THERE ARE NO SHORTCUT

TO ANY PLACE WORTH

GOING.
 PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD
BEFORE SPANISH CONQUEST;

CODE OF KALANTIAO
COLONIAL PERIOD (SPANISH REGIME)

Royal Decree of 1870 made the

Spanish Codigo Penal applicable
and extended to the Philippines,
effective July 14, 1876.
However, the Spanish Codigo Penal did not cater
to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos.
A Filipino named RAFAEL DEL PAN, made
the so called CORRECTIONAL CODE but
this code was never enacted into law.

A Code Committee headed by then

ANACLETO DIAZ was organized. This
committee drafted the Revised Penal
Code, which was passed into law as
Act No. 3815.
 DEFINITION OF TERMS

LAW
A rule of conduct, just and obligatory,
promulgated by competent authority
for common observance and benefit.

CRIME
An act or omission punishable by law.
It is an act omitted or committed in
violation of public law forbidding or
commanding it.
 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Felony
AN act or omission punishable by the Revised
Penal Code.
Offense
An act or omission punishable by Special Laws.
Omission
Means inaction, failure to do a positive duty,
which one is bound to do.
Act
Any bodily movement tending to produce some
effect in the external world.
 CRIMINAL LAW

A branch of public or
municipal law, which
defines crimes, treats
of their nature and provides
for their punishment.
DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES
UNDERLYING THE
PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM
 PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

CLASSICAL/JURISTIC THEORY

Best remembered by the maxim “AN EYE FOR AN

EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH”.

The purpose of penalty is RETRIBUTION. The

offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done.
A man is regarded as a moral creature who
understands right from wrong; therefore, he must be
prepared to accept the punishment for his
wrongdoings.
 PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

POSITIVIST/REALISTIC THEORY

The purpose of penalty is REFORMATION.

Crimes are regarded as social phenomenon,
which constrain a person to do wrong
although contrary to his own will/volition.
A tendency towards crime is the product of one’s
environment. There is no such thing as a “natural-born
killer”.

Criticized as being too lenient.

 PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

ECLECTIC/MIXED THEORY
This combines both positivist and classical thinking.
Crimes that are economic and social in nature
should be dealt with in a positivist manner,
thus the law is more compassionate, i.e. Theft
(Art. 308) and Usurpation of Real Rights in
Property (Art. 312), BP 22.
Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a
classical manner, thus capital punishment. The
Revised Penal Code follows the mixed/eclectic
theory.
BASIC MAXIMS IN
CRIMINAL LAW
 BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

DOCTRINE OF PRO REO

Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law admits
of two interpretations, one lenient to the
offender, and the other strict to the
offender, the interpretation which is
lenient or favorable to the offender, shall
be adopted or applied.
 BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

DOCTRINE OF PRO REO

This is in consonance with the fundamental
rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor
of the accused, and consistent with
presumption of innocence of the accused.
Hence, AN ACCUSED IS PRESUMED
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege

There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the act.
Because of this maxim, there is no common
law crime in the Philippines, no matter how
wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no
law defining and punishing the act, the same is
not considered a crime. Hence, the person
doing the act cannot be charged or indicted.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Common Law Crimes

Acts or deeds which the community

condemn as wrongful or contemptible,
even though there is no law declaring
such acts or deeds as criminal.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is
not criminal.
This applies only to intentional felonies or
those characterized as DOLO, but not those
felonies resulting from negligence (CULPA).
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Actus Me Invito Est Meus Actus

An act done by me against my will is not
my act.
Usually, this is applicable to exempting
circumstances particularly paragraphs 5 and
6 of Art. 12 of the RPC, i.e. The offender is
under the compulsion of an irresistible force
or uncontrollable fear.
 BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
A legal principle holding that a person cannot not escape liability for
violating a law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a

person charged with a criminal offense would merely claim that he/she
is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though he/she
really knows what the law in question is.

This doctrine imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons

considering that laws are published or circulated in national
newspapers, in the Official Gazette and even in the internet.
 BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
A legal principle holding that a person cannot not escape liability for
violating a law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a

person charged with a criminal offense would merely claim that he/she
is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though he/she
really knows what the law in question is.

This doctrine imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons

considering that laws are published or circulated in national
newspapers, in the Official Gazette and even in the internet.
IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT (HONEST
MISTAKE OF FACT)
- excuses the actor from criminal liability because a
person acting under a mistake of fact does not have
criminal intent.

Not Applicable in the Following:

1) When there is mistake in identity (error in
personae)
2) When there is negligence on the part of the accused.
3) When the accused committed a culpable felony.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

DURA LEX SED LEX

The law may be harsh but it is the law.
Death Penalty: Harsh or Not?

Leo Echegaray’s Last Words: "Sambayanang Pilipino,

patawarin ako sa kasalanang ipinaratang ninyo sa akin.
Pilipino, pinatay ng kapwa Pilipino.” ("People of the
Philippines, forgive me for the sin that you have accused
me of. A Filipino, killed by a fellow Filipino.")
 PURPOSES OF
CRIMINAL LAW
PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW

1) To reform (reformation);
2) To deter/frighten others from committing
crimes (deterrence);
3) To prevent offenders from committing further
crimes (prevention);
4) To defend the State against crimes (self-
defense);
5) To repair/restore the damage done
(Reparation/restoration);
6) To set an example (exemplarity).
 SOURCES OF
CRIMINAL LAW
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

1) The Revised Penal Code (Act. No.

3815);

2) Acts of the Philippine Legislature,

National Assembly, Congress of the
Philippines, Batasang Pambansa,
Presidential Decrees, Executive
Orders, etc.
RULES ON CONSTRUCTION
OF PENAL LAWS
 RULES ON CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

A criminal/penal law should be liberally

constructed in favor of the offender and strictly
against the State.

Quantum of evidence required in criminal cases

is “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
PARTS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

1) Basic Principles Affecting Criminal Liability

- (Arts. 1-20)

2) Provisions on Penalties, Including Criminal

and Civil Liability
- (Arts. 21 to 113)

3) Specific Felonies and their Penalties under 14

Titles
- (Arts. 114-366)
 DATE OF APPROVAL AND
EFFECTIVITY OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE

ACT NO. 3815

• Approved on:
December 8, 1930
• Took effect on:
January 1, 1932
CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW
 3 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW

I.GENERAL APPLICATION
Criminal or penal laws is BINDING
ON ALL PERSONS who reside or
sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective
of age, sex, color, creed or personal
circumstances (Art. 2, RPC and Art.
14, NCC).
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL
APPLICATION:
1) Persons exempted by treaties
2) laws of preferential application.
3) Persons exempted under the principles
of public international law.
1) TREATY OR TREATY STIPULATIONS
An example of treaty or treaty stipulation, as
an exception to the general application of our
Criminal Law is the US-Philippine Military
Bases Agreement entered into by and between
the Philippines and the USA on March 14, 1947
stipulating that “the Philippines consents that
the US have the right to exercise jurisdiction
over some particular offenses committed by
persons residing or sojourning in the
Philippines”. However, the said Military Bases
Agreement already expired on September 16,
1991.
2) Law on Preferential Application
 

Republic Act No. 75 may be considered a law of

preferential application in favor of diplomatic
representatives and their domestic servants.
It is a law to penalize acts which would impair
the proper observance by the Republic and
inhabitants of the Philippines of the
immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in
the Philippines.
Nota Bene:
The law does not apply when the foreign
country adversely affected does not provide a
similar protection to Philippine diplomatic
3) Principles of Public International Law
Persons exempt from the operations of our
criminal laws by virtue of the principles of
public international law:

Sovereigns and other chiefs of state;

Ambassadors;
Ministers plenipotentiary;
Minister’s resident; and
Charges d’ affaires
(shär-zhā-dе-fer).
II. TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
Criminal and penal laws of the Philippines
are enforceable or applicable within the
Philippine archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone, which constitute the Philippine
territory (Art. 2, RPC, and Art. 1 of the 1987
Constitution).
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIAL
APPLICATION:
The provisions of the RPC shall be
enforced outside of the Philippines against
those who:

1) Should commit an offense while on a

Philippine ship or airship;
2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIAL
APPLICATION:
The provisions of the RPC shall be enforced
outside of the Philippines against those who:

3) Should be liable for acts connected with the

introduction into these islands of the forged or
counterfeited obligations and securities;
4) While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
5) Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations.
 TWO RULES ON FOREIGN MERCHANT
VESSEL
1) FRENCH RULE – the country where the
merchant vessel was registered (Flag
Country) has jurisdiction over crimes
committed on board the vessel if the crime
committed –
a. merely affect things within the vessel, and
b. when the crime is related to the internal
management of the vessel.
Jurisdiction under this rule is not territorial
in character.
However, the FLAG COUNTRY does
not have jurisdiction over the crimes
committed on board the foreign
merchant vessel if the crime
committed affects the peace and
security of the territory (i.e. smoking
marijuana) where it was committed
or when the safety of the State is
endangered.
2) ENGLISH RULE – Crimes committed on
board a foreign merchant vessel within the
territorial waters of another country is triable
in the courts of such country. This rule is
strictly territorial.
Exception:
When the crime committed only affects things
within the vessel or when they refer to the
internal management thereof.

In the Philippines, we follow the ENGLISH

RULE.
RULE ON FOREIGN WARSHIPS

In case of foreign warships, they

are not subject to territorial laws of
other countries because they are
deemed the extensions of the owner
country.
III. IRRETROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY
Criminal/penal law shall be prospective in nature.
Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the
time of their commission. Penal laws shall be applied
to acts or omissions committed after there issuance
or promulgation. Penal laws operate only
prospectively or to acts done after the effectivity of
the law.
EXCEPTION TO THE PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION:
If the law is FAVORABLE to the accused/offender
who is not a habitual criminal (Art. 22, RPC), the said
law should be given a retroactive application.
 FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
FELONIES/ DELITOS – Acts or omissions punishable by
law.

ELEMENTS OF FELONY:

a) there must be an act or omission

b) such act or omission is punishable by law (RPC); and
c) committed either by means of dolo or culpa.
• There is deceit (dolo) when the act is performed with
deliberate intent.
• There is fault (culpa) when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
DOLO VS. CULPA
ELEMENTS OF DOLO ELEMENTS OF CULPA
• intelligence • intelligence
• freedom • freedom
• criminal intent • negligence/
imprudence/lack of
foresight/skill
INSTANCES WHEN A PERSON WHO COMMITTED
A FELONY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BECAUSE HE ACTED WITHOUT FREEDOM

1.When he acted under the compulsion of an

irresistible force; and
2.When he acted under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
INSTANCES WHEN A PERSON WHO
COMMITTED A FELONY IS EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY BECAUSE
HE ACTED WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE
• When the person who committed the felony was
insane or imbecile;
• When he is a minor under 9 years old; and
• When he is over 9 but less than 15 years old;
and
• When he is over 15 years old but below 18
unless he acted with discernment (Sec. 6, RA
9344).
INSTANCES WHEN A PERSON WHO COMMITTED
A FELONY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BECAUSE HE ACTED WITHOUT INTENT
1.When he had performed a lawful act with due
care and caused an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it;
2.When he failed to perform an act required by
law, because he was prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause; and
3.When there is mistake of fact.
 CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE
MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED

1. INTENTIONAL FELONIES – felonies committed with

malice or intent, and
mens rea + actus rea = intentional felony
mens rea – wrongful or criminal intent, i.e. to rob
actus rea – wrongful or criminal act in furtherance of
the wrongful or criminal intent, i.e. robbing a bank

2. CULPABLE FELONIES – felonies resulting from

imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
 INTENT VS. MOTIVE
INTENT MOTIVE
• the purpose to use a • the moving power,
particular means to which impels one to
effect such result action for a definite
• one of the elements result, e.g. jealousy,
of an intentional revenge
felony • not an element of a
crime/felony, whether
intentional or
culpable
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES WHEREIN MALICE OR
INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HOLD A PERSON
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE CRIME HE COMMITTED?

In cases where criminal intent is not necessary, to wit:

1) In crimes mala prohibita, or those crimes punishable
by special law. Mere execution of the prohibited act
constitutes a crime; and
2) In culpable felonies, wherein intent is replaced by
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
 MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
CRIMES MALA INSE
An act mala inse is a wrong
act from its very nature as
those felonies punished in
the Revised Penal Code.
Examples: Homicide, Rape,
Robbery
CRIMES MALA PROHIBITA
An act mala prohibita is
wrong because a law
prohibits it. Without the law
punishing the act, it cannot
be considered wrong.
Examples: Illegal Possession
of Firearms, Illegal
Possession/Use of
Dangerous Drugs
 HOW IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY INCURRED
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person:
1) Committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended; and
2) performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
(Art. 4, RPC).
REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT A PERSON MAY BE HELD
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE WRONG DONE WHICH IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED

1) That a felony was committed, and

2) That the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the

direct, natural and logical consequence (proximate
cause) of the felony committed (el que de la causa es
causa del mal causado) – he who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused.
 CAUSES THAT MAY PRODUCE A RESULT WHICH IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED BY THE OFFENDER

• Aberratio ictus (Mistake in the Blow)

• Error in personae (Mistake in the identity of
the victim)
• Praeter Intentionem (The injurious result is
greater than that intended; act exceeds the
intent) – MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
 Aberratio ictus
The offender intending to cause an injury to one person
actually inflicted it on another, a result which is NOT intended
by him.
Example:
A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol at B. He missed B and
instead hit C who was then standing behind B. C was seriously
injured.
A did not intend to cause an injury to C, therefore, the result was
not intended by him. However, A is still criminally liable for the
injury caused to C because when he fired his gun at B with intent
to kill, A was committing the felony of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE and
the injury caused to C was the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by A. As regards C, A
committed FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. But since only one act was
committed, A is liable for the complex crime.
In aberratio ictus, the act of the offender may result in
two or more felonies. But considering that a single
act was performed, a complex crime is committed (if
grave or less grave felonies were committed).
The Transferred Intent Rule applies. It results when
the actual victim turns out to be different from the
intended victim. The intent to caused an evil is
deemed transferred to the actual victim.

Penalty Impossible: Penalty for the graver offense (Art.

48)
 Error in personae
Example:
A, fired his gun at a person sleeping on the floor facing the
wall with his back towards the door, believing him to be the
notorious criminal who has been “wanted” by police
authorities. However, the person killed, named B, was not the
notorious criminal, but an innocent person.
A is criminally liable for the death of B because when he fired
at B and killed him while he was sleeping, thinking that B is
the notorious criminal, A made a mistake in the identity of the
victim. Although the wrong done is different from that
intended by A, he is still liable because he was committing a
felony, that is MURDER and the death of the victim was the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by him.
In error in personae, the offender is liable even if the
victim turns out to be different from the intended
victim.
The Transferred Intent Rule applies.

Penalty Impossible: Penalty prescribed for the lesser

offense in its maximum period (Art. 49).
 Praeter intentionem
Example:
A, without intent to kill, gave B a fist blow on the back
part of his head. B fell to the ground as a result of the
blow, and his head hit the pavement and as a result it was
fractured. B died instantly.
Although the death of B was not intended by A, he is still
liable because when he gave B a fist blow on the head, A
was committing the felony of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
(at least), and the death of B was the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felony committed by A.
WHEN IS THE RESULT DEEMED THE DIRECT, NATURAL
AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE FELONY
COMMITTED BY THE OFFENDER?
When the felony committed by the offender is
the PROXIMATE CAUSE.
PROXIMATE CAUSE, DEFINED:
That cause, which in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have
occurred.
 INSTANCES WHERE THE FELONY COMMITTED IS
CONSIDERED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
1. When the offender threatened and chased the deceased with
a knife and when he was about to be overtaken, the deceased
jumped into the water and as he did not know how to swim he
died of drowning. The felony committed, which is threat, was
the proximate cause of death of the deceased.
2. Giving fist blows or slightly injuring a person suffering from
heart disease, resulting in the death of the victim.
NOTE:
Refusal of the offended party to submit to surgical operation does
not relieve the offender from liability for the resulting crime,
because he is responsible for the natural and ordinary results of the
crime committed by him and neglect of the wound or its unskillful
and improper treatment are of themselves consequences of the
criminal act which might naturally follow in any case.
 WHAT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME?
An impossible crime is one where the act
performed by the offender would have been
an offense against persons or property were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).

A person committing an impossible crime

incurs criminal liability.
 Inherently Impossible of Accomplishment

1) Factual or Physical Impossibility – it occurs when

extraneous circumstances unknown to the
perpetrator prevent the commission of the
intended crime, i.e. stabbing (with intent to kill) a
dead person
2) Legal Impossibility – It occurs when an essential
element of the crime is not present during its
commission making it impossible of
accomplishment, i.e. picking an empty pocket.
 Example of an impossible crime where the act performed
would have been an offense against persons were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment

A saw his enemy B lying on a bed. With intent to

kill, A, stabbed B thinking that B was only sleeping. It
turned out that B has been dead before A stabbed
him.

The act performed by A would have been

MURDER, an offense against persons, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, it
being impossible to kill a person who is already dead.
 Example of an impossible crime where the act performed
would have been an offense against property were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment

A, with intent gain picked the pocket of B, without

his knowledge and consent. The pocket turned out to
be empty.

The act performed by A would have been theft,

an offense against property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. Since
theft cannot be committed when there is no personal
property that could be taken.
Impossible crime where the means employed is
inadequate

A wanted to kill B. He mixed a small quantity

of poison into the milk of B. B drank the milk but
did not die because the poison was so
inadequate or of small quantity that it could not
kill a person.

A is criminally liable for an impossible crime

of murder because if the poison was adequate,
and B died from poisoning, A would have been
guilty of murder. Subjectively, A is a criminal.
Impossible crime where the means employed is
ineffectual

A, believing that a certain white powder was

arsenic or poison, mixed it with the coffee
intended for B. B drank the coffee but nothing
happened to him since the white powder turned
out to be sugar, and not poison.

A is criminally liable for the impossible crime

of murder.
DUTIES OF THE COURTS OF
LAW
What is the duty of the court in connection with acts,
which should be repressed, but which are not covered by
the law?
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it
may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable
by law, it shall render the proper decision (which is to
dismiss the case and acquit the accused) and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act
should be made the subject of legislation (Art. 5, 1st
paragraph, RPC).
Based on the rule that “there is no crime if there is no
law that punishes the act”.
What is the duty of the court in cases of excessive
penalties?

Whenever the court finds that a strict

enforcement of the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code would result in the imposition of a
clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration
the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense, the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence (Art. 5,
2nd paragraph, RPC).
STAGES IN THE COMMISSION
OF A FELONY
THREE STAGES OF EXECUTION:
1) Attempted,
2) Frustrated, and
3) Consummated.
ATTEMPTED:
A felony is attempted when the offender
commences the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
 OVERT ACT
An overt act is a physical activity, more than a mere
planning or preparation, which evinces the intention
of the offender to commit a particular felony.

The existence of the overt act is important only in the

attempted stage of the acts of execution.

It is not necessary to determine the existence of overt act in

the other acts of execution, because in frustrated stage, as
well as in the consummated stage of execution, the offender
has performed all the acts of execution, which necessarily
implies that the offender has done more than an overt act.
 PREPARATORY ACTS
Preparatory acts are those initial acts of a person who has
conceived the idea of committing a crime, but which cannot
by themselves logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense. They are not even overt acts and hence, they do not
constitute the attempted stage of the acts of execution.
Examples:
1) conspiracy and proposal to commit a certain felony;
2) buying or securing a weapon to commit murder.

Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable. However,

preparatory acts consisting in conspiracy to commit a felony
is punishable in treason, rebellion and sedition, and proposal
to commit a felony is punishable in treason and rebellion.
Preparatory acts which are considered in themselves
by law as independent crimes are punishable, like
possession of picklocks which are preparatory to the
commission of robbery with force upon things.

Buying or securing a weapon, like a knife or a

firearm, is not punishable. But when one buys or
secures a gun firearm and he has no license to
possess it, the mere possession of the same,
although a preparatory act to the commission of
homicide in punished by law – not as a preparatory
act, but as a distinct crime.
FRUSTRATED:
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs
all the acts of execution, which would produce the
felony as a consequence, but, which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
CONSUMMATED:
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present.
 Felonies which have no attempted and
frustrated stages
1) Flight to enemy country,
2) Corruption of minors,
3) Formal felonies, like slander and false
testimony,
4) Felonies by omission, like misprision of
treason, and
5) Treason.
Felonies that do not have frustrated stage
of execution
1) Betting in sport contest,
2) Bribery, and
3) Corruption of officers.
These felonies which require the intervention of
2 persons are consummated by mere agreement.
The inducement made by one of the parties to
the other constitutes attempted felony, if the
offer is rejected. If the offer is accepted, the
felony is consummated.
LIGHT FELONIES
 ARE LIGHT FELONIES PUNISHABLE?
Light felonies:
Those infractions of law for the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200
pesos, or both, is provided.

General Rule:
Light felonies are punishable only when CONSUMMATED.

Exception:
Light felonies committed against persons or properties are
punishable even if they are merely ATTEMPTED or
FRUSTRATED.
Examples of light felonies which are punishable
only when consummated
1) Betting in sport contests,
2) Illegal cock-fighting, and
3) Intriguing against honor.

These light felonies are punishable only when

consummated because they are not against
persons or property and hence, they are
covered by the general rule.
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
TO COMMIT A CRIME
WHEN IS THERE CONSPIRACY?
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
ELEMENTS:
1) there are two or more persons;
2) who come to an agreement;
3) concerning the commission of a felony; and
4) they decide to commit the felony.
TWO KINDS OF CONSPIRACY:
1) Conspiracy as a felony/crime, and
2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
 CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY VS. CONSPIRACY AS A
MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Conspiracy as a Felony Conspiracy as a Manner of Incurring

Criminal Liability

It is a felony when the law If after the conspiracy , the

especially provides a penalty
therefor like Art. 115, which
punishes Conspiracy to
Commit Treason, Art. 136
which punishes Conspiracy to
Commit Rebellion, and Art.
141, which punishes
Conspiracy to Commit
Sedition.
offenders actually committed
treason, rebellion or sedition,
the conspiracy ceases to be a
felony and becomes only a
manner of incurring criminal
liability, that is, “THE ACT OF
ONE CONSPIRATOR IS THE
ACT OF ALL CONSPIRATORS”.
WHAT IS PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY?
There is a proposal when the person who has decided
to commit felony proposes it execution to some other
person or persons.
REQUISITES:
1) a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2) after such decision, he proposes the execution of the
felony to some other person or persons.
IS PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY PUNISHABLE?
It is punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor, to wit:
1) Proposal to Commit Treason (Art. 115), and
2) Proposal to Commit Rebellion (Art. 136).
May a person be held liable for proposal to
commit rebellion if the proposal is rejected by
the person to whom the proposal is made?

Yes, because what the law punishes is the mere

proposal to commit rebellion or treason by one
who is decided to commit it. The acceptance of
such proposal is not necessary.
 CLASSIFICATION OF
FELONIES ACCORDING TO
GRAVITY
 WHAT ARE THE CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
ACCORDING TO GRAVITY?
Grave Felonies
Those which the law attaches a capital
punishment or a penalty which is afflictive in any its
periods.
Less Grave Felonies
Those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional.
Light Felonies
Those infractions of law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding P200.00 or both is provided.
OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE
Are the provisions of the RPC applicable to
offenses which are punishable under special
laws?
As a general rule, offenses which are
punishable by special laws are not subject to the
provisions of the RPC.
The RPC is merely SUPPLEMENTARY to such
laws, unless the special law should specially
provided the contrary.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT
CRIMINAL LIABILITY?

They are:
Justifying,
Exempting,
Mitigating,
Aggravating, and
Alternative.
 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFYING
Those circumstances wherein the acts of the
actor are in accordance with law, and hence,
he incurs no criminal and civil liability.
No crime is committed. Hence, it follows that
there is no criminal to speak of. The actor has
not incurred any criminal liability.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1) Self-defense – Anyone who acts in defense of his

person or rights.
Requisites:
a. unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
b. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it (person defending himself);
and
c. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
A, was living in the house of B. One evening, A kissed the
wife of B who saw them. B took a bolo and attacked A
with it. A avoided the blow, opened his own knife and
stabbed B to death. Prosecuted for homicide, A claimed
self-defense. Did A act under the justifying circumstance
of self-defense?

No, because A gave sufficient provocation to the

deceased. The third requisite of self- defense was not
present.
However, A is entitled to incomplete self-defense. Under
Art. 69, A is entitled to one or two degrees lower of the
penalty for homicide.
 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON SELF DEFENSE
1) In self-defense the burden of proof rests upon the
accused. His duty is to established self-defense by
clear and convincing evidence; otherwise conviction
would follow from his admission that he killed the
victim (People v. Mercado 159 Phil. 453).
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed is
negated by the location and severity of the victim’s
wounds. Mortal wounds at vital parts of the victim’s
body indicate appellant’s determination to kill the
deceased and not merely to defend himself (People
v. Zate, Nov. 17, 2001).
2) Defense of relative – Anyone who acts in defense of the
persons or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of
his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

Requisites:
a. unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
b. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it (person defending himself); and
c. in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.
3) Defense of stranger – Anyone who acts in defense of
the person or rights of a stranger.
Requisites:
a. unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
b. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it (person defending himself);
and
c. the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
Illustrative Case:
A was in love with the wife of B. One day, A, at a
distance of fifty meters, saw B in the act of stabbing
C, a stranger, with a knife. A shot B who was mortally
wounded. Did A act in defense of a stranger?
It depends. If A killed B only to save C from being
killed by B, A was justified in doing so. But if A killed B
to enable him to marry B’s wife, then the third
requisite of defense of stranger is lacking, A having
been induced by evil motive.
4) State of necessity – Doing an act which causes
damage to another to avoid an evil or injury.
Requisites:
a. the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
b. the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it; and
c. there are no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing the evil.
Illustrative Case:
A, a married woman who had experienced difficult
childbirth which almost cost her life, consulted a
doctor. The doctor after mature consideration
advised her that it would be better to remove her
ovary. By agreement of A and the doctor, her ovary
was removed by operation. Can A and the doctor
escape criminal liability for mutilation under the
justifying circumstance of state of necessity?
No, because the evil sought to be avoided did not
actually exist. The first requisite is absent.
Another Illustrative Case:
The captain of a vessel loaded the vessel with a quantity
beyond the approved capacity. While the vessel was in
the sea, it met a storm. Sensing that the vessel might
sink because of the strong wind and big waves and due
to its heavy load, the captain ordered that half of the
cargoes be jettisoned, which was done by the
crewmembers. Can the captain successfully invoke the
justifying circumstance of state of necessity?
No, because the state of necessity was brought about by
his negligence. The evil which brought about the state of
necessity must not result from a violation of law by the
actor.
5) Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or
office.

6) Obedience to an order issued by a superior for some

lawful purpose.
Requisites:
a. Order issued by a superior for a lawful purpose, and
b. Lawful means was used to carry out said lawful
order.
Illustrative Case:
The PNP Chief ordered his men to shoot and kill
on sight a notorious criminal who was at large.
Consequently, a police officer shot the notorious
criminal who was found sleeping, in obedience to
the order of the PNP Chief. The notorious
criminal died. Was the police officer justified in
shooting to death the notorious criminal?
No, because the order is illegal or unlawful,
especially so that the criminal was killed while he
was sleeping.
7) Battered woman syndrome as a JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE (Republic Act No. 9262).

R.A. 9262 provides:

“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 involving the commission of the
crime”.
 BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

Who is a battered woman?

- a woman 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
(People v. Genosa, G. R. No. 135981 Jan. 15, 2004;
Sept. 29, 2000).
 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
EXEMPTING
Those wherein there is absent in the agent of the
crime any of the conditions that would make an act
voluntary , or negligent.

One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting

circumstances commits a crime, but because of the
absence of the conditions which constitute free will
or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability
arises. There is however, civil liability.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval;
2) A person under 9 years of age;
3) A person under 9 years old and under 15 (RA 9344);
4) Any person over 15 and under 18 years old, unless he acted with
discernment (RA 9344);
5) Any person who while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it;
6) Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force;
7) Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury;
8) Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
 INSANITY VS. IMBECILITY
INSANITY - exists when there is complete deprivation
of intelligence. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability.

IMBECILITY – exists when a person of advanced age

has the mental development comparable to that of a
child between 2 and 7 years of age.

• An insane person is not exempt if it can be shown

that he acted during a lucid interval. But an imbecile
is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
 INSANITY
At the time of his trial for homicide, A was insane as shown by the
report of a doctor of the National Mental Hospital. Must the court
declare A exempt from criminal liability?
No, because the mental condition of the accused at the time of his
trial does not in any way affect his criminal liability. It is the mental
condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime
which the court has to consider for the purpose of determining his
criminal liability.
If he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, he should
be acquitted regardless of the condition of his mind at the time of his
trial.
If he is insane at the time of his trial so that even with the assistance
of counsel, he may not have a fair trial, the court can only suspend the
trial and commit him to the National Mental Hospital until he shall
have regained his reason.
 INSANITY
SOMNAMBOLISM
Commonly known as sleep-walking. It is embraced in a plea of
insanity.

DEMENTIA PRAECOX
It is mental illness otherwise known as schizophrenia. When a
person becomes affected by this kind of mental illness, he has no
control whatever of his acts, during the period of excitement.
It may be considered as embraced in the term “insanity”,
because the person affected has completely lost the exercise of
his will power.
• A mental illness which only diminishes the exercise of will
power may give rise to a mitigating circumstance only.
 MINORITY
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF MINORITY UNDER THE
NEW LAW (RA 9344)?
1)If the offender is 15 years old or less at the time of the
commission of the offense, he is EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY but not from civil liability. But although he is exempt from
criminal liability, he shall be subjected to an “intervention program”
pursuant to Sec. 20 of the law.
2) If the offender is more than 15 years but less than 18 years of
age at the time he committed the offense and he acted without
discernment, he is STILL EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
3) If the offender who is above 15 but under 18 years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense acted with
discernment, he shall undergo the “diversion program”
prescribed by the law.
OFFENSES WHERE PERSONS LESS THAN 18
YEARS OLD ARE EXEMPT (RA 9344)
 
1) Vagrancy (Art. 202)
2) Prostitution (Art. 202)
3) Mendicancy (PD 1563)
4) Sniffing Rugby ( PD 1619)
 ACCIDENT
An accident is something that happens outside
the sway of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, it lies
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.

If the injury or damage caused is clearly

foreseeable, it is a case of negligence.
 ACCIDENT
Illustrative Case:
A fired his gun several times upward in the air on the
eve of a new year in Manila. One of the slugs fired by
him fell on the head of a boy who was playing on the
street. Is A criminally liable for the death of the boy?
Yes. This is not a case of pure accident, which is an
exempting circumstance. The discharge of firearm in a
thickly populated place like Manila is prohibited and
penalized under Art. 155 of the RPC. Hence, A was not
performing a lawful act. He is in fact at fault.
 INSUPERABLE CAUSE
Illustrative Case:
In the province : A pregnant woman, while answering the
call of nature in her farm, gave birth to a child and then
and there suffered from severe dizziness and extreme
debility. She left the child and tried to walk to her house.
The child died when it was bitten by an animal. Is the
mother criminally liable for infanticide?
No. She was prevented from taking with her the child
when she was overcome by sever dizziness and extreme
debility. Hence, she was prevented by some insuperable
cause.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
1)Spontaneous desistance during the attempted stage of
execution of the act constituting the crime;
2)Light felonies are not punishable unless they are
consummated, except those committed against persons or
property;
3)Accessories are not liable for light felonies;
4)Less serious or slight physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances;
5)Exemption from criminal liability of certain relatives in the
crimes of theft, estafa and malicious mischief;
6)Marriage between the offended party and the offender in the
crimes of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness.
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MITIGATING
Based on the diminution of either the
freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or
on the lesser perversity of the offender.
Those that have the effect of reducing the
penalty by one or more degrees lower than
the imposable penalty.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1)Incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstances, because all the requisites
necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant/present.
2) The offender is under 18 or over 70 years old.
3) The offender had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed (praeter
intentionem).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
4) Sufficient provocation or threat on the part of
the offended party immediately preceded the
act.
5) The act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, etc.
6) Passion or obfuscation - Having acted upon
an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation.
7) Voluntary surrender.
Requisites:
a. The offender has not been arrested;
b. He surrendered himself to a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority;
and
c. His surrender was voluntary.
8) Offender is deaf and dumb, blind or suffering
from physical defects that restrict his means
of action, defense or communication.
Rationale:
Such physical defect restricts a person’s means
of action, defense, or communication with his
fellow beings, thereby diminishing his
freedom of action.
9) Such illness of the offender as would diminish
the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without depriving him of the consciousness of
his acts.
Insanity vs. Illness of the Offender
• Presupposes complete absence of
intelligence at the time of the commission
Insanity of the crime.
• Exempting circumstance.

• Only diminishes the exercise of will power.

Illness of the The offender is still conscious of his acts.
Offender • Mitigating circumstance.
Examples of illnesses which are considered
mitigating circumstances:
1) Acute neurosis which makes a person ill-
tempered and easily angered;
2) Feeblemindedness; and
3) Kleptomania, which is an abnormal, persistent
impulse or tendency to steal.
10) Any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to the foregoing, such as the following:
a. Over 60 years old with failing sight, as similar to
over 70 years of age;
b. Voluntary restitution of stolen property, as similar
to voluntary surrender of the offender; and
c. Extreme poverty and necessity, as similar to
incomplete justification based on state of necessity.
11) Plea of guilty or voluntary confession of guilt.
Plea of guilty can only be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance if it is made before the presentation of
any evidence by the prosecution.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING
Those which serves to increase the penalty without
exceeding the maximum provided by law.
Based on the greater perversity of the offender
manifested in the commission of the felony, as shown
by (1) the motivating power of the commission of the
crime, (2) the place of its commission, (3) the ways
and means employed , (4) the time, or (5) the
personal circumstance of the offender or of the
offended party.
 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
What are the aggravating circumstances?
They are:
1) Taking advantage by the offender of his public
position.
2) The crime in contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities.
3) The act be committed with insult or in disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of
his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has
not given provocation.
Instances where dwelling is not aggravating:
1) When the offended party in his dwelling gave sufficient and
immediate provocation to the offender.
2) When both the offender and the offended party are occupants
of the same dwelling.
3) When dwelling is inherent in the crime, such as in robbery with
force upon things and in trespass to dwelling.
Case:
While they were talking on the road, A boxed the face of B.
Thereafter, A ran into his house nearby and B followed A into
the latter’s house where B killed him.
Dwelling in this case is aggravating in spite of the provocation
given by A because said provocation was not given by A in his
house/dwelling.
4) That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
obvious ungratefulness.

5) That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief

Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
• The aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed in
a place dedicated to religious worship does not require that
there be a religious ceremony.
• The place should be exclusively used for religious worship. A
temporary altar built at the Luneta Park, even if mass is being
said there by a cardinal, is not considered a place dedicated to
religious worship.
6) That the crime be committed in the night time, or in
an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
Night time, Uninhabited place or by a band is
aggravating if:
1) It facilitated the commission of the crime;
2) It is specially sought for by the offender to insure
the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
impunity; or
3) The offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity .
When is a crime considered committed by a
band?

Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors

shall have acted together in the commission of
the crime/offense, it shall be deemed to have
been committed by a band.
8) That the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
9) That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
10) That the offender has been previously punished by
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty (reiteracion or habituality).
KINDS OF HABITUALITY:
1) Recidivism
2) Reiteracion or habituality
3) Habitual Delinquency
4) Quasi-recidivism
RECIDIVISM
When an accused at the time of his trial for an offense shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of a crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
- aggravating circumstance
REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
It is a circumstance where the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which the law attaches (has served
sentence) an equal or greater penalty; or he has previously
been punished for two or more crimes previously to which the
law attaches a lighter penalty. It is not required that the
offenses be covered under the same title of the RPC.
Example: In 1990, A served the penalty for Theft involving 1
million pesos. In 2000, he was charged with Theft of an object
worth P500.00. (Big time to small time)
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
This occurs when within 10 years from the date of conviction
or last release of a person for any of the crimes of Serious
Physical Injuries, Less Serious Physical Injuries, Theft, Robbery,
Estafa or Falsification (SLTREF), he is found guilty the third
time or oftener.
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
When a person who before serving sentence or while serving
sentence, commits another felony.
-The crime committed must be a felony.
- special aggravating circumstance which must be alleged in
the information.
11) That the crime be committed in consideration of a
price, reward, or promise.
12) That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.

13) That the act be committed with evident

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

Craft vs. Fraud vs. Disguise:

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part
of the offender.
Example: A courted the housemaid of B to enable him to
enter the house. During the second meeting with the maid
in the house where the maid had already trust and
confidence in him, A stole money and jewelry of B.
The aggravating circumstance of CRAFT should be
considered against A because he resorted to such
intellectual trickery and cunning to induce the maid to
admit him in the house of B.
Other examples of craft:
1) Inviting the victim to a distant mountain to see a peculiar/unusual
tree and once there killed the victim;
2) Pretending to be a passenger in a taxicab and once in the taxi,
robbed the driver of his money;
3) Representing himself as an authority to gain entrance into the
house where offender committed acts of lasciviousness.

Fraud is the use of insidious words or machinations to induce

another.
Example: A told the maid of B that he is an employee of the
electric cooperative and that he needs to go inside to check the
electrical connection of the house, and because of this false
representation, he was allowed to enter the house of B. Once
inside, A at the point of a gun succeeded in taking money and
jewelry of B.
Other examples of fraud:
1) Inducing the victim to go down to the lower story of
his house, pretending to be buying wine stored there
and when victim went down, the accused killed him
right then and there.
Disguise – resorting to any devise to conceal identity
before committing the crime.
Example:
Using wig or make-up to disguise as a woman for the
commission of a crime.
15) That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
means be employed to weaken the defense.
16) That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of
the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
Requisites of treachery:
1) The crime committed is against persons, such as
killing or injuring a person without justifiable reason;
2) When the victim is attacked, he must be
defenseless, that is, he is not in a position to make a
defense; and
3) The means, method or form of attack must be
deliberately chosen by the offender.
17) That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
18) That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance
is effected by a way not intended for the
purpose, i.e. wall, roof, floor, or window.
20) That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under 15 years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft,
airships, or other similar means. (As amended
by RA 5438).
21) That the wrong done in the commission of
the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its
commissions.
 ALTERNATIVE
CIRCUMSTANCES
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
ALTERNATIVE
Those which are either aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects
of the crime and other conditions attending its
commission, such as:
1)Intoxication;
2)Relationship; and
3)Degree of Instruction/Education.
Intoxication
Mitigating - if offender committed a felony in a state of intoxication,
and such intoxication is (a) not habitual or (b) subsequent to the plan
to commit said felony.
Aggravating - if (a) habitual, or (b) when it is intentional, that is,
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.
Relationship
Aggravating – in crimes of rape, acts of lasciviousness, and other
crimes of chastity.
Mitigating - in crimes against property.
Exempting - when the crime of theft, swindling (estafa) or malicious
mischief is committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the
same line;
2) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living
together.
Degree of instruction or education of the
offender.
Mitigating – low degree or lack of instruction coupled
with low degree of intelligence that the offender does
not fully realize the consequences of a criminal act.
Not mitigating in crimes against property like arson, and
in crimes against chastity like acts of lasciviousness.
Aggravating – high degree of instruction/ education
PERSONS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE FOR FELONIES
 WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
1) Who are liable for Grave and Less Grave Felonies?
a) principals;
b) accomplices; and
c) accessories.
2) Who are liable for Light Felonies?
a.) Principals, and
b.) Accomplices.
Accessories are not liable for light felonies
because the social wrong as well as the individual
prejudice is so small that penal sanction is deemed
not necessary.
 WHO ARE PRINCIPALS?
3 Kinds of Principals:
1) Principal who take direct part in the execution of the
act (Principal by Direct Participation - PDP);
2) Principal who directly force or induce others to
commit a crime (Principal by Inducement - PI); and
3) Principals who cooperate in the commission of the
offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished (Principal by
Indispensable Cooperation - PIC).
 WHO ARE ACCOMPLICES?
Who are accomplices?
Those persons who, not being principals , cooperate in
the execution of the offense or after coming to know a
conspiracy/plan to commit an offense or after seeing
the principal by direct participation commit an offense,
concurs, conforms or approves such conspiracy or act
of the principal, by a previous or simultaneous acts.

His participation however, should not be equal to or

greater than the act of the principal by direct
participation.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
 

1. A and B agreed and decided to commit Robbery in the

house of X. On the following day, A & B told C about the
plan and asked C to drive them to the house of X. C drove A
& B to the house of X where A & B committed Robbery. Is C
liable? If so, what is his liability?
Yes, as an accomplice. He concurred to the conspiracy and
cooperated with A & B by driving them to the crime scene.
 PRINCIPAL VS. ACCOMPLICE
PRINCIPAL
Takes a direct part in the execution
of the act; one who directly forces or
induces others to commit it; or one
who cooperates in the commission
of the offense by another act
without which , the crime would not
have been accomplished .
Have knowledge of the plan to
commit the crime for having been
participated in the planning or one of
the conspirators.
ACCOMPLICE
One who, not being any one of the 3
kinds of principal, cooperates in the
execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts.
Does not have knowledge of the plan
or conspiracy to commit the crime.
But upon knowing or seeing the
criminal design of the principal, an
accomplice concurs with the plan by
helping the principal by direct
participation.
 PIC VS. ACCOMPLICE
PIC ACCOMPLICE
Both cooperates or participates in the commission of the crime.

The cooperation of the PIC is The cooperation of the

INDISPENSABLE to the accomplice is only NECESSARY.
commission of the crime, that
is, without his cooperation
(performed an act), the crime
would not have been
accomplished.
 WHO ARE ACCESSORIES?
They are:
1) those who have knowledge in the commission of crime; and
2) take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manner:
a) by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit from
the effects of the crime;

b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the

effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;

c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the

principal of the crime if he acts with abuse of public functions or
when the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive or is
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.