restitution must be dismissed.
action of the SC in affirming the judgment as tot eh guilt and
punishment of the accused and of reversing it as to the question III. Indemnity not possible in acquittal
of damages, with instructions to try the civil branch of the case  The case having been dismissed by the court, no judgment for
does not constitute double jeopardy. indemnity was proper in the criminal proceeding

Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, IV. Right of heirs of the deceased
or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand  The heirs of the deceased have a right to enforce the civil
the same; Upon whom it devolves – The obligation to make restoration responsibility of the accused in their favor in a civil action
or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential
damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable. Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. – If there are 2 or more
persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the
The action to demand restoration, reparation and indemnification amount for which each must respond.
likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
POINTS
POINTS I. Apportionment of civil liability
I. The heirs of the person liable has no obligation if  Civil liability is apportioned according to the degree of the
restoration/indemnification is not possible and the deceased left no offenders’ liability, respective responsibilities and actual
property participation.
 Illustration:  The person with greater participation in the commission of the
o If A stole a ring which he later sold to a strange and crime should have a greater share in the civil liability than those
after A’s conviction, A died but he left no property, A’s who played a minor role in the crime or those who had no
heirs cannot be made to repair the damages. participation in the crime but merely profited from its effects.
o But if he left property, the heirs may be required.
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices
II. Civil liability is possible only when the offender dies after final and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment. —
judgment Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the
 If the offender before is death was condemned by final principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective
judgment to pay civil liability, the offended party may make class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
effective his claim by filing a copy of the judgment of conviction quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
against the deceased with the court taking cognizance of the
testate or interstate proceedings.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of III. “Participated gratuitously”
the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly,  Refers to an innocent person who has participated in the
against that of the accessories. proceeds of a felony through the liberality of the offender.
o He should no have paid for the stolen property which he
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been received from the offender. Otherwise Article 105 is
enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a applicable.
right of action against the others for the amount of their respective  If A without knowing it was stolen, received a ring from B, and
shares. sold it for P500, then if B cannot pay for the original amount of
the ring, A is subsidiariliy liable but only for P500.
POINTS
I. Civil and subsidiary liabilities of principals IV. The fortune of the innocent person must be augmented by his
 When there are principals and accessories in the commission of participation
the crime, the principals are solidarily liable of their quota and  It is necessary that his fortune has been augmented by his
subsidiarily liable for representing the quota of their participation in the proceeds of the crime.
accessories.  Merely participating in eating something stolen does not make
the participant obligated to make restitution.
II. Civil and subsidiary liabilities of accomplices
 The accomplices are jointly and severally liable for the portion
adjudged against them and are subsidiarily liable for the portion
of their principal in case of the latter’s insolvency

Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any
person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony
shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the
extent of such participation.

POINTS
I. Not criminally liable
 Person who participated gratuitously= no criminal liability.

II. Must not be an accessory
 If the person knew that the property came from an illegal
source, he is an accessory and is his not only civilly liable but
also criminally liable.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

TITLE FIVE – CIVIL LIABILITY III. Offender is civilly liable even if stolen property is lost by reason of
CHAPTER 3: EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY force majeure
 Where it appears that a person has been deprived of the
Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. – Civil liability established in possession of his property, the malefactor is responsible to the
Articles 100, 101, 012 and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the owner either:
same manner as other obligations in accordance with the provisions of o For the return of the property
Civil Law o For the payment of its value if it cannot be returned

POINTS Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. – Except in case of
I. Civil liability is, therefore, extinguished: extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article,
(1) By payment or performance the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability
(2) By the loss of the thing due resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of
(5) By compensation amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason
(6) By novation
(7) Annulment, recission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition and POINTS
prescription (Article 1231, Civil Code). I. Civil liability is not extinguished notwithstanding the following:
(8) Prescription (for filing cause of action – Tejuco v. E.R. Squib &  Service of the sentence
Son Phil. Corp.)  Amnesty
(9) Subsequent agreement between the accused and the offended  Pardon
party (People v. Tablante Vda. De Marte, C.A.).  Commutation
 Application for probation
II. Effect of condonation of civil liability
 Express condonation by the offended party has the effect of
waiving civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured
party.
 Civil liability may arise from:
o Crime (RPC)
o Breach of contract/culpa contractual (Civil Code)
o Tortious act/culpa aquiliana (Civil Code)

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

Criminal Law Vallente Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Vallente Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

( °□° !

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻