TOPICS FOR MIDTERMS

MODIFYING/AFFECTING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11) 4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12) 5. Alterative Circumstances (Art. 15)
3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
Keyword: JEMAA
1. Justifying Circumstances – Any person acting under any of the justifying circumstances does not incur criminal liability. The
act of a person under any of the justifying circumstances is in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liabilities except in par. 4 of Art. 11, where the civil liability is to be
shared by the persons who benefited by the act.
2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12) – Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits a
crime. However, due to the absence of any of the conditions which constitutes free will, no criminal liability arises. There is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of conditions which makes the act voluntary or negligent. There is however civil liability
except in paragraph 4.
3. Mitigating Circumstances – These circumstances are based on the diminution of either the freedom of action, intelligence, or
intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender. It results to the reduction of the penalty in terms of degree or period.
4. Aggravating Circumstances – these are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the
felony.
5. Alternative Circumstance – the basis of these alternative circumstance is the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. It is either mitigating or aggravating.

OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF FACTORS WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Absolutory Causes
a. Instigation
b. Spontaneous desistance in attempted felony (Art. 6)
c. Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16)
d. Certain accessories in light felonies (Art. 20)
e. Art. 247 physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

2. Extenuating Circumstance which are mitigating circumstances not found in Art. 13.
a. Art. 333; If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the
offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
b. Art. 255 (Infanticide – killing a 3 year old baby); If the crime be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Definitions:
1. Imputability – is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author
2. Responsibility – is the obligation of suffering the penal and civil consequences of the crime
3. Guilt – is an element of responsibility that a person has not only committed an act but that it also amounted to a crime

Justifying Circumstance – those where the acts of a person are said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not
to have transgressed the law and is free both criminal and civil liability.
Basis – The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Article 11 that the persons
therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability.”

What are the justifying circumstances

1. Self-defense
2. Defense of a relative
3. Defense of a stranger
4. State of necessity
5. Fulfilment of a duty
6. Obedience to a lawful order
7. The battered women syndrome (RA 9262)

1. SELF-DEFENSE – Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following concur:
a. Unlawful aggression (from the victim)
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Reason of Self-defense:
The State cannot afford to give 24-hour protection to its inhabitants and cannot always come to the aid of the person under attack. He
then has to defend himself by following his instinct of self-preservation. The State recognizes this inherent right of a person.

Rights included in self-defense:

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person who is assaulted but also that of his rights. Thus, it includes:
1. Right to honor. A slap on the face is considered an unlawful aggression. The face represents a person and his dignity. It is a
serious physical attack.
2. Defense of property. This can be invoked if there is an attack on the property owner or legal possessor.

Nature of self-defense as a defense:

It is an admission and avoidance. Admit the killing and avoid criminal liability. But in such case, the person defending himself must
prove the elements clearly and convincingly.
1
FIRST ELEMENT: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non (condition precedent) for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There
is no self-defense if there is no unlawful aggression.

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – it contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely
a threatening or intimidating attitude.

2 kinds:
1. Actual – actual aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon which show the positive determination of the
aggressor to cause injury. It partakes of an act that is positively strong and poses a real danger to the life or limb of another
person. Thus, a mere push or nudge does not constitute unlawful aggression.
2. Immediate or Imminent – means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening. It is not required that the attack
already begins for it may be too late.
Examples:
a. Brandishing a knife with which to stab the victim; or
b. Aiming the gun with intent to shoot

 Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression but if the threat is offensive and positively strong, showing that wrongful
intent to cause injury, that threat is an unlawful aggression. It cannot consist merely oral threats, although it is not necessary that
the attack already begins. Only the presence of an untoward and material aggression will constitute offensive and positive threat.
 The mere cocking of an M-14 rifle by the victim without aiming it at the accused does not constitute unlawful aggression.
 When there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. Both could be aggressors in the contemplation of law.
 Verbal abuse without physical attack does not constitute unlawful aggression.
 Unlawful aggression no longer exists when the aggressor runs away after the attack, or when the weapon has been wrested from
the aggressor who has manifested refusal to fight.

However, if the latter vigorously tries to wrest back possession of the weapon divested from him, unlawful aggression still exists and
the accused can use reasonable means to prevent or repel it.

 The act of self-defense must succeed the unlawful aggression without an appreciable interval of time. There must have been no
time for the offended party to deliberately or think coolly.
 The rule now is self-defense is “stand ground when in right.” The law does not require a person to retreat when his assailant is
fast advancing to him with a deadly weapon. This is because if he flees he runs the risk of being attacked at the back.
 Retaliation is not self-defense – In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when
the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense.
 In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the accused be
simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of
time.
 Placing of hand by a man on the woman’s upper thigh is unlawful aggression.

SECOND ELEMENT: REASONABLE NECCESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL THE
AGGRESSION
The second requisite of defense means that 1) there be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense, and 2)
there be a necessity of the means used. Both must be reasonable.

This element depends upon the attending circumstances of the case. Whether the means used is reasonable depends on the:
1. Nature and quality of weapon
2. Physical condition
3. Character and size of the protagonists
4. Other circumstances as well as those of the person attacked
5. Time and place of the attack

 The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be wounded or killed, and while the danger to his person or life
subsists, he has a perfect and indisputable right to repel such danger by wounding his adversary and, if necessary, to disable
him completely so that he may not continue the assault.
 In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but
in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation. The reasonableness of the necessity to take a course of action and the
reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed depend upon the circumstances of the case.
 A knife is more dangerous than cub. Its use is reasonable if there is no other available means of defense at the disposal of the
accused and he could not coolly choose other less deadly weapons.
 The means employed must meet the requirements of fair play such that if the unlawful aggression is not that fatal like a slap
on the face, a person cannot use excessive means to defend himself like using a knife or a gun.
 Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required, neither is
the material commensurability between the means of the attack and defense. BECAUSE the person assaulted does not have
the luxury of time and tranquility of mind to ponder on the manner of defense.
 The person defending himself must aim at his assailant and not indiscriminately fire his gun.

2
  If the accused had fired one shot at the aggressor paralyzing him, he is not justified in firing his gun at him 5 times more
killing him in the process. In such case, there was no more unlawful aggression to repel. He is liable for Homicide or Murder
as the case may be.
 Settled is the rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no longer any right to kill or wound the former
aggressor otherwise retaliation and not self-defense is committed.

THIRD ELEMENT: LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING
HIMSELF
Provocation – to incite to anger, arouse, encourage, excite, spark, stimulate

 There is no provocation from the accused

 Even if there was provocation from the accused, it was NOT sufficient
 Even if provocation is sufficient, it must not come from the accused.

 Pepito calls Juan “Pogi” although the latter is ugly. This constitutes provocation. “a praise undeserved is slander is disguise.”
However, this is not sufficient provocation and is does not justify Juan to wound or kill Pepito.
 Romeo who was in a joking mood disarranged the hair of Vicente. The latter god mad and said: “Guluhin mo an ang buhay ko,
huwag lang ang buhok ko” and stabbed Romeo. The act of Romeo is disarranging the hair of Vicente was provocative but it
was not sufficient enough for Vicente to stab Romeo.
 Failure to inform the police of the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and to surrender the knife used in stabbing him
militates against the claim of self-defense.
 Persons who act in in legitimate defense of their persons or rights invariably surrender themselves to the authorities and
describe fully and in all candor all that has happened with a view to justify their acts. The fact that the accused declined to give
any statement when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.
 The presence of many wounds on the victim negates self-defense. It is an oft-repeated rule that the presence of a large number
of wounds, their location and their seriousness would negate self-defense.
 Flight is veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense.
 Defense of property can be invoked as JC only when it is coupled with an attack on the person or one entrusted with the
property.
 There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused believed it was a real gun.

DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, or legitimate natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of
his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided the following
requisites are present:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein.

Relatives who can be defended:

1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. Death of a spouse terminates
the relationship by affinity.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Exampe: A slapped B twice and thereafter attacked him with a bolo. A hacked B twice and inflicted injuries upon B. A continued his
attack upon B. Thereupon, B defended himself and parried the attack of B by using his bolo. A fell on the ground still holding the
bolo. When B was about to hack A, that was the time when C, the brother of A arrived. Before B could hack A, C shot B who died as
result. Is C liable? Why?

Answer: No, C is not liable. He acted in defense of his brother A. Although A was the aggressor, C did not know about it. When he
arrived, he saw that the life of his brother was in danger. As things appeared to him, there was aggression of the part of B which he
had to repel. He acted pursuant to his honest belief. Under the circumstances, the use of the gun was a reasonable means to repel the
aggression. He had no part in the provocation made by A. The 3 elements are present in this case.
 Of the 3 elements of defense of a relative, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, for without it any defense is not
possible or justified.

DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger provided the following requisites concur:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

STATE OF NECESSITY/AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

ANY PERSON, who in order to avoid evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided the following requisites
are present:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3
 3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
Example: Jackie eloped with Ely after all the wedding preparations with JB were made. She was a no-show at the church wedding.
Jackie was charged with Slander by Deed. She was acquitted. The doctrine of state of necessity is applicable. There was a necessity on
the part of Jackie to avoid a loveless marriage. The prospect of living a marital life in perpetual agony constitutes an injury greater
than that done to avoid it.

There is civil liability when wedding invitations have been printed and distributed.

Example: A person driving his car on a narrow road with due diligence and care when suddenly he saw a “six by six” truck in front of
his car. If he would swerve his car to the left he would fall into a precipice, or if he would swerve it to the right he would kill a
passerby. He was forced to choose between losing his life in the precipice or sacrificing the life of the innocent bystander. He chose
the latter, swerved his car to the right, ran over and killed the passerby.

Example: Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to prevent its spread, to adjacent houses of strong materials, the
surrounding nipa houses are pulled down.
Example: During the storm, the ship which was heavily loaded with goods was in danger of sinking. The captain of the vessel ordered
part of the goods thrown overboard. In this case, the captain is not criminally liable for causing part of the goods thrown overboard.

ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN THE FULFILLMENT OF THE A DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT
OR OFFICE

Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
2. That the injury caused by the offense committed be the necessary consequence or the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office.

Performance of Duty
If a prisoner who was escaping disregarded the warning shots of the jail guard and there is no other remedy except to fire at him to
prevent him from escaping the guard is not criminally liable. It is his duty to prevent the escape of the prisoner and in doing so, he has
the right to employ any means which is not capricious, arbitrary and unreasonable.

 A security guard who shot a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified. He may have acted in the performance of his
duty but he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty.
 Although an officer in making an arrest is justified in using force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with a wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when
the arrest could be affected otherwise.

Exercise of a right:
The doctrine of self-help under Art. 429 of the Civil Code is applicable and which states:
“The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For
this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.”

Example: A constructed a small house in a piece of land which he believed to be a disposable public land. He had been occupying the
lot for over a year. One day, B, came and claimed ownership over the land. B proceeded in dismantling the house of A. The latter
pleaded to A to stop but his plea fell on deaf ears. Thereupon, A pulled B to prevent him from further dismantling his house. In the
process, B fell on the ground and suffered physical injuries.

Answer: A is not liable. Under the law, he has the right to employ reasonable force to repel or prevent actual or threatened assault on
his property. His act of pulling B was reasonably necessary to protect his possessory right over his property.

Problem: Suppose in the same example, A shot B with his 45 caliber gun instead of pulling down B and B dies as a result.

Answer: This time A is criminally liable for the death of B. His act of shooting B to death is not reasonably necessary to prevent the
invasion of his property. For A to be justified in killing B, the attack against his property must be coupled with an attack against his
person and that there must be reasonable necessity of the means employed by him to prevent or repel the aggression.

ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL
PURPOSE
Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out such order is lawful

 An individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to an order issued by a superior, if such order, is for some lawful
purpose and that the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
 A subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality and he is not negligent.
 If a police officer, upon order of the police chief, kills a suspect for not giving an extrajudicial confession, he is criminally
liable because the order to execute the suspect is illegal and the police officers is not bound to obey it.

4
THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

RA 9262 known as the Anti-Violence against women and their children act of 2004 provides:

Battery – refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or
emotional distress.

Who is a battered woman?

A battered woman is one who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce
her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must
go through the acute battering cycle at least twice.

Battered Woman Syndrome – refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.

In order to be classified as a battered woman, the accused and her spouse must go through the battering cycle as least twice.

3 phases of the so-called “cycle of violence” in the battered woman syndrome

1. Tension-building phase – during this phase, minor battering occurs. It could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another
form hostile behavior.
2. Acute battering incident – is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes death.
3. Tranquil period – the final phase of the cycle of violence begins when acute battering incident ends. The couple experience
profound relief. The batterer may show tender nurturing behavior towards his partner

 Victims-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” do not incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
 Trapped in the cycle of violence, the perception of danger on the part of the battered woman has changed. Mere sight of the
husband batterer became synonymous with unlawful aggression. Actual physical aggression is not required. It is a requisite
thought that the accused be found to be suffering from the syndrome.

ARTICLE 12: CIRCUMSTANCECS WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Exempting Circumstances – are those that exempt a person from criminal liability because there is an absence in the agent of the crime
any of the conditions that would make the act voluntary or negligent.

 the exemption from criminal liability is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom, intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused.
 In exempting circumstance there is a crime but no criminal liability arises. There is however civil liability except under the
paragraph 4.
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, the court shall order the
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.

Insanity – exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence of freedom or the will. Mere abnormality is not enough.

Imbecility – is feeblemindedness. It exist when a person while of advanced age, has a mental development of a child between two and
seven year of age.

 He who alleges insanity must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime because the
presumption is always in favor of sanity.

Effect of Insanity of the accused:

1. At the time of the commission of the crime – exempting
2. During trial – criminal proceedings will be suspended
3. After Judgment or while serving sentence – the execution of judgment of conviction shall be suspended and the court shall
order the accused be committed to a hospital

Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity

When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal attack is common, because of delusions
that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being taken. During the period of excitement, such person has no
control whatever of his acts.

Crazy is not same as insane – the fact that person behaves crazily does not mean that he is insane. 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 the he is legally so.

Kleptomania
It depends and must be investigated by psychiatrist. If the unlawful act is due “to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing an
irresistible impulse, as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable him to prevent
himself from doing the act,” the irresistible impulse, should be covered by the term insanity

5
On the other hand, if the mental disease or mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his will-power, and did not deprive him of the
consciousness of his acts, then it may be only mitigating.

 Epilepsy may be covered by the term “insanity”

 Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the offender could distinguish right from wrong.
 Somnambulism or sleep-walking (committing a crime while in a dream) is covered by the term insanity.

In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without
sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. He is moving like a robot, unaware of what he is doing. So the element of
voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. If element of
voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is not among those
enumerated in Article 12, refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause.

2. A child of 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability. The child shall
be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 29 of the RA 9344;

3. A person over 15 years of age and but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and he be subjected
to an intervening program (diversion proceedings), unless he/she acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with RA 9344;
 Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability.
 Age to be computed at the time of the commission of the crime.
 In case diversion proceedings failed, or refusal thereto, the criminal case shall proceed.

Automatic Suspension Of Sentence – once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found
guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committees. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with law under
suspended sentence, without need of application. Provided, however, that the suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the
juvenile is already 18 years of age but not more than 21 years of age at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Child in conflict with the law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under
Philippine Laws.

Discernment – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of an unlawful act. It can be shown by the manner the crime was
committed and the conduct or utterances of the offender after the commission of the offense.
SENILITY – it is said that the end of our earthly life is very much like its beginning, and that is why a senile person is said to be in his
second childhood. Hence, senility which is the age over 70, is only mitigating. It cannot be considered as similar to infancy which is
exempting.

4. Any person who while in performing a lawful act with due care, causes injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it. (Accident)
Elements:

1. Performance of a lawful act

2. With due care
3. Causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without any fault or intention of causing it

Basis: Any happening beyond the control of a person the consequence of which are not foreseeable. If foreseeable, there is fault or
culpa.

Accident – something that happens outside the sway or our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond
the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

Example: Jordan was driving his car moderately and was observing traffic laws and regulations. All of a sudden, a child dashed across
the street. Jordan instantaneously stepped on his brake and swerved to the left to avoid hitting the child. Despite his efforts, the child
was hit resulting to his death

Answer: Jordan is not criminally liable and civilly liable. He was driving his car carefully and with due care. He had no intention of
hitting the child and there was no fault or negligence on his part.

Example: A policeman fired his gun on the ground to stop the persons engaged in a fight to stop. The bullet ricocheted and fatally hit
bystander who died as a result.

Answer: There was negligence on his part when he willfully discharged his firearm. He did not consider the fact that the place was
populated and the likelihood that his bullet might hit other persons.

 The exemption from criminal liability under the circumstances showing accident is based on the lack of criminal action. For
an accident to be an exempting circumstance, that act has to be lawful – the act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful
act.

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

6
Basis: complete absence of freedom of action, an element of voluntariness
Elements:

1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force

2. That the physical force must be irresistible
3. That the physical force must come from a third person
4. The irresistible force must be made to operate directly upon the person of the accused
 The force must be irresistible as to reduce the actor to mere instruments who act not only without will but against his will. A
threat to kill or future harm is not enough.
 The accused acts not only without a will but against his will. The irresistible force must be physical force or violence and
must come from a third person and produces an effect upon the individual that in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a
mere instrument and as such incapable of committing a crime.

Example: A, B and C took turns in beating X to compel him to open the safe of a bank. Considering that X could not withstand the
pain, he opened the safe and the culprits got the money deposited inside the safe. The act of X was compelled by physical force and
violence. He was reduced to a mere instrument of a crime. He is not criminally liable.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
Impulse of an uncontrollable fear – the fear must be of insuperable and the person who acts under insuperable fear is completely
deprived of freedom.

Elements:

1. The threat which caused the feat is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to that which the accused was required to commit;
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would succumb to it;
3. The uncontrollable fear may be generated by a threatened act directed to a third person such as the wife of the accused.

Basis: “Actus me invite factus non est meus factus” – an act done by me against my will is not my act. It is based on complete absence
of freedom.

 For duress to exempt the accused of the crime charged, “the fear must be well founded, and immediate and actual damages of
death or great bodily harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to
accused for escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat.

Example: A threatened to blow the heard of B with a shotgun if B does not kill X. For B, his life is far greater than the life of X.

 The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense.

Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear – in irresistible force, the offender uses violence or physical force to
compel another person to commit a crime; in uncontrollable fear, the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Insuperable Cause – a cause which prevents a person to do what the law requires. It applies to felonies by omission.

Elements:

1. That the act is required by law to be done

2. That a person fails to perform such act
3. That his future to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

Example: A police officer was not able to file the case within the period prescribed by Art. 125 (12, 18, and 36) because he was
prevented by the distance from the place of arrest up to the municipality. This constitutes a non-performance of the duty due
insuperable cause.

Basis: Because the accused acted without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.

Justifying Circumstance vs Exempting Circumstance

1. A person who acts by virtue of JC does not transgressed 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.
There is no civil liability except in par. 4 (causing damage to another in state of necessity)
2. In Exempting circumstance, there is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable.
There is civil liability except in par. 4 (causing injury by mere accident) and par. 7 (failing to perform an act required by the
law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause)

Aside from the 7 exempting circumstances instigation and absolutory causes also produce exemption from criminal liability.

7
Absolutory cause – those where the acts committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy the accused is exempt from criminal
liability.

1. Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6) – the spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a felony before
he could perform all the acts of execution.
2. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, estafa and malicious mischief (Art. 332)
a. Spouses, ascendants and descendants
b. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed
into the possession of another
c. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together
4. Instigation committed by a peace officer
5. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
a. 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 of immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro;
b. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents, with respect to their daughters under 18 years
of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
6. Marriage (Art. 344) – in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provision of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices, and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned
crimes.

INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation
absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and,
therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did
upon instigation of the law enforcers.

Example of Instigation:

An agent, representing himself as engaged in gambling, approached the accused and induced the latter to look for an opium den where
he said he could smoke opium the agent went to the accused three times to convince the latter of his desire to smoke opium. Because
of the insistence of the agent, the accused made efforts to look for a place where both of them could smoke opium until finally he
found one. Both of them then smoke opium. After a while the agent arrested the accused.

Entrapment – refers to the ways and means resorted to by a peace officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in
the execution of their criminal plan.

A buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts
with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the dangerous drug and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns
over or delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or other consideration. Once the transaction is
consummated, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be held to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in
the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private person.

Difference between instigation and entrapment

1. Instigation takes place when a peace officer induces an innocent person to commit a crime. Entrapment signifies that ways and
means are resorted to by peace officers to apprehend a person who has committed a crime.
2. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution. In entrapment, mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal.
3. In instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so
it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties.
On the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. It did not emanate from the
mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate
the apprehension of the culprit.
4. The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness.
5. If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law enforcer who planted
that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have been a criminal. If the instigator is not a law
enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation.
6. In instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the
law enforcer incriminates himself. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law
enforcer. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it
is a civil duty to cooperate. If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows
him to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement; both will be criminally liable.
7. In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. The idea is
incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. The officer who
entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways
and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law.

8
 8. Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if
his mind is not criminal. On the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It is not even mitigating.

Extenuating circumstances
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. In other words, this has the same effect as mitigating
circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13.

Illustrations:
1. An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance
insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned.
Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. Since there is a material
lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance.

The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of
parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above.

In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, at the time she was abandoned by her
husband, is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of
the woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there
is an extenuating circumstance.

2. A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exempting.
One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. But he would be given the benefit of
a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the
exercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his act. So this is an extenuating
circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstance are those which if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability
but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Basis: Diminution of freedom of action, intelligence, or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
Classes of Mitigating Circumstances
1. Ordinary mitigating
2. Privileged mitigating

Distinctions:
1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance. A privileged mitigating circumstance
cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance.
2. One ordinary mitigating circumstance is not offset by a generic aggravating circumstance has the effect of imposing the
minimum penalty. A privileged mitigating circumstances has the effect of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees lower
than the prescribed by law.
3. The presence of 2 or more ordinary mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance partake of the nature of a
privileged mitigating as the penalty to be imposed is one degree lower to that prescribed by law.
4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are privileged mitigating circumstance while the rest of those provided in Art. 13 are ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. When the minor is over 15 but below 18 year of age who acted with discernment. (1 degree lower)
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance under Art. 11 when only the indispensable element of unlawful aggression is present or
when unlawful aggression and any of the other elements are present.
Art. 69. Incomplete Self-defense – if only unlawful aggression is present, the accused is entitled to a penalty 1 degree lower.
If unlawful aggression and any one of the two other remaining elements are present, the accused is entitled to a penalty of 2
degrees lower.
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance under Art. 12
 Mitigating circumstance only reduce the penalty, but do not change the nature of the crime.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
 Those JC and EC when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are
not attendant.
a. Incomplete Self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of stranger – unlawful aggression must be present, it being an
indispensable requisite. What is absent is either one or both of the last two requisites.
Example: the aggressor was drunk when he was killed. His aim proved faulty and easily evaded as shown by the fact that the
person defending was not hit by the stab-attempts-blows directed against him. The necessity of the means used to repel the
aggression is not clearly reasonable.

Example: defense of relative - the accused could not been impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to
avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin because was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil. This is because of the
running family feud between them.

b. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury – if any of the last two requisites is absent, there
in only mitigating circumstance
c. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty
9
 d. Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order
e. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident – A was driving his car. When he reached the school zone, he did not
slow down despite the traffic signs along the road. Suddenly, a pupil dashed across the street. He instinctively swerved to
the right but as he was speeding, he still bumped the child who dies as a result. (element of due care or without fault on
the offender is absent)
f. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear

 That the offender is above 15 but under 18 years of age who acted with discernment or over seventy years. (one degree lower)
Basis – diminution of intelligence or intent
15 and below – exempting
16-17 – exempting unless the CICL acted with discernment in which case the penalty is suspended
70 years or over – mitigating

 That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed – this is an effect of praeter intentionem. The
result of the wrongful act done is greater than what was intended.
 That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
Provocation – any act of the offended party that excites or stirs up emotions or actions or capable of irritating anyone.
Threat – indication that harm or injury will be inflicted
Immediate – means that there is no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime.

Example: kicking the accused, cursing the accused, hitting the ears of the accused, infidelity of the wife which made the
husband kill her.
 The provocation must be sufficient, that is, it must be adequate to excite a person to commit a crime.
 As to whether or not 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.
 That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

Requisites:
a. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
b. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

Immediate – allows a lapse of time as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental anguish and wounded feelings
brought about by the offense to him.

Example: A shouted at the accused who is 70 years of age in a baptismal party, “Hoy tanda pang ilang balik mo nay an, and
siba mo,” in the presense of many guests who laughed aloud upon hearing the remarks. The accused lunged at A and hit him
repeatedly with a piece of wood.
Example: the act of the victim of urinating on the accused in front of guests; the act of the victim punching the accused in the
presence of so many people at a wedding party.

Example: the act of the accused stabbing the person nearest the body of his dead son.

 The grave offense need not be a crime or felony. The act of the victim in eloping with daughter of the accused who
belongs to an old fashioned family is a grave offense and scandal in the family.
 Provocation is directed to the person committing the felony; in vindication, the grave offense may be committed or
directed to the
Basis – diminution of the condition of voluntariness.
 That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Requisites:
a. That there must be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a state of mind on the part of the accused;
b. That there was no appreciable lapse of time between the victim’s offending act and the commission of the crime by the
accused
c. The act causing such obfuscation, was committed by the victim himself

 The accused acted upon an impulse; and the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in
him.
 To considered a mitigating circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge or from anger or resentment
Basis – loss of reasoning and self-control. 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.

 The act of the offended party must be unlawful or unjust. (jealousy with a legitimate basis)
 The owner upon seeing the person who stole his carabao, shoots the supposed thief.
 The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation where he hit the deceased upon seeing the
latter box his 4-year old son. The actuation of the accused arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the
rescue of his son, regardless of whether the latter be right or wrong.
 No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours, several hours or half an hour.

10
  Killing the victim after the accused came to know that he sideswiped his child resulting to her death or shooting to death the
wife and paramour who were embracing and kissing each other is so powerful to give rise to passion or obfuscation. (should
not be in spirit of lawlessness or revenge)
 The accused who raped a woman in not entitled to the MC under this just because he finds himself in a secluded place with
that young ravishing woman, almost naked, and therefore, “liable to succumb to the uncontrollable passion of bestial
instinct.”
 Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender. The belief of the
accused that the deceased had caused his illegal dismissal from his employment is sufficient to confuse his reason and impel
him to commit the crime. (honest belief plus legitimate basis)

g. 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.

2 mitigating circumstance
1. Voluntary surrender
2. Voluntary confession of guilt

Requisites of voluntary surrender

1. That the offender had not been actually arrested
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent
3. That the surrender was voluntary
 A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred
in his search and capture.
 The accused must not be actually arrested. The fact that the accused did not escape after the policemen surrounded his house
and arrested him does not amount to voluntary surrender.
 But surrender solely motivated by self-preservation from what was feared as an immediate retaliation from the immediate
relatives of the victim is not voluntary surrender.
 If the accused gave himself up to the police when he was served the warrant of arrest such surrender is not mitigating.
 Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the accused fled immediately after the killing and took him more than a
month and a half to surrender to the authorities.
 Voluntary surrender may done before or after the issuance of warrant of arrest
 VS may be done in another municipality

To whom voluntary surrender should be made

1. Person in authority – one who is directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern and to execute the laws,
whether as an individual or a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission.
2. Agent of a person in authority – one who by direct provision of the law or by election or by appointment by competent
authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property and any private
person who comes to the aid of person in authority.

 Surrender to a municipal treasurer or engineer is not voluntary surrender.

Requisite of plea of guilty

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;
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
 Plead guilty to a lesser offense not mitigating
 It is incorrect of the court to assume that the aggravating circumstance of evidence premeditation is included in the plea of
guilty.
 A plea of guilty made after the arraignment and after the trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
BASIS – lesser perversity of the accused. It is an act of repentance and respect for law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused,
favorable to his reform.
h. 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.

BASIS – one suffering from physical defect, which restricts one’s means of action, defense or communication with one’s fellow
beings, does not have complete freedom of action and, therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.
 The physical defect must affect the means of action, defense or communication of the accused. It must relate to the offense
committed.
 The fact that the accused is deaf is not mitigating in homicide or rape.
i. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him
of consciousness of his acts.
Requisites:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of will-power
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his act.
Example:
1. The accused is suffering from a mild behaviour disorder as a consequence of the illness she had in early life.
2. One who was suffering from acute neurosis which made him ill-tempered and easily angered because such illness diminished
his exercise of will power.
11
 3. The fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the finding in his favor of the mitigating circumstance.
BASIS – diminution of intelligence and intent
j. Any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned
a. Voluntary restitution of stolen property similar to voluntary surrender
b. Extreme poverty and necessity similar to incomplete state of necessity
c. Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation
d. Over 60 years old with failing sight as analogous to a person over 70 years of age
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE (Art. 14)
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, 2) the place of the commission, 3) the means and ways employed, 4) the time, or 5) the personal circumstances of
the offender, or of the offended party.

4 KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

1. Generic – those that can generally apply to all the crimes
Example: dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism
In art. 14 (Art. 14), the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19 and 20, except “by means of
motor vehicles,” are generic 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 Art. 14, the circumstance in paragraphs Nos. 3 (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 evidence premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of person to murder.
a. Treachery
b. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise
c. By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion
d. By means of motor vehicle or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin
e. On occasion of calamaties
f. Evident premeditation
g. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging of scoffing at his
person or corpse.

4. Inherent – those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.
Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage

 A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance
may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance
 A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be such must be alleged in the information. If it is not alleged, it is a generic
aggravating circumstance.

The following are aggravating circumstance:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
 Applicable only when the offender is a public officer.
 It is present when a policeman killed the person he was supposed to arrest or when he abducted a person while he is still
wearing his uniform
 It is present when a policeman raped the girl vendor he arrested.
 This requires that the accused as a public officer used the influence or reputation of his position for the purpose of
committing the crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no
abuse of public position.
 His position must facilitate the commission of a crime. The accused must be proven to have advantage of his position.

2.That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities
 This AC is present when the accused committed a crime in the presence of a public authority who is engaged in the
performance of his duties and who is known to the accused as a public authority. His presence did not deter the accused
from committing the crime
Requisites:
a. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
b. That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed
c. The offender knows him to be a public authority
d. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act

Examples of public authority – mayor, governor, councilor, barangay captain and barangay councilmen

Example: The barangay council organized an assembly attended by the Mayor. While a consultation was going on, X and Y who both
nearby listening to the proceedings had a dispute. An altercation ensued. X stabbed Y who died as a result.

12
  Teachers, police officers and lawyers are considered as persons in authority ONLY for purposes of DIRECT ASSAULT
BUT not under this topic.
 Knowledge of the presence of a person in public authority is important. Lack of such knowledge does not result to
contempt or insult of authorites.

3. That the act be committed with insult or 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.
 These 4 circumstances can be considered singly or as one AC only. If 4 are present, they are equivalent to 1 AC.
 The AC of age, sex, and rank can be considered only in crimes against person and honor.

1. Sex of the offended party – refers to female sex

 Accused must have deliberately intended to show manifest disrespect for the sex of the offended party.
 A attacked and killed a lady.
 But sex is not aggravating in Parricide, Rape, Forcible Abduction or Seduction being a woman is an element of the
crime.

2. Age of the offended party – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim
 A attacked and killed an 80 year old man.

3. Rank of the offended party – is the designation of the title or distinction used to fix the position of the offended party in relation
to others.

 A attacked and killed B, a RTC Judge during a hearing.

 There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offender party
 A private citizen who attacked and injured a person in authority
 A pupil who attacked and inured his teacher
 An attempt upon the life of a general of the Philippine Army
4. Dwelling – must be a structure or building exclusively used for rest and comfort.
Dwelling includes dependencies, staircase and enclosures under the house. It includes a boarding house, an apartment where
the victim stays as a boarder, lessee or bedspacer. It is aggravating even if the house where the victim was killed or raped
does not belong to him.

REASON – because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. “he who goes to another’s house, to hurt him
or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.”

The offender need not enter the dwelling. Dwelling is AC even if the accused shot the deceased from the outside of
the latter’s house.
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following:
a. When the offended party in his dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation to the offender – the offender party
losses his right to be respected in his home, because he gave sufficient provocation to the offender.
b. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same dwelling.
c. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent
d. In the crime of trespass to dwelling because it is inherent.
 That the act be committed with 1)Abuse of confidence or 2) obvious ungratefulness

Requisite of abuse of confidence

a. The offended party had trusted the offender
b. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party
c. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime

 It is present when trust and confidence exist between the accused and the victim and the accused made use of such to
commit a crime.
 It exist when a maid steal from his employer.
 It exist when the accused in whose custody a young boy was entrusted killed the latter.

Requisite of obvious ungratefulness

a. The offended party had trusted the offender
b. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party
c. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
d. The ungratefulness must be clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused

Example: One stormy night, Pepita opened her door to Pepito who was wet all over and was trembling in cold. Pepito pleaded to be
accommodated for that night in the house of Pepita. The latter gave him clothes and foods. She also assigned to him a comfortable
room. In the dead of the night, Pepito crawled into the room of Pepita and raped her. There is a clear, manifest and unmistakable
ingratitude on the part of Pepito who was warmly welcomed and trusted by the victim.

 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 place dedicated to religious worship.
 Performance of function (re: contempt/insult to authorities) is not necessary if the crime be committed in the palace of the
President or in his presence or in a place dedicated to religious worship.

13
  Ronald shot and killed the victim who was then kneeling and silently praying in the church pew. The holy and sacred place did
not deter Ronald from committing the crime.
 Cemeteries, however, respectable they may be are not considered as place dedicated to the worship of God.
 BUT there must be performance of public function when the crime is committed in a place where public authorities are engaged
in the performance of duties.
 Thus, it is present when the accused hostaged and then killed the victim while the court was in session (conducting hearing).
But if the accused killed the victim inside the courtroom after the court adjourned, this aggravating circumstance is not present.
 That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabitable place, or by a band, whenever such circumstance may
facilitate the commission of an offense.

When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:

a. When it facilitated the commission of the crime
b. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
c. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity

Impunity – means to prevent his (accuse) being recognized, or to secure himself against detection and punishment.
Nighttime – that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn. The civil code defines it as from sunset to
sunrise.
 Nocturnity not aggravating if it was a casual idea to commit a crime during nighttime
 Nighttime by and of itself is not an AC (if merely incidental/coincidental)
 No aggravating when the crime began at daytime
 When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating

UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – is determined by whether or not in the place of commission of the crime there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim to receive some help. A place is uninhabited where the place of commission of the crime can be
seen and the voice of the victim can be heard from a nearby house.
 A place where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a
great distance from each other.
 It is present where help to the victim is difficult. Solitude was purposely sought for facilitate the commission of the crime.

BAND – consists of at least 4 armed persons organized with the intention of carrying out an unlawful design.
 The armed men must act together in the commission of the crime. They should all be principal by direct participation.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune
 This is aggravating because the accused “who in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid or support to the
afflicted, adds to their suffering and affliction by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
 It is necessary that the offender took advantage of the calamity.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime by directly or indirectly giving aid to the accused
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.
 Having an armed companion in the commission of the offense.
 Armed men includes armed women

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 the RPC.
Requisites:
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense
b. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
c. That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title in the RPC
Example: On March 15, 2007 X, was charged and tried with theft. Records show that that on May 6, 2006 he was convicted by final
judgment in robbery although he was not arrested. He is considered a recidivist.

 Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the first and second felonies. It is
imprescriptible.

Quasi-recidivism – it takes place when a person before serving his sentence or while serving his sentence, shall commit another
felony.
 The first offense may be punished by the RPC or a special law. The second must be a felony (RPC).

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 which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Reiteracion or habituality is when the accused at the time of his trial for an offense, had previously served a sentence for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in
which the law attaches a lighter penalty.
a. Equal penalty
Example: In 2005, X served out a penalty for Homicide. In 2017, he was charged with homicide.
b. Greater penalty
Example: In 2000, X Served out a penalty for Rape. In March 2017, he was charged for Acts of Lasciviousness.
14
 c. For two or more crimes to which the law attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense
Example: In 2000, X served out a penalty for theft involving 1 million pesos. In March 2007, he was charged with theft 5 pesos. There
is reiteracion because at the time of his trial for theft involving 5 pesos, he previously served a penalty for theft involving 1 million
pesos. Obviously, the penalty of theft of property worth 1 million pesos is greater than the penalty of an item worth 5 pesos.

Example: In 2000 and 2010, X suffered penalties for slight physical injuries and attempted homicide respectively. In 2015, he was
charged with homicide.

Recidivism vs Reiteracion
1. In reiteracion, the offender is previously punished. In recidivism, it is enough that there be a previous conviction by final
judgment
2. In reiteracion, the offenses are not embraced in the same title of the Code. In recidivism, these offenses must be embraced in
the same title of the Code.

4 forms of repetition are:

1. Recidivism (generic AC)
2. Reiteracion or habituality (generic AC)
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (extra-ordinary AC)
4. Quasi-recidivism (special AC)

Habitual delinquency
There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of 10 years from the date of conviction or last release of a person of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time of oftener.

Example: Johnny was convicted of Theft in 1980. He served the sentence and was released in 1990. In 1988, he was convicted of
Estafa and was released from prison in 2000. In 2006, he was convicted of Serious Physical Injuries.

Explanation:
1. Johnny is a habitual delinquent. Johnny was convicted of theft, estafa and serious physical injuries. The 3 crimes are among
the crimes enumerated by law.
2. With respect to the second conviction in 1988, it took place within 10 years from his first conviction in 1980.
3. From the date of his second conviction of estafa in 1988 up to his conviction for the third offense for Serious Physical
Injuries in 2006, 18 years have elapsed (more than 10 years). However, he was released from prision for the estafa case in
2000. Reckoning from his date, only 6 years have elapsed (from the date of his last release) up to the date of the third
conviction in 2006. The 10 year period may be counted from the date of last conviction or last release.

 Crimes committed on the same date with convictions taking place on different dates are considered as one.
 Convictions on the same day involving different crimes committed on separate dates are considered as one.
 HD does not apply to special laws.
 HD is not a crime. It is a fact or circumstance, which if present, will give rise to the imposition of an additional penalty in
addition to the prescribed penalty for the crime committed.
Distinctions between habitual delinquency and recidivism
1. In HD, the crimes are specified, whereas in recidivism, the crimes are embraced in the same title of the code
2. In recidivism, no period of time is fixed between the former conviction and the last conviction, whereas in habitual
delinquency, conviction of any of the specified crimes must take place within 10 years from the last conviction or release.
3. In recidivism, it is enough that there be a second conviction of any crime embraced in the same title of the last as the crime,
whereas in HD, there must be at least a third conviction of any of the specified crimes.
4. Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance, whereas HD provides for the imposition of additional penalty.

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

 This AC affects not only the person who gave the price or reward but also the person who received it. this is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance that elevates the killing to murder. The offender who induced others to commit the crime for price,
reward or promise is a principal by inducement and those who committed the crime are principals by direct participation.
 It is indispensable that the inducement made be the primary consideration for the commission of the crime.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any other article involving great waste and ruin.
 These are qualifying aggravating circumstances under Art. 248 of the RPC. They qualify the killing to murder.
 Burning a house or structure is plain arson. But if a house is burned as a means to kill a person, Murder NOT murder with
arson.
 Under RA 8294, killing of a person with the use of hand explosives like hand grenade, is now homicide (no longer murder)
because the use of an explosive is only an aggravating circumstance when it is used to kill.
 Killing a group of persons on board a train by derailing the locomotive is Multiple Murder.
 Killing the victim by using poison, stranding of a vessel or derailment of a train is murder.

13. The act committed with evident premeditation.

15
Basis – has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act
before executing it.
Requisites:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
and to allow his conscience to overcome resolution of his will.

Example: In the course of their altercation at around 8:00 AM in the morning of March 14, 2017, X shouted at Y, “I will kill you. You
will not last this day.” (On said time and date, the offender is said to have determined to commit the crime). At around 11:00 AM of
the same morning. X was seen sharpening his bolo (the sharpening of the bolo are act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to
his determination to commit the crime). At 2:00 PM of the same day, X hacked Y to death. X is liable for murder (after 3 hours, he
killed the victim. 3 hours constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated act. The
3 elements of evidence premeditation are present.

 A finding of evidence premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time and he actually commits it – the prosecution
must adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how the felony was planned and prepared before it was effected.
And it must be proved with certainty as the crime itself.
 The date and, of possible, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential, because the lapse of time for
the purpose of third requisite is computed from that date and time.
 The premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere lapse of time.
 EP is inherent in crimes against property as in robbery, theft, and estafa. There is no EP in the absence of a pre-conceived plan
or if the attack on the victim was made in the heat of anger. However, it maybe aggravating if the premeditation included the
killing of the victim.

 If the accused decided to kill a particular person and premeditated on the killing of the latter but he killed a different person it
cannot be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.
 But if the accused premeditated on the killing of any person, this AC can be appreciated against him.

Instances when EP cannot be appreciated

a. EP should not be appreciated where there is neither evidence of planning or preparation to kill nor the time when the plot was
conceived.
b. Where it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, EP
cannot be appreciated.

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

 This are intellectual means in the commission of the a crime and are separate aggravating circumstances.

Craft – is intellectual trickery and cunning resorted to by the accused in the commission of the crime.
Examples:
1. The act of accused in pretending to be a passenger 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, constitutes craft.
2. Where the accused pretended to be police officers to gain entry in the place of the victim.
3. It also exists when the accused feigning friendship was able to lure the victim to go with him in a secluded place where he
killed him.
4. When accused resorted to the use of innocent-looking chocolate candies which did not arouse the suspicion of the
complainant that they contain deleterious drug, the purpose of the accused in giving them being to weaken her resistance so
that she would not be able to repulse physically and mentally his sexual assault.
Fraud – involves deceit by insidious words and machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the
offender to carry out his design.
Examples:
1. When the accused enticed a young girl to go with him to buy foods and toys and then kidnapped her.
2. Where accused induced his victim to give up his arms upon a promise that no harm should be done to him, and when the
latter gave up his arms, the former attack and killed him.

Disguise - resorting to any device to conceal identity

Examples:
1. Covering the face with the use of a handkerchief, blackening the face in order that he should not be recognized at the time he
committed the crime.
2. The accused with 2 other robbers wore masks to cover their faces
 The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to conceal his identity and to facilitate the commission of the crime.
 It may not be appreciated if the wearing of any device is for protection from any defense that the victim may put up against
the said offender.

15. That 1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or 2) means be employed to weaken the defense.

Meaning of “advantage be taken of superior strength – it means to deliberately use excessive force that is cut out of proportion to the
means for self-defense available to the person attacked.

16
  To be appreciated, the size, age and strength of the parties must be considered. There must be a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, given the latter a superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime.
 But superiority in number alone, does not necessarily mean abuse of superior strength. It is still necessary to prove that the
accused cooperated and took advantage of their superior strength. But if all the aggressors are armed with weapons, it can be
inferred that they took advantage of their superior strength.
 Should be distinguished with “by a band” in such way that the latter refers to the number (more than 3) of the assailants
regardless of regardless of the comparative strength. In the former, the assailant took advantage of their comparative strength
regardless of thier number.
Examples:
1. A strong man has ill-treated a child, an old person
2. An armed police officer ill-treated an intoxicated person
3. When a man attacks a woman with a weapon.

“Means to weaken the defense” – the offender employs means that materially weakens the defense of the offended party
Examples
1. Intoxicating the victim to weaken the defense before the killing. The intoxication was sought for so the victim cannot put up
any sort of defense.
2. One who while arguing with another suddenly casts sand upon the latter’s eyes and then wounds of kill him

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

Meaning of Treachery – there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means method, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk of himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
 Applies only to crimes against persons
 Treachery means that the offended party was not given opportunity to make a defense.
Requisites:
a. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
 The victim was made to lie face down, their hands tied at the back before they were killed.
 The victim was beaten to death while his hands and feet were tied with a rope.
 The victim was suddenly attacked by the assailants from behind, whom he called friends, without warning.
 The victim was shot while he was gathering vegetables in his garden.
 The victim was shot while he was urinating.
 Victim is asleep when he was assaulted.
 Victim half-awake or just awakened
b. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.

The mode of attack must be consciously adopted

This means that accused that must make some preparations to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the
crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defense himself or retaliate.

The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender and must NOT spring from the unexpected turn of events.
Examples:
a. The act of shooting the victim at a distance, without the least expectation on his part that he would be assaulted
b. The circumstances surrounding the killing of the deceased show treachery. His hands were raised and he was pleading
for mercy with one of the assailants when another struck him on the neck with a bolo.
c. The assailant, in strategically placing himself in a forested area near the highway and firing at the unsuspecting victim
at a distance of eight meters, employed a mode of execution that insured the consummation of the killing without risk of
himself.
Notes:
a. Attack from behind is NOT always alevosia – the mere fact that the victim had his back turned or stab wounds at the back
will not itself constitute alevosia. It must appear that such mode of attack was consciously adopted and the question of risk to
the offender must be taken into account. (re: the position of the victim when fatal blow was inflicted was just incidental)
b. When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare, there was no treachery (warning)
c. No treachery where shooting is preceded by a heated discussion
d. Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with treachery
e. There is treachery in killing a child
f. Treachery should be taken into account even if the deceased was face to face with his assailants at the time the blow was
delivered, where it appears that the attack was not preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare
himself for his defense.
g. In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim was the same person whom the accused intended to kill. (error
in personae)
h. The mastermind should have knowledge of the employment of treachery if he was not present when the crime was
committed.
17. That means employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act
Ignominy – a circumstance which adds disgrace or obloquy to the injury caused by the crime
 Applicable only to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, slight or grave coercion and murder
 This refers to the performance of an act that would add disgrace, shame, and humiliation to the injury caused by the offense
or to add to the moral suffering of the victim.
 There is ignominy when the accused raped a woman in front of her husband.
17
  Winding cogon grass around the penis before committing rape is ignominious.

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry

 There is an unlawful entry when entrance is effected by way of not intended for the purpose.
 Entering the though the window is unlawful entry. But breaking the door to enter ins not unlawful entry as it is covered under
par. 19.
 If the accused escape through the window after committing a crime, it is not aggravating because the same was not for the
purpose of entrance but for escape.
 When the accused gained access to the dwelling by climbing through the window and once inside, murdered certain persons
in the dwelling, there were two AC. Dwelling and unlawful entry.
19. That a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken

 This circumstance is aggravating only in those cases where the accused resorted to any of said means to enter the house. The
breaking of any of these parts of a house or building must be for the commission of a crime.
 If the accused broke a window to enable himself to reach a cell phone on the table near the window, which he took while his
body was outside the house, the crime of theft was attended by this AC. It is not necessary that the offender should have
entered the building.
20. That the crime be committed 1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age, or 2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or
other similar means.
 The use of minors, who are exempt from criminal liability, is aggravating. It shows the greater perversity of the accused for
taking advantage of the innocence of mediocrity of minors for criminal purpose.
 The circumstances of use of motor vehicles is aggravating when the motor vehicle was purposely used to facilitate the
commission of the crime like using the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof,
and in facilitating their escape.
 The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to
facilitate the commission of the crime or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.
 That without it, the offense charged could not have been committed.
 If the motor vehicle was used only to facilitating the escape, it should not be an AC.

Examples:
1. Theft – where the truck was used in carrying away the stolen rails and iron and wooden ties from the scene of the theft to the
place where they were sold.
2. A jeep was used by the accused in fetching and luring the deceased from his house to go with them on the night of the
incident, which they must have used also in taking him to the spot where later on the victim’s body was found.
3. Where the accused stabbed and inflicted upon his girlfriend, mortal wounds which caused her death, while they were in a taxi
which was hired and used by him, the AC of by means of motor vehicle was present.

“or other similar means” – should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to
automobile or airplane.

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission.
 Paragraph 21 gives the legal definition of cruelty. It means the deliberate augmentation of the wrong done is present where
the offender performed other acts with the evident intention to prolong the physical suffering of the victim.
Cruelty – there is cruelty when the accused deliberately adds to the physical pain and suffering of the victim. The wrong done must be
performed while the victim is still alive. It must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making the victim suffers
gradually.

Examples:
1. Gagging the mouth of a 4 year old child and dumping him into a box covered with sacks causing suffocation and death of the
child;
2. There is also cruelty when the eye of the child is extracted from its socket or when the face and mouth of a child is burned.

 Ignominy involves moral suffering, while cruelty refers to physical suffering

 It is essential that the victim was alive while the sadistic acts were being committed against him by the accused.
 The number of wounds on the corpse of the victim does not per se mean that there was cruelty in the commission of the
crime. There must be showing that the wounds were inflicted while the victim was alive and at such intervals as to reveal that
the number of wounds and the manner of inflicting them were intentional designed to augment and prolong his physical
suffering.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
Definition – 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.

3 alternative circumstances
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 spouse,
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
18
When mitigating and when aggravating
1. In crimes against property, relationship is mitigating
2. In crimes against persons
a. It is aggravating when the offended party is a relative of a higher degree
b. Aggravating when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level
3. When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim is a relative of a lower degree
4. In rape, relationship is aggravating where a step-father raped his stepdaughter or in case where a father raped his own
daughter
5. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating regardless of whether the offender is
a relative of a higher degree of the offended party
6. In physical injuries
a. It is aggravating in serious physical injuries even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender
b. It is mitigating in less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative of a
lower degree, and mitigating if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.

INTOXICATION when mitigating

The intoxication of the offender shall be considered as MC when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the
same is:
a. Not habitual – at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to
impair his exercise of will power
b. That such intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony
 Mere positive alcoholic breath is not intoxication. Romberg’s test and tandem’s gait are often used to determine if a person is
under the influence of liquor. These medical findings are conclusive of intoxication.
 At the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and
deprive him of a certain degree of control
 State of intoxication – that the offender’s mental faculties must be affected by drunkenness or his will power was impaired
and the could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.

INTOXICATION when aggravating

a. When the intoxication is habitual or intentional; or
b. When it is intentional or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime – in order to embolden himself in carrying out his plan

Habitual drunkard – one who is frequently or habitually drunk. The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is not necessary that it be
a matter of daily occurrence.

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.

ORDINARILY, Low degree of instruction mitigating EXCEPT:

1. Crimes against property (estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity (adultery, concubinage, seduction, rape)
3. Treason – because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen
4. Murder or homicide – because to kill is forbidden by natural law which every rational being is endowed to know and feel

 Having studied up to sixth grade is more than sufficient schooling to give accused a degree of instruction as to properly
apprise him of what is right and wrong
 NOT illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of the alternative
circumstance of lack of instruction, the determination of which is left to the trial court.
 NOT MC when the accused is a city resident and knows how to sign his name in a crime of murder.
 High degree of instruction is aggravating only when the offender took advantage of it in committing the crime. (a doctor
using his knowledge and who prepared some kind of a poison in killing the victim; an accountant/lawyer who uses their
legal knowledge in deceiving people to invest their money or to stole from the government.

19
TOPICS FOR THE FINALS

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

When a single individual commits a crime, there is no difficulty in determining his participation in the commission thereof. In fact, a
single individual committing a crime is always a principal, and one by direct participation, because he must necessarily take direct part
in the execution of the act.

 When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for the act perform by him.

Art. 16. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies
For grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories

For light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices
 Accessories are not liable for light felonies

Art. 17. The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act (principal by direct participation);
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it (principal by inducement); and
3. Those who cooperate by in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished
(principal by indispensable cooperation)

Principal by direct participation – personally and directly takes part in the execution of the act constituting the crime. He commits the
crime, so to speak.
Examples:
1. One who with intent to kill, personally shoots another is liable is principal by direct participation in the crime of homicide; or
2. One who burns the house of another is a principal by direct participation in the crime of arson.

 The PDP must be at the scene of the commission of the crime personally taking part in its execution.

Principal by Induction (PBI):

1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime, either:
a. By using irresistible force, or
b. By causing uncontrollable fear
Example: A and his gang of robbers threatened to kill all the bank employees if the bank manager refuses to open
the vault of the bank. The manager was constrained to open the vault and the robbers emptied the vault. The bank
manager is not criminally liable because he acted under the compulsion of an uncontrollable fear. A and company
are liable as PBI .
 When one his forced by another to commit a crime through the use of irresistible force or causing another an uncontrollable
fear, only the person from whom such force or fear came from is criminally liable and not the executor. The executor acts
against his will, the act is involuntary.
2. By directly, inducing another to commit a crime by
a. Giving of price or offering of reward or promise
The person giving the price or offering the reward or promise is a PBI while the one committing the crime is PDP
Example: X induced Y to kill A. X promised to give Y 200K. Y killed A because of the promise. X is liable as PBI.
Y is liable as PDP.
b. Using words of command
To constitute inducement, the inducer must have positive resolution and persistent effort to have the crime
committed by another.

Requisites:
1. that the one uttering the words of command must have the intention of procuring the commission of the crime;
2. that the one who made the command must have an ascendancy or influence over the person who acted;
Illustration: A was a poor, ignorant fisherman, dependent upon his uncle B. On the other hand, B was a man of great
influence in the community. B was the local political leader of his party. In the meeting where the plan to murder the priest
was discussed, B was the prime mover and the dominant figure. B selected A who was present in the meeting to commit the
crime and directed him to do it. the influence exercised by B over A was so great and powerful that the latter could not resist
it.
3. that the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion;

For the utterances of an accused to make him a principal by inducement, it is necessary that the words be of such nature and
uttered in such manner as to become the determining cause of the crime, and that the inducement precisely was intended to
serve such purpose. In other words, the inciting words must have great dominance and influence over the person who acts;
they ought to be direct and efficacious or powerful as physical or moral coercion or violence itself.

20
 The words of command must be the moving cause of the offense. Such that the accused would not have committed the
offense if not for the said command. If the evidence shows that the accused would have committed the act at his own
volition/thinking/decision, even without said words of command, the person who gave the command cannot be said to the
PBI.

4. the words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime;
Thus, when the commission of the crime has already been commenced when the words of inducement are uttered, these
requisites is lacking. A father who simply said to his son at the time of the engagement of combat with another, “Hit him,”
was not responsible for the injuries after such advice was given.
5. the material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime.
If the PDP has personal reason to commit the crime, the supposed words of inducement cannot be the determining cause.

Examples:
1. In the case of a married woman who suggested to her paramour that he kill her husband in order that thereafter they might
live together freely and the paramour, acting upon said suggestion, killed him, it was held that the proposition of the woman
constituted something more than mere suggestion/counsel/advise which her co-accused was entirely free to accept or not. It
was coupled with a consideration which, in view of the relations existing between them, furnished a motive strong enough to
induce the man to take the life of her husband. The proposition of the woman, in view of the relations existing between her
and the other accused, was the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the latter.
2. The accused, exercising dominance and ascendancy over his 3 year-old son, compelled the latter to hurl a stone at another
boy, causing injury to the latter’s eye, is clearly a principal by inducement.
3. Persons exercising ascendancy over minors who were persuaded to commit crimes are liable as PBI. This is because minors
are easily susceptible to the suggestions of the inducer. Minors usually have no discernment or judgment of their own. When
induced to commit a crime, the influence of the inducer is the determining cause of the commission of the crime.
4. X induced his son Y to kill, Z, his (X) political enemy. Y killed Z. X is a principal by inducement. He exercises moral
authority and moral ascendancy over his son Y.

Examples NOT a PBI

1. Marivic confided to her friend Gigi that her marital life had been miserable because she married an irresponsible and
philandering husband. Gigi remarked: “A husband like that should be killed.” Marivic killed her husband. Gigi is NOT liable
as PBI because a mere thoughtless expression is not an inducement to kill. The inducement must be so influential in
producing the criminal act that without it the act would not have been performed.
2. A induced B to kill X by giving him 500K pesos. For his part, B induced C to kill X for 300K pesos. C induced D to kill X
for 200K pesos. D killed X. A and B are not PBI because they did not directly induce D to kill X. On the other hand C is a
PBI because he directly induced D to kill X.
3. While friends X and Y were conversing, A passed by. X told Y, “A acts as if he is somebody else. Why don’t you shoot him?
With that Y shot A resulting to his death. X is not a PBI. To be liable, a person must exercise moral authority or ascendancy
over the principal by direct participation. The words of inducement must have great dominance and great influence over the
person induced in a manner so powerful as the physical or moral coercion or violence itself. Consequently, a thoughtless
expression or ill conceived advice without intention to produce the result is not the inducement contemplated by law.

 If the PDP was acquitted, generally the PBI will be acquitted. One cannot be convicted of a crime that is not proven to have
been committed by another.

Principal by indispensable cooperation – cooperates with the PDP and without whose participation the crime would not have been
committed. He cooperates after coming to know the criminal intent of the PDP.

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have been
accomplished.

 Determine first the cooperation of rendered by the offender whether dispensable or indispensable. If indispensable, he is
liable as PIC, but if the cooperation is dispensable, he is liable as an accomplice.
 Cooperation means to desire or wish in common thing.

Example:
1. X wanted to kill Y who resides in an island. The only means to reach the island is to ride on the motorboat owned by A. X
told A to bring him to the island because he is going to kill Y. A is PIC. His motorboat is the only means to reach the island
where Y resides. Without his cooperation X would not have killed Y.

 The act of the PIC should be different from the act of the PDP. The law says “by another act,” which means that it should not
be the act of one who could be classified as PDP.
 If the cooperation of one of the accused consists in performing an act necessary in the execution of the crime committed, he
is a principal by direct participation. Thus, if in the commission of homicide, one of the offenders held the victim while the
other was stabbing him, the one who held the victim should be a principal by direct participation.

Collective Criminal Responsibility – There is collective criminal responsibility when the offenders are criminally liable in the same
manner and to the same extent.
The penalty imposed must be the same for all. PDP have collective criminal responsibility. PBI, except that who directly forced
another to commit a crime, and PDP have collective criminal responsibility. PBI has collective criminal responsibility with PDP.
21
  All the conspirators are liable as co-principals.
Individual Criminal Responsibility – In the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately
before the commission of the crime, or community of criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed
against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for the act committed by
him.

Example: 2 persons assaulted the deceased causing less serious physical injuries while the 3 rd inflicted the fatal wound. In this case,
the party who inflicted the fatal wound would be the only one responsible as principal for the crime of homicide; the other two would
be held liable only for less serious physical injuries.

Art. 18. Accomplices – those persons who, not included in the article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts.

 They are not part in the conspiracy but concur or conform to the act of the principal by direct participation.
Requisites:
a. There must be a community of design; that is : knowing the criminal design or the PDP, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose;
b. He cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or
moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and
c. There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.

 Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a PDP.

How does an accomplice acquire knowledge of the criminal design of the principal which he/she later concurred or approved?
a. When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of his criminal purpose.
b. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal and concurs with it.

Examples:
1. A stabbed B. C who was a few feet away saw what A did. C boxed and kicked B. B died because of the stab wound. A is
liable as PDP. For his part, C is liable as an accomplice. By boxing and kicking B after he saw that A stabbed B, he
concurred with the act of A and cooperated by performing a lesser act.

2. On July 5, 2016, A and B conspired to rob X. On the following day, July 6, 2016, A and B told C about their plan to rob X
and asked C to drive them in going to the house of X. C drove A and B to the house of X where A and B committed Robbery.
A and B are PDP. C is an accomplice. He was NOT part of the conspiracy but after he came to know about it, he concurred to
the plan and cooperated by driving A and B to the house of the victim.

3. By previous act – lending of a knife or a gun to the murderer, knowing the latter’s criminal purpose.

4. By simultaneous act – the defendant who held one of the hands of the victim and tried to take away the latter’s revolver,
while his co-defendant was attacking him, is an accomplice for he cooperates in the execution of the crime by simultaneous
act without any previous agreement or understanding.

Notes:
a. An accomplice is not part of the plan or conspiracy.
b. An accomplice concurs or approves the act of the PDP and performs other acts showing his conformity to the act of the PDP.
c. The act of acts of the accomplice must be lesser than the act or acts done by the PBP, that is, they must not be equal to or
graver than the act or acts of the PDP.
d. The cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary, not indispensable.

Illustrations:
1. A stabbed C. upon seeing what A did, B also attacked C and stabbed him. C died because of the stab wounds. What are the
criminal liabilities of A and B?
Answer: A and B are both liable as PDP. While it is true that that B concurred and cooperated in the execution of the crime,
his act was equal to the act performed by A. This makes him equally liable as PBP. He cannot be an accomplice because
under the law, the participation of an accomplice should be lesser than the act of the PDP.

2. A stabbed C. Upon seeing what A did, B rained C with fist blows. C died because of the stab wound. What are the liabilities
of A and B?
Answer: A is liable as PDP in the crime of homicide. B concurred with act of A by boxing C. B is liable as accomplice
because he performed a lesser act.

3. A boxed C. Upon seeing what A did, B attacked C and stabbed him. C suffered contusion and died because of the stab
wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?
Answer: A is liable as PDP in the crime of slight physical injuries for inflicting contusion on C. B is also liable as a PDP for
the crime of homicide. While B concurred with act of A, B’s participation was greater than the act performed by A. Thus, B
cannot be liable only as an accomplice.

Quasi-collective responsibility – is one where some offenders in the crime are principals and the others are accomplices.

22
  In case of doubt as to the responsibility of the offender as a principal or accomplice, the court should apply the milder form of
liability.

Art. 19. Accessories – those who, having knowledge of the commission of a crime, without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:
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 crimes.
 The accessory take part subsequent to its commission – after the crime has been committed

Number 1; by profiting or assisting

Examples:
1. A person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing that the same had been stolen, is guilty of the crime
of theft as an accessory.
2. Jimmy stole the money of Carlos. Jimmy later gave Mando Php 5K pesos out of the stolen money. Is Mando an accessory?
NO, because he did not know that the money given to him by Jimmy was stolen.
3. Ranie also stole the cellphone of Erica. Ranie went to Jason and told him that he stole the cellphone because he is in dire
need of money. Ranie asked Jason to pawn the cellphone for him which Jason did and gave the proceeds to Ranie. Jason is an
accessory. Despite his knowledge that the cellphone was stolen, he assisted Ranie to profit from it.

Note: IF the act of an accessory however is punished as principal by another law, then he may be charged as a principal.
Example: A robbed the cellphone of B in Manila. A went to Baguio City and gave the cellphone to his friend C who kept and used it.
A told C that he stole the cellphone. C is an accessory because he profited/benefitted from the effects of the crime. He is also fence
under PD 1612 (Anti-fencing law) because he knowingly possessed an item which was a proceed of the crime of theft.

Fencing – the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal,
sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows or
should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Fence – any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.

Presumption of fencing – mere possession of any goods, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

Number 2: by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
Body of the crime – “corpus delicti” – means that a specific offense was in fact committed by someone.

Examples:
a. A killed B. After killing B, A went to C and told him about the crime that he had just committed. A asked C to conceal the
cadaver of B. C dumped the cadaver of B in an empty well and covered it with stones. C is an accessory because he
concealed the body of the crime.
b. A killed B with a .45 caliber gun. A was pursued by the authorities. A went to his friend C and after telling him about the
crime that he committed asked C to hide the gun that he used in the commission thereof. C hid the gun, C is liable as an
accessory. He concealed the instrument of the crime.

Number 3: By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.
2 kinds:
A. Public officers who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his
public functions.
Requisite:
1. The accessory is a public officer;
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony

Examples:
a. A mayor who refuses to prosecute an offender, thus, allowing him to escape, acts with abuse of public functions and is an
accessory;
b. X with intent to kill stabbed Y. The latter was medically attended for 5 days. X was pursued by policeman. X went to SPO2
Joseph and after apprising him of the crime that he just committed, asked his policeman friend to assist in his escape. SPO2
Joseph assisted in the escape of Y. Is SPO2 Joseph an accessory?
ANSWER: Yes. The crime committed by X is attempted homicide which is not a light felony. However, if the crime
committed is slight physical injuries, he cannot be an accessory because the crime committed is a light felony.

B. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime or the principal who is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt against the life of the Chief Executive, or who is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.

 If the one the offender assisted is merely an accomplice, there is no accessory.

23
  If the principal committed robbery, the person who assisted is not considered an accessory because robbery is not one of
those enumerated.
 A civilian who harbors a principal who committed kidnapping may not be held as an accessory because kidnapping is not one
of the crimes enumerated by law.
 A person who assisted a person who just committed an offense, and the former knows that the person he assisted committed
also an offense on some other days, is liable as an accessory.

Effect of the acquittal of the Principal – Generally, the accessory may be acquitted because the liability of an accessory is subordinate
to that of the principal. However, it depends still on the reason why the principal was acquitted (Exempted or Justified) or if the
prosecution was able to prove the involvement of said person as accessory as defined.

PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice) penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays
the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
1. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its veracity,
authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation or proceedings in criminal cases, or to be
used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in criminal cases;
2. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect,
has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction;
3. Giving false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the victim, or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by
investigating authorities for purposes of background investigation and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the
same to misled the investigator of the court.

Art. 20. The accessory is EXEMPT from criminal liability when the principal is her/his:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Brothers or sisters (even adopted) or brother-in-law or sister-in-law

Examples:
1. A son who helps his father bury the body of a person whom the latter has murdered in order to prevent its discovery;
2. A grandson who, having knowledge of the commission of robbery by his grandfather, conceals or destroys the body of the
crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
3. A person who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of his brother who committed treason.

 This exemption applies only when the acts performed by the accessory are those pertaining to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art.
19. Hence, a brother who helps in the sale of a cell phone which he knows to have been stolen by his brother is NOT
exempt from criminal liability because he assisted his brother to profit from the effect of the crime. He motivated to help
Not because of their relationship BUT because of greed.
 Nephew and nieces not included among such relatives

PENALTIES IN GENERAL
Penalty – is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of law.
Purpose of punishment – The law is a rule or norm of conduct prescribed by the State for an orderly management of its affairs and for
the protection of the rights of its inhabitants. It is meant to be followed and obeyed, not to be violated. Transgression of the law is an
affront or defiance to the State. To enforce the law, penal sanctions must be imposed in accordance with the police power of the State.

Theories Justifying Penalty

1. Prevention – the State must punish the criminal to prevent or suppress the danger to the State arising from the criminal acts of
the offender
2. Self-defense – The State has a right to punish the criminal as a measure of self-defense so as to protect society from the threat
and wrong inflicted by the criminal
3. Reformation – the object of punishment is to correct and reform the offender
4. Exemplary – to serve as an example for the public good and to deter others from violating the law.
5. Justice – that crime must be punished by the State as an act of retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right and moral
law violated by the criminal.

3-fold purpose of penalties

1. Retribution or expiation – the penalty is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime
2. Correction or reformation – penalties are imposed to reform a criminal
3. Social defense – a society has an existence to maintain and resort.

Constitutional Restriction – excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
 The punishment is “cruel and unusual” when it so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of
all reasonable men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances. Example: Those inflicted at whipping post, and the
like.

Art. 21 – A felony shall be punishable only by the penalty prescribed by law at the time of its commission.

Art. 22 – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual delinquent.
 Generally, penal law should operate prospectively and not retroactively.
Exception to the proscriptive application of criminal law
24
 1. When the act is decriminalized
2. When the law is favorable to accused who is not a habitual delinquent.

Exception to the exception:

1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action; and
2. Where the offender is a habitual delinquent

Art. 23. Effect of the pardon by the offended party – a pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as
provided in Article 344 of this code; but the civil liability with regard to the interest of the injures party is extinguished by his waiver.

Article 344: Express pardon by the offended party will bar criminal prosecution in the following crimes:
a. Concubinage
b. Adultery
c. Seduction
d. Abduction
e. Acts of lasciviousness

 Pardon must be extended to both offenders in concubinage and adultery

 Pardon must be given before the institution of the criminal case.
 The parents, grandparents or guardian of the offended minor cannot extend a valid pardon to the offender without the
conformity of the offended party, even if the latter is a minor.
 The parties under Art. 344 does not extinguish criminal liability. It merely constitutes a bar to criminal prosecution.

Marital pardon in marital rape – marital pardon granted before the filing of the case, during the proceedings and even after the final
conviction shall extinguish criminal liability and shall remit or abate the penalty already imposed.

Compromise between the offended party and offender

In actual practice, a compromise between the offended party and the offender could lead to the dismissal of the criminal action. With
former’s civil claim being satisfied, he loses interest in pursuing the case leaving the prosecution no choice but to ask for dismissal on
the ground that its principal witness had become hostile and without whose testimony it cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – that provided by law for a felony and which is imposed by the court EXPRESSLY upon conviction.
Capital Punishment:
Death – prohibited by RA 9346

Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
Prison mayor

Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional
Arresto mayor
Suspension
Destierro

Light penalties:
Arresto menor
Public censure

Penalties common to the 3 preceding classes:

Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace

Life Imprisonment vs Reclusion Perpetua

1. LI does not have accessory penalties. RP has accessory penalties.
2. LI is a penalty under special laws. RP is a penalty under RPC.
3. LI has no fixed duration. After serving 30 years, the convict may be pardoned.

ACCESSORY PENALTIES – that penalty deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalty
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling
Civil interdiction
Indemnification
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense
Payment of costs

Art. 26. Fine – when afflictive, correctional or light felony

25
 a. An afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 1,200,000.00 pesos;
b. A correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 1,200,000 pesos but is not less than 40,000 pesos; and
c. Light penalty if it be less than 40,000 pesos.

DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES

Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty years and one day to forty years.

 Although it provides for a duration, RP is still an indivisible penalty. Such that it should be applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime.

Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.

Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification
shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory
penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and
destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months.

Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.

Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may
determine.

Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:

1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be
credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released
immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).

Preventive imprisonment – it is the period of detention to be undergone by an accused when the offense with which he is charged is
non-bailable or even if bailable, he cannot post a bond for his provisional liberty.

Purpose of PI – it is to prevent flight of the accused and his going into hiding.

Section Two. — Effects of the penalties according to their respective nature

Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held even if conferred by
popular election.

2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office.

3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.

In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall
last during the term of the sentence.

4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.

26
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporal
special disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;

2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during the term of the
sentence according to the extent of such disqualification.

Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage. — The
perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually
or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any
public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the
period of his disqualification.

Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling, or the right of suffrage. — The
suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from
holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during the period of his
suspension.

Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of
parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to
manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

 CI impossible when the penalty is RP or RT

Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage,
unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.

A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

 This article refers to the pardon made by the President of the RP.

Distinction between the pardon granted by the offended party and pardon granted by the President
1. Pardon by the offended party apples only to crimes against chastity under the RPC, while pardon by the Chief Executive
applies to any crime.
2. Pardon by the offended party in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness benefits the co-principals, accomplices and
accessories. In adultery and concubinage, the pardon must include both offenders. Pardon by the Chief Executive can be
granted to any or all of the accused.
3. Pardon by the offended party cannot be made subject to a condition while the pardon by the Chief Executive may be absolute
or conditional.

Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the
nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to
the following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement
until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-
third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a
day shall be counted against the prisoner.

2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light
felony.

3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the culprit.

5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.

Subsidiary Penalty – an auxiliary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to pay the
fine, at the rate of one day for each ____.

 SP must be expressly imposed by the court in order that the convict may be required to serve it.

Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent

27
Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall
carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date
sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua and
reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may
be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of temporary absolute
disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that of
suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification
from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the
disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right too hold
office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of
a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed.

Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property
of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

 Even if the accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, the instruments or proceeds of the crime may still be forfeited.
 The innocent third person must intervene in the criminal case. He should file a motion or a third party claim and pray for the
release of the instrument to him.

APPLICATION OF PENALTIES

Section One. — Rules for the application of penalties

to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same.

Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall
be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated
felony.

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.

Kinds of crime
1. Simple crime – which the RPC defines and prescribes the penalty in single article. Ex. Art. 249 Homicide is punishable with
RT.
2. Plurality of crime – when an offender commits many crimes, each with a corresponding penalty distinct and separate from
those of the others.

2 types of plurality of crimes:

a. Real or material plurality – when each act arises from distinct criminal impulses, in which case, there will be as many crimes
as there are acts.
b. Ideal plurality – where the acts arise from a single criminal impulse, in which case, they would form a series of acts
constituting a single continuing crime.
 In crimes against persons, each act constitutes a distinct act of execution and thus is a distinct offense. There is no continuing
crime against several person.

3. Special complex crimes – these are 2 simple crimes but which the RPC has defined as a single offense with a single penalty.
Ex. Rape with homicide, kidnapping with homicide, robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, kidnapping with rape and
robbery with arson.

COMPOSITE CRIME – this are crimes which in the eyes of the law are treated as single individual offenses although in reality are
made up of more than one crime. They are also called special complex crimes or single indivisible offense.

This is not a complex crime but one crime made up of several violations and is deemed a product of one criminal intent.
28
 4. Complex crimes – although more than 1 crime has been committed, they constitute only one crime not explicitly prescribed
by the RPC and only 1 penalty is imposed pursuant to art. 48.

What is Complex Crime – a complex crime is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or where an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

2 kinds of Complex Crimes. Art. 48 speaks of 2 kinds of plurality of crimes:

a. Compound crime (delito compuesto) – when a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies.
b. Complex Crime Proper (delito complejo) – when an offense is a necessary means for committing another offense.

 A complex crime is only one crime as contemplated by law because the offender has only 1 criminal intent.

1. Compound Crime
Requisites:
a. That only a single act is performed by the offender
b. That the single act produces 2 or more grave or less grave felonies

Examples:
1. Double homicide/murder, multiple homicide, homicide with frustrated homicide and homicide with attempted homicide
2. A with intent to kill, fire his gun at B. the bullet hit B. After hitting B, the same bullet hit C. Both B and C died. Although 2
homicide resulted from the act, A cannot be charged with 2 separate crimes of homicide. He is liable for the single offense of
double homicide because the 2 homicide resulted from a single act. Homicide is a grave offense. The single act resulted in 2
grave felonies. (re: firing 2 shots?)
3. Suppose in the same problem, the same bullet hit B, C and D who all dies as a result. A is liable for the complex crime of
Multiple Homicide. There is no such crime as triple homicide, quadruple homicide or quintuple homicide. If a single act
causes 3 or more deaths, it is multiple homicide or multiple murder as the case may be.
4. In the same problem, suppose B and C were hit by the same bullet. B was seriously wounded but survive. C died as a result
of the gunshot wound. In this case, A is liable for the complex crime of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide. The single act
resulted in 2 grave felonies of homicide and frustrated homicide. In complex crimes, the designation of the offense always
starts with the more serious felony.
5. What if B was hit but was only slightly injured but C died as a result. A is liable for homicide with attempted homicide. The
single act resulted to one grave felony of homicide and one less grave felony of attempted homicide. Although B sustained a
slight injury, it is still attempted homicide because there was intent to kill on the part of A.

 A light felony cannot be complex with grave or less grave felony. As such, it should be filed separately.
 The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing murder and multiple murder attempts constitutes multiple murder with
multiple attempted/frustrated murder
 Placing a time bomb in a plane, which caused it to explode in mid-air, killing 13 persons therein, constitutes a complex crime
of multiple murder and destruction of property.
 When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed,
there is only a single offense, there being a single criminal impulse. (re: 1 person fired upon 6 individuals).
 Gang vs gang (riots) when no evidence as to who killed who, complex crime is applicable.

2. Complex Crime Proper

Requisites:
a. That at least 2 offenses are committed
b. That one of the offense must be a necessary means for committing the other offense
c. That both of the offenses must be punished under the same statute (RPC)
Examples:
1. Estafa through falsification of commercial documents
2. Malversation through falsification of a public document

Problems:
1. A found a lost check payable to B. He endorsed the check by falsifying the signature of B. The drawee bank have him the
equivalent of the check. A committed estafa as regards the bank because it was deceived by A into believing that he was B.
he was able to commit estafa because of his act of falsifying the signature of B. The falsification was a necessary means of
committing estafa. Therefore, A committed the complex crime of estafa through falsification.
2. Abduction as a necessary means for committing rape. However subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with
rape, are separate acts of rape.

 No complex crime when one of the offenses was committed for the purpose of concealing the commission of the other.
Example: After committing homicide, the accused in order to conceal the crime, set fire to the house where it had been
perpetrated. Setting fire to the house is arson. But in this case, neither homicide nor arson was necessary to commit the other.
The arson was not a necessary means of committing homicide. The arson was resorted to conceal the crime of homicide
already committed. Hence, the offender committed 2 separate crimes of homicide and arson.

Complex Crime vs Special complex Crime

a. An ordinary CC is composed of 2 or more crimes punished in different provisions of the RPC brought about by a single act
or where offense is a necessary means of committing another offense. A special complex crime or composite crime is made
up of 2 or more crimes which are considered as components of a single indivisible offense.
29
 b. The penalty impossible in ordinary complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period. In special
complex crime or composite crime the penalty impossible is the penalty specifically provided by law.

 The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The
reason for this is to favor the culprit. When 2 or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less
perverse than when he commits the said crimes thought separate and distinct acts.

DELITO CONTINUADO – or continued crime is one where the accused is impelled by a single criminal impulse but commits a series
of overt acts at about the same time in about the same place and said acts violate the same offense.
The reason is that neither the criminal act nor the intention is susceptible of division.

Example: A, B and C agreed to rob all occupants of the 5 houses located within the same compound. By a series of acts they robbed
the occupants of the 5 houses one after the other. They are liable for a single offense of Robbery. While they committed a series of act
against several victims, the said acts were impelled by a single criminal intent.

 There must be a general pan to rob. It should be distinguished from when the intention to commit a crime was just an
afterthought after the commission of another crime.

SINGLE LARCENY DOCTRINE – a doctrine in theft or robbery cases which is very popular in the Unites States and other countries
were the taking of property of properties belonging to the same or different persons by a series of acts or acts arising from a single
criminal intent or resolution constitutes only one crime.

 the courts now have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine under which there is a distinct larceny as to the property of each
victim.

Examples:
1. A saw 2 goats in his backyard. He decided to get both of them regardless of who is the owner. With the left hand, he got one
goat and with this right hand, he took the other goat. Here, A committed 2 acts of getting the 2 goats. But he took them as a
result of a single intent or criminal resolution. Hence, he is liable for the single offense of theft applying the single larceny
doctrine.
2. A and B peeped through the glass window of a classroom. They saw 30 students inside. They resolved to rob them all of their
belongings. By series of acts, they divested the students of their personal properties by means of threat and intimidation. A
and B are liable for the single offense of Multiple Robbery. The series of acts of dispossession of the personal properties of
the 30 students arose from a single criminal intent.

Exception of the Single Larceny Doctrine

Use of Submachine Gun: Several shots from sub-machine gun causing several deaths, although caused by a single act of pressing the
trigger, are considered several acts.
Does the number of crimes committed depend on how many times the trigger of an automatic gun was pressed or does it depend on
how many bullets are emitted? The SC declared that it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should produce the several felonies,
but the number of bullets which actually produced them. Hence, where the accused pressed the trigger of a submachine gun and the
gun fired continually and several persons were killed or injured, there are as many crimes as are persons killed or injured. This is in
view of the special mechanism the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually.

CONTINUING CRIME – one where any of the elements of the offense is committed in different localities such that the accused may
be charged in any place where an essential element of the crime was committed.

It is not a complex crime because the offender does not perform a single act but a series of acts and one offense is not a necessary
means of committing the other.

Examples:
a. Conrado kidnapped Jenna and illegaly detaine her in Baguio City. On the following day he brought her to Dagupan City. The
next day, he brought her to Tarlac and then to Manila. All the while, Jenna was deprived of her liberty. Conrado cannot be
charged with 4 separate crimes of illegal detention. His bringing of Jenna to 4 different places does not constitute separate
crimes of illegal detention. He committed the continuing offense of Illegal Detention (1 count)
b. X negotiated with Y regarding the purchase of the latter’s car in Manila. After the conclusion of the contract, X and Y met in
Angeles City where X paid Y a post dated check. The check was deposited by Y in his account at the Banco de Oro bank in
Baguio City. The drawee bank dishonored the check for the reason “drawn against insufficient funds.”
Answer: Y can file a case for Viol. Of BP 22 in Angeles City, or Baguio City. Under the law, a person can be charged in any
place where an essential part of the offense was committed. Viol of BP 22 is a continuing crime.

NO complex crime in the following:

1. In case of continuing crimes
2. When one offense is committed to conceal the other
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part or an element of other offences
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law
5. In case of special complex crimes
6. When the law provides of a two-tiered penalty

TWO-TIERED PENALTY – occurs when the law provides that a penalty to a particular crime is in addition to the penalty impossible
for another crime which results from the commission of such particular crime.

30
Example: Maltreatment of Prisoners (Art. 235) – the penalty of prision correctional in its medium period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, IN ADDITION to his liability for the physical injuries shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall overdo himself in the correction of handling of a prisoner or detention officer under his charge.

Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.

Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony.

Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony.

Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law
for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.

Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed
by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony.

Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.

Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed
by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of Impossible Crime — 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, 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 from 200 to 500 pesos.

Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than
another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.

The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.

The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:

SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional,

6. Arresto mayor,

7. Destierro,

8. Arresto menor,

9. Public censure,

10. Fine.

Degree – is one unit of a penalty or one of the penalties enumerated in the graduated scales in art. 71.
Divisible Penalties have 3 equal periods
1. Minimum
31
 2. Medium
3. Maximum
Period – one of the 3 equal portions of a divisible penalty

Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms
a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the
following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law
in its medium period.

2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.

3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
maximum period.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one
class against the other according to their relative weight.

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to
the number and nature of such circumstances.

6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater
penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.

Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered
as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in the
following table:

TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR
PERIODS

Penalties Time included in the Time included in its Time included in its Time included in its
penalty in its entirety minimum period medium period maximum
Reclusion temporal From 12 years and 1 From 12 years and 1 From 14 years, 8 From 17 years, 4
day to 20 years. day to 14 years and 8 months and 1 day to months and 1 day to
months. 17 years and 4 months. 20 years.
Prision mayor, From 6 years and 1 From 6 years and 1 From 8 years and 1 From 10 years and 1
absolute day to 12 years. day to 8 years. day to 10 years. day to 12 years.
disqualification and
special temporary
disqualification
Prision correccional, From 6 months and 1 From 6 months and 1 From 2 years, 4 From 4 years, 2
suspension and day to 6 years. day to 2 years and 4 months and 1 day to 4 months and 1 day to 6
destierro months. years and 2 months. years.
Arresto mayor From 1 month and 1 From 1 to 2 months. From 2 months and 1 From 4 months and 1
day to months. day to 4 months. day to 6 months.
Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 days. From 11 to 20 days. From 21 to 30 days.

Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:

In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or
should they have been served out.

For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following scale:

32
 1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional,chan robles virtual law library

6. Arresto mayor,

7. Arresto menor,

8. Destierro,

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

10 Temporal absolute disqualification.

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and

12. Public censure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more
than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to
which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.

Examples of penalties that can be served simultaneously:

1. The court imposed upon the accused imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and one day to 4 years and 2 months and to pay fine
of 2K. These 2 penalties can be served simultaneously.
2. Congressman Al Goze was sentenced to suffer Prision Mayor and disqualification to hold public office. These 2 penalties can
be served simultaneously.

 If the convict was sentenced to suffer Arresto Mayor and Prision Correccional, it cannot be served simultaneously. They
should be served successively according to the order of severity.

Three-fold rule – means that if the convict were to suffer several penalties, the maximum duration of his sentence shall not be more
than three times the length of time corresponding to the most severe penalty.
Illustration:
A was sentenced to suffer 4 penalties; 6 years, 5 years, 5 years and 7 years. The total of the penalties is 23 years. Applying the 3 fold
rule, multiply 7 yrs. By 3 and we have 21 years. A shall serve a total of 21 years only.

 The 3 fold rule applies only if the convict were to suffer at least 4 penalties. If the convict were to suffer 3 penalties only, the
3 fold rule doesn’t apply.

ACT NO. 4103 The Indeterminate Sentence Law

It is a law which modified the imposition of penalties under RPC and special laws. The courts are mandated in imposing a sentence of
fix a minimum and maximum period of penalty.
The minimum sentence must be served and thereupon, the convict becomes eligible for parole. When released, he does not become
actually discharged because the rest of his sentence is served out of prison under the supervision of a probation officer.

Not applicable in the following cases:

1. Those convicted of piracy
2. Those who are habitual delinquents
3. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence.
4. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
5. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension
6. Those convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment

EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES

Section One. — General Provisions

33
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.

The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different
departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.

Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict shall become insane or an
imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the
personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the
corresponding cases.

If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.

The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving
his sentence.

Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties of
reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in
the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the
future.

 Those whose sentences do not exceed 6 months are municipal prisoners; over 6 months but not more than 3 years, city or
provincial prisoners; and more than 3 years, national prisoners. As a rule municipal prisoners shall be confined in the
municipal jail; city or provincial prisoners, in the city or provincial jail; and national prisoners, in the national penitentiary.

Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the
sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the
place designated.

 In death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

 As penalty for the concubine

Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant
himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the
health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Chapter One
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;

4. By absolute pardon;

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.

FINAL JUDGMENT – means judgment beyond recall. As long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said
that accused is guilty of the felony. The rules states that a judgment becomes final after the lapse of period for perfecting an appeal or
when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal.

 service of sentence is a ground for extinction of criminal liability. It does not extinguish civil liability. It has been held that if
the accused escapes from prison where he was serving sentence, the period during which he was not in confinement shall be
deducted in the computation of his total service of sentence.

34
  Amnesty – is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general pardon for a past offense, and is usually granted to a
certain class of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.
Amnesty wipes out not only the penalty but also the effects of the criminal liability. But it does not extinguish civil liability.

 Pardon – is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the President which exempts the offender from
punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.
 Absolute pardon – grants oblivion to all the effects of the conviction. It shall restore all the civil rights. Under Art. 36, pardon
by the Chief Executive shall not work the restoration, of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such
rights are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Absolute pardon must therefore expressly restore the right to vote
and hold public office.

Pardon distinguished from amnesty

1. Pardon includes any crime; amnesty generally, includes political offenses
2. Pardon is given after conviction; amnesty is given even before conviction or institution of the action
3. Pardon as a defense must be proved; the court may take judicial notice of amnesty
4. Pardon looks forward and forgives the punishment; amnesty looks backward and abolishes the offense.

Prescription of crime – refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to prosecute the offender because of the lapse of time.

Prescription of penalty – refers to the loss of forfeiture of the right of the State to execute the penalty because of the lapse of time.

Marriage - marriage between the accused and the victim extinguishes criminal liability. The law contemplates a valid marriage. There
must be no legal impediment to the marriage.
 In multiple rape, the marriage shall extinguish only the criminal liability of one of the accused who offered to marry the
offended party. The case will proceed as to the other accused.

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in
twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto
mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules
contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article.

 When the last day of the prescriptive period for filing of the information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the information
can no longer be filed on the next day as the crime has already prescribed.

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which
the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

Example:
1. In 1980, X killed Y. For one reason or another, no case was filed against X. In 1985, Z came into the open and said that he
was willing to testify against X as he witnessed the commission of the crime. IN 2001, X was charged with Homicide.
HOMICIDE is a grave felony which prescribes in 20 years. In this case, the crime of Homicide was filed against X only 2001
or after 21 years which is beyond the prescriptive period for the offense. The fact that in 1985 Z indicated his desire to be a
witness is of no consequence. The prescriptive period started to run in 1980 when the crime was committed.

2. One fateful night in January 1990, while 5 year old Polo was urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange noise
coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Nene. When peeped inside, he saw Mina, Nene’s stepmother, very
angry and strangling the 5 year old Nene to death. Polo saw Mina carry the dead body of Nene, placed it inside the trunk of
her car and drove away. The deed body of Nene was never found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Nene went
to live with her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Polo did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives about
what he witnessed. 20 and half years after the incident, and right after his graduation in Criminology, Polo reported the crime
to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for the death of Nene
despite the lapse of 20 and half years?

35
ANSWER: Yes. Under Article 91, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents. In this case, the commission of the crime was known only by Polo, who was not the
offended party nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Polo revealed to them
the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the time Polo
revealed the same to the NBI authorities.

Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:

1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;

2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;

3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five
years;

4. Light penalties, in one year.

Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the
date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself
up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit
another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.

 If the sentence is not yet final, the period of prescription will not run because Art. 93 refers to the accused who shall evade
the service of his sentence. It does not also start to run where despite his final conviction (finality of the judgment), the
accused is not arrested to serve his sentence.
Example: A was charged with homicide. In 1980, he was convicted and was sentenced to suffer RT. After serving 6 months in prison,
he escaped. He was arrested in 2002. He CANNOT made to suffer the penalty imposed because the penalty has prescribed. The
prescriptive period of RP, being an afflictive penalty is 20 years. When A was arrested, more than 20 years have elapsed. The State
has lost its right to execute the penalty.

 If the accused is captured and then evades again the service of his sentence, the prescription that has ran in his favor should
be taken into account.

PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.

 Parole and Probation may be included as well.

Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. — Any person who has been granted conditional pardon
shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-compliance with any of
the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.

Conditional Pardon – the grant of CP is a silent contract, a covenant between the President and the convict. To be effective, the
conditional pardon must be accepted in writhing by the accused.

Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and
nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.

Commutation of sentence – is an act where the Chief Executive reduces the degree of the penalty inflicted upon the convict or by
decreasing the length of imprisonment or the amount of the fine. (when the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of age.

CIVIL LIABILITY

Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Dual character of a crime:

1. As an offense against the State; and

36
 2. As an offense against the person injured by the crime.

General Rule: When a criminal action is instated, the civil aspect arising from the crime is deemed instituted.
 Acquittal of the accused does not mean extinction of his civil liability unless there is a declaration in the decision.
 Civil liability of minors devolve upon the parents of guardians.

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

 The SL of employer arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case.

WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

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 the damage caused;

3. Indemnification for consequential damages.

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.

 Restitution is the return/restoration of the thing itself with allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value.
 Restitution can be made even from third persons who lawfully acquired the thing. He can however file an action against the
person from whom he acquired it, unless he acquired it in a manner where the law bars an action for recovery acquisition
from a public auction.

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.

 this is done if restitution is not possible. This applies to crimes against property.
 It requires the culprit in case of inability to return the stolen property to pay the value of the property or to pay for the
damaged property.

Art. 107. Indemnification; What is included. — Indemnification for 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.

 Applies to crimes against persons

 Indemnification for consequential damages which is generally payment of lost of unrealized salary or earning and
includes not only those of the offended party but his family and even by a third person by reason of the crime.

Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to
demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. — The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and
indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.

The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.

 If the victim dies, the action to demand restoration, reparation and indemnification descends to his heirs.
 Moral damages are automatically granted in cases of rape, rape with homicide, homicide or qualified rape without need of
further proof. 50K;100K;50K;75K

Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be
extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

 Payment or performance
 Condonation or remission of debt
.
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding
article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been
required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.

 Even if the criminal liability of the offender is totally or partially extinguished by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of
sentence or service of sentence or any other reason, he is still civilly liable.
 The grant of probation to the offender does not extinguish civil liability. Thus, where the accused pleaded guilty and applied
for probation, that fact does not prevent the trial court from making pronouncement on his civil liability.

37