A.

The Law Pertaining to the State and Its Relationship with Its Citizens – 18 Questions
a) Constitutional Law – 11 questions
a. Basic principles of political law
i. separation of powers
- LEGISLATIVE – Congress – make laws
- EXECUTIVE – President – enforce laws
- JUDICIAL – Court – interpret laws
- each are supreme in its own sphere
- violation:
1.) impermissible interference
2.) assumption of another department’s functions
- Principle of blending of powers
- There may be areas in which executive, legislative, and
judicial powers blend or overlap; and many officers whose duties
cannot be exclusively placed under any one of these heads.
ii. sovereignty
- limitations: (1) imposed by the very nature of membership in the
family of nations, (2) imposed by treaty stipulations
- doctrine of auto-limitations: any state may, by its consent, express
or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights.
- change of sovereignty: POLITICAL LAWS - automatically
abrogated, MUNICIPAL LAWS (regulate private rights) – continue
in force during military occupation, except when suspended by acts
of conqueror.
- belligerent occupation: no change on sovereignty during
belligerent occupation, except those of treason, are merely
suspended.
- Jus Postliminium: at the end of occupation, when occupant is
ousted, POLITICAL LAWS which had been suspended during the
occupation shall automatically become effective again.
iii. judicial review
- Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and
legislative acts in light of their conformity with the
Constitution.
- requisites:
o There must be an actual case or controversy calling for
the exercise of judicial power
o Person challenging the act must have the standing to
question the validity of the subject act or issuance;
otherwise stated, he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement;
o The question of constitutionality must be the very Lis
mota (cause) of the case.
- Operative Fact doctrine:
 o While a law is recognized as unconstitutional, its
effects, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In
fact, the invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an
admission that the law is unconstitutional.
o Applies to executive acts which are quasi-legislative in
nature, orders of executive branch which were later
nullified, laws granting tax exemptions.
- Political Question
o A question of policy. Refers to questions which are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity,
or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislature or executive branch
of the Government. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
o Limitation: Art. VII, Sec. 1, Par. 2, the portion which
vests in the judiciary the power “to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government”
iv. fundamental powers of the State
- police power
- Pertains to State’s authority to enact legislation that
may interfere with personal liberty or property in
order to promote the general welfare. Consists of an
imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, in
order to foster the common good.
- Most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of all
powers, extending as it does to all the great public
needs.
- Requisites:
o Lawful subject – the power will be exercised to
promote the interests of the public in general,
as distinguished from those of a particular
class.
o Lawful means – the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on
individuals.
- eminent domain
- Power of the nation or a sovereign state to take, or to
authorize the taking of, private property for a public
use without the owner’s consent, conditioned upon
payment of JUST COMPENSATION.
- taxation
 - Power to levy taxes to be used for public purpose. Its
main purpose is revenue generation.
- Incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range.
b. Bill of Rights
i. due process
- Due process clause protects the right to life, liberty, and
property.
o Substantive due process – intrinsic validity of a
law that interferes with a person’s life, liberty,
or property rights.
 Requisites:
a. The interests of the public in
general, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, which
require the intervention of the
State (Lawful subject)
b. The employment of means which
are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive on
individuals (Lawful means)
o Procedural due process – compliance with the
procedures or steps, even periods, prescribed
by the statute, in conformity with the standard
of fair play and without arbitrariness on the
part of those who are called upon to administer
it.
 Requisites:
a. Notice
b. Hearing
 Exceptions:
a. When there is urgent need for
immediate action, such as:
i. Summary abatement of
nuisance per se
ii. Preventive suspension of
public servant facing
administrative charges
iii. Padlocking of filthy
restaurants or theaters
showing obscene movies
iv. Cancellation of passport of
person sought for criminal
prosecution
b. When there is tentativeness of
administrative action, where the
 respondent is not precluded from
enjoying the right to notice and
hearing at a later time without
prejudice to the person affected,
such as the summary distraint
and levy of the property of a
delinquent taxpayer, and the
replacement of a temporary
appointee;
c. Where the twin rights have been
previously offered but the right to
exercise them had not been
claimed.
- Procedural due process in JUDICIAL proceedings:
1. Impartial and competent court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant, or over the property
which is the subject of the proceeding;
3. The parties must be given an opportunity to be
heard;
4. A proper judgment must be rendered upon
lawful hearing
- Due process in ADMINISTRATIVE proceedings:
1. Right to a hearing
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented
3. Evidence must be substantial
4. Decision must be supported by law and fact
5. Decision must be based on evidence adduced at
the hearing or at least contained in the records
and disclosed to parties;
6. The board or judge must act on its own
independent consideration of facts and law of
the case, and not simply accept the view of the
subordinate in arriving at a decision;
7. The decision must be rendered in such a manner
that parties to controversy can know various
issues involved and the reason for the decision
rendered.
8. An impartial tribunal which dictates that one
called upon to resolve a dispute may not sit as
judge and jury simultaneously, neither may he
review his decision on appeal.
- Due process in school disciplinary proceedings
1. Student must be informed in writing of the
nature and cause of any accusation against them;
 2. That they shall have the right to answer the
charges against them with the assistance of
counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against
them
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in
their own behalf;
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the
case.
- Judicial scrutiny
1. Rational basis – laws or ordinances are upheld if
they rationally further a legitimate governmental
interest – economic and social freedoms
2. Intermediate review – government interest is
extensively examined and the availability of less
restrictive measures is considered – gender and
legitimacy
3. Strict scrutiny – the focus is on the presence of
compelling, rather than substantial,
governmental interest and on the absence of less
restrictive means for achieving that interest –
fundamental freedoms

ii. equal protection

- Does not demand absolute equality among residents; it
merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under
like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced.
- Requisites for a valid classification:
o Rests upon substantial distinctions
o Applies equally to all member of the same class
o Germane to the purposes of the law
o Not limited to existing conditions only
iii. freedom of expression
- No law shall be passed abridging the:
o Freedom of speech
o Freedom of expression
o Freedom of the press
o Right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of
grievances.
- There are several theories and schools of thought that
strengthen the need to protect the basic right to freedom of
expression.
o This relates to the right of the people to
participate in public affairs, including the
right to criticize government actions.
o Free speech should be encouraged under the
concept of a market place of ideas.
o Free speech involves self-expression that
enhances human dignity. This right is a means
of assuring individual self-fulfillment,
among others.
o Expression is a marker for group identity.
o The Bill of Rights, free speech included, is
supposed to protect individuals and minorities
against majoritarian abuses perpetrated
through the framework of democratic
governance.
o Free speech must be protected under the
safety valve theory. This provides that
nonviolent manifestations of dissent reduce the
likelihood of violence
- Three (3) tests to determine validity of regulation
o Dangerous tendency doctrine
o Balancing of interests test
o Clear and present danger rule
- In order to determine which kind of test to apply, the nature
of the restraint must be determined.
1. Prior restraint
i. Official governmental restrictions on the press
or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination. Freedom
from prior restraint is largely freedom from
government censorship of publications,
whatever the form of censorship, and
regardless of whether it is wielded by the
executive, legislative or judicial branch of
government. Any law or official that requires
some form of permission to be had before
publication, commits an infringement of the
constitutional right, and remedy can be had at
the courts.
ii. Applicable tests on prior restraint depends:
1. Content-neutral regulation – merely
concerned with the incidents of the
speech, or one that merely controls the
time, place or manner, and under well-
defined standards;
a. Intermediate approach (test)
Because regulations of this type
are not designed to suppress any
particular message, they are NOT
subject to the strictest form of
judicial scrutiny but an
INTERMEDIATE APPROACH,
somewhere between the mere
rationality that is required of any
other law and the compelling
interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions.
b. Intermediate approach or the
O’Brien Test, the government
regulation is justified if:
i. It is within the
constitutional power of the
government
ii. If it furthers an
IMPORTANT or
SUBSTANTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL
INTEREST
iii. If the governmental
interest is unrelated to the
suppression of free
expression;
iv. If the incident restriction
on alleged freedom of
speech & expression is no
greater than is essential to
the furtherance of that
interest.
2. Content-based restraint – when the
restriction is based on the SUBJECT
MATTER of the utterance or speech.
a. Clear and Present Danger Rule. A
governmental action that restricts
freedom of speech or of the press
 based on content is given the
strictest scrutiny in light of its
inherent and invasive impact.
Only when the challenged act has
overcome the clear and present
danger rule will it pass
constitutional muster, with the
government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed
unconstitutionality. The latter
will pass constitutional muster
only if justified by a compelling
reason, and the restrictions
imposed are neither overbroad
nor vague.
2. Subsequent punishment
i. The aspect of freedom from liability subsequent to
publication precludes liability for completed
publications of views traditionally held innocent.
Otherwise, the prohibition on prior restraint would
be meaningless, as the unrestrained threat of
subsequent punishment, by itself, would be an
effective prior restraint. Thus, opinions on public
issues cannot be punished when published, merely
because the opinions are novel or controversial, or
because they clash with current doctrines. This fact
does not imply that publishers and editors are
never liable for what they print.
- Void for vagueness doctrine
1. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ in its application. In such instance, the
statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2)
respects — it violates due process for failure to accord
persons fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it
leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying
out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of
the Government muscle
2. A statute establishing a criminal offense must define
the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons
of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct
is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked
against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague
on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either
by a saving clause or by construction
 3. The Doctrines of Strict Scrutiny, Overbreadth, and
Vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing
"on their faces" statutes in free speech. They cannot
be made to do service when what is involved is a
criminal statute.
- Overbreadth Doctrine
1. Generally applied to statutes infringing on the
freedom of speech, the Overbreadth Doctrine applies
when a statute needlessly restrains even
constitutionally guaranteed rights. The statute may
be declared void because it sweeps unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invades the area of protected
freedoms. Government purpose may not be achieved
by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
- Regulation of speech in relation to election
1. The requirements of the Constitution regarding
equality in opportunity must provide limits to some
expression during electoral campaigns. Thus clearly,
regulation of speech in the context of electoral
campaigns made by candidates or the members of
their political parties or their political parties may be
regulated as to time, place, and manner.
2. However, regulation of speech in the context of
electoral campaigns made by persons who are not
candidates or who do not speak as members of a
political party which are, taken as a whole,
principally advocates of a social issue that the public
must consider during elections is unconstitutional.
Such regulation is inconsistent with the guarantee of
according the fullest possible range of opinions
coming from the electorate including those that can
catalyze candid, uninhibited, and robust debate in
the criteria for the choice of a candidate .
3. Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be
constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech of
persons who are not candidates or who do not speak
as members of a political party if they are not
candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative
speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal
object the endorsement of a candidate only. The
regulation should be:
i. Provided by law;
ii. Reasonable;
iii. Narrowly tailored to meet the objective of
enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be
 heard and considering the primacy of the guarantee
of free expression; and
iv. Demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve
that object.

The regulation must only be with respect to the

time, place, and manner of the rendition of the
message. In no situation may the speech be
prohibited or censored on the basis of its content.
For this purpose, it will not matter whether the
speech is made with or on private property.
- Rule on regulation of print and broadcast media
1. All forms of communication, whether print or
broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of expression clause. The test for limitation
on freedom of expression continues to be the clear
and present danger test.
i. SC clarified in Chavez case that:
1. Clear and present danger test applies only
when the challenged act is a content-based
regulation that infringes on free speech,
expression and the press;
2. When it said that freedom given to
broadcast media was “somewhat lesser in
scope than the freedom accorded to
newspaper and print media," it was NOT as
to what test should be applied, but the
context by which requirements of licensing,
allocation of airwaves, and application of
norms to unprotected speech
- Valid tests for a valid GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE to
freedom of expression
1. Clear and present danger test – when words are used
in such circumstance and of such nature as to create
a clear and present danger that will bring about the
substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.
(political rights, privacy, political process,
democracy) (content-based regulation, must have
compelling reason) (not vague, print & broadcast
media) (obscene) (right of assembly)
i. Clear – causal connection with the danger of the
substantive evil arising from the utterance
questioned;
ii. Present – time element, identified with imminent
and immediate danger; the danger must not only be
probable, but very likely inevitable.
 2. Dangerous Tendency Test – words uttered create a
dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has a
right to prevent. (inciting sedition, contempt against
SC, more serious cases)
3. Balancing of Interest Test – used as a standard when
the court needs to balance conflicting social values
and individual interests, and requires a conscious
and detailed consideration of the interplay of interest
observable in a given type of situation. (commercial
speech, conflicting social values)
- Tests employed to determine the presence of obscenity:
1. Appeal to prurient interests – whether to the average
person, applying contemporary community
standards, the dominant theme of the material taken
as a whole appeal to prurient interest.
2. Miller Test:
i. Whether to the average person, applying
contemporary standards would find the work, taken
as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
ii. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law;
iii. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Cognate rights to free speech, expression and of the press
1. Right of assembly
2. Right of association
3. Right to information
i. Information sought must be a matter of public
interest and concern;
ii. Information sought must not be among those
excluded by law.
iv. rights during expropriation
v. searches and seizures
- Right to privacy – right to be free from unwarranted
exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s
private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a
person’s ordinary sensibilities. Right to be let alone.
o Right against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law
o Right against unreasonable searches and
seizures
o Right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
o Liberty of abode and right to travel
- Three strands of the right to privacy
 o Locational or situational privacy – refers to the
privacy that is felt in physical space, such as
that which may be violated by trespass and
unwarranted search and seizure;
o Informational privacy – refers to the right to
control information regarding oneself;
o Decisional privacy – refers to the right of
individuals to make certain kinds of
fundamental choices with respect to their
personal and reproductive autonomy.
- Person may invoke right to privacy when the following
requisites must concur:
o A person has exhibited an actual expectation of
privacy (subjective)
o The expectation is one that society is prepared
to recognize as reasonable (objective)
- Requisites of a valid warrant:
o Determination of probable cause
o Determination of probable cause was made
personally by a judge
o Determination by the judge was based on an
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce
o Complainant and or witnesses testified to facts
within their personal knowledge
o The warrant issued must particularly describe
the place to be searched or the persons or
things to be seized
- Requisites for the personal determination of probable cause
by the judge in the issuance of search warrant:
o Judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine the complainant and the
witnesses in the form of searching questions
and answers
o The examination must be under oath
o Examination must be in writing
o Complainant and the witnesses must be
examined on facts personally known to them
o Judge must attach to the record the sworn
statements of the complainant and the
witnesses together with any affidavit submitted
- Scatter-shot warrant:
o Issued for more than one specific offense. Void.
- General warrant:
 o One that allows the seizure of one thing under
a warrant describing another and gives the
officer executing the warrant the discretion
over which items to take. Void.
- Valid warrantless arrest:
o Consented warrantless search – when right has
been voluntarily and intelligently waived.
o Incident to a lawful arrest – a person. Caught
in flagrante delicto and lawfully arrested and
within permissible area of search or the place
within the immediate control of the person
being arrested. It is essential that a valid arrest
must precede the search.
o Searched of moving vehicles - searches of
vehicles, vessels, or aircraft for violation of
fishery, immigration and customs laws.
Searches and seizures without warrant of
vessels and aircraft for violation of customs
laws have been a traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement because the vessel
can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the search must be sought
before the warrant could be secured.
o Customs search - allowed when persons
exercising police authority under the customs
law effect search and seizure in the
enforcement of customs law.
 Not available in dwelling places
o Body checks in airports – holders and his
hand-carried luggage are subject to search for,
and seizure of, prohibited materials or
substance. Holder refusing to be searched shall
not be allowed to board to aircraft which shall
constitute a part of the contract between the
passenger and the air carrier.
o Inspection of buildings and other premises for
the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building
regulations.
o When there is a genuine reason to “stop-and-
frisk” in the light of the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions to
warrant a belief that the person stopped has
concealed weapons.
o Visual search at checkpoints
 o Conduct of aerial target zoning and saturation
drive in the exercise of military powers of the
President.
o Plainview doctrine - where prohibited articles
are in plain view
o Doctrine of exigent circumstances – enunciates
the rule that under such urgency and exigency
of the moment, search warrant should be
lawfully dispensed with.
- Elements of plain view:
o law officer has a prior justification for an
INITIAL intrusion or otherwise properly in a
position from which he can view a particular
order;
o officer must discover incriminating evidence
INADVERTENTLY without conducting a
search
o it must be immediately APPARENT to the
police that the items they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
subject to seizure.
- Elements of valid regular checkpoint:
o Must be warranted by the exigencies of public
order
o Must be conducted in a way least intrusive to
motorists
o Inspection is limited to a visual search.
- Terry Search:
o Warrantless search conducted to prevent the
occurrence of a crime. (Terry v Ohio)
o While probable cause is NOT required to
conduct a stop and frisk. A genuine reason
must exist, in light of the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about it.
- Valid warrantless arrest:
o In flagrante delicto – person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense
o Continuing offense – membership in
organizations like NPA is a continuing offense,
this, a person guilty thereof can be arrested
anytime under the in flagrante delicto
principle.
 o Hot pursuit – When an offense has just been
committed and the arrestor has probable cause
to believe, based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has committed the crime.
o Bondsmen may arrest the accused, or upon
written authority endorsed on a certified copy
of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by
a police officer or any other person of suitable
age and discretion.
o Person lawfully arrested has escapes or is
rescued, any person may immediately pursue
or retake him without a warrant at any time
and in any place within the Philippines
o When a person to be arrested has escaped
detention facility
o If the accused released on bail attempts to
depart from the Philippines without
permission of the court where the case is
pending
o Doctrine of exigent circumstances – under
such urgency and exigency of the moment
where a search can be lawfully dispensed with
- Exclusionary rule
- Fruit of the poisonous tree
o Once the primary source is shown to have been
lawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative
evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.
c. Composition and powers of the government organs
d. Judicial review
e. Supervision of courts
f. Powers of the Supreme Court
g. Qualifications, DQs, selection of:
i. president, senators
ii. members of the HoR
iii. justices and judges,
iv. the ombudsman, and
v. constitutional commissioners
h. Immunity of the President
i. privileges of senators and members of the HoR

i. Structure of Government
i. composition, functions,
ii. powers and privileges,
iii. separation of powers, and
 iv. system of checks and balances
- mechanism by which one department is allowed to resist
encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments.

j. Process of legislation
k. Natural Resources
i. nationalization principle for natural resources and economic
activities

l. Amendment and revision of the Constitution (Article XVII)

b) International Law – 1 question
a. Sources of international law
b. Relationship with domestic law
c) Labor Law – 3 questions
a. Basic Principles
b. Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship

c. Termination of Employment
d. Requirements for valid Labor-Only Contracting
e. Rights of employees and of labor organizations; membership in unions
f. Management prerogative
g. Illegal recruitment of overseas Filipino workers
h. Remedies (Labor Standards Violations)
Taxation Law – 3 questions
i. Basic Principles of Taxation in the Constitution

j. Income Tax
k. Value-Added Tax
l. Donor’s Tax
m. Remedies
i. Jurisdiction of courts
ii. prescription,
iii. remedies against assessment notices
B. Criminal Law – 15 questions
a) Basic principles
a. Territoriality
i. As a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within
its territory
ii. Exceptions: (Extraterritoriality)
1. Should commit an offense on a Philippine ship or airship;
(Flag State Rule – where ship is registered, not citizenship of
owner)
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 issued by the
Government of the Philippine islands;
4. While being Public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions;
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One Book Two of this
Code.
iii. Further, some special penal laws specifically provide for its
extraterritorial application. Some examples are the Anti-Trafficking
in Persons Act of 2003 and Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
iv. Rules on crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while
in the territory of another country:
1. French Rule – such crimes should not be prosecuted in the
courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction
they were committed unless their commission affects the
peace and security of the territory.
2. English Rule – Such crimes are in general triable in the
courts of the country within whose territory they were
committed, unless they merely affect things within the vessel
or they refer to the internal management thereof.
(Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH rule)
b. actus reus
i. criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement. This
describes a physical activity that harms another person or damages
property. Physical acts that make up the elements of the crime.
(Guilty ACT)
c. mens rea
i. Non-physical element which, combined with the act of the accused
(actus reus), makes up the crime charged. Most frequently it is the
criminal intent, or the guilty MIND.
b) Circumstances affecting criminal liability
a. Justifying
 i. These are circumstances attendant to the commission of the alleged
offense which by their presence negates the unlawfulness of the acts
committed, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed
the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability, except in
the case of par. 4 of art. 11 of the RPC (avoidance of evil or injury)
where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.
ii. An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts, which
would otherwise engender criminal liability. However, he asserts
that he is justified in committing the acts. In the process of proving
a justifying circumstance, the accused risks admitting the imputed
acts, which may justify the existence of an offense were it not for the
exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused
fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances
iii. Self-defense
1. Requisites:
a. Victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to
actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the
person acting in self-defense.
b. There was reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person claiming self-defense, or, at least, any
provocation executed by the person claiming self-
defense was not the proximate and immediate cause
of the victim’s aggression.
2. Unlawful aggression:
a. There must be a physical or material attack or assault;
b. The attack or assault must be actual, or at least,
imminent;
c. The attacker or assault must be unlawful.
iv. Defense of Relative
1. Requisites:
a. Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed
or injured;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
c. The person defending the relative had no part in
provoking the assailant, should any provocation been
given by the relative attacked.
2. Relatives that can be defended:
a. Spouse
b. Ascendants
c. Descendants, legitimate, natural,
d. Adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees;
e. Those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
 v. Defense of Stranger
1. Requisites:
a. Unlawful aggression by the victim;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel
it;
c. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
vi. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
1. Requisites:
a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
void it;
c. There be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
While this justifying circumstance prevents the
attachment of criminal liability, civil liability may still
arise even when the defense is successfully claimed. In
these cases, the civil liability does not arise from crime
but arises from law (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1157). Article 101
of the RPC provides that the persons for whose benefit
the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in
proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
vii. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
1. Requisites:
a. The accused must have acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
b. The injury caused or the offense committed should
have been the necessary consequence of such lawful
exercise.
viii. Obedience to an Order Issued for some Lawful Purpose
1. Requisites:
a. Order has been issued by a superior;
b. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
c. The means used by the subordinate to carry our said
order is lawful.
ix. Battered Woman Syndrome
1. Scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships
as a result of cumulative abuse.
2. Cycle of Violence (three phases):
a. Tension-building phase
b. Acute battering incident
c. Tranquil, loving, (or at least non-violent) phase
 3. In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple
must go through the battering cycle at least TWICE.
b. Exempting
i. A person acting under any of the exempting circumstances commits
a crime but cannot be held criminally liable therefor. The
exemption from punishment stems from the complete absence of
intelligence or free will in performing the act.
ii. Imbecility or Insanity
1. Imbecility is defined as a mental condition approaching that of
one who is insane. It is analogous to childishness and dotage. An
imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and
seven years of age. Within the meaning of Article 12, he must be
deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will
at the time of committing the crime . An imbecile is exempt in all
cases from criminal liability.
2. Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of
intelligence while committing the act, i.e., when the accused is
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because
there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is total
deprivation of freedom of the will.
3. Feeblemindedness is not exempting, because the offender could
distinguish right from wrong. Such may nevertheless be
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance provided for in either
paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of article 13
iii. Minority
1. 15 years or under at the time of the commission of the crime
2. Above 15 years but below 18 years who acted WITHOUT
discernment
3. If a child falls under the cited ages, he or she shall be released and
shall be subjected to an intervention program as may be
determined by a local social welfare and development officer,
pursuant to Sec. 20 of the said law.
4. Does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced in accordance with existing laws.
iv. Accident Without Fault or Intention of Causing it
1. Requisites:
a. The accused is performing a lawful act;
b. With Due care;
c. Causes injury to another by mere accident;
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
v. Irresistible Force
1. Requisites:
a. Irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that
acted not only without will but also against his will;
b. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave the
accused no opportunity to defend himself or to escape;
c. The duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present,
imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce
a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily
 harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not
enough.
2. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
a. An act done by me against my will is not my act.
vi. Uncontrollable Fear
1. Requisites:
a. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
b. Fear must be real and imminent

c. The fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that

committed.
vii. Insuperable causes
1. Requisites:
a. That a person is required by law to perform an act;
b. That the person fails to perform such act;
c. That the failure to perform such act was due to some lawful
or insuperable cause.
c. Mitigating
i. Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the
commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
ii. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances
1. Applies when some, but not all the requisites necessary to
justify the act or to exempt the accused from criminal
 liability are attendant. It is required, however, that
MAJORITY of the requisites are present.
2. If majority of the requisites of such circumstance are present,
the incomplete justification is a special or privileged
mitigating circumstance, which, not only cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstances, but also reduces the penalty by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law (People v.
Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000). However, if
only minority of the requisites is present, the incomplete
justification is considered an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
3. In incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, and defense
of stranger, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION is a condition sine
qua non.
iii. Age
1. Par. 2, Article 13 of the RPC providing that offender under 18
years of age is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of
minority is deemed repealed by Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344
declaring a child above 15 years but below 18 of age shall be
exempt from criminal liability unless he/she has acted with
discernment. In other words, whereas before, an offender
over 15 but under 18 years of age is entitled only to the
benefits provided under Article 68 of the RPC, under R.A.
No. 9344, such offender may be exempt from criminal
liability if he/she acted without discernment. On the other
hand, if such offender acted with discernment, such child in
conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs
provided under R.A. No. 9344, as amended.
2. Consequently, under R.A. No. 9344, only a child above
fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age who
acted with discernment shall not be exempted from criminal
responsibility. Nevertheless, the said child does not
immediately proceed to trial. Instead, he or she may undergo
a diversion, which refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and treatment of
the Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL) without resorting
to formal court proceedings. If the diversion is unsuccessful
or if the other grounds provided by law are present, then the
CICL shall undergo the appropriate preliminary
investigation of his or her criminal case, and trial before the
courts may proceed.
3. The mitigating circumstance of old age under Article 13 (2)
of the Revised Penal Code applies only when the offender
was over 70 years at the time of the commission of the
offense.
iv. Lack of Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong as that Committed
 1. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a
notable disparity between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime
committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the
commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon
used, the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained
by the victim.
v. Sufficient Provocation or Threat on the Part of the Offended Party
1. When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating
circumstance or as an essential element of self-defense, the
reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the offended
party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. It is
not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or
annoying. The provocation must be sufficient to excite one to
commit the wrongful act and should immediately precede
the act.
vi. Vindication of a Grave Offense
1. For such mitigating circumstance to be credited, the act
should be, “committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
his ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degree”.
vii. Passion or Obfuscation
1. Requisites:
a. An unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and
obfuscation was committed by the intended victim;
b. That the crime was committed within a reasonable
length of time from the commission of the unlawful
act that produced the obfuscation in the accused’s
mind;
c. That “the passion and obfuscation arouse from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or
revenge”.
2. Relate with art 247 Death and physical injuries under
exceptional circumstances. (adulterous wife) (only destierro
for the husband, for HIS safety)
viii. Voluntary Surrender and Voluntary Confession of Guilt
1. Requisites:
a. Offender has not been actually arrested;
b. Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
or the latter’s agent;
c. Surrender must be voluntary
2. Voluntary plea of guilty requisites:
a. Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
b. Confession of guilt was made in open court which is
competent to try the case;
 c. Confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation
of evidence for the prosecution.
3. An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be
considered as a mitigating circumstance because to be
voluntary, the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged.
a. If a plea to a lesser offense was allowed by the court
pursuant to a plea-bargaining agreement, confession
shall be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
ix. Physical Defect of Offender
1. The fact that appellant suffers from a physical defect, a
severed left hand, does not mean that he should
automatically be credited with the mitigating circumstance.
It must be shown that such physical defect limited his means
to act, defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings
to such an extent that he did not have complete freedom of
action, consequently resulting in diminution of the element
of voluntariness.
x. Illness of Offender Diminishing his Willpower
1. In the cases where we credited this mitigating circumstance
after rejecting a plea of insanity, it was clear from the records
that the accused had been suffering from a chronic mental
disease that affected his intelligence and willpower for quite
a number of years prior to the commission of the act he was
being held for.
2. Schizophrenia may be considered mitigating under Article
13 (9) if it diminishes the exercise of the willpower of the
accused, although it did not deprive her of the consciousness
of her act.
xi. Other Similar Reasons or Analogous Circumstances
1. Examples:
a. When the offender is over 60 years old with failing
sight - similar to when the offender is over seventy
years;
b. When a debtor tried to evade payment of his debt
which caused an outraged feeling on the part of the
offender-creditor - similar to passion or obfuscation;
c. Impulse of jealousy - similar to passion or
obfuscation;
d. Manifestation of battered wife syndrome - similar to
an illness that diminishes exercise of will power
e. Esprit de corps - similar to passion or obfuscation;
f. Voluntary restitution of stolen property - similar to
voluntary surrender;
g. Extreme poverty and necessity - similar to incomplete
justification based on necessity;
h. Testifying for the prosecution – similar to plea of
guilty.
d. Aggravating
i. Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without
however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law
for the offense.
ii. Different kinds of aggravating circumstances: (lacking pars.
1,7,8,11,12,21 of art.14)
1. Generic
a. Contempt or insult of public authority;
b. Recidivism;
c. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band;
d. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness;
e. Palace or place of commission of the crime;
f. Crime committed in the Dwelling of the offended
party;
g. Breaking of parts of the house;
h. Unlawful entry;
i. Habituality;
j. Use of persons under 15 years of age;
k. Craft, Fraud, Disguise;
2. Specific
a. Disregard of rank, age, or sex due the offended party
applicable only in crimes against persons and honor.
b. Abuse of superior strength or means be employed to
weaken the defense applicable only in crimes against
persons.
c. Treachery applicable only in crimes against persons.
d. Ignominy applicable only in crimes against chastity.
e. Cruelty applicable only in crimes against persons.
3. Qualifying
a. Are those that change the nature of the crime and thus
do not merely affect the penalty imposed. When acts
are attended by qualifying aggravating circumstances,
they serve to make those acts punishable under a
different provision of law.
4. Inherent
a. Inherent aggravating circumstances are those that
must necessarily accompany the commission of the
crime. Thus, they are not appreciated as aggravating
circumstances within the contemplation of Article 14
and are treated as essential elements of the offense to
which they form an integral part. Thus, they generally
do not serve to increase the penalty (RPC, Art. 62(2)).
Some inherent aggravating circumstances are:
i. Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery,
theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage
(REYES, Book One, supra at 338);
 ii. Fraud in estafa (RPC, Art. 315);
iii. Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a
house in robbery with the use of force upon
things (RPC, Art. 299);
iv. Abuse of public position in malversation of
public funds and property (RPC, Art. 217); and
v. Deceit in simple seduction (RPC, Art. 338).
5. Special
a. Special aggravating circumstances are those which
arise under special conditions, serving to increase the
penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by
mitigating circumstances. Some examples are:
i. Complex crimes (RPC, Art. 48);
ii. Use of unlicensed firearm
1. When inherent in the crime (R.A.
10591); or
2. In the commission of brigandage (RPC,
Art. 306, as amended by R.A. 12);
iii. Taking advantage of public position (RPC, Art.
62[1][a]);
iv. Membership in an organized/ syndicated crime
group (RPC, Art. 62(1][a]);
v. Error in personae (RPC, Art. 49); and
vi. Quasi- recidivism (RPC, Art. 160).
iii. The following are the rules governing aggravating circumstances:
1. Aggravating circumstances shall NOT be appreciated if:
a. They constitute a separate crime especially punishable
by law; or
b. They are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing a penalty therefor (RPC, Art. 62[1]).
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
necessarily accompanies the commission thereof (RPC, Art.
62[2]).
3. Aggravating circumstances shall only serve to aggravate the
liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to
whom such circumstances are attendant even if there was
conspiracy, when they arise:
a. From the moral attributes of the offender;
b. From his private relations with the offended party;
c. From any personal cause.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution
of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or
their cooperation therein (RPC, Art. 62[4]).
 5. When there is more than one qualifying aggravating
circumstance present, one of them will be appreciated as
qualifying while the others will be considered as having the
effect of a mere generic aggravating circumstance.
iv. Taking advantage of Public Position
1. To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public
officer must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which
his office gives him as a means by which he realizes his
purpose. (police officer)
v. Committed in Contempt of or with Insult to the Public Authorities
1. Public authority engaged in the exercise of his functions;
2. Public authority is not the person against whom the crime is
committed;
3. Offender knows him to be a public authority;
4. Presence of the public officer has not prevented the offender
from committing the criminal act in his presence.
vi. Disregard of Rank, Sex, or Age
1. These circumstances can be considered single or altogether.
If all of them are present, they have the weight of one
aggravating circumstance only.
2. Applicable only in crimes against persons or honor.
vii. Commission of Crime in One’s Dwelling
1. Inherent only in crimes which could be committed in no
other place than in the house of another, such as trespass
and robbery in an inhabited house.
2. Aggravating in robbery with violence and intimidation
AGAINST PERSONS, because the crime may be committed
without the necessity of trespassing the offended party’s
house.
viii. Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Ungratefulness
1. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating,
it is necessary that there exists a relation of trust and
confidence between the accused and one against whom the
crime was committed and the accused made use of such a
relationship to commit the crime. Similarly, there could have
been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the
crime if the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused
prior to the criminal act is lacking or non-existent (People V.
Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304-05, June 28, 1983).
ix. Palace and Places of Commission of Offense
1. It must be pointed out that this aggravating circumstance is
based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by
the place of the commission of the crime, which must be
respected
x. Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or Band
1. Two tests for nocturnity to apply:
 a. Objective test under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it facilitates the commission of the offense;
b. Subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it was purposely sought by the offender.
i. (tests should be applied in the alternative)
2. Uninhabited Place
a. The uninhabited-ness of a place is determined not by
the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the
crime, but whether or not in the place of commission,
there was reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving some help. Thus, in People v. Saguing, the
Court considered the crime as having been committed
in an uninhabited place because the killing was done
in a secluded place at the foot of a hill, forested, and
uninhabited.
3. Band
a. The aggravating circumstance of band exists
whenever more than three armed malefactors act
together in the commission of an offense.
xi. On Occasion of Calamity or Misfortune
xii. Aid of Armed Men
1. As compared to “by a band”
a. When a crime is committed by a band, it requires
more than three (3) armed malefactors (at least 4)
who should have acted together in the commission of
an offense and all band members are liable as
principals. On the other hand, if crime is committed
with the aid of armed men, it requires the aid of at
least two (2) armed men and the latter should merely
act as accomplices. The second circumstance is
present even if one of the principal offenders merely
relied on their aid; actual aid is not necessary.
xiii. Recidivism, Reiteracion, Habitual Delinquency, Quasi-recidivism
1. Recidivism – generic aggravating circumstance;
2. Reiteracion or habituality – generic aggravating
circumstance;
3. Habitual delinquency – extraordinary aggravating
circumstance;
a. Requisites:
i. The offender has been convicted of any of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification;
ii. That after that conviction or after serving ten
(10) years from his release or first conviction,
he was again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time;
 iii. That after his conviction of, or after serving
sentence for the second offense, he again
committed, and within ten (10) years from his
last release or conviction, he was again
convicted of any of said offenses, the third time
or oftener.
4. Quasi-recidivism – special aggravating circumstance –
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed
by law for the new felony.
xiv. Price, Reward or Promise
1. Must be the primary reason or primordial motive for the
commission of the crime.
xv. Means of Inundation, Fire, etc.
1. Committed by means of any of such acts involving great
waste or ruin.
xvi. Evident Premeditation
1. Requisites:
a. The time when the offender determined (conceived)
to commit the crime;
b. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung
to his determination;
c. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
xvii. Craft, Fraud or Disguise
1. Examples:
a. Pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy
gained entry into the residence of their prey whom
they thereafter robbed and killed;
b. Pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and
through this artifice, entered the house of the victim
whom they thereupon robbed and killed;
c. Pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and
by this means gained entry into a house, in which they
then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;
d. Pretended to be a customer wanting to buy a bottle of
wine;
e. Pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a
public utility vehicle; or
f. Posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as
being thirsty, asking for drink of water (People v.
Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993).
xviii. Abuse of Superior Strength
1. It is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly
and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and
purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
 commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior
strength means to purposely use force excessively out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance
depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties (People
v. Aquino, G.R. No. 203435, April 11, 2018).
xix. Means Employed to Weaken Defense
1. Applicable only to crimes against persons, and sometimes
against persons and property, such as robbery with physical
injuries or homicide.
xx. Treachery
1. Requisites:
a. Means, method and forms of execution employed gave
the person attached no opportunity to defend himself
or to retaliate;
b. Such means, methods, and forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused
without danger to his person.
2. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
3. Circumstances absorbed by treachery:
a. Craft
b. Abuse of superior strength
c. Nighttime
d. Aid of Armed Men
e. Cuadrilla
f. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Treachery is not considered as a qualifying circumstance in
the crime of robbery with homicide but as a generic
aggravating circumstance, the presence of which merits the
imposition of the higher penalty (People v. Layug, G.R. No.
223679, September 27, 2017).
5. The law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a
crime against persons, and not at the constituent crime of
robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is
applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
constituent crime of "robbery" of the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. The crime of robbery with
homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against
property or as a special complex and single and indivisible
crime simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance (People v. Escote, G.R. No.
140756, April4,2003).
6. If the accused employed means to render the victim
defenseless, treachery shall be appreciated even if the killing
is due to error in personae, aberratio fetus, or with the
circumstance of praeter intentionem (People v. Del Castillo,
Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April 30, 1984; People v. Mabug-at,
 G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926; People v. Cagoco, G.R. No.
38511, October 6, 1933; CAMPANILLA, Volume I, supra at
77).
xxi. Ignominy
1. Pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and
obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
2. Examples in rape cases:
a. Where the accused ordered the complainant to exhibit
to them her complete nakedness for about ten
minutes before raping her;
b. Where the rape was committed in front of the
husband of the victim or by two or more persons in
view of one another;
c. Where the sexual intercourse was performed in the
"dog style" position; and where the accused plastered
mud on the victim's private part.
d. Where the victim was pregnant and whose pleas on
that ground were ignored by the accused who went on
to force his lust on her. The accused then tied a
banana fiber around his penis and inserted it again
into her vagina. Thereafter, he pulled out his organ
and forced the victim to suck it (People v. Bacule, G.R.
No. 127568, January 28, 2000).
xxii. Unlawful Entry
1. There is unlawful entry when an entrance (not escape) is
effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
xxiii. Breaking Wall, Roof, Floor, Door, or Window
1. To be considered as aggravating, the breaking must be
utilized as a means to the commit the crime. However, it is
not necessary that the offender should have entered the
building. What aggravates the liability of the offender is the
breaking of a part of a building (REYES, Book One, supra at
474).
xxiv. Aid of Persons Under 15 Years of Age
1. Under Sec. 20-C of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No.
10630, any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes
use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of children (a
person under 18 years old), including any person who abuses
his/her authority over the child or who, with abuse of
confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child
and shall induce, threaten or instigate the commission of the
crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by law for the
crime committed in its maximum period.
xxv. By Means of Motor Vehicles, Airship, or Similar Means
1. The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used
either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape, but not
when the use thereof was merely incidental and was not
 purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense
or to render the escape of the offender easier and his
apprehension difficult (People v. Salahuddin, G.R. No.
206291, January 18, 2016).
xxvi. Cruelty
1. For cruelty to be appreciated against the accused, it must be
shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction,
caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he
inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The
crime is aggravated because by deliberately increasing the
suffering of the victim the offender denotes sadism and
consequently a marked degree of malice and perversity
(People v. Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001).
xxvii. Special Laws providing for aggravating circumstance
1. SECTION 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the
Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence
of Dangerous Drugs. - Notwithstanding the provisions of any
law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of
dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender,
and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
Penal Code shall be applicable (R.A. No. 9165, otherwise
known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", as
amended by R.A. No. 10640, Sec. 25).
2. SECTION 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered by the
relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to
be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided
for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
as the case may be (R.A. No. 10175, otherwise known as
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012", Sec. 6).

e. Alternative circumstances
i. Relationship
1. Covered relationships:
a. Spouses;
b. Ascendant;
c. Descendant;
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister;
e. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
i. The law cannot be stretched to include persons
attached by common-law relations.
2. Other relationships covered:
 a. Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter
is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant
and descendant.
b. Adopted parent and adopted child may also be
included, as similar to that of ascendant and
descendant.
3. Effect of relationship in crimes against chastity
a. Always aggravating
ii. Intoxication

iii. Degree of instruction and education of the offender

1. As an alternative circumstance, it does not refer only to
literacy but more to the level of intelligence of the accused. It
refers to the lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of
the full significance of one's acts.
2. As a general rule, lack of sufficient education is a mitigating
circumstance in almost all crimes (U.S. v. Reguera, G.R. No.
L-16639, March 22, 1921). However, there are recognized
exceptions to this rule which, although not making it
mitigating, it also does not make it aggravating, to wit:
a. Crimes against Property such as arson, estafa, theft, or
robbery;
b. Crimes against Chastity;
c. Treason, because love of country should be a natural
feeling of every citizen however unaltered or
uncultured he may be;
d. Rape;
e. Murder or homicide; to kill is forbidden by natural
law which every rational being is endowed to know
and feel.
iv. Absolutory Causes
1. Are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons
of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
2. Examples:
 a. Spontaneous Desistance (Art. 6);
b. Slight or less serious physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)',
c. Attempted or frustrated light felonies (Art. 7);
d. Instigation;
e. Marriage of the offender and the offended party in
cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape (Art. 344);
f. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability by
reason of relationship (Art. 20);
g. in adultery and concubinage, if the offended party
shall have consented or pardoned the offenders (Art.
344);
h. Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft,
swindling, and malicious mischief (Art. 332); and
i. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering
another's dwelling against the latter's will is to prevent
some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the
dwelling, or a third person, or for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, or
when entering cafes, taverns, inn and other public
houses, while the same are open (Art 280, par.3).

c) Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law

a. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is an act to provide for an indeterminate
sentence and parole for all persons convicted of certain crimes by the
courts of the Philippines. The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that
the court must, instead of a single fixed penalty, determine two penalties -
the maximum and minimum terms. The law should be applied in imposing
a prison sentence for a crime punishable either by special law or by the
Revised Penal Code.
b. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
c. Whenever there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, apply it first
before computing the penalty. The penalty prescribed by the RPC for the
crime shall first be lowered by one degree using the scale in Article 71.
d. In cases where the application of the law on indeterminate sentence would
be unfavorable to the accused, resulting in the lengthening of his prison
sentence, said law on indeterminate sentence should not be applied.
e. ISL is not applicable to the following:
i. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment;
1. The court has in effect equated the penalty of reclusion
perpetua as synonymous to life imprisonment for purposes
of the Indeterminate Sentence law. Hence, a person
punished with reclusion perpetua is not entitled to the
 benefits of this law (People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 158797,
July 29, 2005).
ii. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy, or proposal to commit
treason;
iii. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or
espionage;
iv. Those convicted of piracy;
v. Those who are habitual delinquents;
vi. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
vii. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to
them by the Chief Executive;
viii. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one
(1) year;
ix. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had
been sentenced by final judgment (Act No. 4103, as amended, Sec.
2);
x. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension (REYES,
Book One, supra at 808-909); and
xi. When its application is unfavorable to the accused (People v. Nang
Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951).
xii. Use of trafficked victim
xiii. Non-prison sentence.
f. Parole
i. Suspension of service of sentence after serving the minimum term
of the indeterminate penalty.
ii. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue of
this Act shall, at such times and in such manner as may be required
by the conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said
Board for such purpose, report personally to such government
officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to
the remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him
or until final release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence as herein provided (Act No. 4103, Sec. 6).
iii. If during the period of surveillance, such paroled prisoner shall
show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of
the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his favor, which
shall entitle him to final release and discharge.
g. Graduation of Penalties
i. Penalties are graduated as follows:
1. Scale 1:
a. Death
b. Reclusion Perpetua
c. Reclusion Temporal
d. Prision Mayor
 e. Prision Correccional
f. Arresto Mayor
g. Destierro
h. Arresto Menor
i. Public Censure
j. Fine
2. Scale 2:
a. Perpetual Absolute dq;
b. Temporary absolute dq;
c. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling;
d. Public censure;
e. Fine.

ii. Rules for graduating penalties:

1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
indivisible - the penalty next lower in degree shall be that
immediately following that indivisible penalty in the
respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of
two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be imposed to their full extent - the penalty next
lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser
of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of
one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of
another divisible penalty - the penalty next lower in degree
shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of
the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the
proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that
immediately following in said respective graduated scale.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of
several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties
- the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
period immediately following the minimum prescribed and
of the two next following, which shall be taken from the
penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty
immediately following in the above mentioned respective
graduated scale.
 5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some
manner not especially provided for in the four preceding
rules - the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose
corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of
the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and
upon accomplices and accessories (RPC, Art. 61).

d) Service of Sentence
a. Rule when one has to serve two or more penalties:
i. He shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties
will so permit. Otherwise, follow the scale.
b. Rule on execution and service of penalties in case of insanity:
i. When a convict becomes insane or imbecile after final sentence has
been pronounced, the execution of said sentence is suspended only
as regards the personal penalty.
ii. If he recovers his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the
penalty has prescribed.
iii. Even if while serving his sentence, the convict becomes insane or
imbecile, the above provisions shall be observed (RPC, Art. 79).
1. Note: The payment of civil or pecuniary liabilities shall not
be suspended (REYES, Book One, supra at 837).
c. Destierro
i. Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter
the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius
therein specified, which shall not be more than 250 and not less
than 25km from the place designated.
d. Three-fold Rule
i. The three-fold rule provides that the maximum duration of the
convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of the
time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum of those imposed equals the said maximum
period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years
(RPC, Art. 70).
ii. The rule applies only when the convict has to serve at least FOUR
(4) sentences.
e. Probation Law
i. The application for probation must be filed within the period for
perfecting an appeal (P.D. No. 968, as amended, Sec. 4). However,
in the case of minor offenders, the court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon
application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of
his/her sentence, taking into account the best interest of the child
(R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 42).
ii. The benefits of the Probation Law shall not be extended to those:
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than 6 years;
 2. Convicted of any crime against the national Security;
3. Who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of more than 6 months
and 1 day and/or a fine of more than P1,000;
4. Who have been once on Probation under the provisions of
the Probation Law;
5. Who are Already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of the Probation Law became applicable pursuant
to Section 33 thereof;
6. Who Appealed
a. Note: Does not apply to minor offenders. The court
may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
child in conflict with the law, and upon application at
any time, place the child on probation in lieu of
his/her sentence, taking into account the best interest
of the child (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 42). Convicted of
Drug trafficking or drug pushing (R.A. No. 9165, Sec.
24);
7. Convicted of Drug trafficking or drug pushing (R.A. No.
9165, Sec. 24);
a. Note: Minors as drug pushers are disqualified from
availing the law on probation (Padua v. People, G.R.
No. 168546, July 23, 2008);
8. Convicted of Election offenses under the Omnibus Election
Code (Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 261);
9. Placing the offender on probation will not serve the End of
justice or the best interest of the society and the offender
himself (P.D. No. 968, Sec. 8);
10. Convicted of Malicious reporting of money laundering
transaction (R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 9194);
and
11. Who committed the crime of Torture (R.A. No. 9745, Sec.
16).
iii. Conditions of probation
1. Present himself to the probation officer designated to
undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified
in the order within 72 hours from receipt of said order;
2. Report to the probation officer at least once a month at such
time and place as specified by said officer.
iv. The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than one year shall not exceed two years.
v. In all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years.
vi. When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to
serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of
 probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice the total
number of days of subsidiary imprisonment (P.D. No. 968, as
amended, Sec. 14).
vii. Effect if after appeal accused convicted of a lesser crime.
1. Ordinarily, the accused would no longer be entitled to apply
for probation, he having appealed from the judgment. Here,
however, the accused did not appeal from a judgment that
would have allowed him to apply for probation. He did not
have a choice between appeal and probation. While it is true
that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that the
accused has the right to such privilege; he certainly does not
have. What he has is the right to apply for that privilege. If
the Court allows him to apply for probation because of the
lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide
whether or not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking
into account the full circumstances of his case. The Probation
Law requires that an accused must not have appealed his
conviction before he can avail himself of probation. The
Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to
probation through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy
of probation is one of liberality towards the accused
(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011).
f. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
i. Rules regarding the criminal liability of a child:
1. A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
2. A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected
to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to
the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
3. The exemption from criminal liability herein established
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall
be enforced in accordance with existing laws (R.A. No. 9344,
as amended, Sec. 6).
ii. Automatic suspension of sentence:
1. Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense
charged, the court shall, determine and ascertain any civil
liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment
of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with
the law under suspended sentence, without need of
application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence
 shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 of age
or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
2. Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the
various circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the
appropriate disposition measures as provided in the
Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law
(R.A. No. 9344, as amended, Sec. 38).
3. Applies even to heinous crimes.
iii. Neglected Child
1. A neglected child, who is above 12 years up to 15 years of age,
shall be mandatorily placed in a youth care facility or Bahay
Pag-asa in the following instances:
a. If the child commits serious crimes such as parricide,
murder, infanticide, rape, kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with homicide or rape, robbery with
homicide or rape, destructive arson, or carnapping
where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or
offenses involving dangerous drugs punishable by
more than 12 years of imprisonment;
b. In case of repetition of offenses and the child was
previously subjected to an intervention program and
his best interest requires involuntary commitment
(R.A. No. 9344, as amended, Sec. 20, 20-A, and 20-
B).
e) Effect of Death of the accused
a. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final judgment;
b. Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily mean that the civil
liability is also extinguished. An exception is when the accused dies while
the judgment of conviction against him was pending appeal. /In this case,
both his civil and criminal liability were extinguished by his death. An
exception to the exception is when the claim for civil liability is predicated
on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-
contracts and quasi-delicts (People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007,
September2, 1994).
f) Crimes against persons
a. Parricide (246)
i. Requisites:
1. A person is killed
2. The deceased is killed by the accused
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or other legitimate ascendants or
other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
b. Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances (247)
i. Requisites:
 1. A legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person;
2. He kills any or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter;
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his
wife nor consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
c. Murder (248)
i. Requisites:
1. Person was killed;
2. Accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mention in Art. 248;
4. The killing is not Parricide or Infanticide.
ii. Qualifying circumstances:
1. With Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, Reward or promise;
3. By means of Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad,
fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
4. On Occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity;
5. With Evident premeditation;
6. With Cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse (RPC, Art. 248, as amended by Section 6, R.A. No.
7659).
a. Note: Homicide plus one qualifying circumstance
under Article 248 will give rise to murder. The killing
should be homicide because if it is against any of the
persons in Article 246, it is parricide or if the victim is
less than three days old, it is infanticide (BOADO,
supra at 661).
d. Homicide (249)
i. Requisites:
1. Person was killed
2. Accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
3. Accused had intention to kill which is presumed;
4. Killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or parricide or infanticide.
ii. Evidence to show intent to kill is important only in attempted or
frustrated homicide. This is because, if death resulted, intent to kill
is conclusively presumed. It is generally shown by the kind of
 weapon used, the parts of the victim's body at which it was aimed,
and by the wounds inflicted. The element of intent to kill is
incompatible with imprudence or negligence (REYES, Book Two,
supra at 525).
iii. When the victim is below 12 years of age, the penalty of homicide is
reclusion perpetua, instead of reclusion temporal (R.A. No. 7610,
Section 10).
iv. Corpus delicti means the fact of the crime; that a crime has actually
been perpetrated, and does not refer to the body of the murdered
person nor the object robbed or stolen from the owner (People v.
Bungay, G.R. No. L-18308, April 30, 1966).
e. Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray (251)
i. Requisites:
1. There be several or at least four (4) persons;
2. They did not compose groups organized for the common
purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally,
otherwise, they may be liable as co-conspirators;
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one
another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased;
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical
injuries or who used violence can be identified.
f. Physical Injuries Inflicted in a Tumultuous Affray
i. Requisites:
1. There is tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding
article;
2. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious
physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature
only;
3. That a person responsible cannot be identified;
4. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the
person of the offended party are known.
g. Giving assistance to Suicide (253)
i. Requisites:
1. A person assists another to commit suicide, for instance, a
terminally ill patient asks him to remove his life-support
machine. The penalty is prision mayor,
2. If he lends his assistance to the extent of doing the killing
himself, such as when he is asked by an elderly person to
shoot the latter, he shall suffer reclusion temporal; and
3. If the suicide in either case is not consummated, the penalty
shall be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods
(BOADO supra at 684).
ii. Person who attempted suicide
 1. A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally
liable, because the society has always considered a person
who attempts to kill himself as an unfortunate being, a
wretched person more deserving of pity than of penalty.
h. Discharge of Firearms (254)
i. Elements:
1. Accused shot at another person with a firearm;
2. There was no intent to kill.
i. Infanticide (255)
i. Elements:
1. Child was killed;
2. Deceased child was three (3) days old or less than 72 hours of
age;
3. Accused killed said child
ii. Requisites:
1. Victim did not die inside the maternal womb;
2. The born-alive infant must be VIABLE, which means that he
can sustain a life independent from the mother;
a. Note: A fetus with an intrauterine life of six (6)
months is NOT viable.
3. The born-alive viable infant must be less than three (3) days
old.
iii. Concealment of dishonor is not an exculpatory circumstance in the
crime of infanticide. It merely lowers the penalty to:
1. Prision mayor-if committed by the mother; and
2. Reclusion temporal - if committed by the maternal
grandparents (REYES, Book Two, supra at 541).
iv. A delinquent mother must be of good reputation and good morals
in order that concealing dishonor may mitigate her liability.
j. Intentional Abortion (256)
i. Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or
that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages
upon her, or any other act of the accused, the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom;
4. That the abortion is intended.
ii. Ways of committing:
1. Violence upon person of the pregnant woman;
2. Without violence but without the consent of the woman;
3. With consent of the woman.
k. Unintentional Abortion (257)
i. Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without
intending an abortion;
 3. Violence is intentionally exerted;
4. As a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb
or after having been expelled therefrom.
l. Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by her Parents (258)
i. Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered abortion;
2. Abortion is intended; and
3. Abortion is caused by:
a. Pregnant woman herself;
b. Any other person, with her consent; or
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose
of concealing her dishonor.
m. Abortion Practiced by a Physician or Midwife and Dispensing of Abortives
(259)
i. Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman who suffered abortion;
2. Abortion is intended;
3. The offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes, or
assists in causing the abortion;
4. Physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific
knowledge or skill.
ii. Pharmacist
1. Offender is a pharmacist;
2. There is no proper prescription from a physician;
3. The offender dispenses any abortive.
n. Responsibility of Participants in a Duel (260)
i. Punishable acts:
1. Killing one’s adversary in duel
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries;
3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been
inflicted.
o. Challenging to a Duel (261)
i. Punishable acts:
1. Challenging another to a duel
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel;
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to
accept a challenge to fight a duel.
p. Physical Injuries
i. It is a formal crime; always in the consummated stage as the
penalty is based on the gravity of the injury. It cannot be in the
attempted or frustrated stage because there will be no basis for the
penalty. The gravity of the injury, whether serious, less serious or
slight will not be known unless and until the felony is
consummated. The result can only be speculated and in criminal
law, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required (BOADO, supra at
693).
q. Mutilation (262)
 i. Two (2) kinds:
1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either
totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction;
a. There must be castration, that is, mutilation of organs
necessary for the reproduction, such as the penis or
ovarium;
b. Mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that
is, to deprive the offended party of some essential
organ for reproduction.
2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping
or clipping off any part of the body of the offended party,
other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive
him of that part of his body.
a. If the mutilation involves a part of the body, other
than an organ for reproduction, such as the cutting of
the outer ear or arm of the party with a deliberate
purpose of depriving him of that part of his body.
“Mayhem" is other intentional mutilation.
r. Serious Physical Injuries (263)
i. How committed:
1. Wounding
2. Beating
3. Assaulting
4. Administering injurious substance
ii. What acts constitute:
1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile,
impotent, or blind in consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
2. When the injured person (a) loses the use of speech or the
power to hear or smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an
arm, or a leg, or (b) loses the use of any such member, or (c)
becomes incapacitated for the work in which he was
theretofore habitually engaged, in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
3. When the person injured (a) becomes deformed, or (b) loses
any other member of his body, or (c) loses the use thereof, or
(d) becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the
work in which he was habitually engaged for more than 90
days, in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for
labor for more than 30 days (but must not be more than 90
days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted (REYES,
Book Two, supra at 558).
iii. Qualifying circumstances:
1. Victim is any of those of parricide except in the case of
parents when the injuries result from excessive
chastisement;
 2. There is presence of any of the qualifying circumstances for
murder.
s. Administering Injurious Substance or Beverages (264)
i. Elements:
1. Offender inflicted serious physical injuries upon another;
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious
substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his
weakness of mind or credulity;
3. Had no intent to kill.
t. Less Serious Physical Injuries (265)
i. Elements:
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more
(but not more than 30 days), or shall require medical
attendance for the same period of time; AND
2. Physical injuries must not be those described in the
preceding articles.

u. Slight Physical Injuries (266)

i. Kinds:
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party for
labor from 1 to 9 days, or required medical attendance
during the same period;
2. Physical injuries which did NOT prevent the offended party
from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require
medical attendance; or
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury
(REYES, Book Two, supra 569).
ii. Presumptions:
1. In the absence of proof to the period of offended party's
incapacity for labor or of the required medical attendance,
the crime committed is presumed as slight physical injuries;
and
2. When there is no evidence to establish the gravity or
duration of actual injury or to show the causal relationship to
death, the offense is slight physical injuries (RPC, Art. 266)
v. Rape, When and How Committed (266-A)
i. Kinds: (under RA8353)
1. The traditional concept under Article 335 wherein there is
carnal knowledge with a woman against her will. The
offended party is always a woman and the offender is always
a man;
a. Elements:
i. Offender is a Man;
ii. Offender had Carnal knowledge of the woman;
iii. Such act is accomplished under the following
circumstances:
1. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
2. Offended party is deprived of reason or
is otherwise unconscious;
3. By fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority;
4. Offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though
none of the above circumstances
mentioned be present.
a. Medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in the
prosecution for rape inasmuch as
the victim’s testimony alone, if
credible, is sufficient to convict
the accused of the crime; a
doctor’s certificate is merely
corroborative in character and
not an indispensable requirement
in proving the commission of
rape. (People v. Bauit)
2. Sexual assault wherein it is committed with an instrument or
an object or use of the penis with penetration of the mouth
or anal orifice. The offended party or offender can either be a
man or a woman, that is, if the woman or a man uses an
instrument in the anal orifice of a male, she or he can be
liable for rape.
a. Elements:
i. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
ii. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of
the following means:
1. Inserting penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice;
2. Inserting any instrument or object into
the genital or anal orifice of another
person.
 iii. Act of sexual assault is accomplished under any
of the following circumstances:
1. Using force or intimidation;
2. Woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
3. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
4. When the woman is under twelve (12)
years or demented.
a. A violation of the body orifices by
the fingers is within the expanded
definition of rape under R.A. No.
8353. Insertion of the finger into
the female genital is rape through
sexual assault (People v.
Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
March 30, 2000).However, there
should be evidence of at least the
slightest penetration of the sexual
organ and not merely a brush or
graze of its surface (Lutap v.
People, G.R. No. 204061,
February 5, 2018).
ii. Distinctions:
1. In the first mode, the offender is always a man, while in the
second, the offender may be a man or a woman;
2. In the first mode, the offended party is always a woman,
while in the second, the offended party may be a man or a
woman;
3. In the first mode, rape is committed through penile
penetration of the vagina, while the second is committed by
inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person; and
4. The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher than that
under the second (People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122,
January 15, 2014).
iii. The RPC, as amended, punishes the rape of a mentally disabled
person regardless of the perpetrator's awareness of his victim's
mental condition; proof that the accused knew of the victim’s
mental disability is important only for purposes of qualifying the
charge of rape, under Article 266-B (paragraph 10) which imposes
the death penalty if the offender knew of the victim's mental
disability at the time of the commission of the rape (People v.
Martinez, G.R. No. 226394, March 7, 2018).
iv. Effects of pardon
 1. The offended woman may pardon the offender through a
subsequent valid marriage, the effect of which would be the
extinction of the offender’s criminal liability. In such case, it
is the marriage that extinguishes the offender's liability, not
because of the pardon which extinguishes criminal liability
only if granted before the institution of the criminal case in
court; or
2. 2. Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned by
forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not void
ab initio (RPC, Art. 266-C).
v. In rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the
felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must
have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to that of
the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not
completed (People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401,.October 30, 2006).
vi. An accusation of rape can be made with facility, and while the
accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the
person accused, although innocent, to disprove;
vii. Considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons
being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be
scrutinized with great caution; and
viii. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense.
1. Note: "In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost
always the single most important issue; if the testimony of
the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is
credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be
convicted solely on that basis.” (People v. Rupal)
ix. Statutory Rape
1. Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old. In this type
of rape, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only
subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether
carnal knowledge took place (People v. Espina, G.R. No.
183564, June 29, 2011).
2. Elements:
a. Offender had carnal knowledge of the victim;
b. Victim is below twelve (12) years old.
i. Note: If the woman is under 12 years of age,
proof of force and consent becomes immaterial
not only because force is not an element of
statutory rape, but the absence of a free
consent is presumed. (People v. Bagsic)
x. The circumstances introduced by R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. 8353 are
in the nature of qualifying circumstances. These are not ordinary
 aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of
penalty. Rather, these are special qualifying circumstances which
must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the
information; otherwise, it is only simple rape (People v. Libo-on,
G.R. No. 136737, May 23, 2001)
1. Victim is under 18 years and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or common law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
2. When the victim is under the custody of police or military
authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution.
3. When rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent,
any of the children or other relatives within the third civil
degree of consanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious
vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the
offender before or at the time of the commission of the
crime.
5. Victim is a child below seven (7) years.
6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with HIV, AIDS,
or any other STD and the disease is transferred to the victim.
7. Committed by any member of the AFP or para-military units
thereof or the PNP or any law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
8. By reason or on the occasion of rape, victim suffered
permanent physical mutilation or disability.
9. Offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the
time of the commission of the crime.
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional
disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime.
11. Use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons
12. Victim has become insane.
13. Rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or
on occasion thereof.
xi. The "sweetheart theory" is an affirmative defense often raised to
prove the non- attendance of force or intimidation. As afore-stated,
it is "effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and
consequently places on accused-appellant the burden of proving the
alleged relationship by substantial evidence. The "sweetheart
theory" operates to impair the victim's testimony or create doubt on
her version of the facts when the defense presents sufficient
evidence of a relationship between the accused and the victim but
the latter simply denies it. (People v. Rubilar)
xii. In rape shield rule, the character of the woman is immaterial in
rape. It is no defense that the woman is of unchaste character,
 provided the illicit relations were committed with force and
violence (R.A. No. 8505, Sec. 6).
xiii. The Woman’s Honor doctrine or the so-called “Maria Clara
Doctrine" provides that, it is a well- known fact that women,
especially Filipinos, would not admit that they have been abused
unless that abuse had actually happened. This is due to their
natural instinct to protect their honor (People v. Tafio, G.R. No. L-
11991, October 31, 1960)
g) Crimes against property
a. Robbery in general:
i. Personal property belonging to another;
ii. Unlawful taking of that property;
iii. Taking must be with intent to gain;
 iv. There is violence against, or intimidation of, any person or force
used upon things.
b. Kinds:
i. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons (294, 297,
298)
1. Acts punished:
a. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of Homicide is committed (Robbery with
Homicide) (RPC, Art. 294 [1])
b. When the robbery is accompanied by Rape or
intentional mutilation or arson (Robbery with Rape/
Robbery with Intentional Mutilations/ Robbery with
Arson) (RPC, Art. 294 [2]);
c. When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any
of the physical injuries resulting in Insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted
(subdivision 1 of Art. 263) (RPC, Art. 294 [2]);
d. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the
Physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of Article
263 is Inflicted resulting in:
i. The loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a
leg, or
ii. The loss of the use of any such member; or
iii. Incapacity for the work in which the injured
person is theretofore habitually engaged is
inflicted (RPC, Art. 294 [3]);
e. If the violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly Unnecessary for the commission of the crime
(Robbery with Unnecessary Violence) (RPC, Art. 294
[4])
f. When in the course of its execution, the offender shall
have inflicted upon any person not responsible for the
commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries
in consequence of which the person injured:
i. Becomes deformed or;
ii. Loses any other member of his body or;
iii. Loses the use thereof or;
iv. Becomes ill or;
v. Incapacitated for the performance of the work
in which he is habitually engaged for more than
90 days or the person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30
days(RPC, Art. 294 [4]);
g. If the violence employed by the offender does Not
cause any of the Serious physical injuries defined in
 Article 263, or if the offender employs intimidation
only (Simple Robbery) (294[5])
2. Robbery with Homicide (294[1])
a. Elements:
i. Taking of personal property belonging to
another;
ii. With intent to gain;
iii. With use of violence or intimidation against a
person;
iv. On the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
the crime of homicide, as used in its generic
sense, was committed.
b. The term "homicide" as used in paragraph No. 1 of
Article 294, is to be understood in its generic sense as
to include parricide and murder (People v.
Concepcion, G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012).
c. Robbery must be the main purpose and objective of
the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to
the robbery.
d. If the original design does not comprehend robbery,
but robbery follows the homicide either as an
afterthought or merely as an incident of the homicide,
then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes,
that of homicide or murder and robbery, and not of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, a
single and indivisible offense. It is the intent of the
actor to rob which supplies the connection between
the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute
the complex crime of robbery with homicide (People
v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003).
e. It is immaterial that the victim of homicide is other
than the victim of robbery, as long as homicide occurs
by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is
deemed to have been committed (People v.
Madrelejos, G.R. No. 225328, March 21, 2018).
f. When homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery would also be liable as
principals of the single and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide although they did not actually
take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that
they endeavored to prevent the same (People v.
Labagala, G.R. No. 221427, July 30, 2018).
 g. “By reason or on the occasion of robbery”
i. To facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit;
ii. To preserve the possession by the culprit of the
loot;
iii. To prevent discovery of the commission of the
robbery;
iv. To eliminate witness to the commission of the
crime (People v. De Jesus)
3. Robbery with Rape (294[2])
a. Elements:
i. The taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons;
ii. The property taken belongs to another;
iii. The taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi; and
iv. 4. The robbery is accompanied by rape.
b. When qualified
i. When it is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons.
ii. Additional rapes committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the
penalty. It should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed
to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same
code regarding mitigating circumstances where
there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10)
providing for analogous circumstances (People
v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000).
4. Robbery with Unnecessary Violence (294[4])
a. Requisites:
i. That any of the physical injuries defined in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 263 was inflicted
in the course of the robbery; and
ii. That any of them was inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the
robbery (REYES, Book Two, supra at 708).
5. Simple Robbery (294[5])
a. Elements:
 i. That there is Personal property belonging to
another;
ii. That there is Unlawful taking of that property;
iii. That the taking is with Intent to gain; and
iv. That there is Violence against or Intimidation
of persons or Force upon things (De Leon v.
People, G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018).
6. Robbery with Physical Injuries, Ommited in an Uninhabited
Place and by a Band, or With Use of Firearm on a Street,
Road or Alley (295)
a. Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of
persons is qualified if:
i. In an uninhabited place;
ii. By a band;
iii. By attacking a moving train, streetcar, motor
vehicle, or airship;
iv. By entering the passenger’s compartments in a
train, or in any manner taking the passengers
by surprise in their respective conveyances;
v. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with use of firearms.
b. When Art. 295 does not apply:
i. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide is committed.
ii. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation, or arson.
iii. If by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of
the serious physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness is
inflicted.
1. Note: The reason is that Article 295
mentions subdivision 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 294, omitting subdivisions 1 and
2 (REYES, Book Two, supra at 714).
7. Definition of Band and Penalty Incurred by the Member
Thereof (296)
a. Requisites:
i. That he was a member of the band
ii. That he was present at the commission of a
robbery by that band
iii. That the other members of the band committed
an assault
iv. That he did NOT attempt to prevent the assault
 b. When at least four armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by a
band;
c. When any of the arms used in the commission of
robbery is not licensed, the penalty upon all
malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law without
prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession
of firearms; and
d. Any member of a band who was present at the
commission of a robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any assaults committed by
the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same (REYES, Book Two. supra at 716-
719). There must be proof that he made an endeavor
to prevent the assault committed by another member
of the band in order that he may not be held liable for
assault (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-1797, June 30,
1949).
8. Attempted Frustrated Robbery, and Robbery Committed
under Certain Circumstances
a. It is a special complex crime committed when by
reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated
robbery a homicide is committed.
9. Execution of Deeds by Means of Violence or Intimidation
a. Elements:
i. That the offender has Intent to defraud
another.
ii. That the offender Compels him to sign,
execute, or deliver any public instrument or
document.
iii. That the compulsion is by means of Violence or
Intimidation (ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R.
No. 133347, April 23, 2010).
1. Note: Article 298 will apply even if the
document signed, executed or delivered
is a public, private or commercial
document. Furthermore, Article 298 is
not applicable if the document is void.
ii. Robbery by the use of force upon things (299, 302)
1. Kinds:
a. Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or
Edifice Devoted to Worship (299)
 i. Elements of 299(a):
1. Offender shall enter:
a. Inhabited place
b. Public building
c. Edifice devoted to religious
worship.
2. The entrance was effected by any of the
following means:
a. Through an Opening not
intended for entrance or egress;
b. By Breaking any wall, roof, or
floor, or breaking any door or
window;
c. By using False keys, picklocks, or
similar tools; or
d. By using any fictitious Name or
pretending the exercise of public
e. authority.
3. That once inside the building, the
offender took personal property
belonging to another with Intent to gain
(Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694,
February 12, 2014).
ii. Elements of 299(b):
1. That the offender is Inside a dwelling
house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship, regardless
of the circumstances under which he
entered it;
2. That the offender takes personal
property belonging to another, with
intent to Gain, under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By Breaking doors, wardrobes,
chest, or any other kind of locked
or sealed furniture or receptacle;
or
b. By Taking such furniture or
objects away to be broken or
forced open outside the place of
the robbery (REYES, Book Two,
supra at 734- 735).
b. Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band (300)
i. Robbery by the use of force upon things is
qualified when committed in an uninhabited
place AND by a band.
 ii. For robbery by the use of force upon things
(Art.299) to be qualified, it must be committed
in an uninhabited place AND by a band
(Art.300); while robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons, it must be
committed in an uninhabited place OR by a
band (Art.295)
c. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private
building (302)
i. Elements:
1. That the offender Entered an
uninhabited place or a building which
was not a dwelling house, not a public
building, or not an edifice devoted to
worship.
2. That any of the following circumstances
are present:
a. The entrance was effected
through an Opening not intended
for
b. entrance or egress;
c. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door
or window was Broken;
d. The entrance was effected
through the Use of false keys,
picklocks or
e. other similar tools;
f. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any
sealed or closed furniture or
receptacle
g. was Broken; or
h. A closed or sealed receptacle was
Removed, even if the same be
i. broken open elsewhere; and
3. That with intent to gain, the offender
Took therefrom personal property
belonging to another.
d. Robbery of Cereals, Fruits, or Firewood in an
Uninhabited Place or Private Building
i. Penalty is one degree lower when cereals,
fruits, or firewood are taken in robbery with
force upon things; and
ii. 2. If Article 303 is attended by violence against
or intimidation of persons, the offender should
be punished under Art 294 - Robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons
(People v. Manahan)
 e. Possession of Picklocks or Similar Tools (304)
i. Elements:
1. That the offender has in his Possession
picklocks or similar tools;
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are
specially Adopted to the commission of
robbery; and
3. That the offender does not have lawful
cause for such possession.
f. False Keys (305)
i. The term includes:
1. The tools mentioned in the next
preceding article;
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
3. Any keys other than those intended by
the owner for use in the lock forcibly
opened by the offender.
g. Brigandage (306)
i. How committed:
1. At least four armed persons;
2. Formed a band or robber;
3. For the purpose of:
a. Commit robbery in the highway;
b. Kidnap person for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom;
c. To attain by means of force and
violence any other purpose.
c. As to when unlawful taking is completed
i. As to Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons, unlawful taking is completed from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even if the culprit has had no
opportunity to dispose of the same. As to robbery with force
upon things, unlawful taking is completed when the culprit had
taken the thing out of the building to consummate the crime
(REYES, Book Two, supra at 683-684).
 d. When the offender, in taking personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain, employs violence against or intimidation on any persons,
the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, even
if the robbery was committed in a dwelling house after the offender had
entered the same through a window, or after breaking its door or wall.
h) Crimes against liberty
i) Crimes against public interest
j) R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004)

k) R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and

Discrimination Act)

l) R.A. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act)

m) R.A. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)
C. The Law Pertaining to Private Personal and Commercial Relations – 18 questions
a) Civil Law – 12 questions
a. Legal Personality, capacity to act
b. Marital Relationships
c. Property
i. concept of property
ii. ownership,
iii. co-ownership,
iv. right of accession,
v. easement,
vi. nuisance
d. Obligations
e. Contracts (in general, loans and mortgages, interest)
f. Torts,
i. Quasi-Delicts
g. Damages
b) Commercial Law – 6 questions
a. Corporations
i. Kinds of Corporations
ii. corporations sole;
iii. composition of/membership in Board of Directors;
iv. power,
v. duties, and
vi. prerogatives of boards of directors and stockholders;
vii. and articles of incorporation and by-laws

b. Intra-corporate dispute (concept)

c. Intellectual Property
i. Copyright,

ii. fair use principle

iii. moral rights

d. Insurance (What can be insured, claims for life insurance)

e. R.A. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)

D. Procedure and Professional Ethics – 18 questions
a) Remedial Law – 12 questions
a. Civil Procedure
b. Criminal Procedure
c. Appeal (Rules 41, 45)
d. Original Cases (Rule 46)
e. Small Claims
f. Evidence
g. Special Civil Actions (expropriation, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto)
h. Special Proceedings (habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo, Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases)
 i.
b) Ethics – 4 questions
a. Qualifications for new lawyers (includes those who reacquire citizenship)
b. Code of Professional Responsibility (including duties incorporated in the
Lawyer’s Oath)

c. Disqualifications/inhibitions for judges

d. Direct and indirect contempt
c) Practical Exercises – 2 questions
a. Parts of conveyancing, affidavits
b. Parts of pleadings, motions