Page 1 of 81

Criminal Law I
ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
OF THE PHILIPPINES

INTRODUCTION:
Before the colonization of the Philippines by the Iberian conquestadores, the criminal law
which had governed some parts of what is now called the Philippine archipelago was the
Kalantiao Code. Filipino historians call this code as the first penal law in the Philippines. Under
this code, if a man has or had a sexual relation with a married woman, he is afflicted with a
severe and painful penalty. Adultery and concubinage, among others, are penalized under said
code. Even offending things, such as goods or articles, are penalized. The Filipinos during the
time of Kalantiao had their own penal system.
When Spain had colonized the country, it had imposed its own penal code in the
Philippine archipelago, known as the Royal Decree of 1870, which took effect on July 14, 1876.
However, the Spanish Codigo Penal did not cater to the customs and tradition of the Filipinos.
Rafael Del Pan, a Filipino, made the so called correctional code but this code was never
enacted into law. Instead, a committee was organized, headed by then Anacleto Diaz, which
drafted the present penal code, known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which took
effect on January 1,1932.

Definition of Terms

Law
Divine law
Natural law
Positive law

Criminal law is that branch of public substantive law, which defines crimes,
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment (San Beda College of Law
Memory Aid in Criminal Law, 3013 Edition, Page 1).

Criminal law is a public law because it governs the relations of the individual
with the State. And it is a substantive law because it is a product of penal
legislation passed by Congress, defining the rights of the State to inflict punishment
and prescribing the criminal liability of the convicted accused.

Felony. It is an act or omission punished under the Revised Penal Code,

including its amendments.

Offense. It is an act or omission punished under special penal laws.

Crime. The generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either under
the Revised Penal Code or by special laws (Ortega); an act or omission in violation
of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

Misdemeanor. It is a violation of local ordinance enacted by local government

units, or a minor infraction of law.

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.
 Page 2 of 81

2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine

Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Batasang Pambansa, and
the Congress of the Philippines.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
4. Implementing Rules and Regulations issued by administrative bodies or
tribunals upon compliance with notice, hearing, and publication requirements and
as authorized by Congress.

The three (3) inherent powers of the State are the following:
1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation

Police Power is concern with the protection of life, liberty, and property and
morality. It is the power of the State to enact and enforce laws for the protection of
life, liberty, and property and the adoption of laws and measures for the promotion
of public order, public convenience and the general welfare. This includes the psy of
public morality. The punishment of prostitution as a crime is an example of this
penal principle.

Power of Eminent Domain. This is the power of the State to take private
property for public use upon payment of just compensation and observance of due
process.
An example for this is the taking by the Government of private lands along the
national highways for road widening.

Power of Taxation. This is the power of the State to enforce proportionate

monetary contributions from persons, property and transactions for the support of
the Government and other public purpose.

REVIEWING BASIC PRINCIPLES

STATE’S AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME

Section 5, Article II, of the 1987 Philippines Constitution provides, thus:

“Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of

life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.”

The State’s authority to prosecute and punish criminal acts

emanates from its police power and designed to promote what is called
as penological objectives. However, such power is also subject to
certain limitations.

PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES/THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

The primary purpose of this kind of doctrine is for the protection of the
society from actual or potential wrongdoers. The punishment of an
impossible crime is an example of this principle.

2. Classical or Juristic Philosophy

The primary purpose of this doctrine is retribution. Justice requires that
a convicted felon should be made to suffer the wrongful act he had
 Page 3 of 81

committed. This doctrine is expressed by the maxim “an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth.” In Latin terms, “oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.”

3. Positivist or Realistic Philosophy

a. Crime is a social sickness and morbid social phenomenon which compels the
accused to commit an offense. There is great respect for the human element
because the offender is regarded as socially sick who needs treatment, not
punishment. The primary purpose of this doctrine is the reformation of the
wrongdoer. The accused is subjected to a battery of psychological tests to
determine the exact cause of his social illness.

b. Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such it cannot

be treated and checked by the application of abstract law and jurisprudence
nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but
rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case
after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a
competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists. (Revised Penal Code by
Reyes, Luis B., 2012 Ed., P 24.

4. Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This theory combines both positivist and classical doctrines. Crimes that are
economic and social by nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus,
the law is more compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a
classical manner; thus, capital punishment imposed. The Revised Penal Code
today follows the mixed or eclectic philosophy.

Examples:
a. Intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate his criminal liability,
unless such intoxication is intentional or habitual, in which case the
intoxication becomes an aggravating circumstance.
b. The age of the offender is considered, so that a child in conflict with the
law (CICL), ages 15 years and under, may be exempted from criminal
liability. But a CICL who is above 15 years and under 18 will not be
exempted from criminal liability when proven to have acted with
discernment.
c. The woman who killed her child to conceal her dishonor has in her favor a
mitigating circumstance.

LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE TO PUNISH CRIMES

(PENOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS):
1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. (1987 Const. Art III,
Sec.22)
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec
22)
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. (1987
Const. Art III, Sec 19)
5. Legality (nullum crime nulla poena sine lege). There is no crime when there is
no law punishing such act as a crime.
6. Pro Reo Doctrine. Penal laws are strictly construed against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused.
7. Absorption Rule.
8. Prison term, even successive service of several crimes, shall not exceed forty
(40) years.

3 Characteristics of Criminal Law

 Page 4 of 81

1. Generality (WHO)
2. Territoriality (WHERE)
3. Prospectivity (WHEN)

A. PROSPECTIVITY OF PENAL LAWS

Prospectivity is also called irretrospectivity. It means that acts or omissions performed or
incurred will only be penalized if they are committed or omitted after the promulgation and
effectivity of a certain penal law. Under the principle of “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege,”
the law must first be enacted before it can be violated. Stated differently, prior to the
enactment of a law there is yet no violation of said law. Hence, a penal law cannot govern and
punish antecedent acts or omissions because in reality it has no force and effect prior to its
existence.

What is an ex post facto law?

An ex post facto law is one that is designed to apply retroactively and govern and punish
acts which were committed or omitted before its effectivity. Further, an ex post facto law makes
a crime graver than it was when committed, or prescribes a stiffer punishment for a certain act
and retroactively operates to govern and punish previous acts which were innocent when done
before its effectivity.
An ex post facto law is repugnant to the prospectivity principle and is always prejudicial
to the rights of an individual. No wonder an ex post facto law is forbidden under the
Constitution (Sec. 22, Art. III, Bill of Rights).

As a general rule, a penal law cannot be given a retroactive application because it

becomes thereby an ex post facto law. However, “in every rule there is an exemption.” Hence:

“Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not
a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code,
although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same” (Art. 22, Act No. 3815, Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines).

The term “habitual criminal” in Article 22, RPC, is the “habitual delinquent”
defined under Rule 5 (last par.), Article 62 of the same Code, because the former make
express reference to the latter, to wit:

“For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed a habitual delinquent,
if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or
falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.” (As
amended by R.A. No. 7659.)

Serious and less serious physical injuries are crimes against person, whereas robo,
hurto, and estafa are crimes against property, and falsification is a crime against public
interest.

Accordingly, a penal law shall have retroactive effect if and only if said law favors or
benefits a person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal. The provision for the
retroactivity of penal laws as quoted above, as an exception to the general rule, is not an ex
post facto law because it is favorable to the accused. However, such an exception clause
provides an exemption to the exception, wherein a habitual criminal is excluded from the
enjoyment of the leniency and beneficial effects of a new penal law.

Hence, for a penal law to have a retroactive application, the following requisites must
concur, to wit:

1. The law must be favorable to the accused; and,

 Page 5 of 81

2. The accused must not be a habitual delinquent as defined under Rule 5, Article 62,
RPC.
However, a penal law shall not have a retroactive application even if the same is more
favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent when expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions. (Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil.
463, 470-471, as quoted by Reyes, Luis B, Page 15).

An accused is deemed a habitual delinquent or habitual criminal when within a

period of ten (10) years from his release or last conviction he commits the third time or oftener
any of the following crimes, to wit:

1. Serious Physical Injuries

2. Less Serious Physical Injuries
3. Robo/Robbery
4. Hurto/Theft
5. Estafa
6. Falsificacion (Rule 5, last par., Article 62, RPC).
Question:
What is habitual delinquency (HD)?
Answer: It is a special aggravating circumstance which adds to the punishment
imposable upon the accused and has a penalty in itself, separate from the crime
committed, depending on the frequency or repetition of the act.

Question:
What are the requisites of habitual delinquency (HD)?
Answer:
 if within a period of 10 years, reckoned from the date of his last release or the
last conviction (2 reckoning point);
 of the crimes of (any of the crimes of) serious physical injuries, less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa and falsification; and,
 if accused is found guilty of any of the said crimes, the third time or oftener.

NOTA BENE: A recidivist, quasi-recidivists, and the like may enjoy the favorable provision of a
new penal law because only habitual delinquents are barred from the enjoyment of the leniency
of the new law. It must be so because, under the pro reo principle, a law must be interpreted
favorably to the accused.

Effects of Repeal of Penal Laws

a) If the repeal in the new law makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be applied,
except when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law provides that it is
not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.

b) If the amendment in the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law, which was the
one in force at the time of the commission of the offense, shall be applied.

c) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act penalized under the old law
is already decriminalized, the crime is obliterated and the accused convicted under such a
repealed law shall be acquitted.
 Page 6 of 81

Nota Bene: The rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions, administrative rulings,
and circulars.

ARTICLE 1
TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT
Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC)
took effect on January 1, 1932.
Example: Acts committed on December 31, 1931 are not punished by the RPC
under the principle of Prospectivity or Irrestrospectivity. Only acts committed
beginning on January 1, 1932 and onwards are punishable.

B. TERRITORIALITY RULE
1. As a general rule, the scope and application of the RPC are confined within
the Philippine national territory. Philippine laws do not apply outside the Philippines.
This is in accordance with the Territoriality Rule in Criminal Law. The metes and
bounds of the Philippine national territory is provided under Article I of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, to wit:

“The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part
of the internal waters of the Philippines.”

Philippine laws have no application outside Philippine territory because,

among others, the extraterritorial application of Philippine laws will cause violation
of International law like the right to equality and the right to independence of other
States. Imagine if other States like China and Malaysia will enforce their laws in the
Philippines! It will cause chaos in the country. For the same reason, other States do
not want Philippines laws to operate or apply in their country.

Components of the National Territory:

a) Aerial domain. It consists of the space above the ground or the Philippine
skies.
b) Terrestrial domain. It consists of the land or the soil or solid ground.
c) Territorial sea. It is 12 nautical miles from the seashore towards the sea
measured during low tide.
d) Fluvial domain. It consists of the internal waters like bays, lakes, rivers,
streams, canal, etcetera, including the waters around, between, and
connecting all the 7,100 islands of the archipelago regardless of their
breadths and dimensions.

To repeat, it is only within the Philippine national territory, as provided under

Article I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, that the RPC is applied and enforced.
The extraterritoriality rule provided under Article 2 of RPC is an exemption to the
Territoriality Rule.

Extent of Philippine Territory:

 Page 7 of 81

1. Internal Waters. It consists of the inland waters like bays, lakes, rivers,
streams, canals, etcetera, including the waters around, between, and connecting all
the 7,100 islands of the Philippine archipelago.

The large body of waters between Mindanao, Visayas, and Luzon are not part
of the high seas, nor a component of territorial sea. Such bodies of water are
internal waters with the same category as bays, lakes, and rivers. This is in
accordance with the Philippine Constitution which provides, thus: “The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”

2. Territorial Sea (12 Nautical Miles)

The ancient rule provided for 3-mile limit. But now the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) extended it to 12 nautical miles from
low water mark, which is the reach of the sea water during low tide. The UNCLOS
was ratified in 1982 by 50+ member states. 52/55 expanded the territorial waters
of coastal States like the Philippines.

3. Contiguous Zone (12 Nautical Miles)

The 12 nautical miles is measured from the tip of the territorial sea. It
extends up to 24 nautical miles from the seashore. Within the Contiguous Zone, the
coastal State has the right to board and search any ship or vessel in transit when
they unnecessarily stop within it. The vessel in transit must continuously sail
without unreasonable stoppage within the Contiguous Zone.

4. Exclusive Economic Zone [(EEZ) 200 nautical miles)]

Under the EEZ, the coastal State has the exclusive right to explore, exploit,
utilize, and develop all the natural resources found within 200 nautical miles from
its shore. This exclusive right includes the reclamation of man-made islands. The
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone are included in the perimeter of the EEZ.

Freedom of Navigation can be exercised only on the high seas and cannot
be enforced within the territorial sea. However, Right of Innocent Passage is
allowed within the territorial sea.

The Contiguous Zone and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are part of
the high seas and it is open for navigation by anybody, because the high seas is
considered as res communes (property of all).

Note: High seas, international seas, and international waters are the same term.

Article 2, RPC is an exemption to the Territoriality Rule. Thus, phrased,

“Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential applications, the
provisions of the RPC shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of
its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on Philippine ship or airship;
 Page 8 of 81

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine

islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;

4. While being public officers and employees, should commit an offense

in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Tow of this Code” (RPC);

6. * Section 58, RA No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007), provides another
extraterritorial application of Philippine penal laws. (Galao’s Note)

RA No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007, has
extraterritorial application. Sec. 58 provides that the Act shall apply to individual
persons who, although physically outside the Philippines, shall:
i. Conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes punished in the Act;
ii. Commit any of said crimes or board Philippine ship or airship;
iii. Commit any of said crimes within the embassy, consulate or diplomatic
premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an
official capacity;
iv. Commit any of said crimes against Philippine citizens or person of
Philippine descent where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of said crimes; and
v. Commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.

The above-enumerated extraterritorial application of the RPC are predicated

on the right of the State to self-defense. Under normal circumstances, the
Philippines cannot not enforce its laws in other countries. However, if any of those
six (6) crimes or offenses are committed abroad, the Extraterritoriality Rule in
Criminal Law will apply in order to protect the Philippine’s right to existence as a
State. Hence, Philippine Criminal Laws will apply to any persons who commit any of
the six (6) acts enumerated above, even if said acts are committed within the
territory of other States.

Exceptions - Acts committed outside the Philippine territory

1. Crimes committed within a Philippine ship or airship.
 it is not a question of ownership of a vessel, but a question of registration,
where the vessel was registered. The country where the vessel was registered
has the jurisdiction over all acts committed within said vessel.

 even if the ship is Filipino owned but not registered under Philippine law, the
Philippine government has no jurisdiction.
 Page 9 of 81

 The ship whether Filipino owned or foreign owned, must be registered with
the Bureau of Customs in order for the Philippine courts to acquire jurisdiction
over offenses committed aboard said ship.

Q: What if the crime is committed on board a warship?

A: Warships are always treated in International law as extensions of the flag state’s
territory. They are considered as territory of the owner even if they are ducked in
internal waters of other countries. Hence, crimes committed therein are always
within the jurisdiction of the state where such warship belongs.

Q: What are the rules governing crimes committed on board foreign

merchant vessel?
A: 2 rules, the English rule and the French rule.

a. French Rule – it is the flag state that has jurisdiction over crimes committed
within a foreign merchant vessel, except only if the crime committed on board a
said vessel affects national security or public order in the host State.
Example:
Under the French rule, we do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on board
foreign vessels ducked in Manila bay, except if the crime committed on board a
foreign merchant vessel affects public order or national security of the country.
b. English Rule – it is the host State that has jurisdiction over crimes committed
within the foreign vessel, except only if said crime is confined within the ship or it
relates to its internal management, in which case, the Flag State Rule will govern.
Example:
Crimes committed on board foreign vessels ducked in Subic Bay are subject to the
jurisdiction of Philippine courts, except if that crime is confined within the ship or
when it relates only to the internal affairs/ internal management of the foreign
merchant vessel.
However, under prevailing Supreme Court decisions, the use of illegal drugs on
board foreign vessels is subject to Philippine Criminal Laws because the pernicious
effects of said contraband has already been produced within the Philippine territory
and the public in general are already affected with it.
NOTA BENE: When the foreign vessel is loaded with contraband and it passes
through the Philippine Contiguous Zone but destined to a foreign port, the
Philippine authorities cannot exercised visitorial rights over said vessel. However, if
said vessel is destined to any port in the Philippines, the Philippine authorities may
exercise visitorial rights over said vessel and conduct search and seizure operation.
2. Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument
payable to bearer or to order with the appearance of a true genuine document or by
erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words or signs contained therein.
3. If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin, currency
note or obligations and securities.
4. The crime committed by a public officer or employee must be in the course of the
performance of his public function or related to the exercise of his office in order to
fall within the coverage of Extraterritoriality Principle.
 Page 10 of 81

5. Crimes against National Security is governed under Title I, Book II of RPC which
provide for the following:
A. Treason
B. Espionage
C. Provoking to war
D. Disloyalty in case of war
E. Piracy in the high seas
F. Mutiny in the high seas

Rebellion is not among those enumerated under Title I, Book II of RPC, as it

is a crime against public order, hence, not included. Therefore, when rebellion is
committed abroad, the Philippines will not acquire jurisdiction because rebellion is
NOT a crime against national security and the law of nations.

C. GENERALITY RULE
The RPC (or any Philippine law) applies to all persons who lives or sojourn
within the Philippines, be they citizens or aliens. This is the general rule. However,
International law and treaties provide exceptions, like diplomatic immunity, to wit:
Exceptions:
1. Heads of states like Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, Sultans and
the like.
2. Ambassadors, or Envoys and Nuncio. These are representatives of their
respective governments in the conduct of their foreign or international
relations.
3. Ministers, high ranking government officials, like cabinet secretaries when
they go abroad in the performance of their duties.
4. Resident diplomatic agents.
Q: Do consuls, vice-consuls, and consul general enjoy diplomatic
immunity?

A: No. They are not exempt nor immune from the application and operation of
Philippine penal laws, because they do not perform political or diplomatic function,
but merely exercising or conducting commercial works for the economic interest of
their respective government. Hence, they are subject to the operation of Philippine
criminal law.

Schools/Theories of Thought in Criminal Law:

1. Classical Theory
2. Positivist Theory
3. Protective / Utilitarian

1. Classical Theory
 Man is considered a creature of absolute free will (voluntary).
 Wherefore the commission of a crime is a matter of choice.
 If he chooses to do wrong, he will suffer the consequences.
 Retribution is the purpose of penalty, that is, a person will suffer the effects of
his own act.
 Page 11 of 81

 Known by the phrase, “eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth.” (oculo pro oculo;
dente pro dente, Latin term)

2. Positivist Theory
 Crime is a social sickness.
 The commission of a crime is not voluntary but a result of a morbid
phenomenon which causes man to perpetuate a crime.
 The purpose of penalty imposable upon the criminal act is meant for
correction and restoration of the convicted accused.
 Example, exempting circumstance of minority if the CICL is 15 years of age
and below, or above 15 but below 18 and he had acted without discernment.
However, if the CICL is above 15 and below 18 and he had acted with
discernment in the commission of the crime, he enjoys a privilege mitigating
circumstance, resulting in the imposition of a lesser penalty.

3. Protective / Utilitarian Theory

The imposition of penalty upon the convict is not merely to protect the society from
actual wrongdoers but also from potential wrongdoers, those who have the
propensity or inclination to commit a crime. Example, punishment of impossible
crimes and criminal negligence. Just as an individual person is bestowed with the
inherent right of self-defense, so is the State.

ARTICLE 3. KINDS OF FELONY.

Q. What is a felony?
Art. 3. Felony is an act or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), not by special penal laws. An act or omission punished under special laws,
not by the RPC, is not called a felony but an offense.
Felony is either dolo or culpa. A criminal act is a felony by dolo if committed with
deliberate intent (Felony by dolo is also known as intentional felonies). Dolo in
Criminal Law means malicious or evil intent.
It is felony by culpa if the criminal act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
skill, or lack of foresight (Felony by culpa is the same as culpable felonies). Criminal
negligence, like reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or resulting in damage to
property, are examples of felony by culpa.

Elements of Felonies:
1. There must be an act. Act here means an overt act, which consists of
physical activity or bodily movement which tend to produce a concrete or tangible
result in the physical world.
Mere thinking of doing evil acts or imagination of evil, however wicked they
may be, are not punishable by Philippine Criminal Law because they do not have
physical existence as they are still confined in the mind.
Two Kinds of Act:
a) Commission; and
b) Omission
 Page 12 of 81

Omission is the refusal or failure to perform an act required by law. It consists in

non-doing of a duty. Commission consists of doing what the law forbids to be done,
while Omission consists in not doing what the law requires to be done.
Commission is a violation of a negative duty, like “thou shall not kill”, while
Omission is a violation of a positive duty, like “love thy neighbor as thy self.”
Commission is a violation of a negative obligation, while Omission is a breach of a
positive obligation.
A person who fails or refuses to render assistance to a person in danger of
dying in an uninhabited place incurs violation of his positive duty, and it is called
Omission. A perfect example of a crime by Omission is Misprision of Treason. A
person who refuses or fails to report to proper public authorities the existence of
conspiracy to commit treason will be liable for a felony called Misprision of Treason.
2. The act must be punished by the RPC (Act No. 3815)
An act must be defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
not by an special penal law. An act, however wicked it may be, is neither a felony
nor punishable by law, when it is not defined and punished by the RPC based on the
principle of “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.
An act or omission violating the RPC is called a felony, while a violation of
special penal law is called offense. Crime is a generic term which covers both the
concept of felony and offense; hence, crime refers to violation of both the RPC and
special penal laws. Misdemeanor is a violation of a local ordinance, or a minor
infraction of law.

3. The act is committed or incurred by means of dolo or culpa. Dolo

means malice or evil intent, while culpa is fault. Dolo under the Spanish Codigo
Penal in translated as Deceit in the RPC. Legal scholars say that the term deceit
does not contain or carry the term dolo in its entire meaning. They say it should be
translated as Malice or Evil Intent.
Kinds of Felony
a) Intentional felonies
b) Culpable Felonies

Q. What are the elements of dolo and culpa?

A.

Intentional vs. Culpable

-freedom  -freedom

-intelligence  -
intelligence

-intent  -
negligence

Distinguished Article 3 and Article 365 of RPC.

The first is intentional felony, whereas the second is culpable felony or
criminal negligence. Example, when a person is killed when bumped negligently
with a vehicle, the crime committed is reckless imprudence, not homicide. Here,
 Page 13 of 81

this is no intent to kill, and the death of the person is a result of fault. Hence, it is
called Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. What is punished is the reckless
imprudence.
However, when a person is killed when bumped intentionally with a vehicle,
the crime committed is not only homicide but murder in accordance with Article 248
of the RPC. In the first killing, there is no intent to kill inasmuch as the act is a
result of fault or culpa. In the second killing, there is intent to kill inasmuch as the
vehicle is used as an instrument of the crime. What is punished is the evil intent.
In Art. 365, there is no intent, but the act is committed. In Art. 3, Omission,
there is intent, and the act is performed by non-doing or failure to perform a
positive duty.

A killed his full blood brother, X. What crime is committed by A?

A. Murder
B. Homicide
C. Parricide
D. Rape
The answer to the above question is homicide because the facts of the case
do not show the attendance of any qualifying aggravating circumstance prescribed
by the RPC under Section 248 which might have qualified the killing into murder.
This is in accordance with the pro reo principle, which states that the ambiguity or
silence of the law or evidence shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.

Question: Why is Omission punishable?

Answer: Law as a source of obligation consists of personal obligations to do, and
not to do. NOT TO DO obligations are sometimes called NEGATIVE DUTY, like the
obligation not to steal or do murder. TO DO obligations to do are called POSITIVE
DUTY, like the obligation to report to the proper public authorities anybody
conspiring or confederating to commit treason; failure or refusal TO DO or perform
such a duty constitutes the felony of Misprision of Treason.
The punishment of an act by omission is founded on the right of the State to
self-defense and as an enforcement of the duty of every citizen and alien living in
the country to render allegiance to the Philippine Republic.

ARTICLE 4. HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS INCURRED.

QUESTION: How does a person incur criminal liability?
ANSWER: A person incurs criminal liability when he performs any of the following:
(1) Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony.
(2) Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act be different from that which the actor has intended (praeter
intentionem).
(3) Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment, or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means (impossible crime).
 Page 14 of 81

(4)*Also, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing an act or omission

in violation of special penal laws (Galao’s Note).

Discussion
Before a person incurs criminal liability, he must first perform or commit a
felony. If the act committed is immoral but not felonious, the liability may only be
civil, not criminal.

Q. So how does one incur criminal liability?

A. If he performs a felony.

Definition of felony
Felony is an act (commission or omission) punishable by the RPC. If the
commission or omission (act) is punished not by the RPC but by other penal laws
like the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA No. 9165), the Anti-
Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2006 (RA No. 9262), etcetera,
the act is called offense, not felony.
Example
Q. A commits suicide. She jumps from a building and fell upon kay B. A
survived but B died as a result. Did A incur criminal liability for the death of
B?
A. No, the act is not felonious. Suicide is not a felony, even if it is immoral. An act is
always in relations to one’s environment. No one can commit a crime against
himself. Hence, suicide is not a felony. If the act is not felonious, the actor does not
incur criminal liability.

In order to incur criminal liability, 2 requisites must concur:

1. The act performed is felonious; and

2. The act is the proximate cause of the injury.
*There must be no efficient intervening cause, otherwise the existence of proximate
cause is negated.

3 Kinds of Causes in determining criminal liability:

1. Direct Cause
2. Immediate Cause
3. Proximate Cause
Question: What kind of cause was produced when Chuaco punched his wife, causing
the wife’s death when she fell on the hard pavement of the floor?
A. Direct Cause
B. Immediate Cause
C. Proximate Cause
D. None of the above.
The direct cause of the wife’s death is cerebral hemorrhage.
 Page 15 of 81

Direct cause is a medical concept; proximate cause is a philosophical concept.

The RPC anchors the criminal liability of the accused on proximate cause, not direct
cause.
Concept of Proximate Cause
El causa es causa, dela causa, del mal causado. “The cause of the caused is
the cause of the evil caused.”
Proximate Cause Is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury; without which,
the resulting injury would not have occurred.

Q: How is proximate cause defined in criminal law?

A: People vs Iligan
It is that cause which, in the natural & continuous sequence of events, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result
would not have occurred.

Q: When is there proximate cause?

A: From the cause to the effect nothing must happen in between, that is, there
must be no efficient intervening cause. The presence of efficient intervening cause
negates the existence of proximate cause; hence, the actor is not criminally liable
for the resulting injury.
Example: X, a hardworking farmer, was stabbed intentionally by Barabas. Rushed
to the PRMMH and he survived. However, X was thinking of his farm and asked the
doctor to go home. The doctor allowed X to go home with the instruction not to
work on the farm until and unless his wounds are completely healed. However, X
worked in the farm and contracted tetanus and he died. Question: Is Barabas liable
for the death of X?
A. No. The death of X is not anymore the proximate result of Barabas’ act since
there was the presence of efficient intervening cause, which was the tetanus
causing X’s death.
______________________________________________
Proximate cause Effect which is the result

Rockwell Case:
Offender A punched X. X fell on the ground. A horse nearby came over and kicked
X. Hence, X died
Question? Is A liable for the death of X?
Answer: No. The punching by A of X is not the proximate cause of the death of X.
The kicking of X by the horse served as an efficient intervening cause which had
broken the sequence of event.

Q: Was the punching - that is an exertion of violence, productive of injury?

(Yes, but only physical injury). Was the punching, that is a felonious act,
 Page 16 of 81

the proximate cause of the death of the victim? (No, the proximate cause
of punching of X by A had already been broken by an efficient intervening
cause, which is the kicking of X by the horse.)
A: From the cause, which is the act, to the resulting death, nothing happened in
between. But here, the horse came and kicked X resulting in his death. The kicking
by the horse is an efficient intervening cause. Hence, Rockwell is not criminally
liable for the death of X.
Chuaco Case:
The husband out of anger punched his wife. The wife fell on a hard pavement and
died of cerebral hemorrhage. Here, the immediate cause of death is celebral
hemorrhage; the proximate cause is the felonious act of the husband in punching
his wife; from the cause to the effect there is no intervening. Hence, Chuaco is
criminally liable for the death of his wife.

Case of Rockwell vs Case of Chuaco modified by People vs. Iligan

 may view that the concept of Proximate Cause was modified
 the victim was hacked on the head and then he run until he reached the
highway and he fell and run over by the vehicles.
 SC said: It was still a proximate cause even if the immediate cause was the
running over.

Judge Cornejo : it is not modified → explained by the Supreme Court, that it is

a mortal wound na eh!
 Highway - mabilis ang takbo ng vehicles so you do not consider that as an
efficient intervening cause
 it was an isolated case
 you do not drive less than 100 km per hour → still it is the same concept

FACTORS AFFECTING INTENT AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Mistake of Fact (Achong Case)
2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)
3. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the victim of the blow)
4. Proximate Cause
5. Praeter intentionem (Accused had no intention of committing an act so grave
a wrong as that actually committed)

Ignorance of Fact vs. Ignorance of the law.

The first is a defense; whereas the second is not, because ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance therewith.
If you commit an act which is felonious, but you did it under a mistake of fact, you
will not be criminally liable
Requisites of Mistake of Fact (the 3 must concur):
1. That act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be;
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act must be lawful; and
3. No negligence/carelessness on the part of the accused.
 Page 17 of 81

U.S. vs. Achong

killed the victim, absolved because of mistake of fact→ voluntary yan but under
different special circumstances kaya siya na absolve, fall under the concept of
mistake of fact.

1. The act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believe them to be.
Example
He slept, locked the door, he heard somebody knocking trying to open the door, he
taught it was a murderer. But before he opened / before he killed the victim, the
intention was to protect himself or defend himself, because he believes there is
somebody trying to kill him, but he was not careless, not negligent, because he
asked - sino yan, sino yan? bukas bukas pa din—3 rd time asking, upon opening the
door he killed the person and after that he found out that it was his roommate
→ He is acting in self-defense which is lawful
→ No fault or carelessness / negligence, precisely he was calling / asking 3 times

c) Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)

The accused erred in identifying the victim. There is no mistake in the blow.
Example
A intended to kill B but A killed C instead. A thought it was B, only to find out that it
was C. (In the crime scene, there was only one person—C, whom A thought as B.)
Q: Is A be liable for the death of C?
A: Yes, because when A intended to kill B by firing his gun at him, A performed a
felony. Hence, A is criminally liable for the death of C even if the intended victim
was B.
Question: X hired Y to kill Z. Hence, Y killed Z. Is Y liable? Answer: Yes!
Question: What if Y killed A instead of Z, because Y thought that the one walking on
the dark alley was Z. Is Y liable for the death of A? Answer: Yes! This is a case of
mistake in identity or error in personae.
3. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the vicitim of the blow)
A intended to shoot B who was sited beside C. The one actually hit by A was C, not
B- mistake in the blow (Aberatio Ictus). In this kind of error, there are two or more
persons in the crime scene. The intended victim was not the one hit by the blow or
strike. The actual victim was not in the mind of the felon when he executed the
felony. Here, there is complex crime in relation to Article 48 of the RPC.

d) Praeter Intentionem
Example
The husband stopped the wife from talking, punched the pregnant wife…but there is
no intention to kill the wife, intention to exert of violence into her person, to stop
 Page 18 of 81

her from talking. There is intent to cause harm but no intent to kill the wife. No
intention to commit so grave / praeter intentionem - criminally liable. This is a
mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the RPC.

Impossible Crimes
By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were if not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
2 Kinds of Impossibility:
1. Physical
2. Legal
Impossible crimes are crimes against persons or crimes against property; they
cannot be committed in other crimes, like crimes against national security, public
order, or crimes against honor.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS: (PPIRAMHD-piramid)
1. Parricide (Art. 246)
2. Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265, and 266)
3. Infanticide (Art. 255)
4. Rape (Art. 266-A)
5. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258, and 259)
6. Murder (Art. 248)
7. Homicide (Art. 249)
8. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY: (TRUCCE-BAM; truce bomb)
1. Theft (Arts. 308, 310, 311)
2. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303)
3. Usurpation (Arts. 312, 313)
4. Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314)
5. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
6. Estafa [(Swindling other deceits) Arts. 315—318)]
7. Brigandage (Arts. 306, 307)
8. Arson and other Crimes involving Destruction (Arts. 320—326)
9. Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330, 324)

Question: Robbery with homicide is a crime against:

A. Property
B. Person
C. Honor
D. None of the above.
Question: What kind of complex crime is the above?
A. Complex crime proper
B. Compound complex crime
C. Composite crime/Special Complex Crime
D. None of the above.

Q: Is impossible crime a crime?

 Page 19 of 81

A: technically, not! Impossible crime is not a crime, because a crime has a physical
and legal existence; the performance of an act with a tangible result in the physical
world. A pure mental imagination to commit an evil act is not yet a crime until
physically executed.
An impossible crime, however, has no physical and legal existence, inasmuch
as it was still in the mind of the actor. Hence, technically, an impossible crime is not
a crime. However, in view of the subscription of the RPC with the Utilitarian
principle, an impossible crime is punished as an act of self-defense by the State. In
this case, a person liable for an impossible crime is merely a potential wrongdoer,
not an actual criminal.

Q: If impossible crime is not a crime, why is it penalized?

A: It is penalized because the fact of the commission of the act, against person or
property, the evil intent is manifested, showing his criminal propensity.
The criminal propensity or the criminal tendency, being an actual danger to
the society, is the one penalized; not the crime itself, because technically it is not a
crime.
Two Kinds of Impossibility in Impossible Crimes:
1. Physical impossibility
2. Legal Impossibility
Example
Q: A intended to kill B. When A went to the house of B, he saw B lying on the bed.
Believing that B was aslept, A stabbed him on the chest, hitting his heart. However,
B already died of cardiac arrest 30 minutes earlier before A stabbed him.
Had B been alive at the time of stabbing – the crime committed would be
murder. The point is A will not be liable for murder, because he cannot kill
somebody who is already dead. This is a case of physical inherent impossibility.

Example
A bought what he thought to be a poisonous substance, w with the intention to kill
X with it. A placed said substance in the drink of X. The latter did not die because
the substance was actually a sugar. This is a case of “inherent impossibility
accomplishment.” However, if the substance was actually a poison, but X did not
die because the amount placed in the drink was small, the case would be
“employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.”

Example
A saw a phone at the backyard of his neighbor X and he wanted to get it. As a
subterfuge, A volunteered to clean the backyard of X and he covered the phone
with plastic and soil. At midnight, A surreptitiously entered X’s backyard and got the
phone. When he came home and happily opened the phone, A found out that it was
his own phone which was missing a month ago.
Is A criminally liable? Yes, but not for theft but for Impossible Crime of Theft.
A is not liable for theft because he cannot steal his own property. Remember, one
 Page 20 of 81

element of theft is, “the property must belong to another.” Here, the phone does
not belong to X, but A’s. This is a case of legal impossibility.

For purposes of impossible crime

The act would be an offense against person or property.
Additional element of Impossible Crime (According to the Supreme Court)
The act should not constitute violation of any other provision of the RPC

Case:
Intod vs. Court of Appeals
Offenders intended to kill Mr. X, so they conducted a surveillance and monitored X’s
activities. Here, there is evident premeditation. On the day they decided to execute
their plan to kill Mr. X, at 12 midnight, they fired m.14 and m.16 rifles
simultaneously at the house of Mr. X, specifically to his room, believing Mr. X was
there in his room. The house was pelled by a huge volume of strafing fire. However,
Mr. X was not hit because it so happened that he was not present in his room, as
he was somewhere else.
Argue in the SC: attempted murder, they tried to kill but he was not there

Another Justice - impossible crime

How can it be - when one of the requisite is, the act must not constitute any
violation of the RPC, eh di ba TA! TA! TA! Caused damage to the property, that is a
violation of the RPC.
 modified version of the impossible crime
 hindi pumasok yung last provision- that do not constitute another violation of
any other provision of the RPC
 but they considered it as an Impossible Crime, because of the inherent
impossibility
 kapag attempted murder dapat andun yung tao and about to commit the
crime
 definition of a felony
 not attempted/ frustrated stage in Impossible Crime

ARTICLE 5
First paragraph underscores the principle of “nullum crimen nulla poena, sine
lege.” There is no crime when there is no law punishing such act as a crime, no
matter how evil such act may be.
The second paragraph emphasizes the principle of “dura lex sed lex.” The law
may be harsh but it is the law. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
Hence, the court must apply the law even the penalty imposable is unproportionate
with the crime committed.
THERE IS NO CRIME WHEN THERE IS NO LAW THAT DEFINES AND PUNISHES IT

ARTICLE 6
 Page 21 of 81

THE FOLLOWING ARE STAGES OF EXECUTION OF FELONY, EXCEPT:

1. Consummated
2. Frustrated
3. Attempted
4. Mutilated

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, does not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony

directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Article 6, RPC)

Discussion
 is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted
murder as defined and penalized in Art. 248 of the RPC in relation to Art. 6 -
stages of execution of a felony - attempted homicide as defined and penalized
in Art. 249 of the RPC in relation to Art. 6

Kinds of Crimes with Respect to its Execution:

1. Formal Crime. These are crimes are consummated by a single act as a matter
of law. Example: physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, attempted flight to
an enemy country, coercion, slander, illegal exaction. Violations of special
penal laws are formal crimes because they are consummated by a single act.

2. Material Crime. These are crimes which involve the three stages of execution.
(Stages of execution does not apply to crimes under special laws unless
otherwise, crimes by omission, and formal crimes.)

Indeterminate Offense. It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an

act is not certain. The accused may be convicted of the felony defined by the act
performed by him up to the time of desistance.

Spontaneous Desistance. It is an absolutory cause which negates the criminal

liability of the accused because the law encourages a person to desist from
committing a crime. The spontaneous desistance by the offender negates only the
attempted stage. If the desistance was made when the acts done by him already
resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought
about by his act (Ortega, 2009).
Kinds of Desistance:
1. Legal Desistance. The desistance was made during the attempted stage. It
will obviate criminal liability unless the overt preparatory act already
committed in themselves constitute a felony other than what the actor
intended.

2. Factual Desistance. The desistance was made after the attempted stage of
the crime. The actor is still liable for the attempt.
 Page 22 of 81

Two Stages in the Development of a Crime:

1. Internal Acts. Such as mere thought or wicked imaginations in the mind of a
person. Not punishable, because it does not have physical existence.
2. External Acts.
a) Preparatory acts—not punishable yet, except when considered by law as
independent crimes (examples: Art. 304—possession of picklocks and
similar tools).
b) Acts of execution—punishable under the RPC.

Phases of Execution:
1. Subjective phase—that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting
from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that
point where he has still control over his acts, including their (acts) natural
course.
2. Objective phase—it is the result of the act of execution, that is, the
accomplishment of the crime.
If the subjective phase and objective phase are present, there is a consummated
felony.
The spontaneous desistance of the accused is exculpatory only:
a) if made during the attempted stage, and
b) provided the acts already committed do not constitute any offense.
Factors In Determining Stages Of Execution:
1. manner of committing;
2. elements constituting the felony;
3. nature of the offense.
1. Consummated
All the essential elements of the crime are present. The offender has accomplished
his criminal design.
Example
A wanted to kill X. A fired his gun at X, hitting his chest. X died. Here, A had
accomplished his purpose of killing X. Hence, the stage of execution is
Consummated.
But if X was hit on the chest and sustained a mortal wound, but he survived
because he was brought to PRMMH, then the criminal design of A was not
accomplished. Though A had performed all the acts of execution for the
accomplishment of his purpose. Hence, the stage of execution is Frustrated.
However, if X was not hit or he was hit but only slightly (daplis lang), A had not
accomplished his criminal designHere, A had commenced the execution of his
criminal intent by firing at X (overt act), but did not perform all the acts of
execution. A has to fire another shot at X in order to achieve his purpose of killing
him. Hence, the stage of execution is Attempted.
Y steals cellphone, kuha na nya, consummated na. The moment Y possessed the
cellphone, he has control of it already. Hence, theft is consummated.
But there are certain instances wherein the consummation or frustration of
the crime depends on the disposability of the articles taken or things stolen.
 Page 23 of 81

Case:
People vs. Espiritu
They put the rifles in a truck, then at the checkpoint the rifles were found, they
were unlawfully taken
Consummated? No!
SC: it is simply frustrated because they could not have easily disposed of the rifle.

Case:
People vs. Bino – they got hospital linen from the hospital where it was stored.
They loaded it in the truck. Na-check point sila.
SC: consummated, because the linen is easily disposable.
So it would depend on the disposability of the articles taken for the purposes of the
consummation

2. Frustrated
The offender performs all the acts of execution, which would produce the crime, but
the crime was not produced, by reason of some cause independent of the will of the
perpetrator
Examples
a. Frustrated Homicide - offender performs all the act of execution if the offender
has inflicted a mortal wound (sufficient to cause death) (fatal would yan) nisaksak
mo in the dibdib- consummated. But if you have inflicted of a mortal wound and
then you have change of heart, ikaw na mismo ang nagdala sa hospital or because
you are a doctor, you save his life- frustrated (attempted?), because the prevention
of the commission of the crime/ consummation of the crime is due to you
b. you inflicted the mortal wound, doctors came in, administered the necessary
medication and necessary healing that save his life- frustrated, the offender
performs all the act of execution that would produce a homicide as a consequence
kasi mortal wound na sufficient to cause death but nevertheless homicide is not
committed coz the victim did not die, why? Due to some cause not on the will of
the perpetrator but due to the will of timely medical assistance
c. The case of a doctor who put a poison on the drink of his wife. When the wife
was writhing in pain, the doctor had a change of heart and brought his wife to the
hospital and washed the intestinal track and removed the poison from her body.
What stage of execution? It is neither frustrated nor attempted homicide, but a
case of less serious physical injury.
b. Rape- no frustrated. Mere touching by the erected penis of the labia minora
constitutes rape. Penetration of the female genetalia is not necessary. This rule
applies only in the case of traditional concept of rape. ‘Mere touching’ doctrine does
not apply with the expanded concept of rape, because the amendatory law provides
for the term, “by inserting.”
 Page 24 of 81

***The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following cir
cumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation, or
b. When the woman is deprived of  reason or otherwise unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abused of authority, or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.  
When is sexual assault committed?
The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means: 
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genitalia or anal orifice of
another person.

FACTS I: A, 11-year old girl, who has begun her menstrual cycle at age 10, invited
X into her room, undressed herself therein, hugging X, and pleaded for X for sexual
intercourse. Unable to control his sexual urge, X removed all his clothing and
mounted A and the they had enjoyed lustful activities on bed all night long.

1. Question: What felony is committed by X, if any?

A. Acts of lasciviousness
B. Child abuse
C. Seduction
D. Rape
E. None of the above.

2. Question: What kind of rape is committed above?

A. Traditional rape
B. Rape by sexual assault
C. Statutory rape
D. None of the above.

3. Question: X, with lustful intent, inserted his penis into the vagina of A. What
kind of rape is committed?
A. Statutory rape
B. Rape by sexual assault
C. Traditional rape
D. None of the above.
4. X, with lustful intent, inserted a pen into the mouth of A. What kind of rape is
committed?
A. Statutory rape
B. Rape by sexual assault
C. Traditional rape
D. None of the above.
5. X, with burning lust, inserted his penis into the ear of A and ejaculated in it.
What crime if any is committed by X?
A. Statutory rape
B. Rape by sexual assault
C. Traditional rape
D. None of the above.
6. The following, except one, is the human body orifice for purposes of sexual
assault. Which one does not belong to the group?
A. Vagina
 Page 25 of 81

B. Anal orifice
C. Mouth
D. Ear orifice
7. Which one when inserted with lustful intent into the mouth of a person
constitute rape by sexual assault?
A. Penis
B. Pen
C. Stick
D. finger

For sexual assault to prosper, the following should be followed:

Penis-anal orifice or mouth.
Object-genitalia or anal orifice

NOTE: Under R.A. No.  8353, rape can now be committed by a male or female and

the victim is not only female but also male.  
ARSON- no frustrated stage of execution. Mere scorching or discoloration of the
material, even if the building is not burned, constitutes arson.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME- no frustrated, no attempted, always consummated.

3. Attempted
The offender merely commences the commission of the crime directly by
overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution. Meaning, he has to
perform another act, distinct from the act he had already performed, in order to
achieve his criminal design.

Frustrated → naperform na lahat

Attempted → he merely begins, merely commences, how? Directly by overt acts,
but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance

Attempted
a. Commences directly by overt acts
b. If the act is preparatory, he has not reached the attempted stage of felony
 overt means direct external / outer
 for the purpose of attempted felony, the overt act must have a direct relation
to the crime intended to be committed

2 Phases of Execution of an Act:

a) Subjective Phase. The actor still has control of his act. He can exercise
spontaneous desistance.
a. Preparatory act. This is not yet governed by the RPC, because it is still
in the mind of the offender. It has no direct relations yet to the crime
intended to be committed.
 Page 26 of 81

b. Overt act. This is already punishable by law as an attempted stage or

frustrated stage.

b) Objective Phase. The actor already lost control of his act. He cannot any
exercise spontaneous. Already punishable by law under Article 6, RPC.
Example
Q: Person decides to kill somebody, he goes to the drug store, and buys rat
killer intended to mix that to be fed to the intended victim. His acts in
purchasing rat killer, has reached the attempted stage?
A: NO! preparatory lang yan diba, no direct relation in his mind has a direct
relation, but in the state of his mind, so it is a preparatory act, malay mo maraming
rats talaga, so it is different however he comes home he mixes the poison on the
food, he attempted to feed it, overt act, attempted murder, because the direct
relation.
Paano magiging attempted?
Susubo pa lang nya and the cat went to him, cat ate it and the cat died →
attempted, take note that he did not feed because of some cause other than his
spontaneous desistance

Notes:
You put flammable articles, nibuhusan mo ng gas, overt act - attempted
Rape - no frustrated- only attempted and consummated
Consummated rape, when? Slightest penetration of the female genetalia by the
male genetalia already consummates rape. Di na kelangan to go deeper, slightest
penetration, for as long as there is a slightest penetration. This is mere touching of
the labia minora by the erected penis.
What if walang penetration? yung haging haging lng, kasi obviously may intent, for
example, you undress a woman, the male organ, walang penetration that is
attempted. It is not acts of lasciviousness. Why place your male organ over or into
her female genetalia if there is no intent to penetrate? Attempted, but the moment
there is slightest penetration – consummated.

Case:
People vs. 
Attempted – male organ was placed and nagkiskis dun sa thigh nung girl. No
penetration
SC: that is only an attempted rape. It simply constituted the strange thing of the
castle of the orgasmic potency or the shelling of the variable passion.

Example
They inflicted injury on the victim, believing the victim has already died. But he
survived. Is that frustrated homicide?
 Page 27 of 81

Their belief is immaterial. What matter is, “if all the acts of execution were
performed.”
Degrees of Penalty under Art. 75 in relation to Art. 27, RPC
1. Reclusion Perpetua (20 yrs + 1 day—40 yrs)
2. Reclusion Temporal (12 yrs + 1 day—20 yrs) homicide
3. Prision Mayor (6 yrs + 1 day—12 yrs)
4. Prision Correccional (6 months + 1 day—6 yrs)
5. Arresto Mayor (1 month + 1 day—6months)
6. Arresto Menor (1 day—30 days)
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ARTICLE 6; STAGES OF EXECUTION.
Consumated—penalty is the full duration of sentence prescribed by law.
Frustrated—one degree lower from the penalty prescribed by law for the offense.
Attempted—two degrees lower from the consummated felony.
Capital punishment: Death.

Afflictive penalties: Reclusion perpetua; Reclusion temporal; Perpetual or

temporary absolute disqualification; Perpetual or temporary special disqualification;
and Prision mayor.

Correctional penalties: Prision correccional; Arresto mayor; Suspension; and

Destierro.

Light penalties: Arresto menor; and Public censure.

WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE

ARTICLE 7 ARTICLE 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies
are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against person or property.
Light Felonies
As a general rule, Light Felonies are punishable only when they are consummated.
Except those felonies committed against person or property; meaning, if the act
(Light Felony) committed is a crime against person or property, it is still punishable
even if they are only frustrated or attempted. In other words, when the act
committed is not a crime against person or property it is not punishable in the
frustrated or attempted stage if they fall under the classification of Light Felonies.
Q. Why light felonies are not punishable in its frustrated or attempted stage?
A: There is no penalty available for a frustrated or attempted light felony under
Article 75 in relation to Articles 27, and 25 of the RPC. Under “nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege” principle, the court cannot impose a penalty which is not
prescribed by law.

ARTICLE 8 Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony

ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal

to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
 Page 28 of 81

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning

the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.

Q: When is there a conspiracy?

A: When 2 or more persons come into an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it.
Example

2 Kinds of Conspiracy:
1. Conspiracy as a Mode of Incurring Criminal Liability. The act of
conspiracy is not punishable until and unless executed in the consummated,
frustrated, or attempted stage. This is the general rule. Here, the act of one is
the act of all.

2. Conspiracy as a Crime. The Law punishes the act even if it is still in

preparatory stage or subjective phase in the execution of the crime. This is
the exception.

Mere conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable even if the conspired felony is

not consummated, frustrated, or attempted.

Generally as a mode of incurring criminal liability or it is taken as a crime itself only

when expressly made a crime under the RPC / law
If conspiracy is not expressly made a crime under the law specifically the RPC and
conspiracy is simple a mode of incurring criminal liability. It is defined in the law as
a crime
2. Conspiracy as a Mode of Incurring Criminal Liability. This is the general
rule. Here, the act of one is the act of all.

Conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion, coup d’etat, sedition, particular penalty

for as long it is defined a crime and gives a penalty, conspiracy is a crime but if it
is not made/expressly made a crime, more it is given a penalty in the RPC, it is
simple a mode of incurring criminal liability.

2. Mode of incurring criminal liability

Because the act of 1 is the act of all

Example
Even if I, even if Mr. X is the only one who materially perform the act, even he is
the one who is directly stub and kill the victim, kami we were there, did not
 Page 29 of 81

participate in the actual killing for as long as it can be establish that we conspired
to kill, then, we are likewise liable as Principals.

Q. Mode of incurring liability – when do you incur criminal liability?

A. When you perform an act or felony.
So you perform an act, you are the one who killed the victim, kami hindi but we
conspired to commit a crime, in any other manner, we conspire to kill the victim,
we are equally liable as to his death, as Principals, but of course in conspiracy, it
must be established clearly and convincingly as the crime itself although there is no
direct evidence of conspiracy of course its inferred from circumstantial evidence,
was there some agreement if any part is done by them that would show there is
common decide to commit a crime, there is conspiracy.
Even we say there is a conspiracy, because the act of 1 is the act of all, they
conspire but if somebody or one of the conspirators try to prevent the commission
of an act which was not one of those agreed upon, he cannot be held liable.

Example:
We conspire to kill A but napatay na then susunugin yung bahay but you prevent it,
you may not be held liable for arson

General rule: the act of 1 is the act of all

Exception: if 1 of the conspirators try to prevent the commission of another act
which was not agreed upon.
Conspiracy as a Crime. The Law punishes the act even if it is still the mind of the
offenders. This is the exception.
Crimes which are punishable by mere conspiracy
A. Under RPC: (TRIC-SM)
1. Treason (Art. 115)
2. Rebellion (Art. 136)
3. Insurrection (Art. 136)
4. Coup d’ etat (Art. 136)
5. Sedition (Art. 141)
6. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. 186)

B. Under Special Laws: (HAI-ACE; hai-ace)

1. Highway robbery
2. Arson
3. Illegal association
4. Acts of Terrorism under the Human Security Act (RA No. 9372)
5. Certain acts committed under RA 9165
6. Espionage

C. Crimes which are punishable for mere proposal: (TRIC)

1. Treason (Art. 115)
2. Rebellion (Art. 136)
3. Insurrection (Art. 136)
 Page 30 of 81

4. Coup d’ etat (Art. 136)

Requisites of Proposal:
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
There is no proposal when:
1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony.
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal but only a suggestion.
3. What is proposed is not the commission of a felony but some other acts.

FACTS: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, all are high-ranking military officers, had agreed

and decided to commit coup d’ etat. After careful planning and effective execution,
they were able to seize Camp Aguinaldo and changed the Chief of Staff at their
choice.
B. QUESTION: What crime, if any, is committed by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H?
A. Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat
B. Coup d’ etat
C. Rebellion
D. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat

*Once the conspiracy is actually executed, the conspirators shall be liable for the
actual crime they have committed. The conspiracy as a crime is absorbed in the
commission of the crime conspired upon.

2. In the facts above, suppose H was not able to attend the execution of the
conspired felony. What crime, if any, did H commit?
A. Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat
B. Coup d’ etat
C. Rebellion
D. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat

3. Suppose in the facts above, it was X who proposed the execution of coup d’
etat to the above accused. And X actually joined the execution of coup d’ etat. What
crime, if any, did X commit?
C. Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat.
D. Coup d’ etat
E. Rebellion
F. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat

4. X and Y proposed the commission of Sedition to W and Z. So the four made a

careful planning and modus operandi for the execution of Sedition. What crime, if
any, did X, Y, W, and Z commit?
A. Conspiracy to commit Sedition
B. Sedition
C. Proposal to commit Sedition
D. Rebellion
E. None of the above.

5. X and Y proposed the commission of bank robbery to W and Z. So the four

made a careful planning and modus operandi for the execution of bank robbery.
What crime, if any, did X, Y, W, and Z commit?
 Page 31 of 81

A. Conspiracy to commit bank robbery

B. Bank robbery
C. Proposal to commit robbery
D. None of the above.

Nota Bene: It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made
agree to commit the TRIC, because what constitutes the felony is the making of the
proposal. Once the proposal is accepted, it is converted into conspiracy because
“two persons have agreed and decided to commit a felony.”

Proposal to Commit a Felony

A mode of incurring criminal liability, is likewise a crime only if it is made expressly
a crime under the RPC

Examples
Proposal to commit treason, proposal to commit rebellion, proposal to commit coup
d’ etat.

 if it is made expressly made a crime

 it is not necessary that a proposal is accepted, mere proposal even if not
accepted, it is made a crime in so far as the offense and liable, not specifically
made a crime it must be accepted perjury

Example
I decide to induce him to execute a false affidavit, propose the execution, if he will
not accept my proposal. He is not liable
Accept → both will be liable, Principal by Inducement

Q: What if several persons were charged as conspirators, ½ have been

acquitted, the last are guilty/ convicted, is there something wrong?
A: No, People vs. 
→ Nothing irregular because conspiracy is a mode of incurring criminal liability.

ARTICLE 9
Classification of Felonies According to Gravity:

I. Grave Felonies: Felonies which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25,
RPC.
1. Capital punishment
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion termporal
4. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
5. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
 Page 32 of 81

6. Prision mayor
7. Fines—more than P1,200,000.00 (RA No. 10951)

II. Less Grave Felonies: Felonies which the law punishes with penalties which
in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25, RPC.
1. Prision Correccional
2. Arresto Mayor
3. Suspension
4. Destierro
5. Fines equivalent to more than P40,000.00 but not more than P1,200,000.00
(RA No. 10951)

III. Light Felonies: Those infractions of law for the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000.00 or both is provided.
1. Arresto Menor
2. Fine not exceeding P40,000.00(RA No. 10951)

Classifications of Felonies based on Fines:

1. Grave Felonies—more than P1,200,000.00 (RA No. 10951)
2. Less Grave Felonies—more than P40,000.00 but not more than
P1,200,000.00
3. Light Felonies—not exceeding P40,000.00(RA No. 10951)

CLASSIFICATIONS OF FINES UNDER RA NO. 10951

A. Afflictive Penalty: Exceeds P1,200,000.00.

B. Correctional Penalty: Does not exceeds P1,200,000.00 but not less

than P40,000.00.

C. Light Penalty: Less than P40,000.00.

NOTA BENE: importance of classification:
(a) to determine whether or not these felonies can be complexed under
Article 48, RPC.
(b) to determine the prescription of the crime and of the penalty in
accordance with Articles 90 and 91, RPC, respectively.

ARTICLE 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses
which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to
the provisions of this Code (RPC). This Code shall be supplementary to such laws,
unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

Special penal laws have their own rules and principles applicable only to them. RPC
has no application to special laws unless the latter specifically adopts the principles
and doctrines underlying the RPC.
Principles in Criminal Law which are common with RPC and Special Laws:
1. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
2. Dura lex sed lex
3. Pro reo
 Page 33 of 81

4. Proximate cause
5. Conspiracy
ARTICLES 11 TO 15
Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances
Art. 12 Exempting Circumstances
Art. 13 Mitigating Circumstances
Art. 14 Aggravating Circumstances
Art. 15 Alternative Circumstances

Other Circumstances Found Elsewhere in the RPC:

1. Absolutory cause. It absolves the offender from criminal liability, but not
from civil liability. Example, spontaneous desistance.

2. Extenuating circumstances. It serves to mitigate the criminal liability of

the of the offender and has the same effect as that of mitigating
circumstances. i.e, concealment of dishonor in infanticide and maternal
grandparents are concerned—the penalty is lowered by two degrees. Adultery
committed by a married woman abandoned by her husband.
3. IMPUTABILITY—it is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a
person as its author or owner. It implies that the accused has freely and
consciously committed the act done and therefore may be put down to the
doer as his very own.

4. RESPONSIBILITY—it is the obligation to taking the penal and civil

consequences of the crime thus committed. CICL ages 15 years and below,
enjoys criminal IRRESPONSIBILITY.

5. GUILT—it is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to

answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.

JEMAA – they are referred to as modifying circumstances.

Q. Why modifying?
A. Because they modify either to increase or decrease the degree of criminal
liability of a particular accused.

J – there is no criminal liability. Meaning, no crime is committed. The person who

killed another person in self-defense, defense of relatives, or strangers, or in-line of
duty has done no evil but good. In other words, heroism.
E – there is no criminal liability, but there is civil liability. Example: CICL ages 15
years and below; or above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment.
M – there is criminal liability, but reduced. Example: CICL ages above 15 but below
18 who acted with discernment (privileged mitigating circumstance of minority).
 Page 34 of 81

A – there is criminal liability, and the penalty is imposed in the maximum period, or
elevated to a higher degree of penalty when the nature of the crime is changed due
to a qualifying aggravating circumstance.
Example Qualifying aggravating circumstance – killing generally would amount to
homicide, but if there is in attendance in the commission of the crime a qualifying
aggravating circumstance, the crime is qualified from homicide to murder.

Justifying vs. Exempting

2. J – since there is no crime, there is no civil liability except Paragraph 4 → state
of necessity or avoidance of greater injury.

(We all know even in criminal procedure – civil liability flows from the commission
of the crime so if there is no crime, there is no source from which the civil liability
might flow or spring)

E – since there is a crime, there is civil liability. There is no criminal liability but
there is civil liability except paragraphs 4 (accident) and 7 (insuperable cause).
Meaning: with respect to paragraphs 4 and 7 there is neither criminal liability nor
civil liability.

JEM – invoked by the accused.

Aggravating – invoked by the prosecution for the purpose of increasing the degree
of criminal liability of the accused. The prosecution is requesting and trying to prove
to the court that this circumstance should be appreciated against the accused in the
commission of the crime so as to increase the criminal liability of the accused.

ARTICLE 11
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Self – defense (SD)
2. Defense of Relatives (DR)
3. Defense of Strangers (DS)
4. State of Necessity or Avoidance of Greater Evil
5. Fulfillment of a Duty
6. Obedience to Order issued by a Superior Officer

In self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of strangers, the first two

elements of these three defenses are the same:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression

They differ in the 3rd requisite:

SD – lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
 Page 35 of 81

DR - in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
making the defense (the accused) had no part therein / even if the relative being
defended gives the provocation, it is important that the person defending had no
part in the provocation.
DS – the person defending the stranger was not motivated by hate, revenge,
resentment or other evil motives.
The unlawful aggression should have come from the private offended
party.

In all these defenses the indispensable requisite is unlawful aggression.

Q. Why unlawful aggression is indispensable?
A. Because if there is no unlawful aggression, the second requisite (which is
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression) has no basis because you are invoking SD, DR, DS so the unlawful
aggression should have come from the victim. Meaning without the unlawful
aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel.

Incomplete Justifying Circumstance (IJC) – if not all the conditions are present

Q. What is the effect of IJC?

A. It is a privileged mitigating circumstance (PMC).

Q. What is the effect of PMC?

A. It serves to reduce the penalty by degrees. It is 1 degree lower to the mitigating.

Incomplete SD, Incomplete DR, Incomplete DS, Incomplete exempting

circumstance – not all the conditions necessary to justify the act or exempt the
accused from criminal liability are present.

If in any of these defenses (SD, DS, DR) there is no unlawful aggression, even if
the two other requisites are present, you cannot invoke of the PMC of IJC because
as far as these defenses are concerned, the indispensable element is unlawful
aggression coming from the private offended party.

RULE WITH RESPECT TO IJC:

1. If in SD reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself are present but there is no unlawful aggression → no PMC
2. If in SD unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression are present → there is PMC
 Page 36 of 81

3. If in SD unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the

person defending himself are present → there is PMC
4. If in SD one requisite is present, which is unlawful aggression → ordinary
mitigating circumstance.

PAR. 1 - SELF DEFENSE

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

1. Unlawful Aggression from the Victim

Aggression should have come from the victim of the accused

The unlawful aggression must have come from the victim because he is defending
himself or defending his relative or defending a stranger so the aggression should
have come from the victim of the accused.

Q. What is unlawful aggression / What would consist of unlawful

aggression?
A. It is an action either an actual physical assault coming from the victim or the
threat to inflict real injury on the offender. The threat to inflict real injury must be
immediate and imminent, not merely imagined.

Immediate / Imminent – about to happen. There are signs to show that the
aggression is about to happen.

Example
Lumalapit lang sayo yung tao, no threat, you imagined that he will kill you → this is
not imminent.

It must be at the time the unlawful aggression is still existing

If you act / claim SD, it must be at the time the unlawful aggression is still existing
because if you attack somebody after the unlawful aggression has already ceased to
exist, that is no longer SD, you are no longer preventing, you are no longer
preventing any aggression. When the unlawful aggression ceased to exist → that is
simply retaliation.
Example
Ni-saksak ka nya, umalis na sya tapos ni-attack mo pa sya → retaliation
 Page 37 of 81

Binugbog ka, after binugbog ka, bumagsak ka, he left and did not do anything else
and then you stood up and you followed him and stabbed him.
Q. Is that SD?
A. No. Tapos na eh! It should be on going or about to happen. You are simply
repelling the aggression so the aggression must be existing at the time you reacted.

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed to Prevent or Repel the

Unlawful Aggression
- Case to case basis. It would depend on the existence of the aggression as well as
the nature and extent of the aggression because you are trying to repel or trying to
prevent the aggression so it must be reasonable and must depend on the nature
and extent of the aggression.
Example
Nisampal ka nya, sinaksak mo sya. Is that reasonable? No. Kung sinampal ka,
sampalin mo din or suntukin mo.

Minura ka, sinaksak mo – that is unreasonable!

It must be proportionate to the aggression. So it would depend on the nature and

extent or gravity of the aggression. The reasonableness would depend on the
existence of aggression. If there is no aggression there is no basis for repelling.

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Part of the Person Defending

Himself

Q. What is provocation?
A. It is something that would instill somebody to action.

Q. What is lack of provocation?

A. Even if the accused gave the provocation, it was not sufficient.
Meaning: kung wala syang ginawang provocation that could have illicited the
aggression from the private offended party (POP) or magbigay man sya ng
provocation, it was not sufficient to illicit such unlawful aggression from the POP.

PAR. 2 - DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
 Page 38 of 81

3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
making the defense (the accused) had no part therein / even if the relative being
defended gives the provocation, it is important that the person defending had no
part in the provocation.

Q. Who are the relatives?

A. Spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees, relatives by consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree.

Note: If not included in the list, you are simply acting in defense of a stranger.

Spouse must be Legitimate Spouse

The spouse must be a legitimate spouse. If common law spouse, that is defense of
stranger. There should be legitimate relationship between you and the spouse.

Note: The concept of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity in SD is the

same in DR.

3. Even if the Relative Being Defended Gives the Provocation, it is

Important that the Person Defending had no Part in the Provocation

Example
Gerard (brother of Ayce) saw Ayce on the ground about to be hit by the group of
Chat. Gerard did not know that Ayce gave the provocation but it was Ayce who
started it all. Gerard thought that it was Ayce who was the victim. So what Gerard
did, he assaulted the group of Chat. Gerard was acting in defense of a relative even
if Ayce was the one who gave the provocation. What is important is that it Gerard
was not part of the provocation.

PAR. 3 - DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
3. the person defending the stranger was not motivated by hate, revenge,
resentment or other evil motives.

Q. Who is a stranger?
A. A person who is not listed under the concept of relatives.
 Page 39 of 81

Note: The concept of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity in SD is the

same in DS.

3. The Person Defending the Stranger was not Motivated by Hate, Revenge,
Resentment or other Evil Motives

Most of these are circumstantial. It is a matter of proof.

Example
Ariel saw Jessica (a stranger) being mauled by Ayce. Ayce is Ariel’s mortal enemy.
Ariel assaulted Ayce. Ariel claimed that he is defending Jessica who was assaulted
by Ayce. Nobody knew that Ayce is the mortal enemy of Ariel so it is a matter of
proof. What is important is that the person defending was not motivated by hate,
revenge, resentment or other evil motives.

PAR 4 - STATE OF NECESSITY OR AVOIDANCE OF GREATER INJURY / EVIL

Requisites:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

G.R.: There is no crime, and there is no civil liability.

EXC: Paragraph 4. Meaning there is no crime, but there is no civil liability.

Example
Faye was driving her Jaguar car in the zigzag road, head on collision with a bus. If
she swerves her car to the left, she would hit a pedestrian. If she swerves her car
to the right, she would fall and would die. This is avoidance of greater injury, and
naturally, greater injury would be her life. So she swerved her car to the left. This is
self-preservation.
Faye is relieved of criminal liability because she acted in avoidance of greater
injury. Hence, she has to bear the civil liability for any damages that she caused to
the victim.

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR

Rules:
1. It must be obedience to a lawful order of a superior. It is not a blind
obedience. It must be proved that it is a lawful order of superior.
2. If the accused complied with an unlawful order under a mistake of fact, he
has no liability. He will not be criminally responsible.
3. If he acted in compliance with an order which is clearly and patently unlawful,
he cannot invoke the defense of acting in obedience to a lawful order.
 Page 40 of 81

Q. What if he acted in obedience to an unlawful order but he acted in

obedience because of an irresistible force or under a compulsion of an
uncontrollable fear?
A. He is not justified but he will be exempt under Art. 12.

ARTICLE 12—EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
2. A person 15 years of age or under.
3. A person over 15 years of age and under 18, unless he has acted with
discernment.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury
by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.

1. An Imbecile or Insane Person Unless the Latter has Acted During a Lucid
Interval

Imbecility – the person has the mentality of a child 2 to 7 years old. It is not the
chronological age.

Lucid – aware of what he is doing

Insanity – the act must have been performed by the accused in a state of total
deprivation of intelligence. Insanity would include schizophrenia and epilepsy.

Example
Gerard does not know what he was doing at the time he committed the crime. Even
if he has been declared insane but at the time he committed the act, he was acting
during lucid interval. That is not exempting, because if he did it under lucid interval
from his insanity, he is not exempt.
Note: Burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he is exempt / insane. The
accused has to establish his claim of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

2. A person under nine years of age.

15 or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability but the child shall be subjected to an intervention program.
 Page 41 of 81

Q. What about above 15 but below 18 (16 to 17 years old)?

A. Exempt but the child shall be subjected to an intervention program in accordance
with a particular act unless he acted with discernment (he knows what is right and
wrong), in which case, he shall be subjected to the appropriate proceeding in
accordance with law.
The exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344 shall not include exemption
from civil liability which shall be enforced in accordance with law.
Before R.A. 9344 → Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (A.M. by SC) – it is still
consistent. It provides that a minor under 9 at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. Over 9 under 15 at the time of the
commission of the offense, he shall be committed to the care of his father or
mother or the nearest relative or family friend. If, however, the prosecution proved
that he acted with discernment, he shall be subjected to appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law.
Prevailing Rule → R.A. 9344 because it was promulgated 2006.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it
*Relate this with criminal negligence, Article 365, RPC.

Concept of Accident as an Exempting Circumstance

Accident as an Exempting Circumstance → there is no criminal liability but in
Accident (plain) → there is criminal liability under Article 365 of the RPC.
NOTE: To be exempt from criminal liability, the offender must be performing a
lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it. Under Art. 365, fault or negligence is the cause of injury.
Hence, the accused is criminally liable under the principle of culpa. Whereas in
Article 12, there is no criminal liability, only civil liability.

Q. If Charles has a license to drive, he drives his vehicle and in the course
of his driving, he hit another vehicle or run over somebody, liable under
Art. 365. But why he would liable? (He never wanted that to happen.)
A. Because it is in the way that he performed his lawful act. He has a license and he
is driving → he is performing a lawful act, but if he caused injury because he
performed the lawful act recklessly without due care, then he is criminally liable.
It is only when you perform a lawful act with due care can you make use of
accident as an exempting circumstance.

Example
Licensed driver ka and you are driving in the highway, ang bagal bagal mo na nga
20 km/hour, you are reckless? No.
 Page 42 of 81

Saskia is driving inside the compound of San Sebastian at 70-100 km/hour. She is
licensed to drive but she is driving in an area where there are kids playing → that is
reckless.

5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an

equal or greater injury.

Irresistible force & uncontrollable fear – they are connected because both have
the same concept.

Rationale
Q. Why is the offender exempt from criminal liability if he commits a crime
while acting under the impulse of an irresistible force (IF) or compulsion of
an uncontrollable fear (UF)?
A. IF-physical force; UF-psychological force. The accused was reduced to a mere
instrument of the one who employed IF or UF. Both have the same effect, that is, it
will exempt the accused from criminal liability.

IF → for it to be exempting, always remember did this physical force reduced him
to simply being a tool or instrument? He has no choice but do it.
Example:
Bugbog sarado na sya… Pasasabugin mo ba ito o hindi? Pak! Pak! Pak! Pasasabugin
mo ba yung building o hindi? Pak! Pak! Pak! O sige, pasasabugin ko na… 

Note: Common denominator of UF / IF → reduced to being a mere instrument

Note: It does not mean that he has no more intelligence but it should be he has no
more will power or choice. NO FREEDOM!

UF
Example:
You kill this particular person otherwise I will kill your wife or child. He has no
choice because it would mean the death of his wife or child.

IF / UF → always remember for these to be exempting, he was reduced or the

force to be exerted in his person or the intimidation employed was simply reduced
him to being an instrument. He has no choice but do it.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful or insuperable cause.
 Page 43 of 81

Insuperable Cause – it is a cause that cannot be overcome.

Example
Joan gave birth in the forest so she was so weak and she has to leave her baby to
seek for help. She was not able to come back because she was seriously ill, the
baby died. She was subsequently, sued for infanticide. Joan said she was exempt.
Is Joan correct? Yes. Because she was seriously ill at the time (cause that cannot
be overcome) making her go back to her child.

Liability in Exempting Circumstance

If there is an exempting circumstance, there is a crime and therefore there is civil
liability because there is a source from which you get the civil liability except
paragraph 4 (accident) and paragraph 7 (insuperable cause). This means that if the
exempting circumstance is paragraph 4 or paragraph 7, there is no criminal liability
and no civil liability.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Absolutory – means the offender is relieved.
1. Instigation
2. Spontaneous desistance

Entrapment vs. Instigation

Entrapment – the person is engaged in an unlawful activity or the offender is
actually doing the crime, only that he cannot be arrested, so ways and means are
resorted to by the police officers to catch him in the act or in flagrante delicto. A
common form of entrapment is a buy bust operation.

Instigation – it is in the nature of inducement. The offender or the one who

committed the crime did not even think of committing the crime, only that he was
instigated to commit the crime and then when he committed the crime, the police
officers arrested him. The police officer simply induced him to commit the crime,
the offender never even thought of committing the crime from the very beginning.

Q. What could be the absolutory cause as between instigation and

entrapment?
A. Instigation because the offender is simply induced or lead to commit the crime.
It is not entrapment because entrapment is valid the police officers are simply
catching the offender in the act. The offender had been doing the act before.

ARTICLE 13
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
 Page 44 of 81

The following are Mitigating Circumstances:

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances.
2. Minority / senility (Wala na kasi exempt na)
3. Praeter intentionem
4. Sufficient provocation or threat
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Deaf and dumb, blind or other physical defect.
10. Illness
11. Analogous circumstances

Q. What is the effect of mitigating circumstance (MC)?

A. It is either to reduce the penalty by period or by degrees.
Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances
1. Ordinary MC – it serves to reduce the period of the penalty.
In cases of divisible, it serves to reduce the penalty in its minimum.
Note: We talk of the periods of the penalty if it is divisible because a period is one
of the three equal portions of divisible penalty. But it may have an effect with
respect to indivisible not single indivisible, if the penalty consists of 2 indivisible
penalties.
Mitigating Circumstances are appreciated to reduced the penalty either by periods
or by degrees when the penalty imposable upon the accused is a divisible penalty.
Meaning, if the penalty prescribed by law is indivisible, mitigating circumstances
have no effect.
3 Indivisible Penalties:
1. Death
2. Reclusion Perpetua
3. Life Imprisonment.
The above penalties are indivisible because they do not have periods. Just imagine,
there is no minimum, medium, and maximum death penalty.

We do not talk of periods in cases of indivisible penalty.

Example
Death penalty is indivisible. There is no death minimum, death maximum!

2. Privileged MC – it serves to reduce the penalty by degrees. Reduces the

penalty by 1 or 2 degrees.
Example
1 penalty is 1 degree
R Temporal → Prision Mayor
 Page 45 of 81

Article 13, paragraph 1 is a privilege mitigating circumstance, when not all the
elements of a justifying circumstance are present.
Elements of Self-Defense:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and,
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

NOTA BENE: The element of unlawful aggression must always be present. And one
of the other two elements are absent, or both the other two elements are lacking.
Meaning, only the element of unlawful aggression has attended the commission of
the act.

The element of unlawful aggression cannot be dispensed with so as to constitute as

a mitigating circumstance.

If two elements are present, the penalty is lowered by two degrees. If only one
element is present, that is, the unlawful aggression, the lowering of penalty is by
one degree only.

Kinds of Privilege MC:

A. Incomplete Justifying
B. Incomplete Exempting
C. Minority. The CICL, above 15 years old but below 18, had acted with discernment

D. When the act is attended by at least two mitigating circumstances and none of the
aggravating circumstances, the penalty is reduced by one degree.

A & B – meaning not all the conditions are present. Majority of the conditions are
present. Meaning, the circumstance of unlawful aggression is coupled with either
reasonable necessity of the means employed or lack of sufficient provocation. In
other words, not all the three elements of self-defense are present, but the element
of unlawful aggression is constant in every case of privilege mitigating of
incomplete self-defense or incomplete exempting.
G.R. For purposes of Incomplete Justifying and Incomplete Exempting as a
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances, the majority of the requisites should be
present.
Note: if there are 2 or more mitigating and there is no aggravating, it is already a
privileged MC, which means it will reduce the penalty by 1 degree.
Note: In SD / DS / DR → unlawful aggression should always be present. Even if the
majority of the requisites are present for as long as the unlawful aggression is not
present → no incomplete justifying.

6. Passion or Obfuscation

Passion or obfuscation is an ordinary MC.

 Page 46 of 81

Obfuscation – is confusion.

If you commit an offense under passion or obfuscation, it can be

mitigating.
Jurisprudence: for passion or obfuscation to be mitigating, it must have arisen
from lawful sentiments.
Example:
A man witnessed a woman taking a bath. He was so aroused that after the woman
took a bath, when the woman came out, he raped the woman. The man admitted
but he contended that he acted under passion.
Held: The Supreme Court said that the man did not act under passion. He acted
under lust. Lust was never a lawful sentiment.

Q. What if a girl acted because of jealousy?

A. Generally, jealousy is an unlawful sentiment but it will be mitigating if it has a
legitimate basis.

7. Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt

Voluntary Surrender
Requisites:
1. The surrender must be voluntary
2. The surrender must be unconditional
3. It must be a surrender of oneself.

Discussion: There is no problem that in voluntary surrender, the offender

acknowledges having committed the crime. The liability is mitigated because by
voluntary surrendering, the offender unconditionally placed himself subject to the
custody of the authorities. The offender saved the government from the time and
expense in looking for him. The offender is given a concession – his liability is
mitigated.

Surrender must be Voluntary

Q. When is voluntary surrender mitigating?
A. It must be made immediately after the commission of the crime.

Example
Paparating na ang mga pulis, the you said, “I surrender”.
 Page 47 of 81

This is not mitigating because what prompted you to surrender yourself is not
because you really wanted save the government from the time and expense in
looking for you but because palapit na sila.

Surrender of Oneself
Note: You do not surrender the instrument of the crime but yourself

Example
You killed somebody then pumunta ka sa police station and you said “Ito sinu-
surrender ko na yung bolo, may dugo dugo pa, pinatay ko si Mr. X.”
This is not mitigating because you simply surrendered the instrument of the crime
and not yourself.

8. Voluntary plea of guilt

Confession of Guilt (at the arraignment or during the pre-trial) / Admission

of Guilt
Discussion: If you offer to plea guilty to a lesser offense and your offer to plea
guilty to a lesser offense is accepted by the public prosecutor and by the private
offended party, it is valid and you will be allowed to plea guilty to a lesser offense.

Q. Murder under the original information at the time of the pre-trial, you
offered to plea guilty to a lesser offense of homicide. Since you pleaded
guilty and since you made a confession of guilt in open court, will it be
considered as mitigating in your favor?
A. No more. For it to be mitigating, it must be a plea of guilt or confession of guilt
only to the offense as originally charged in the information and that plea should be
a plea of guilt to a lesser offense.

9. Deaf and dumb, blind or other physical defect.

Physical defects – you committed it when you are blind or deaf.

11. Analogous mitigating circumstances

Analogous – means similar

Example
Extreme poverty – if you commit theft under extreme poverty, it is analogous to
state of necessity. This is self-preservation, you have to live and eat.
 Page 48 of 81

If you voluntarily surrendered the stolen property, the Supreme Court said that it
would be analogous to voluntary surrender in a prosecution for theft or robbery.

Note: There are only analogous mitigating circumstances but there are no
analogous aggravating circumstances.
Example
The judge considered rape as analogous to ignominy or physical injuries as
analogous to cruelty.
SC said: by express provision of Article 13, there are only analogous mitigating
circumstances but no analogous aggravating circumstances. (People vs. Regala,
December 2000)
ARTICLE 14
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances

1. Generic
2. Specific
3. Inherent
4. Qualifying
5. Special

1. Generic
Applies to all kinds crimes
Examples
Recidivism, habituality

2. Specific
They apply only to particular cases
Examples
Evident premeditation, treachery, ignominy, and cruelty, they are aggravating
circumstances but specifically applied to crimes against persons

3. Inherent
They are necessarily present in the crime but they are not used in the definition of
the crime. They are part of the crime.
Examples
Abuse of authority / public office is inherent in bribery. Fraud is an aggravating
circumstance inherent in estafa. Deceit is inherent in simple seduction. Unlawful
entry in trespass to dwelling. Disregard of sex is inherent in rape.
 Page 49 of 81

4. Qualifying
It changes the nature of the crime
Examples
Abuse of superior strength, cruelty

When killing is attended by qualifying aggravating circumstances, that killing will be

qualified from homicide to murder.
Simple theft can be qualified to qualified theft.

Example of Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances – treachery, evident

premeditation, abuse of superior strength, cruelty.

5. Special
They arise under special conditions in order to increase the penalty but they cannot
be offset by any mitigating circumstances.
Example
Quasi-recidivism (Article 160 RPC), if after having been convicted of final judgment
or before serving sentence or while serving sentence, the offender commits another
(new) crime and therefore he will be imposed a penalty with a maximum of the
imposable penalty for the new crime.

If a crime is committed by a syndicate – syndicated estafa, syndicated illegal

recruitment, membership in an organized syndicated crime group.

The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. Taking advantage of official position
2. In contempt of or insult to public authorities
3. Age, sex, rank, dwelling
4. Abuse of confidence / obvious ungratefulness
5. Committed in the palace of the chief executive, etc.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band
7. On the occasion and by means of calamity or misfortune
8. Committed with the aid of armed men
9. Recidivism
10. Habituality
11. Price, promise or reward
12. Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel etc.
13. Evident premeditation
14. Craft, fraud or disguise
15. Abuse of superior strength
16. Treachery
17. Ignominy
18. Unlawful Entry
19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or window
20. Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle
 Page 50 of 81

21. Causing other wrong not necessary for its commission

1. Taking advantage of official position

2. In contempt of or insult to public authorities

This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
Public Authorities – do not include the agents of persons in authority.

3. Age, sex, rank, dwelling

Dwelling
Q. When is dwelling aggravating?
A. If the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party who has not given
provocation.

Q. The mother was walking along the street where a house is situated
where her daughter is working as a household helper. The mother heard
the daughter crying (the daughter was verbally and physically abused).
The mother entered the dwelling of the employer of the daughter and
assaulted the employer. Is dwelling aggravating?
A. No. Because the offended party here, who is the employer gave the provocation.
Note that the mother is still liable only that her liability will not be aggravated.

Q. If the offender enters the dwelling of another person who has not given
provocation. Inside the dwelling he dragged the victim. Outside the
dwelling, he assaulted the victim. Can dwelling be appreciated against
him?
A. Yes. For as long as the violence or assault started inside the dwelling. Against
the offended party who has not given the provocation.

Q. What if from the outside, there is no entry into the dwelling, but from
the outside “nibaril nya” yung private offended party who was there inside.
No provocation on the part of the private offended party. Is dwelling
aggravating?
A. Yes. The violence was committed there although from the outside and the victim
gave no provocation.

Note: Burden of proof → prosecution

4. Abuse of confidence / obvious ungratefulness

 Page 51 of 81

5. Committed in the palace of the chief executive, etc.

Situations:
1. Committed in the palace
2. Committed in the palace in the presence of the president
3. Committed anywhere in the presence of the president

Q. What if the crime was committed in the Arlgeui Residence which is

situated in the Malacanan grounds?
A. It is not aggravating (unless in the presence of the president) because the term
“palace” contemplates Malacaňan Palace only.

Note: The Arlegui Residence was built during the time of President Corazon Aquino
because Pres. Aquino does not want to live in Malacaňan Palace so a house was
built for her inside the Malacaňan grounds.

6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band

Discussion: For these three aggravating circumstances to be appreciated against

the accused, the crime was committed in order to facilitate the crime.

Nighttime
It is not enough that the crime was simply committed at night time.

Example
You killed somebody now (nighttime) but there is no showing that you purposely
waited for night time to facilitate the commission of the crime. It just simply
happens that the crime was committed at nighttime. Nighttime in this case is not
aggravating.

Nighttime will only be aggravating to increase the criminal liability of the accused if
it can be shown that it was purposely sought for to facilitate the commission of the
crime.

Q. Why?
A. Because pag night time mas mahirap ang identification lalo na kung maitim sya


The Crime is Committed in an Uninhabited Place

 Page 52 of 81

Example
You want to kill him in a far place, in a warehouse or bodega, wala syang means of
escape or he cannot ask help from anybody. In this case, uninhabited place was
purposely sought for the commission of the crime.

The burden of proof - is in the prosecution that it is an uninhabited place. Na

hinanap yan or dinala sya don for the victim not to be able to seek help from
anybody.

By a Band
This is not a rock band 
This is a criminal band.

Q. When is a crime considered to have been committed by a band?

A. If there are more than 3 armed male factors who committed the crime.

Note: 4 male factors - 3 of them armed and 1 not armed → no band

Note: There is another aggravating circumstance that speaks of armed men (No. 8
of Article 14).
If the crime is committed with the aid of armed men that is a different aggravating
circumstance but if you notice whether committed by a band or with the aid of
armed men, the men in those circumstances are armed.

Q. What would make a band as an aggravating circumstance?

A. 1. The (whole) band or all of them must be armed.
2. At least 4 or more than 3 armed malefactors must have participated in the
commission of the crime.
3. They must be principals by direct participation in the commission of the crime.
Q. If 4 sila but only 3 directly participated in the commission of the crime 1
participated by virtue of inducement. Can you appreciate band as an
aggravating circumstance?
A. No. because at least 4 armed malefactors must have directly participated in the
commission of the crime. All of them must be principals by direct participation.

Q. How is it different from the aggravating circumstance of the crime being

committed with the aid of armed men?
A. 1. With the aid of armed men – the armed men need not necessarily take part on
the commission of the crime. This aggravating circumstance is appreciated only
 Page 53 of 81

against the very person who committed the crime. So ang nag-direct participate ay
yung taong nag-rely sa kanila.
If the crime is committed by a band – it will be appreciated against all of them
because they are all principals by direct participation.
2. With the aid of armed men – this aggravating circumstance will only be taken
against the very person who committed the crime and the armed men who aided
him will be considered as accomplices not conspirators because it was not
mentioned what kind of aid. As long as they are there, they are accomplices.
If the crime is committed by a band – All must have participated directly in the
commission of the crime so that will be appreciated against all of them.

7. On the occasion and by means of calamity or misfortune

Q. What is the purpose of committing the crime?

A. You are taking advantage of the misfortune.
Example
In the course of relief operations, nagnanakaw ka pa. Super criminal ka! 

8. Committed with the aid of armed men

9. Recidivism

Forms of Repetition
1. Recidivism
2. Habituality or Reiteracion
3. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62)
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)

1. Recidivism – if the offender after having been previously convicted by final

judgment is now on trial for a new offense embraced in the same title of the code.

Q. If he has been previously convicted of theft by final judgment and after

which he killed somebody. Is he a recidivist?
A. No. Because theft is a crime against property and the killing or homicide is a
crime against persons. Both crimes must be embraced in the same title of the code.

Q. What if the person after having been previously convicted of homicide,

kills another person. Is he a recidivist?
A. Not necessarily because he has not been previously convicted by final judgment.
Note that at the time of his trial for the new crime which is embraced in the same
 Page 54 of 81

title, he must have been previously convicted by final judgment to make him a
recidivist.

Q. When is judgment by conviction final?

A. After the expiration of the 15-day period reckoned from notice of promulgation of
judgment without any appeal taken from the judgment.

10. Habituality

2. Habituality or Reiteracion – the offender has been previously punished for an

offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than the penalty for
the new crime or he has been previously punished for 2 or more crimes to which
the law attaches a lighter penalty.

Punished for an Offense to which the Law Attaches an Equal or Greater

Penalty
Q. Serious physical injuries – it turns out that before he committed serious
physical injuries, records show that he has been previously punished or he
has served sentence for homicide. Is there habituality?
A. Yes. Because what he committed is equal or greater than homicide.

Note: pag baliktad hindi pwede.

Example
He commits homicide now and he has been previously punished of physical injuries.

Note: homicide to homicide → pwede kasi equal.

Note: In habituality, we are talking about the penalty, if it is greater or equal than
the new crime.

Two or More Offenses to which the Law Attaches a Lighter Penalty

Q. He has been previously punished for 2 counts of slight physical injuries.
He now stands trial for maltreatment. Is there habituality? Is he punished
for 2 or more crimes to which the law attaches a lighter penalty?
A. Yes. Lighter than the new crime.

He has been previously punished for less physical injuries (light offense) to
which the law attaches a lighter penalty. He is now on trial, he commits
slight physical injuries. Is there habituality?
A. None. Light yan eh!
 Page 55 of 81

Note: Lagyan nyo lagi ng “than”. Equal or greater than what? Than the new penalty
for the new offense. Lighter than the penalty for the new offense.

3. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62) – if within a period of 10 years reckoned from

the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes of:
a. Serious physical injuries
b. Less serious physical injuries
c. Robbery
d. Theft
e. Estafa
f. Falsification
he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

Note: “Any of the said Crimes”

Example
He has been convicted of robbery, convicted for 10 years. He has been found guilty
of serious physical injuries. He is a habitual delinquent.

The 3rd time or Oftener – 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

Q. Why is this aggravating?

A. (In a way this is a special aggravating circumstance). Because under Art. 62, if it
is committed for the third time or any of the six crimes → this is penalty for the new
crime “plus” “plus”. The penalty will be increased or added.

4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – after having been previously convicted by final

judgment or before serving sentence or while serving sentence, he commits a new
crime.

Example
Hindi pa sya nakaka-serve or he has not finished serving his sentence by final
judgment, nag commit na naman sya ng new crime, there is quasi-recidivism.

Note: Please remember pareho lang sila ng apelido ng recidivism but they are
totally different.

Recidivism vs. Quasi-recidivism

 Page 56 of 81

Recidivism – the second crime must have been embraced in the same title of the
code as the previous crime of which he was convicted by final judgment.
Quasi-recidivism – there is no such requirement

11. Price, promise or reward

12. Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel etc.

13. Evident Premeditation

Requisites:
1. Time – when the offender has decided to commit the crime.
2. Act – manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination to commit
the crime.
3. Sufficient lapse of time – from the time he decided to commit the crime up to
the time he actually executed his clung to commit the crime.

Example
He decided to kill somebody after his decision to kill somebody he makes
preparation – he conducted a survey – where does his intended victim reside? What
time does he go back to the house? Then he buys the instrument for killing → these
are acts manifestly indicating his clung or determination to commit the crime.

Evident Premeditation – meaning that there is sufficient lapse of time. Note that
evident premeditation is not presumed.

Premeditation – there is “cool” reflection.

Example
Isip?! Isip?! Itutuloy ko ba?

If you kill somebody, you will be liable but your penalty will be increased. You could
have desisted from doing it but the fact that you deliberated on it and you have
sufficient time to reflect on it – Evident premeditation is very obvious. May criminal
perversity ka because you sought / thought to do it you planned to do it
Q. If the offender says “I plan and I have decided to kill the first person I
meet on the street”. He gets an instrument of the crime. He goes out of his
house and sees somebody who is walking and kills that somebody. Can
evident premeditation be appreciated?
A. Yes. The 3 elements are present.

Q. What if he says “I plan to kill Mr. X”. I made the necessary preparations.
I have decided to kill Mr. X. I purchased the necessary instrument jungle
bolo to kill Mr. X. I conducted the necessary moves with which to execute
 Page 57 of 81

my plan to kill Mr. X. On the day when I am supposed to kill Mr. X, I saw
somebody and I killed that somebody. It turned out that somebody is not
Mr. X but Mr. Y. Will I be liable for the death of Mr. Y?
A. Yes. But evident premeditation will not be appreciated against me if I killed
another person because my plan was to kill X. I killed Mr. Y so with respect to the
killing there is no evident premeditation.

14. Craft, fraud or disguise

Craft – cunning presentation

Fraud – misrepresentation

Disguise – Intended to make identification more difficult.

Example
You put a mask to commit a crime

Q. What is the purpose for resorting to this? Why is it aggravating?

A. It would show a greater criminal perversity on the part of the offender. When an
offender resorted to craft or fraud or disguise to deceive the victim and he was able
to accomplish the plan → criminal perversity.

15. Abuse of superior strength

It means greater strength. It is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor. It does not refer to numerical superiority.

Example
3 offenders and 1 victim – it does not necessarily mean that there is abuse of
superior strength

1 on 1 – your victim is parang hindi kumain ng 10 araw, victim mo lelembot

lembot. Ikaw incedible hulk – you abuse your superior strength. There is abuse of
superior strength. The offender took advantage of his greater strength.

16. Treachery
Treachery applies only to crimes against persons.

Note: There is a deviation. A case decided by SC (People vs. Escote, 2003). In this
case treachery was considered in a case of robbery with homicide (eh di ba ang
robbery with homicide is a special complex crime?) What is the main crime in this
case? Di ba robbery? Robbery with homicide is a crime against property and yet in
 Page 58 of 81

this case treachery was considered only to increase the penalty for homicide. How
can they increase? Eh special complex crime nga yan eh. 1 penalty lang binibigay
dyan eh. This case is a deviation.

For Purposes of Determining Whether there is Treachery – Remember 2

things – these must Concur:
1. Mode of attack must have been consciously adopted by the accused.
2. To make sure that at the time of the attack, the victim is defenseless.

Mode of Attack
The mode of attack must have been consciously adopted by the accused meaning
that the mode of attack must have been deliberately chosen by the accused. It is
not an impulsive attack. It is not simply an impulsive reaction of the accused to any
provocation on the part of the victim.

Q. It must have been consciously adopted by the accused or deliberately

chosen by the accused, for what purpose?
A. To ensure the accomplishment of his purpose (without risking self), arising from
any defense that the victim might put up and to make sure that at the time of the
attack, the victim was defenseless.
For as long as it was shown that the victim was defenseless at the time of the
attack – treachery is there.

Q. What if X and Y quarreled. After their fight, X attacked Y from behind. Is

there treachery? (People vs. Samson)
A. No. The SC said that the fact that they quarreled, it must have put the victim Y
on guard that something is going to be done after the fight.

Note: Even if the victim was attacked in front but the attack was sudden and that
at the time of the attack, the victim had no weapon (defenseless) → treachery

17. Ignominy

Ignominy vs. Cruelty

Ignominy – you committed the crime but in the commission of the crime you still
do something to add to the moral suffering of the victim.

Note: Generally, ignominy is not applied to crimes against chastity.

Cruelty – You commit a crime and you still do something else in addition to the
crime that would add to the physical suffering of the victim.
 Page 59 of 81

Example
Case of grave coercion – an old woman was asked to show her underwear. That act
adds to the moral suffering of the old woman.

People vs. Yao (March 2000) – when you committed rape in dog style position. This
is ignominy. But note that rape is a crime against person.

Note: In cruelty, at the time you do other acts, the victim must have been alive
kasi nga it adds to the physical suffering of the victim. The manner is to augment
the victim’s physical sufferings.

New SC Decision: The number of wounds sustained by the victim is not

determinative of existence of cruelty in the commission of the crime. It must be
proved that those wounds were inflicted in a manner that would add to the physical
suffering of the victim.

People vs. Salvador (1987) – victim sustained 56 stabbed wounds. The offender
was convicted of murder. Is there cruelty?
Held: No cruelty. It must be shown by the prosecution that those wounds were
inflicted to augment the victim’s physical sufferings. Homicide not murder.

Example
If the wounds were inflicted successively and the victim is still alive, usually, if it is
successive, hindi mo na nararamdaman. It must be proved that such wounds were
inflicted to augment the physical sufferings of the victim. There must be
circumstantial evidence to show that – tsak! Aray! Tsak! Aray! Tsak! Ang sakit!

18. Unlawful Entry

19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or window

20. Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle

Use of Motor Vehicle

Differentiate if the offense was committed with the use of a motor vehicle → it is
aggravating but if the offense was committed inside a motor vehicle → not
aggravating.

Crime was Committed Under 15 Years of Age

 Page 60 of 81

Mahirap na kasi di ba lahat ng 15 exempt?

It is hard to prosecute kasi sino nagsabi sa kanila na gawin nila?

21. Causing other wrong not necessary for its commission

ARTICLE 15
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Alternative (“either” “or”) – meaning that it may either be mitigating or

aggravating or even empting.

1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of Instruction or Education of the Offender

Q. Why 1, 2, 3 are alternative circumstances?

A. Meaning that relationship could either be aggravating or mitigating, intoxication
could either be aggravating or mitigating, degree of instruction could either be
aggravating or mitigating. It would depend on the circumstances that would be
established.

1. Relationship
Generally, mitigating in crimes against property although relationship may be
exempting in theft, estafa or swindling, malicious mischief, if the crime is
committed mutually by the relatives.

Relatives – mutually committed between:

1. Spouses – the husband and the wife, ascendants, descendants, relatives by
affinity in the same line
Example
Darling nasan na yung alahas ko? Di ka na man nag aalahas ha. Binigay mo siguro
sa babae mo. (Nagnakawan sila)
2. The widowed spouse
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
(Art. 332)

Other Rules:
1. Relationship is aggravating if the victim is a relative of a higher or equal
degree than the accused.
 Page 61 of 81

2. Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating if relationship is an

ingredient of the crime.
Example – parricide

2. Intoxication
Intoxication of the offender is mitigating - if the offender has committed a felony in
a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony.
If the Intoxication is not habitual, or not used to embolden the accused to commit
the planned felony, such Intoxication is a mitigating circumstance.

If intoxication is habitual (G.S.M. Blue - morning, noon and night) or intentional –

it is aggravating but it must be subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.

Q. Why is it aggravating?
A. If it is subsequent to the plan or after your plan to commit the crime, uminom ka
in order for you to commit the crime → this is aggravating. But if intoxication is
subsequent to the commission of the crime → this is not aggravating because you
already committed the crime. Your purpose for drinking is that you are “celebrating”
Time of Intoxication to be aggravating: before the commission of the felony.
Purpose of Intoxication to be aggravating: to embolden the offender in the
commission of a planned felony. 
NOTA BENE: When the intoxication was made or done after the commission of a
felony, such intoxication is not an aggravating circumstance.
FACT: The offender had committed the felony when he was drunk purposely to
embolden him to commit the felony. QUESTION: What circumstance was present
or affected the commission of a felony?
G. Aggravating
H. Mitigating
I. Alternative
J. Exempting
FACT: The offender committed acts of lasciviousness against a bar attendant when
he was drunk. QUESTION: What circumstance was present or affected the
commission of a felony?
A. Aggravating
B. Mitigating
C. Alternative
D. Exempting
NOTA BENE: Under the Pro Reo Doctrine, in cases of ambiguity in the law or
evidence, interpret such ambiguity in favor of the accused. Hence, the Alternative
circumstance above shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
 Page 62 of 81

3. Degree of Instruction or Education of the Offender

Generally, it is mitigating if the offender has a low degree of instruction or
education but definitely not mitigating or aggravating in crimes against property or
crimes against chastity, even in treason. Why? Because no need to be a lawyer to
commit rape or robbery or theft.
In the violation of the Bouncing Check Law, the low education or instruction of the
offender is a mitigating circumstance. However, if the violation of the Bouncing
Check Law is committed by an educated person like a public accountant or a
lawyer, such high degree of education is considered as aggravating circumstance.
ARTICLE 16
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE?

Persons criminally liable

1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories

ARTICLE 17
PRINCIPALS

Principals:
1. Principals by direct participation – material perpetrator of the crime. The
one who actually committed the crime.
2. Principals by inducement – offering promises to another to commit the
crime. The inducement must be the determining factor for the commission of
the crime.
3. Principals by indispensable cooperation – without him or without his
cooperation, the crime would not have been committed. (relate this to
accomplice)

1, 2, 3 – for these principals to be liable, there must be evidence of conspiracy.

Why? Because the act of 1 is the act of all. Even if you induced him and he was not
induced, he is not liable.

If no evidence of conspiracy – only the one who materially perpetrated the crime
is liable.
NOTA BENE: If there is conspiracy, and all the conspirators appeared in the crime
scene pursuant to their agreement or plan in the execution of the crime, all those
who appeared on the crime scene, regardless of their role in the execution of the
act, are principals by direct participation. Because of the conspiracy, the act of one
is the act of all. Hence, the act of the actual direct participants in the execution of
the crime are imputed to all those who appeared at the scene of the crime by virtue
of their conspiracy. Hence, all of them a direct participants.
 Page 63 of 81

Principals by indispensable cooperation vs. Accomplice

Both cooperates, however, only that in principals by indispensable cooperation the
crime could not have been accomplishes without him or without his cooperation.

NOTA BENE: The determination of whether the participant is a principal or

accomplice is a matter of evidence. Again, Pro Reo Doctrine is relevant. Hence, if it
cannot be determined or it is doubtful whether the accused is a principal or
accomplice, then treat the accused as an accomplice, because the punishment due
an accomplice is one degree lower than that of the principal.

Remember the doctrine of implied conspiracy. There is no formal agreement,

plan or discussion of all the accused among themselves as to the commission of a
certain crime. However, due to some kind of organizational culture like sprit de
corp, all persons having the same mind and affiliation are ready and willing to
participate in the commission of an act. On account of implied conspiracy, all the
participants are considered principals, not just accomplices.

Example
He was the only 1 who owns a banca that could bring the offender to a very remote
island. The crime could not have been accomplished without him.

ARTICLE 18
ACCOMPLICES

Accomplice – cooperates but even without his cooperation, the crime could still
have been committed. The cooperation of the accomplice is merely necessary to
facilitate the commission of the crime.

Rule: If there is a doubt with respect to the liability of a person who gives
cooperation, whether he is a principal by indispensable cooperation or accomplice,
doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused being considered as an
accomplice. Use this principle only when there is doubt. Analyze if his cooperation is
necessary.

ARTICLE 19
ACCESSORIES

Accessories – takes part subsequent to the commission of the crime. He is an

accessory after the fact of the commission of the crime.

Note: PD 1612 – Anti Fencing Law.

 Page 64 of 81

Yung fence takes part subsequent to the commission of robbery or theft. This
person will be charged as a fence under PD 1612 or if he takes part subsequent to
the commission of robbery or theft.
Example
Sold articles – if he profits.
If the offender takes part subsequent to the commission of any other crime other
than robbery or theft. He will be charged as an accessory under the RPC.

Importance
This is important because if you take part subsequent to the commission of robbery
or theft, you are a fence, you are charged under special law → the penalty is
higher.
But if you take part subsequent to the commission of any other crime other than
theft or robbery, you will be charged as an accessory under RPC → entitled to a
penalty of 2 degrees lower.

Accomplice – 1 degree lower than the penalty of the principal

Accessory – 2 degrees lower but that would apply to accessories under the law
and not those of taking part subsequent to the commission of theft or robbery.

Q. Can there be conviction of an accomplice or accessory even without

prosecution or conviction of the principal?
A. Yes. If let us say that principal is acquitted because he is exempt from criminal
liability. The importance is you have established the fact of the commission of the
crime.

Q. What if the principal is unknown or his whereabouts is unknown or the

principal is at large or the principal is being tried separately, can there be a
conviction of an accessory?
A. Yes. For as long as the act of the commission of the crime had been established.
For as long as corpus delicti have been established.

Corpus delicti – means the fact of the commission of the crime.

ARTICLE 20
ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Accessories under Art. 20 who are exempt from criminal liability → exempt
with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
adopted brothers and sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degree except
 Page 65 of 81

if they are accessories who profited by the effects of the crime or who assisted the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

Meaning: They are exempt with respect to 2 and 3 (of Article 19) from criminal
liability.

ARTICLE 21
NO FELONY SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY ANY PENALTY NOT PRESCRIBED BY
LAW PRIOR TO ITS COMMISSION

Even if the act appears to be illegal or immoral if there is no law punishing it, the
same cannot be penalize if its not even defined or constitutive of a crime and there
is no penalty provided by the law, hence cannot be penalize.

ARTICLE 22
EXCEPTION – WHEN THE LAW SHALL BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION

ARTICLE 23
PARDON BY THE OFFENDED
PARDON

1. By the Chief Executive (Art. 36)

a. extinguishes criminal liability (absolute pardon)
b. does not extinguish civil liability because the president cannot give
away anything which does not belong to him/her
2. By the Offended party
a. Does not extinguish criminal liability because the offended party is
simply a witness in a criminal case.
b. Extinguishes civil liability if the offended party waives the claim to such
civil liability.

ARTICLE 24
MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT CONSIDERED AS PENALTY

ARTICLES 25 - 113
PENALTIES
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
PROBATION
_________________________________________
 Page 66 of 81

SCALES OF PENALTIES under RPC (3)

1. Art 25
Penalties which may be impose (Principal and Accessory Penalities)

2. Art 70
Successive Service of Sentence (Penalties According to their Severity)

3. Art 71
Graduated Scales of Penalties
 It is in this article where we would see the penalty next higher or lower in
degree.

Example
If in the problem there exist a privilege mitigating circumstance and the
imposable penalty is Reclusion Temporal it will be lowered to one (1) degree and
to find out what is one (1) degree lower that Reclusion Temporal we would rely
on Art. 71, which is Prision Mayor.

We only have scales of penalties under the Revised Penal Code and none under
Special Law, therefore as far as modifying circumstance are concerned, they are not
to be considered in criminal actions involving violation of special law due absence of
scale of penalties. As for violations of RPC the modifying circumstances should be
considered since there is scale of penalties provided for in the same.

DURATION OF PENALTIES

Reclusion Perpetua :
20 years and 1 day – 40 years

Reclusion Temporal :
12 years and 1 day – 20 years

Prision Mayor
and Temporary Disqualification :
6 years and 1 day – 12 years
Prision Correccional, Suspension and Destierro:
 Page 67 of 81

6 months and 1 day – 6 years

Arresto Mayor:
1 month and 1 day – 6 months

Arresto Menor:
1 day – 30 days

Bond to keep the peace:

Such period of time as the court may determine.

Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Perpetua (RP) has been given a duration (20 years and 1 day – 40
years), by virtue of RA 7695 (Heinous Crime Law), upon its promulgation there has
been a confusion. Everyone knows that RP is a indivisible penalty, hence no period.
It is only in divisible penalty where we consider period, which consist of (3 periods,
minimum; medium; maximum), in other words one period of a divisible penalty
is one of 3 equal portions of periods.

Nonetheless, RP remains to be an indivisible penalty, as enunciated by the

Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Pp. v Lucas; the duration of RP was only for the
purpose of determining the number of years when may a person be incarcerated or
imprisoned.

Reclusion Life
Perpetua Imprisonment

1. A penalty 1. Under the

under the RPC Special Law

2. as to duration: 2. Indefinite
20 years and 1
day – 40 years

3. Has an 3. None
accessory penalty

Article 25 – Classification of Penalties

 Page 68 of 81

Principal Accessory
Penalty Penalty

1. Prescribe by 1. Perpetual or
the RPC for the temporary
offense charge absolute or or
special
e.g. treason (RP
disqualification,
–death),
forfeiture,
espionage (Pri.
confiscation, civil
Cor)
interdiction.

2. Has to be 2. Need not be

expressly impose express since it is
in the judgment deemed impose
in every
judgment.
e.g. “is hereby
sentence to suffer
the RP with all
the accessory
penalties
pertinent thereto
pursuant to the
RPC”

Preventive Subsidiary
Imprisonment Imprisonment

1. There is yet no 1. Only after

judgment or the judgment has
accused is been rendered
charged with a
non-bailable
offense or even if
bailable, has no
property or fund
with which to
post bail, who is
being detained
during trial.
 Page 69 of 81

2. This is not a 2. This is a

penalty. If principal penalty,
convicted he will if convict is
given a credit for sentence to pay
the period that he fine, but there is
was detained. no fund to enable
him to pay, he
may be
imprisoned.
Being a principal
penalty must be
expressly
imposed in the
decision.
Example
If in the
judgment it is
stated that “he is
hereby imposed
to pay a fine of
P10K with
subsidiary
imprisonment in
case of
insolvency”
(expressly
imposed)

Example
If it is stated only
“he is hereby
imposed to pay a
fine of P10K” →
no express
declaration as to
subsidiary
imprisonment,
hence, he cannot
be made to
undergo
subsidiary
imprisonment
since it is not
stated in the
judgment

 Confiscation and Forfeiture of Proceeds of a crime: an accessory penalty

hence need not be expressly imposed in the judgment.
 Page 70 of 81

COMPLEX CRIME
1. Regular (Article 48)
a. Compound Crime – one act producing 2 or more grace or less grave felonies
(Concurso Ideal)
Example
throwing of hand grenade (Pp. v. Hernandez), the single act of throwing the
grenade, killing several and seriously wounding others (multiple homicide, multiple
physical injuries)

As distinguished from Continuing, Continued, Continuous Crime – there is a

single crime consisting of series of crime, all arising from one criminal resolution,
committed at or about the same time and place. (Concurso Real). In our
jurisdiction, this concept is no longer adopted. What is being used instead is the
concept of Transitory Crimes, which usually contemplates prosecution, and where
several elements or a crime occurred in different places for purposes of venue.

b. Complex Crime Proper – one crime is a necessary means to commit the other
crime.
Example
Estafa thru falsification of public document; forcible abduction with rape

2. Special - arising in the course of, by reason of, on occasion of: (the law
specifically provides what penalty is to be imposed). E.g. in the course of, by reason
of, on occasion of robbery someone is killed “Robbery with homicide”; in the course
of, by reason of, on occasion of robbery someone is rape “ Robbery with rape”

Compound Crime
Q. What if one act produces 2 or more grave, less grave and light felonies,
will there be a compound crime?
A. Yes, with respect to the grave and the less grave and the light felony would be
segregated which cannot be complex.

People vs. Lawas (1960)

Involves a single act of pulling the trigger of an machine gun which produces
several bullets and so several persons were killed. SC in this case held that the
single act of producing the trigger and producing several deaths is a compound
crime. In this case there were several accused holding a machine gun, and all of
them fired at the same time and it cannot be determine, from whose gun the
bullets came from. In this case it was considered a compound complex crime.

Pp. v. Tabaco (1992)

 Page 71 of 81

`Involves gunfire from a rifle, which resulted to 4 killings. It cannot be considered

as compound complex crime even a single act of pulling the trigger, it is not the act
of pulling the trigger and producing several deaths because that is the determining
factor but the number of bullets which are actually fired and produces several death
that would be determinative whether it is complex or not. Each person hit by
different bullets is a victim of separate homicide or murder. In this there is only
one accused, so he has been identified as the person who killed several persons
from whose gun the bullets were fire. In Pp. v. Lawas it cannot be determined from
whose gun the bullets came so what the SC held is that the crime involves a
compound crime.

Q. What if one of the components of a complex crime has not been proved?
What is the effect? Can the accused nevertheless be held liable of the other
crime?
A. Yes, provided that the other crime is proven beyond reasonable doubt and the
other crime not proven he shall be deemed acquitted.

Q. What if both crimes were proved? What is the penalty?

A. The penalty for the most serious offense shall be imposed in its maximum
period. There lies the difference between a regular and special complex crime for in
the latter, the law specifically provides a penalty for that special complex crime.
While in the former, the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period
shall be imposed.
Divisible Penalty – it is composed of 3 periods, 1 period of a divisible penalty is
one of the 3 equal portions of a divisible penalty (Period: Minimum, Meduium,
Maximum). A period is different from a degree.

 A period is one of the 3 equal portions of a divisible penalty, a PENALTY is 1

DEGREE. However if one penalty consist of a period; For example the penalty is
PRISION MAYOR MAXIMUM as illustrated below:

Prision Maximum 1 period 2 periods

Mayor Medium
Minimum

Q. If 1 penalty is 1 degree, what is the penalty next lower in degree?

A. Prision Mayor Medium

If penalty consist of 2 periods, then the penalty next lower in degree would be that
2 periods lower as well. For instance, the penalty prescribe by the law for the
offense charged is PM medium and maximum, that is one penalty, one
degree lower consist of 2 periods, then 2 periods down so the penalty next
 Page 72 of 81

lower in degree of PM medium and maximum, would be PRISION CORRECIONAL

MAXIMUM AND PRISION MAYOR MINIMUM.

If the penalty consist of the whole extent of PRISION MAYOR, one degree
lower consist of 3 periods is PRISION CORRECIONAL.

Penalty for the Principal (P), Accessory (*A) and Accomplices (A)
The numbers represent the degrees

Consummated Frustrated Attempted

P 0 1 2

A 1 2 3

* 2 3 X
A

The basis in determining the imposable penalty would always be the penalty
prescribe by the code for the offense charge. That penalty is always imposed on
the principal; the penalty for the principal in the consummated stage of the felony
is the penalty prescribe by the code for the offense charge, represented in the table
as 0. (Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony, in general terms
it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony). The
reckoning point is penalty prescribe by law for the principal in the consummated
stage, which is the penalty prescribe by the code for the offense charge

The penalty for the accomplice in the consummated stage of the felony is 1
degree lower than that prescribe by the code for the offense charged.

Example
The penalty prescribe by the code for the offense charge is Reclusion Temporal
(for the principal in the consummated stage)

Accomplice-Consummated (Prision Mayor) – 1 degree lower than the penalty

prescribe by for the principal in the consummated stage

Accessory- Consummated (Prision Correcional) – 2 degrees lower than that

prescribe by for the principal in the consummated stage

Principal Frustrated – 1 degree lower than the penalty prescribe by law for the
principal in the consummated stage
 Page 73 of 81

Maximum
Rules for the Applicable of Divisible Penalties (Article 62)
Divisible Penalty (Where it contain periods) Example RT Medium

Minimum

1M  0A = minimum
Accomplice Frustrated – 2 degrees lower than the penalty prescribe by law for
the principal in the consummated stage

Accessory Frustrated – 3 degrees lower than the penalty prescribe by law for the
principal in the consummated stage

Principal Attempted - 2 degrees lower than the penalty prescribe by law for the
principal in the consummated stage
Accomplice Attempted - 3 degrees lower than the penalty prescribe by law for
the principal in the consummated stage

Rules for the Applicable of Indivisible Penalties (Article 63)

The ff are Indivisible Penalties (where there are no Periods)

1. Death
2. Reclusion Perpetua

1st Paragraph: in all cases where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be impose regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may
have attended the commission of the deed.

Example
If the court says, the penalty for this offense is RP (single indivisible); impose
the same irrespective of any mit / agg circumstance except: if it is a privilege
mitigation which operates to, lower the same to one degree.

The law itself did not qualify, but in jurisprudence, it held that in cases where the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of agg/mit cir. except: if it is a privilege mitigation (incomplete justifying
exempting) which operates to, lower the same to one degree.

In this case, RP lower by one degree is RT.

 Page 74 of 81

If on the other hand the law says the penalty for this offense is RP and there is in
attendance voluntary surrender, still is RP because voluntary surrender is only
Mitigating.

2nd Paragraph: in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty compose of 2
indivisible penalties the following rule shall be observed

Example
If one penalty consist of two indivisible penalties RP TO DEATH, now consider the
following circumstance:

1M  0A = impose the lesser penalty

0M + 1A = impose the greater penalty
0M + 0A = impose the lesser penalty
Successive Service of Sentences
(Article 70)

1st Paragraph: When the offender has to serve 2 or more penalties he shall serce
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit.

Example
Q. If has to serve 10 yrs, 3 years, 2, years and fine of 10,000, can this be
serve simultaneously?
A. Yes, with respect to fine pay them then imprisonment.

Example
Q. If has to serve 10 yrs, 5 years, 3 years, 2 years of imprisonment, Can he
serve them successively?
A. No. It has to be served successively.

If it cannot be served simultaneously, serve it in accordance with order of their

severity in the following:
 Death
 Reclusion Perpetua
 Reclusion Temporal
 Prision Mayor
 Prision Correccional
 Arrestom Menor
 Destierro
 Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
 Temporary Absolute Disqualification
 Page 75 of 81

 Suspension from Public Office, the right to vote and be voted for, the
right to follow a profession or calling
 Public Censure

Note: Notwithstanding the following rule, the maximum duration of the convict’s
sentences shall not be more than “three-fold” , the length of time corresponding
to the most sever of the penalties impose upon him.
Requirements:
1. The convict has serves at least 4 sentences/penalties
2. The total sentences exceed the most sever times 3 but in no case exceeds 40
years
Example
10 yrs, 20 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs = 46 ; the most sever is 20 x 3 = 60 (3-fold length of
time)
In this case, the three-fold service of sentence rule does not apply because the
total sentence is 46 and it does not exceed 60. But in no case it should still exceed
40 yrs in the case

In case where it would be the other way around, where the three fold length of
time is 46 and the total sentence is 60 yrs, then adopt the three fold length of time
which is 46, but still in no case it would exceed 40 yrs, so in this case, the year of
imprisonment is still 40.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

Purpose: redeem valuable human material, the offender is given another chance,
in case where he had served the minimum of the indeterminate penalty he would
be eligible of parole.

This law does not apply to:

a. indivisible penalties of Death, Life Imprisonment, Reclusion Perpetua
(pursuant to Article 63 parg. 1) that when the penalty impose is single and
indivisible, the same shall be imposed without regard to any of modifying
circumstance
b. Prison terms: of not more than 1 year.
c. Crimes of: Treason, Proposal or Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Misprision
of Treason, Rebellion, Espionage, Sedition, Piracy.
d. Offenders who are: Habitual delinquents, escapees from confinement,
evaders of sentence violators of conditional pardon granted by the Chief
Executive.
e. Non-prision sentences of: destierro, disqualification etc.
 Page 76 of 81

Note: it happen it the Bar, where the examinees are asked to compute the
imposable indeterminate penalty, they went through the motions of computing.
when in fact the offender involve is disqualified.

Application

 Always remember that the indeterminate penalty always consist of 2

penalties, the maximum and the minimum. For purposes of
indeterminate penalty this are not considered as periods of a divisible
penalties, but are considered penalties in itself.

 The indeterminate sentence law applies to both crimes penalized by the

RPC and other special law, but only that the application would differ,
but both always consist of 2 penalties still.

 the application of ISL is mandatory provided that the offender does not fall to
any of those disqualified under the ISL

 How to get the Minimum and Maximum.

Example
In the bar where a question gives a penalty (which is considered the
reckoning point: the penalties prescribe by the code for the offense charge is
the reckoning period)

 Application in Special law: Take note that: Special law has no scale of
penalties, so one does not consider the modifying circumstances, since it
provides its own penalty for the violation of such law.

Ex: 2 years to 10 years imprisonment (as given in the problem). Determine

now the imposable indeterminate penalty. The rules said that if its an offense
penalize under the special law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty
should not be below the minimum provided in the law and the maximum
should not be beyond the maximum provided in the law

o So the penalty that may be imposed is: “he is hereby sentence to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of 2 years as minimum to 8 years as
maximum.

o What is indicative that the penalty given is indeterminate? The phrase:

“as minimum” “as maximum”

 Application if RPC: Take note that: Even if a crime is penalized under the
RPC one cannot deviated from the rule that indeterminate penalty always
consist of 2 penalties (minimum and maximum)

Example
 Page 77 of 81

If the penalty prescribe by the code for the offense charge is RT (always the
reckoning point as given in the exam). Apply now the ISL, or determine the
imposable indeterminate penalty.

To get the minimum: it is fixed at 1 degree lower that the maximum penalty
impose of RT in this case 1 degree lower is Prision Mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12
yrs).
 So the minimum is anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree that that prescribe the code in the offense charge. (within: 6yrs and 1
day to 12 yrs “as minimum”)

To get the maximum: is determined by considering the presence of modifying

circumstances applying Rule 64. Remember that Privilege Mitigating Circumstance
must be first considered before applying the said rules. The basis is still the penalty
prescribe by the code for the offense charge which here is RT.

1M  0A = minimum
0M + 1A = maximum
0M + 0A = medium

 So for instance if there is 1M,0A the indeterminate penalty would be:

o “the convict is hereby sentence to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of, anywhere within the range of PM as minimum to RT
minimum as maximum (6 yrs. And 1 day as minimum to RT
minimum as maximum)

Another Example
The penalty prescribe by the code for the offense charge is Prision Mayor
Minimum: (1 degree agad) = Prision Correccional – 6 mon. and 1 day to 6
yrs.

Maximum: (0M + 0A) = Prision Mayor medium

Indeterminate Penalty: is anywhere within the range of PC as minimum to PM
medium as maximum

Q. What if in the problem there is an attendance of Privilege Mitigating

Circumstance?
A. Lower the penalty impose to 1 degree at the beginning before applying the same
rule.

Example
The penalty imposed is RT, with attendance of privilege mitigating circumstance,
determine the indeterminate penalty.
 Page 78 of 81

 Immediately lower to 1 degree, which is PM (now would be the reckoning

point)

Minimum: (1 degree agad) = Prision Correccional – 6 mon. and 1 day to 6

yrs.

Maximum: (0M + 1A) = Prision Mayor maximum

Indeterminate Penalty: is anywhere within the range of PC as minimum to PM

maximum as maximum.

Execution of Penalty:
 No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of Final Judgment. The judgment
must have attained finality before I may be executed.

Q. When does a judgment attain its finality:

A.
 If one failed to file notice of appeal within the reglementary period of 15 days,
reckoned from promulgation or notice of judgment.
 there is waiver of right to appeal,
 total or partial service of sentence
 filing application for probation

Suspension of Sentence
 15-18 years old acting with discernment (suspended sentence)

 Suspension of Sentence in case of Insanity

 When a convict becomes insane or imbecile after final sentence has
been pronounce, execution of sentence only as regards the personal
penalty not payment of his civil or pecuniary liability. If he recovers
reason his sentence shall be executed unless the penalty has prescribe
 If while serving sentence becomes insane, above provision applies.

 Death sentence shall be suspended when:

o Woman while pregnant
o Woman within 1 year from delivery
o Person over 70 yrs of age
o Convict who becomes insane, after final sentence of death has been
pronounced.

Total Extinction of Criminal Liability

D - death of convict that occurred before final judgment Only as to his personal
liability
A - absolute Pardon of Chief Executive
S - service of sentence\
 Page 79 of 81

P - prescription of offense
A - amnesty (extinguishes the penalty and all its effects)
M - marriage of the offended woman with the offender in the crimes of rape,
seduction, abduction, and
acts of lasciviousness that must be contracted in good faith
P - prescription of penalty

Effect of death of the Accused pending appeal of his Conviction

 The death of the accused pending the appeal of his conviction will
extinguish his criminal liability as well as his civil liability arising from the
crime committed.
 However, civil liability arising from sources other than the crime committed
survives and maybe pursued in separate civil action. (law, contract, quasi
contract, quasi delict)

Prescription of Crimes: is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to

prosecute the offender, after lapse of certain time. Commence to run on the date
discovered by the offended party, authorized person or agents. Base on penalty
prescribe by RPC

1. Crimes punishable by:

a. Death, reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal - 20 years
b. Afflictive penalties - 15 years
c. Correccional penalties – 10 years, except: Arresto Mayor – 5 years
 When the penalty prescribe by law is a compound one, the
highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the
rules contained above.
2. Crime of Libel – 1 year
3. Crime Oral defamation and Slander by Deed – 6 months
a. Simple Slander – 2 months
b. Grave Slander – 6 months
4. Light Offenses – 2 months
5. Crimes punishable by fines:
a. If the fine is afflictive – 15 years
b. If the fine is correccional – 10 years
c. If it is light – 2 months.
 The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of fine should not be
considered in determining the period of such crimes
 When fine is an alternative penalty higher than the on the
penalty which is imprisonment, prescription of the crime is base
on the fine

Prescription of Penalties: loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to execute

the final sentence or penalty after certain lapse of time.

1. Death, RP, RT – 20 years

2. Prision Mayor and other Afflictive Penalties – 15 years
3. Correccional Penalties – 10 years except; Arresto Mayor – 5 years
4. Light Penalties – 1 years
 Page 80 of 81

 Pursuant to the rule that a judgment is executed only when it becomes final,
hence we only talk of prescription of penalty after the judgment has become
final
 The penalty must be imposed by final judgment. Hence, when the convict
appealed and thereafter fled to the mountain, the penalty impose upon him
would never prescribe, because pending the appeal, the sentence is not final.
 In prescription of crimes – It is the penalty prescribe by law that should be
considered
 In prescription of penalty – it is the penalty imposed by the court that is
considered.

Commence to run: from the date when the culprit evaded the service of sentence.

Interrupted when the convict:

 Surrenders
 Arrested
 Goes to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty, or
 Commits any crime before the expiration of the period of prescription

o Within the he period of prescription of penalty it has to be executed, the

convict would have to be made to serve the penalty

Difference between Amnesty and Absolute Pardon

Amnesty
1. Applies only to Political Offenses
2. Looks backward and abolishes the offense, and the person would stand before
the law as though he committed no offense. Makes an ex-convict no longer a
recidivist, because it obliterates the crime itself
3. Granted by presidential proclamation with concurrence of the Congress and
there for it has to be taken judicial notice of by the courts. Ones the court
takes judicial notice of such fact, one does not have to present evidence to
prove such fact. It is an official act of the Chief Executive.
4. Amnesty may be granted even before trial or during investigation, a
conviction is not necessary.

Pardon
1. includes any crime
2. Looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequence of his
conviction
3. Private act on the part of the Chief Executive, therefore it must be pleaded
and proved by the person who has been pardoned.
4. Pardon applies only when the person has already been convicted

Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. This means he is civilly liable only
for the consequence of the crime, which is the basis of the criminal action. This is
the only civil action which is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the civil
action flowing from the crime subject of the criminal case.
 Page 81 of 81

Subsidiary Liability

Subsidiary Liability of the employer of the convict;

a. Is not automatic. If the accused-employee fails to pay, the subsidiary liability
of the employer will set in. It is not automatic in the sense that there must
first be conviction of the employee.
b. A reservation to prosecute the employer for his subsidiary liability is not
necessary. The subsidiary liability of the employer is not determined in the
same criminal case against the employee; hence there is no need to reserve.

What Civil Liability Includes:

1. Restitution – the thing itself must be restored, even though it is found in

possession of third person who acquired it by lawful means, saving to the
latter his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.
2. Reparation – the court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing whenever possible, and its special
sentimental value to the injured party.
3. Indemnification of consequential damages – include not only those
caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime

Set Indemnification (by jurisprudence)

a. Homicide, murder – 50,000php
b. Rape of the first form – 50,000php + moral damages of 50,000php
c. Rape of the second form – 25,000php + moral damages of
25,000php
d. Rape committed under the circumstances where previously
punishable by death – 75,000php+ moral damages 75,0000php
e. Rape with homicide – 100,000php + 100,000 moral damages

Partial Extinction
1. Conditional Pardon
2. Commutation of Sentence
3. Good Conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his
sentence
4. Parole – because after you shall have served the minimum indeterminate
penalty, he could be release.