Pointers for Final Examination

Criminal Law, Book 1

Exam Date : January 27, 2024

Memorize

Article 4. How Criminal Liability is Incurred?

Paragraph 1

Criminal liability shall be incurred by "any person committing a felony

(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended."

Paragraph 2

Criminal liability shall be incurred by “any person performing an act which

would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.” (Memorize Impossible Crime)

Justifying circumstances (focus on Self Defense)

Memorize the three (3) requisites to invoke self defense

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any

criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to

attack or inflict physical injury upon a person. A mere threatening or
intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression, unless the threat
is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause
injury. There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent
danger thereof, which puts the defendant's life in real peril.

Unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense. It is an

essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or
incomplete self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will
not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will
not be appreciated. even if the other elements are present.
 2

An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the

R.P.C. admits to the commission of acts, which would otherwise engender
criminal liability. However, he asserts that he is justified in committing the
acts. In the process of proving a justifying circumstance, the accused risks
admitting the imputed acts, which may justify the existence of an offense
were it not for the exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the evidence for
the accused fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances.
(Velasquez v. People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017)

Unlawful aggression is defined as "an actual physical assault, or at least a

threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of a threat, it
must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent
danger--not attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."

In People v. Arnante, the "mere perception of an impending attack is not

sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression."

For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual

sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude.

Elements of Unlawful Aggression

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial

element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful
aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself.
Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements
of unlawful aggression, namely:

a. There must be a physical or material attack or assault;

b. The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
C. The attack or assault must be unlawful.

Exempting Circumstances. (Focus on Imbecility/Insanity and

Minors/Children)

Strictly speaking, a person acting under any of the exempting circumstances

commits a crime but cannot be held criminally liable therefor. The
exemption from punishment stems from the complete absence of
intelligence or free will in performing the act.

It is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting
circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of
intelligence, freedom of action or intent or the absence of negligence on the
part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as the second element of
dolus (criminal intent), Albert has stated:

"The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power necessary to

determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act,
no crime can exist, and because xxx the child (has) no intelligence, the law
exempts (him) from criminal liability."
 3

It is for this reason, therefore, why minors under fifteen (15) years of age
and below are not capable of performing a criminal act. (R.A. No. 9344, the
age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.)

Memorize the three (3) Exempting Circumstances

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability, - The

following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during

a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which

the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12, is one who must be deprived
completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of
committing the crime. He is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and seven years or
age.

Insanity

Insanity is one of the exempting circumstances enumerated in Article 12 of

the Revised Penal Code.

An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted

during a lucid interval. If the court therefore finds the accused insane when
the alleged crime was committed, he shall be acquitted but the court shall
order his confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be
released without danger. An acquittal of the accused does not result in his
outright release, but rather in a verdict which is followed by commitment of
the accused to a mental institution.

In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation
of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability. The accused must be "so insane as to
be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent." He must be deprived of
reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete
absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will.

In this jurisdiction, it had been consistently and uniformly held that the plea
of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance. Hence, the accused
is tried on the issue of insanity alone, and if found to be insane, a judgment
of conviction is rendered without any trial on the issue of guilt, because the
accused had already admitted, committing the crime. This Court had also
consistently ruled that for the plea of insanity to prosper, the accused must
present clear and convincing evidence to support the claim.
 4

In People v. Florendo, the Court held that "the prevalent meaning

of the word crazy' is not synonymous with the legal terms insane, 'non
compos mentis,' unsound mind, ‘idiot' or ‘lunatic.' The popular conception of
the word 'crazy' is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out
of the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner but it does not
necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so." Not every
aberration of the mind or mental deficiency constitutes insanity.

Elements:

Thus, for the defense of insanity to prosper, 2 elements must concur:

1. That defendant's insanity constitutes a complete deprivation

intelligence, reason, or discernment; and

2.That such insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding the
commission of the crime.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 (exempting circumstance of minority) are

deemed repealed and amended by the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006 or R.A. No. 9344.

By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has

been raised from 9 to 15 years old.

Exemption from criminal liability proceeds from a finding that the

harm to the victim was not due to the fault or negligence of the accused, but
to circumstances that could not have been foreseen or controlled.

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws. (Sec. 6, RA. 9344, Juvinile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 as
amended by RA 10630)

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.

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

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

of an equal or greater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when

prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
 5

Absolutory causes, defined.

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime

but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
imposed.

Art. 247, pars. 1 and 2. - Death or physical injuries inflicted under

exceptional circumstances. - Any legally married person who, having
surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer
the penalty of destierro.

Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances.

(1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not

transgress the law, that is, he does not commit any crime in
the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act
as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person
is in itself both just and lawful.

In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a criminal. No civil

liability, except in paragraph 4 (causing damage to another in state of
necessity).

(2) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal

liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable. There is
civil liability, except in paragraphs 4 and 7 (causing an injury by mere
accident; failing to perform an act required by law when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause) of Article 12. (See Art. 101 which does not
mention pars. 4 and 7 of Art. 12)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Memorize the three (3) Mitigating Circumstances

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating

circumstances:

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites

necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.

2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In
the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80.

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that

committed.
 6

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party

immediately preceded the act.

5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave

offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives
by affinity within the same degrees.

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have

produced passion or obfuscation.

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in

authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before
the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering some
physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow beings.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the

willpower of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of
his acts.

10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous
to those above-mentioned.

The rationale behind the whole concept of mitigating circumstances is to

show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of an accused who has
nevertheless shown lesser perversity in the commission of an offense.

Par. 1.- Those mentioned in the preceding chapter when all the requisites
necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.

"Those mentioned in the preceding chapter."

This clause has reference to (1) justifying circumstances, and (2)

exempting circumstances which are covered by Chapter Two of Title One.

The circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to

mitigation, because not all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant, are the
following:

(1) Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1)

(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2);
(3) Defense of stranger (Art. 11, par. 3);
(4) State of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4);
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5);
(6) Obedience to order of superior (Art. 11, par.6)
(7) Minority above 15 but below 18 years of age (R.A. No. 9344)
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par. 4); and
(9) Uncontrollable fear. (Art. 12, par. 6)
 7

Paragraph 1 of Article 13, all the requisites necessary to justify the

act are not attendant, is applicable only when unlawful aggression is
present but the other two requisites are not present.

The paragraph refers to Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and

defense of stranger.

Note that in these three classes of defense, unlawful aggression must be

present, it being an indispensable requisite. What is absent is either one or
both of the last two requisites.

Incomplete self-defense, when ordinary mitigating and when

privileged mitigating.

When unlawful aggression (by the victim) alone is proved, such incomplete
self-defense is to be appreciated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance
under Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. When it is
combined with another element of self-defense, such incomplete self-
defense becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 69 of the
same Code. (De Luna v. CA, 244 SCRA 762-763)

Generic Mitigating will lower the penalty to one (1) degree while a privileged
mitigating circumstance will lower the penalty to two (2) degrees.

Par. 4.- That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the

offended party immediately preceded the act.

What is provocation?

By provocation is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the

offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.

Requisites:

1. That the provocation must be sufficient;

2. That it must originate from the offended party; and
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the
commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.

The provocation must be sufficient.

Provocation in order to be mitigating must be sufficient and immediately

preceding the act. (People v. Pagal, No. L-32040, October 25, 1977, 79
SCRA 570, 576-576)

The word "sufficient" means adequate to excite a person to commit the

wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. (People v.
Nabora, 73 Phil. 434, 435) As to whether a provocation is sufficient depends
upon the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person
provoked, the place and the time when the provocation is made.

Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime.

 8

Between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of the
crime by the person provoked, there should not be any interval of time.

The reason for this requirement is that the law states that the provocation
"immediately preceded the act." When there is an interval of time between
the provocation and the commission of the crime, the conduct of the
offended party could not have excited the accused to the commission of the
crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control.

Par. 6. - That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to

have produced passion or obfuscation.

This paragraph requires that-

1. The accused acted upon an impulse; and

2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or

obfuscation in him.

Why passion or obfuscation is mitigating.

When there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement,

he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his
will power.

Requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation:

1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a

condition of mind; and

2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from
the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which
the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.

Rule for the application of this paragraph.

Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when

the same arose from lawful sentiments.

For this reason, even if there is actually passion or obfuscation on the part of
the offender, there is no mitigating circumstance, when:

(1) The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness; or

(2) The act is committed in a spirit of revenge.

Par. 7. - That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person

in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.
 9

Two mitigating circumstances are provided in this paragraph.

1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agent; and.

2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of

evidence for the prosecution.

Requisites of voluntary surrender to be a mitigating circumstance.

a. That the offender had not been actually arrested.

b. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the

latter's agent.

C. That the surrender was voluntary.

Requisite of voluntariness.

For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in

such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt
or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily
incurred in his search and capture.

Not considered Voluntary Surrender:

If the accused surrendered only after the warrant of arrest was served upon
him.

When it took two years and five months after the issuance of warrant of
arrest against him before he surrendered.

Requisites of plea of guilty.

In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, the three

requisites must be present:

1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;

2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the
competent court that is to try the case; and

3. That the confession of guilt must be made prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution.

Reasons why plea of guilty is mitigating.

It is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral

disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform.
 10

Par. 8. - That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
from some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense,
or communication with his fellow beings.

Physical defect must restrict means of action, defense or

communication with fellow beings.

Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such as being armless,

cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings are limited, like deaf and dumb. Showing
that he/she does not have complete freedom of action and, therefore, there
is a diminution of that element of voluntariness.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission

of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.

Basis

They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by: (1) the motivating power itself; (2)
the place of commission; (3) the means and ways employed; (4) the time;
or (5) the personal circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.

Four kinds of aggravating circumstances.

1. Generic- Those that can generally apply to all crimes.

Example - Dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism.

In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9,

10, 14, 18, 19, and 20, except "by means of motor vehicles," are generic
aggravating circumstances.

2. Specific - Those that apply only to particular crimes.

Example - Ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in

crimes against persons.

In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs (except dwelling) 15, 16, 17,
and 21 are specific aggravating circumstances.

3. Qualifying - Those that change the nature of the crime.

Example - Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing

of a person from Homicide to Murder.

Article 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which

qualify the killing of person to murder.

4. Inherent- Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the

crime. (Art. 62, par. 2)
 11

Example- Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa,

adultery, and concubinage.

Relationship is inherent in parricide.

If inherent to the crime, it cannot be appreciated as aggravating or

mitigating.

Aggravating circumstances not presumed.

An aggravating circumstance should be proved as fully as the crime itself in

order to increase the penalty. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to
be appreciated and to increase the penalty.

Effect on the existence of an aggravating circumstance.

The effect of the existence of an aggravating circumstance in the

commission of the crime, not offset by any mitigating circumstance, is to
increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the
maximum period, but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law.

Basis of aggravating circumstance.

Greater perversity of the offender.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Memorize the three (3) Aggravating Circumstances

Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.- The following are aggravating

circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public

authorities.

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect

due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it
be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has
not given provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious

ungratefulness.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in

his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
 12

6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited

place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed
by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,

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

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who
insure or afford impunity.

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of this Code.

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

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or

promise.

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,

explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of
a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and
ruin.

13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to

weaken the defense.

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

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add

ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

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

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not

intended for the purpose
 13

19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door,
or window be broken.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years
of age, or by means of motor vehicle, airships, or other similar means.

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

Par. 1.- That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

Applicable only when the offender is a public officer.

The aggravating circumstance that advantage be taken by the offender of

his public position applies only when the person committing the crime is a
public officer who takes advantage of his public position.

Meaning of "advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position."

The public officer must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his
office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose. The essence
of the matter is presented in the inquiry, "Did the accused abuse his office in
order to commit the crime?"

If the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without occupying his
position, there is no abuse of public position

Par. 2. -That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the

public authorities.

Requisites of this circumstance:

1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.

2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the
person against whom the crime is committed. (U.S. v. Rodriguez, 19 Phil.
160, 156; enple v. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307, 317)

3. The offeder knows him to be a public authority

4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal
act.

Meaning of "public authority."

A public authority, sometimes also called a person in authority, is a public

officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who
has the power to govern and execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the
governor, etc., are persons in authority. The barangay captain and barangay
chairman are also persons in authority. A policeman or a chief of police of a
 14

town is not a public authority, but an agent of the persons in authorities or

public authority.

Par. 3. That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (6) age, or (c)
sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.

Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor.

This circumstance (rank, age, or sex) may be taken into account only in
crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime, there
is some insult or disrespect to rank, age or sex. It is not proper to consider
this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with
homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons.
Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal.

Killing a woman is not attended by this aggravating circumstance if the

offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards her sex.

What aggravates the commission of the crime in one's dwelling:

1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the

offender by opening the door to him; or

2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with

violence or against the will of the owner.

That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party.

Applies if the offended party has not given provocation.

Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and

comfort.
A "combination house and store"

Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:

When both offender and offended party are occupants of the same house.

Dwelling is not aggravating in rape where accused and the offended party
are domiciled in the same house.

Par. 4. That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence, or (2)
obvious ungratefulness.

There are two aggravating circumstances in this paragraph.

Basis of these aggravating circumstances.

They are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
means and ways employed.
 15

Abuse of confidence.

This circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the
offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime. The abuse of
confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would
not abuse said confidence.

Requisites:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.

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

Par. 6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an

uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may
facilitate the commission of the offense.

Basis of the aggravating circumstances.

They are based on the time and place of the commission of the crime and
means and ways employed.

When aggravating.

Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating-

(1) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or

(2) When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of
the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or

(3) When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

(a) Nighttime.

Nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime to such an extent that the
defendant was able to consummate it with all its dastardly details without
anyone of the persons living in the same premises becoming aware of what
was going on.

Although the offense was committed at nighttime, the record does not show
that appellant had sought it purposely or taken advantage thereof to
facilitate the perpetration of the offense. In fact, the place from which he
fired at Laguna seemed to be sufficiently lighted for him to be clearly visible
to, as well as recognized by, all of those who happened to be nearby.

(b) Uninhabited place.

That the place is uninhabited is determined, not by the distance of the

nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of
its commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
 16

help. Thus, the crime is committed in an uninhabited place where the killing
was done during nighttime, in a sugarcane plantation about a hundred
meters from the nearest house, and the sugarcane in the field was tall
enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby.

(c) By a band.

What is a band?

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in
the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by
a band.

The armed men must act together in the commission of the crime.

The mere fact that there are more than three armed men at the scene of the
crime does not prove the existence of a band, if only one of them committed
the crime while the others were not aware of the commission of the crime.
The definition of "by a band" says that the armed men "shall have acted
together in the commission of the offense.

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

shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

Reason for the aggravation.

The reason for the existence of this circumstance is found in the debased
form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead
of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
their misfortune to despoil them.

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

Requisites of this aggravating circumstance.

1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
directly or indirectly; and

2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the
crime was committed.

The armed men must be acting in the commission of the crime under the
same purpose of the accused, otherwise, they may be considered as
accomplices.

Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist.

Who is a recidivist?

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of the R.P.C..
 17

Requisites:

1 That the offender is on trial for an offense;

2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;

3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title
of the Code;

4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

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

Requisites:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;

2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.

Par. 11. -That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or

promise.

This aggravating circumstance presupposes the concurrence of two

or more offenders.

When this aggravating circumstance is present, there must be two or more

principals, the one who gives or offers the price or promise and the one who
accepts it, both of whom are principals to the former, because he directly
induces the latter to commit the crime, and the latter because he commits it.

Price, reward or promise must be for the purpose of inducing

another to perform the deed.

The evidence must show that one of the accused used money or other
valuable consideration for the purpose of inducing another to perform the
deed.

If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the crime had been
committed as an expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and aid
shown by other accused, it should not be take into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.

Par. 14. – That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed.
Craft (involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
Accused).
Craft involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the
accused.
 18

The act of the accused in pretending to be bona fide passengers in the

taxicab driven by the deceased, when they were not so in fact, in order not
to arouse his suspicion, and then killing him, constituted craft.

Where defendants pretended to be constabulary soldiers to gain entry into

the place of the victims, craft is properly appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance.

Disguise (resorting to any device to conceal identity).

The fact that the defendant had his face blackened in order that he should
not be recognized at the time he committed the crime constitutes the
aggravating circumstance of disguise.

The accused with two others wore masks to cover their faces. There could
have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their identities
particularly for the one who was very much known to the offended parties.
The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving the way for this
one’s identification does not render the aggravating circumstance of disguise
inapplicable.

Par. 15. – That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or (2) means
be employed to weaken the defense.
Meaning of “advantage be taken.”
Note the word “advantage” in this paragraph.
To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive
force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked.

Illustrations of abuse of superior strength.

An illustration of the cases which fall within this provision is where, for
example, a strong man has ill-treated a child, an old or decrepit person, or
one weakened by disease, or where a person’s physical strength has been
overcome by the use of drugs or intoxicants. In each of these cases, there is
a marked difference of physical strength between the offended party and the
offender.

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the

age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission
of the crime.

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

Meaning of treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
 19

Treachery means that the offended party was not given opportunity to make
a defense.

Par. 20. That the crime be committed (1 with the aid of persons under
fifteen years of age, or (2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other
similar means.
Two different aggravating circumstances in paragraph 20.

By means of motor vehicles."

Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused used the motor
vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects
thereof, and in facilitating their escape.
Chapter Five
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Art. 15. Their concept. Alternative circumstances are those which must be
taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
They are the relationship, intoxication, and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration

when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same
degree of the offender.

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a

mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state
of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to
commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Memorize the Three (3) alternative circumstances

he alternative circumstances are:

1. Relationship;

2. Intoxication; and

3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Relationship.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration

when the offended party is the
(a) spouse,

(b) ascendant,
 20

(c) descendant,

(d) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or

(e) relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

When mitigating and when aggravating.

The law is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when it is

aggravating.

As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to

the provisions of Article 332.

lt is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases where the offended party

is a relative of a higher degree than the offender, or when the offender and
the offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, a
brother-in-law.

When the crime against persons is homicide or murder, relationship is

aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a relative of lower degree.

If the commission of the crime against persons resulted in the death of the
victim who is a relative of a lower degree of the offender, relationship is an
aggravating circumstance. This rule applies when the crime committed is
homicide (Art. 249) or murder (Art. 248).

Thus, the killing of a stepdaughter by her stepmother is attended by the

circumstance of relationship which is considered as aggravating.

In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating.

In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336), relationship

is aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or
lower degree of the offended party.

Reason for the difference in the rule.

Because of the nature and effect of the crime committed, it is considered

aggravating although the offended party is a relative of lower degree. It is
not shocking to our moral sense when we hear that a father committed, for
instance, the crime of slight physical injury against his daughter; but it
certainly is very shocking when we hear that a father committed acts of
lasciviousness on the person of his own daughter.

Intoxication.

a. Mitigating- (1) if intoxication is not habitual, or (2) if intoxication is not

subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
 21

b. Aggravating - (1) if intoxication is habitual, or (2) if it is intentional

(subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).

It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to
find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any
remorse.

Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating.

High degree of instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender

avails himself of his learning in committing the crime.

Lack of education and instruction is not mitigating in murder.

Lack of education and instruction cannot mitigate appellant's guilt because

to kill is forbidden by natural law which every rational being is endowed to
know and feel.

Memorize the Three (3) persons criminally liable as to degree of

their participation in the commission of the crime.

Art. 16. Who are criminally liable.

The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:

1. Principals.

2. Accomplices.

3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.

Art. 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished. (Principals
by indispensable cooperation.

Art. 18. Accomplices.- Accomplices are the persons who, not being
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts.

Art. 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
 22

principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of

the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of

the crime;

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the

crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.

Accessory in robbery and theft could not be is a principal in fencing.

(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612, ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979)

Title Three
PENALTIES

Chapter One
PENALTIES IN GENERAL

Penalty, defined.

Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of
a law.

Concept of penalty.

Penalty in its general sense signifies pain; especially considered in the

juridical sphere, it means suffering undergone, because of the action of
human society, by one who commits a crime.

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is
not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence
has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of

imprisonment. - Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty.

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime

because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. -
When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the
acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not
produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court,
 23

having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the
offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine
ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.

Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. - A deduction of one fifth of
the period of his sentence shall be granted to an prisoner who, having
evadedhis preventive imprisonment or the service ofhis sentence under the
circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in
said article. A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted
in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement
notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in
Article 158 of this Code. This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence.
(As amended by R.A. No. 10592)

Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY

Chapter One
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIESS

As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of injuries:

1. Social injury, produced by the disturbance and alarm which are the
outcome of the offense.

2. Personal injury, caused to the victim of the crime who may have suffered
damage, either to his person, to his property, to his honor, or to her
chastity.
The social injury is sought to be repaired through the imposition of the
corresponding penalty; while the personal injury, through indemnity, which
is civil in nature.

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. – Every person

criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

Memorize the three (3)

Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. The civil liability established
in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:

1. Restitution;

2. Reparation of damage caused;

3. Indemnification for consequential damages.

 24

Art. 105. Restitution- How made - The restitution of the thing itself must
be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration or
diminution of value as determined by the court. The thing itself shall be
restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who
has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the
proper person who may be liable to him. This provision is not applicable in
cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the
manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its
recovery.

In theft, the culprit is duty-bound to return the property stolen.

Art. 106. Reparation - How made. - The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing,
whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party,
and reparation shall be made accordingly.

In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the
value of the property stolen; in case of physical injuries, the reparation of
the damage caused would consist in the payment of hospital bills and
doctor's fees to the offended party.

Art. 107. Indemnification - What is included. - Indemnification of

consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party,
but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the
crime.

Indemnifications for consequential damages - the loss of his salary or

earning.

Important to pass the Final Exam:

Memorize 2 instances how criminal Liability is incurred

Memorize the three (3) requisites to invoke self defense

Memorize at least three (3) Exempting Circumstances

Memorize at least three (3) Mitigating Circumstances

Memorize at least three (3) Aggravating Circumstances

Memorize the three (3) Alternative Circumstances

Memorize the three (3) persons criminally liable as to the degree of

their participation in the commission of the Crime or Offense

Memorize the three (3) forms of Civil Liabilities as defined in the

Revised Penal Code