CHAPTER 1

FELONIES

ART. 9 Penalties (imprisonment): Importance of Classification

Grave Felonies, 1. Grave felonies – afflictive penalties: 6 yrs. and 1 day to reclusion perpetua 1. To determine whether the felonies can be
Less Grave (life) complexed or not.
Felonies and 2. Less grave felonies – correctional penalties: 1 month and 1 day to 6 years 2. To determine the prescription of the crime and
Light Felonies 3. Light felonies - arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) of the penalty.

As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave or light felony:

1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and the accomplice are
liable. The accessory is not.

Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons or property that
criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice, even though the felony
is only attempted or frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.

ART. 10. Offenses General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.
not subject to the
provisions of RPC Exceptions:
1. when special law provides otherwise
2. when provision of RPC are impossible of application, either
by express provision or by necessary implication

Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

- Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
- Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
- Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime

Note: When the special law adopts the penalties imposed in the RPC i.e.
penalties as reclusion perpetua, prision correccional, etc. the provisions of the
RPC on imposition of penalties based on stages of execution, degree of
participation and attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstance may
be applied by necessary implication.
 CHAPTER 2
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

ART. 11 The following do not incur any criminal liability: Additional Info:
Justifying 1. Par. 1 Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights : SELF- CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
Circumstances DEFENSE LIABILITY:
a. Justifying
Elements: (url) b. Exempting
a. Unlawful aggression c. Mitigating
i. indispensable requirement d. Aggravating
ii. - There must be actual physical assault or aggression or an e. Alternative
immediate and imminent threat, which must be offensive
and positively strong. Imputability - quality by which an act may be
iii. - The defense must have been made during the existence ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It
of aggression, otherwise, it is no longer justifying. implies that the act committed has been freely
iv. - While generally an agreement to fight does not constitute and consciously done and may, therefore, be
unlawful aggression, violation of the terms of the put down to the doer as his very own
agreement to fight is considered an exception.
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it - Implies that a deed may be
imputation to a person
Test of reasonable depends on:
i. weapon used by aggressor Responsibility - obligation of suffering the
ii. physical condition, character, size and other consequences of crime. It is the obligation of
circumstances of aggressor taking the penal and civil consequences of the
iii. physical condition, character, size and circumstances of crime
person defending himself
iv. place and occasion of assault - Implies that the person must take the
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending consequence of such deed
himself
Guilt - element of responsibility, man cannot
Note: Perfect equality between the weapons used, nor material be made to answer for the consequences of a
commensurability between the means of attack and defense by crime unless he is guilty
the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required
Question:
Reason: The person assaulted does not have sufficient a.Justifying Circumstances: Defense of Honor
opportunity or time to think and calculate
When A arrived home, he found B raping his
Rights inc. in SELF-DEFENSE: daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took
1. defense of person his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with
2. defense of rights protected by law Homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his
3. defense of property (only if there is also an actual and imminent danger daughter's honor.
on the person of the one defending)
4. defense of chastity Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of
any mitigating circumstance or circumstances?
Kinds of SELF-DEFENSE:
a. self-defense of chastity – there must be an attempt to rape the victim No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his
b. defense of property – must be coupled with an attack on the person of the daughter's honor in having killed B since rape
owner, or on one entrusted with the care of such property. People v. was already consummated; moreover, B
Narvaez, (GR No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983) Attack on property alone already ran away, hence, there was no
was deemed sufficient to comply with elements of unlawful aggression. aggression to defend against and no defense
c. self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good to speak of.
name.
A may, however, invoked the benefit of the
“Stand ground when in the right” - the law does not require a person to mitigating circumstance of having acted in
retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly immediate vindication of a grave offense to a
weapon. descendant, his daughter, under par.5,
article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as
NOTE: Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their amended.
Children Act of 2004), victim-survivors who are found by the Courts to be
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) do not incur any B.Defense of Property
criminal or civil liability despite absence of the necessary elements for the The accused lived with his family in a
justifying circumstance of self-defense in the RPC. BWS is a scientifically neighborhood that often was the scene of
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight,
women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun
to investigate what he thought were footsteps
2. Par. 2. Anyone who acts in DEFENSE OF RELATIVES of an uninvited guest. After seeing what
Elements: appeared to him as an armed stranger looking
a. Unlawful Aggression (indispensable requirement) around and out to rob the house, he fired his
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights
c. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned
the defense had no part in such provocation. out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the
kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused
Relative entitled to the defense: was indicted for serious physical injuries.
1. spouse
2. ascendants Should the accused, given the circumstances,
3. descendants be convicted or acquitted? Why?
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity
in the same degrees The accused should be convicted because,
5. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree even assuming the facts to be true in his belief,
his act of shooting a burglar when there is no
NOTE: The relative defended may be the original aggressor. All that is unlawful aggression on his person is not
required to justify the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part justified. Defense of property or property right
in such provocation. does not justify the act of firing a gun at a
burglar unless the life and limb of the accused
3. Par.3. Anyone who acts in DEFENSE OF STRANGER is already in imminent and immediate danger.
Elements: Although the accused acted out of a
a. unlawful aggression (indispensable requirement) misapprehension of the facts, he is not
b. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it absolved from criminal liability.
 c. person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive C.A chanced upon three men who were
attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men,
4. Par. 4. Anyone in DEFENSE OF STATE OF NECESSITY (Avoidance of was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing
Greater Evil or Injury) that B was actually the aggressor because he
Elements: had earlier challenged the three men to a fight.
a. evil sought to be avoided actually exists A shot C as the latter was about to stab B.
b. injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
c. no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it May A invoked the defense of a stranger as a
justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?
NOTE: The necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of any law by
the actor. Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance
of defense of stranger since he was not
5. Par. 5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR involved in the fight and he shot C, when the
OFFICE latter was about to stab B. There being no
Elements: indication that A was induced by revenged,
a. accused acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a resentment or any other evil motive in shooting
right or office C, his act is justified under paragraph 3, Article
b. 2. the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence 11 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
of the due performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or
office. D. Avoidance of Greater Evil
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked
NOTE: The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the
position claiming he was discharging at the time of the commission of the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from
offense. It must also be shown that the offense committed was the shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled
necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful exercise of a with him for possession of the gun.
right or office
FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB, and CC
were charged with murder.
6. Par. 6. OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER
Elements: In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
a. an order has been issued circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or
b. order has a lawful purpose (not patently illegal) injury, contending that by preventing ST from
c. means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a
greater evil.
NOTE: The superior officer giving the order cannot invoke this justifying
circumstance. Good faith is Will AA's defense prosper?
material, as the subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if
he is not aware of its illegality and he is not negligent. No, AA's defense will not prosper because
obviously there was a conspiracy among BB,
General Rule: Subordinate cannot invoke this circumstance when order is CC, and AA, such that the principle that when
patently illegal. there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all, shall govern.
Exception: When there is compulsion of an irresistible force, or under
impulse of uncontrollable fear. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a
legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified
as a defense of his father against the unlawful
aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend
his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil
inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a
lawful act.What AA did was to stop a lawful
defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC
achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.

E. Fulfillment of Duty
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her
bracelet in her home. The following day, at
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor,
22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory
reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of
beer.Lucresia noticed her bracelet around the
right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left,
Lucresia went to the nearby police station and
sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat.
Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the
house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat.
Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and
tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and
ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired
two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued
to run and when he was about seven meters
away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-
Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled
towards a fence, intending to pass through an
opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was
about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at
Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat.
Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but
because of profuse bleeding, he eventually
died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently charged
with Homicide. During the trial, Pat. Reyes
raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that
he acted in the fulfillment of a duty.

Is the defense tenable? Explain.

No, the defense of Pat.Reyes is not tenable.

The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of
 a duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that
the injury or offense committed be the
unavoidable or necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty (People vs. Oanis, et.
al, 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the
accused acted in the fulfillment of a duty.

After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was

already crawling, there was no need for Pat.
Reyes shot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes
acted beyond the call of duty which brought
about the cause of death of the victim.

ART. 12. 1. Par. 1. IMBECILITY OR INSANITY Exempting Circumstances - grounds for

Exempting exemption from punishment because there is
Circumstances Imbecile - one while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
that of children between 2 and 7 years old. He is exempt in all cases from conditions which make the act voluntary or
criminal liability. negligent.
Insane - one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or without
the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of will. Mere Basis: The exemption from punishment is
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. based on the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence
General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability of negligence on the part of the accused.

Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval. Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a
matter of defense and must be proved by the
NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
commission of the crime because the presumption is always in favor of
sanity.

2. Par. 2. UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE Question:

John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching
Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission the television program "Zeo Rangers"." One
of the crime. There is absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a evening while he was engrossed watching his
minor under 9 years of age. favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed
the channel to enable her to watch "Home
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act a minor along the Riles." This enraged John who got
15 years and below is exempt from criminal liability his father's revolver, and without warning, shot
Petra at the back of her head causing her
instantaneous death.
 Is John Criminally liable?

No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra

because he is only 8 years old when he
committed the killing. A minor below nine (9)
years old is absolutely exempt from criminal
liability although not from civil liability. (Art.12,
par.2, RPC).

3. Par. 3. PERSON OVER 9 AND UNDER 15 ACTING WITHOUT Question:

DISCERNMENT While they were standing in line awaiting their
NOTE: Such minors must have acted without discernment to be exempt. If
vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
with discernment, he is criminally liable. repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his
11 years, 2 months, and 13 days old classmate
Presumption: The minor committed the crime without discernment. in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary
School. Irritated, Katreena turned around and
DISCERNMENT – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of
of the unlawful act, which is shown by the: the ball pen hit the right eye Pomping which
1. manner the crime was committed bleed profusely. Realizing what she had
2. conduct of the offender after its commission caused, Katreena immediately helped
Pomping. When investigated, she freely
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but below 18 who acted without admitted to the school principal that she was
discernment is exempt from criminal liability responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye.
After the incident, she executed a
statement admitting her culpability. Due to the
injury, Pomping lost his right eye.

a. Is Karen criminally liable? Why?

b. Discuss the attendant circumstances and
effect thereof.

a. No, Katreena is not criminally liable although

she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than
fifteen (15) years old although, over nine (9)
years of age, she is generally exempt from
criminal liability. The exception is where the
prosecution proved that the act was committed
with discernment. The burden is upon the
prosecution to prove that the accused acted
with discernment. The presumption is that such
minor acted without discernment, and this is
strengthened by the fact that Katreena only
reacted with a ballpen which she must be using
 in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping's
vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail.
In other words, the injury was accidental.

b. The attendant circumstances which may be

considered are:

1. Minority of the accused as an exempting

circumstances under Art.12. paragraph 3,
Revised Penal Code, where she shall be
exempt from criminal liability, unless it was
proved that she acted with discernment. She is
however, civilly liable.

2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the

accused is a privilege mitigating circumstance.
A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2)
degrees than that prescribed for the crime
committed shall be imposed in accordance with
Art.68. paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code. The
sentence, however, should automatically be
suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of
Republic Act No.8369 otherwise known as the
"Family Courts Act of 1997".

(1) Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary

mitigating circumstance of not intending to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed,
under Art.13. paragraph 3, Revised Penal
Code; and

(2) The ordinary mitigating circumstance of

sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.

4. Par. 4. ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION CAUSING IT

Elements:
a. A person is performing a lawful act
b. with due care
c. He causes injury to another by mere accident
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.

5. Par. 5. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE - offender uses

Elements: violence or physical force to compel another
 a. The compulsion is by means of physical force. person to commit a crime
b. The physical force must be irresistible.
c. The physical force must come from a third person

NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce the individual to a mere

instrument.

6. Par. 6. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR - offender

Elements: employs intimidation or threat in compelling
a. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least another to commit a crime.
equal to, that which he is required to commit.
b. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man DURESS – use of violence or physical force
would have succumbed to it.
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS
NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or ACTUS – Any act done by me against my will
reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It should not be inspired by is not my act.
speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A threat of future injury is not enough.

7. Par. 7. INSUPERABLE CLAUSE Examples of such other circumstances are:

INSUPERABLE CAUSE – some motive, which has lawfully, morally or physically 1. spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
prevented a person to do what the law commands 2. accessories exempt from criminal
liability (Art. 20)
Elements: 3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
a. An act is required by law to be done. exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
b. A person fails to perform such an act. 4. persons exempt from criminal liability
c. His failure to perform such an act was due to some lawful or insuperable from theft, swindling, malicious mischief
cause. (Art 332)
5. instigation
Examples:
1. A priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him. NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory
2. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention cause. A buy-bust operation conducted in
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, connection with illegal drug-related offenses is
leaving child to die – not liable for infanticide (People v. Bandian, 63 Phil a form of entrapment.
530)
Entrapment from Instigation
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES – where the act committed is a crime but for some 1. The ways and means are resorted to for the
reason of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Exempting purpose of trapping and capturing the
and justifying circumstances are absolutory causes. lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
while The Instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the
offense and himself becomes a co-principal
2. In Entrapment, not a bar to accused
 prosecution and conviction while in Instigation,
Accused will be acquitted.
3. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause while
Instigation is an absolutory cause.

ART. 13. 1. Par. 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – those

Mitigating CIRCUMSTANCES which if present in the commission of the crime
Circumstances reduces the penalty of the crime but does not
NOTE: This applies when not all the requisites are present. If two requisites are erase criminal liability nor change the nature of
present, it is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. However, in the crime.
reference to Art.11(4) if any of the last two requisites is absent, there is only an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Remember though, that in self-defense, NOTE: A mitigating circumstance arising from a
defense of relative or stranger, unlawful aggression must always be present as it single fact absorbs all the other mitigating
is an indispensable requirement circumstances arising from that same fact.

2. Par. 2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD

NOTE: Age of accused is determined by his age at the date of commission of

crime, not date of trial.

3. Par. 3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG NOTE: In crimes against persons – if victim
does not die, the absence of the intent to kill
NOTE: Can be used only when the proven facts show that there is a notable and reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It
evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act is not considered as mitigating. It is mitigating
and its consequences. only when the victim dies.

Factors that can be considered are: NOTE: It is not applicable to felonies by

1. weapon used negligence because in felonies through
2. injury inflicted negligence, the offender acts without intent.
3. part of the body injured The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by
4. mindset of offender at the time of commission of crime negligence or imprudence. There is no intent
on the part of the offender, which may be
This provision addresses the intention of the offender at the particular moment considered as diminished
when the offender executes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention
during the planning stage

4. Par. 4. PROVOCATION OR THREAT Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct

Requisites: or act of the offended party, capable of exciting,
1. provocation must be sufficient inciting or irritating anyone.
2. it must originate from the offended party
3. must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked
NOTE: Threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, it would
be an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense and thus no
longer a mitigating circumstance.

5. Par. 5. VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE NOTE: “Immediate” allows for a lapse of time,
as long as the offender is still suffering from the
Requisites: mental agony brought about by the offense to
1. a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, him. (proximate time, not just immediately after)
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
2. the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense

6. Par. 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION NOTE: Passion and obfuscation cannot co-

Requisites: exist with treachery since this means that the
1. offender acted upon an impulse offender had time to ponder his course of
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or action.
obfuscation in him
Passion or Obfuscation from Irresistible Force:
NOTE: Act must have been committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge; 1. Passion or obfuscation is mitigating
act must come from lawful sentiments. while Irresistible force is exempting
2. Passion or Obfuscation, no physical
Act, Which Gave Rise To Passion And Obfuscation: force needed while irresistible force
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust requires physical force.
2. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind 3. Passion and Obfuscation must come
3. That the act was proximate to the criminal act, not admitting of time from the offender himself while
during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity Irresistible Force must come from 3rd
4. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation person
4. Passion or Obfuscation must come
from lawful sentiments while Irresistible
force is unlawful.

7. Par. 7. SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT Question:

A.Mitigating;Plea of Guilty
WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY An accused charged with the crime of homicide
- must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary
unconditionally to the authorities, either because: investigation before the municipal court. Upon
1. he acknowledges his guilt; or the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded
his search and capture. guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment.

NOTE: If both are present, considered as two independent mitigating Can his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial
circumstances. Further mitigates penalty Court be considered spontaneous and thus
entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of
NOTES: spontaneous plea of guilty under Art.13(7),
Plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to RPC?
the mitigating circumstance.
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial
If accused pleaded not guilty, even if during arraignment, he is entitled to Court can be considered spontaneous, for
mitigating circumstances as long as he withdraws his plea of not guilty to the which he is entitled to the mitigating
charge before the fiscal could present his evidence. circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not
guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial
Plea to a lesser charge is not a Mitigating Circumstance because to be such, the as it was made during the preliminary
plea of guilt must be to the offense charged. investigation only and before a court not
competent to render judgment.
Plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the
original info, is Mitigating Circumstance. B. Mitigating;Plea of Guilty;Requisites
In order that the plea of guilty may be
mitigating, what requisites must be complied
with?

For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites

are:

1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded to

the crime charged;
2. That such plea was made before the court
competent to try the case and render judgment;
and
3. That such plea was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

C. Mitigating;Plea of Guilty;Requisites
After killing the victim, the accused absconded.
He succeeded in eluding the police until he
surfaced and surrendered to the authorities
about two years later. Charged with murder, he
pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution
had presented two witnesses implicating him to
the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty.

Should the mitigating circumstances of

voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be
considered in favor of the accused?

Suggested Answer:
Voluntary surrender should be considered as a
mitigating circumstance. After two years, the
police were still unaware of the whereabouts of
the accused and the latter could have
continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the
surrender of the accused should be considered
mitigating because it was done spontaneously,
indicative of the remorse or repentance on the
part of said accused and therefore, by his
surrender, the accused saved the government
expenses, efforts, and time.

Alternative Answer:

Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in

favor of the accused. Two years is too long a
time to consider the surrender spontaneous
(People vs. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure
the government had already incurred
considerable efforts and expenses in looking
for the accused.

Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as

a mitigating circumstance because the
prosecution had already started with the
presentation of evidence (Art.13, par.7 RPC).

D. Mitigating;Voluntary Surrender
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a
scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed and latter.
After the stabbing, he brought his son home.
The Chief of police of the town, accompanied
by several policemen, went to hilario's house,
Hilario, upon seeing the approaching
policemen, came down from his house to meet
them and voluntarily went with them to the
police station to be investigated in connection
with the killing. When eventually charged with
and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal,
faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his
favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
 Is he entitled to such a mitigating
circumstance?

Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating

circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux
of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went
home after the incident, but came down and
met the police officers and went with them is
considered "voluntary surrender". The
voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same
is spontaneous showing the intent of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to
the authorities. This must be either (a) because
he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he
wishes to save the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after
commission of the crime, but voluntarily went
with the policemen who had gone to his hiding
place to investigate, was held to be mitigating
circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit)

8. Par. 8. PHYSICAL DEFECT OF OFFENDER

The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical
defect, restricting his means of action, defense or communication with others.

NOTE: The physical defect must relate to the offense committed.

9. Par. 9. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

Requisites:
1. The illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his
acts.

10. Par. 10. SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

Example:
1. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one
over 70 years old.
2. Outraged feeling of an owner of an animal taken for ransom is analogous to
vindication of grave offense.
3. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation.
4. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender.
5. Extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state necessity.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES - Those which, if attendant in the Question: Qualifying; Elements of a Crime
commission of the crime, serve to have the penalty imposed in its When would qualifying circumstances be
maximum period provided by law for the offense or those that change the deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?
nature of the crime.
A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an
BASIS: The greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of element of a crime when
the felony as shown by: - it changes the nature of the crime, bringing
1. the motivating power itself, about a more serious crime and a heavier
2. the place of the commission, penalty;
3. the means and ways employed
4. the time, or - it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise
5. the personal circumstances of the offender, or the offended party. some other crime is committed; and
- it is specifically alleged in the information and
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: proven during trial.
1. Generic - those which apply to all crimes
2. Specific - those which apply only to specific crimes, Alternative answer:
3. Qualifying - those that change the nature of the crime
4. Inherent - which of necessity accompany the commission of the crime, A qualifying circumstance is deemed an
therefore not considered in increasing the penalty to be imposed element of a crime when it is specifically stated
5. Special - those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of by law as included in the definition of a crime,
the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances like treachery in the crime of murder.

Generic Aggravating Circumstance Distinguished From Qualifying Aggravating

Circumstance:
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - EFFECT : When not set off by any
mitigating circumstance, Increases the penalty which should be imposed upon
the accused to the maximum period but without exceeding the limit prescribed by
law

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance - EFFECT: Gives the crime its proper and
exclusive name and places the author of the crime in such a situation as to
deserve no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crimes
(People v. Bayot, 64 Phil 269, 273)

2. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - If not alleged in the information, a

qualifying aggravating circumstance will be considered generic

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - To be considered as such, MUST be

alleged in the information.
3. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - May be offset by a mitigating
circumstance.

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - Cannot be offset by a mitigating

circumstance.

RULES ON AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Aggravating circumstances shall NOT be appreciated if:
a) They constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or
b) It is included by the law in defining a crime with a penalty prescribed, and
therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty.

Ex: “That the crime be committed by means of ...fire,... explosion” (Art. 14, par.
12) is in itself a crime of arson (Art. 321) or a crime involving destruction (Art.
324). It is not to be considered to increase the penalty for the crime of arson or for
the crime involving destruction.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance
inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof (Art.62, par.2)

3. Aggravating circumstances which arise:

a) From the moral attributes of the offender;
b) From his private relations with the offended party; or
c) From any personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the
principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances and a
attendant. (Art.62, par. 3)

4. The circumstances which consist :

a) In the material execution of the act, or
b) In the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of
only those persons who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
the act or their cooperation therein. Except when there is proof of conspiracy in
which case the act of one is deemed to be the act of all, regardless of lack of
knowledge of the facts constituting the circumstance. (Art. 62, par.4)

5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its kind, should be specifically

alleged in the information AND proved as fully as the crime itself in order to
increase the penalty. (Sec. 9, Rule 110, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)

6. When there is more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance present, one
of them will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating while the others will be
considered as generic aggravating.
ART. 14. 1. Par. 1. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a
Aggravating PUBLIC POSITION document committed by public officers (Art.
Circumstances 171).
Requisites:
1. Offender is public officer When the public officer did not take advantage
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office of the influence of his position, this aggravating
gives him as means to realize criminal purpose circumstance is not present

It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where taking advantage of NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position
official position is made by law an integral element of the crime or inherent in the is also inherent in the case of accessories
offense, under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or
assisting in the escape of the principal of the
crime), and in crimes committed by public
officers (Arts. 204-245).

2. Par. 2. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or
WITH INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES recognized private school is not a “public
authority within the contemplation of this
Requisites: paragraph. While he is a person in authority
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions. under Art. 152, that status is only for purposes
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.152
against whom the crime is committed. (resistance and disobedience)
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act. The crime should not be committed against the
public authority (otherwise it will constitute
PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person who is directly vested with direct assault under Art.148) This is NOT
jurisdiction and has the power to govern and execute the laws applicable when committed in the presence of
Ex: a mere agent
1. Governor
2. Mayor AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/
3. Barangay captain/ chairman the maintenance of public order and protection
4. Councilors and security of life and property
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman

3. Par. 3. THE ACT BE COMMITTED: DWELLING – must be a building or structure

(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on exclusively used for rest and comfort
account of his (a)rank, (b) age, or (c) sex or (combination of house and store not included),
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has may be temporary as in the case of guests in a
not given provocation house or bedspacers. It includes
dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the
Rules regarding par 3(1): enclosure under the house
1. These circumstances shall only be considered as one aggravating
circumstance.
2. Rank, age, sex may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or
honor, they cannot be
invoked in crimes against property.
3. It must be shown that in the commission of the crime the offender deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex, age and rank of the offended party.
RANK – The designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative position of
the offended party in reference to others (There must be a difference in the social
condition of the offender and the offended party).
AGE – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
SEX– refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not applicable in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the
offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the
commission of the crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)
NOTES:
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling
requires that the crime be wholly or partly
committed therein or in any integral part
thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the permanent
residence or domicile of the offended party or
that he must be the owner thereof. He must,
however, be actually living or dwelling therein
even for a temporary duration or purpose.
It is not necessary that the accused should
have actually entered the dwelling of the victim
to commit the offense; it is enough that the
victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised
means to perpetrate the assault from without.
What aggravates the commission of the crime
in one’s dwelling:
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended
party reposed in the offender by opening the
door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by
trespassing therein with violence or against the
will of the owner.

Meaning of provocation in the aggravating

circumstance of dwelling:
The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.

NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the

offended party is deemed to have given the
provocation, and the fact that the crime is
committed in the dwelling of the offended party
is NOT an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who
has provoked the incident, he loses his right to
the respect and consideration due him in his
own house
 Dwelling is not aggravating in the following
cases:
1. When both the offender and the offended
party are occupants of the same house, and
this is true even if offender is a servant in the
house.
exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal
dwelling, the same is aggravating.
However, if the paramour also dwells in the
conjugal dwelling, the applicable aggravating
circumstance is abuse of confidence.

2. When robbery is committed by the use of

force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent.

However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery

with violence against or intimidation of persons
because
this class of robbery can be committed without
the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party’s house.

3. In the crime needed to see this picture.

dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in
defining the crime.

4. When the owner of the dwelling gave

sufficient and immediate provocation.

There must exist a close relation between the

provocation made by the victim and the
commission of the crime by the accused.

5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.

4. Par. 4. That the act be committed with: (1) abuse of confidence

or (2) obvious ungratefulness

There are two aggravating circumstances present under par.4 which must be
independently appreciated if present in the same case.

While one may be related to the other in the factual situation in the case, they
cannot be lumped together. Abuse of confidence requires a special
confidential relationship between the offender and the victim, while this is not
required for there to be obvious ungratefulness

Requisites Of Abuse Of Confidence:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified

theft (Art. 310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and
qualified seduction (Art. 337).

Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.

NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be such clear and

manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused.

5. Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief

Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated
to religious worship.

Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime is committed in the

palace or in the presence of the Chief Executive.

Requisites Regarding Public Authorities:

1. crime occurred in the public office
2. public authorities are actually performing their public duties

Requisites (Place Dedicated To Religious Worship):

1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless
of religion
2. The offender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the
place of worship

Except for the third which requires that official functions are being performed
at the time of the
commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per se
even if no official duties or acts of religious worship are being conducted
there.

Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as place
dedicated to the worship of God.

6. Par. 6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in Question:
an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such
circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense 1994 Bar Exam Question
(Aggravating;Nighttime;Band)
NOTE: When present in the same case and their element are distinctly
palpable and can subsist At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and
independently, they shall be considered separately. Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street,
Manila, Johnny hit them with a rock injuring
When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating: Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny, and Nonoy
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed
crime or for the purpose of impunity; or Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny kept
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a
result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny,
NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness beginning at the end of Nonoy, and Johnny were charged with
dusk and ending at dawn. homicide.

Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime. Can the court appreciate the aggravating
When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not circumstances of nighttime and band?
aggravating. It is not considered aggravating when the crime began at
daytime. No, nighttime can not be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance because there is
Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to commit the crime no indication that the offenders deliberately
was conceived of shortly before commission or when crime was committed at sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the
night upon a casual encounter commission of the crime or that they took
advantage of nighttime.(People vs. De los
However, nighttime need not be specifically sought for when Reyes, 203 SCRA 707).
(1) it facilitated the commission of the offense, or
(2) the offender took advantage of the same to commit the crime Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the
fact that Padre Faura Street is well lighted.
A bare statement that crime was committed at night is insufficient. The
information must allege that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of, However, Band should be considered as the
or that it facilitated the crime crime was committed by more than three
armed malefactors. In a recent Supreme
Court Decision, stones or rocks are
GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery. considered deadly weapons.

EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and nocturnity were
deliberately decided upon in the same case, they can be considered
separately if such circumstances have different factual bases. Thus:

In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966),

- nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought, and treachery was
further appreciated because the victim’s hands and arms were tied together
before he was beaten up by the accused.

In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was treachery as the victim
was stabbed while lying face up and defenseless, and nighttime was
considered upon proof that it facilitated the commission of the offense and
was taken advantage of by the accused.

UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where there are no houses at all,

a place at a considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered
at a great distance from each other.

Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose.

What should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of

the offense, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.

BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3 armed malefactors
that shall have acted together in the commission of an offense

NOTE: There must be four or more armed men

If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not

form a band because it is undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct
participation.

“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in

the crime of illegal detention or treason but does not apply to crimes against
chastity

“By a band” is inherent in brigandage

This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of abuse of

superior strength

7. Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a

conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity
or misfortune.

Requisites:
1. The crime was committed when there was a calamity or misfortune
2. The offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition
from such misfortune

If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party during the

calamity/misfortune, this aggravating circumstance may not be taken into
consideration.

8. Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men
or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity

Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the
crime was committed

NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed men are
accomplices who take part in a minor capacity directly or indirectly, and not
when they were merely present at the crime scene. Neither should they
constitute a band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance would be
cuadrilla.

When This Aggravating Circumstance Shall Not Be Considered:

1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same
purpose.
3. When the others were only “casually present” and the offender did not avail
himself of any of their aid or when he did not knowingly count upon their
assistance in the commission of the crime

If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in the employment
of a band. If there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the
aggravating circumstance.

“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”

9. Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist RECIDIVIST – one who at the time of his trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
Requisites: convicted by final judgment of another crime
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense; embraced in the same title of the RPC.
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title Question
of the Code; 2001 Bar Exam Question
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense. (Aggravating;Recidivism)

MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.” It is employed in its Juan de Castro already had three (3)
general sense, including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include previous convictions by final judgment for
everything that is done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after
theft when he was found guilty of Robbery
sentence is announced by the judge in open court. with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge
considered against the accused both
What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL, not the time of the recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
commission of the offense. accused appealed and contended that in his
last conviction, the trial court cannot consider
GENERAL RULE: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in against him a finding of recidivism and,
the information and to attach thereto certified copy of the sentences rendered again, of habitual delinquency.
against the accused.
Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
Exception: If the accused does not object and when he admits in his
confession and on the witness stand. No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism
and habitual delinquency are correctly
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have considered in this case because the basis of
intervened between the recidivism is different from that of habitual
first and second felonies. delinquency.

Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects. However, pardon does notJuan is a recidivist because he had been
obliterate the fact that previously convicted by final judgment for
the accused was a recidivist. Thus, even if the accused was granted a pardon
theft and again found guilty of Robbery with
for the first offense but he commits another felony embraced in the same title
Homicide, which are both crimes against
of the Code, the first conviction is still counted to make him a recidivist
property, embraced under the same title (title
ten, book 2) of the Revised Penal Code. The
Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism affects only the implication is that he is specializing in the
periods of a penalty, except in prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and commission of crimes against property,
gambling (PD 1602) wherein recidivism increases the penalties by degrees. hence aggravating in the conviction for
No other generic aggravating circumstance produces this effect Robbery with Homicide.

In recidivism it is sufficient that the succeeding offense be committed after the Habitual delinquency, which brings about an
commission of the additional penalty when an offender is
preceding offense provided that at the time of his trial for the second offense, convicted a third time or more for specified
the accused had crimes, is correctly considered.
already been convicted of the first offense.

If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be considered
as only one, hence, they
cannot be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism. Also,
judgments of convicted handed down on the same day shall be considered as
only one conviction.

REASON: Because the Code requires that to be considered as a separate

convictions, at the time of his trial for one crime the accused shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of the other.

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

Requisites Of Reiteracion Or Habituality:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for
the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense

Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender shall shall have served out his
sentence for the first offense.
Recidivism - It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first
offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in
the same title of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the
code.

THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:

1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – Where a person, on separate occasions, is
convicted of two offenses
embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a generic aggravating
circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) – Where the offender has been
previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two
crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art.62, par, 5) – Where a person
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, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of the said crimes a third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary
aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person commits felony before
beginning to serve or while
serving sentence on a previous conviction for a felony. This is a special
aggravating circumstance.

Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the sentence for
his previous conviction/s, or is legally considered to have done so, quasi-
recidivism cannot at the same time constitute reiteracion, hence this
aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.

If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and reiteracion, the liability of
the accused should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.

11. Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of price,

reward or promise.

Requisites:
1. There are at least 2 principals:
- The principal by inducement (one who offers)
- The principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
and in consideration of the commission of the
 criminal act

NOTE: The circumstance is applicable to both principals.

It affects the person who received the price / reward as
well as the person who gave it.

If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after

the crime had been committed asan expression of his
appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other
accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.

The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer

to material things or that the same were actually delivered,
it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal
by inducement be accepted by the principal by direct
participation before the commission of the offense.

The inducement must be the primary consideration for the

commission of the crime.

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

The circumstances under this paragraph will only be considered

as aggravating if and when they are used by the offender as a
means to accomplish a criminal purpose

When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the

crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance only

When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is

qualified to murder.

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

Requisites:
The prosecution must prove –
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination;
and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.

Essence of premeditation: The execution of the criminal act must be preceded

by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there was a period

sufficient to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection, a time
adequate to allow the conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as
well as outward acts showing the intent to kill. It must be shown that the
offender had sufficient time to reflect upon the consequences of his act but
still persisted in his determination to commit the crime. (PEOPLE vs. SILVA,
et. al., GR No.140871, August 8, 2002)

Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise.

When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not

aggravating. However, if the offender premeditated on the killing of any
person, it is proper to consider against the offender the aggravating
circumstance of premeditation, because whoever is killed by him is
contemplated in his
premeditation.

14. Par. 14. That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed.

Requisite
The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or disguise to facilitate the
commission of the crime.

CRAFT (astucia) – involved the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the

part of the accused. A chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the
execution of his criminal design. It is employed as a scheme in the execution
of the crime

FRAUD (fraude) – insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim

to act in a manner that would enable the offender to carry out his design

Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have been deliberately
adopted as the means, methods, or forms for the treacherous strategy, or
they may co-exist independently where they are adopted for a different
purpose in the commission of the crime.

Ex:
In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980), where the accused pretended to hire
the driver in order to get his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed to
the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless driver.

In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986) there was also craft where after
hitching a ride, the accused
requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody, when in fact
they had already planned to kill the driver.

DISGUISE (disfraz) – resorting to any device to conceal identity

The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the

offender was intended to or did make identification more difficult, such as the
use of a mask or false hair or beard.

The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel constitutes disguise.

15. Par. 15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or

(2) means be employed to weaken the defense.

Par. 15 contemplates two aggravating circumstances, either of

which qualifies a killing to murder.

MEANING OF “advantage be taken”:To deliberately use excessive

force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense
available to the person attacked. (PEOPLE vs. LOBRIGAS, et.
al., GR No. 147649, December 17, 2002)

No Advantage Of Superior Strength In The Following:

1. One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength.
2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were
engaged against each other as man to man.
 TEST for abuse of superior strength: the relative strength of
the offender and his victim and whether or not he took
advantage of his greater strength.

When there are several offenders participating in the crime,

they must ALL be principals by direct participation and their
attack against the victim must be concerted and intended
to be so.

Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of

parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally
accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.

Abuse of superior strength is also present when the offender

uses a weapon which is out of proportion to the defense
available to the offended party.

NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (“band”).

MEANING OF “Means employed to weaken defense” - the offender

employs means that materially weaken the resisting power of
the offended party.

Ex:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latter’s resisting power.

NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against

persons, and sometimes against person and property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.

Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)

TREACHERY – when the offender commits any of the crimes against

the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.

Requisites:
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.

TEST: It is not only the relative position of the parties but,

more specifically, whether or not the victim was forewarned or
afforded the opportunity to make a defense or to ward off
the attack.

Rules Regarding Treachery:

1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.

Treachery is taken into account even if the crime against the

person is complexed with another felony involving a different
classification in the Code. Accordingly, in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, treachery but can be
appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.

The suddenness of attack in itself does not constitute treachery,

even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was
accidental.

Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if the manner

of attack is not shown.

Treachery must be convincing evidence proved by clear and

Treachery is considered against all the offenders when there

is conspiracy.

WHEN MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT:

1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present
in the beginning of the assault. (PEOPLE vs. MANALAD, GR
No. 128593, August 14, 2002)
 Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded
on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was
a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was
wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the
delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot
be said that the crime was attended by treachery.

2. When the assault was not continuous, in that there was

interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present
at the moment the fatal blow was given.

Hence, even though in the inception of the aggression

which ended in the death of the deceased, treachery
was not present, if there was a break in the continuity of
the aggression and at the time of the fatal wound was
inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the
circumstance of treachery must be taken into account.

Treachery Should Be Considered Even If:

1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a generic
intent to treacherously kill any first two persons belonging
to a class. (The same rule obtains for evident premeditation).
2. There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a person different
from that intended. (The rule is different in evident
premeditation).
3. There was error in personae, hence the victim was not the
one intended by the accused. (A different rule is applied in
evident premeditation).

REASON FOR THE RULE: When there is treachery, it is impossible

for either the intended victim or the actual victim to defend
himself against the aggression.

TREACHERY ABSORBS:
1. Craft
2. Abuse of superior strength
3. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Cuadrilla (“band”)
5. Aid of armed men
6. Nighttime
 17. Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act

GNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,

which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused
by the crime.

MEANING OF “which add ignominy to the natural effects thereof”

The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend
to make the effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or
to put the offended party to shame, or add to his moral
suffering. Thus it is incorrect to appreciate ignominy where
the victim was already dead when his body was dismembered, for
such act may not be considered to have added to the victim’s
moral suffering or humiliation. (People vs. Carmina,
G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991)

Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical

injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder.

Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for

the purpose.

NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.

REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not respecting the walls
erected by men to guard their property and provide for their personal safety,
shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes him
with more severity.

1997 Bar Examination Question(Treachery;Unlawful Entry)

The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a
separate dwelling unit of one big house.The accused suspected his wife of
having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and
his wife together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused
went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected
relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. later in the night,
he resolved to kill the victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He
entered the apartment of the victim through an unlock window. Inside, he saw
the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several
wounds,
which caused his death within a few hours.

Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, and unlawful
entry?

1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because

he resolved to kill the victim "later in the night" and there was no sufficient
lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

2. Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while
the latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods
which directly and specially insured the execution of the act without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made.(People
vs. Dequina, 60 Phil. 27, People vs. Miranda,et.al, 90 Phil. 91)

3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the

accused deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of
his act. The intention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its
commission.(People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568) Moreover, nighttime is absorbed
in treachery.

4. Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, in as

much as the accused entered the room of the victim through the window,
which is not the proper place for entrance into the house.(Art.14. par.18.
Revised Penal Code, People vs. Baruga, 61 Phil. 318)

19. Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall,

roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect ENTRANCE.
If the wall, etc., is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not an
aggravating circumstance.

It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered the building
Therefore, If the offender broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse
with money on the table near that window, which he took while his body was
outside of the building, the crime of theft was attended by this aggravating
circumstance.
NOTE: Breaking in is lawful in the following instances:
1. An officer, in order to make an arrest, may break open a door or window of
any building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to
be;
2. An officer, if refused admittance, may break open any door or window to
execute the search warrant or liberate himself,
3. Replevin, Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court

20. Par. 20. That the crime be committed

(1) with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age, or
(2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

TWO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES GROUPED IN THIS PARAGRAPH:

1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age:

Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by

professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their
irresponsibility.

2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means:

Intended to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said

means to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.

Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused purposely and

deliberately used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in
carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape.

MEANING OF “or other similar means” Should be understood as referring to

motorized vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to
automobile or airplane.

CRUELTY – there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in Question:
making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary 1994 Bar Examination Question
physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. (Cruelty;Relationship)

Requisites: Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire,

1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong; poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly
 2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of undressed her and tied her legs to the bed.
the offender. He also burned her face with a lighted
cigarette. Like a madman, he laugh while
Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against persons. raping her.

In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that the wounds What aggravating circumstances are present
found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive in order in this case?
unnecessarily to prolong physical suffering.
a. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a
Cruelty cannot be presumed lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately
augmenting the victim's suffering by acts
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the
performed, this would also qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the
corpse. victim suffer in pain.(People vs. Lucas, 181
SCRA 316)
Ignominy involves moral suffering. Cruelty refers to physical suffering.
b. Relationship, because the offended party
Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is NO provision for is a descendant (daughter) of the offender
aggravating circumstances of a similar or analogous character. and considering that the crime is one against
21. Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be chastity.
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission

ART. 15. Basis Alternative Circumstances – Those which

Alternative The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its must be taken into consideration as
Circumstances commission. aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other
Their concept. - The Alternative Circumstances Are: conditions attending its commission. (Art.15)
Alternative 1. Relationship;
circumstances are 2. Intoxication; and Question:
those which must 3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender. 2000 Bar Exam Question (Non-Intoxication)
be taken into
consideration as Relationship Despite the massive advertising campaign in
aggravating or The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration media against firecrackers and gun-firing
mitigating when the offended party is the – during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas
according to the 1. Spouse, and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and
nature and effects 2. Ascendant, pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight
of the crime and 3. Descendant, of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja
the other 4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or started their celebration by having a drinking
conditions 5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-
attending its powered firecrackers in their neighborhood.
commission. They Other Relatives Included (By Analogy): In the course of their conversation, Jonas
are the 1. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter. confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a
relationship, long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy
intoxication and REASON: It is the duty of the step-parents to bestow upon their stepchildren a in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
the degree of mother’s/father’s affection, care and protection. money. While under the influence of liquor,
instruction and Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos
education of the 2. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child. inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the
offender. same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon
NOTE: But the relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the knowing that the throwing of the super lolo
The alternative relationship mentioned. was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and
circumstance of sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious
relationship shall When Relationship Mitigating And When Aggravating: act or he would get what he wanted.A heated
be taken into 1. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued
consideration the provisions of Art. 332. but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
when the offended Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts. 294-302), midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him
party in the usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321- his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to
spouse, 322, 325-326). knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance.
ascendant, Jonas thought that after all, explosions were
descendant, 2. In crimes against persons – everywhere and nobody would know who
legitimate, natural, a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to
or adopted brother (1). a higher degree than the offender, or Jonas, the latter again started throwing
or sister, or (2). when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
relative by affinity (e.g. brothers) yard in order to provoke him so that he would
in the same come out of his house. When Jepoy came
degrees of the b) But when it comes to physical injuries: out, Jonas immediately shot him with
offender. (1). It is aggravating when the crime involves serious physical injuries Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target.
(Art.263), even if the offended Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old
The intoxication of party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious physical injuries must son who was following behind him, killing the
the offender shall not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement. boy instantaneously.
be taken into (2). It is mitigating when the offense committed is less serious physical injuries
consideration as a or slight physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative of a lower degree. a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja
mitigating (3). It is aggravating if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the be charged with? Explain.
circumstance offender.
when the offender b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what
has committed a c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if possible defenses would you set up in favor
felony in a state of the victim of the crime is a relative of a lower degree. of your clients? Explain.
intoxication if the
same is not d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather raped his
habitual or stepdaughter or in a case where a father raped his own daughter. a. Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the
subsequent to the complex crime of attempted murder with
plan to commit 3. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336), relationship homicide because a single act caused a less
said felony but is always aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a grave and and a grave felony.(Art.48 RPC)
when the higher or lower degree of the offended party. When the qualification given to
intoxication is the crime is derived from the relationship between the offender and the b. If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use
habitual or offended party, it is neither mitigating nor aggravating, because it is the following defenses:
intentional, it shall inseparable from and inherent in the offense. (e.g. parricide, adultery and
be considered as concubinage). 1. That the accused had no intention to
an aggravating commit so grave a wrong as that committed
circumstance. Intoxication - When Intoxication Mitigating And When Aggravating: as they merely intended to frighten Jepoy.
1. Mitigating –
a. If intoxication is not habitual, or 2. That Jonas committed the crime in a state
b. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony. of intoxication thereby impairing his will
2. Aggravating – power or capacity to understand the
a. If intoxication is habitual, or wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional
b. If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony). intoxication is a mitigating circumstance
(People vs. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997);
To Be Entitled To The Mitigating Circumstance Of Intoxication, It Must Art.15, RPC).
Be Shown:
1. That at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the accused has
taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him Alternative Circumstances Example
of a certain degree of 2002 Bar Examination Question (Alternative
control, and Circumstances; Intoxication)
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit
the felony. A was invited to a drinking spree by friends.
After having had a drink too many, A and B
To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be proved. Once had a heated argument, during which A
intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious
the contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional. physical injuries.

May the intoxication of A be considered

aggravating or mitigating?

The intoxication of A may be prima facie

considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It
may not be considered aggravating as there
is no clear indication from the facts of the
case that it was habitual or intentional on the
part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not
to be presumed; they should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
Instruction or Education
As an alternative circumstance it does not
refer only to literacy but more to the level of
intelligence of the accused.

Refers to the lack or presence of sufficient

intelligence and knowledge of the full
significance of one’s acts.

Low degree of instruction and education or

lack of it is generally mitigating. High degree
of instruction and education is aggravating,
when the offender took advantage of his
learning
in committing the crime.

GENERAL RULE: Lack of sufficient

education is mitigating
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson,
estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity, and
3. Treason – because love of country should
be a natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be.
US vs ah chong 15 phil 488
Lesson: mistake of fact, definition of felony
Laws: Article 1 RPC, Art 3 RPC

Facts Ah Chong was employed as a cook at officers’ quarter no. 27 located in rizal province. The deceased, gualberto, was also employed at
the same place but as a muchacho or a house boy.

Around 10 p.m. on August 14, 1908, Ah Chong, was startled awake by someone attempting to force open the door in his room. He sat up
in bed and screamed out twice, "Who is there?" He received no response and assumed, based on the commotion at the door, that it was
being forced open by someone set on breaking into the room. Fearing that the intruder was a burglar or thief, the defendant jumped to his
feet and yelled. "If you enter the room, I will murder you." At that point, he was struck slightly above the knee by the edge of the chair,
which had been positioned against the door (considered to be an unlawful attack).

Taking a common kitchen knife from under his pillow, the defendant struck out angrily at the intruder, who turned out to be his roommate,
Pascual..

When he saw Pascual was injured, he contacted his bosses and hurried back to his room to get bandages to tie up Pascual's wounds.

As his defense, There had been many robberies not long before the date of the incident, one of which occurred in his residence in which
he was employed as a cook, therefore he kept a knife under his pillow for personal safety.

The defendant was arrested, and the deceased was conveyed to a military hospital in which he died the next day.

The trial court found him guilty of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances, sentenced to six years and one day presidio mayor.

Issue W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, does an act for which he would be exempt
from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the
actor had known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act.

Held trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime
NO.

A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow alleged in the
information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril,
both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented
themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising
his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on
account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to
the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the
property under his charge.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he is
charged and his bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio. So ordered
_____________________
GR: acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with criminal intent in order that the actor may be held
criminally liable
EXpn: it appears that he is exempted from liability under one or other of the express provisions of article 8 of the code

Article 1 RPC of the Penal Code is as follows:

Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law.
● A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be
different from that which he had intended to commit.
● voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act
● omalice" signifying the intent
● Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so
● ”Actus me incito factus non est meus actus” - an act done by me against my will is not my act

GR: courts have recognized the power of the legislature to forbid, in a limited class of cases, the doing of certain acts, and to make their
commission criminal WITHOUT regard to the intent of the doer
EXpn: intention of the lawmaker to make the commission of certain acts criminal without regard to the intent of the doer is clear and
beyond question the statute will not be so construed

Ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness

Defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability
on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his
mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his
person and his property and the property under his charge.