NOTES ON JUDGE MARLO CAMPANILLA
LECTURES: RPC BOOK 1
Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. Territoriality
2. Generality
3. Prospectivity
These three has something to do with the
scope of criminal law: Criminal law shall be
applied to a crime committed within the
territory of the Philippines by a person who
is residing in the Philippines’ territory at,
on, or after the effectivity of the law.
Generality: Art. 14 of the Civil Code
Territory of the Philippines is a factor in
generality. Emphasis on the words “live” or
“sojourn”.
Paano na ngayon ang territoriality vis-à-vis
generality?
Example 1: Accused is claiming criminal
immunity and his argument is based on his
unique character (i.e. ambassador).
• Issue dito is generality
Example 2: Accused is claiming criminal
exemption based on where the crime is
committed (i.e. embassy)
• Issue dito is territoriality
Tip: Wag sagot agad. Tingnan muna ano
ang issue:
• Tao – generality
• Lugar – territoriality
In 2011 and 2019 bar, dalawa na ang
defense ng accused – So dalawang
paragraph kayo diyan, discuss both
generality and territoriality.
Example 3: American citizen is caught in
violation of loose firearms. Defense is
under American Constitution, they have the
right to bear arms and he has a license
issued by American govt.
People v. Galacgac
• Argument of accused is not tenable
because of three reasons:
o (1) The American
Constitution is not
enforceable in the PH
o (2) Under RA 101591, you
need license issued by the
PNP and not the American
government.
o (3) Applying generality
principle, all penal laws
including RA 101591, shall
be obligatory to all persons
regardless of his foreign
characteristic
Exceptions in the generality principle
Art. 14:
1. Principles of international law
2. Treaty stipulation
Campanilla: May dagdag pa yan:
• laws of preferential application
• case law
Principles of international law
Diplomatic immunity – penal laws are not
obligatory
Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396
• If a person is in possession of an
acknowledged diplomatic title AND
exercising functions of diplomatic
nature, he is entitled to BLANKET
IMMUNITY
This means that whether the crime is
function-related or not, since there is
BLANKET IMMUNITY, he/she is considered
exempt
Note: iba ang consular agent sa diplomatic
agent
• Diplomatic – protect political
interest of a State
• Consular – protect commercial
interest of a State
Moran principle (Schneckenburger v.
Moran, L-4486): consul kinasuhan ng
falsification, invoked diplomatic immunity.
• SC: you are a consular agent, not a
diplomatic agent. Therefore, you
cannot claim immunity
Note: Moran is a 1936 case. Read
Convention on Consular Relationship –
consul is entitled to a consular immunity
provided that the crime is function-related
Diplomatic immunity – blanket immunity
Consular immunity – function-related
crime
What is function-related? No jurisprudence
on this matter.
• Coquia: Oral defamation
• Campanilla: Falsify own document
Treaty stipulation
Sec. 45 of Agreement between Philippine
Government and Asian Development Bank
granting immunity to rank officers of the
Asian Development Bank, provided that the
crime is committed in his/her official
capacity.
Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865
• Sec 45 of -GRP-ADB Agreement is
not applicable because accused did
not act in his official capacity
Laws of Preferential Application
Art. 14 of Civil Code vs Law of Preferential
Application, latter will prevail – statutory
construction (Art. 14 is general so apply
more specific)
RA 75
• Domestic servant to
ambassador/minister – entitled to
immunity
• This rule is subject to reciprocity
rule
PD 1083
• Code of Muslim Personal Laws
• Art 80: Bigamy shall not apply to a
person married in accordance with
Muslim law
Nollora v. People, G.R. No. 191425
• Muslim nagpakasal but Roman
Catholic priest, kinasuhan ng
bigamy.
• SC: Muslim laws not applicable. To
invoke that immunity, marriage
must be made in accordance with
Muslim law. Here, Roman Catholic
ang priest.
• Another argument here was
religious freedom; Muslims can
marry many times according to
Islam.
• SC: Generality principle. Religious
freedom is not tenable
Sec 11, Art. 6 of 1987 Constitution
• Members of Congress shall not be
arrested of an offense less than 6
years imprisonment while in
session. (This is not immunity from
prosecution; only arrest)
Art. 145 of RPC
• Implementation of Constitutional
provision on parliamentary
immunity.
• Note na not exceeding 12 years ang
rule dito
Martinez v. Murfe, L-34022
• No parliamentary immunity for
search. Art. 145 operationalized
Consti provision on immunity from
arrest so kelangan sunod sa Consti.
Unconstitutional ang Art. 145 RPC
provision that includes immunity
from search
2012 bar exam: Senator commits bigamy
(prision mayor) tapos inarest. So
kinasuhan niya ng violation ng
parliamentary immunity.
• If Art. 145 – crime because hindi
nag exceed 12 years
• If Constitution – not crime because
nag exceed ng 6 years
Problema sa 2012 bar is MCQ so the official
answer adopted the 12 years rule
• Mali yan kasi Martinez v. Murfe. If
violate Art. 145 of RPC, kelangan it
is also a violation of the Constitution
because 145 is an implementation
of the Constitutional provision on
Congressional immunity. RPC
cannot expand Consti.
Meron pang isang immunity, second
paragraph of Sec. 11, Art. 6 of Consti –
cannot be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in
any committee
• Libel in the RPC is not obligatory
upon a Congressman based on the
Constitution.
Case law exceptions on generality
principle
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15
• Although 1987 Consti deleted the
presidential immunity under the
1974 Consti, case law still
recognizes presidential immunity
• President is head of executive so
kelangan undivided attention
• Conditions:
o (1) immunity must be
invoked by the president
o (2) immunity is invokable by
an incumbent president
o (3) crime is function-related
Nacino v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R.
No. 234789-91
Problem: Mamasapano incident.
• Aquino participated in Oplan
Exodus; inapprove niya ang
rescheduling the execution date;
ordered to increase and tao na
magpaparticipate
• SC: Participation ni Aquino is not
reckless imprudence which is the
proximate cause of the death of SAF
Hypothetical question: Assuming Aquino
was reckless. At the time he was President,
can you charge him of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple homicide?
• No. This is an executive decision. It
is function-related.
• After his term, pwede siya
makasuhan
Hypothetical question: Assuming Aquino
made an executive decision to buy a
dengvaxia vaccine despite it being in the
trial stage. As a consequence, may
namatay. Pwede kasuhan si president?
• No. This is an executive decision. It
is function-related. Paniniwala niya
marami maliligtas
• After his term, pwede siya
makasuhan
Note: Others cannot invoke presidential
immunity. Pang president lang talaga yan.
Vice president? Pwede kasuhan?
Two views:
• There is Vice Presidential immunity
– position of Former Justice Carpio-
Morales
• No VP immunity – position of
Campanilla
Why pwede kasuhan ang VP?
1. Presidential immunity, kinopya sa
America. No PH case law yet.
2. President is head of executive
department. This reason is not
obtaining in office of VP. In fact if
hindi maappoint ang VP sa isang
department, wala siyang gagawin.
3. To invoke presidential immunity,
kelangan function-related. Yung
issue ng plunder case, yung parking
building sa Makati, it involves a
function not as VP but as former
Mayor of Makati.
To invoke the Presidential Immunity, it
must be function related. So, it is important
that the act on which the plunder case is
based must be committed in relation to his
function as President.
Sec. 2 of the Article 11 of the Constitution
provides for a provision on impeachment
• If you're an impeachable officer,
you'll only be removed through
impeachment proceedings. Now, if
you will allow the Vice President to
prosecuted and convicted later on it
is like doing indirectly what is
prohibited by the Constitution to be
done directly.
But in my opinion, there is no
incompatibility between the provision of
non-removal of an impeachable officer
except through the process of
impeachment proceedings from a
prosecution to conviction of a criminal case.
Why?
• Because if ever he is convicted, he
could still function as a Vice
President while performing your
duty in prison. For example,
Senator Trillanes was in prison and
performed his function.
• But, for me, there's accessory
penalty of disqualification. So, that
 is what is incompatible with the
constitutional provision. The
provision on accessory penalty
under the Revised Penal Code will
be treated as not in accordance with
the Constitution. So that is not
implementable. You can implement
the penalty of imprisonment but not
the accessory penalty of
disqualification. But that's only my
opinion.
Territoriality Principle.
This is Article 2 of the RPC. Itong Art. 2 of
the RPC merong tatlong laman 'to.
1. First is Territoriality. So, that is an
echo of one of the characteristics of
criminal law - territoriality.
2. Second is extraterritoriality.
Mapapansin niyo sa Art. 2 may lima
yun.
3. Third is the exception. Ang
exception kasi diyan nakalagay
mismo sa Art. 2 pag-provided in a
treaty or laws of prefential
application.
a. An example of the treaty
mentioned in the RPC is the
Convention of the Law of the
Sea, specifically Sec. 2, Art.
27 of the convention.
b. Tapos yung laws of
preferential application yung
example niyan yung RA
9208 (Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act 2003) kasi
merong provision yan on
extraterritoriality.
c. Another example of laws on
preferential application yung
RA 9372 (Human Security
Law). Merong bill ngayon
(i.e. Antiterrorism Law).
Pero at the end of the day
yung rule on
extraterritoriality under the
Human Security Law was
adopted by that bill. So,
kung later on maging batas
yan okay naman 'tong
discussion natin kasi
parehas yung rule.
d. Yung pangatlo is yung RA
10175 (Cybercrime Law).
So, meron ding special rule
on extraterritoriality.
FIRST RULE
So, ang naka lagay sa Art. 2, "the provision
under this Code (i.e. RPC) shall be applied
to a crime committed within the territory of
the Philippines." So, that is territoriality.
AAA v. BBB, Jan. 11, 2018
Alam naman natin yung Art. 2 of the RPC it
has something to do with the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines. Diba pag-
pumunta kayo sa Rules on Criminal
Procedure, diba merong Rules on Venue,
territoriality rin yun diba.
Pero iba kasi yung Rules on Venue under
Criminal Procedure from Art. 2 of the RPC.
Bakit?
• Sa Art. of the RPC ang pinag-
uusapan diyan merong bang
territorial jurisdiction yung Pilipinas
o Malaysia o Taiwan.
• So, yung ang issue sa Art. 2 of the
RPC. Sa Rules on Venue under
Criminal Procedure, ang pinag-
uusapan diyan sino ba may
territorial jurisdiction - RTC Quezon
City o RTC Manila.
In the case of AAA v. BBB (G.R. 212448,
January 11, 2018), the Supreme Court
applied the guidelines to determine
territorial jurisdiction under the Rules of
Criminal Procedure to Art. 2 of the RPC. So,
what is the guideline?
• The guideline is "the place where
the crime is committed or any
ingredients thereof happens." So,
ganun din sa Art. 2. To determine
whether the Philippines has
jurisdiction, you have to consider
the place where the crime has been
committed or any ingredients
thereof happens.
May mga time kasi you have to consider
the effects of the criminal act to determine
territorial jurisdiction; provided, that the
effects of the criminal act is an important
element of a crime. Halimbawa, nasa
Manila ka - Welcome Rotonda - yung
kaaway mo nasa Quezon City, boundary
yun. Binaril mo, boom! Patay! If you will
notice, the criminal act of pulling the trigger
is in Quezon City. But the effects of the
criminal act of pulling the trigger; i.e., the
death of the victim happens in Manila. Now,
for purposes of determining the territorial
jurisdiction you will consider the effects.
And that is the death of the victim because
homicide provides "shall kill."
• So namatay siya sa Manila; hence,
you will consider that for purposes
of determining venue. If this is the
situation, RTC Manila and RTC
Quezon City have concurrent
jurisdiction. So, applying the rule on
concurrent jurisdiction, the court
who assumes jurisdiction will
exclude other from assuming. So
pag-finile mo yan sa RTC Manila
wala na yung RTC Quezon City,
vice-versa.
Pero halimbawa ganito, nasa Taiwan ka.
Napaputok ka ng baril - boom! Kaso high-
tech yung baril mo may lumabas na pakpak
yung bala lumipad. Pumunta sa Pilipinas
may tinamaan patay. Meron ba tayong
jurisdiction?
• Yes! Although the act of pulling the
trigger happens in Taiwan but the
effects of that, and that is the death
of the victim happens in the
Philippines. So, the Philippines has
territorial jurisdiction based on Art.
2 of the RPC.
Now in the case of AAA v. BBB (G.R.
212448, January 11, 2018), ang
nangyari kasi doon nambabae kasi yung
accused sa Singapore. Yung asawa niya
nasa Pilipinas. So umayo yung kalooban ng
asawa niya. Ngayon chinarge siya ng
psychological violence against woman,
which is a violation of RA 9262. So ang
question nanaman: meron bang
jurisdiction ang Pilipinas?
• In psychological violence against
woman what is important is the
psychological effect of the act of
infidelity. Although the act of
infidelity is done in Singapore, the
psychological effect of that act of
infidelity happened in the
Philippines. Kasi nasa Pilipinas yung
asawa niya- nasaktan.
• Applying Art. 2 of the RPC, actually
territoriality principle 'to, hindi 'to
extraterritoriality principle,
considering that the effects of the
act of infidelity is the essence of
psychological violence against
woman. So, the Philippines has
jurisdiction.
Pero kung halimbawa ganito, pero kung
icha-charge mo siya ng psychological
violence against woman, pwede mo siya i-
charge ng concubinage (Art. 334 of the
RPC). The essence of concubinage is
cohabitation. Ang cohabitation happens in
Singapore. The psychological effect of
cohabitation is not an important element of
concubinage. And therefore, wala tayong
jurisdiction.
French Rule - Flagstate Rule
If you want to apply the coastal rule you
have the burden to apply that the crime has
a detrimental effect to the state
English Rule - Coastal State Rule
Burden of proof lies on you to prove why
the flagstate rule
Which is controlling French Rule or English
Rule?
Not anymore the English Rule because the
basis for that is that under the
circumstances of 1922 we were under
America, now we are not part of America
so no more basis
Bar Tip:
Use the convention of the law of the sea
and the English rule
Convention of the law of the seas
Criminal Jurisdiction shall not be exercised
for purposes of arrest and investigation in
connection with the crime committed in a
foreign vessel within the territory of the
coastal state
Meaning: Flag state shall exercise
Jurisdiction - leaning towards the French
rule.
Exceptions
• If the master of the ship of the
vessel requested assistance of the
coastal state, then the coastal state
shall have jurisdiction
• If the consequence of the crime
extends to the coastal state
(promiscuous effect)
• If the crime affects the peace of the
coastal state
Example:
Indonesian committed murder in a
merchant vessel within the territorial
waters of the Philippines
So, applying the convention of the law of
the sea, considering that murder was
committed on board of a foreign merchant
vessel within the territorial waters of the
Philippines, and affects the peace of the
Philippines and the good order of the
territorial water.
• Therefore, the Philippines has
jurisdiction. You have to identify the
issues. Dalawa ang issues diyan.
Yung iba kasi baka isa lang yung i-
resolve niya. Mali po yun because
two arguments were raised.
Yung susunod ito yung fourth exception
doon sa convention of the law of the sea.
If the exercise of territorial
jurisdiction is a necessary measure to
suppress of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substance.
Ang narcotic drugs yan yung marijuana,
opium. Ang psychotropic substance ay
shabu, ecstasy.
Halimbawa, merong foreign merchant
vessel na may tatlong container puro
cocaine traversing the territorial water of
the Philippines. Dalawa ang issues dito.
• First, what is the crime committed?
• Second, does the Philippines have
jurisdiction?
The crime committed is transportation of
dangerous drugs. This is Sec. 5 of RA 9165
(Dangerous Drugs Law). Halimbawa,
binaba nila yung anchor importation na yan
kasi may presumption that they have the
intention to import. Or yung sa record nila
yung destination nung vessel hindi lang
dadaan sa territorial water, pupunta talaga
sa Manila Bay. Pag-importation of
dangerous drugs walang issue kasi meron
tayo diyan jurisdiction diyan kasi
importation yan at meron na yang
pernicious effects satin yan.
Pero ito tranportation of dangerous drugs.
Now ang tanong (i.e. second question):
meron ba tayong jurisdiction? Will you
apply the case of US v. Look Chaw (G.R.
L-5887, Dec. 16, 1910)? Ang pinag-
uusapan sa Look Chaw possession of
opium. Under the Opium Law, wala pang
transportation of opium. Ang prohibited sa
Opium Law - importation, possession, use,
selling. Walang transportation.
Look Chaw case will NOT apply.
• First, what is involved in the Look
Chaw is possession and not
transportation.
• Second, 1910 pa yan. Ang
controlling is the Convention of the
Law of the Sea. The exercise of
criminal jurisdiction is a necessary
measure to suppress trafficking of
narcotic and psychotropic
substance.
• Pag-hindi mo hinuli yan because of
the Look Chaw case, parang
katawa-tawa naman. Read the
book of Fr. Bernas. Sinabi niya drug
trafficking is an international crime
same as piracy, genocide, and
highjacking. That is the reason why
under the Law on Convention of the
Sea linagay nila 'to. It is high time
that we suppress drug trafficking.
English Rule at yung Sec. 2, Art. 27 of
the Law on Convention of the Sea.
Meron dalawang requisites para ma-apply
yan.
FIRST, dapat the crime was committed on
board of foreign "merchant" vessel. So,
kung ang pinag-uusapan is a foreign public
vessel or a military vessel, lalo na kung
military vessel. Ang principle kasi pag-
military vessel - that is the floating territory
of the flag state. Kasi ganito yan, pag-
military vessel, meron talaga tayong
absolute discretion without condition.
Absolute po yan - not to allow a military
vessel to enter our territorial water. Now,
pag-pinapasok mo, you have to recognize
the basic principle under international law;
i.e., a military vessel is the floating territory
of the flag state. And that rule on floating
territory principle is recognized or is
adopted by the Convention of the Law of
the Sea - Sec. 2, Art. 32 of the Convention.
So, wala tayong jurisdiction kung mag-
patayan man sila doon.
SECOND to apply the English Rule or Sec.
2, Art. 27 of the Convention of the Law of
the Sea. Dapat the foreign merchant vessel
is in the territorial water of the coastal state
or the Philippines. Dapat territorial water.
Halimbawa, the crime is committed sa high
seas - foreign merchant vessel, high seas.
You will not apply this rule - Sec. 2, Art. 27
of the Convention of the Law of the Sea.
Ang applicable rule diyan yung flag state
rule o kaya universal crime rule such as
piracy.
Halimbawa, foreign merchant vessel
traversing the island between the island of
Cebu and Bohol. Tapos yung accused
committed estafa against the victim sa loob
ng foreign merchant vessel. Ang tanong:
meron ba tayong jurisdiction? Applicable ba
yung English Rule (i.e. Sec. 2, Art. 27 of
the Convention of the Law of the Sea)?
• Hindi siya applicable because the
water between Cebu and Bohol, that
is not territorial water, internal
water yan o ang tawag national
water.
• Bakit siya naging internal water or
national water? Because of the
Constitution, Art. 1 of the
Constitution. Ang territorial water,
ang tawag diyan external water. As
far as the Constitution is concerned,
the water between Bohol and Cebu
that is national water.
• Pero sa Convention of the law of the
Sea ang tawag diyan archipelagic
water. What is archipelagic water?
Applying archipelago doctrine, sa
archipelago doctrine dapat ang
archipelago buo. Dapat integral
siya. Kapag hindi mo siya ginawang
integral, biro mo you can just
imagine yung nuclear military
vessel can traverse the water in the
middle of a state. Kailangan
gagawin mo siyang buo. Kaya under
the archipelago doctrine, you will
connect the outermost portion of
the archipelago (e.g. Philippines) by
an imaginary line, which is called
base line. Pero sa Convention of the
Law of the Sea ang tawag diyan
archipelagic line.
• For purposes of the bar examination
para maging impressive, mas
maganda if you use the word
archipelagic line kasi yun na yung
bagong term niyan. And all waters
within the archipelagic line that is
archipelagic water, under
the Convention of the Law of the
Sea (national water under the
Constitution).
Alam mo yung national water, parang Pasig
river yan. So kahit na may foreign
merchant vessel sa Pasig river, kahit na
estafa, violation of BP 22, violation of
ordinance, meron tayong jurisdiction. Sa
Taal Lake may foreign merchant vessel, sa
Laguna Lake, sa Pasig river, wala ba tayong
jurisdiction diyan? So yung equivalent ng
water between Cebu and Bohol that is
equivalent to Pasig river. Internal water
yan. So kahit na anong crimen meron
tayong jurisdiction diyan. So ano ngayon
yung tinatawag na territorial water? Yung
territorial water that is the 12 nautical
miles water from the archipelagic line going
to the high seas.
Now, prior to the Convention of the Law of
the Sea, 12 miles na yan. Political Science
student palang ako nababasa ko na yan sa
libro ni Salonga. Pero at the end of the day
in 1982, yung sa Convention of the Law of
the Sea. This is Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Convention. So, the convention officially
adopted the 12 miles rule.
• Wala na yang 3 miles rule sa
People v. Lol-Lo and Saraw (G.R.
No. 17958, Feb. 27, 1922). Pag-
linagay niyo yung 3-miles rule, may
problema kayo. You're not updated.
Dapat updated kayo. Mag-basa
kayo ng libro sa international law,
ganun nalang ka-simple.
So if there is crime committed on board a
foreign merchant vessel, you have to
analyze kung nasan siya.
Ang problema kasi sa bar examination hindi
yun linalagay kung nasa territorial water.
So, mag-aanalyze ka. Halimbawa - 2019,
Manila Bay - ang Manila Bay territorial
water po yan. Bakit? Estimate tayo, rule of
the thumb - pag-sumakay ka ng jeep, nag-
bayad ka, yung unang bayad mo sa jeep,
pang-three kilometers yan. Ako estimate
lang 'to, yung 12 miles siguro from City Hall
of Manila hanggang SM Fairview, baka
ganun kalayo yun. Usually, ang
binabanggit Manila Bay.
Nung 2011 Bar Examination, ang binaggit
break water. Diyan sa CCP - Cultural Center
of the Philippine yung break water. Sa CCP
kasi dati tubig yun. Kaya nila linagyan ng
break water, kasi kung malakas yung
current, baka mamaya mag-karoon ng
problema kasi diba dati tubig yun. Yun
yung break water. So for obvious reasons,
pag-gumawa ka ng break water, hindi ka
gagawa ng break water 13 miles away from
your restaurant. Ang break water napaka-
lapit po niyan. In other words, nung
binaggit yung break water, within the
territorial water of the coastal state.
Ngayon, yung 2015, ang sinabi naman "a
few moments from Manila Bay." Pag-few
moments, baka isipin mo nakalagpas na 'to
ng 12 miles. Pag-few moments, hindi po
ganun yun. Kasi ganito yun, rule of the
thumb lang tayo - estimate, estimate lang.
Pag-sumakay ka nung vessel, yung mga
boats sa Manila Bay, papuntang
Corregidor. Ang Corregidor kasi 49 km yan
from Manila Bay. Pag-sa nautical miles -
30. Mag-tatatlo at kalahating oras ka. So in
other words, yung 12 miles pag-nagvessel
ka, at least mahigit na isang oras yan. A
few moments nagkapatahan eh. So, nasa
territorial water pa rin yan. Yan ang
problema actually ng bar examination, you
have to analyze. Kung high seas na siya,
iba na rule niyan.
Now, dito muna tayo sa 200 miles Exclusive
Economic Zone. Pero meron akong sikreto,
wag niyong ipagkakalat 'to ah. Ito sikreto
ko: alam mo yung 200 miles Exclusive
Economic Zone, hindi talaga siya 200. 176
lang yan. Why? Kasi yung 12 miles
territorial water, in determining the 12
miles territorial water, you will count the 12
miles from the archipelagic line. Yung
contiguous - diba 24 - ang starting point
mo rin diyan yung archipelagic line. Yung
200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone, ang
reckoning point mo rin doon yung sa
archipelagic line. From the archipelagic
line, that is territorial water. Yung second
12 miles, that is the contiguous zone. So,
hindi siya Exclusive Economic Zone. So,
ang Exclusive Economic Zone, yung 200
miles Exclusive Economic Zone, hindi
talaga siya 200 - 176 lang siya.
Pag-usapan natin yung West Philippine Sea
– nasa 200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone.
Halimbawa, merong Chinese foreign vessel
tapos merong Philippine foreign vessel,
binangga - deliberate - namatay yung mga
mangingisda natin. Meron bang
sovereignty yung Philippines over the 200
miles Exclusive Economic Zone? Wala.
Why?
• Pag-binasa mo yung Convention of
the Law of the Sea, the Philippine as
a coastal state, has the sovereign
right to exclusively fish in the 200
miles Exclusive Economic Zone, to
exclusively exploit the natural
 resources therein. Pero yung
sovereign right is not equivalent to
sovereignty. Iba yung sovereign
right sa sovereignty. Bakit? Kasi
pag-binasa mo yung Convention of
the Law of the Sea, yung mga ibang
bansa meron silang right to
navigate or over flight within the
200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone.
So, yung 200 mile Exclusive
Economic Zone, pwede dumaan
doon yung Chinese military vessel,
American military vessel, German
vessel. Pwede silang dumaan doon
kasi meron silang right to navigate.
Tsaka over flight, eroplano pwede
dumaan doon.
Now, the right to navigate or over flight
granted to a foreign state under the
Convention of the Law of the Sea is not
compatible with the concept of sovereignty.
Kasi kung meron kang sovereignty, they
cannot navigate ng ganun-ganun nalang.
Second, under the Convention of the Law
of the Sea, the criminal jurisdiction of the
hostile state, such as the Philippines, is
limited. Yung criminal jurisdiction over a
crime committed within the 200 mile
Exclusive Economic Zone.
Halimbawa, violation ng custom o fiscal -
nag-smuggle sila - immigration law, [nag-
papasok sila ng mga illegal immigrant]. At
tsaka yung safety at sanitary, nag-iimport
sila rito ng may mga sakit na baka, or any
other law which is implementing our right
under the 200 mile Exclusive Economic
Zone.
Kaya yung Fishery Code natin, kumbaga
mag-fifish sila doon, meron tayong
jurisdiction diyan. So, if you will read the
Convention of the Law of the Sea, walang
nakalagay doon na meron tayong
jurisdiction if murder is committed within
the 200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone.
Now, the limited jurisdiction, under the
Convention of the Law of the Sea, over a
crime committed within the 200 mile
Exclusive Economic Zone is not compatible
with the concept of sovereignty.
We can assume jurisdiction. But sa bar
examination wag mong banggitin yung
Convention of the Law of the Sea in
assuming jurisdiction. You can apply the
passive personality doctrine. So, you
consider the citizenship of the victim.
Dalawa kasi ang person, active person at
tsaka passive person.
Dito tayo sa Spratley Island. In the 2011
Bar Examination, if the crime is committed
in an island, which is part of the Spratley
Island group, ang tanong meron tayong
jurisdiction?
Ang problema kasi sa 2011 Bar
Examination, multiple choice. So, hindi ka
makapag-explain. Since hindi ka maka-
explain, mamili ka lang doon. Anong pipiliin
mo doon? Wala tayong jurisdiction. Why?
• Kasi Spratley Island is a disputed
island being claimed by China,
Malaysia, Taiwan, Philippines. So,
hindi pa natin nai-establish na
meron tayong control diyan. Kine-
claim lang natin. So, since multiple
choice siya, yun ang pipiliin mo.
• Pero kung halimbawa ngayon
itanong ulit yan. Hindi na multiple
choice ngayon, may essay. So,
ganito ang diskarte diyan. Sabihin
niyo muna, as a general rule wala
tayong jurisdiction kasi that is still a
disputed island - the Philippines has
no effective control over the
Spratley Islands. However, if the
crime is committed in the Kalayaan
Island, because Kalayaan Island is
part of the Spratleys (Western Part
of Spratley). Yung Kalayaan Island,
atin na yan. Why? Meron na ngang
Kalayaan Municipality. May election
doon. May police doon. May
barangay doon. May munisipyo
doon. May control tayo diyan. May
mayor diyan, may police. So, meron
tayong jurisdiction diyan.
And last, under RA 9522 - this is the
Baseline Law. Under the Baseline Law, ang
Kalayaan Island is considered as regime of
island.
Dalawa ang regime of island under the
Baseline Law - yung Kalayaan Island at
tsaka yung Scarborough Shoal.
Ano ba yung regime of island? Prior to the
Convention of the Law of the Sea, walang
regime of island. Kaso nung nagka-
convention, pinasok nila 'tong concepto na
'to. Ano ba 'tong regime of island?
• Diba sa archipelago, you connect
the outermost portion of the
archipelago by an imaginary line,
which is called archipelagic line, and
all the water placed therein will be
treated as archipelagic water.
• Then 12 miles from the archipelagic
line - territorial water.
• Another 12 miles - the continuous
zone.
• Tapos 176 miles - Exclusive
Economic Zone.
Sa Convention of the Law of the Sea, ang
concern kasi: pano kung meron kang island
na nasa Pacific Ocean, malapit sa America.
• Pag-ginamit mo yung formula that
you will connect the outermost
portion of the archipelago of the
Philippines and the island located in
the Pacific Ocean near America.
Then buong Pacific Ocean
mapupunta satin yan. Kaya ginawa
nila ganito: pag-meron kang island
which is not part of the archipelago.
Yung kasing Kalayaan Island that is
not part of the Philippine
Archipelago, that is part of the
Spratley. Malayo siya diba?
Actually, mga more or less 200
miles away from Palawan yan eh.
So, malayo siya. Pag-gumawa ka ng
archipelagic line or baseline,
magkakaroon ka ng sariling
computation. So, doon sa Kalayaan
Island, gagawa ka ng baseline din
doon. Tapos magkakaroon karin
doon ng territorial water,
contiguous zone, tsaka 200 miles
Exclusive Economic Zone. Hindi mo
siya i-coconnect. Kasi kung i-
coconnect mo, you can just imagine
the water between the Philippines
and the Kalayaan Island na more or
less 200 miles, magiging internal
water na yun - national water,
archipelagic water. Hindi papayag
ang ibang bansa. Giyera ang
aabutin mo diyan. Tsaka hindi mo
kaya i-maintain yan. So, under the
Baseline Law, it is considered as
regime of island. And under the
Baseline Law, the Philippine has
sovereignty and jurisdiction over
the regime of islands, such as
Kalayaan Island at tsaka yung
Scarborough Shoal. Na-legislate na
natin yan sa UN.
Halimbawa ang tanong: crime is committed
sa Scarborough.
• For purposes of the bar
examination, you just have to
mention the Baseline Law. The
Philippine has jurisdiction and
sovereignty.
• Pero pag-abogado na kayo, wag
niyo nang ipilit kasi yung
Scarborough kontrolado na ng
China yan. Meron na silang mga
sundalo at lapagan ng military
airplane nila. Ang reality wala na
tayong control diyan. Pero siyempre
for purposes of the bar, you just
mention the law.
Extra territoriality
• 5 instances mentioned in Art 2 of
the RPC
Vessel not registered in the Philippines.
Hence Philippines has no jurisdiction.
Halimbawa nagkapatayan dun - Consider
the state where the vessel is registered
For example a Philippine Airplane was
hijacked in territorial state of America do
we have jurisdiction?
• Yes because registered in the
Philippines
Territoriality is an element of hijacking.
Hence we have jurisdiction
Take note of universal crimes as it can be
tried in the territory nearest to where the
crime was committed
Diba yung Art. 2 ng RPC is subject to treaty
and laws of preferential application.
If the law does not distinguish, the court
does not distinguish. Why would you
distinguish high seas and American
territory for purposes of applying the “flag
state rule” if it is not mentioned under
Article 2 of the RPC.
What is stated in Article 2 is when the
airplane is registered in the Philippines, it is
not important if the airplane is flying above
the high seas or if it is flying above the
United States of America. If our
interpretation is the Philippines has no
jurisdiction, “eh di kawawa naman yung
mga Pilipino, pwede bugbogin pag nasa
territory ng America. Hindi naman basta-
basta eh pupunta sa America at mag file ng
case”.
Does the US have jurisdiction?
Yes, it has jurisdiction since it was in the
U.S. So, in other words, the Philippines and
the U.S. have concurrent jurisdiction.
There is no prohibition on concurrent
jurisdiction.
When there is a universal crime, all States
have concurrent jurisdiction. It is not
prohibited under international law and our
law to have concurrent jurisdiction. It can
happen. In this case, the U.S. has
jurisdiction since it is their territory. The
Philippines also has jurisdiction because of
the flag state rule.
One more example:The vessel is registered
in the Philippines. It is in the territorial
waters of Taiwan. Pinatay ka. Applying the
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Taiwan
has jurisdiction because it affects the peace
and good order of Taiwan. But applying the
flag state rule, the Philippines also has
jurisdiction. In other words, the Philippines
has concurrent jurisdiction. Example,
pinatay ka, hinuli sa Taiwan, dire-diretso
na yung kaso. Eh what if na-discover na sa
Pilipinas na pinatay ka. Ang point ko is
pupunta yung relative sa Taiwan para mag-
file ng murder case? No. It would be very
difficult. It has to be a reasonable
interpretation – read Article 2.
Does it say in Article 2 that if you apply the
flag state rule, it is important that the
vessel which is registered in the Philippines
is not in the territorial waters of another
state? No.
2nd and 3rd paragraphs – it has
something to do with forgery.
The introduction to the Philippine
government, it includes importation. There
is forgery under Articles 162-163 of the
RPC. Now, in forgery, if you forge or falsify
money, it is not important whether the
money is PH Peso or American dollar. Why
do we penalize if “pineke” ang American
dollars?
It is obvious – If you fake it, people would
go to Ermita, will have the dollars
exchanged for Pesos, eh di ma-dadamage
tayo whether the money is American dollar
or PH peso. You falsify that, it is forgery. It
is a crime or felony. If the forgery is
committed outside the territory of the PH,
you have to make a distinction whether the
money falsified is PH peso or American
dollar.
If PH Peso, you apply the extra-territoriality
principle under Article 2 of the RPC. If
American dollar, you CANNOT apply the
extra-territoriality principle under Art. 2 of
the RPC. It is not anymore our concern – it
is the concern of America.
2011 BAR EXAM – An American forged PH
Peso. The American argues that the crime
was committed outside the territory of the
Philippines (wala nang problema dito –
apply Article 2). However, there’s a second
argument – he claims that he is American
and under the Civil Code, “penal laws shall
be obligatory to all persons who reside or
sojourn in the Philippine territory” and thus
he does not reside or sojourn in the
Philippines.
Here. Although in Article 2 of the RPC it
talks about territoriality and the exception.
This is how you answer that. You can still
Art. 2 of the RPC with respect to the second
argument that he is an American. So what
if he is an American citizen? What is
important is that it is PH peso that was
forged. Hindi naman nakalagay sa
paragraph 2 ng RPC na ang dapat mag
forge is a Filipino. It does not state such.
So for both arguments, you can invoke
Article 2 to reject his arguments. You can
apply the extra-territoriality rule. Second,
even if he is an American citizen, the law
does not make a distinction. As long as the
forgery is PH Peso, then Art. 2 applies.
If the crime is committed by a public officer
in connection with his functions as a public
officer – it must be a function-related
crime.
This was asked in the bar – “there is a
deposition in the U.S. There’s a
stenographer. Someone talked to the
stenographer, “baka pwede naman nating
gawin ng paraan yang stenographic notes,
palitan natin”. Pumayag yung
stenographer”. What is the crime
committed? Does the Philippines have
jurisdiction?
What is the crime committed?
• Direct bribery and corruption of
public officers. Article 210 and 212
of the Revised Penal Code. For the
stenographer, it is direct bribery.
For the individual who corrupted the
stenographer, that is corruption of
public officers. It can also be
falsification of public documents.
The stenographer is a principal by
direct participation. The private
individual is a principal by
inducement.
Does the Philippines have jurisdiction?
• With respect to corruption and
direct bribery, these are crimes
committed by a public officer in
relation to the functions as a
stenographer. You can now apply
the extraterritoriality principle
under Art. 2 of the RPC.
• But with respect to corruption of
public officers, it is committed by
any person. Therefore, you cannot
apply the extraterritoriality principle
under Article 2 of the RPC.
With respect to falsification, the
stenographer is a principal by direct
participation. Art. 172 of the RPC is
committed by a public officer – therefore
you can apply the extraterritoriality
principle under Art. 2 of the RPC. For the
principal by inducement who is a private
individual, you cannot apply Art. 2. Eto ha,
ito yung suggested answer ng U.P. Later
on, there might be an actual case and say
there is conspiracy and therefore you can
apply extraterritoriality principle to both
accused. Pero wala pang SC decision,
therefore you follow the suggested answer
of U.P.
Example, if it is asked in the bar: there is
plunder committed outside the territory of
the Philippines. Do we have jurisdiction?
• Plunder is punishable by special law.
If you read Art. 2, it provides that
“the provisions of this Code”. If you
analyze it, you can only apply the
extraterritoriality principle to a
felony punishable by the RPC.
Pero, pwede ba i-apply by way of
supplementary to an offense punishable
under SPL?
• Yes. In the case of People v. Tulin
(G.R. No. 111709, Aug. 30, 2001),
what is involved is piracy under PD
532 as an accomplice. The SC said
that “whether the piracy is
committed under the RPC or under
SPL, you can apply the principle of
extraterritoriality under Art. 2, RPC
– since piracy is a crime against the
law of nations. In other words, the
extraterritoriality principle under
Art. 2 was applied by the SC to an
offense under SPL.
In the case of AAA v. BBB (G.R. No.
212448, Jan. 11, 2018), the territoriality
principle under Art. 2 was applied in VAWC.
Thus, Art. 2 of the RPC can be applied to an
offense punishable under SPL. That is the
general rule.

Pero may mga exceptions kasi may mga
SPL that provides a rule on
extraterritoriality. If the SPL laws a rule on
extraterritoriality, such law is contemplated
within the words “law of preferential
application” under RPC. If it is a law of
preferential application, you cannot apply
Article 2 such as “terrorism, trafficking in
person”. However, lahat ng krimen,
applicable ang Article 2. Ang tanong,
PLUNDER. Even if it is an offense under
SPL, you can apply the principle of
extraterritoriality.
Crimes against national security and law of
nations
National security – treason, espionage,
violation of neutrality, flight.
Pero sa bar, may rebellion committed
outside. Baka maisip niyo na rebellion is a
crime against national security. No. It is a
crime against public order. You do not
apply the extraterritoirlaity principle.
Crimes against law of nations – piracy,
mutiny.
Piracy is a universal crime. It is a crime
against all, thus all have jurisdiction.
The third characteristic of criminal law
is PROSPECTIVITY.
Why is criminal law prospective? As a GR,
a criminal is prejudiced by criminal law. You
will be penalized for committing an act
which was not penalized before.
Example: ex post facto law. Bawal ito. It is
that specie of the principle of prospectivity.
If you give criminal law retroactive effect,
then it is invalid. It is a violation of the
prospectivity principle of criminal law.
Second, it is an ex post facto law.
Example: Plunder law is passed in reaction
to the alleged plunder committed during
the Marcos time. If you read Congress
deliberation on the plunder law, this
alleged plunder is what is being talked
about. Can you charge Marcos for plunder?
No. You cannot. If the plunder is committed
prior to the passage of the plunder law, it
cannot be given retroactive effect.
Cybercrime law (RA 10175) – “I love you”
virus – inatake yung computer with a virus.
Can you sue this hacker for cybercrime
even before the passage of cybercrime
law? No, you cannot give it retroactive
effect.
Another example of prospectivity – Art. 21
of the Revised Penal Code. No felony shall
be punishable by a penalty not prescribed
by law prior to its commission. If you read
the original rape law, the penalty was only
reclusion temporal. Nung dumating yung
next law, umiiba na yung penalty. Even if
dumating yung RA 8353. You committed
rape prior to the amendment of Art. 335 of
the RPC. Penalty is reclusion temporal.
Biglang dumating ‘tong RA 7659 amending
the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Will you
give retroactive effect to RA 7659?
• No. You cannot. Because one of the
characteristics of criminal law is
prospectivity and therefore, RA
7659 is not favorable to the
accused. Second, applying Article
21 of the RPC.
As a general rule, we follow the
prospectivity as a principle in criminal
law. The exception is retroactivity.
Prospectivity presupposes that criminal law
is prejudicial to the accused. If the criminal
law is favorable to the accused because it
prescribed a lesser penalty, then you
cannot invoke prospectivity. The reason
why it is prospective is because it is
prejudicial. If the criminal law is favorable,
then you apply retroactivity.
Under Art. 22 of the RPC, if the penal law
is favorable to the accused, you give
retroactive effect. Even if there is no Art.
22, this rule is still operative. If prejudicial,
prospective. If favorable, retroactive. Why
is there Art. 22 pa rin? It is because
nagkaroon ang additional condition for
retroactivity. If walang Art. 22, isa lang ang
condition – the law should be favorable to
the accused. With Art. 22, there is an
additional condition – “non-habitual
delinquency”.
There are times when you do not apply
Article 22 of the RPC. I will mention 2
instances:
(1) Decriminalization – Example, the
law decriminalizes an act under an
old law. RA 10655 repealed the RPC
on premature marriage. Before, if
you are a girl and your husband dies
or avails of annulment, the girl is
not allowed to re-marry within a
period of 301 days from death of
husband or annulment. This was not
allowed before because there would
be a confusion – who would be the
father of the child, the first or
second husband. RA 10655 now
repeals such law because now
premature marriage is now
criminalized. It is discriminatory
because only a woman can commit
a crime. It is also now antequated.
If there is a problem with paternity
and filiation, there is now
technology such as a DNA test.
Example: it was decriminalized. You
committed the crime of illegal
marriage prior to RA 10655.
Nagkataon na habitual delinquent
ka. If you apply Art. 22 of the RPC,
it won’t have retroactive effect kasi
habitual delinquent ka. Art. 22 of
the RPC is not applicable because
RA 10655 is not a penal law
contemplated in Art. 22. A penal law
is a penal law that penalizes. It was
decriminalized. It is not a penal law.
Where is the penalty? It was
decriminalized. Pag
decriminalization, may retroactive
effect na yan.
Kahit may pending case ka. Yung
korte ba kailangan i-dismiss yung
case? Yes. There is now no more
penalty for illegal marriage. Also,
applying the case of People v. (335,
Feb. 12, 1947), once a law
penalizing the crime charged
against an accused is repealed, the
court will lose jurisdiction to try and
punish the accused. Why? Why
would you try an accused for a
crime not a criminal law under
present law. There is no law
prescribing a penalty. Tinanong sa
2011 bar yan. Na-repeal yung old
law. Decriminalized yung crime
under the old law. The Q: will the
court dismiss the case? It was a
multiple choice question. May
choice na Yes dismiss, subject to the
condition na hindi sya habitual
delinquent. The correct answer is
the court shall dismiss the case
without precondition. Tapos na ang
case. As far as the present law is
concerned, it is not a wrongful act
now. It is not anymore an evil act.
Ang tanong, penal law ba yung RA
10655? Hindi yan penal law. So
don’t apply Art. 22, RPC. Hindi yan
penal law kasi walang penalties.
Dinecriminalize na nga eh.
You will not Art. 22, RPC if the SPL
provides a rule on prospectivity and
retroactivity. Why? The SPL
provides the rule on
prospectivity/retroactivity, you
apply that provision. It is a basic
rule in statutory construction. If
conflict between general and
specific provision, the specific
provision shall prevail.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence
Law. The benefits of the ISLAW
cannot apply to anyone who is
already convicted and serving
sentence. Diba ang ISLAW
favorable to the accused ‘yan so
bigyan dapat ng retroactivity. Pero
pag binasa mo yung ISLAW,
prospective in the sense na if you’re
already serving sentence, you
cannot anymore avail the benefits
of the ISLAW. So what do you apply,
Art. 22, RPC or the ISLAW on
prospectivity? Apply the ISLAW.
Under Sec. 68 of JJWA. If a child in
conflict with the law is already
 convicted and serving sentence, he
shall be given a retroactive effect. If
it is favorable to the accused and he
is qualified, he will be released
immediately. Example, a child
commits homicide. At the time of
the homicide, your age is 14 years
old. You acted with discernment.
Biglang dumating ‘tong RA 9344
under Section 6 – if the age of the
CICL at the time of the commission
of the offense is 15 years old or
under, the exempting circumstance
of minority is absolute. So no more
criminal liability. Pero
hypothetically, assume he is a
habitual delinquent. Ang tanong,
will you give retroactivity to Section
6 considering that it is favorable to
the accused? If you use Art. 22 of
the RPC, you will not give
retroactive effect kasi habitual
delinquent siya. But if you consider
Section 68 of RA 9344, there is only
1 condition for retroactivity – that it
is favorable. Therefore there is a
conflict between Art. 22, RPC and
Sec. 68, RA 9344. The rule is follow
RA 9344 because it is the more
specific provision.
(2) Repeal - There are 3 kinds of
repeal:
(1) Absolute repeal
(2) Partial repeal
(3) General repeal
Absolute repeal – this is
equivalent to decriminalization. If
there’s absolute repeal, there’s
decriminalization. There are 3 ways
to decriminalize an act:
(1)Decriminalization by
absolute repeal
An example – RA 10655
repealing Art. 351 of the RPC.
The effect of absolute repeal is
decriminalization of premature
marriage.
(2)Decriminalization by repeal
without reenactment
An example – Art. 367 of the
RPC expressly repealed the old
Spanish Penal Code. Under the
old Spanish Penal Code
penalizing malicious
prosecution, etc. If you read the
Revised Penal Code, there are
no such provisions on malicious
prosecution, etc. Thus, the
intent of the RPC is to
decriminalize these crimes.
(3)Decriminalization by
amendment.
An example – Under Art. 202 of
the RPC (old version). You will
see vagrancy and prostitution.
This was amended by RA 10158.
As amended, Nawala na ang
vagrancy. Natira nalang
prostitution. The intention of
Congress is amending Art. 202
of the RPC by deleting vagrancy
and maintaining prostitution,
thus decriminalizing vagrancy.
Art. 315, RPC on estafa (old
version). Kayo ng kaibigan niyo
kumain sa restaurant.
Pagkatapos kumain, sabi niya 1-
2-3 takbo. Estafa yun. In
layman’s term, it’s called 1-2-3.
Section 85 of RA 10951, August
21, 2017. It amended Art. 315.
If you read Art. 315 as amended
by RA 10951, Nawala na yung
estafa na hindi nagbabayad sa
restaurant. What does this
mean? This is decriminalization
by amendment. Tinanggal nila
yun as a kind of estafa.
May mga time din na kahit dini-
criminalize na ang krimen,
pwede pa siya i-charge ng ibang
krimen. Halimbawa estafa, 1-2-
3 dinecriminalize diba. Pwede
mo pa kasuhan ng other deceit.
Halimbawa subornation of
perjury dinecriminalize, diba,
pwede mo kasuhan ng direct
 assault and banter. Yung
subversion halimbawa pwede
mo kasuhan ng illegal
association.
So yung epekto nyan, may
pending case ka (genocide) pero
naka allege dun pumatay ka ng
tao, sakin hindi madidismiss
yun. Kasi yung allegation, you
committed a crime, you killed a
person, kaso di na siya
genocide. So yun.
What is the effect if nagkaroon ng
decriminalization?
(1) You cannot be charged of other
crimes.
Example: Premature marriage or
vagrancy. Wala na. The effect of
decriminalization of these crimes –
if wala ka pang kaso or pending
case, the criminal liability arising
from vagrancy or premature
marriage will be treated as
extinguished. As a general rule, a
mode of extinguishing criminal
liability is mentioned in Art. 89 of
the RPC. Decriminalization, hindi
nakalagay dyan. Pero actually, isa
sa mga effects ito ng
decriminalization, although
decriminalization is not mentioned
in Art. 89 of the RPC.
If may pending case ka at nasa
court na ‘yan, the court will lose
jurisdiction to try and punish the
accused, thus he must dismiss the
case. Why will you try an accused
for committing an act that is not
anymore a crime.
Example: Convicted ka na. The
decriminalization will relieve you
from the penalty. You will be
released.
There were opinions. Nagkaroon ng
Bayanihan Law. If there’s non-
cooperation of a person affected by
the calamity. Binigyan ng power
ang DOH that the President can
exercise. Once a power is granted to
a cabinet secretary, that power can
be exercised directly by the
President. There’s a period sa
Bayanihan Law. There’s an opinion
(and I respect the opinion) na since
the Bayanihan Law is of a limited
period. Lahat ng kaso ng violation of
the Bayanihan Law will be dismissed
because there is no crime because
there is no more law. I cannot
agree. Ang decriminalization kasi
yung power to criminalize belongs
to Congress. Congress will dictate
and say that killing is wrong, here’s
the penalty. The power to
criminalize includes the power to
decriminalize. The power to make is
the power to destroy. Congress has
that power.
The question is: you committed the
act during the effectivity of
Bayanihan Law. Mga order na
“bawal lumabas”. Now, wala na
yung Bayanihan Law. Ma-
eextinguish na ba ang kaso? For
me, HINDI PA. There is no intent to
decriminalize. You should always
see it in the intent of Congress.
Meron bang deliberation sa
Congress or Senate na
decriminalized na? Example, illegal
possession of guns. May period kasi
yan diba. Ibibigay ng period of 1
week. Within a week, bawal
humawak ng baril kahit may license
kasi election time. You committed
the crime. Pag nag lapse na yung 1
week, ibig mo bang sabihin na lahat
ng crime involving the gun ban will
be dismissed? Hindi ganun yan.
Ganun rin yun sa Bayanihan. Meron
period na bawal kang lumabas.
Yung mayor, bawal na hindi
sumunod sa national government. If
na-expire na yung period nay un,
hindi ibig sabihin na wala ka nang
crime. Walang intent ang Congress
to decriminalize. It’s also absurd
that you are not allowed to commit
a prohibited act during the period.
 Pag lapse na ng period, wala ka
nung crime? If we are to follow that
interpretation, pag nagkaroon ng
2nd wave, and nag-order ang
Presidente na bawal lumabas, eh di
wala nang susunod. Lumabas na
tayo, kasi 2 months lang ‘yun eh.
You have to consider the intention
of Congress.
A crime is a crime. Para ma-
consider as a decriminalized act,
dapat may intention ng Congress.
Even after expiration of the period,
that is still a crime. Walang
intention ang Congress na after the
expiration of the period, lahat ng
kaso ma-didismiss. Walang intent to
decriminalize. For purposes of the
bar, you follow my opinion. Yun ang
tamang opinion.
(2)You can still be charged of a
different crime.
PARTIAL REPEAL – It is a repeal with
a re-enactment. For purposes of the
bar, call it partial repeal. For me, “ano
yun?” It is equivalent to a repeal with a
reenactment. The intention is not to
decriminalize. The intention is to merely
amend. Amendatory ang effect. Pwede
naman i-amend ang Old Penal Code. If
they repeal with re-enactment, actually
it is an amendment already.
You committed murder under the Old
Spanish Penal Code in 1930. Now,
dumating ang Revised Penal Code.
Dumating ang RPC. Under Article 367 of
the RPC, they repealed the old Spanish
Penal Code. Eh di sabi ng abogado,
pilosopo nag file ng motion to dismiss.
“Your honor, wala na daw yung Old
Spanish Penal Code”. Will you dismiss
the case? No. The repeal is considered
a partial repeal and not an absolute
repeal. It is a repeal with a
reenactment. While the RPC repealed
the Old Penal Code, it still reenacted the
provision on murder. The intention of
the law is not to decriminalize murder.
The intention is to merely new
penalties, new elements, etc., not to
decriminalize.
In U.S. v. Cuna (G.R. No. 4504, 1908),
if the repeal is a partial repeal (repeal
by reenactment), the court will not lose
jurisdiction.
Example: Dati ang Dangerous Drugs,
punishable under R.A. 6425. You
committed a sale of marijuana under 6425.
Biglang dumating tong RA 9165. It
repealed RA 6425. Nag file ng motion to
dismiss. You should not dismiss the case
since it is a partial repeal. The intention of
the law is not to decriminalize the illegal
sale of marijuana.
In substance, that is amendment. Ginawa
nila, repeal. Pero actually, amendments
yan eh. Ginagawa nila yan kasi minsan
para ang lulutang na batas, yung batas nila
ana sila nag sponsor. Kasi kapag inamend
mo lang yung old law, diba minsan pag
nirepeal mo yan, ang batas RA 9165, eh
lulutang sino nag sponsor. Pag inamend mo
lang ang Ra 6425, so ang lumutang, yung
nag sponsor. Pero syempre 3 breaks
naman ng Congress yan. Ang gusto ko
malaman niyo: yang partial repeal, that is
actually amendments. Pero wag niyo
lalagay sa bar kasi baka magkaron pa ng
issue eh. At the back of your mind, alam
niyo kasi sinabi ko sainyo na ang partial
repeal, amendatory talaga yan.
Balik tayo sa partial repeal. Now, if the little
is partial repeal, dalawa yung issue:
1. Madidismiss ba yung case for lack of
jurisdiction to try and to punish –
No. (US v. Funa)
2. Will you impose the penalty under
the old law or under the present law
(in other words, will you give
retroactivity or prospectivity to the
new law?) – Kung yung bagong
batast prescribes a graver penalty,
it is given prospective effect. Pero
kung yung bagong batas prescribes
a lesser penalty, it will be given a
retroactive effect.
Example, under sec. 1 of PD 1866, penalty
for illegal possession of unlicensed firearms
is prision correccional, maximum period.
So prinosecute ka under 1866, biglang
dumating itong RA 10591. Under sec. 45,
nirepeal sec. 1 ng PD 1866 so:
1. When the court lose jurisdiction
to try and punish? No, because
the repeal is considered as a partial
repeal. Repeal with re-enactment.
The intention is not to decriminalize
illegal possession of unlicensed
firearms. Kasi nagkaroon ng re-
enactment, may illegal possession
of loose firearms under sec. 28 of
RA 10591.
2. Will you give retroactive or
prospective effect to RA 10591?
No. Kasi yung penalty sa 1866
mababa lang (PC Max). Sec. 28 RA
10591, mas mataas (PM Med).
Therefore, RA 10591 shall be given
a prospective effect.
Another example, you commit illegal use of
dangerous drugs under RA 6435. Meron
nang kaso laban sayo. Dumating tong RA
9165 sec. 100, nirepeal tong RA 6435:
1. Will the court lose jurisdiction to
try and punish the accused? No.
Because the repeal is a partial
repeal. The intention is not to
decriminalize usage of dangerous
drugs. Using it is still punishable
under RA 9165, nire-enact yung
provision on illegal use.
2. Will you give RA 9165
prospectivity or retroactivity?
The penalty on RA 6435 is
imprisonment. While the penalty
under RA 9165 is rehabilitation for
first time offenders. So favorable to
the accused. Therefore, RA 9165
shall be given retroactive effect. So
impose rehabilitation and not
imprisonment.
Pag binasa mo yung article 367 ng RPC,
repealing the old penal law. Question, Yung
repeal ba found in 367 of the PRC
(repealing the old Spanish Penal Code) is
that absolute or partial? Combination po
yan. So murder, rape, theft, robbery—you
consider the repeal as a partial repeal or a
repeal with a reenactment.
With respect to subornation of perjury,
etc., that is considered as an absolute
repeal because the repeal is without re-
enactment. So that is a combination.
Yung general repeal, minsan Congress
kasi, minsan tinatamad to identify ano
rerepeal nila. So instead na hanapin ang
mga tinamaan ng new law sa old law, so
syempre playing safe, gagawin nila, “any
provision under the law, rules etc, which is
not compatible with the provision under
this law are deemed repealed or modified
or amended.” So this is general repeal.
(lecture we’ll lecture that pag nasa special
laws na tayo, yung effect ng general
repeal)
RA 10951
August 29, 2017
Published: September 1, 2017
Effectivity: September 16, 2017
People v. Lito Corpuz
- Issue: WoN the penalty under art.
315 of RPC is unconstitutional
- Bakit ito issue? Kasi the penalty is
based on the amount of the damage
suffered by the complainant, which
is measured by the value of the
money 80 years ago.
- Kaya napaka taas ng penalty, luma
na. Sabi ng SC, concern should be
addressed to Congress. So they
brought the decision to Congress
and after 3 years and 4 months,
(August 29), inapprove yung batas
nay an
Amendments of RA 10591
- Adjusted penalties, fines, which is
based on value of the money in
January 1, 1932
- Formula: 200x formula. Example,
under art. 155 of RPC (alarm and
 scandal, penalty: AM and fine not
exceeding Php 200.00)
- Why 200 was used in the formula?
The minimum wage rate is 2.50
(January 1, 1932)
The minimum wage rate in is more
than 500 (August 29, 2017)
So basically the minimum wage rate
now is 200 times higher than
before.
- So dati a fine of not exceeding Php
200. So nagging times 200, so
40,000php. (Sec. 9, RA 10951)
May mga times na instead of using the
200x formula (which is the general rule),
gumagamit sila ng 100. Ex: alarm and
scandal penalty of slander is AM or fine not
exceeding 200php. So ginamit 200x
formula, ginamit yung 100x formula,
inamend na to sa RA 10591, nagging not
exceeding Php 20,000.00.
May mga time they won’t use the 100x or
200x formula. They will prescribe bigla
penalty of RP. For example, under art. 217,
highest penalty before prior to RA 9165,
pag yung amount of property malversed or
misappropriated exceeds Php 22,000.00,
ang penalty is RT max to RP. Now inamend
ito. Pag amount of misappropriation
exceeds Php 8.8M, RP na siya.
Last na, diba inexplain ko na nagkaron ng
decriminalization by amendments? They
amended art. 315, pero Nawala yung
estafa na di nagbayad sa hotel motel. So
ok na tayo jan.
So let’s lecture classification, fine, and
penalty based on the amount of damage,
etc.
Classification
Under art. 26 of the RPC (ito yung
classification ng crime; penalty of crime),
before, madali matandaan ito because art.
26, so you only have to remember, 200 and
6,000.
1. If not less than 200, light penalty
2. If not exceeding 6,000, correccional
3. Exceeding 6,000, afflictive
But this was amended. They used 200x.
So, 200x240,000. 600x400 = 1.2M.
So what you’ll remember:
1. Less than 40k - light
2. Not exceeding 1.2M – correccional
3. Exceeding 1.2M – afflictive
Example: You are driving a car and you got
in an accident, damage is 10k. art. 365,
fine is not less than 10k, not more than
triple the amount (so until 30k). So until
the old version of art. 26 of the RPC, it’s
30k.
What is the prescription? Art. 90 of the RPC
says, for “other afflictive,” 15 yrs. And
biglang dumating itong batas na ito, so as
amended, so light penalty ito diba and
therefore the prescription is 2 months.
Question, will you give retroactive effect to
RA 10951 sec. 1 amending art. 26 of the
RPC? YES, since it is favorable to the
accused.
Another example: if the accused is a
habitual delinquent? Remember art. 22 of
the RPC, there are two conditions to give
retroactivity:
1. Favorable
2. Not a habitual delinquent
Under sec. 100 of RA 10951, this law is said
to be given a retroactive effect insofar as it
is favorable to the accused or persons
serving sentence by final judgment. So
may conflict ito sa art. 22 of the RPC. If you
follow art. 22, di pwede retroactivity since
habitual delinquent. On the other hand, if
you apply sec. 100, the only condition for
application of retroactive effect is just for it
to be favorable. So answer is you apply
retroactive effect, specific provision over
general provision. Kahit habitual
delinquent yan.
As for the fines, lahat ng provisions where
the fine was adjusted is not favorable to the
accused, kasi tumaas lahat ng fine eh.
Therefore, prospective application.
Example: you committed alarm and
scandal prior to RA 10951. Penalty is not
less than 200php, tapos it was amended,
nagging not less than 40k. Lagyan mo ba
ng retroactivity? No. Under sec. 21, no
felony shall be punishable by a penalty that
is not exceeding 40k not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
Next, there are times that the penalty is
based on the amount of damage, value of
the property stolen, appropriated,
malversed, etc. If this is the issue,
favorable to the accused yung provisions
ng RA 10951.
Example, art. 309 RPC, penalty for theft
prior to RA 10951, pag lumagpas ng 12k,
penalty is PM min and med periods. When
this was amended by sec. 81 of RA 10951,
ginamit yung 100x. So, 12k x 100, 1.2M.
So ang penalty para maging PM min and
med, dapat not exceeding 1.2M. In this
manner, this is favorable to the accused
therefore you give retroactive application.
Art. 217 RPC, penalty of malversation,
inamend ng sec. 40. Generally, sec. 40,
amending 217, is favorable to the accused.
But one portion isn’t favorable: if it
exceeded 8.8M, RP ang penalty. This is not
favorable because the highest penalty
before is only RT max to RP. In other
words, the RA 10951 pwedeng favorable,
pwedeng hindi favorable to the accused, so
pwedeng prospective or retroactive. Case
to case basis.
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
217874
- Accused was convicted of
malversation under art. 217 prior to
the amendments.
- Amount of property malversed:
11,300php. It didn’t exceed 12k so
the penalty is high pa rin, PM med
and max.
- Sentence to him: 11 yrs, 6 mos, and
21 days of PM. 11 years, ang haba.
11.3k lang ang minalverse.
- Judgment became final. Then, RA
10951 came in. Here, if the amount
didn’t exceed 40k, penalty is just PC
min to max.
- The problem here though is the
decision is final. J. Peralta explained
the doctrine of immutability of a
final decision.
- This doctrine says, once a decision
becomes final, it will also become
immutable or inalterable. Even if
the purpose is to correct an
erroneous conclusion of law or
conclusion of fact.
- This is not absolute. One exception
is, if there is a subsequent event or
circumstance (like this case) that
transpired after finality of the
decision, and that such subsequent
event will render the
implementation of the final decision
unjust.
- According to the SC, the enactment
of RA 10951 which prescribed a
lighter penalty for malversation will
render the implementation of a final
decision in the case of Hernandez
where the penalty is higher, unjust.
- This is because the implementation
happens when the law was enacted,
and therefore, such will be unjust
and therefore under the exception
to the rule.
- Additional explanation from
Campanilla: if you will read sec. 100
of RA 10951, the provision of this
act shall be given retroactive effect
insofar as it is favorable to the
accused or person serving sentence
by final judgment. The last part
means: final and immutable
judgment. Despite of the finality of
the judgment and the accused is
already serving the sentence, there
is a mandate under sec. 100 of RA
10951 to give retroactive effect to
the favorable provision under this
law. So in other words, this is a rare
situation where the law itself
provides an exception to the
doctrine of immutability of a final
decision.
- Because of the retroactive effect,
penalty became: 3 years, 6 months,
and 20 days (PC).
People v. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09
- Affirmed by Salcedo v. Ombudsman
- Valdez was charged of the complex consider other provisions
crime of malversation thru other than art. 249, that’s
falsification of documents under art. imposable. Like you
217 of the RPC prior to the committed homicide but a
amendments. minor, so per art. 68, it is a
- Penalty: RT max to RP (if exceeding privileged mitigating
22k) circumstance so the
- Question: is this bailable? imposable penalty is now
- Prior to the Valdez case, it is not PM)
bailable. Why? Read the old - If there are no other provisions to
guidelines of the DOJ: if complex adjust the penalty, prescribed
crime of malversation thru penalty is also the imposable
falsification of document exceeds penalty (no graduation, no
22k, it is not bailable. circumstance, etc)
- Now, when the Valdez case came, it - For purposes of determining
is now bailable. Why? According to whether the crime is bailable or not,
J. Peralta, if you go to sec. 13 of art. consider the prescribed and not the
III of the Constitution, an offense is imposable penalty.
bailable unless it is punishable by RP - In this case, the penalty is RT max
- But, in Rules of Criminal Procedure, to RP is prescribed. It’s a complex
RP is life imprisonment and death crime (thru falsification – so go to
penalty – not bailable. So now why art 48). The max period of RT max
did the SC change this? The answer to RP? Kasi divisible penalty to. Max
is obvious: life imprisonment or is RP.
death penalty is a penalty higher - So here in this case:
than RP. Life imprisonment, o Prescribed penalty – RT max
according to the case of Morilla, is to RP
unlimited. It is not subject to 40 o Imposable penalty – RP (cos
years. Literally life imprisonment, of art. 48)
so it’s more grave. It would be - For purposes of determining
absurd if an offense punishable by whether the crime is bailable or not,
RP is not bailable while an offense courts consider the prescribed
which is punishable by life penalty so this one’s bailable since
imprisonment, a higher penalty, is it’s not totally RP in sec. 13 art III
bailable. of the 1987 Constitution
- The Constitution used “punishable.” - Lessons in this case:
According to J. Peralta, this word in o In determining whether the
the Constitution means that, in crime is bailable, consider
determining whether the crime is prescribed penalty and not
bailable or not, the courts shall the imposable penalty. XPN:
consider the prescribed penalty and § If privileged
not the imposable penalty. mitigating
o Prescribed – penalty circumstance of
prescribed by a particular minority – sec. 34 RA
provision of Book II RPC (ex: 9344 provides: in
art. 249 RPC, homicide is determining bail,
prescribed with a penalty of courts consider the
RT) privileged mitigating
o Imposable – penalty circumstance of
imposable after taking into minority. (ex: Child
consideration a provision in conflict with law
other than that which committed murder.
defines the felony (ex: if you Under art. 248 RPC,
 prescribed penalty is 27 RPC (amended by RA 7659), period of
RP to death. RP is 40 yrs. So, look at art. 29 (amended
Considering minority, by RA 10592). In here, the credit for
imposable penalty is preventive imprisonment if the penalty is
RT. For purposes of RP shall be deducted from 30 yrs. In other
determining bail, you words, if you have preventive
will not apply the imprisonment, it will credit to your 30 yrs.
Valdez ruling. Sec. If you don’t have, you apply art. 27 (40 yrs
34 RA 9344 is what RP). Art. 29 will ony apply if there is
you’ll consider, preventive imprisonment, so you go to 27
hence it’s RT so it’s if wala. 40 yrs.
bailable.
§ Stages of the felony Art. 3 of the RPC
are alleged in the Felonies are committed by means of dolo
information (ex: or culpa.
attempted murder –
bailable, because if Culpa
you’re charged for is this a mode of committing a crime or is
this, prescribed it a crime in itself? There are 2 views for
penalty is RP to this
death. Now the
imposable penalty is 1st view: culpa as a mode
PM because of art. 51 Used by Angeles v Jose, GR No. L-6494
of RPC which makes (1954), Lontoc v Gorgonio, GR No. 37396
it 2 degrees lower) (1979). Based on Art. 3 of RPC.
o To consider the crime as
non-bailable, it is important If you kill a person by means of dolo: killing
that the penalty is purely is the crime, dolo is the mode of
Death, RP, or Life committing the crime.
imprisonment, or RP to o With culpa: if you kill a person
death. If the penalty is a by means of culpa, homicide is
combination of a divisible the crime, culpa is just a mode.
penalty and RP, it will be Crime committed is homicide
bailable (ex: mutilation thru reckless imprudence.
under art. 262 RPC, penalty
- Example: you are driving a car, you
prescribed is RT to RP.
crashed, and hit people, one died, one
Bailable; sexual abuse under
suffered serious physical injuries, one
sec 5[b] RA 7610, penalty is
RT med to RP – bailable; sec. suffered slight physical injuries, and
11 RA 9165, when the you also incurred damage to property.
shabu, 5-10, penalty is 20
yrs and 1 day to life There are 4 crimes committed under the
imprisonment. Sa totoo first view:
lang, the recommendation a. homicide thru reckless imprudence;
ng fiscal is no bail b. serious physical injuries thru
recommended. This is a reckless imprudence;
contradiction to the Valdez c. damage to property; and
principle. Bailable dapat d. slight physical injuries thru reckless
since not purely life imprudence;
imprisonment)
Applying the case of People v. Gonzales GR
Addtl ex: If you have a client, accused of No. 195671 (2015), since the first 3 crimes
sexual abuse. Is this bailable? Under art. were produced by a single act of
recklessness, thus the first 3 crimes will be
treated as a complex crime for the single
act of reckless driving resulting to
homicide, serious physical injuries, damage
to property. The crime would be a complex
crime of homicide, serious physical injuries,
damage to property thru reckless
imprudence.
However, with respect to the 4th crime
(slight physical injuries thru RI), this crime
will be considered as a separate crime,
under the case of People v. Turla GR 26388
(1927) because that is a light felony. If it is
a light felony, it is removed as a component
of a complex crime because art. 48
(complex crimes) is designed to favor the
accused by treating 2 or more crimes as
one. At the same time, it is also meant to
prejudice the accused by requiring the
application of the penalty, for the most
serious component of the complex crime, in
its maximum period.
- Example: in one act, if there is homicide
and slight physical injuries, if it is made
as a complex crime, it wouldn’t be
favorable to the accused, because the
reclusion temporal will be applied in its
maximum period. But if separated, the
medium period of reclusion temporal
(for homicide) and medium period of
arresto menor (for slight physical
injuries) will be imposed, which would
be lower and favorable to the accused.
Following the first view, in the original
example, there will be 2 crimes committed:
complex crime of homicide, serious
physical injuries, damage to property
through reckless imprudence, and a
separate crime of slight physical injury
through reckless imprudence.
2nd view: culpa as a crime in itself
Culpa is a crime in itself based on People v
Cano GR No. 19660 (1966). This view is
based on Art. 365 of the RPC. The title
alone of Art. 365 justifies the view that
culpa is a crime in itself. The body of art.
365 will also justify that culpa is the crime
in itself: commission of an act through
reckless imprudence, negligence. Both the
title and the body justify that art. 365 is a
crime in itself.
- Example: You are recklessly driving a
car, which resulted to homicide, serious
and slight physical injuries, and
damage to property. Following the
second view, culpa being a crime,
considering that there is a single act of
recklessness only in this example, there
is only one crime: reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide, serious pi, slight
pi, and damage to property.
- The single commission of the reckless
act was the crime in itself therefore
there is only 1 crime, regardless of the
consequence.
o The consequence of the reckless
act has something to do with the
imposition of the penalty, if
someone died, higher penalty
compared to when no one died.
In the case of Ivler v. San Pedro GR No.
172716 (2010), where collision of vehicles
resulted to death and damage to property,
the fiscal followed the first view, 2 crimes
committed were committed: complex
crime of homicide and damage to property
through reckless imprudence, and a
separate crime of slight physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. Since there
were 2 crimes, there were 2 informations
filed as well. During arraignment, accused
pleaded guilty to slight physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. Accused filed
a motion to quash the second information
on the ground of double jeopardy. The
judge also followed the first view, since it
was the prevailing view at that time, thus,
there were 2 separate crimes committed,
which negated double jeopardy since
offenses were not identical. Case went to
SC, Justice Carpio followed the 2nd view
where there is only 1 crime: reckless
imprudence. Considering that there is only
1 crime, you cannot split this crime into two
for purposes of double prosecution, and to
do so would violate double jeopardy.

What view is controlling? I do not know.
- 2011 and 2012 bar exams:
o Followed the first view, despite
that Ivler was already
promulgated.
o Multiple choice
- 2013 and 2014 bar exams:
o Followed the second view
(Ivler).
o Suggested answer only.
To this day, this issue has not yet been
settled since Ivler was not decided en banc,
and Gonzales (2015) was not also en banc.
For purposes of the bar: the best thing
to do is to discuss both views.
Personal answer: But personally, I am of
the first view [sic]. First view is based on
art. 3, the second view is based on art. 365
but you cannot reconcile these. Under the
rules of statutory construction, if there is a
conflict between general and specific
provisions, the specific provision will
prevail. Art. 3 is a general provision, art.
365 is a specific provision. Why will you
analyze the elements of reckless
imprudence by going to art. 3 when it is
already complete in art. 365?
Moreover, a basic principle in criminal law
is, in identifying the actus reus, you
consider verb.
- For example, in homicide, shall kill is
the actus reus and the criminal act. For
robbery, shall take is the actus reus,
violence or intimidation is only a mode.
For brigandage shall form, formation
shall constitute the criminal act.
- Thus, for art. 365, shall commit an act
with recklessness, negligence,
imprudence is the actus reus or the
crime in itself. If you also consider art.
3, the title of art. 365 will also change.
But in the same case of Ivler, what if the
victim was a minor? Generally, the
jurisdiction belongs to the Family court. But
where a minor victim died, the Ivler case
will apply. The family court only has
jurisdiction where the minor lives, but
where the minor dies, the family court does
not have jurisdiction. The intention of
placing the jurisdiction with the family
courts is because of the expertise of judges
in family courts, since there are separate
rules for minors. If the minor is dead, no
minor is to be protected by the family
courts. That is the case of Yadao GR No.
162144 (2012). This was the killing of the
Baleleng Gang, which involved the death of
2 minors. A motion was filed to transfer the
case from the RTC to the family court.
Judge denied the motion and the SC
sustained the judge's decision.
Mistake of fact doctrine
The general rule is that ignorance of the
law does not excuse anyone from
compliance therewith. Mistake of fact is a
defense to this.
Effects of mistake of fact:
1. Mistake of fact may negate a specific
element of a felony, which prevents the
felony from being constituted. In the
case of Gabiola GR 163937 (2006),
where you took a wallet thinking that it
was yours but it wasn't, can it be
considered as theft? One of the
elements of theft is intent to gain. In
this case there is no intent to gain, you
were merely exercising your right as an
owner to take the wallet.
Example: Where you demanded the
return of your wallet from another
person with threats and intimidation,
will there be robbery? No, there is also
no intent to gain, you are just
exercising your right as an owner.
Mistake of fact negates the intent to
gain. But, in this case, you may be
liable for grave coercion.
What if you thought that a property
inside a house was yours, so you
entered the house through an opened
window and took the thing and returned
home. But you realized that the thing
was not yours, so you returned it. Are
you liable for robbery for force upon
 things? No, mistake of fact negates
intent to gain. But you are liable for
trespass to dwelling.
2. It may also negate dolo, which is the
general element of a felony. There are
3 requisites to consider mistake of fact
as a defense:
a. the act would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
b. the mistake of fact is not due to
negligence;
c. the mistake of fact is not
accompanied by dolo.
Campanilla’s strategy:
a. If you can connect mistake of fact
with a justifying/ exempting
circumstance, all elements are
present.
b. If the 1st or 2nd elements are
missing, mistake of fact can be a
source of mitigating circumstance.
c. If the 2nd missing alone is missing,
the crime committed is reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
The 2nd element is gone where
accused failed to validate the facts
d. If the 3rd element is missing, it
follows that the first element is also
not present.
e. If the 3rd and 1st elements are
missing, it will be error in personae.
First scenario example: US v Ah chong GR
No. 5272 (1910).
Mistake of fact may be connected to the
justifying circumstance of self-defense,
which if successfully done, completes the
elements for self-defense.
Elements of mistake of fact if connected to
self-defense are:
1) the act of killing would have been
justified due to the circumstance of
self-defense had the facts been as
the accused believed them to be;
2) mistake of fact was not due to
negligence (in this case, Ah Chong
even tried to validate the identity of
the killer, thus there could be no
negligence);
3) there is no evil intent, but
rather, the intention of the accused
was to defend himself because he
believed that there was unlawful
aggression.
People v. Mamasalaya, G.R. No. L-
4911, Feb. 10, 1953
Mistake of fact may also be connected with
the exempting circumstance of
performance of duty
Note: duty of the military is different from
that of the police. military's duty = search
and destroy; police's duty = search and
apprehend (but in apprehending a person,
the use of necessary force may be utilized
in the process).
In the case of death in the apprehension by
the police of a person, the police-accused
may be exempted from criminal liability so
long as the force used was reasonable
under the exempting circumstance of
performance of duty.
For the military, they may adopt the
element of surprise because in some cases,
if they don't, some military personnel could
die.
Elements of mistake of fact if connected to
performance of duty are: 1) the act of
killing would have been justified due to the
circumstance of performance of duty had
the facts been as the accused believed
them to be; 2) mistake of fact was not due
to negligence; 3) there is no evil
intent, but rather, the intention of the
accused was to defend himself because he
believed that there was unlawful
aggression.
Supreme Court acquitted the accused. All
elements were present. There was no
negligence because the military is allowed
to adopt the element of surprise, without
validating if the people inside a specific
house are terrorists or bandits. There was
also no evil intent because the accused's
intention was merely to perform their duty,
i.e., by searching and destroying their
enemies.
People v. Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445,
February 28, 1955
Mistake of fact may also be connected with
the justifying circumstance of obedience of
a lawful order issued by a superior officer
- Order issued by the superior officer must
be lawful
Elements mistake of fact if connected with
the justifying circumstance of obedience of
a lawful order issued by a superior officer
are: 1) the act of killing would have been
justified due to the circumstance of
performance of duty had the facts been as
the accused believed them to be; 2)
mistake of fact was not due to negligence;
3) there is no evil intent, but rather, the
intention of the accused was to defend
himself because he believed that there was
unlawful aggression.
Supreme Court acquitted the accused. All
elements were present. There was no
negligence because of the circumstances
brought about by World War II, i.e., there
was no way for the accused to validate the
information because of the war. There was
no evil intent because the intention of the
accused was merely to obey the order
issued to them.
Can mistake of fact be connected with
exempting circumstances?
Yes. For example, a terrorist points a gun
at X, saying that the latter should shoot Y,
otherwise, the terrorist would shoot X. X
then shoots at Y, causing him to die. When
X turns his back, however, he discovers
that the terrorist was not pointing a gun at
him, but only a stick. Can X then invoke the
exempting circumstance of irresistible
force by virtue of mistake of fact?
Yes, so long as all elements for mistake of
fact are present. In the case above, there
could have been no negligence because
there was no opportunity to validate
whether what the terrorist was pointing
was really a gun. There was also no evil
intention since X merely obeyed the order
of the terrorist on the threat that if X
doesn't do so, the terrorist would shoot him
to death.
Mistake of fact may be connected with
the mitigating circumstance of passion
There should be facts on which the
mitigating circumstance of passion must be
based
Even if such mentioned facts were not
proven by evidence, the
mitigating circumstance of passion may
still be appreciated as long as the accused
was led to believe that his/her spouse was
having an affair, and thus, gave rise to
passion.
Can mistake of fact be connected with
death under exceptional
circumstances under Art. 247 of the
RPC?
Death under exceptional circumstances is
in essence connected with death because
of passion
X catches his wife having sex with Y, and
because of such incident, X uncontrollably
kills his wife and Y. When X rotates the
body of his wife, however, he discovers
that she was not his wife. Can X invoke
mistake of fact with death under
exceptional circumstance?
Yes, so long as all elements for mistake of
fact are present. There can be no
negligence because the accused could not
have an opportunity to validate the facts as
at the time of the killing, he would have
"blacked out" already because of the
thought that his wife was having an affair
with another man. There could have been
no evil intent because the accused merely
acted upon the rage that was
overwhelming him.
What if the first or second element/s
for mistake of fact are missing?
US v. Apego, G.R. No. L-7929,
November 18, 1912
Accused was convicted. The means
employed was not reasonable because
what the husband merely did to his wife's
sister before the latter killed him was to
hold her in her shoulders.
Mistake of fact cannot be invoked as self-
defense because the first element of
mistake of fact is missing. SC, however,
appreciated the privilege mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense of
honor because the first and third elements
of self-defense were present.
As a rule, to appreciate the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete
defense of honor, there must be unlawful
aggression or an aggression against one's
honor. In this case, there was no unlawful
aggression, but because of the "mistake of
fact" doctrine, unlawful aggression will be
treated as present.
Mistake of fact is not only connected
with justifying, exempting, and death
under exceptional circumstances, but
it may also be connected with the
privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense.
Mistake of fact may be connected with
defense of property
People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-
67, April 20, 1983
There can be invasion of property even if
there is no assault upon the owner or lawful
possessor of the property, which would
then amount to unlawful aggression
because of the self-help doctrine under Art.
429 of the Civil Code.
Killing a person by reason of invasion of
property, however, is not a reasonable
means to prevent or repel the aggressor.
The 1st and 3rd requisites are present
though, thus, the privilege mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense of
property was granted.
There must be invasion of property in order
to appreciate the privilege mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense of
property. If there was no invasion because
the deceased was not in fact a thief, such
privilege mitigating circumstance could still
be invoked if there was a mistake of fact.
If the invasion of property was
accompanied by an assault upon the owner
or lawful possessor of the property, there
is no doubt that there is self-defense.
Apolinar case is not controlling because it
is only a Court of Appeals case.
People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July
27, 1943
Mistake of fact doctrine cannot be applied
because the first and second elements for
mistake of fact were not present.
The first element of mistake of fact was not
present. The killing would not have been
justified had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be because killing of the
victim was not a necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty of the police
officer.
The second element cannot also be present
because there was negligence on the part
of the accused. This was because the victim
was sleeping at the time he was killed,
thus, the accused had the opportunity to
validate the identity of the victim without
risk of being hurt or killed.
The privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete performance of duty may,
however, be invoked. The performance of
duty, which is an element of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete
performance of duty, will be treated as
present because of the mistake of fact
doctrine.
The act of the killing would have been
attended by the privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete performance of
duty had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be. What is only missing
is that the killing was not a necessary
consequence of the due performance of
duty of the police officer.
People v. Yapyuco, G.R. Nos. 120744-
46, June 25, 2012
Mistake of fact cannot be applied because
the first and second elements for mistake
of fact were not present.
The killing would not have been
justified had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be. This is because the
duty of the police was to validate, and after
validating, to arrest the NPA members, and
not to immediately shoot such NPA
members.
There was also negligence because the
victims were not armed; they were not
shooting the accused-police officers when
they were killed. Thus, there could not have
been unlawful aggression. The police
officers should have tried to validate the
identities of the victims before shooting
down at them.
The privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete performance of duty could not
have been invoked because even if the
facts believed to be true by the accused
were true, the immediate shooting of the
NPA was summary killing or extra-judicial
killing. In short, privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete performance of
duty cannot be invoked because the first
element, performance of duty, was
missing.
The first element of performance of duty
cannot be present because it was not part
of the duty of the police officer to kill the
NPA members without due process of law.
In the Oanis case, the Supreme Court
appreciated the privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete
performance of duty, however, in
Yapyuco, it was not. How can it be
reconciled?
If the facts given are similar to the Oanis
case, what must be applied is the doctrine
in that same case.
If, however, the facts given are different to
Oanis, what must be applied is the doctrine
in Yapyuco, which provides that such killing
is considered as an extrajudicial one.
People v. Calderon, G.R. No. L-6189,
November 29, 1954
There cannot be mistake of fact because
the first elements are missing.
The first element is missing because the
killing would not have been justified due to
the circumstance of performance of duty
had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be. Even if the victim was indeed a
rebel, the killing of such rebel without due
process of law would amount to
extrajudicial killing, which is not part of the
due performance of duty of the military.
How can the case of Calderon be
reconciled with the doctrine under the
case of Mamasalaya which provides
that the military can employ the
element of surprise by virtue of the
doctrine of "search and destroy"?
The doctrine of "search and destroy"
cannot apply in the case of Calderon
because such doctrine is not an absolute
rule.
The doctrine of "search and destroy"
applies in situations when the military will
not adopt the element of surprise, nor will
immediately destroy their enemies.
Kung halimbawa, militar, o may baril ka,
matanda, tapos ilang metro, merong pang
fence, bolo lang naman – hindi pwede i-
apply ang search and destroy. Rebelde 'to,
destroy! Hindi gano'n dapat. Hulihin mo. In
other words, hindi automatic ang
applicationg ng search and destroy, and
element of surprise. That is the reason
why Mamasalaya acquitted
and Calderon did not acquit.
Ano ang pagkakaiba nito Oanis,
yung Calderon at Yapyukop(?), parehas
did not appreciate privilege mitigating
circumstance of incomplete performance of
duty kasi salvage 'yun eh. Bukod tangi
lang ang Oanis na in-appreciate
ang privilege mitigating circumstance of
incomplete performance of duty. 'Yang 3 na
'yan, salvage 'yan eh. Kaya nga sinasabi ko
yung Oanis that is not a correct principle.
Pero for purposes of the Bar Examination,
we will follow. Provided that the
circumstance given in the Bar Examination
is similari to Oanis; otherwise, you
apply Calderon - pag extajudicial killing,
walang privilege don. Rebelde man 'yan o
hindi, binaril mo - that is salvage,
extrajudicial killing. That is not part of the
duty of the military.
People v Fernando, G.R. 24978, March
27, 1926. 1926 'to.
Iba 'yung situation dati. May balita kasi na
may 3 notorious criminal na nakawala. Pag
ganon kasi, takot na takot ang tao – walang
ilaw, tapos puro kubo lang ang bahay. The
accused, a policeman, was called by a girl.
She said to the police that her father
wished to see him. Suddenly, may
dumating na tao sa bahay. Naka-itim,
madilim pa, walang ilaw. Meron siyang
dalawang bolong nakatali, parang baril.
While papalapit na yung lalaki,the girl
mentioned Nomyong (the name of the
guy), pero binaril pa rin nung accused
(policeman) 'yung lalaki. Is the first
element present? Yes. The killing would
have been justified due to the perfomance
of duty. Had the facts been, that is, the
victim is a notorious criminal who escaped
and there is already danger, the accused
and the occupants will be killed –so present
'yung 1st element. Present ba 'yung 3rd
element? There is no evil intention,
because that was the request of the girl.
What is lacking is the 2nd element. She
mentioned Nomyong. May babae, he
should've asked the girl kung sino siya.
Instead of shooting, he should've validated
the identity by asking the girl. There is
negligence. He was convicted of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. So
anong pagkakain ng Oanis, Yapyukop (?),
at Fernando. The first 2, 1st and 2nd
elements are not present.
In Fernando, 2nd element is not present.
So if 2nd element of mistake of fact
doctrine alone is not present that is
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Dito tayo sa 3rd element. Nakita mo si
Pedro, putang ina mo Pedro – boom! Binaril
mo. Afterwards, si Juan pala 'yung nabaril
mo. Meron bang evil intention? Yes. So the
3rd element is not present. Pag hindi
present ang 3rd element, 'yung 1st hindi na
rin (?). The act would not have been lawful
had the facts been, and that is the vicitm is
Pedro and not Juan as the accused he
believed him to be. Kasi whether it is Pedro
or Juan, pinatay mo eh. And therefore this
is not mistake of fact. This is error in
personae.
Article 4 of RPC, the first part. 'Yung
Criminal Liabilities have been incurrred by
any person by committing a felony,
although the wrongful act done be different
thant it is intended. 2 ang wrongful acts
dito:
1. wrongful act done and
2. wrongful act intended.
Although the wrongful act done be different
from what is intended -- 'yung wrong act
din 'yan eh. In other words, although the
wrongful act done is different from the
wrongful act intended. Diba criminal
liability is incurred by a person committing
a felony - 'yung felony and wrongful act
done are the same.
Paiksiin natin – persons shall incur criminal
liability for the wrongful act done although
it differs from the wrongful act intended.
Ganon lang ka-simple yan. What is
important is the wrongful act done
although is different from the wrongful act
intended.
In Criminal law what is important is the
wrongful act intended, kasi classical theory
tayo eh. Under the classical theory, the
basis of penalization is the human free will
to kill or not kill. You have the free will not
do it, pero ginawa mo pa rin. Kaya dito ang
importante talaga is 'yung mens rea, 'yung
criminal intention. Mapapansin niyo. 'yun
talaga ang rule.
Pero kasi, Art. 4 is an exception to the rule.
Kasi, 'yung criminal liability, will be based
not on the wrongful act intended, but on
the wrongful act done.
Bakit nagkaron ng exception?
Kasi kung masyadong techincal na 'yung
criminal liability will always depend on the
intention, minsan kasi pedeng gamitin 'yan
para magpalusot ang accused. Kasi
masyadong technical eh.
Example: Pare, nakita mo ba 'yang si Mang
Tomas? Matagal ko nang balak pataying
'yan eh. Pinag-aralan ko' to. Susuntukin ko
'yan, pagkisuntok ko babagsak ang ulo niya
dun sa malaking bato. Mamatay 'yan.
Paulit-ulit ko 'yan prinactice. Pag dating sa
Court, eh pani kung hindi nag testify ang
kausap mo, o pano kung mens rea lagi ang
rule – sasabihin nung accused wala akong
intensyon patayin. Ang plano ko lang
suntukin 'yan, 'di ko naman akalain
mababagok ang ulo niya. In other words,
'yung criminal intention, that is something
that is internal with the accused unless
aamin siya or di nakipagdaldalan, 'di mo
talaga malalaman. Kaya meron Art. 4, para
maiwan ang mga palusot na 'yan. Ang
sasabihin ng judge, pasensya ka na hijo,
meron tayong Art. 4 eh, liable ka for the
wrongful act done although it differs from
the wrongful act intended.
In the Case of Cagoco (G.R. No. 38511),
ganon, sinuntok niya. Sinuntok niya
nakatalikod - so may treachery. So he's
liable for the wrongful act done that is
murder, although it differs from the
wrongful act intended. And that is physical
injury, assuming this is the intention. On
that assumption that the intention is
merely inflict physical harm, the same is
liable for murder that is the wrongful act
done because of Art. 4.
To apply Art. 4, it is important that the
accused is committing a felony. Otherwise,
you will not apply Art. 4.
Halimbawa: magpapakamatay 'yung
accused. Pero hindi siya namatay, ang
namatay ay 'yung bata. O kaya nag suicide,
tumalon sa building, pero may nadala na
tao, namatay din siya. So what is the crime
committed? 2 views.
1st view by Dean Ortega: This is reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
2nd View by Luis Reyes: To apply Art. 4,
suicide is not a felony, and therefore, Art.
4 is not a felony. Any direct and collateral
consequence of an act that is not a felony,
the accused is not responsible because Art.
4 is not applicable.
Judge Campanilla sided with Reyes. He
added that the example is an accident.
To apply Art. 4 (first part), the felony
must be intentional felony. There is one
view, whether it is intentional or not, you
can apply Art. 4. Because the law speaks of
felony without distinction. I do not agree.
Sa Stat Con, in construing or interpreting a
provision, the Court should not rely on a
particular word, but the whole text. In
other words, merong involved na intended
wrongful act. And the concept of culpa is
not compatible. That intention to commit a
wrongful act is not compatible with the
concept of culpa.
In Bataklan v Medina, 'yung bus tumaob,
tapos may dalang apoy para sa ilaw. Art. 4
is not applicable, pero you can still apply
the proximate cause rule not because of
Art. 4 but Art. 365. Kasi yung Art. 4, that
is a rule of proximate cause. 'Yung Art. 365,
is also a rule on proximate cause. If the
proximate cause of the death of the victim
is culpa, you will apply Art. 365. It is
technical - whether it is intentional or
culpable, the culpable or intentional felony
is the proxmate cause of the death of the
victim. Pagdating sa Bar, technicalan 'yan
eh, pag culpa, use Art. 365.
There are 4 Rules covered by Art. 4:
error in personae, prater inentionem,
aberratio ictus, and proximate and efficient
cause rule.
Error in personae.
Under the principle of error in personae, in
relation to Art. 4, the persons can incur
criminal liability for committing a felony
although the victim is different from that
intended.
Example: Putang ina mo, Pedro - Boom!
Pagtingin mo, si Juan pala. That is error in
personae, you are liable for the wrongful
act done - that is, killing Juan. Although it
is different from the wrongful act intended,
i.e., killing Pedro.
Error in personae is actually mistake of
fact. Pero ano ba pagkakaiba ng mistake of
fact and error in personae?
• Mistake of fact, the mistake has
something to do with the elements
of justifying and exempting
circumstance.
• Error in personae, the mistake
pertains to the identity of the
victim.
The justifying circumstance of self-defense
was considered in favor of the accused
even if there is no unlawful aggression
because of the mistake of fact doctrine.
Pero pag error in personae,
halimabawa: U.S v Ah Chong. Kala niya
magnanakaw. So that is mistake of
identity. Error in personae kasi akala niya
magnanakaw. Halimbawa binaril niya
immediately, mistake of fact or error in
perosnae. The latter. kasi akala niya
magnanakaw hindi pala, mistake of
identity. Therefore, he is liable. Why?
Porket ba dahil akala mo magnanakaw,
papataying mo na.
Example: Pare, 'di ba, rapist ka? Boom!
Pinatay mo. Liable ka ba? So sa Ah
Chong, akala niya magnanakaw, binaril mo
agad, So what kung magnanakaw, bat mo
pinatay? So error in personae yan. Sa Ah
Chong case, the mistake is not confined to
the identity. The mistake has something to
do with the unlawful aggression. Which is
an element of self-defense. Akala niya
magnanakaw, tska akala niya ganon ang
unlawful aggression. So consdiering that
the mistake pertains to unlawful
aggression, the applicable rule is mistake
of fact doctrine, not error in personae.
Praeter Intentionem.
Under this principle, the person shall incur
criminal liability for committing a felony,
although the wrongful act done is greater
than that intended.
People v Cajoco - yung sinuntok na
nabagok ang ulo. So he is liable for the
wrongful act done.
Rule on Conclusive presumption in
intent to kill.
For example, the accused is being
convicted of being murder. You asked as
the lawyer to lower the sentence. The
Judge won't allow. For purposes of
determining, whether intent to kill, which is
an element of murder, is present, you can
apply the rule on conclusive presumption in
intent to kill. However, for purposes of
determining whether the criminal liability of
the accused can be mitigated due to the
circumstance of praeter inentionem, we are
allowed to present evidence that there is no
intent to kill. The rule on conclusive
presumption of intent to kill, if the issue of
intent to kill as an element of homocide
murder. If the issue is criminal mitigation
due to the circumstance of praeter
inentionem, there is no such thing as a Rule
on conclusive presumption on intent to kill.
The accused is allowed to present evidence
that there is no intent to kill, the accused is
allowed that there is a notable disparity
between the means employed in
committing the crime and the consequence
of the employment of that means. Sabi ng
SC, pag wala talagang intent to kill, they
appreciate the mitigating circumstance ng
prater intentionem, but not acquitted.
Convicted pa rin. But if there is no intent to
kill, praeter intentionem will be
considered.
How do you apply on Rule on
Conclusive Presumption on intent to
kill? Should there be violence?
If the offender employed violence and as a
consequence, the victim died. Intent to kill
is conclusive presumption?
NO. Violence is not indispensable to apply
the Rule on conclusive presumption on
intent to kill (which is the Campanilla
principle). Why?
Kailangan talaga ng principle on Conclusive
Presumption to operate Art 4. Without the
Campanilla principle, magkakaproblema
nag Art. 4.
U.S. v Valdez (GR No. 16486, 1921).
Papatayin daw siya, eh tumalon, tapos
nalunod. Applying Art. 4 of prater
inentionem, the accused is liable for the
wrongful act done that is homicide,
although it differs from the wrongful act
intended that is to commit light threats.
Convicted.
Hypothetical: Nag file ng MR. Your Honor,
sabi niyo intention is to commit light
threats. But you convicted him of
Homicide. Intent to kill is an important
element of homicide. Wala naman intent to
kill here. If you’re the Court, use
Campanilla principle. It is not necessary
that you apply violence to apply the Rule
on Conclusive Presumption on intent to kill.
What is important is that the accused
commit ANY felony. And as a consequence,
the victim died. Intent to kill is conclusively
presumed. This is important because it is
necessary for the operation of Art. 4.
Otherwise, hindi mag fufunction ang Art. 4.
Kasi malay mo, pinalano pala niya na
malunod pala talaga siya.
People v Ortega, G.R. No. 116736
(1997).
The accused is stabbing the victim. Tapos
the co-accused came. Sabi niya ano ginawa
mo? Eto pinapatay ko. Ah sige pagkitapos
mong patayin itapon natin sa balon. Para
walang evidence laban sayo. We will
destroy corpus delicti. Eh kasi yung victim,
hindi pa pala patay. Nag patay-patayan
lang. Nalunod siya, biglang namatay. When
examined, namatay siya sa lunod. They
were both accused of murder. Sabi nung
co-accused, his intention was to destroy
the corpus delicti. He should only be held
as an accessory and not as principal.
However, murder, whether an accused
particiapted as an accessory, is considered
as a felony within the contemplation of Art.
4. Therefore, the accused is liable for the
wrongful act done, and that is murder.
People v Opero (G.R. 48796, 1981).
Hinoldap niya. Pero 'yung victim maingay.
Nilagyan na ng Pandesal sa bunganga.
Nabilaukan, namatay. Sabi ng accused,
he's only liable for robbery because he has
no intention of killing the girl. Applying Art.
4, the accused is liable. for the direct and
lateral consequence of robbery. SC said
that he is not only liable for robbery, he is
also liable for the death of the victim
because there is a connection between the
robbery and the death -- together, it is a
special complex crime of robbery and
homicide. The accused is liable for the
wrongful act done that is special complex
crime that is robbery with homicide,
although it is different from what it is
intended, that is, robbery. Because of Art.
4, there is a basic rule that in committing a
felony, it creates in the mind of the victim
a sense of danger, causing that victim in
trying to escape, and in doing so, he
suffered death or injury, and the one
responsible for the consequent death or
injuries is the one who caused him to be in
that state of mind.
U.S. v. Valdez
“Talon o Papatayin kita”. O tumalon, patay
na. In committing threats, it creates in the
mind of the victim a sense of danger,
causing this victim to jump from the boat
and in doing so he died, and therefore, the
accused is liable for the consequent death
of the victim and that is homicide. Applying
Art. 4 he is liable for the wrongful act done,
and that is homicide, although it differs
from the wrongful act intended and that is
to merely threaten the victim.
People v. Toling – G.R. No. L-27097
Yung kambal, sa train. Dami nilang
pinagsasasaksak, ocho. Kaso merong apat
na biktima nakita sa labas ng train, sabog
o durog yung katawan, patay rin. Justice
Aquino, the well-known writer in criminal
law, he is the ponente. He mentioned the
doctrine that in committing a crime, it
creates in the mind, etc. etc. Kaso he
mentioned something, nagulat ako.
“However, there is no showing that this
passenger jumped from the train.”
Maraming nagreact diyan. Eh diba
circumstantial evidence which show that
they jumped from the train. Kasi yung mga
ulo nila naging kamatis eh, sumabog,
patay. Alang naman naglalakad lang sila at
bigla silang nadapa. Lahat naman tayo
nakaexperience madapa. Pag ikaw nadapa,
yung ulo pati buto-buto mo madudurog?
Sasabog yung ulo mo? Kasi yung impact,
yung ordinary pagtakbo tapos nadapa ka.
Hindi ganon eh tapos apat pa. So pag
inanalyze mo, talagang lumalabas na
tumalon sila sa train. Kasi kung tumakbo
yung train tumalon ka, sasabog talaga
yung mga katawan mo. In other words, by
circumstantial evidence will tell you that
they jumped from the train. At the end of
the day, this is a Supreme Court decision.
Pero nung tinanong sa 1976 Bar yan. Ang
nilagay na nila tumalon sila sa train. Binago
nila yung facts. Kaso ang defense ng
akusado, magkambal kasi yon eh. “Tol, ilan
ba yung pinatay mo? Lima? Sa akin tatlo?
3+5=8? Your honor wait. Ang pinatay
namin ay walo pero bakit ang kaso naming
12?”
Yung sabi ng judge: “May tumalon kasi sa
train, apat”.
“tol, alam mo ba na may tumalon sa tren?”
“Hindi ko alam” “ judge hindi po naming
alam na may tumalon.”
Because of Art. 4, lack of knowledge that
the four additional victims jumped from the
train is not a defense. Because Art. 4 of the
RPC, there is a basic rule that in committing
such as 8 murders, it creates in the mind
of an additional 4 victims a sense of
danger. Causing that poor victim to jump
from the train and in doing so, they died.
So, applying Art. 4 they are liable for the
wrongful act done, that is 12 murders,
although it differs from the wrongful act
intended which is to commit 8 murders.
People v. Castromero G.R. No. 118992
Ni-rape niya yung biktima. Sabi ng biktima;
“ano ba naman to, napaka-manyak. Baka
pumangalawa pa to.” Kaya after raping the
victim, tumakbo siya, tumalon sa building.
She suffered physical injury. So, what is
the crime committed? The crime is a
complex crime, under Art. 48: single act
constituting two or more grave or less
grave felony. Bakit siya complex crime?
Because the single act of having sexual
intercourse by force, is rape. And that act
of having sexual intercourse by means of
force also creates in the mind of the victim
a sense of danger causing the victim to
jump from the building and thereafter
suffers physical injuries as a consequence.
Therefore, the accused is liable not only for
the rape, but also for the consequent
serious physical injuries sustained by the
victim. But considering that these two
crimes; rape and physical injuries, were
produced by a single act of having sexual
intercourse by means of force. This is a
complex crime under Art. 48. In other
words, applying Art. 4 of the RPC, the
accused is liable for the wrongful act done
that is the complex crime of rape with
serious physical injuries although it differs
from the wrongful act intended. Kung
namatay yung biktima, it is a special
complex crime of rape with homicide. If
hindi namatay, it is a complex crime of rape
with serious physical injury.
People v. Arpa G.R. No. L-26789
They committed robbery. It creates in the
mind of the victim a sense of danger. One
jumped from the boat, he died. Because of
Art. 4 of the RPC, the accused is liable for
consequent death of the victim. There is a
connection between the robbery and the
death. So, you will merge the robbery and
the homicide together to form the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Although it differs from the wrongful act
intended which is simple robbery.
Meron akong tinatawag na, 4-12-365
rule. Yung Art. 4, that is actually Art.4, Art.
12, Art. 365. Yung tatlo na to, proximate
cause rule yan. If the proximate cause of
the death of the victim is an intentional
felony, you apply Art. 4.
However, if the proximate cause of the
death of the victim is not a felony, you
cannot apply Art. 4 of the RPC. Because
commission of a felony intentional is an
indispensable requisite to apply Art. 4. If
that is the situation, you go to Art. 12. If
the proximate cause of the death of the
victim is not a felony that is accident.
However, if the proximate cause of the
death of the victim is culpa, you cannot
apply Art. 12 on accident. Because
accident; lawful act without dulpa nor
culpa. In this case, there is culpa. You
cannot apply Art. 12 of the RPC, so, you will
go to Art. 365. If the proximate cause of
the death of the victim is culpa, that is
reckless imprudence involving homicide.
People v. Nepomuceno G.R. No.
127818
Pinatay niya yung biktima, boom patay.
During trial, “Your honor, my intention was
to merely threaten the victim but I
accidentally pulled the trigger.” Kung ikaw
yung judge mahhigh-blood ka dito. Actually
pwede talaga mangyari, kaso kung
pinayagan mo yung mga ganyang palusot,
lahat na ng akusado sasabihin aksidente na
pumutok yung baril. So, we will just
assume that your intention was to merely
threaten the victim. But poking a gun to
threaten the victim, that is at least other
light threats under Art. 285 of the RPC
which is a felony contemplated under Art.
4. Therefore, you are liable for the wrongful
act done that is homicide or murder
although it differs from the wrongful act
intended that is other life threats.
Tinanong rin to sa bar. Yung partner niya
inaatake siya, unlawful aggression. Wala
siyang magawa, kumuha siya ng baril. He
poked the gun, his intention is merely to
defend himself. But, he accidentally pulled
the trigger, patay. This is the question, can
you consider poking a gun as a felony
contemplated under Art. 4 of the RPC?
As a rule, poking a gun, that is other life
threats. Applying Nepomuceno that is a
felony within the contemplation of Art. 4.
But in this case, the poking of the gun is
merely to defend himself violating Art. 285
of the RPC alone. Yung other life threats,
threatening with a weapon; provided, that
the act is not in the exercise of the right to
defend himself. So, that is not other life
threats. If you will consider Art. 11 of RPC,
that is self-defense. Poking a gun is
justified. The justified act of poking a gun
due to the circumstance of self-defense
cannot be treated as a felony contemplated
under Art. 4 of the RPC.
Without applying Art. 4 of the RPC, because
that is not a penalty. You will go to Art. 12
which is accident. You will go to
People v. Tiongco, CA-63-3610.
This was also asked in the bar. Green
minded siya, mahilig siya magtanim ng
puno. Nagtanim siya ng puno, which
became ripe for picking after 3 years. When
he went to harvest, naunahan na siya ng
isang bata, kinukuha na yung harvest niya.
Kaya sabi niya sa bata: “Bumaba ka diyan!
Papaluin kita!” Nagulat yung bata, nahulog,
suffered serious physical injury. Can you
consider the threat to stop as a felony
within the contemplation of Art. 4 of the
RPC?
As a general rule: Threat to spank, that is
a felony. But in this case, the threat to
spank is a justified threat to spank, due to
the circumstance of defense of property.
Second, the threat of spank was made at
the instance of a right under self-help
doctrine, Art. 429 of the RPC: The owner or
lawful possessor of a thing has a right to
exclude others from the enjoyment or
disposal thereof and for this purpose, he
may use force which is reasonably
necessary to prevent or repel an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of the thing. Therefore, a
justified right to spank or an act which is a
threat to spank in the exercise of the right
under the self-help doctrine is not a felony
within the contemplation Art. 4 of the RPC.
So, you will go to Art. 12 which is accident.
Another similar bar question is nagpaputok
ng warning shot. Pagsinabi mong warning
shot hindi yan nakadirekta sa biktima kasi
warning shot. Kaso although nagwarning
shot siya, hindi niya nilayuan, medyo
malapit. Minsan yung bala nagooverheat
yan. Pumutok yung bala, one of the pellets
hit the victim. The victim suffered serious
physical injury. This is an actual Spanish
case mentioned in the case of
People v. Nocom G.R. No. L-482
Can you consider the act of firing a gun as
a felony contemplated under Art. 4 of RPC,
why? Because you are exercising your right
under the self-help doctrine. That is a
justified act of firing a gun due to the
circumstance of performance of defense of
property. Normal yun, ninakaw yung ano
mo, pwede ka naman mag-warning shot.
Ginagawa talaga ng tao yan. Warning shot
lang naman. Di naman nakadirekta. Since
Art. 4 is not applicable, you will go to Art.
12-accident. Sa accident you don’t act with
dolo and culpa. Accident ba yan? No, why?
May culpa. Bakit may culpa? Kasi the
accused failed to adopt precautionary
measures that will prevent any undesirable
consequence from the act of making a
warning shot. Dapat kasi nilayo na niya ng
todo. May culpa yon. Considering that
there is culpa, you cannot consider an
accident. Because the third requisite is not
present. If Art. 12 on accident is not
applicable, you go to Art. 365 which is
reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injury.
People v. Pugay G.R. No. L-74324
Fiesta kasi, so naginom sila. Meron silang
kaibigan, yung biktima. Yung kaibigan nila
medyo mentally retarded. So, yung ginawa
nila, pinasayaw yung kaibigan nila. Eh yung
isa masyadong na-excite, nakakita ng
gasoline sa ilalim ng ferris wheel. Ibinuhos
ba naman. Yung isa naman, na-excite din,
nakakita ng posporo, sinindihan. They were
stunned seeing their friend dying. Patay.
The Supreme Court ruled out intent to kill.
Kasi if there is intent to kill walang issue to;
murder qualified by the circumstance of by
means of fire. Kaso nirule-out yung intent
to kill. Why was it ruled out? Wala silang
motive to kill, kaibigan nila yun.
Nagkakasayahan lang sila. In fact, they
were stunned seeing their friend dying. The
question is, applicable ba yung Art. 4? Kasi
kapag applicable, kahit walang intent to
kill, intent to kill will be treated as
conclusively presumed. With respect to the
one who poured gasoline. The Supreme
Court did not consider the act of pouring of
gasoline as a felony, not even unjust
vexation. Kasi kung kinonsider ng SC na
unjust vexation under Art. 287, that is a
felony. You will apply Art. 4 so liable siya
for homicide. But the SC did not apply Art.
4. So what does that mean? By not
applying Art. 4, the SC did not consider the
act of pouring gasoline which is made out
of fun as a felony, not even unjust
vexation. If Art. 4 is not applicable, you go
to Art. 12. Can you consider that as
accident? Without dolo or culpa? No,
mayroong culpa. Because the accused
strayed to adopt precautionary measures
that will prevent any undesirable
consequence that may arise from the act
committed by his companion which is made
out of fun, which is sinindihan. Art. 12 is
not applicable so you go to Art. 365. This is
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
With respect to the one who burned the
building. Sabi ng akusado: “Your honor, my
intention is to merely burn the clothes.”
Sabi ng SC: “Even if the intention is to burn
the clothes, by burning the clothes the
victim will be hurt, and that hurting
constitutes at least maltreatment or slight
physical injury under Art. 266 of the RPC,
which is a felony contemplated under Art.
4. The SC applied Art. 4; he is liable for the
wrongful act done, that is homicide,
although it differs from the wrongful act
intended.
Ito, tinanong sa bar. Kasi hate na hate niya
yung guard. Nung nagkaroon siya ng
pagkakataon na nakabukas yung bag.
Nilagyan niya ng rubber snake yung bag
tapos sinira. Pagbukas ng guard ng bag,
inatake sa puso, patay. What is the criminal
liability of the accused? By putting a rubber
snake out of hate, that is unjust vexation
under Art. 282 of the RPC, which is a felony
within the contemplation under Art. 4.
Therefore, the accused is liable for the
wrongful act done, that is homicide.
Although it differs from the wrongful act
intended; that is merely to annoy, to
irritate, to vex, to commit unjust vexation.
Pag inatake sa puso, applicable yung Art.
4.
People v. Ulep, G.R. No. L-36858
Sinuntok niya. Inatake sa puso, patay. Ang
sabi ng SC, he is liable for the wrongful act
done, that is homicide, although it differs
from the wrongful act intended, that is
physical injuries.
People v. Montanir G.R. No. 187534
Kinidnap niya, nagdemand siya ng ransom.
Siyempre may edad na yon, sumama yung
damdamin ng matanda. Inatake sa puso.
So, he is liable for the consequent death of
the victim, homicide. There is a connection
between kidnapping and homicide, so you
will merge the two to form a special
complex crime of kidnapping with
homicide. Applying Art. 4 of the RPC, he is
liable for the wrongful act done, that is the
special complex crime of kidnapping with
homicide, although it differs from the
wrongful act intended, that is to commit
kidnapping for ransom.
Example: Meron kang kaibigan at wala
kayo ginawa kung di mag asaran. May isa
nga, sinundot pwet mo. Nagalit ka. Kaya
may time na nakita mo bag niya
nakabukas. Nilagyan mo ng rubber snake.
Pagbukas ng bag ng kaibigan mo, inatake
sa puso namatay.
Will you apply Article 4 of the RPC?
It is not applicable, because of the case of
Pugay. Diba pouring gasoline out of fun
was not considered an unjust vexation. In
this case, putting a rubber snake, applying
the same principle, that is not unjust
vexation, Article 4 of the RPC is not
applicable.
In other words, you have to distinguish
yung pouring of gasoline out of fun, and out
of hate. If it is out of fun, applying the case
of Pugay, Article 4 of the RPC is not
applicable.
If it is out of hate, tang ina nito nakaka-bad
trip na to ah, akin na yang gasoline
bubuhusan ko to, tangina ka ah gago ka
oh, binuhusan mo, unjust vexation iyon.
Pag namatay yung biktima, you commit
unjust vexation, applying Article 4, you are
liable for homicide.
So ganun din yung putting a rubber snake
out of hate, that is unjust vexation, you can
apply Article 4. Pero if out of fun that is not
unjust vexation which is a felony, not
within contemplation of Article 4, so you go
to Article 12.
Sa Article 12, kung may culpa, pupunta ka
sa Article 365. Kung wala, Article 12 lang
siya. Kung alam mo naman may heart
problem yung kaibigan mo, linagyan mo ng
rubber snake, merong culpa yan KAYA
punta ka sa 365. Kaibigan mo gusto mag
apply sa circus yung tumatalon sa alambre.
Nakita mo kaibigan mo sa 10th floor,
nahulog, patay, may culpa dun. Case-to-
case basis yan. You apply the 4-12-365
Rule.
People v. Solidum, G.R. No. 192123,
March 10, 2014.
Ito na ang palaging ginagamit pag may
kaso ang doctor. Kasi anesthesiologist siya,
tapos na overdose yung pasyente tapos
namatay. Sabi ng SC, kasi he is a licensed
doctor, and treating the patient is not a
felony contemplated in Article 4 of RPC, so
you rule out Article 4. Maglalaro yan sa
Article 12 or Article 365, depende kung
may culpa. Article 365 pag meron, pag
wala, Article 12.
According to the SC, to determine if the
treatment of the doctor is culpable, there
must be a standard of care in the skill
possessed by a similar doctor under a
similar situation.
Example: May sampung doctor. May
situation. Sampu nagsabi, dalawang
kutsarita ng gamot, ikaw ginawa mo
dalawang tabo. You did not follow the
standard, therefore there is culpa.
Sa kaso na ito, the SC said that there is a
necessity to present a different doctor with
a similar specialization, who will testify on
the standard, because without that
testimony, there is no way for us to
determine if there is culpa. Parang sinasabi
ng SC, “Eh di naman kami doctor, di
naming maintindihan yan, technical yan
eh.” Case-to-case basis yan.
Example: Ganito yung dosage mo, dun sa
unang pasyente. Sa susunod na dosage,
ganon pa din. Sasabihin mo, “Your honor
pareho lang dosage.” Kaso, yung second
patient namatay eh. Sabi ng Judge, unang
pasyente mo higante, yung pangalawa
namatay unano. In other words, yung
dosage, di pwede sabihin ng SC o judge na
overdosing yan, kasi marami ka icconsider:
yung laki niya, gamot, condition. Para
maguide yung SC, dapat may doctor. Yan
ang standard ng na ginagamit, yung
Solidum, you present a doctor na similar
specialization.
Culpa was not established, 365 was not
established as well, so that is an accident.
People vs Carmen, G.R. No. 137268,
March 26, 2001
Yung biktima dito may kausap na wala
naman. Sabi ng magulang, baka nadapuan
ng evil spirit. Dinala siya sa quack doctor
para i-exorcise. Tinali yung anak patiwarik,
linublob sa tubig, pinaduguan. Namatay
yung biktima. The SC ruled out intent to
kill, kasi intention is gamutin. Pag
nagpagamot ka sa quack doctor, bigay ka
500, ano interest niya patayin para
makatanggap pera, wala naman personal
na alitan.
Pero kahit walang intent to kill, ang tanong,
applicable ba article 4, because you apply
4, intent to kill is conclusively presumed?
Practicing medicine without license, that is
an offense punishable under special law.
But an offense under special law is not a
felony in contemplation of Article 4,
because a felony under Article 3, is a
provision under the Revised Penal Code. So
you rule out Article 4, so you will go to
Article 12.
Can you consider that a lawful act without
dolo or culpa? First requisite is not present,
because that is not a lawful act- because
practicing medicine without license is an
offense punishable under special law, so
that is not a lawful act. So the first requisite
of accident is not present.
The third requisite of accident is also not
present, because practicing medicine
without license is punishable by special
law, so there is a presumption that the act
is culpable- so there is culpa. May culpa,
first requisite is not present, this is an
accident, so you go to Article 365.
So he was convicted of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. That is
the case of People vs Carmen.
As a general rule, an offense punishable
under special law is not a felony
contemplated in Article 4 of the RPC. Meron
exception yan tinanong sa bar.
Example: Nakita niya yung kotse,
kinarnap. Hinarurot yung kotse. So may
baril siya, binaril niya yung gulong at
tinamaan yung harapang kanan, sumabog,
nawala control, kaya may nasagasaan na
tricycle kung saan yung driver namatay.
Can you consider this, kasi may namatay,
qualified carnapping, or carnapping in the
aggravated form under Section 3 of RA
10883?
In the event that it is not qualified
carnapping, will you apply Article 4 of the
RPC?
On the first question, this is not qualified
carnapping because Section 3 of RA 10883,
Driver, passenger or other occupants of the
carnapped vehicle is killed, or raped in the
commission of carnapping. Yung namatay
is neither the driver nor another occupant,
so this is not qualified carnapping or
carnapping in the aggravated form.
Second question, so that is simple
carnapping. Liable ba siya sa consequent
death of the victim? Will you apply article 4
of the RPC? Can you consider carnapping
within the contemplation of a felony
mentioned in Article 4 of the RPC as a
general rule?
An offense punishable under special law is
not a felony contemplated in Article 4
because of the case of People v Carmen.
That is the general rule.
In my submission, carnapping is an
exception to the rule.
People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913,
September 2, 2011
According to the SC, the concept of
carnapping is the same of that of theft or
robbery. So whatever principle to theft or
robbery, you can apply to carnapping. Eh
diba if what is involved is theft or robbery,
you will apply Article 4. Since the concept
of carnapping is the same as theft or
robbery, so you can invoke Article 4.
People v. Dimat, G.R. No. 181184
January 25, 2012
This case is about the Anti-Fencing law. To
be liable for fencing, it is important the
property is derived from the proceeds of
theft or robbery. However, in Dimat, what
is involved is carnapping, yet the accused
was convicted of Fencing. In other words,
the SC considers carnapping as within the
contemplation of the word theft or robbery
mentioned in the Anti-Fencing Law.
Sa akin, applying the cases of Asamuddin
and Dimat, carnapping can be considered
as within the contemplation of the word
felony mentioned in Article 4 in the RPC.
Applyng Article 4, he is responsible for the
consequent death of the victim. In other
words, he is liable for the wrongful act done
that is simple carnapping and a separate
crime of homicide, although it differs from
the wrongful act intended or that is merely
to commit carnapping.
Aberratio ictus
For instance, to incur criminal liability for
committing a felony, although the victim is
different than that that which is intended
due to aberration ictus or mistake of law.
Example: Binaril mo si Pedro, but because
of aberration ictus, Juan also died.
Applying Article 4 of the RPC, you are liable
for the wrongful act done, that is in killing
Juan and killing Pedro, although it differs
from the wrongful intended which is to kill
Pedro. That is abberactio ictus.
2012 Bar Example: Si X, babarilin niya
yung asawa niya, pero yung nabaril di pala
niya asawa, tapos may tinamaan pa na
third person.
This is a combination of error in personae
and aberratio ictus. So even if his intention
is to kill his wife, he is liable for the
wrongful act done killing another person,
although it differs from the wrongful act
intended, which is to kill his wife.
With regard to the third person who
suffered injuries or who died by reason of
abberatio ictus or mistake of law, you are
also liable for the killing of that person.
Although your intention is to kill your wife,
so that is a combination of abberatio ictus
and error in personae.
Patulot v. People. G.R. No. 235071,
January 7, 2019.
The intention of the accused was to throw
boiling oil sa kaaway niya. But because of
aberration ictus, two children suffered
serious physical injuries.
Ang kaso lang sa Patulot, dalawang child
abuse. Pero kasi di na nag kaso yung
talagang kaaway, pero actually. Tatlo yan
eh, we will just assume that the first victim,
yung talagang gusto nyiang saktan,
suffered serious physical injuries. The 2nd
and 3rd victim also suffered injuries. This is
abberatio ictus, he is liable for the wrongful
act done which is serious physical injuries
committed against the first victim, and
child abuse against the 2nd and 3rd,
although it differs from the wrongful act
intended, and that is merely to injure the
first victim. That is abberatio ictus, you
apply it even if what is involved is a
violation of a law other than the revised
penal code, so that child abuse is special
law.
People v. Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477,
January 18, 1950.
Si President Roxas, hinagisan ng granada
ni Guillen, kaso, hindi namatay si President
Roxas, pero yung namatay third person,
who was hit by reason of aberration ictus,
who thereafter died. Another suffered
serious physical injuries.
Applying Article 4, in relation to aberratio
ictus principle, the accused is liable for the
wrongful act done, that is murder and
attempted murder. Although it differed
from the wrongful act intended, which is to
commit murder on the president.
The argument of the accused was, the case
should be reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide, because he was reckless in killing
the president, and because of that
recklessness, another person died.
According to the SC, to be held liable for a
culpable felony, it is important that there is
no malice or no intent to hurt somebody
that intervenes in the commission of the
crime. In other words, if there is
intervening malice or intent to hurt, there
is no culpable felony because deliberately
committing an act to hurt somebody is not
compatible with the concept of culpa, and
therefore, yung error in personae,
aberratio ictus, it cannot be considered as
a source of a culpable felony. Intentional
felony iyon.
Linecture ko kanina yung 4-12-365 Rule.
Example from the Bar: Si A, unlawful
aggressor, wala siya magawa kundi
depensahan sarili niya, so he had no choice
but to shoot to defend himself, but because
of abberatio ictus or mistake of law, a third
person, B, was hit and died.
With respect to the killing of the first victim,
that was justified under self-defense. Sa
second killing, may mistake of law yan eh.
Take note, aberratio ictus, that is a
principle which is connected to Article 4. So
in other words, to apply Aberratio ictus
principle it is important that Article 4 is
applicable, and to apply Article 4, the
accused is committing a felony.
But in this case, the killing of the first
victim, that is justified under the
circumstance of self defense, which cannot
be considered as a felony within the
contemplation of Article 4. Without
applying Article 4, you have to go to Article
12. So this is an accident.
Death under Exceptional Circumstance
under Article 247 of the RPC, in
conjunction with Aberratio Ictus
The death under exceptional circumstance
is either an absolutory cause or an
exempting circumstance. If what is
involved is exceptional circumstance is an
absolutory cause; if what is involved is
homicide, murder, parricide, or serious
physical injury under exceptional
circumstance.
On the other hand, that is an absolutory
cause, that the accused will be sentenced
to suffer destierro and because of Supreme
Court decision, destierro is not actually a
penalty, but a protective measure designed
to protect the accused from retaliation of
the relatives of the victim.
In such a way, under serious physical injury
exceptional circumstance, if that is the
situation, the accused will be absolved from
criminal liability, because he will not be
penalized but he will be protected.
Death under exceptional circumstance is
also an exempting circumstance when what
is involved is slight physical injuries or less
serious physical injuries under exceptional
circumstance under Article 247.
Ang first rule sa Article 247, death under
exceptional circumstance, for obvious
reason, does not contemplate attempted or
frustrated homicide, murder or parricide.
But my submission is dapat idisregard yung
intent to kill, and just consider the injuries
sustained by the victim. For slight physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries under
exceptional circumstance, it will be
considered as exempting circumstance. For
serious physical injuries under exceptional
circumstance, it is an absolutory cause.
Paano kung yung mag-asawa gumawa ng
affidavit na may agreement na
maghihiwalay na sila at pwede na sila
humanap ng kanya-kanyang partners? Do
you consider this contract as valid under
the Civil Code?
It is not. But under Criminal Law, this
contract can have two legal effects.
First. May kontrata na, tapos nahuli ng
lalaki yung babae na nabuntis ng
paramour, kinasuhan niya ng adultery.
Hindi na pwede. Kasi under Article 344 of
the Revised Penal Code, adultery is a
private crime. It cannot be prosecuted de
oficio. So pardon or consent is a bar to the
institution of a criminal action. The contract
is void, but it is evidence of consent.
Second. Article 247 is not available if the
spouse consented to the act of infidelity. It
also covers prostitution, if the spouse gives
consent. If you promoted the prostitution
of your spouse, and a month later you
found him or her having sex with someone
else and you kill either or both of them, you
cannot invoke Article 247. That's because
you are promoting prostitution.
In cases under Article 247 and there is a
missing element, you should consider it
partially as a mitigating circumstance.
In the case of People v. Gonzales (1939),
sabi ng Supreme Court, "to be entitled to
the benefits of Death Under Exceptional
Circumstance, it is important that the
accused surprise his spouse in the very act
of sexual intercourse. Not before or after
the act." Justice Laurel had a dissenting
opinion, saying "do you have to wait? The
emotional impact of surprising your spouse
in the act of sexual intercourse is the same
as surprising them right before sexual
intercourse." This is just a dissenting
opinion. So the rule is yes, you have to
wait. One the sexual act is consummated,
pwede na yung Article 247.
Now for example, yung spouse ay
nakipagsex with her paramour tapos
gumawa sila ng sex video. Then, after a
month, nakita ng husband yung sex video
tapos pinatay niya yung wife niya. There is
an opinion that Article 247 is applicable,
because the emotional impact of surprising
the spouse in the act of sexual intercourse
is the same as catching your spouse's
infidelity through a sex video. But this is
the same as Justice Laurel's dissenting
opinion. The important here is you should
follow the case of People v. Gonzales. When
you watch the sex video, it's already after
the act.
We have the pro reo doctrine. But the real
name of that doctrine is "in dubio pro reo."
In case of doubt, resolve the doubt in favor
of the accused. If you are unsure whether
the act is contemplated by penal laws, you
should not convict. Convicting the accused
will amount to judicial legislation. Only the
Congress can determine whether an act
should be declared criminal or not. If you
are in doubt whether it is criminal, you
should acquit.
Applying the rules of statutory
construction, the provisions should be
strictly interpreted against a person asking
for an exception. You don't apply pro reo.
It's like when you invoke self-defense, the
burden will be shifted from the prosecution
to the accused. The accused should prove
that all the elements of self-defense are
present. Merely creating doubt then ask for
pro reo is not proper. This is also applicable
to Article 247. If you are claiming an
exception, you should prove that you are
entitled to that exception. In case of doubt,
you will not fall under the exception. This is
the reason why the Supreme Court strictly
interprets Article 247.
In the 2016 Bar Examinations, he surprised
his wife in the act of having sexual
intercourse with another woman. This is
one of the cases where the words used in
the exam are confusing. The scenario in the
question should not be classified as sexual
intercourse because it involves persons of
the same sex. Sexual intercourse means
makakabuo ka ng bata. If the persons are
of the same sex, kahit tatlong araw sila sa
kama, there is nothing sexual in their
intercouse. This intercourse should be
classified as homosexual intercourse.
Does homosexual intercourse fall under
Article 247?
It's unclear. Let's do it this way. Can you
consider fingering as a form of sexual
intercourse? For me, we should consider
the history of the provision and the
prevailing circumstances when that
provision was made. Article 247 was copied
from Article 423 of the Old Spanish Penal
Code. In the Old Spanish Penal Code, the
exempting circumstance was available only
to the husband. It This provision was made
in accordance with the social conditions of
that time, when the society was in favor of
men. During those times, when the wife
catches her husband with another female,
the wife will just cry. But when the Revised
Penal Code was made, it was already
during the American times. The Americans
did not want discrimination, so Article 247
was made available not just to the husband
but also to the wife.
So when we interpret Article 247, we
should consider the circumstances
contemplated when the provision was
made. Sexual intercourse should involve a
man and a woman. The Code contemplates
heterosexual intercourse, not homosexual
intercourse.
Second, if you will consider the
amendments to the provisions on Rape, in
the case of People v. Curugan (2019),
Justice Peralta said they changed the
name. Before, there was rape and sexual
intercourse, and rape by sexual assault.
But now, it's rape and sexual assault only.
We no longer describe it as rape by sexual
assault, it's just sexual assault.
If you will consider RA 8353, this law
recognizes that there is a difference
between sexual intercourse and fingering.
The law itself recognizes the distinction. If
there is sexual intercourse, the crime is
rape; if fingering, it's just sexual assault.
So mere fingering is not a form of sexual
intercourse.
In the crime of adultery, can you consider
fingering as an element? What if you catch
your wife being fingered by your friend?
Can you charge them with adultery?
No. In other words, for purposes of rape,
concubinage or adultery, sexual
intercourse as an element does not include
fingering.
Death under exceptional circumstance is
also an exempting circumstance when what
is involved is slight physical injuries or less
serious physical injuries under exceptional
circumstance under Article 247.
Ang first rule sa Article 247, death under
exceptional circumstance, for obvious
reason, does not contemplate attempted or
frustrated homicide, murder or parricide.
But my submission is dapat idisregard yung
intent to kill, and just consider the injuries
sustained by the victim. For slight physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries under
exceptional circumstance, it will be
considered as exempting circumstance. For
serious physical injuries under exceptional
circumstance, it is an absolutory cause.
Paano kung yung mag-asawa gumawa ng
affidavit na may agreement na
maghihiwalay na sila at pwede na sila
humanap ng kanya-kanyang partners? Do
you consider this contract as valid under
the Civil Code? It is not. But under Criminal
Law, this contract can have two legal
effects.
First. May kontrata na, tapos nahuli ng
lalaki yung babae na nabuntis ng
paramour, kinasuhan niya ng adultery.
Hindi na pwede. Kasi under Article 344 of
the Revised Penal Code, adultery is a
private crime. It cannot be prosecuted de
oficio. So pardon or consent is a bar to the
institution of a criminal action. The contract
is void, but it is evidence of consent.
Second. Article 247 is not available if the
spouse consented to the act of infidelity. It
also covers prostitution, if the spouse gives
consent. If you promoted the prostitution
of your spouse, and a month later you
found him or her having sex with someone
else and you kill either or both of them, you
cannot invoke Article 247. That's because
you are promoting prostitution.
In cases under Article 247 and there is a
missing element, you should consider it
partially as a mitigating circumstance. In
the case of People v. Gonzales (1939), sabi
ng Supreme Court, "to be entitled to the
benefits of Death Under Exceptional
Circumstance, it is important that the
accused surprise his spouse in the very act
of sexual intercourse. Not before or after
the act." Justice Laurel had a dissenting
opinion, saying "do you have to wait? The
emotional impact of surprising your spouse
in the act of sexual intercourse is the same
as surprising them right before sexual
intercourse." This is just a dissenting
opinion. So the rule is yes, you have to
wait. One the sexual act is consummated,
pwede na yung Article 247.
Now for example, yung spouse ay
nakipagsex with her paramour tapos
gumawa sila ng sex video. Then, after a
month, nakita ng husband yung sex video
tapos pinatay niya yung wife niya. There is
an opinion that Article 247 is applicable,
because the emotional impact of surprising
the spouse in the act of sexual intercourse
is the same as catching your spouse's
infidelity through a sex video. But this is
the same as Justice Laurel's dissenting
opinion. The important here is you should
follow the case of People v. Gonzales. When
you watch the sex video, it's already after
the act.
We have the pro reo doctrine. But the real
name of that doctrine is "in dubio pro reo."
In case of doubt, resolve the doubt in favor
of the accused. If you are unsure whether
the act is contemplated by penal laws, you
should not convict. Convicting the accused
will amount to judicial legislation. Only the
Congress can determine whether an act
should be declared criminal or not. If you
are in doubt whether it is criminal, you
should acquit.
Applying the rules of statutory
construction, the provisions should be
strictly interpreted against a person asking
for an exception. You don't apply pro reo.
It's like when you invoke self-defense, the
burden will be shifted from the prosecution
to the accused. The accused should prove
that all the elements of self-defense are
present. Merely creating doubt then ask for
pro reo is not proper. This is also applicable
to Article 247. If you are claiming an
exception, you should prove that you are
entitled to that exception. In case of doubt,
you will not fall under the exception. This is
the reason why the Supreme Court strictly
interprets Article 247.
In the 2016 Bar Examinations, he surprised
his wife in the act of having sexual
intercourse with another woman. This is
one of the cases where the words used in
the exam are confusing. The scenario in the
question should not be classified as sexual
intercourse because it involves persons of
the same sex. Sexual intercourse means
makakabuo ka ng bata. If the persons are
of the same sex, kahit tatlong araw sila sa
kama, there is nothing sexual in their
intercourse. This intercourse should be
classified as homosexual intercourse.
Does homosexual intercourse fall under
Article 247? It's unclear. Let's do it this
way. Can you consider fingering as a form
of sexual intercourse? For me, we should
consider the history of the provision and
the prevailing circumstances when that
provision was made. Article 247 was copied
from Article 423 of the Old Spanish Penal
Code. In the Old Spanish Penal Code, the
exempting circumstance was available only
to the husband. It This provision was made
in accordance with the social conditions of
that time, when the society was in favor of
men. During those times, when the wife
catches her husband with another female,
the wife will just cry. But when the Revised
Penal Code was made, it was already
during the American times. The Americans
did not want discrimination, so Article 247
was made available not just to the husband
but also to the wife.
So when we interpret Article 247, we
should consider the circumstances
contemplated when the provision was
made. Sexual intercourse should involve a
man and a woman. The Code contemplates
heterosexual intercourse, not homosexual
intercourse.
Second, if you will consider the
amendments to the provisions on Rape, in
the case of People v. Curugan (2019),
Justice Peralta said they changed the
name. Before, there was rape and sexual
intercourse, and rape by sexual assault.
But now, it's rape and sexual assault only.
We no longer describe it as rape by sexual
assault, it's just sexual assault.
If you will consider RA 8353, this law
recognizes that there is a difference
between sexual intercourse and fingering.
The law itself recognizes the distinction. If
there is sexual intercourse, the crime is
rape; if fingering, it's just sexual assault.
So mere fingering is not a form of sexual
intercourse.
In the crime of adultery, can you consider
fingering as an element? What if you catch
your wife being fingered by your friend?
Can you charge them with adultery? No. In
other words, for purposes of rape,
concubinage or adultery, sexual
intercourse as an element does not include
fingering.
Sexual intercourse as an element of rape,
concubinage, adultery, does not include
fingering. Are you saying for purposes of
availing the benefits of death under
exceptional circumstances, fingering within
the contemplation of the word sexual
intercourse in article 247? But for purposes
of rape, adultery, concubinage, fingering is
not within the contemplation of the word
sexual intercourse? In Article 266-A, in
Article 333, and in Article 334, diba,
depende yun.
Now, if you read the suggested answer of
UP ung 2016, they said under exceptional
circumstances, actually, I argued and no
one argued back. But at the end of the day,
the suggested answer of UP, panel kasi yan
eh. So the suggested answer of UP, that is
only a suggestion. That is not official.
Back to topic, ung fingering kasi, malabo
yun eh. Iba yun. Iba ung fingering. So say
for example ung sodomy, di pwede.
Sodomy. di yan pwede.
Example: Ung asawa mo sinosodomize,
pag patok mo ng ganyan, syempre medyo
mali, kala mo dog style sexual intercourse
not knowing that is sodomy. Can you
consider that as death under exceptional
circumstances? Pwede mo iapply ung
mistake of fact doctrine. Diba sinabi ko
sayo na ung mistake of fact, example, self
defense, unlawful aggression is an element
even if unlawful aggression is not present
as in the case of Ah Chong. There is no
unlawful aggression but if there is mistake
of fact you believe that there is unlawful
aggression, that unlawful aggression as an
element of self defense will be treated as
present. Ganun rin dito. To avail of the
benefits under death under exceptional
circumstances, it is imporant that you
surprise your spouse in the act of sexual
intercourse. And sodomy is not within the
contemplation of sexual intercourse, so
sexual intercourse as an element death
under exceptional circumstances is not
present, but because of the mistake of fact
you believe that there is sexual
intercourse, dog style, although sodomy
talaga siya, the element of sexual
intercourse to avail of the benefits of death
under exceptional circumstances, can be
treated as present.
Can you consider death under exceptional
circumstance as a felony and destierro as a
penalty? NO. Death under exceptional
circumstance is not a feleony, that is a
defense. Absolutory cause. The problem
here, they should have removed the word
death eh. Nilagay nalang exceptional
circumstance. Just like justifying
circumstance. Exempting circumstance.

Destierro is not a penalty but a protective
nature.
PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ARAQUEL, GR No.
L-12629, Dec 09, 1959
Ung fiscal, kala niya ung death under
exceptional circumstances is a felony.
Death under exceptional circumstance is a
defense. You dont allege this in the
information. You only allege ung crimen.
Ex. Parricide, homicide, murder. Ung death
under exceptional circumstance that is a
defense so let the accused present
evidence to estalbish that. So wag mo
iallege. The fiscal thought that death under
exceptional circumstance is a felony, so
kala niyo destierro is also a penalty. Now,
the accused, knowing the penalty is
destierro, "guilty your honor" kasi ung
penalty dito ay destierro. In Double
Jeopardy, it is important that the court has
jurisdiction. The court that placed the
accused under the first jeopardy must have
jurisdiction kasi if walang jurisdiction yan
there is no way for the court to place the
accused under the first jeopardy because
whatever could be so, that the court will
make, will be treated as null and void. So if
there is no first jeopardy there is no second
jeopardy. Question, does the MTC have
jurisdiction? Also isa pa, without
jurisdiction, the conviction is null and void,
and a null and void conviction cannot be
used to invoke double jeopardy. MTC has
no jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, there
is no double jeopardy. That is the case.
US v. CATALINO MERCED, G.R. No. L-
14170, November 23, 1918.
The husband surprised his wife in the act of
having sexual intercourse. He attacked the
paramour and the paramour defended
himself, killed the husband. Paramour is
invoking self defense. To invoke self-
defense, there must be unlawful
aggression. If there is an aggression but it
is not unlawful, you cannot invoke self
defense. The aggression of the husband
against the paramour under exceptional
circumstances is not unlawful. It is not a
felony. The aggression is not unlawful. He
cannot invoke self defense, because the
aggression is a lawful aggression.
PEOPLE v. ABARCA, G.R. No. 74433, 14
September 1987
Si Abarca, his dream is to become a lawyer,
so he went to NCR to attend. (00:54:37
until 01:04:56, audio is cut). But he went
back to tacloban city to surprise his wife but
it was he who was surprised kasi he caught
his wife in the act of having sexual
intercourse with a chinese. Babarilin niya
sana wala naman siyang baril eh may baril
ung chinese tumakbo nalang siya.
Naghanap siya ng baril, ung nakakita siya
ng baril, bumalik siya sa bahay wala na
dun. Time interval parang isang oras.
Binaril niya ung paramour. Question. Can
you consider the killing of the paramour of
the wife as death under exceptional
circumstance taking into consideration that
the interval of time, that is the time that he
surprised his wife in the act of having
sexual intercourse, and the time of killing
is one hour. Kasi if you will read Article 247,
the word immediately was used eh. In
other words, the killing must be done while
they are having sexual intercourse or
immediately thereafter.
According to Justice Florenz Regalado, the
word immediately has two concepts. Ung
time concept at ung proximate cause
concept. When you consider the time
concept walang death under exceptional
circumstance kasi one hour eh. But it
appears that the Supreme Court applied
the proximate cause concept of the word
immediately. What is imporant is the
proximate cause concept, the proximate
reason why he killed the paramour. So may
cause and effect relationship.
Eh pano ung 3rd person who suffered
serious physical injuries when you apply
article 4 of the RPC? Supreme Court said,
to apply article 4 of the RPC, it is imporant
that the accused is committing a felony.
Felony is an indispensible element of the
application of article 4 of the RPC. In this
case, the accused did not commit murder,
if he committed murder you can apply
article 4. Can you consider that as an
accident? NO. Kasi if he is to adopt
precautionary measures that will prevent
any undesirable consequence that may
arise from the act constituting death under
exceptional circumstances. So article 12 is
not applicable, so you go to Article 365.
Serious physical injuries noh. Reckless
imprudence thru serious physical injuries.
There is a view na wala na daw
ung PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ARAQUEL or
ung PEOPLE v. ABARCA eh i will respect
that view. But i cannot agree kasi it is a
Supreme Court decision. Can you
pinpoint a SC decision that abandons
Abarca and Araquel? Hindi diba.
Intended victim but not against the third
person. Because the third person cannot be
considered within the contemplation of the
evident premeditation. He did not
premeditate the killing of the person. At the
end of the day, the impt sub issues are the
intent to kill a third person and the
compounding (i.e. complex crime).
intent to kill. As a rule, there will be a
complex crime of murder and attempted
murder. There are however, times when it
won't be a complex crime.
An offense punishable by special law
cannot be made an element of a complex
crime. Hence, child abuse, which is not a
felony cannot be complexed with anything
else to form a complex crime. What if the
elements of a complex crime are alleged in
two separate informations? Can you merge
the two to form a complex crime? No. If a
bystander were to get shot by accident, is
that a complex crime? No. What matters is
that there is a single act producing two
murders. If a bystander were to get shot by
mistake, there would be several acts, not
just one act. In an automatic weapon, a
single trigger pull will be treated as several
acts, in as many as there are bullets fired
from the gun. If there are 10 bullets fired
by the gun, then there will be 10 acts,
hence there can be NO complex crime.

Article 49
In the first issue, There's no issue with
error in personae with regard to killing a
In art. 49, if the penalty prescribed for the
person because there's just 1 person.
crime committed is diff from the penalty
There's no third person we're talking about.
prescribed for the crime intended to be
In a complex crime naman, you can
committed, the courts will apply the
complex it because there are two crimes.
penalty for the crime committed or
In error in personae, there is no issue of
intended, whichever is better. Said penalty
complex crime because there is just 1
will be applied in its maximum period.
victim. With regard to intent to kill, if the
victim was killed then the intent to kill is
Article 49 is applicable only if the penalties
conclusively presumed. In People v.
for the crimes are different. For example if
Umawid, the same act of killing led to the
you intend to commit parricide but you only
harming of a 3rd person. If the 3rd person
commit homicide.
dies, then there is a possibility of having
intent to kill, and also not having intent to
Article 257
kill. For example, if a third person is hit,
there can be no intent to kill if you did not
Article 257 which talks about unintentional
even know the third person was there. If
abortion is an intentional felony. You imply
however, you knew that the third person
violence intentionally that results in
could have been hit or affected, there is
unintentional abortion. If that article didn't
exist, Article 4 would apply. Under 257, if
the abortion is proximately caused by the
violence inflicted on the woman, then it will
fall under 257. Compared to intentional
abortion, the key differentiator is the intent
to abort.
Suicide is an accident, cannot apply Art. 4
of the RPC. It is not a felony.
Article 220
Ito ang tinatawag na technical
malversation. Ang penalty niya is prision
correctional in its minimum period. Art. 220
defined technical malversation at nag
prescribe ng penalty in its minimum period.
Prescribed palang yan iba yung proper
imposable period sa prescribed period.
Applying Art. 64 of the RPC, you will apply
the penalty in its minimum period - that is
the proper imposable period. Yung
prescibed penalty mo is prision correctional
in its minimum period so what is your
proper imposable period? Minimum period
of prision correctional in its minimum
period.
May mga prescribed penalty na compound
period. Ibig sabihin, this is a penalty which
is composed of 2 periods. Alam mo yung
Theft, may penalty sa theft ah prision
correctional in its minimum period to
maximum period. Prescribed palang yon
walang mitigating, aggravating
circumstance. Applying Art. 64, you will
apply the penalty in its minimum period.
So what is the proper imposable period?
Minimum period of prision correctional in
its medium period to maximum period. May
mga prescribed penalty which is tawag ko
diyan is "complex period", this is a
penalty composed of 3 periods.
Article 294
Simple robbery, ang penalty prision
correctional in its maximum period to
prision mayor to its medium period.
Tatlong period yan. Halimbawa he made a
confession, applying article 64, you will
apply the penalty in its minimum period.
What is the proper imposable period?
Minimum period of prision correctional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period. Ang equivalent niyan is
prision correctional in its maximum period
- thats the equivalent.
Make sure to know the difference between
prescribed penalty and imposable penalty.
Anything under the book 2 is just
prescribed penalty.
As a general rule, we will consider the
prescribed penalty as a starting period.
However if there are graduating factors
which requires graduation of penalties, ang
mangyayari diyan we will consider as
graduating penalty as starting point. Dun
tayo magsisimula. Whatever rules or
principles applicable to prescribe penalty,
you will apply that to graduating penalty as
if it is a prescribed penalty. If you’re
penalty is death, reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, hindi applicable yung
ISLAW.
Pag binasa mo ang ISLAW, death or life
imprisonment only. Basahin mo R.A. No.
9346, the law prohibits the imposition
ofdeath penalty. Nakalagay dun, the
penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua
and the accused is not entitled for parole.
Pag hindi applicable ang parole, di rin
applicable ang ISLAW. In other words, if
the penalty is reclusion perpetua, ISLAW is
not applicable.
Example #1. Crime committed is rape.
Simple rape is reclusion perpetua. Now the
accused is a minor. Under Art. 68 of RPC,
you will graduate the penalty one degree
lower. From reclusion perpetua to reclusion
temporal. Is ISLAW applicable? Applicable
because starting point hindi na reclusion
perpetua pero yung reclusion temporal. So
for purposes of determining if ISLAW is
applicable or not, you will consider the
graduating penalty of reclusion temporal
and therefore ISLAW is applicable.
Example#2 Rules of applicability of
indivisible penalties Art. 63. Rules on
applicable divisible Art. 64.
Halimbawa ganon, crime committed is
simple rape and the penalty is reclusion
perpetua and the accused is a minor
therefore it becomes reclusion temporal.
which division becomes applicable - 63 or
64? kasi pag may graduating factor such as
minority, we will consider as a starting
point, yung graduating penalties of
reclusion temporal. Now prescribed penalty
of reclusion perpetua. Ang reclusion
temporal divisible pwedeng hatiin sa tatlo.
Magkamali ka dito magkaka chain reaction
yan.
Ano ba yung mga issue? Ano ba mga
graduating factors?
Tatlo. Tatlo yung graduating factor.
1. Stages;
2. Nature of participation; and
3. Privileged mitigating circumstances.
1. STAGES
Because if the felony is frustrated under
Art. 6 of RPC, applying Art. 50, you will
graduate the penalty 1 degree lower. On
the other hand if the penalty is at
attempted stage applying Art. 51 you will
graduate 2 degrees lower.
2. NATURE OF PARTICIPATION
Because if the offender is an accomplice
under Art. 18 of RPC, you will graduate the
penalty 1 degree lower because of Art. 52.
On the other hand if the offender is an
accessory under Art. 19 applying Art. 52,
you will graduate 2 degrees lower.
3. PRIVILIGED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Covers incomplete justification or
exemption and minority. If there is a
privileged mitigating circumstances of
incomplete justification or exception
applying Art. 69 of RPC, you will graduate
the penalty 1 or 2 degrees lower which is
discretionary. So for purposes of bar, you
must state this.
There are requisites of a circumstance
mentioned Art. 11 or 12 of RPC. If all of the
requisites of a circumstances mentioned in
Art. 11 or 12 are present, the circumstance
will be considered as either justifying or
exempting. On the other hand, if majority
of the requisites of a circumstance
mentioned of Art. 11 or 12 are present, the
circumstance is privileged mitigating
circumstances of a complete justification or
exemption such as incomplete performance
of duty or self defense
So if that is the situation, you will graduate
the penalty 1 or 2 degrees lower because
of Art. 69. Pero if minority of the requisites
of the circumstances mentioned of 11 or 12
that is of minority, that is an ordinary
mitigating circumstance under Art. 13 in
relation to Art. 64 which requires the
application of the minimum period unless
offset by aggravating circumstances.
Parang surrender lang yan apply mo lang
yung penalty in its minimum period hindi
ka maggraduate. Apply mo lang yung
penalty in its minimum period unless
ordinary aggravating circumstance ang
maoffset
In the case of People v. Oanis, G.R. No.
L-47722, July 27 1943 yung
performance of duties ang pinaguusapan.
What are the requisites of performance of
duties?
1. That the offender acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right; and
2. That the injury or offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office.
In this case, yung second is not present.
One out of two requisites is present.
Pag minority dapat less than 50% pero pag
majority is more 50% pero sakto 1 out of 2
which is neither minority or majority so ano
gagawin mo? In case of doubt, whether the
circumstance is ordinary mitigating
circumstance or privileged mitigating
circumstance in case of doubt whether you
can consider 1 out of 2 as minority or
majority you have to resolve the doubt in
favor of the accused. Therefore you
consider 1 out of 2 as a majority and that
is then a privileged mitigating circumstance
of performance of duty.
Now there are two incomplete extension
not covered by Art. 69.
INCOMPLETE MINORITY
Pag incomplete minority, yung privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority is not
governed by Art. 69 that is subject to Art.
68 1 degree lower, you will not apply Art.
69. Now minority is either an exempting
circumstance or privileged mitigating
circumstance. now exempting
circumstance of minority this is under Sec.
6 of R.A. No. 9344 is either absolute or
conditional.
ABSOLUTE
Now exempting circumstance of minority is
absolute if the age of the child if 15 years
or below. The exemption is absolute
because with or without discernment he is
exempt from criminal liability. There is
presumption that he acted without
discernment and no amount of evidence
can be presented to overcome the
presumption.
What is the age of criminal capacity?
Sa book ni reyes tawag diyan criminal
irresponsiblity - the age is 15 years or
below. Why? with or without discernment
the accused is exempt kaya tawag ko diyan
absolute.
As far as the law is concerned, if the age of
the child is 15 years of below, that child
cannot think clearly. His act therefore is not
an evil act so there is no basis to penalize
him. So remember that doli capax -
criminal capacity - age must be 15 years
above.
CONDITIONAL
Because the criminal exemption is subject
to the condition that the accused must
have acted without discernment kaya siya
conditional. Kasi if the accused acted with
discernment, minority is not anymore an
exempting circumstance rather it will be
treated as a privileged mitigating
circumstance and you will graduate the
penalty 1 degree lower under Art. 68.
In the case of People v. Jose, if the age of
the child is above 15 there is disputable
presumption that he acted without
discernment and therefore it is incumbent
upon the public prosecutor to present
evidence to overcome the presumption
otherwise he will be acquitted. So in other
words if the age of the child 15 years old or
under there is a presumption that he acted
without discernment but the presumption
is conclusive you cannot overcome it. On
the other hand if the age is above 15 there
is also presumption that he acted without
discernment but the presumption is
disputable or rebuttable so the prosecution
can overcome the presumption by
presenting evidence that he acted with
discernment.
Pag nagbabasa kayo ng mga libro sa
privileged mitigating circumstnce sinasabi
usually ang 2 degrees lower. WALA NA PO
IYON. Sa Art. 68 kasi dalawa yan 1 or 2
degrees lower but the provision providing 2
degrees lower is already obsolete. Because
sabi dun above 9 below 15, you will
graduate the penalty 2 degrees lower pero
obsolete na yon kasi if the age of the child
is 15 years and lower, he is exempt from
criminal liability which is absolute so there
is no penalty to graduate 2 degrees lower.
If the law is thinking of minority or the
offender is insane, the law is always using
the "under rule" - wag niyo gamitin yan
sa parole. Pag pinaguusapan is the offender
is a minor, laging "under 18"
The victim is under 12, yung aggravating
circumstance of committing a crime with
the aid of a minor under 15.
Yung infanticide, sa article 255 of the
Revised Penal Code, less than 3 day old yun
eh, so under infanticide kasi 3 day old yun
eh. So if saktong 3 day old siya, then
pinatay mo siya then that is not infanticide
kasi less than 3 day old.
Section 6 of RA 9344, the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act
Hindi niya ginamit yung under rule, 15
years old or under, so bakit ganun? So may
history kasi yan, dati kasi ang exempting
circumstance of minority nasa RPC ang
nakalagay dun under 9 absolute exempting
circumstance of minority, conditional, pero
ang problema dun if you rape the victim on
your 9th birthday, in this situation the child
is neither under 9 or above 9 kasi exacto
eh kaya according to Justice Regalado, in
case of doubt whether the applicable
proviso is that on absolute circumstance all
conditional circumstance, you have to
resolve in favor of the accused the
provision on alternative circumstance is
favorable to the accused so you consider
under 9 as 9 years or under.
Now, noong ginawa nila ang Section 6 of
RA 9344 instead under 15, above 15
magkaroon na naman ng problema yan if
he committed homicide on his 15th
birthday kasi he is neither under 15 or
above 15 kaya ginawa nila na 15 years old
or under and above 15.
Example: on your 15th birthday tapos
11:30 pm, you stabbed the victim, while
stabbing the victim you have to focus on
the clock, kasi if 15th birthday mo tapos
may sinasaksak ka if the long arm of the
pointed at 12 you have to cease from
stabbing the victim because if the long arm
of the clock pointed after 12 tapos na yung
birthday mo, so you are now covered by
the different rule which is the rule on
conditional exempting circumstance of
minority.
In other words, the line that demarcates of
separate the rule on absolute exempting
circumstance of minority and conditional
exempting circumstance of minority is on
his 15th birthday. Kapag natapos na yung
15th birthday mo, iba na pinaguusapan
diyan kaya nga because of that the RA
1060 (parang ganun) amended Section 6
of RA 9344. As amended, mayroon silang
ininsert na isang sentence - the child shall
be deemed 15 years of age on the 15th
anniversary of his birthday. Prior to the
amendment, yun na yung rule so ang
purpose lang is para maging clear and hindi
na maginterpret pero yun na talaga yung
rule before. In other words, what is
important is his 15th birthday, on or before
- absolute exempting circumstance. Pero
kapag natapos na yung 15th birthday mo,
ibang rule na yan kasi considered ka na as
above 15 years of age.
Yung susunod na complete exemption na
covered by Article 69 of the RPC, kasi one
or two degrees lower, yung incomplete
accident kasi pag incomplete accident kasi
may special rule siya sa Article 67 of the
RPC. Ano ba yung requisites ng accident?
Lawful act without dolo without culpa.
Nagddrive ka ng kotse wala kang lisensya
sa expressway, allowed tumakbo ng 100 so
tumakbo ka ng 100, kaso biglang may
tumalon na bata galing sa puno bumagsak
sa harapan mo, kahit magbreak ka
matatamaan mo talaga siya, patay.
Now, di ba ang requisites ng accident lawful
act without dolo and without culpa. Kung
merong dolo, may intent to kill, you have a
liability under Article 249, that is homicide,
eh kaso may dolo ba dito? Walang dolo dito
kasi biglang tumalon sa harapan niya eh so
okay tayo diyan. Kung merong culpa, this
is not accident, Article 365 yan - reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, ang
tanong may culpa ba dito? Wala kasi
tumalon sa harapan mo eh. Walang dolo,
walang culpa, accident ba ito? Hindi siya
accident kasi yung first requisite eh lawful
act. So if hindi siya accident, you go to
Article 67. Maliit lang penalty niyan may
specific penalty. So incomplete accident
yon, actually dapat exempting
circumstance of accident pero kasi hindi
lawful act yan kaya it will be treated as an
incomplete accident; therefore, you will be
liable under Article 67 of the RPC.
Kapag nagkaroon ng combination,
combination of graduated factors, ang
technique iisa isahin niyo lang.

For example, minor siya, accomplice,
frustrated, he committed murder. So
reclusion perpetua to death, isa isahin niyo
lang considering that he is a minor, it will
be reduced to reclusion temporal, so he is
a minor, so it will be reduced further to
prision mayor kasi frustrated murder na,
but he is just an accomplice, so another
one degree, so magiging prision
correccional, so ang technique lang is isa
isahin niyo ang mga graduated factor.
Now, paano ba mag-graduate ng
penalty?
Yung pag-graduate ng penalty nasa Article
62.
Meron tayong tinatawag na general rule
and two exceptions.
SINGLE PENALTY
General Rule - the graduated penalty is a
single penalty. So whether the graduated
penalty is single, compound or complex,
the graduated penalty is single.
For example, the crime committed is
homicide - the penalty is reclusion
temporal. Single penalty yan eh, what is
one degree lower, it is prision mayor. Dapat
single penalty siya kasi prision mayor
immediately follows reclusion temporal in
the scale of graduated penalty under Article
71 of the RPC (check scale of graduated
penalties) so ang two degrees niyan prision
correccional, three degrees - arresto
mayor, four - disterrio. Mapapansin niyo,
diesterrio is between arrestor mayor and
arresto menor because most of the time,
ang disterrio is below arrestor menor pero
sa graduated scale, nasa in between siya
ng arresto mayor and arresto menor.
COMPOUND PENALTY
This is a penalty composed of two
penalties. Ano ba penalty for murder -
Artilce 248 of the RPC? It is reclusion
perpetua to death - this is a compound
penalty kasi dalawang penalty yan. SO
what is the rule? the rule is that the
graduated penalty is a single penalty so
one degree lower of reclusion perpetua to
death is reclusion temporal. So hindi porket
prescibed penalty mo ay compound, ang
graduated penalty mo is compound na din.
Even if the penalty is a compound penalty,
your graduated penalty is single - so one
degree lower.
COMPLEX PENALTY
It is composed of three penalties. For
example, crime committed by a resident
agent under Article 114 of the RPC. Ang
penalty niyan ay reclusion temporal to
death. This is a complex penalty. Even if
the prescribed penalty, the graduated
penalty is still single. So one degree lower
of reclusion temporal to death is prision
mayor because it immediately follows
reclusion temporal.
Whether the prescribed penalty is single,
compound or complex, the graduated
penalty always is single penalty, hindi siya
sumasabay eh.
Now, that is the general rule - graduated
penalty is single.
There are two exceptions.
First exception: When the prescribed
penalty is in period, the graduted
penalty must be in period.
There are three kinds of penalty in period -
single period, compund period, and
complex period.
If the prescribed period is, the graduated
penalty must be single also. If the prescribe
period is compund period, the graduated
penalty must be a compound period also. If
the prescribed period is complex, the
graduated penalty must be complex also.
So sumasabay siya.
Di ba yung general rule, hindi siya
sumasabay whether single, compound or
complext penalty, ang graduatred penalty
mo is single. Pero kapag in period, kapag
single period, ang graduated penalty mo is
also single. Kapag compound period,
compound din graduated penalty mo.
Kapag complex period, complex din
graduated penalty mo.
For example, the penalty for Article 220 of
the RPC is prission correccional in each
minumum period. For example, may
confession and surrender, what is one
degree lower of prision correccional in its
minimum period? Prision mayor in its
maximum period. Two degrees lower?
Prision mayor medium.
Now, for example ang prescribed penalty
mo is a compound period?
Sa theft may penalty na prision
correccional in its medium period to
maximum period. Compound yan kasi
dalawa. For example, minor siya, so one
degree lower, ang graduated penalty mo ay
dapat compound din. So ang prescribed
penalty mo ay prision correccional medium
period to max period, ang graduated
penalty ay arresto mayor in its max period
to prision correccional in its minimum
period. Compound kasi ang prescribe
penalty mo kaya dapat ang graduated
penalty mo eh compound din tapos ididikit
mo lang.
Another example, if prescribe penalty mo is
complex, ibig sabihin ng complex tatlong
periods siya. For example sa theft, ang
penalty ng theft ay prision correccional in it
max period to prision mayor in its medium
period. Complex yan kasi three periods oh.
So one degree lower niyan is complex
dapat. Ang graduated penalty ay arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its medium period, dapat
complex din siya. This is actually the case
of People v. Cupao. Dati kasi may debate
yan eh, so ngayon dapat walang gap sabi
ng Supreme Court, dapat immediately
follow dapat magkakadikit.
Second exception: mga penalty na
combination of penalty.
For example, Section 53 of RA 7610 meron
penalty na reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua. Ang
one degree lower niyan is a complex
period. If the prescribe penalty is a
combination of penalty in full and penalty
in period, ang graduated penalty is
complex period. So tatlong period ididkit
mo lang sa medium. So ganito yan, ang
one degree lower of reclusion temporal in
its medium period to reclusion perpetua is
prision mayor in its medium period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Dapat tatlo din.
So there are two rules on the application of
penalties. Article 63 and 64.
Yung article 63, the rules on application of
indivisible penalty, while yung Article 64,
rules on application of divisible penalty or a
penalty compose of three periods.
Yung rules on application of indivisible
penalty, it means you cannot divide that
subject to division for purposes of creating
minimum, medium and maximum periods.
Ang pinaguusapan diyan eh yung iddivide
mo siya into three. Yung pangalawa kasi,
you can divide the penalty into three for
purpose of creating minimum, medium and
maximum periods.
So kapag sinabi mong indivisible penalty,
hindi mo siya puwedeng hatiin. Tatlo lang
ang indivisible penalty, yung reclusion
perpetua, reclusion perpetua to death, and
death penalty. So kapag may penalty kasi,
before you apply the rules on application of
penalty, alamin niyo muna if the penalty is
divisible or indivisible kasi kapag indivisible
siya, Article 63, kapag divisible siya, Article
64. Kasi kapag halimbawa, if hindi mo siya
dinetermine and you apply Article 64.
For example, the penalty is death penalty
at wala pa yung batas prohibiting death
penalty (RA 7346) so applying Art 64, may
mitigating circumstance of confession, so
minimum period of death penalty if may
aggravating circumstance, maximum
period of death penalty? Ano yung
minimum period of death penalty? If
indivisible siya, you apply Article 63, hindi
suitable yung Article 64 if the penalty is
indivisible. Yung reclusion perpetua is also
indivisible, if you notice sa under Article 27
of the RPC, inamend na kasi yan ng RA
7659, yung heinous crime law, as amended
nagkaroon ng range na ang reclusion
perpetua ay 20 years and 1 day to 40
years. So ano considered penalty as
divisible, nangyari yan sa People vs Lucas.
Sabi ni Justice Davide, inapply yung
penalty in its medium period of reclusion
perpetua, nagfile ng motion for
reconsideration, sabi ng Supreme Court,
after reading the deliberations in Congress,
there is a no legislative intention to
reclassify reclusion perpetua from an
indivisible penalty to divisible penalty.
Despite the amendments, reclusion
perpetua remains to be indivisible. Hindi
mo puwedeng hatiin yan unless pusa ka.
Ang reclusion perpetua kasi technically it is
life imprisonment eh.
Technically, may pinagkaiba ang reclusion
perpetua at life imprisonment, pero pag
trinanslate mo ang reclusion perpetua, ang
translation niya is life imprionsment, but in
technicality, reclusion perpetua hanggang
40 years, life imprisonment, unlimited yan.
Reclusion perpetua may accessory
penalties, ang life imprisonment, wala,
unless there is a special law which provides
an accessory penalty, such as RA 9165,
may accessory penalty ang life
imprisonment. Ang RP, RPC at special law
yan. Life imprisonemnt, special law lang
yan.
So in other words, ang reclusion perpetua
that is an indivisible penalty, kaya pag
mapapansin niyo sa decision, the accused
its hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua. Hindi pwedeng 30 years of
reclusion perpetua. dati yan, pag nagbasa
kayo ng SC decisions, may ganyan dati, 30
years of reclusion perpetua. Sa incremental
penalty yan. Tinanggal na, wala nang
ganun. Nung nagkaroon ng amendments,
wala nang 30 years of reclusion perpetua.
Ang present situation, "finding the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is
hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua." Hindi pwedeng 30 years of
reclusion perpetua, or 25 years. Wala nang
ganun. So indivisible na siya. If the penalty
is indivisible, di mo pwedeng idivide sa
tatlo, you apply article 63 of the RPC.
Now yung Article 63, there are two rules,
the first rule and the second. The first rule,
nakalagay diyan, in all cases that the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, such
as death or reclusion perpetua. Yung
second naman, in all cases that the law
prescribes a penalty comprised of two
indivisible penalties, there is only one
penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, and that is reclusion perpetua to
death. So in other words, pag ang penalty
mo reclusion perpetua, simple rape, first
rule. Ang penalty mo, death, like qualified
rape, first rule. Pag kung ang penalty mo
reclusion perpetua to death, for murder,
infanticide, parricide, second rule. So
ganun lang kasimple: reclusion perpetua,
first rule; death, first rule; reclusion
perpetua to death, second rule.
First rule, ang tawag ko diyan "as it is rule,"
yung second rule tinatawag ko diyan
"aggravating circumstance rule." Pero for
purposes of the bar, wag niyo nang
banggitin.
First rule: "as it is rule"
Ganito kasi yan: kasi ang nakalagay dun "in
all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied
by the court, regardless of the aggravating
or mitigating circumstance which may have
attended the commission of the deed. So
pag ang pinaguusapan natin penalty ay
reclusion perpetua, or death penalty,
disregarded ang mga modifying
circumstance, disregard the aggravating
circumstance, mitigating circumstances
etc. Why? kasi nakalagay lang doon in all
cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the
court, regardless the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed. So
balewala na ang mga contention na yan.
People vs. Ramos (GR 136398)
The crime committed is rape, simple. The
penalty is reclusion perpetua, attended by
confession and surrender. Can you
consider the mitigating penalties for
purposes of reducing the penalty by one
degree from reclusion perpetua to reclusion
temporal? Wrong. Why? the special
mitigating circumstance that is two or more
mitigating or aggravating circumstance is
found in article 64 of the RPC. The title of
that article is Rules on application of a
penalty composed of three periods, or in
short, this is rules on application of divisible
penalties. But Reclusion Perpetua, this is
not a penalty composed of three periods.
So you will not appreciate the special
mitigating circumstance of 2 or more
mitigating or aggravating circumstance
under Article 64. So you apply article 63 of
the RPC, in all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty such
as reclusion perpetua, it shall be applied by
the court. It shall be applied regardless of
the two mitigating circumstances taht may
have attended the crime. As an example,
People vs. Ramos (GR 136398) the crime
was qualified rape, with confession and
surrender. Death penalty. You do not
consider special mitigating circumstances
because those are found in Article 64. But
death penalty is not composed of three
periods, therefore Article 64 is not
applicable. Under Article 63, the court shall
apply it regardless of the two mitigating
circumstances attending the commission of
the deed. However, due to RA 9346, you
reduce it to reclusion perpetua. Therefore,
the reduction to reclusion perpetua is not
due to the presence of two mitigating
circumstances, but by reason of the law
prohibiting the imposition of death. It is the
as it is rule because the court shall apply
the penalty as it is. The court shall
disregard the attending circumstances.
Second Rule: aggravating circumstance
rule.
Pag binasa niyo yan, apat na rules yan,
pero sa akin kasi isang sentence lang sa
akin yan. Example: reclusion perpetua
death. It is composed of two indivisible
penalties. Under the aggravating
circumstance rule, if there is an
aggravating circumstance then greater
penalty; otherwise, lesser penalty. So if
there is an aggravating circumstance:
death, but due to RA 9346, Reclusion
perpetua. Otherwise, reclusion perpetua
lang. Example, there are two mitigating
circumstances but there is one aggravating
circumstance. Applying the offset rule,
there is a mitigating circumstance.
Applying this, walang aggravating,
therefore lesser penalty siya. With this one
mitigating circumstance, reclusion
perpetua shall be applied.
People vs Takbobo (GR 102984)
If there are two aggravating and one
mitigating, applying the offset rule, there is
one aggravating penalty. Considering the
given, the greater penalty of death shall be
applied, however, due to RA 9346, the
same shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. In the case of People vs Takbobo
(GR 102984), the crime committed is
parricide, she confessed and surrendered.
The court appreciated the special
mitigating circumstances for purposes of
reducing the penalty of RP to death to
reclusion temporal. The special mitigating
circumstance, two or more mitigating and
no aggravating is found in Article 64 of the
RPC. And that is the rules on application of
penalties comprised of three periods.
Reclusion perpetua to death is not a
penalty composed of three periods.
Therefore, you cannot appreciate the
special mitigating circumstance. So you
apply the rules on the application of
indivisible penalty. Under that rule,
considering that there is no aggravating
circumstance, wala. That two mitigating
circumstance will trigger the application of
the lesser penalty. The court shall apply the
lesser penalty, and that is reclusion
perpetua. When you read article 63, and
then article 64, you will see "two or more
mitigating, no aggravating circumstance,"
that is the special mitigating circumstance.
Sa article 63 naman, in all cases where the
law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, if there are some
mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances, the lesser
penalty shall be applied. Some mitigating
circumstance: pwedeng dalawa. Some
mitigating, no aggravating: the lesser
penalty shall be applied. It was affirmed in
the Brozolo case (GR 210615). It
reaffirmed Takbobo. That was correct. In
63, some mitigating, no aggravating:
lesser penalty. In 64, 2 or more mitigating,
no aggravating circumstance, the court
shall apply the penalty lower in degree.
Article 64: rules on application of
penalties composed of 3 periods. Ang
tawag dito "divisible penalties," you can
divide the penalties into 3 parts. Ganito ah,
pag indivisible penalty: there are only 3
(RP, death, RP to death). Yung iba, divisible
na parati. Like this: a penalty is mutilation
under 262. Reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua. The technique is, pag hindi siya
reclusion perpetua, hindi siya death, or
hindi siya RP to death: divisble yan.
Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is
divisble. How? You can divide it into three
for minimum and maximum penalties.
Yung reclusion perpetua kasi di mo
pwedeng hatiin yan kasi indivisible siya.
Reclusion perpetua na yung maximum
period mo. So dalawa nalang kulang mo.
You can divide it from reclusion temporal.
The minimum and medium penalties come
from reclusion temporal. The minimum
period will be the lower half of reclusion
temporal, which is 12y 1d, to 16y. The
medium period will be the higher half,
which is 16y 1d to 20y. Ano yung maximum
period? Reclusion perpetua. Basta ang
technique, if it is not RP, Death, or RP to
death, Article 64 ka na. Halimbawa,
treason committed by a resident agent
under 217. Reclusion temporal to death. It
is divisble. You can get the minimum,
medium, and maximum periods. Minimum
is reclusion temporal, medium is reclusion
perpetua, and maximum is death. You
apply article 64.
In Art. 64, there are three things you have
to consider.
1. Graduation
2. Proper imposable period
3. Fixing the penalty.
Automatic yan ah, if you are the judge,
what penalty would you impose considering
the ISLAW? Always think of those 3 things.
Dito tayo sa graduation: There are 2 things
you have to consider for graduation:
1. priority rule
2. indivisible penalty converted to
divisible.
Priority rule: yung mga circumstance,
hindi nila inoorganize, sinasadya yun.
Under the priority rule, uunahin niyo yung
graduating factor, hanapin niyo yung mga
graduating factor. Ibaba niyo muna yung
penalty. Count the circumstances. Pag sa
bar, planuhin niyo muna, add the
graduating factors etc., fix the penalties
before you write an answer.
Indivisible penalty converted to
divisible: The applicable rule is Article 64.
Simple rape is RP, but if done by a minor,
baba ka ng 1 degree, reclusion temporal.
Apply Article 64.
So dito na tayo sa proper imposable period.
Meron tayong apat na exceptions.
Ito palagi ang technique natin, when I talk
about XPNs, focus on the XPNs. Pag
applicable, you apply. If not, go to the
general rule. Analyze the XPNs before the
GR when answering the exam. Pag nakita
mong pasok, you apply. Dito tayo sa GR:
General Rule: when the crime committed
is homicide, the penalty is reclusion
temporal. When there are graduating
circumstances: maximum period. If no
modifying circumstances: medium period.
Kung may mitigating, minimum.
Dito sa GR, there are two cases you have
to consider:
1. multiple aggravating circumstance,
and
2. offset rule.
Multiple aggravating circumstance:
Ang rule diyan is regardless of the number
of aggravating circumstances, there is only
one effect, and that is you will apply the
penalty in its maximum period. Unlike each
mitigating circumstance, which reduces the
penalty by one degree, pero aggravating
iba: pag maaraming aggravating, it only
has the effect of applying the maximum
period. Some lawyers and judges do that,
but it is incorrect.
So for example, the crime is frustrated
homicide, so prision mayor, with 2
aggravating circumstances, disregard of
dwelling, and nighttime. Kahit dalawa ang
aggravating circumstance, you will apply
prision mayor in its maximum period.
Others would argue that if there are two
aggravating circumstances, one degree
higher. That is incorrect. Codal po yan. It's
against article 64.
Prescribed Penalty
Hindi ka tataas sa reclusion temporal. Kasi
yung mga iba pag dalawa daw magiging
minimum, pag tatlo nagiging medium. O
kaya meron naman iba pag dalawa, one
degree higher—mali po yon; codal po yan.
Basahin niyo sa Article 64, pa double check
nalang.
Ang nakalagay don "Regardless of the
number in nature of aggravating
circumstance, the Court shall not impose a
penalty greater than that prescribed by law
in its maximum period. Ano ibig sabihin
yun?
Dalawa yung penalty don: yung prescribed
penalty at yung greater penalty. Kasi tong
reclusion temporal this is a penalty greater
than prision mayor, the prescribed penalty.
Now the imposition of greater penalty is
prohibited. The Court shall not impose a
penalty greater than that prescribed by
law. Therefore, the imposition of reclusion
temporal, which is a penalty greater than
prision mayor (the prescribed penalty), is
prohibited.
People vs. Manlolo (G.R. No. 40778)
Dalawang aggravating circumstance but
the judge graduated it one degree higher;
ayun pinagalitan siya ng Supreme Court.
So regardless of the number of aggravating
circumstances, isa lang epekto nun:
maximum period.
Offset Rule
If there is a combination of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, i-offset mo muna
tapos tingnan mo ilang yung matitira.
Halimbawa may natirang aggravating
circumstance, automatic maximum period
yan. Pag walang natira, medium period.
Pag may natirang mitigating circumstance,
minimum period. So ganon lang ka simple.
Exceptions
So dito na tayo sa exceptions. So there are
four exceptions:
1. Special mitigating circumstance;
2. Special aggravating circumstance;
3. Article 48 - complex crime; and
4. Article 365 - culpable felony.
Special mitigating circumstances:
icoconsider natin yung requisites at tsaka
yung effect. So kahit nakikita niyo
mukhang special mitigating circumstance
to—para sigurado lang kasi medyo
complicated to—tingnan mo muna yung
requisites. Pag pumasok yung requisites,
dito ka naman sa effects.
There are two requisites to appreciate
special mitigating circumstances for
purposes of graduating the penalty one
degree lower.
First, two or more mitigating and no
aggravating.
Tinanong sa Bar nung 2018, three
mitigating circumstance plus one
aggravating circumstance; can you
appreciate special mitigating circumstance
here?
Pag inoffset mo yan, dalawang mitigating
will remain.
Will you consider the two remaining
mitigating circumstance as a special
mitigating circumstance?
The answer is NO because there is an
aggravating circumstance in this situation.
Pag may aggravating circumstance, kahit
may natirang dalawang mitigating
circumstance, you can not appreciate the
special mitigating circumstance. Now, since
na hindi applicable yung first exception,
let's go to the general rule: apply the
penalty in its minimum period. Kahit
dalawa o more yung natirang mitigating
circumstance, do not apply the special
mitigating.
Ang problema lang sa 2018 given yung
mitigating circumstance tapos may
aggravating circumstance, tapos ang
tanong what is the penalty if you are the
judge. Eh isang mitigating circumstance sa
2018 question na yun is irresistible force—
hindi naman yun mitigating eh, exempting
circumstance yun. Eh kaso ang concern ko
dun is hinihingi yung penalty. Ang
alternative answer is there is no penalty
because of the presence of a exempting
circumstance. Ang problem rin kasi sa
tanong na yun is provocation only applies
in murder cases and other related crimes,
not forcible abduction cases. Can you even
provoke a person to defraud you? Can you
provoke the accused na idedetain ka? No.
Hindi posible ang provocation sa forcible
abduction cases.
Diba yung sa Manlolo case the penalty is
reclusion perpetua, which you can't lower
by one degree. Di pwede. Kasi yung Article
64 ang title niya is "Rule on Application of
a Penalty Composed of Three Periods."
Now, may napansin ba kayo dito? Yung
special mitigating mitigating circumstance,
graduating factor yun eh. Pero bakit di ko
siya diniscuss together with the other
graduating factors (minority, incomplete
justification, etc.). Sinadya ko talaga yun
kasi meron siyang kakaibang rule. Yung sa
mga graduating factor kasi, whether the
penalty is divisible or indivisible, pwede mo
i-appreciate yan. Pero itong special
mitigating circumstance kakaiba to kasi
pwede mo lang siyang i-appreciate if the
penalty is divisible.
Halimbawa the crime committed is rape
and the penalty is reclusion perpetua; may
confession at surrender. Ang tanong: can
you appreciate the special mitigating
circumstance for purposes of reducing the
penalty to reclusion temporal from
reclusion perpetua?
The answer is NO. The special mitigating
circumstance is found in Article 64 which
is the "Rule on Application of a Penalty
Composed of Three Periods." Reclusion
perpetua is not a penalty composed of
three periods; therefore you cannot apply
Article 64 on special mitigating
circumstance. The applicable rule is Article
63: the Court shall apply the penalty
regardless of the two mitigating
circumstance.
Another example is rape wherein the
penalty is reclusion perpetua but the
accused is a minor; can you appreciate
minority in this example? YES. You can
even though the penalty is reclusion
perpetua. Basahin niyo ang Article 68.
Walang qualifier don na dapat indivisible
yung penalty para ma-appreciate yung
privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. So you can appreciate minority.
Another example is rape and the accused is
a minor tapos may confession at surrender.
So reclusion perpetua is graduated to
reclusion temporal because of minority.
Now can you appreciate the special
mitigating circumstance of confession and
surrender? YES. Kasi binaba mo na yung
penalty from reclusion perpetua to
reclusion temporal. Reclusion temporal is a
penalty composed of three periods, so you
can now apply Article 64 and appreciate the
special mitigating circumstance of
confession and surrender.
Effects of Special Mitigating
Circumstance
Now dito tayo sa effects. There are two
effects:
1. yung graduation of a penalty that is
next lower in degree, and
2. Legrama Formula
Dito muna tayo sa first effect. Halimbawa
may four mitigating circumstance tapos
ang penalty is reclusion temporal. Can you
consider confession and surrender to lower
one degree? Tapos the other two baba ulit?
The answer is NO. Bakit? The first effect is
the penalty that is lower in degree, so
regardless of the number of mitigating
circumstances, isang beses ka lang
bababa. From reclusion temporal magiging
rision mayor nalang. Kahit apat pa yan
isang beses ka lang bababa. Bakit? Codal
po yan eh; under Article 64 of the Revised
Penal Code. Two or more mitigating and no
aggravating, the Court shall apply the
penalty next lower in degree. Di naman
nakalagay don na the Court shall apply the
penalty one or two degrees lower
depending on the number of mitigating
circumstances. Next lower in degree yung
nakalagay, so isang beses ka lang talaga
bababa. Tatandaan niyo lang yung first
effect is the next penalty lower in degree,
so di pwede dalawang degree.
Legrama vs. People (G.R. No. 178626).
Halimbawa reclusion temporal ang penalty
mo pero may confession and surrender. So
first effect is bababa ka from temporal to
prision mayor.
Next issue is what the proper imposable
period is. In the case of Legrama
considering that you use the two mitigating
circumstances for purposes of graduating
the penalty from reclusion temporal to
prision mayor, there are no remaining
mitigating circumstance that you can use
to apply prision mayor in its minimum
period. And therefore you will apply prision
mayor in its medium period. Ngayon,
halimbawa tatlo ang mitigating
circumstances (confession, surrender,
passion), applying the Legrama formula,
you can use confession and surrender to to
lower to prision mayor from reclusion
temporal. And you can use passion to apply
prision mayor in its minimum period. Kung
halimbawa apat yung mitigating
circumstance mo (confession, surrender,
passion, illness), you can use confession
and surrender to reduce reclusion temporal
to prision mayor; you can use passion and
illness to apply prision mayor in its
minimum period. So kung meron kang
confession and surrender, gamitin mo para
bumaba ka; at since ginamit mo na yung
confession at surrender para bumaba ka,
wala ka nang magagamit para ma-apply
mo sa minimum period, so magiging
medium yung period. Pero pag may naiwan
na mitigating circumstance—regardless of
the number—you have to apply the penalty
in its minimum period. Ayun ang Legrama
formula.
Special Aggravating Circumstance
Pag special mitigating bababa yung degree,
pero pag special aggravating di ka tataas
ng one degree ha? Pag special aggravating
circumstance, you will just suffer the
penalty in its maximum period, but not
subject to the offset rule.
Sa codal wala talaga kayo makikita na
terms tulad ng special aggravating at
special mitigating. Wala talaga. Inimbento
lang yan ng mga writers at ng Supreme
Court. Ngayon since na paulit-ulit na
ginagamit ng mga writer at ng Supreme
Court yung terms, nagkaroon ng siya ng
technical meaning.
So pag sinabi mong special mitigating
circumstance, may technical meaning yan:
two or more mitigating but no aggravating
which is governed by Article 64. Bababa ka
one degree.
Kung special aggravating naman, di ka
tataas ng one degree; you will just suffer
the penalty in its maximum period but not
subject to the offset rule. Kasi kapag ang
penalty if the circumstance will allow the
graduation one degree higher ang tawag
dyan qualifying circumstance, hindi sa
special aggravating circumstance.
Diba yung theft pag may abuse of
confidence that is a circumstance that will
convert theft into qualified theft, kaya ang
tawag dyan qualifying circumstance of
abuse of confidence kasi tumaas ng two
degrees. Pero ito ha: lahat ng circumstance
that will trigger the imposition of a greater
penalty is called qualifying circumstance.
Basta tumaas yung penalty qualifying na
yun. Pero pag special aggravating
circumstance di tumataas yung penalty.
Same pa rin yung penalty pero imposed in
the maximum period, not subject to the
offset rule. So yung special aggravating
circumstance at yung ordinary aggravating
circumstance parehas. Ang pagkakaiba
lang yung ordinary naooffset, yung special
aggravating hindi naooffsett. Halimbawa
under Article 160 of the RPC (quasi-
recidivism) wherein you commit another
crime while serving your sentence, the
penalty will be applied in its maximum
period.
Let's say you are a convicted prisoner and
you are serving your penalty; you commit
homicide then you make a confession.
Homicide is reclusion temporal tapos quasi-
recidivist ka pero nag confess. Normally if
you will apply Article 64, yung quasi-
recidivism ma-offset ng confession. But
Article 160 doesn't say anything about the
offset rule. So ano susundin mo? Article 64
o Article 160? Kasi there is a basic rule in
statutory construction that if there is a
conflict between a general provision and a
specific provision, you follow the latter.
Article 64 is general and Article 160 is
specific. So you follow Article 160 since it
doesn't say anything about the offset rule.
Therefore, sa example you will just
disregard confession; wala na yan. And
that is the reason why they call quasi-
recidivism as a special aggravating
circumstance—kasi you will apply the
penalty in its maximum period but that is
not subject to the offset rule.
Another special aggravating circumstance
is robbery by band which can be found in
Article 295 of the RPC.
Another is robbery in an inhabited place
and syndicated robbery.
Special aggravating yun lahat. Minsan may
mababasa kayo na SC decisions that all
aggravating circumstance in Article 14 are
ordinary aggravating circumstance.
• Eh, medyo mali ang SC don kasi
may RA 7659 (Heinous Crimes
Law). Taking advantage of public
position is actually a special
aggravating circumstance, not an
ordinary one. Regardless of the
mitigating circumstance, you will
apply the penalty in its maximum
period. So yung tamang principle is
that all aggravating circumstances
under Article 14 of the RPC are
ordinary except taking advantage of
public position.
In the commission of homicide, this is
under Article 29 of RA 10591 and that is
an aggravating circumstance.
Special Aggravating Circumstance
So yung last na namention ko, using used
firearms in committing homicide, in
committing a crime. May exception yan.
That is a general rule. If you use used
firearms in committing a crime, as a
general rule, that is a special aggravating
circumstance. You will avail penalty in its
maximum period even if there is an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Sa Section 25 ng RA 9165, if you are under
the influence of dangerous drugs in
committing a crime, that is a special
aggravating circumstance. Ang binanggit
kasi sa batas, qualifying circumstance,
pero mali po yun eh. Kasi yung qualifying
circumstance, dapat pwede po yun kung
nagkakaroon ng ibang penalty na mas
mataas.
Halimbawa, yung sa Section 10 ng RA
7610; ang nakalagay doon, if a victim of
homicide is under 12 years of age, the
penalty is reclusion perpetua. Kasi ang
penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal
eh.
But if the victim is under 12 years of age,
pinatay mo siya, applying Section 10 of
7610, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. So
you can describe the circumstance that the
victim of homicide is under 12 years of age
as a qualifying circumstance.
Eh itong Section 25 described it as
qualifying pero di naman nakalagay doon
ko ano ang epekto. Dapat magprescribe ka
ng penalty na mas mataas doon sa
prescribed penalty.
May mga opinion na if you kill a person and
you are under the influence of dangerous
drugs, that is murder. Kasi, ang opinion
nila under Section 25 of RA 9165, that is a
qualifying circumstance which is equivalent
to treachery or evident premeditation. I
cannot agree.
Death Penalty
Dati kasi wala pa namang law prohibiting
the imposition of death penalty. So when
RA 9165 was passed, hindi pa bawal ang
death penalty.
If you will analyze RA 9165, you have to
interpret it in the light of the situation that
there is no law prohibiting the imposition of
death penalty. So ngayon, under Section
19 of Article 2 of the constitution, no death
penalty shall be imposed unless for a
compelling reason involving the heinous
crime the Congress hereafter provides for
it. If you analyze it, the constitutional killer
must be Congress. No death penalty shall
be imposed unless there is compelling
reason and heinous crime that the
Congress provides for it. To impose death
penalty or reclusion perpetua to death,
dapat mayroong deliberation on that
matter.
Halimbawa sa murder, RA 7659, if you read
it, may deliberation talaga that murder is a
heinous crime and there is a compelling
reason to prescribe death penalty and that
is why they prescribe Reclusion Perpetua to
them.
Kung an interpretation natin sa Section 25
ng RA 9165 that under the influence of
dangerous drugs that is equivalent to
treachery, ano epekto niyan?
• So if you kill a person, and you are
under the influence of dangerous
drugs, that is equivalent to murder
which is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death.
• Kung may aggravating
circumstance, death penalty ka. Eh
bago sila mag-impose ng death,
pinag-aaralan nila yan ng todo, kasi
papatayin nila yung tao na isang
kriminal. Assume the position of a
judge who is telling a decision. Then
when you say that this is equivalent
to murder tapos may aggravating
circumstance, papatayin siya,
without a Congressional Debate you
will impose death penalty. Ganun ba
yun?? The Congress nga. Only
Congress will say this is a heinous
crime and only they will prescribe
reclusion perpetua. Malabo po yun.
3rd Execption
Yung 3rd exception is complex crime under
Article 48 of the RPC. Complex Crimes.
There are two rules in Article 48 of the RPC.
First, you will consider the penalty for the
most serious components of the complex
crime. Second, you will apply the penalty in
its maximum period. Usually, sabay yung
two rules inaapply.
For example, Direct Assault with Homicide.
So you apply the penalty for homicide, the
most serious component in its maximum
period. So apply the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period. Pero
kapag mayroon graduated factor, such as
minority, incomplete justification, tignan
mo muna yung penalty for the most serious
component tapos maggraduate ka.
After graduation, that's when you apply the
graduate penalty in its maximum period.
There are occasions where the application
of the two rules are separate.
Example: If Direct Assault with Homicide
committed by a minor; you apply the first
rule first and consider the penalty for the
most serious component which is
Homicide. Now, in Article 48 of the RPC,
since it is a minor you will go to Article 68,
which is privileged mitigating circumstance
of minority. So you will reduce the penalty
of Reclusion temporal to prision mayor.
Now from Article 68 of the RPC, you will
return back to Article 48 and apply the
second rule. Apply prision mayor in its
maximum period. This is an example where
both rules are not applied at the same
time; when there is a graduated factor.
Before you apply in its maximum period,
graduate it first.
Committing a complex crime is a special
aggravating circumstance. It is not subject
to the opposite rule.
So diba sa quasi-recidivism, that is a
special aggravating circumstance because
of the phraseology of "apply the penalty in
its maximum period." This is not subject to
the opposite rule.
This is the case of De Leon. G.R. No.
179943 June 26, 2009.
Sabi ni Justice Peralta, committing a
complex crime is a special aggravating
circumstance.
Example: You commit direct assault with
homicide. Then, there is a confession. You
consider the penalty for the most serious
component which is Reclusion Temporal.
The fact that the accused committed a
complex crime is a special aggravating
circumstance. So apply the penalty in its
maximum period. Disregard confession.
There is already a special complex crime
which is not subject to the offset rule.
This discussion, do not read the book of
Reyes yet with regard to penalty. There are
principles there that are already
abandoned. There are formulas there that
are not followed anymore. For purposes of
taking the bar, there are abandoned
formulas there already. Reyes uses the
formula in People vs Cesar.
In our example, Direct Assault with
homicide and confession, if you apply the
Cesar case, applying Article 48 of the RPC,
the penalty of Reclusion Temporal shall be
applied in maximum period. Then because
there is confession, you will apply the
penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its
maximum period in its minimum period. So
the proper imposable period is minimum
period of Reclusion Temporal in its
Maximum period. That is the Cesar case.
What is the minimum period of reclusion
temporal and its maximum period?
Edi kukumpyutin mo yun. Oh, eh yung
maximum period ng reclusion temporal 17
years, 4 months and 1 week, 20.
Eh pano yung minimum period and
maximum period ng reclusion temporal?
Mag kukumpyut ka? Pero wala na po yan,
deemed abandon na po yan. So this is
Special Aggravating Circumstance that's
subject to the offset rule so you have to
disregard confession ha? So okay tayo
dyan okay tayo dyan.
Yun yung complex crime So, If the first and
second exception, no? are applicable kung
baga dalawang exception ang applicable...
Ganto po gagawin niyo, you use the first
exception to graduate the penalty 1 degree
lower then use the second exception to
apply the penalty in its maximum period.
Yung second exception that is special
aggravating circumstance ah. So ano
napansin niyo?
Wala na yung Legrama kasi yung pag
Legrama pag dalawang mitigating
circumstance = medium period, pag tatlo =
minimum period yung graduated penalty,
pag apat = minimum period that is the
Legrama.
Pero pag nag combine yung first exception
at yung second exception yung second
exception (special aggravating
circumstance ha) you will not apply the
Legrama again you use the first exception
to graduate the penalty and then use the
second exception to apply the penalty in its
maximum period.
Mawawala yung Legrama, pag nagkaroon
ng kombinasyon ng first exception at
second exception or first exception or third
exception
People v. Kuruneng, G.R. 219510,
November 14, 2016. (DO NOT APPLY)
Yung 4th exception this is culpable felonies,
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,
no? Meron pong special rule yan eh RPC
Article 365 nakalagay po dyan "in applying
the penalty, for culpable felony, the court
shall exercise sound discretion without
regards to Article 64 of the RPC. So ibig
sabihin you will not consider yung mga
aggravating circumstance, mitigating
circumstance, alternative circumstance
kasi nakalagay po yun codal. Yung
imposing penalty for culpable felony... the
court shall exercise sound discretion. so
wala na... Nilelecture ko lang to kasi baka
nabasa niyo yung People v. Kuruneng eh
GR 219510, November 14, 2016. Eh sabi ni
Justice Bernabe... The court of appeals
committed a mistake in not taking into
consideration modificatory circumstance
such as confession in the imposition of
penalty. Baka kasi nabasa niyo nako mali
po yun mali po yung SC ang tama yung CA
kasi codal po yan eh. So you will not
consider the modificatory
circumstances.and yung Kuruneng that is
not a decision tendered by the SC en banc
so it cannot abandon the SC decisions
which recognized the codal provision under
article 365.
People v. Agavito GR 12120 April 28,
1958
Reckless Imprudence resulting in homicide
may confession... The SC did not consider
confession because of Art. 365 in imposing
the penalty.
People v. Medrosa GR 37633 January 31,
1975
May Confession at surrender reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide... the SC
did not appreciate the special mitigating
circumstance under Art. 64 to graduate the
penalty one degree lower. Etong mga
principle na to hindi pwedeng i-abandon ng
Kuruneng kasi di naman en banc ang
decision ng kuruneng at codal po yan. Nasa
Art. 365. Ang tama po talaga sa Kuruneng
yung CA
Dito na tayo sa pangatlo, fixing the penalty.
Now for fixing the penalty... dalawa yung
penalty. Isang straight penalty and
indeterminate penalty. So tignan niyo
applicable ang ISLAW. Ang general rule
applicable yung ISLAW pag di applicable
ang ISLAW ibig sabihin straight penalty so
dalawa yan palagi so titignan niyo kung
applicable ang ISLAW.
In fixing the determinate penalty, you fix it
within the dates of its proper imposable
period.
Example Homicide, with MC of being a
minor and confession. Diba graduation,
proper imposable period, fixing the
penalty. Palagay na natin di applicable
yung ISLAW kasi he is a habitual
delinquent. so, you will not apply the
ISLAW okay tayo dyan. So, graduation.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance of
minority 1 degree lower from Reclusion
Temporal to Prision Mayor. Now, proper
imposable period walang exception so
general rule tayo so confession apply na
lang Prision Mayor in its minimum period
(ang minimum niya ay 6 years 1 day to 8)
kasi diba ang Prision Mayor 6 years 1 day
to 12 so tig dadalawang taon ang period
nyan eh. 6 years 1 day to 8 minimum, 6
years 1 day to 10 medium, 6 years 1 day
to 12 maximum. And then confession so
minimum kaya siya 6 years 1 day to 8 ang
imposable penalty. Dito tayo sa fixing the
straight or determinate penalty. You will fix
the determinate penalty within the period
of the proper imposable period that is the
minimum period of Prision Mayor. So, 6
years 1 day to 8 years so pwede ka mag 8
years pwede ka mag 7 pwede ka mag 6
years and 1 day.
ISLAW
Pag ISLAW dalawa yung penalty, maximum
penalty and minimum, so dito muna tayo
sa maximum penalty you will fix the
maximum penalty under the ISLAW within
the range of the proper imposable period.
So, homicide, minority, confession. So,
graduation, PMC of minority from Reclusion
Temporal to Prision Mayor... Proper
Imposable Period walang exception so
general rule tayo... Confession minimum
period of PM. So applicable yung ISLAW
hindi siya Habitual Delinquent so for
example within the range naman gawin
nating 7 so yung problema mo yung
minimum penalty madali lang yan... you
will fix the minimum penalty within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree.
So ibababa mo yung buong prision mayor
and that is prision correctional 6 months
and 1 day to 6 years, no?
People v. Temporada GR 173473
December 17, 2008
Settled how to properly impose the
penalty. Ibababa mo yung buong prision
mayor. Prision correctional siya for
purposes of fixing the minimum penalty.
So, kung ififix mo yung minimum penalty
within the range of the penalty next lower
in degree that is Prision Correctional 6
months and 1 day to 6 years. pwede ka
mag 6 months and 1 day pwede ka mag 5
years or 3 so mag 3 years na tayo so meron
na tayong maximum na 7 years (In the
previous paragraph) meron na tayong 3
years na minimum so if Im the judge what
penalty will you impose considering islaw...
I will sentence the accused 3 years of
prision correctional as minimum penalty to
7 years of prision mayor as maximum
penalty. ganun yun! Now bakit tinawag
determinate and indeterminate... doon
muna tayo sa determinate. So halimbawa
pare kailan ka ba makakalaya miss na kita
eh... ah eh sabi kasi ni Judge 7 years eh
naka 5 years pa lang ako eh so 5 + 1 no?
is 6 sabi ni Judge 7 so 7 - 6 = 1... 1 year
na lang! uuwi nako so determinate!!! (The
date when the accused will be released is
mathematically determinable).
Indeterminate penalty
So same scenario so sinabi ni Judge 3 years
of PM as minimum penalty to 7 years of PM
as maximum penalty. Pare kailan ka ba
uuwi namimiss na kita.. eh sabi jasi ni
Judge 3 to 7 eh naka 5 years na nga ako
nakakulong dito di ko alam pano niya ako
pinapauwi... baka naman umaattend ka ng
rumble dyan kasi pag nag rumble ka yung
application of parole mo di ma-aapprove...
hanggang 7 years ka dyan so
indeterminate... Bakit indeterminate kasi
yung date when the accused will be
released is mathematically indeterminable.
Di mo madedeterminate no? Kasi pag
nakuha mo na yung minimum period
qualified ka pa lang to apply for parole pero
hindi automatic yan kasi kung salbahe ka
di ka marerecommend for parole.
ISLAW is just an implementation of the
Parole law to determine when the accused
will be eligible to apply for parole. So just
keep in mind that when applying the
minimum period, it is for the purpose of
applying the parole but in applying for the
maximum period it is the maximum time
the prisoner can stay locked up.
Recommended format (Do not use but just
to understand better) … he is hereby
sentenced to 7 years of Prision Mayor but
for purposes of applying for parole the
penalty is fixed at 3 years of Prision
Correctional.
Terminology:
If we are talking about the revised penal
code… meron dyan maximum, medium and
minimum period… Wag niyo pong
idedescribe yan as maximum penalty or
medium or minimum penalty mali po iyon
dapat period. Pero pag ISLAW dapat max
or min penalty wag niyo pong gawing
period pag ISLAW dapat maximum penalty
minimum penalty sa islaw wala pong
medium penalty ah. Dapat alam ang
terminology some examiners will not like
you interchanging it.
The real penalty is the maximum penalty
because that is the penalty you fix in
accordance with the RPC. Pag binasa mo
yung ISLAW in fixing the maximum penalty
you will consider the attending
circumstances. The attending circumstance
for purposes of fixing the maximum penalty
it pertains to everything under the RPC that
involves penalties.
So the attending circumstance that is not
limited to aggravating, mitigating or other
alternative circumstance it includes
exempting circumstance of minority. Yung
special aggravating circumstance of quasi-
recidivism pati yung incremental penalty.
So lahat you consider so you can fix the
maximum penalty you just apply penal
provisions under the revised penal code. If
minor you go down muna by one degree. If
there is quasi-recidivism you apply first the
maximum period before you fix the
penalty. If estafa and theft, for example
theft, you fixed the penalty 10 years but
there is still incremental penalty then plus
7. 10 + 7 = 17 years then that's your
maximum penalty. So the incremental
penalty is included basta you just fix the
penalty in accordance to the Revised Penal
Code including minority and quasi-
recidivism pati incremental penalty.
So i-fix mo muna within the range, so
halimbawa naka 10 years ka tas may
incremental penalty ka 7 years. So 10 plus
7 equals 17 years so that is your maximum
penalty.
So ang tunay talaga na penalty yung
maximum yung wala yung ISLAW. Yung
wala yung ISLAW so you will fix the penalty
in accordance with the Revised Penal Code,
yung dumating yung ISLAW the penalty
that you fixed in accordance with the
revised penal code it should be considered
as maximum penalty. So yung minimum
penalty, hindi talaga siya tunay na penalty
that is only for purposes of knowing when
the accused will be eligible to apply for
parole. Example, Article 39 of the RPC, if in
case of insolvency if the accused failed fails
to pay fine. The property of the accused
fails to meet the fine meaning if the
accused failed to pay fine by reason of
insolvency. The fine shall be converted into
subsidiary imprisonment.
Now, nagkakaron po ng problema dyan
which is a source of question in the bar
examination.
If the penalty is a computation of fine and
imprisonment. To convert fine into
subsidiary imprisonment by reason of non-
payment due to insolvency. It is important
that the penalty of imprisonment is more
than a correctional penalty. Kapag more
than six years. If the penalty is more than
six years or more than a correcitonal
penalty, the fine is not convertable into
subsidiary imprisonment. The penalty of
imprisonment must not exceed a therefore
correctional penalty pag nag exceed siya
hindi na siya convertible.
Example, the accused was sentenced to
suffer three years of prison correctional at
minimum penalty to six years and one day
of prison mayor as maximum penalty and
in fine of 30 thousand pesos but because of
insolvency he failed to the fine. The
question is can you convert into subsidiary
imprisonment? The purpose of fixing the
minimum penalty is to determine when the
accused is eligible to apply for parole. So
that is sole function of fixing the minimum
penalty that is connected as to when the
accused will be eligible to apply for parole.
For other purposes, you will not consider
the minimum penalty.
In other words, for purposes of determining
whether the fine is convertible into
subsidiary imprisonment, you consider the
maximum penalty because that is the
penalty fixed in accordance with the
Revised Penal Code. The maximum penalty
is six years and one day of prision mayor.
This is a correctional penalty and therefore
the fine is not convertible.
Another example, this is asked in the bar.
Under P.D 968, if the penalty is more than
six years, the crime is not probationable.
Oh eto tinanong sa bar, the accused is
sentenced to suffer three years of prision
correctional as minimum penalty to six
years and one day of prision mayor as
maximum penalty. Ang tanong
probationable ba yan?
• The sole function of fixing the
minimum penalty is to determine
when the accused will be eligible to
apply for parole. For other purposes
you will not consider the minimum
penalty. In other words, to
determine whether the crime
probationable you will not consider
the minimum penalty. You consider
the maximum penalty because that
is the penalty fixed in accordance
with Revised Penal Code. The
maximum penalty is six years and
one day of prision mayor and
the crime is not
probationable. Yung sa three-fold
rule pag nag compute ka ang ico-
compute mo is yung maximum
penalty not the minimum.
 Pangpagulo lang yang minimum na
yan.
People vs. Guinhawa GR. 162822,
August 25, 2005.
Tinanong to sa 2005 Bar Examination and
2017. Mapapansin niyo August 25 to 2005
and yet tinanong sa 2005 Bar examination
so cut off and yet tinanong. Ako wala akong
tiwala sa cut off rule eh. So the ponente of
this is Justice Caguioa, that time kasi the
chairman is Justice Caguioa. Now, may
mga factors kasi na ISLAW is not applicable
like habitual delinquency, treason,
escapee, one who evades the service of
sentence.
Pag yung penalty does not exceed one
year, ISLAW is not applicable. Bakit?
• Kasi pag masyado maiksi yung
penalty mo, halibawa 3 days ka lang
or 10 days yung arresto menor hindi
na applicable yung ISLAW.
Bakit hindi na applicable yung ISLAW?
• Kasi yung parole mahabang proseso
yan. You will be observed kung good
behavior ka while you are serving
your sentence in the National Bilibid
Muntinlupa. So kailangan may
mahabang time para ma-
obserbahan kung nagbago ka na –
kung nag reform ka na.
Reformating kasi tong parole, positivist
theory yan. After you got observed
gagawan ka na ng report yung petition of
pardon, parole and provision. Tapos
dadalhin pa sa DOJ yung report, pag-
aaralan pa nila yan so dadalhin pa sa Office
of the President. Minsan tumatagal dun,
naalala niyo yung panahon ni Aquino na
news yung mga matatanda na
recommended for release ng parole
umaangal na kasi hindi na aktuhan yung
pag petition nila.
So kung masyado mababa, halimbawa ten
months na baka by that time na ma-
approve yung application mo for parole, na
serve mo na yung penalty kaya kailangan
medyo mataas siya. Kaya ang rule pag not
exceeding one year, ISLAW is not anymore
applicable.So kailangan para mag apply ng
ISLAW dapat one year penalty.
Now kung ang penalty mo is arresto mayor
pababa destierro or arresto menor. ISLAW
is not applicable. Bakit?
• Kasi ang arresto mayor hanggang
six months lang yan eh. So not
exceeding one year. Destierro hindi
din applicable. Mapapansin niyo
destierro nasa gitna ng arresto
mayor tsaka arresto menor. Eto
yung scale of graduating penalty.
Yang mga scale kasi may mga
prupose yan eh. Yung scale of
graduated penalty that is in
connection with rules on
graduation. Yung ang purpose niya
kaya siya nagkaron ng scale. So sa
scale of graduated penalty, yung
destierro is between arresto mayor
and arresto menor.
Usually kasi destierro is placed below
arresto menor, dun sa mga scale of
penalty. Yung destierro hindi applicable
yan eh. Bakit?
• Kasi binasa niyo yung ISLAW, yung
preliminary niya, yung imposing
prison sentence the court shall
sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence. Kita niyo
yung pagkasulat nito, kasi ang
ISLAW kasi Philippine legislature
hindi sila magaling mag english.
Mga spanish speaking. Tignan mo
"in imposing prison sentnence."
sentence diba, the Court shall
sentence, sentence nanaman. The
accused to an indeterminate
sentence nanaman. Tatlong
sentence. Pwede naman yung
sentence penalty.
Now, in prison sentence, destierro is not a
prison sentence so you wouldn't apply the
ISLAW. Tinanong sa Bar yung violation ng
section 15 of RA 9165, illegal use of
dangerous drugs. Applicable ba yung
ISLAW?
• Hindi applicable kasi pag first time
offender ang penalty niyan is
rehabilitaion eh that is not a prison
 sentence. Alam mo yung mga
Supreme Court decisions ina-apply
yung ISLAW sa disqualification.
Hindi po applicable, that is a wrong
decision. Ang ISLAW kasi imposing
prison sentence, disqualification is
not a prison sentence. At tsaka ang
parole kasi o-obserbahan kung
good behavior ka while you are
serving your prison sentence. Kasi
kung good behavior ka, ia-allow ka
to serve yung penalty sa labas ng
Muntinlupa. Dun mo na i-serve yan
sa labas good ka naman eh. Mag re-
report report ka nalang. You will still
serve pero sa labas ng kulungan. Eh
kung disqualification pano mo ma-
oobserbahan kung bad o good ka eh
nasa labas ka na ng kulungan nun.
Now, if the proper imposable period is
prision correctional medium pataas
papunta reclusion temporal. Ang general
rule dyan is ISLAW is applicable. Bakit?
• Yung prision correctional medium,
yung pinaka mababa niyan two
years four months and one day. So
exceeding 1 year. Pero general rule
yan applicable yung ISLAW
syempre may mga exception yung
habitual delinquency, escapee,
evader.
• Pero as a general rule kasi
exceeding one year siya, applciable
yung ISLAW. Now kung reclusion
perpetua, ISLAW is not applicable
kasi kung death pano ka mag apply
ng parole. Ile-lethal injection ka na
although ngayon yung imposition of
death penalty is prohibited. Yung
reclusion perpetua hindi niyo
mababasa sa ISLAW yan. Pero
basahin niyo yung R.A 9346, the law
that prohibits the imposition of
death penalty. May nakalagay dun if
the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Whether reclusion perpetua the
penalty is death but because of the
prohibition on the imposition of
death. All the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua itself. In those
cases, the accused is not entitled to
apply for parole. So kung hindi siya
entitled for parole, hindi applicable
yung ISLAW kasi why would you fix
the minimum under the ISLAW if he
is not eligible to apply for parole in
the first place. Wala nang essence,
wala nang use. So pag reclusion
perpetua hindi applicable yung
ISLAW.
Now, nagkakaproblema dito pag ang
proper imposable penalty period mo is
prision correctional minimum. Bakit? Kasi
ang range six months one day to two years
and four months. So alanganin. Kasi yung
diba one year rule, pag exceeding one year
ISLAW is not applciable pag not exceeding.
Eh yung one year nasa gitna siya ng six
months and one day to two years and four
months. So kung ang proper imposable
period is minimum period of prision
correcitonal, you apply the case of People
vs. Guinhawa.
So according to Justice Callejo, if the
penalty is prision correctional halibawa
presribed for attempted homicide. The
penalty is prision correctional and there is
a mitigating circumstance so you will apply
prision correctional in its minimum
period.If that is the situaiton, the Court has
two options and that is apply or not to apply
the ISLAW.
So in other words, the first option of the
Court is to fix the penalty at one year or
less but within the minimum period of
prision correctional such as seven months.
If that is the case, ISLAW is not applicable.
So straight penalty of seven months yan
arresto of prision correctional.
Now the second option of the judge is to fix
the penalty at one year and one day or
more such as two years. If that is the case,
ISLAW is applicable so you have to apply
the ISLAW. So yung two years, yun na
yung magiging maximum penalty. Ang
problema mo nalang minimum so baba ka
one degree from prision correctional baba
ka ng arresto mayor. One month and one
day to six months. Tapos within that range
you can fix penalty palagay nalang natin
three months to years. So if I'm the judge
I will sentence the accused to three months
of arresto mayor at minimum penalty to
two years of prision correccional at
maximum penalty. So ito tinanong sa Bar,
pero imo-modify ko nalang para exact sa
lecutre. So the penalty is prision
correctional, the judge setnence the
accused to suffer a straight penalty of one
year. Ang tanong tama ba si judge? Ganito
ang technique dito, alamin niyo muna kung
applicable yung ISLAW, kung applicable
Penalties/ ISLAW
You fix the penalty in accordance with the
Revised Penal Code. It's that simple. You
consider the graduation, presence of
aggravating circumstance, etc. which is
fixed on the penalty in accordance with the
Revised Penal Code. Disregard first ISLAW.
After fixing the penalty in accordance with
the Revised Penal Code, check if it is
applicable to ISLAW. If it is not, that is your
penalty.
Now, if ISLAW is applicable, that penalty is
your maximum penalty. So, your only
problem is the minimum, you go lower by
one degree and then you fix that within
the range. It’s that simple. For example,
the judge said, “one year of Prision
Correccional, straight penalty.” Is the
judge right?
• So first, you disregard ISLAW. It's
right because it is within the range.
That is within the minimum range of
Prision Correccional which is 6
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. Second, now that you fixed
the penalty in accordance with the
Revised Penal Code, is ISLAW
applicable? It is non-applicable. It is
because it is simply 1 year and
therefore, that is a correct penalty.
So, the judge is correct
in imposing a straight penalty of 1
year of Prision Correccional.
So, second question. The judge said 1 year
and 1 day of Prision Correccional. Is the
judge, right? Disregard ISLAW first and
focus on the RPC. The judge is right
because Prision Correccional, confession,
and the minimum period of 6 months and
1 day to 2 years and 4 months. Given that
it is 1 year and 1 day, that is within the
range. Second question: Is ISLAW
applicable?
• It is now applicable because it is
exceeding 1 year. Therefore, the
judge is wrong because it is a
straight penalty. Third question:
What if the judge commits a
mistake? The 1 year and 1 day
which is fixed in accordance with the
Revised Penal Code will be your
maximum penalty – 1 year and 1
day. Your only problem now is your
minimum penalty. In the minimum
penalty, you will lower the whole
Prision Correccional. So, Arresto
Mayor – 1 month 1 day to 6 months.
Here, you can do 3 months. So, let’s
say the penalty will be 3 months and
1 year and 1 day. So, if I am the
judge, I will sentence the accused to
3 months of Arresto Mayor at
minimum penalty to 1 year and 1
day of Prision Correccional as
maximum penalty.
For example, the penalty is Prision Mayor.
If the penalty is Prision Mayor, you will fix
the minimum penalty under ISLAW within
the range of the penalty next lower in
degree, and that is Prision Correccional. So,
for the maximum penalty, you will fix it
depending if there are aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Here, you can fix
it within minimum, medium, or maximum
period. It is a case-to-case basis.
Let's focus first on the minimum penalty.
So, if your penalty is Prision Mayor, you will
fix the minimum penalty at Prision
Correccional. The range of this penalty is 6
months and 1 day to 6 years. You can do 6
months and 1 day, you can do 3 years... 2
years. You can also do 4 years. But for
purposes of my lecture, I will do it 3 years.
If you are going to make it 6 months there
should be an extra like one day or else, it
will not be Prision Correccional. For the
mitigating circumstances, you will apply
Prision Mayor in its minimum period. In its
range, you will fix the maximum penalty.
Its range is 6 years 1 day to 8 years. So,
you can do 7 years, 8 years… or even 6
years and 1 day. But let's do it at 7 years.
So, now we have minimum penalty at 3
years and maximum penalty at 7 years. For
purposes of the BAR, my recommendation
is that if there is a question about penalty,
know first the penalty or write it first before
you implement it, because you get the
penalties wrong, there will be a domino
effect. You will have a problem.
Defenses/ Modifying Circumstances
(Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances)
Considering that the client committed
bigamy and the penalty is Prision Mayor,
and the accused made a confession,
therefore, Prision Mayor will be applied in
the minimum period.
Applying ISLAW law, the maximum penalty
that is fixed within the range of the proper
imposable period, that is the minimum
period of Prision Mayor. While the minimum
penalty that is fixed within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree is Prision
Correccional.
So, if I am the judge, I will sentence the
accused to suffer 3 years of Prision
Correccional as minimum penalty to 7
years of Prision Mayor as maximum
penalty. For example, if there are no
mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
then you will apply Prision Mayor in its
medium period. The range is 8 years and 1
day to 10 years. So, you can do 9. Now, we
have 3 and 9. So, considering that there
are no modifying circumstances, there is
neither aggravating nor mitigating, Prision
Mayor, prescribed for bigamy, shall be
applied to its medium period. Applying
ISLAW law, the maximum penalty that is
fixed within the range of the proper
imposable period, that is the medium
period of Prision Mayor. While the minimum
penalty that is fixed within the range of the
penalty of the next lower in degree is
Prision Correccional. If I am the judge, I
will sentence the accused to 3 years of
Prision Correccional at minimum penalty to
9 years of Prision Mayor at maximum
penalty. For example, there is an
aggravating circumstance, so maximum
period. You can give him 10 years and 1
day to 12 years… or 12 years if you want.
You have 3-12. Considering that there is an
aggravating circumstance, the penalty of
Prision Mayor shall be applied in its
maximum period. Applying ISLAW, the
maximum penalty is fixed within the proper
imposable period, that is the maximum
period of Prision Mayor. In the minimum
period, it is fixed within the penalty of the
next lower in degree which is Prision
Correccional. So, if I am the judge I will
sentence the accused, 3 years of Prision
Correccional as minimum penalty to 12
years of Prision Mayor as maximum
penalty.
There are two kinds of questions in the BAR
when it comes to penalties.
One is: "If you are the judge, “what”
penalty will you impose taking in
consideration ISLAW?".
• In answering a “what” question, you
must answer completely such as "If
I am the judge, I will sentence the
accused to suffer 3 years of Prision
Correccional at minimum penalty to
7 years of Prision Mayor as
maximum penalty. There are other
questions like: "If you are the
judge, “how” will you impose the
penalty taking into consideration
ISLAW?
• In answering a “how” question, for
example, bigamy with confession
and then fix the penalty.
Considering that the crime
committed is bigamy, and
confession was made, Prision Mayor
shall be applied in its minimum
period. Applying ISLAW, the
maximum penalty shall be fixed
within the range of the minimum
period of Prision Mayor. For the
minimum penalty, it shall be fixed
within the range of the penalty next
lower in degree. That should be it
because the question is “how.” But
if the question is “what,” then “what
is your penalty?” You have to
continue such as "if I am a judge, I
 will sentence the accused to suffer
3 years of Prision Correccional at
minimum penalty to 7 years of
Prision Mayor at maximum penalty"
because the question asked “what.”
I noticed this in the trajected answers in
U.P., the question is “what,” yet they
don't impose a penalty. In “what”
questions you must impose “what” the
penalty is. If you only put the maximum
penalty shall be fixed within the minimum
period, the proper imposable period that is
the minimum period of Prision Mayor while
the minimum penalty shall be fixed within
the penalty next lower in degree which is
Prision Correccional… that is wrong
because the question is “what,” “what is
your penalty?” and not “how.” This is a
problem in a “what” question because this
is not yet a penalty.
Penalties/ ISLAW – Min./Med./Max.
Now, if the penalty is Reclusion Temporal.
This is one of my favorites because this is
the penalty prescribed for homicide. The
minimum penalty shall be fixed within the
range of the next lower in degree, that is
Prision Mayor. The range of Prision Mayor
is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. For
purposes of my lecture, we will use 9 years.
But there are discretions for 7, 8, 9, 10 and
etc. years. For its maximum penalty, you
will have to check for modifying
circumstance. If there is a confession,
minimum or otherwise, medium. Or, if
there are aggravating circumstances, then
maximum.
Let’s focus first with the confession. This is
Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period.
The range for this is 12 years 1 day to 14
years and 8 months. This is hard to
memorize. But if you can memorize it, then
memorize it. If not, don't force yourself. We
will just make a strategy. Let's just choose
the lowest one, so that we are sure that it
is within the range. The lowest is 12 years
and 1 day. So, we have a penalty now, 9
years and 12 years and 1 day. We can now
implement this. The crime committed is
homicide and the penalty is Reclusion
Temporal. The accused made a confession
and therefore, Reclusion Temporal shall be
applied in its minimum period.
Applying ISLAW, the maximum penalty
shall be fixed within the range of the proper
imposable period, that is the minimum
period of Reclusion Temporal. While the
minimum penalty shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree,
that is Prision Mayor.
If I am the judge, I will sentence the
accused to 9 years of Prision Mayor at
minimum penalty to 12 years and 1 day of
Reclusion Temporal as maximum penalty.
If there is an aggravating circumstance,
then maximum period of Reclusion
Temporal shall be applied. The range for
this is 17 years and 4 months and 1 day to
20 years. It's hard to memorize, but if you
can, then do it. If not, let’s just find a
technique. Earlier we used the lowest for
fixing the minimum penalty so, now we use
the highest. We will use 20 years. So, now
we have 9 years and 20 years. We can now
answer this. The crime committed is
homicide with the presence of an
aggravating circumstance.
Therefore, Reclusion Temporal, prescribed
for homicide, shall be applied in its
maximum period. Applying ISLAW, the
maximum penalty shall be fixed within the
range of the proper imposable period, that
is the maximum period of Reclusion
Temporal. While the minimum penalty shall
be fixed within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree, that is the Prision
Mayor. If I am the judge, I will sentence
the accused to 9 years of Prision Mayor at
minimum penalty to 20 years of Reclusion
Temporal as maximum penalty.
For example, there is a modifying
circumstance, medium period of Reclusion
Temporal. Its range will be 14 years 8
months and 1 day to 17 years and 4
months. It's hard to memorize, so let’s use
a technique. Earlier we used the lowest and
the highest, so now we will use the
average. We will use 16 years. We now
have 9 and 16 years. Considering that
there are no aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, the penalty of Reclusion
Temporal, prescribed for homicide, shall be
applied to its medium period. Applying
ISLAW, the maximum penalty shall be
fixed within the range of the proper
imposable period, that is the medium
period of Reclusion Temporal. While the
minimum penalty shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree,
that is the Prision Mayor. So, if I am the
judge, I will sentence the accused to 9
years of Prision Mayor at minimum penalty
to 16 years of Reclusion Temporal as
maximum penalty.
2013 BAR – Legrama Forumla
(Legrama v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
178626, June 13, 2012)
In the 2013 BAR examination, this is a
clearer question: Homicide, incomplete
justification and two mitigating
circumstances. So, what is our technique?
Graduation, proper imposable period,
and fixing the penalty. There are always
three. So first, we are here now in
graduation
Check first if it is four or three or majority
or minority. This one is majority because
it is a privileged mitigating circumstance. If
it is minority, ordinary mitigating
circumstance only... incomplete
justification.
Privileged mitigating circumstance under
Article 69, you can graduate a penalty one
or two degrees lower… but incomplete
justification. In counter imposable period,
look at the exceptions. Here, there are two
mitigating, and no aggravating
circumstances. The penalty is divisible.
This is the first exception. In the first
exception, there are two effects: first, the
penalty is the next lower in degree, that is
Prision Correccional, and you will go down
to Prision Mayor. So, special mitigating
circumstance.
What is the proper imposable period? It is
Legrama, right? You use the two
mitigating circumstance to graduate the
penalty from Prision Correccional to Prision
Mayor. There are no other remaining
mitigating circumstances that you can use
to apply the penalty in its minimum period.
This is why you have the medium period.
This is Legrama.
In Arresto Mayor, this is the technique. If it
is in its minimum period, you get the lowest
which is 1 month and 1 day. If it is in its
maximum period, get the highest which is
6 months. If it is medium period, get the
middle which is 3 months. ISLAW is not
applicable. If it is Arresto Mayor, it goes
down, so ISLAW is not applicable.
Prision Correccional will go up to Reclusion
Temporal. ISLAW is applicable unless there
are other reason not to apply ISLAW.
Prision Correccional minimum will be
convenient, but this is Arresto Mayor,
meaning it will go down, so it will not be
applicable since it’s a straight penalty.
If you didn't apply ISLAW, you will have to
explain why it is not applicable when
answering the question in the BAR, such
as: “If you are the judge, what penalty
would you impose taking into consideration
ISLAW?” Explain why you did not apply
ISLAW.
This kind of question will always appear in
the BAR. We can now answer this. So, the
crime committed is homicide, the penalty is
Reclusion Temporal. But the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense is present. You will explain that
there is unlawful aggression and lack of
sufficient provocation. And therefore, I can
graduate the penalty one or two degrees
lower. If I am the judge, my decision is to
deduce the penalty from Reclusion
Temporal to Prision Correccional. Now, if
confession and surrender are present,
therefore, this is a special mitigation
circumstance. So, Prision Correccional will
be reduced to Arresto Mayor. Considering I
used confession and surrender to reduce
the penalty from Prision Correccional to
Prision Mayor, there are no other mitigating
circumstance that I can use to apply
Arresto Mayor in its minimum period.
Therefore, I will apply Arresto Mayor in its
medium period. If I am the judge, I will
sentence the accused to a straight penalty
of 3 months of Arresto Mayor. ISLAW is not
applicable because the penalty does not
exceed 1 year.
1983 BAR
In the 1983 BAR Examination: Frustrated
homicide and four mitigating
circumstances. The technique is
graduation, proper imposable period, and
fixing the penalty.
Let's tackle graduation first. In frustrated
homicide, it's one degree lower and if
attempted, two degrees lower. So, for
frustrated homicide, from Reclusion
Temporal to Prision Mayor. The proper
imposable period, this is the first exception.
Two more mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. The penalty is divisible. So,
effects, penalty next lower in degree. Even
if it is four, you will only lower it once. So,
applying the Legrama formula, you will
use the two (confession and surrender) to
lower it. You will use passion or illness to
lower the penalty to its minimum period.
So, minimum period of Prision Correccional
that's convenient because Arresto Mayor is
lower, so ISLAW is not applicable.
Prision Correccional medium period is going
to Reclusion Temporal, ISLAW is
applicable, unless there are other reasons
not to apply ISLAW. Prision Correccional
minimum is convenient. If it is just me, I
will not apply ISLAW because it is confusing
because we can use 7 months. So, ISLAW
will not be applicable.
Let’s answer this: Considering that
homicide is committed at the frustrated
stage, Reclusion Temporal shall be reduced
to Prision Mayor. It can be graduated one
degree lower, from Reclusion Temporal to
Prision Mayor. As a judge, I will use
confession and surrender to reduce Prision
Mayor to Prision Correccional. That is a
special mitigating circumstance. Then I will
use passion and illness to apply Prision
Correccional in its minimum period. If I am
the judge, I will sentence the accused to a
straight penalty of 7 months of Prision
Correccional. ISLAW is not applicable
because the penalty does not exceed 1
year.
I am not sure if it is a confession, but this
is one mitigating circumstance. So,
complex crime of direct assaulted with
homicide, and with minority and confession
as mitigating circumstances. It is always
these three: graduation, proper
imposable period, fixing the penalty.
For graduation, it is a complex crime so you
will consider the penalty for the most
serious component.
Kung cconsider mo yung component kasi
minsan lalagay na rin yung penalty din, as
a direct result, lalagay nila yung penalty sa
homicide. Disregard yung penalty sa direct
assault. Kasi this is a complex crime. So
reclusion temporal. So minor sya so
bababa mo, from reclusion temporal,
bababa mo sya sa prision mayor.
So minority, minor. Tapos proper
imposable period. Dito muna tayo sa
exception. Exception number 3 to, diba?
Complex crime. So ang complex crime, that
is special aggravating circumstance. Not
subject to the object rule. So meaning,
disregard mo yung contention.
People v. De Leon. Iaaply mo yung
prision mayor - maximum period.
Disregard na yung contention. So dito mo
iffix yung maximum penalty mo. Sagutin
nalang kaya natin -- so 12 years. Dito iffix
yung minimum penalty mo. Kung 6 months
and 1 day to 6 years pwedeng 3 years.
Ganun na tayo. 3, 3-12. So pwede na
nating sagutin to.
The crime committed is a complex crime of
direct assault with homicide. So under
Article 48, the penalty for the most serious
component, and that is the penalty for
homicide, and that is reclusion temporal.
Considering the track use is a minor, which
is a mitigating circumstance under Article
68, reclusion temporal shall be prision
mayor. Since this is a complex crime,
prision mayor shall be applied in a period.
Contentions shall not be considered
because the fact that the accused
committed a complex crime is a special
aggravating circumstance, not subject to
the object rule.
The maximum penalty shall be fixed within
the rate of the proper imposable period --
that is the maximum period of prision
mayor. Where the minimum penalty shall
be fixed within the rate of the penalty --
that is prision correcional..
1985 bar examination. Ganun din kaso
merong surrender. So ano technique natin?
Graduation, proper imposable period,
fixing the penalty. So dito muna tayo sa
graduation. So minority, so bababa mo
yung reclusion temporal [prescribe?] for
homicide. Okay tayo dyan. Tapos ano
susunod? Proper imposable period. Tignan
natin exception. So diba confession
surrender? First exception to eh. Special
mitigating circumstance. [-] with homicide
complex crime take exception. So
nagcombine yung first exception at tsaka
third exception. So ano gagawin natin?
Diba pag nagcombine yung first exception
at tsaka third exception, gamitin natin yung
third exception para bumaba tayo sa
prision correcional. Gamitin natin yung
third exception para iapply yung prision
correcional maximum period. So eto
special mitigating circumstance. Eto
maximum period kasi complex crime.
Kung prision correcional, sagadin na natin
-- 6 years. Aresto mo yun -- 3 months.
Pwede na natin sagutin to. The crime
committed is a complex crime of direct
assault with homicide. So apply Article 48,
the penalty for homicide, the most finished
components and that is reclusion temporal.
The accused is a minor, which is a
privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority and therefore reclusion temporal
shall be reduced to prision mayor.
Confession and surrender is a special
mitigating circumstance and therefore
prision mayor shall be reduced to prision
correcional. Considering that this is a
complex crime, prision correcional shall be
applied in its maximum period. So apply
the maximum penalty shall be fixed within
the rate of the proper imposable period,
that is the maximum period of prision
correcional. But the minimum penalty shall
be fixed within the range of the penalty
that’s with me, and that is aresto mayor.
If I’m the judge I will sentence the accused
to 3 months of aresto mayor at minimum
penalty to 6 years of prision correcional as
maximum penalty.
Homicide, confession tsaka surrender.
Graduation, proper imposable period,
fixing the penalty. Dito tayo sa graduation
-- wala. Walang graduation. Ok tayo dyan.
So dito tayo sa proper imposable period. So
meron ba exception ito? First exception
diba. Eto second.
Kahit the first exception sya, iaanalyze nyo
muna yung requisites bago nyo iapply yung
effects. Tingnan mo muna yung requisitos
para sigurado. Two or more mitigating or
aggravating circumstances divisible. Two
or more mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Ang tanong, can you consider quasi-
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance
and therefore you cannot appreciate the
special mitigating circumstance under
Article 64? Walang Supreme Court decision
dito, na hinanap o wala kong makita talaga.
So dawala yung view dito, ibibigay ko
nalang yung isang view at kasi yun naman
yung view ko.
To appreciate the special mitigating
circumstance, it is important that there are
two or more mitigating or aggravating
circumstance. Can you consider quasi-
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance
with contemplation of Article 64 and
therefore you cannot appreciate the special
mitigating circumstance? Sa tingin ko,
hindi. Why? Kasi kung binasa mo yung
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, wala
syang official title. Tignan mo yung 160.
Wala naman nakalagay dun ‘special
aggravating circumstance’ or ‘quasi-
recidivism.’ Ang tawag ng mga writers
tsaka ng Supreme Court sa quasi-
recidivism, “special aggravating
circumstance.” Wala naman tayong
problema dyan. Pero hindi po sya official.
Tinawag lang sya kumbaga nagkaroon ng
yung special aggravating circumstance kasi
paulit-ulit ang ginagamit ng Supreme Court
tsaka ng writer. Pero pagbinasa mo Article
160, wala syang nakalagay na
“aggravating” so hindi sya officially
aggravating circumstance.
So yung aggravating circumstance within
the contemplation of Article 64, which will
[degrade?] the appreciation of the special
mitigating circumstance, it pertains to
those in Article 14. Kasi ang title ng Article
14, ‘Aggravating Circumstance,’ eh. And
Article 15 -- yung alternative circumstance
taken as aggravating. Diba nakalagay dun
“alternative circumstance taken as
aggravating.” So pwede mo iappreciate
yung special mitigating circumstance kahit
na may quasi-recidivism.
So, in other words, magccombine yung first
exception tsaka second exception. So ano
gagawin mo? You use the first exception
para bumaba ka. Because you use the
second exception [iapply?] yung penalty
maximum period. Di na natin itutuloy yun
kasi alam nyo naman yun, paulit-ulit na
tayo.
Isa pang example -- robbery. One person
magssurrender. Diba yung band is a special
aggravating circumstance. Nakalagay sa
Article 295 eh. Sa Article 295 yung band is
a special aggravating circumstance. Tapos
surrender tsaka confession -- special
mitigating circumstance. First exception,
eto yung second exception.
Pero bago mo iappreciate yung special
mitigating circumstance, tignan mo muna
kung pasok yung requisites. Two or more
mitigating or aggravating circumstance.
Can you consider band as an aggravating
circumstance? Yes, why? Kasi although
yung band nakasulat sa Article 295 as a
special aggravating circumstance, nasa
Article 14 eh. Basahin mo yung Article 14,
meron pa. So band is an aggravating
circumstance under Article 14. And
therefore you cannot appreciate the special
mitigating circumstance kasi two or more
mitigating or aggravating circumstance eh.
So ano mangyayari dyan? [Seasonal
value?] will apply the penalty at its
maximum period. Eto confession and
surrender, hindi mo na pwede iappreciate
yan as a special mitigating circumstance.
So iddisregard mo na to. Why? Kasi ang
band, which is a special aggravating
circumstance, hindi pwede maooffset yun
eh. It can be offset by surrender and
confession. Hindi sya maooffset. So you will
just apply the penalty at its maximum
period.
So isa pa. Halimbawa homicide taking
advantage of public position, confession
tsaka surrender. Diba etong taking
advantage of public position Article 62 eh,
special aggravating circumstance. Eto,
confession and surrender. Ang tanong, can
you appreciate the special mitigating
circumstance of confession and surrender?
Two or more mitigating or aggravating
circumstance. The Article 62, yung taking
advantage of public position, special
mitigating circumstance yan diba? Special
aggravating circumstance yan diba? Pero
nakalista sya sa Article 14. And therefore
this is an aggravating circumstance. So you
cannot appreciate the special mitigating
circumstance. So play mo lang yung
penalty at its maximum period. Disregard
confession and surrender. Nakalagay dun,
taking advantage of public position, you
will apply the penalty at its maximum
period regardless of the presence of
mitigating circumstance. So yun.
People v. Simone, G.R. No. 93028, July
29, 1994
Kasi there are provisions under the Revised
Penalty which are connected with the
imposition of penalty such as, diba pag
Article 15, you will graduate the penalty 1
degree lower if the crime is frustrated.
Article 68, the minority, you will graduate
the penalty 1 degree later. Article 64, you
will apply the penalty in its minimum period
if there is a confession. So yan mga penal
provision under the Revised Penal Code.
Now, if the offense is punishable under
special law, especially if the offense is
malum prohibitum, will you consider the
penal revision under the Revised Penal
Code, such as confession, as a mitigating
circumstance?
Now, this is the case of People v. Simone.
So according to the Justice Florenz
Regalado, there are 2 rules. Now the first
rule is that if the special law adopts the
technical nomenclature of the penalty of
the Revised Penal Code. So the intention is
to adopt the Spanish penal system, which
is found in the Revised Penal Code. So you
will consider everything. Kasi by adopting
the penalty, the technical nomenclature of
the penalty of the Revised Penal Code, the
intention is to adopt all penal provisions
under the code.
Jacaban v. People, G.R. No. 184355
March 23, 2015, this is illegal possession
of unlicensed firearms under P.D. 1866.
Yung P.D. 1866, ang penalty ng illegal
possession of loose firearms, depende yan
sa calibre eh. Pag mataas ang calibre,
prision mayor minimum period. Pag
mababa, prision correcional, maximum
period. Now the accused made a
confession. Ang tanong, will you consider
the mitigating circumstance of a People v. Simone. So the penal provision
confession? Taking into consideration that
offense is malum prohibitum and under
special law.
According to the Supreme Court, as a
general rule, if the crime is malum
prohibitum, you will not consider the
mitigating circumstance of confession. But
there is an exception to that rule. Because
if the special law, applying the case of
Simone, if the special law adopts the
technical nomenclature of the penalty of
the Revised Penal Code, prision correcional
eh. The intention of the law is to adopt the
penal provision of the Revised Penal Code,
including Article 13 on confession, in
relation to Article 64, which requires the
application of the penalty in its minimum
period. Kaya the Supreme Court
considered confession as a mitigating
circumstance. Prision correcional in its
maximum period was applied in its
minimum period.
Now, yung P.D. 1866 mentioned, which is
the subject matter of the Jacaban v.
People case. Syempre nirepeal na yan ng
Section 45 ng R.A. 10591. Pero despite of
the repeal of that law, the principle in the
Jacaban is still good kasi yung penalty for
illegal possession of loose firearms under
the present law R.A. 10591 also adopts the
technical nomenclature of the penalty of
the Revised Penal Code. Ang pinakamaliit
ng penalty ay prision mayor, medium
period. Pag loaded yung barel, prision
mayor, maximum period. Pero may mga
reclusion temporal yan eh. So this is
Spanish penalty. So by using the technical
nomenclature of the penalty of the Revised
Penal Code, the intention of the law is to
adopt the penal system under the Code;
yung mga modifying circumstance, you will
consider that.
People v. Cahulogan, G.R. No. 225695,
March 21, 2018
What is involved is fencing. P.D. 1612. If
you’ve noticed, this law used the technical
nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code, so the Supreme Court,
through Justice Bernabe, cited the case of
under the code is deemed adopted,
including Article 64. Under Article 64,
considering that there are neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance,
so the penalty for fencing will apply in its
medium period.
People v. Melgar, G.R. No. 223477,
February 14, 2018.
Ang pinaguusapan dito violence against
women, R.A. 9262. Eh yung special law
adopts the technical nomenclature of the
penalty of the Revised Penal Code. So,
considering that there are no aggravated or
mitigated circumstance, the penalty for
violence against women will apply in its
medium period.
People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227,
July 20, 2011, ang pinaguusapan dito is
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Ang
penalty is life imprisonment. He’s a minor,
so under Section 98 of R.A. 9165, the
provision of the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable unless the offender is a minor.
In this case, the offender is a minor so you
will consider the provision of the Revised
Penal Code, including Article 68 on
privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. And second, under section 98 of
R.A. 9165, if the accused is a minor and the
penalty is life imprisonment, life
imprisonment should be considered as
reclusion perpetua.
Now, considering that the penalty is
reclusion perpetua, the Supreme Court
adopted the case of People v. Simone.
Since the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the
special law adopts the technical
nomenclature of the penalty of the Revised
Penal Code. So the intention is to apply the
provision of the Revised Penal Code,
including Article 68 on privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority. So reclusion
perpetua was reduced or graduated to
reclusion temporal.
Pero alam mo, kahit na without fighting the
case of Simone, eh nakalagay na sa Section
98 eh. Pag he is a minor, you will apply the
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Sa Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code,
this is quasi-recidivism. Pag nagbasa kayo
ng mga books, mapapansin nyo libro ni Luis
Reyes, libro ni Regalado. Ang sinasabi nila
is that you cannot appreciate quasi-
recidivism. Kahit si [Dean Ortega?] yun ang
sinabi. Why? Because under Article 160,
the law mentioned the word “felony.” And
an offense punishable until the [-] is not a
felony. So you will not apply Article 160 on
quasi-recidivism.
But wala na yan, yan opinion na yan that is
already an abandoned principle. Why?
Because in the case of People v. Salazar,
G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997, ang
pinaguusapan is an offense which is
punishable under R.A. 6425. So this is
malum prohibitum. So he committed the
crime while he is serving his sentence in
Muntinlupa, National Bilibid. Can you
consider quasi-recidivism at a special
aggravating circumstance, applying Article
160, even if the crime is punishable under
special law which is classified as malum
prohibitum? The Supreme Court said,
considering that the special law used the
technical nomenclature of the penalty of
the Revised Penal Code, so the intention of
the law is to adopt the penal provision of
the Revised Penal Code, including Article
160 on quasi-recidivism. And that is the
reason the Supreme Court applied the
penalty in its maximum period. So
minaximum nya.
Ayun yung first rule. So what is the second
rule? Yung second rule is that -- People v.
Simone pa rin to ah -- if the special law did
not use the technical nomenclature of the
penalty of the Revised Penal Code, the
intention of that law is not to adopt the
penal provision under the Revised Penal
Code. Explain ko muna sainyo.
Yung Revised Penal Code, ang nagpass kasi
nyan Philippine legislature. Meron lower
house yan tsaka upper house -- American
time yan. Yung upper house is appointed,
malamang mga Amerikano yun. Yung lower
house is elected, mga Spanish-speaking
yan. Hindi sila magaling mag-Ingles. So
syempre, etong mga legislatures, medyo
meron pa rin silang influence ng mga batas
ng Spain. Pero syempre, di natin maalis,
American time na ‘to. Kaya ang nangyari
dito, nagkaroon ng dalawang penal system.
Isang yung Spanish penal system, at tsaka
yung isang American penal system.
Spanish at tsaka American. Yung Spanish
penal system, based yan sa classical
[turi?]. Diba sa classical [turi] is that what
is important yung may [treya?], yung
criminal intention.
Kaya they adopted the proportionate penal
system. So what is the proportionate penal
system? Under the proportionate penal
system, the penalty for a felony must be in
proportion to the degree of the criminality
of the mind of the accused.
Proportionate Penal System (Spanish)
The penalty for the felony must be in
proportion to the degree of criminality of
the mind of the accused.
Example 1: One committed a crime out of
passion – nililigawan ang asawa kaya
napatay ko tuloy.
• Lesser degree of intent so minimum
period and penalty
Example 2: Pinatay ko dahil wala lang. Trip
ko lang
• Medium period. Walang
aggravating, walang mitigating.
Kaya mahirap ang penal system under the
Revised Penal Code kasi parang calculator.
Lahat ng malum in se ilagay natin sa RPC.
• Ang Proportionate/Spanish Penal
System swak na swak sa malum in
se – pinag-uusapan sa malum in se
is criminal mind.
Pag malum prohibitum – criminal intent is
not included.
• Therefore, ang
Proportionate/Spanish Penal
System hindi siya suitable sa malum
prohibitum
• Sa malum prohibitum, HINDI ang
criminal mind ang tinitingnan. Ang
tinitingnan is if pasaway ka.
The essence of classifying malum in se and
malum prohibitum is connected with the
defense of GOOD FAITH.
• Malum in se – wrong in character
• Malum prohibitum – wrong because
of the law
American Penal System
• Fixed penalty (e.g., death penalty)
• Maximum and minimum periods
Original intention was:
• Mala in se – Spanish
• Mala prohibita – American
Campanilla: Problem is naguluhan ata ang
Congress kasi may mga SPL na nag adopt
ng Spanish Penal System. (e.g., illegal
possession of loose firearms; Anti-
Terrorism Law is mala in se but adopted
American Penal System)
Only in the PH na may dalawang penal
system.
• RA 9165
o General Rule – American
o Pag minor – Spanish
Campanilla: Congress should revisit. Ibalik
ang original plan na malum in se – Spanish;
malum prohibitum – American
If SPL did not adopt the penalty in RPC,
intention is to adopt the American Penal
System.
Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 111399
• Violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019.
Penalty is in Sec. 9, not less than
one year nor more than 10 years
(American penalty)
• Nag-import sila ng cassette
recorders with falsified documents
to lower tax payment but during
inspection, nadiscover so eventually
they paid the correct tax. Therefore,
walang injury to the govt. Kasi
walang injury, kinasuhan ng
attempt to cause undue injury
• SC: No attempt to violate Sec. 3(e)
because SPL did not borrow the
penalty in the RPC so intention is
not to adopt Sec 6 RPC on
attempted felony in relation to Art.
51 which requires the graduation of
penalty 2 degrees lower. Because
did not adopt RPC, CANNOT apply
rules on graduation.
Pecho is the general rule. But there are
exceptions:
Sec. 98, RA 9165
• RPC is not applicable UNLESS
offender is a minor
• Take note na American Penal
System ang 9165
• In order to apply Sec. 98, you have
to convert into Spanish.
2018 bar –
Importation of drugs and offender is a
minor
• Importation of drugs is life
imprisonment so consider this as
reclusion perpetua to death
• Applying Sec. 98, then apply RPC
provision on privileged mitigating
circumstance on minority.
• Therefore, magiging reclusion
temporal na.
Use of dangerous drugs and offender is a
minor
• Use of dangerous drugs – 1st
offender is rehabilitation
• Here, if minor, you CANNOT apply
provision on graduation. Why? –
because convert muna into Spanish
penalty. Paano mo icoconvert ang
rehabilitation?
• Therefore, penalty here is
rehabilitation
Possession of dangerous drugs less than 5
grams
• Penalty here is 12 years and 1 day
to 20 years (American Penal
System)
• Paano to if minor? Walang
guidelines sa Sec. 98 RPC.
• Convert into Spanish – Reclusion
temporal then baba 2 degrees lower
Bar question -
If offense is punishable under SPL, how will
you impose penalty taking into
consideration ISLAW?
You have to qualify your answer
• First rule – if SPL adopts penalties
under RPC, intention of that law is
to adopt all penal provisions of the
code including Art. 64 in relation to
the principle of ISLAW
o Art. 64 and 1st rule of ISLAW
magkapatid yan. Pag inapply
mo ang Art. 64, mag 1st rule
ka dapat, bawal 2nd rule
o Therefore, even if SPL,
choose maximum penalty
within the range of proper
imposable period and choose
minimum penalty within the
range of the penalty next
lower degree
• Second rule – if SPL did not adopt
the technical penalty of RPC,
maximum penalty shall not exceed
maximum limit; minimum penalty
shall not be less than minimum limit
o Ex: If penalty is not more
than 10 years and not less
than 5 years – so maximum
penalty shall not exceed 10
years and minimum penalty
shall not be less than 5 years
o So pwede 5 years to 7 or 7
to 9. Pero for purposes of the
bar, sagarin niyo na kasi ito
usually ang practice: 5-10
Bar question –
Penalty is not more than 10 years, not less
than 5 years. Sinabi ng judge, 5 years. Is
judge correct?
• Suggested answer of UP – mali si
judge
• Campanilla: Use People v. Nang
Kay, G.R. No. L-3565
o SC: tama si judge, as a
general rule.
o Exception: if non-application
of ISLAW law is favorable to
the accused, applying ISLAW
is not mandatory.
2 requisites to apply the Nang Kay
Principle:
1. What is involved is 2nd rule of ISLAW
2. Circumstance must show that
accused deserves leniency
Note: Application of 1st rule is already
favorable to the accused because
bumababa ka in fixing the minimum
penalty.