of 36

Criminal Law 1 Cornejo

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 5 | Comments: 0
154 views

Comments

Content


July 2008

1



ARTICLE 1
TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT

ARTICLE 2
SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE
CODE

3 Important Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity

1. Generality
General → criminal law applies to all who
lives/ sojourn within the Philippine territory.
Lives → committed a crime here, Phil.
Criminal law applies to you
Sojourn → even if you are simply passing thru
– you are subjected to Phil. Criminal law.

General Rule:
Who lives / sojourn in the Phil Territory

Exceptions:
Heads of state, ambassadors, ministers,
resident diplomatic

Q: Consuls, Vice-consuls?
A: not exempt from the operation of Phil.
Criminal law

2. Territoriality
- physical boundaries, that would
include Phil. Criminal law now
will apply to all crimes within the
Phil. Territory.
- Phil. Territory- the land, water
and the air

Q: What about the extent of Phil territory?
(because of the Phil. boundaries nga?)

A: water- formerly 3 mile limit but now 12 mile
limit from low water mark.

Originally 3 mile limit extended from the low
water mark 12 mile limit from the low water
mark- by virtue of the New Convention of the
Law on the Sea, which was ratified in 1982 by
member states, 50+ member states, 52/55
expand the territorial water jurisdiction of Phil.
Criminal Law

Exemptions to the Territoriality Characteristics
of Phil. Criminal Law are found in Art. 2 of the
RPC (memorize)

× meaning Phil. Criminal law will apply to
those persons who committed it even
outside the Phil. Territory
× so, it applies to all those who commit
an offense while on board/ Philippine
ship/airship it shall apply to those who
counterfeit currency notes, bank notes,
coins which have been issued by the
government of the RP, it shall apply to
those who are responsible for the
introduction of those counterfeit, bank
notes that has been forge; public
officials and employees who commit
offenses in the course/ discharge of
duties/official functions as such; and to
those who commit crimes against
national security and the law of the
nations





CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW


CRIMINAL LAW 1
Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo
Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff
July 2008

2
5 Exceptions - that Even Committed
Outside the Philippine Territory Air, Land
and Water Still Subject to Philippine
Criminal Law
1. Crime committed within a Philippine ship or
airship.
2. Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury
or bank note or any instrument payable to
bearer or to order the appearance of a true
genuine document or by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting, or altering by any means the
figures, letters, words or signs contained
therein.
3. If forgery was committed abroad, it must
refer only to Philippine coin, currency note or
obligations and securities.
4. A public officer or employee who commits a
crime related to the exercise of his office.
5. Title I of Book II on crimes against national
security and the law of nations covers treason,
espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in
case of war, piracy and mutiny but not
rebellion.
Note: When rebellion is committed abroad, the
Philippines will not acquire jurisdiction because
rebellion is a crime against public order.

Board/ Phil. Ship/ Airship
+ it is not a question of ownership of a
vessel
+ it is a question of registration
+ where it was registered
+ for our court to acquire jurisdiction, it
must be registered in accordance of our
Phil. Laws
+ even it was Filipino owned but not
registered under our law, even if the
crimes committed there, we do not
have jurisdiction
+ registration in the Bureau of Customs
+ for as long as the crime committed on
board of Phil ship / Airship

Q: What if the crime is committed on board
on a warship?
A: Of course internationally accepted that
would fall under the jurisdiction - still which the
country to which that warship belongs, even if
it is here within the Phil. Territory, if the crime
is committed in that warship that is still
considered an exception in the territory of the
country to which that warship belongs.

Q: Crime committed on board of foreign
merchant vessel?
A: 2 rules:
a. French rule - if the crime committed on
board of a foreign merchant vessel.
Example:
Here in our territory, under the French rule, we
do not have jurisdiction except if that crime
even if on board of a foreign merchant vessel
affects public order/ national security

b. English rule - the crime is committed on
board of a foreign merchant vessel which is
situated in Phil. territory, it is subject to our
jurisdiction except if that crime relates to
internal affairs/ internal management of the
foreign merchant vessel.

3. Prospectivity
the law will apply only to facts,
circumstances, events, transactions
after the promulgation of the law
so the law must made to apply forward,
it may not apply backward, it cannot be
given a retroactive application, that is
the rule
Exception:
If it is favorable to the accused, it is not
enough that RA is favorable to the. The
accused must not be habitual delinquent (HD)

HD - Art. 62
^ 2 requisites must concur:
1. RA is favorable to the accused
2. He must not be a HD

Q: Who / What is HD?
A: It is a special aggravating circumstance
because it adds to penalty
· if within a period of 10 years, reckoned
from the date of his last release or the
last conviction (2 reckoning point)
· of the crimes of (any of the crimes of)
serious physical injuries, less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa
and falsification, is found guilty of any
of the said crimes, the third time or
oftener

Take note the effect of repeal of the Penal
Law
a.) New law provides a lighter penalty than the
penalty provided in the old law with respect to
Make Peace with Imperfection
July 2008

3
a crime then the new law will apply because it
is favorable to the accused but remember he
must not be a HD

b.)What if the new law provides a heavier
penalty? At the time of the commission of the
crime, then you apply because it is not totally
repealed, its only that it apply to the same
offense but the point th4e lighter penalty in the
old law that would have to be made to apply.

c.) What if the new law does not anymore
penalize the act which has been penalize
before the old law
- the crime is obliterated
- acquitted

Schools of Thought
1. Classical Theory
2. Positivist Theory
3. Protective / Utilitarian

1. Classical Theory
- Man is considered a creature of
absolutely free will (voluntary)
- Wherefore he has a choice
- If he chooses to do wrong, he will suffer
the consequences
- If he chooses to be right, fine! ©
- Purpose of penalty retribution

2. Positivist
does not do it voluntarily but there is a
strange & morbid phenomenon that
compels it to do the act
psychological
did not really mean to commit the crime
but compel him by a strange or morbid
phenomenon to commit the crime
not penalty, subjected to a battery of
psychological test
he did not to do it on his own - forced to
do it

3. Protective / Utilitarian
Case
Facts: Violation of BP22, he was being made
to pay something, the alleged creditor would
not have any cash out, there is a propensity to
fool somebody who is already in a dire straight
-he took advantage on the accused.
Held - SC: Criminal Law, the penalty provided
under the criminal law is not there to protect
society only from actual wrongdoers, but
likewise from potential wrongdoers. Those who
have propensity/ intonations to commit a crime

ARTICLE 3
FELONY

Art. 3 relate to Art. 4
Art 3- defines what a felony is
Art. 4- how is criminal liability incurred

Q. What is a felony?
Art. 3, a felony is an act or omissions
punishable by law.

Q. Did he incur criminal liability?
A. Go back to Art. 3 & 4

Q. How is that act/omission?
A. Either dolo or culpa.

Q. How is criminal liability incurred?
A. Felony is an act/omission punishable by law
it could be by means of dolo (deceit, intent )
culpa (imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight/skills)

2 Basic Kinds of felony
1. Intentional felonies
2. Culpable Felonies

Q. What are the elements: Art 365 Culpable
A.
Intentional vs. Culpable
-freedom ^ -freedom
-intelligence ^ - intelligence
-intent ^ -negligence

Act - overt act, violation of law, you penalize it

Omission - why it is omission of a felony? or
punishable by a law?

Omission - we do not do anything - inaction,
Q. So why do we penalize for something we
do not do?
A. because there is a law that tells you to do
this, if you do not to do this, so you omit the
obligations to do.



Let Go of the Idea that Gentle, Relaxed People
Can’t Be Super Achievers
July 2008

4
Example
Treason (misprision) you are aware of the
conspiracy to commit treason- you have to
report it to the proper authorities.

ARTICLE 4
HOW IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY
INCURRED

Q. How is criminal liability incurred?
A. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.

By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.
Discussion
before you can incur criminal liability - you do a
felony, if you do something which is not a
felonious, you may be civilly liable but not
criminally liable

Q. So how do you incur criminal liability?
A. If you perform a felony

Definition of felony
It is an act/omission punishable by law, if the
act is incorrect merely or otherwise but it is not
punishable by law and you commit it but it
appears that it is morally wrong but not
punishable by law, you do not incur criminal
liability.

Example
Q. A commit suicide and she jumps from a
building and nibagsak sya kay B, did A
incur criminal liability?
A. No, the act is not felonious. Suicide is not a
felony. Even it is immoral.

Opinion: He can be liable for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide

Judge Cornejo ´: those person who commit
suicide, there’s something in their head (when
you go up in the tallest building) di kana titingin
kung may madadaganan ka pa), I do not
subscribed to the opinion.
The only question is if there is a criminal
liability - if your act is felonious.


If the act is not felonious, you will not incur
criminal liability.

To be able to incur criminal liability, 2
requisites must concur:
1. The act is felonious
2. The act is the proximate cause of the injury

Concept of Proximate Cause
The cause of the cause is the evil caused

Q: How it is defined in criminal law?
A: People vs Iligan
It is that cause which in the natural &
continuous sequence of events unbroken by
any events, unbroken by any active intervening
cause produces an injury without which the
result would not have result.

Q: When there is a proximate cause?
A: From the cause to the effect nothing must
happen in between

___________________________________________________
Proximate cause Effect which is the result

Case of Rockwell:
Offender punched the victim, the victim fell on
the floor (cemented pavement), he did not die,
while on the ground, dumating si horsie
horsie!!! Dead ª

Q: Was the punching - that is an exertion of
violence, protective of injury? Was the
punching, that is a felonious act is the
proximate cause of the death of the victim?
A: From the cause which is the act to the effect
of the death nothing must happen in between,
o di ba may nangyari the horsie, horsie,. The
intervening cause - horsie horsie

Case of Rockwell vs Case of Chuaco
In Chuaco Case, the horse is not in the scene
Punched -died of cerebral hemorrhage → incur
criminal liability → from the cause to the effect
there is no intervening

People vs. Iligan
+ may view that the concept of Proximate
Cause was modified
+ the victim was hacked on the head and
then he run until he reached the
Be Aware of the Snowball Effect of Your Thinking
July 2008

5
highway and he fell and run over by the
vehicles.
+ SC said: It was still a proximate cause
even if the immediate cause was the
running over.

Judge Cornejo ´: it is not modified →
explained by the Supreme Court, that it is a
mortal wound na eh!
= Highway - mabilis ang takbo ng
vehicles so you do not consider that as
an efficient intervening cause
= it was an isolated case
= you do not drive less than 100 km per
hour → still it is the same concept

Felonious Act - effect “nothing happened in
between”

Factors Affecting Intent and
Correspondingly the Criminal Liability
1. Mistake of Fact
2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)
3. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the victim of
the blow)
4. Proximate Cause

1. Mistake of Fact
If you commit an act which is felonious,
because it is punishable by law but you did it
under a mistake of fact, you will not be
criminally liable
Requisites (the 3 must concur):
1. That act would have been lawful had the
facts been as the accused believe them to be-
the act would have been lawful - nakapatay ka
2. The intention of the accused in performing
the act must be lawful
3. No negligence/carelessness on the part of
the accused

U.S. vs. Anchong
killed the victim, absolved because of mistake
of fact→ voluntary yan but under different
special circumstances kaya siya na absolve,
fall under the concept of mistake of fact.

1. The act would have been lawful had the
facts been as the accused believe them to
be.
Example
He slept, locked the door, he heard somebody
knocking trying to open the door, he taught it
was a murderer. But before he opened / before
he killed the victim, the intention was to protect
himself or defend himself, because he believes
there is somebody trying to kill him, but he was
not careless, not negligent, because he asked
- sino yan, sino yan? bukas bukas pa din—3
rd

time asking, upon opening the door he killed
the person and after that he found out that it
was only his roommate
→ He is acting in self-defense which is lawful
→ No fault or carelessness / negligence,
precisely he was calling / asking 3 times

2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)
If the act is criminal act but as was committed
not under the mistake of fact, it was voluntary,
it was with knowledge, he knew what he was
doing, talagang penalize siya, only that there is
a mistake in the identity of the victim.
Criminally liable.
Example
A intended to kill B but A killed C instead
Q: Will A be liable for killing C?
A: Naturally, liable

3. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the vicitim of
the blow)
A intended to shoot B, but A fired to C- mistake
in the blow (Aberatio Ictus) → liable
Example
The husband stopped the wife from talking,
punched the pregnant wife…but there is no
intention to kill the wife, intention to exert of
violence into her person, to stop her from
talking. There is intent to cause harm but no
intent to kill the wife. No intention to commit so
grave / praeter intentionem - criminally liable

Impossible Crimes
By any person performing an act which would
be an offense against persons or property,
were if not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means

Q: Is it a crime?
A: technically, No! Impossible crime is not a
crime because the act is not a criminal act it
would be an offense or it would have been an
offense against person or property for if not for
the impossibility of its accomplishment or on
Develop Your Compassion
July 2008

6
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

Q: Then if it is not a crime why it is
penalize?
A: it is penalize because the fact of the
commission of that act, how which is not for
the productive of a crime, against person/
property, he has shown his criminal propensity,
intention to commit a crime only that he do not
accomplish the crime because it is inherently
impossible.

The criminal propensity, criminal tendency that
is the one which is penalize, not the crime
itself, because technically it is not a crime.
Example

Q: A intended to kill B, A went to the house
of B, he saw B lying on the bed, believing
that B was sleeping but in fact B died in a
cardiac arrest and A stabbed B.
Had the person (B) has been alive at the
time of stabbing - homicide/murder
A: the point is A will not be liable for
murder/homicide, because he cannot kill
somebody who is dead (inherent impossibility
on account of the employment of inadequate
ineffectual means)

Example
Buying a substance, you knew it is a poison
but it is sugar so your intended victim did not
die.

For purposes of impossible crime
The act would be an offense

Additional According to the SC
The act should not constitute another violation
of any other provision in the RPC

Case:
Intod vs. Court of Appeals
Offenders intended to kill Mr. X, so they
conducted a surveillance there is evident
premeditation (go out, what time?), so on the
day they decide to execute their plan to kill Mr.
X, they TA! TA! TA! TA! And yet the house
specifically the room - the supposed victim is
not there, Mr. X is somewhere else

Argue in the SC: attempted murder, they tried
to kill but he was not there

Another Justice - impossible crime
How can it be - when one of the requisite is
when the act must not constitute any violation
of the RPC, eh di ba TA! TA! TA! Caused
damage to the property, that is a violation of
the RPC.
^ modified version of the impossible
crime
^ hindi pumasok yung last provision- that
do not constitute another violation of
any other provision of the RPC
^ but they considered it as an Impossible
Crime, because of the inherent
impossibility
^ kapag attempted murder dapat andun
yung tao and about to commit the crime
^ definition of a felony
^ not attempted/ frustrated stage in
Impossible Crime

ARTICLE 5
THERE IS NO CRIME WHEN THERE IS
NO LAW THAT DEFINES AND
PUNISHES IT

ARTICLE 6
STAGES OF EXECUTION OF FELONY

Different Stages of Execution of felony
1. Consummated
2. Frustrated
3. Attempted

Discussion
hindi ito crime
Attempted murder or is hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of attempted murder as defined
and penalized in Art. 248 of the RPC in
relation to Art. 6 - stages of execution
of a felony - attempted homicide as
defined and penalized in Art. 249 of the
RPC in relation to Art. 6

1. Consummated
All the essential elements of the crime are
consummated


Remind Yourself that When You Die,
Your “In Basket” Won’t be Empty
July 2008

7
Example
He kills somebody - die sya - consummated
the moment you put that thing, you have
control, consummated na but there are certain
instances the consummation/frustration of the
crime will depend on the disposability of the
articles taken.

Case:
People vs. Espiritu
Rifles they put it in a truck then at the
checkpoint the rifles were found, they were
unlawfully taken
Consummated? No!
SC: it is simply frustrated because they could
not have easily disposed the rifle

Case:
People vs. Bino – they got hospital linen from
the placed it was stored. They loaded it in the
truck. Na-check point sila
SC: consummated, because the linen is easily
disposable
So it would depend on the disposability of the
articles taken for the purposes of the
consummation

2. Frustrated
Offender performs all the acts of execution,
which would produce it by reason of some
cause independent of the will of the perpetrator
- perpetrator - offender
- offender - he is the one who
commit a crime
- all the acts of execution-
naperform na nya

Examples
a. Frustrated Homicide - offender performs all
the act of execution if the offender has inflicted
a mortal wound (sufficient to cause death)
(fatal would yan) nisaksak mo in the dibdib-
consummated but if you have inflicted of a
mortal wound and then you have change of
heart ikaw na mismo ang nagdala sa hospital
or because you are a doctor, you save his life-
frustrated, because the prevention of the
commission of the crime/ consummation of the
crime is due to you
b. you inflicted the mortal wound, doctors came
in, administered the necessary medication and
necessary healing that save his life- frustrated,
the offender performs all the act of execution
that would produce a homicide as a
consequence kasi mortal wound na sufficient
to death but nevertheless homicide is not
committed coz the victim did not die, why? Due
to some cause not on the will of the perpetrator
but due to the will of timely medical assistance
c. Rape- no frustrated
d. Arson- no frustrated
e. Impossible Crime- no frustrated

3. Attempted
The offender merely commences, merely
begins the performance of the act, the
commission of the crime directly by overt acts

Frustrated → naperform na lahat
Attempted → be merely begins, merely
commences, how? By directly overt acts, but
does not perform all the acts of execution by
reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance

Attempted
a. Commences directly by overt acts
b. If the act is preparatory he has not reached
the attempted stage of felony
¯ overt means direct external / outer
¯ for the purpose of attempted felony the
overt act must have a direct relation to
the crime intended to be committed
¯ not necessary that there is a physical
act because the physical act may be
preparatory or overt act
¯ overt act may have a relation to be the
crime intended to be committed

Example
Q: Person decides to kill somebody, he
goes to the drug store, and buys rat killer
intended to mix that to be fed to the
intended victim. His acts in purchasing rat
killer, has reached the attempted stage?
A: NO! preparatory lang yan dib a, no direct
relation in his mind has a direct relation, but in
the state of his mind, so it is a preparatory act,
malay mo maraming rats talaga, so it is
different however he comes home he mixes
the poison on the food, he attempted to feed it,
overt act, attempted homicide, because the
direct relation.
Paano magiging attempted?
Susubo pa lang nya and the cat went to him,
cat ate it and the cat died → attempted, take
Don’t Interrupt Others or Finish Their Sentences
July 2008

8
note that he did not feed because of some
cause other than his spontaneous desistance

No attempted
Impossible Crime
Homicide
Arson
Notes:
You put flammable articles, nibuhusan mo ng
gas, overt act - attempted
Rape - no frustrated- only attempted and
consummated
Consummated rape, when? Slightest
penetration of the ano into the ano is already
consummated di na kelangan to go deeper,
slightest penetration, for as long as there is a
slightest penetration
What if walang penetration? yung haging
haging lng, kasi obviously may intent, for
example, you undress a woman, the male
organ, walang penetration that is attempted it
is not acts of lasciviousness why you place
your thing over her thing without intent to,
attempted but the moment slightest penetration
- consummated

Case:
People vs. ª
Attempted – male organ was placed and
nagkiskis dun sa thigh nung girl. No
penetration
SC: that is only an attempted rape. It simply
constituted the strange thing of the castle of
the orgasmic potency or the shelling of the
variable passion.

Example
They inflicted injury on the victim, believing the
victim has already died? Survive, is that
frustrated homicide?
They belief is immaterial. What matter is if all
the acts of execution were performed.

ARTICLE 7
WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE
PUNISHABLE

Light Felonies
Are punishable when consummated except
those against person or property.
Generally: when consummated
Except: attempted theft, attempted homicide

Example
Oral defamation
Slander

ARTICLE 8
CONSPIRACY

Q: When is there a conspiracy?
A: When 2 or more persons come into an
agreement concerning the commission of the
crime and decide to commit it.

Conspiracy can be taken into 2 senses:
1. Generally as a mode of incurring criminal
liability or it is taken as a crime itself only when
expressly made a crime under the RPC / law
2. If conspiracy is not expressly made a crime
under the law specifically the RPC and
conspiracy is simple a mode of incurring
criminal liability.

1. Conspiracy as a Crime
It is defined in the law as a crime

Example
Conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion, coup
d’etat, sedition, particular penalty
+for as long it is defined a crime and gives a
penalty, conspiracy is a crime but if it is not
made/expressly made a crime, more it is given
a penalty in the RPC, it is simple a mode of
incurring criminal liability.

2. Mode of incurring criminal liability
Because the act of 1 is the act of all

Example
Even if I, even if Mr. X is the only one who
materially perform the act, even he is the one
who is directly stub and kill the victim, kami we
were there, did not participate in the actual
killing for as long as it can be establish that we
conspired to kill, then, we are likewise liable as
Principals.

Q. Mode of incurring liability – when do you
incur criminal liability?
A. When you perform an act or felony.
¬So you perform an act, you are the one who
killed the victim, kami hindi but we conspired to
commit a crime, in any other manner, we
conspire to kill the victim, we are equally liable
Do Something Nice for Someone Else – and Don’t
Tell Anyone About It
July 2008

9
as to his death, as Principals, but of course in
conspiracy, it must be established clearly and
convincingly as the crime itself although there
is no direct evidence of conspiracy of course
its inferred from circumstantial evidence, was
there some agreement if any part is done by
them that would show there is common decide
to commit a crime, there is conspiracy.
¬Even we say there is a conspiracy, because
the act of 1 is the act of all, they conspire but if
somebody or one of the conspirators try to
prevent the commission of an act which was
not one of those agreed upon, he cannot be
held liable.
Example:
We conspire to kill A but napatay na then
susunugin yung bahay but you prevent it, you
may not be held liable for arson

General rule: the act of 1 is the act of all
Exception: if 1 of the conspirators try to
prevent the commission of another act which
was not agreed upon.

Proposal to Commit a Felony
A mode of incurring criminal liability, is likewise
a crime only if it is made expressly a crime
under the RPC

Examples
Proposal to commit treason, proposal to
commit rebellion, proposal to commit sedition

g if it is made expressly made a crime
g it is not necessary that a proposal is
accepted, mere proposal even if not
accepted, it is made a crime in so far as
the offense and liable, not specifically
made a crime it must be accepted
perjury
Example
I decide to induce him to execute a false
affidavit, propose the execution, if he will not
accept my proposal. He is not liable
Accept → both will be liable, Principal by
Inducement

Q: What if several persons were charged as
conspirators, ½ have been acquitted, the
last are guilty/ convicted, is there
something wrong?
A: No, People vs. ©
→ Nothing irregular because conspiracy is a
mode of incurring criminal liability.

ARTICLE 9
GRAVE, LESS GRAVE, LIGHT
FELONIES

ARTICLE 10
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

ARTICLES 11 TO 15
Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances
Art. 12 Exempting Circumstances
Art. 13 Mitigating Circumstances
Art. 14 Aggravating Circumstances
Art. 15 Alternative Circumstances

JEMAA – they are referred to as modifying
circumstances.
Q. Why modifying?
A. Because they modify either to increase or
decrease the degree of criminal liability of a
particular accused.

J – there is no criminal liability
E – there is no criminal liability
M – there is criminal liability but reduced
A – there is criminal liability but liability is
increased or if it is in the nature of qualifying
aggravating circumstance then the crime is
changed. It changes the nature of the crime.
Example Qualifying aggravating circumstance
– killing generally would amount to homicide
but there is an attendance in the commission
of the crime of qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery or evident
premeditation, the crime is qualified from
homicide to murder.

Justifying vs. Exempting
1. J – there is no crime, there is no criminal
liability because the act is justified (neither
crime nor criminal)
E – there is a crime but there is no criminal
Because the criminal or perpetrator of the act
is exempt from criminal liability

2. J – since there is no crime, there is no civil
liability except Paragraph 4 → state of
necessity or avoidance of greater injury.

Let Others Have the Glory
July 2008

10
(We all know even in criminal procedure – civil
liability flows from the commission of the crime
so if there is no crime, there is no source from
which the civil liability might flow or spring)

E – since there is a crime, there is civil liability.
There is no criminal liability but there is civil
liability except paragraphs 4 (accident) and 7
(insuperable cause).
Meaning: with respect to paragraphs 4 and 7
there is neither criminal liability nor civil liability.

JEM – invoked by the accused.
Aggravating – invoked by the prosecution for
the purpose of increasing the degree of
criminal liability of the accused. The
prosecution is requesting and trying to prove to
the court that this circumstance should be
appreciated against the accused in the
commission of the crime so as to increase the
criminal liability of the accused.

ARTICLE 11
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Self – defense (SD)
2. Defense of Relatives (DR)
3. Defense of Strangers (DS)
4. State of Necessity or Avoidance of
Greater Evil
5. Fulfillment of a Duty
6. Obedience to Superior

In self-defense, defense of relatives and
defense of strangers, the first two elements
of these three defenses are the same:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression

They differ in the 3
rd
requisite:
SD – lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself

DR - in case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making the
defense (the accused) had no part therein /
even if the relative being defended gives the
provocation, it is important that the person
defending had no part in the provocation.
DS – the person defending the stranger was
not motivated by hate, revenge, resentment or
other evil motives.
The unlawful aggression should have come
from the private offended party.

In all these defenses the indispensable
requisite is unlawful aggression.
Q. Why unlawful aggression is
indispensable?
A. Because if there is no unlawful aggression,
the second requisite (which is reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the unlawful aggression) has no basis
because you are invoking SD, DR, DS so the
unlawful aggression should have come from
the victim. Meaning without the unlawful
aggression, there is nothing to prevent or
repel.

Incomplete Justifying Circumstance (IJC) –
if not all the conditions are present

Q. What is the effect of IJC?
A. It is a privileged mitigating circumstance
(PMC).

Q. What is the effect of PMC?
A. It serves to reduce the penalty by degrees.
It is 1 degree lower to the mitigating.

Incomplete SD, Incomplete DR, Incomplete
DS, Incomplete exempting circumstance –
not all the conditions necessary to justify the
act or exempt the accused from criminal
liability are present.

If in any of these defenses (SD, DS, DR) there
is no unlawful aggression, even if the two other
requisites are present, you cannot invoke of
the PMC of IJC because as far as these
defenses are concerned, the indispensable
element is unlawful aggression coming from
the private offended party.

Examples:
1. If in SD reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression and lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself are
present but there is no unlawful aggression →
no PMC
2. If in SD unlawful aggression and reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the unlawful aggression are present →
there is PMC
Learn to Live in the Present Moment
July 2008

11
3. If in SD unlawful aggression and lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself are present → there is PMC
4. If in SD one requisite is present, which is
unlawful aggression → ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

PAR. 1 - SELF DEFENSE
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself

1. Unlawful Aggression from the Victim

Aggression should have come from the
victim of the accused
The unlawful aggression must have come from
the victim because he is defending himself or
defending his relative or defending a stranger
so the aggression should have come from the
victim of the accused.

Q. What is unlawful aggression / What
would consist of unlawful aggression?
A. It is an action either an actual physical
assault coming from the victim or the threat to
inflict real injury on the offender and the threat
to inflict real injury must be immediate and
imminent. The threat to inflict real injury in not
merely imagined.

Immediate / Imminent – about to happen.
There are signs to show that the aggression is
about to happen.

Example
Lumalapit lang sayo yung tao, no threat, you
imagined that he will kill you → this is not
imminent.

It must be at the time the unlawful
aggression is still existing
If you act / claim in SD, it must be at the time
the unlawful aggression is still existing
because of you attack somebody after the
unlawful aggression has already ceased to
exist, that is no longer SD, you are no longer
preventing, you are no longer preventing any
aggression. When the unlawful aggression
ceased to exist → that is simply retaliation.
Example
Ni-saksak ka nya, umalis na sya tapos ni-
attack mo pa sya → retaliation

Binugbog ka, after binugbog ka, bumagsak ka,
he left and did not do anything else and then
you stood up and you followed him and
stabbed him.
Q. Is that SD?
A. No. Tapos na eh! It should be on going or
about to happen. You are simply repelling the
aggression so the aggression must be existing
at the time you reacted.

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means
Employed to Prevent or Repel the Unlawful
Aggression
- Case to case basis. It would depend on the
existence of the aggression as well as the
nature and extent of the aggression because
you are trying to repel or trying to prevent the
aggression so it must be reasonable and must
depend on the nature and extent of the
aggression.
Example
Nisampal ka nya, sinaksak mo sya. Is that
reasonable? No. Kung sinampal ka, sampalin
mo din or suntukin mo.

Minura ka, sinaksak mo – that is unreasonable!

It must be proportionate to the aggression. So
it would depend on the nature and extent or
gravity of the aggression. The reasonableness
would depend on the existence of aggression.
If there is no aggression there is no basis for
repelling.

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Part
of the Person Defending Himself

Q. What is provocation?
A. It is something that would steal somebody to
action.

Q. What is lack of provocation?
A. Even if the accused gave the provocation, it
was not sufficient.
Meaning: kung wala syang ginawang
provocation that could have illicited the
aggression from the private offended party
Imagine that Everyone is Enlightened Except You
July 2008

12
(POP) or magbigay man sya ng provocation, it
was not sufficient to illicit such unlawful
aggression from the POP.

PAR. 2 - DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making the
defense (the accused) had no part therein /
even if the relative being defended gives
the provocation, it is important that the
person defending had no part in the
provocation.

Q. Who are the relatives?
A. Spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees, relatives by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree.

Note: If not included in the list, you are simply
acting in defense of a stranger.

Spouse must be Legitimate Spouse
The spouse must be a legitimate spouse. If
common law spouse, that is defense of
stranger. There should be legitimate
relationship between you and the spouse.

Note: The concept of unlawful aggression and
reasonable necessity in SD is the same in DR.

3. Even if the Relative Being Defended Gives
the Provocation, it is Important that the
Person Defending had no Part in the
Provocation

Example
Gerard (brother of Ayce) saw Ayce on the
ground about to be hit by the group of Chat.
Gerard did not know that Ayce gave the
provocation but it was Ayce who started it all.
Gerard thought that it was Ayce who was the
victim. So what Gerard did, he assaulted the
group of Chat. Gerard was acting in defense of
a relative even if Ayce was the one who gave
the provocation. What is important is that it
Gerard was not part of the provocation.
PAR. 3 - DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression from the victim
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
3. the person defending the stranger was
not motivated by hate, revenge, resentment
or other evil motives.

Q. Who is a stranger?
A. A person who is not listed under the concept
of relatives.

Note: The concept of unlawful aggression and
reasonable necessity in SD is the same in DS.

3. The Person Defending the Stranger was
not Motivated by Hate, Revenge,
Resentment or other Evil Motives

Most of these are circumstantial. It is a matter
of proof.

Example
Ariel saw Jessica (a stranger) being mauled by
Ayce. Ayce is Ariel’s mortal enemy. Ariel
assaulted Ayce. Ariel claimed that he is
defending Jessica who was assaulted by Ayce.
Nobody knew that Ayce is the mortal enemy of
Ariel so it is a matter of proof. What is
important is that the person defending was not
motivated by hate, revenge, resentment or
other evil motives.

PAR 4 - STATE OF NECESSITY OR
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER INJURY / EVIL
Requisites:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than
that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.

G.R.: There is no but there is civil liability
EXC: Paragraph 4. Meaning there is no crime,
there is no civil liability.

Example
Faye was driving her Jaguar car in the zigzag
road, head on collision with a bus. If she
swerves her car to the left, she would hit a
Let Others be “Right” Most of the Time
July 2008

13
pedestrian. If she swerves her car to the right,
she would fall and would die. This is avoidance
of greater injury, and naturally, greater injury
would be her life. So she swerved her car to
the left. This is self-preservation.
Faye is relieved of criminal liability because
she acted in avoidance of greater injury.
Hence, she has to bear the civil liability for any
damages that she caused to the victim.

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A
SUPERIOR

Rules:
1. It must be obedience to a lawful order
of a superior. It is not a blind
obedience. It must be proved that it is a
lawful order of superior.
2. If the accused complied with an
unlawful order under a mistake of fact,
he has no liability. He will not be
criminally responsible.
3. If he acted in compliance with an order
which is clearly and patently 7unlawful,
he cannot invoke the defense of acting
in obedience to a lawful order.

Q. What if he acted in obedience to an
unlawful order but he acted in obedience
because of an irresistible force or under a
compulsion of an uncontrollable fear?
A. He is not justified but he will be exempt
under Art. 12.

ARTICLE 12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or insane person unless
the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and
under fifteen unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case such minor
shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of
Article 80 of this Code.
4. Any person who, while performing a
lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the
compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.

1. An Imbecile or Insane Person Unless the
Latter has Acted During a Lucid Interval

Imbecility – the person has the mentality of a
child 2 to 7 years old. It is not the chronological
age.

Lucid – aware of what he is doing

Insanity – the act must have been performed
by the accused in a state of total deprivation of
intelligence. Insanity would include
schizophrenia and epilepsy.

Example
Gerard does not know what he is doing at the
time he committed the crime because even if
he has been declared insane but at the time he
committed the act, he was acting during lucid
interval that is not exempting. Because if he
did it under lucid interval (sane or aware of
what he was doing) from his insanity (declared
or diagnosed insane) → not exempt.

Note: Burden of proof is on the accused to
prove that he is exempt / insane

2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under
fifteen unless he has acted with discernment,
in which case such minor shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of
Article 80 of this Code.

Minority – under the RPC, if he is under 9 he
is exempt. But by virtue of R.A. 9344 or The
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Kiko
Pangilinan Law) → under 9 or over 9 but under
15, exempt from criminal liability.

15 or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal
Become More Patient
July 2008

14
liability but the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program.

Q. What about above 15 but below 18 (16 to
17 years old)?
A. Exempt but the child shall be subjected to
an intervention program in accordance with a
particular act unless he acted with discernment
(he knows what is right and wrong), in which
case, he shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceeding in accordance with law.

The exemption from criminal liability under
R.A. 9344 shall not include exemption from
civil liability which shall be enforced in
accordance with law.

Before R.A. 9344 → Juveniles in Conflict with
the Law (A.M. by SC) – it is still consistent. It
provides that a minor under 9 at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability. Over 9 under 15 at the
time of the commission of the offense, he shall
be committed to the care of his father or
mother or the nearest relative or family friend.
If however, the prosecution proved that he
acted with discernment, he shall be subjected
to appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law.

Prevailing Rule → R.A. 9344 because it was
promulgated 2006.

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

*Relate this with criminal negligence.

Q. Why will I be penalized for something I
did not intend to do?
Because we said that felony is an act or
omission punishable by law committed not only
by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa)

Concept of Accident as an Exempting
Circumstance
Accident as an Exempting Circumstance →
there is no criminal liability but in Accident
(plain) → there is criminal liability under Article
365 of the RPC.
Note: To be exempt from criminal liability, the
offender must be performing a lawful act with
due care causing injury to another or damage
to the property of another.

Q. If Charles has a license to drive, he
drives his vehicle and in the course of his
driving, he hit another vehicle or run over
somebody, liable under Art. 365. But why
he would liable? (He never wanted that to
happen.)
A. Because it is in the way that he performed
his lawful act. He has a license and he is
driving → he is performing a lawful act, but if
he caused injury because he performed the
lawful act recklessly without due care, then he
is criminally liable.

It is only when you perform a lawful act with
due care can you make use of accident as an
exempting circumstance.
Example
Licensed driver ka and you are driving in the
highway, ang bagal bagal mo na nga 20
km/hour, you are reckless? No.

Saskia is driving inside the compound of San
Sebastian at 70-100 km/hour. She is licensed
to drive but she is driving in an area where
there are kids playing → that is reckless.

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

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.

Irresistible force & uncontrollable fear –
they are connected because both have the
same concept.

Rationale
Q. Why is the offender exempt from
criminal liability if he commits a crime while
acting under the impulse of an irresistible
force (IF) or compulsion of an
uncontrollable fear (UF)?
A. IF means actual physical force exerted on
the person of the offender. UF means you are
being threatened but the force to be exerted on
the person of the accused or the threat or
intimidation that is employed on the accused
Create “Patience Practice Periods”
July 2008

15
that could have prompted him to commit the
crime simply reduced him to a mere
instrument. He has no choice but to do it.

IF → for it to be exempting, always remember
did this physical force reduced him to simply
being a tool or instrument? He has no choice
but do it.
Example:
Bugbog sarado na sya… Pasasabugin mo ba
ito o hindi? Pak! Pak! Pak! Pasasabugin mo ba
yung building o hindi? Pak! Pak! Pak! O sige,
pasasabugin ko na… ®

Note: Common denominator of UF / IF →
reduced to being a mere instrument
Note: It does not mean that he has no more
intelligence but it should be he has no more
will power or choice.

UF
Example:
You kill this particular person otherwise I will
kill your wife or child. He has no choice
because it would mean the death of his wife or
child.

IF / UF → always remember for these to be
exempting, he was reduced or the force to be
exerted in his person or the intimidation
employed was simply reduced him to being an
instrument. He has no choice but do it.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause.

Insuperable Cause – it is a cause that cannot
be overcomed.

Example
Joan gave birth in the forest so she was so
weak and she has to leave her baby to seek
for help. She was not able to come back
because she was seriously ill, the baby died.
She was subsequently, sued for infanticide.
Joan said she was exempt. Is Joan correct?
Yes. Because she was seriously ill at the time
(cause that cannot be overcomed) making her
go back to her child.



Liability in Exempting Circumstance
If there is an exempting circumstance, there is
a crime and therefore there is civil liability
because there is a source from which you get
the civil liability except paragraph 4 (accident)
and paragraph 7 (insuperable cause). This
means that if the exempting circumstance is
paragraph 4 or paragraph 7, there is no
criminal liability and no civil liability.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

Absolutory – means the offender is relieved.

Entrapment vs. Instigation
Entrapment – the person is engaged in an
unlawful activity or the offender is actually
doing the crime only that he cannot be arrested
so ways and means are resorted to by the
police officers to catch him in the act or in
flagrante delicto. A common form of
entrapment is a buy bust operation.

Instigation – it is in the nature of inducement.
The offender or the one who committed the
crime did not even think of committing the
crime only that he was instigated to commit the
crime and then when he committed the crime,
the police officers arrested him. The police
officer simply induced him to commit the crime,
the offender never even thought of committing
the crime from the very beginning.

Q. What could be the absolutory cause as
between instigation and entrapment?
A. Instigation because the offender is simply
induced or lead to commit the crime. It is not
entrapment because entrapment is valid the
police officers are simply catching the offender
in the act. The offender had been doing the act
before.

ARTICLE 13
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

The following are Mitigating Circumstances:
1. Incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstances.
2. Minority / senility (Wala na kasi exempt na)
3. Praeter intentionem
4. Sufficient provocation or threat
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
Be the First One to Act Loving or Reach Out
July 2008

16
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Deaf and dumb, blind or other physical
defect.
10. Illness
11. Analogous circumstances

Q. What is the effect of mitigating
circumstance (MC)?
A. It is either to reduce the penalty by period or
by degrees.

Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances
1. Ordinary MC – it serves to reduce the
period of the penalty.
In cases of divisible, it serves to reduce the
penalty in its minimum.
Note: We talk of the periods of the penalty if it
is divisible because a period is one of the three
equal portions of divisible penalty. But it may
have an effect with respect to indivisible not
single indivisible, if the penalty consists of 2
indivisible penalties.

We do not talk of periods in cases of indivisible
penalty.
Example
Death penalty is indivisible. There is no death
minimum, death maximum!

2. Privileged MC – it serves to reduce the
penalty by degrees. Reduces the penalty by 1
or 2 degrees.
Example
1 penalty is 1 degree
R Temporal → Prision Mayor

Kinds of Privilege MC:
A. Incomplete Justifying
B. Incomplete Exempting
A & B – meaning not all the conditions are
present. Majority of the conditions are present.

G.R. For purposes of Incomplete Justifying and
Incomplete Exempting as a Privileged
Mitigating Circumstances, the majority of the
requisites should be present.

Note: if there are 2 or more mitigating and
there is no aggravating, it is already a
privileged MC, which means it will reduce the
penalty by 1 degree.
Note: In SD / DS / DR → unlawful aggression
should always be present. Even if the majority
of the requisites are present for as long as the
unlawful aggression is not present → no
incomplete justifying.

6. Passion or Obfuscation

Passion or obfuscation is an ordinary MC.

Obfuscation – is confusion.

If you commit an offense under passion or
obfuscation, it can be mitigating.
Jurisprudence: for passion or obfuscation to
be mitigating, it must have arisen from lawful
sentiments.
Example:
A man witnessed a woman taking a bath. He
was so aroused that after the woman took a
bath, when the woman came out, he raped the
woman. The man admitted but he contended
that he acted under passion.
Held: The Supreme Court said that the man
did not act under passion. He acted under lust.
Lust was never a lawful sentiment.

Q. What if a girl acted because of jealousy?
A. Generally, jealousy is an unlawful sentiment
but it will be mitigating if it has a legitimate
basis.

7. Voluntary Surrender and Confession of
Guilt

Voluntary Surrender
Requisites:
1. The surrender must be voluntary
2. The surrender must be unconditional
3. It must be a surrender of oneself.

Discussion: There is no problem that in
voluntary surrender, the offender
acknowledges having committed the crime.
The liability is mitigated because by voluntary
surrendering, the offender unconditionally
placed himself subject to the custody of the
authorities. The offender saved the
government from the time and expense in
looking for him. The offender is given a
concession – his liability is mitigated.


Lower Your Tolerance to Stress
July 2008

17
Surrender must be Voluntary
Q. When is voluntary surrender mitigating?
A. It must be made immediately after the
commission of the crime.

Example
Paparating na ang mga pulis, the you said, ―I
surrender‖.
This is not mitigating because what prompted
you to surrender yourself is not because you
really wanted save the government from the
time and expense in looking for you but
because palapit na sila.

Surrender of Oneself
Note: You do not surrender the instrument of
the crime but yourself

Example
You killed somebody then pumunta ka sa
police station and you said ―Ito sinu-surrender
ko na yung bolo, may dugo dugo pa, pinatay
ko si Mr. X.‖
This is not mitigating because you simply
surrendered the instrument of the crime and
not yourself.

8. Voluntary plea of guilt

Confession of Guilt (at the arraignment or
during the pre-trial) / Admission of Guilt
Discussion: If you offer to plea guilty to a
lesser offense and your offer to plea guilty to a
lesser offense is accepted by the public
prosecutor and by the private offended party, it
is valid and you will be allowed to plea guilty to
a lesser offense.

Q. Murder under the original information at
the time of the pre-trial, you offered to plea
guilty to a lesser offense of homicide. Since
you pleaded guilty and since you made a
confession of guilt in open court, will it be
considered as mitigating in your favor?
A. No more. For it to be mitigating, it must be a
plea of guilt or confession of guilt only to the
offense as originally charged in the information
and that plea should be a plea of guilt to a
lesser offense.

9. Deaf and dumb, blind or other physical
defect.

Physical defects – you committed it when you
are blind or deaf.

11. Analogous mitigating circumstances

Analogous – means similar

Example
Extreme poverty – if you commit theft under
extreme poverty, it is analogous to state of
necessity. This is self-preservation, you have
to live and eat.

If you voluntarily surrendered the stolen
property, the Supreme Court said that it would
be analogous to voluntary surrender in a
prosecution for theft or robbery.

Note: There are only analogous mitigating
circumstances but there are no analogous
aggravating circumstances.
Example
The judge considered rape as analogous to
ignominy or physical injuries as analogous to
cruelty.
SC said: by express provision of Article 13,
there are only analogous mitigating
circumstances but no analogous aggravating
circumstances. (People vs. Regala, December
2000)

ARTICLE 14
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
1. Generic
2. Specific
3. Inherent
4. Qualifying
5. Special

1. Generic
Applies to all kinds crimes
Examples
Recidivism, habituality

2. Specific
They apply only to particular cases
Examples
Evident premeditation, treachery and cruelty,
they are aggravating circumstances but
specifically applied to crimes against persons
Ask Yourself the Question,
“Will This Matter a Year from Now?”
July 2008

18
3. Inherent
They are necessarily present in the crime but
they are not used in the definition of the crime.
They are part of the crime.
Examples
Abuse of authority / public office is inherent in
bribery. Fraud is an aggravating circumstance
inherent in estafa. Deceit is inherent in simple
seduction. Unlawful entry in trespass to
dwelling

4. Qualifying
It changes the nature of the crime
Examples
Abuse of superior strength, cruelty

When killing is attended by qualifying
aggravating circumstances, that killing will be
qualified from homicide to murder.
Simple theft can be qualified to qualified theft.

Example of Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstances – treachery, evident
premeditation, abuse of superior strength,
cruelty.

5. Special
They arise under special conditions in order to
increase the penalty but they cannot be offset
by any mitigating circumstances.
Example
Quasi-recidivism (Article 160 RPC), if after
having been convicted of final judgment or
before serving sentence or while serving
sentence, the offender commits another (new)
crime and therefore he will be imposed a
penalty with a maximum of the imposable
penalty for the new crime.

If a crime is committed by a syndicate –
syndicated estafa, syndicated illegal
recruitment, membership in an organized
syndicated crime group.

The following are aggravating
circumstances:
1. Taking advantage of official position
2. In contempt of or insult to public
authorities
3. Age, sex, rank, dwelling
4. Abuse of confidence / obvious
ungratefulness
5. Committed in the palace of the chief
executive, etc.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band
7. On the occasion and by means of
calamity or misfortune
8. Committed with the aid of armed men
9. Recidivism
10. Habituality
11. Price, promise or reward
12. Inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel etc.
13. Evident premeditation
14. Craft, fraud or disguise
15. Abuse of superior strength
16. Treachery
17. Ignominy
18. Unlawful Entry
19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or
window
20. Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle
21. Causing other wrong not necessary for
its commission

1. Taking advantage of official position

2. In contempt of or insult to public
authorities
This is a generic aggravating circumstance.

Public Authorities – do not include the agents
of persons in authority.

3. Age, sex, rank, dwelling

Dwelling
Q. When is dwelling aggravating?
A. If the crime is committed in the dwelling of
the offended party who has not given
provocation.

Q. The mother was walking along the street
where a house is situated where her
daughter is working as a household helper.
The mother heard the daughter crying (the
daughter was verbally and physically
abused). The mother entered the dwelling
of the employer of the daughter and
assaulted the employer. Is dwelling
aggravating?
A. No. Because the offended party here, who
is the employer gave the provocation. Note
that the mother is still liable only that her
liability will not be aggravated.
Surrender to the Fact that Life Isn’t Fair
July 2008

19

Q. If the offender enters the dwelling of
another person who has not given
provocation. Inside the dwelling he dragged
the victim. Outside the dwelling, he
assaulted the victim. Can dwelling be
appreciated against him?
A. Yes. For as long as the violence or assault
started inside the dwelling. Against the
offended party who has not given the
provocation.

Q. What if from the outside, there is no
entry into the dwelling, but from the outside
“nibaril nya” yung private offended party
who was there inside. No provocation on
the part of the private offended party. Is
dwelling aggravating?
A. Yes. The violence was committed there
although from the outside and the victim gave
no provocation.

Note: Burden of proof → prosecution

4. Abuse of confidence / obvious
ungratefulness

5. Committed in the palace of the chief
executive, etc.

Situations:
1. Committed in the palace
2. Committed in the palace in the presence of
the president
3. Committed anywhere in the presence of the
president

Q. What if the crime was committed in the
Arlgeui Residence which is situated in the
Malacanan grounds?
A. It is not aggravating (unless in the presence
of the president) because the term “palace”
contemplates Malacaňan Palace only.

Note: The Arlegui Residence was built during
the time of President Corazon Aquino because
Pres. Aquino does not want to live in
Malacaňan Palace so a house was built for her
inside the Malacaňan grounds.





6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band

Discussion: For these three aggravating
circumstances to be appreciated against the
accused, the crime was committed in order to
facilitate the crime.

Nighttime
It is not enough that the crime was simply
committed at night time.

Example
You killed somebody now (nighttime) but there
is no showing that you purposely waited for
night time to facilitate the commission of the
crime. It just simply happens that the crime
was committed at nighttime. Nighttime in this
case is not aggravating.

Nighttime will only be aggravating to increase
the criminal liability of the accused if it can be
shown that it was purposely sought for to
facilitate the commission of the crime.

Q. Why?
A. Because pag night time mas mahirap ang
identification lalo na kung maitim sya ©

The Crime is Committed in an Uninhabited
Place
Example
You want to kill him in a far place, in a
warehouse or bodega, wala syang means of
escape or he cannot ask help from anybody. In
this case, uninhabited place was purposely
sought for the commission of the crime.

The burden of proof - is in the prosecution
that it is an uninhabited place. Na hinanap yan
or dinala sya don for the victim not to be able
to seek help from anybody.

By a Band
This is not a rock band ©
This is a criminal band.

Q. When is a crime considered to have
been committed by a band?
A. If there are more than 3 armed male factors
who committed the crime.

Allow Yourself to be Bored
July 2008

20
Note: 4 male factors - 3 of them armed and 1
not armed → no band

Note: There is another aggravating
circumstance that speaks of armed men (No. 8
of Article 14).
If the crime is committed with the aid of armed
men that is a different aggravating
circumstance but if you notice whether
committed by a band or with the aid of armed
men, the men in those circumstances are
armed.

Q. What would make a band as an
aggravating circumstance?
A. 1. The (whole) band or all of them must be
armed.
2. At least 4 or more than 3 armed malefactors
must have participated in the commission of
the crime.
3. They must be principals by direct
participation in the commission of the crime.

Q. If 4 sila but only 3 directly participated in
the commission of the crime 1 participated
by virtue of inducement. Can you
appreciate band as an aggravating
circumstance?
A. No. because at least 4 armed malefactors
must have directly participated in the
commission of the crime. All of them must be
principals by direct participation.

Q. How is it different from the aggravating
circumstance of the crime being committed
with the aid of armed men?
A. 1. With the aid of armed men – the armed
men need not necessarily take part on the
commission of the crime. This aggravating
circumstance is appreciated only against the
very person who committed the crime. So ang
nag-direct participate ay yung taong nag-rely
sa kanila.
If the crime is committed by a band – it will be
appreciated against all of them because they
are all principals by direct participation.
2. With the aid of armed men – this
aggravating circumstance will only be taken
against the very person who committed the
crime and the armed men who aided him will
be considered as accomplices not conspirators
because it was not mentioned what kind of aid.
As long as they are there, they are
accomplices.
If the crime is committed by a band – All must
have participated directly in the commission of
the crime so that will be appreciated against all
of them.

7. On the occasion and by means of calamity
or misfortune

Q. What is the purpose of committing the
crime?
A. You are taking advantage of the misfortune.

Example
In the course of relief operations, nagnanakaw
ka pa. Super criminal ka! ©

8. Committed with the aid of armed men

9. Recidivism

Forms of Repetition
1. Recidivism
2. Habituality or Reiteracion
3. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62)
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)

1. Recidivism – if the offender after having
been previously convicted by final judgment is
now on trial for a new offense embraced in the
same title of the code.

Q. If he has been previously convicted of
theft by final judgment and after which he
killed somebody. Is he a recidivist?
A. No. Because theft is a crime against
property and the killing or homicide is a crime
against persons. Both crimes must be
embraced in the same title of the code.

Q. What if the person after having been
previously convicted of homicide, kills
another person. Is he a recidivist?
A. Not necessarily because he has not been
previously convicted by final judgment. Note
that at the time of his trial for the new crime
which is embraced in the same title, he must
have been previously convicted by final
judgment to make him a recidivist.



Once a Week, Write a Heartfelt Letter
July 2008

21
Q. When is judgment by conviction final?
A. After the expiration of the 15-day period
reckoned from notice of promulgation of
judgment without any appeal taken from the
judgment.

10. Habituality

2. Habituality or Reiteracion – the offender
has been previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty than the penalty for the new crime or
he has been previously punished for 2 or more
crimes to which the law attaches a lighter
penalty.

Punished for an Offense to which the Law
Attaches an Equal or Greater Penalty
Q. Serious physical injuries – it turns out
that before he committed serious physical
injuries, records show that he has been
previously punished or he has served
sentence for homicide. Is there habituality?
A. Yes. Because what he committed is equal
or greater than homicide.

Note: pag baliktad hindi pwede.
Example
He commits homicide now and he has been
previously punished of physical injuries.

Note: homicide to homicide → pwede kasi
equal.

Note: In habituality, we are talking about the
penalty, if it is greater or equal than the new
crime.

Two or More Offenses to which the Law
Attaches a Lighter Penalty
Q. He has been previously punished for 2
counts of slight physical injuries. He now
stands trial for maltreatment. Is there
habituality? Is he punished for 2 or more
crimes to which the law attaches a lighter
penalty?
A. Yes. Lighter than the new crime.

He has been previously punished for less
physical injuries (light offense) to which the
law attaches a lighter penalty. He is now on
trial, he commits slight physical injuries. Is
there habituality?
A. None. Light yan eh!

Note: Lagyan nyo lagi ng “than”. Equal or
greater than what? Than the new penalty for
the new offense. Lighter than the penalty for
the new offense.

3. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62) – if within a
period of 10 years reckoned from the date of
his last release or last conviction of the crimes
of:
a. Serious physical injuries
b. Less serious physical injuries
c. Robbery
d. Theft
e. Estafa
f. Falsification
he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.

Note: “Any of the said Crimes”

Example
He has been convicted of robbery, convicted
for 10 years. He has been found guilty of
serious physical injuries. He is a habitual
delinquent.

The 3
rd
time or Oftener – 3
rd
, 4
th
, 5
th
, 6
th

Q. Why is this aggravating?
A. (In a way this is a special aggravating
circumstance). Because under Art. 62, if it is
committed for the third time or any of the six
crimes → this is penalty for the new crime
“plus” “plus”. The penalty will be increased or
added.

4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – after having
been previously convicted by final judgment or
before serving sentence or while serving
sentence, he commits a new crime.

Example
Hindi pa sya nakaka-serve or he has not
finished serving his sentence by final
judgment, nag commit na naman sya ng new
crime, there is quasi-recidivism.

Note: Please remember pareho lang sila ng
apelido ng recidivism but they are totally
different.

Imagine Yourself at Your Own Funeral
July 2008

22
Recidivism vs. Quasi-recidivism
Recidivism – the second crime must have
been embraced in the same title of the code as
the previous crime of which he was convicted
by final judgment.
Quasi-recidivism – there is no such
requirement

11. Price, promise or reward

12. Inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel etc.

13. Evident Premeditation
Requisites:
1. Time – when the offender has decided
to commit the crime.
2. Act – manifestly indicating that he has
clung to his determination to commit
the crime.
3. Sufficient lapse of time – from the time
he decided to commit the crime up to
the time he actually executed his clung
to commit the crime.

Example
He decided to kill somebody after his decision
to kill somebody he makes preparation – he
conducted a survey – where does his intended
victim reside? What time does he go back to
the house? Then he buys the instrument for
killing → these are acts manifestly indicating
his clung or determination to commit the crime.

Evident Premeditation – meaning that there
is sufficient lapse of time. Note that evident
premeditation is not presumed.

Premeditation – there is “cool” reflection.
Example
Isip?! Isip?! Itutuloy ko ba?

If you kill somebody, you will be liable but your
penalty will be increased. You could have
desisted from doing it but the fact that you
deliberated on it and you have sufficient time to
reflect on it – Evident premeditation is very
obvious. May criminal perversity ka because
you sought / thought to do it you planned to do
it



Q. If the offender says “I plan and I have
decided to kill the first person I meet on the
street”. He gets an instrument of the crime.
He goes out of his house and sees
somebody who is walking and kills that
somebody. Can evident premeditation be
appreciated?
A. Yes. The 3 elements are present.

Q. What if he says “I plan to kill Mr. X”. I
made the necessary preparations. I have
decided to kill Mr. X. I purchased the
necessary instrument jungle bolo to kill Mr.
X. I conducted the necessary moves with
which to execute my plan to kill Mr. X. On
the day when I am supposed to kill Mr. X, I
saw somebody and I killed that somebody.
It turned out that somebody is not Mr. X but
Mr. Y. Will I be liable for the death of Mr. Y?
A. Yes. But evident premeditation will not be
appreciated against me if I killed another
person because my plan was to kill X. I killed
Mr. Y so with respect to the killing there is no
evident premeditation.

14. Craft, fraud or disguise
Craft – cunning presentation

Fraud – misrepresentation

Disguise – Intended to make identification
more difficult.
Example
You put a mask to commit a crime

Q. What is the purpose for resorting to
this? Why is it aggravating?
A. It would show a greater criminal perversity
on the part of the offender. When an offender
resorted to craft or fraud or disguise to deceive
the victim and he was able to accomplish the
plan → criminal perversity.

15. Abuse of superior strength
It means greater strength. It is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor. It does not refer to numerical
superiority.

Example
3 offenders and 1 victim – it does not
necessarily mean that there is abuse of
superior strength
Repeat to Yourself, “Life Isn’t an Emergency”
July 2008

23

1 on 1 – your victim is parang hindi kumain ng
10 araw, victim mo lelembot lembot. Ikaw
incedible hulk – you abuse your superior
strength. There is abuse of superior strength.
The offender took advantage of his greater
strength.

16. Treachery
Treachery applies only to crimes against
persons.

Note: There is a deviation. A case decided by
SC (People vs. Escote, 2003). In this case
treachery was considered in a case of robbery
with homicide (eh di ba ang robbery with
homicide is a special complex crime?) What is
the main crime in this case? Di ba robbery?
Robbery with homicide is a crime against
property and yet in this case treachery was
considered only to increase the penalty for
homicide. How can they increase? Eh special
complex crime nga yan eh. 1 penalty lang
binibigay dyan eh. This case is a deviation.

For Purposes of Determining Whether there
is Treachery – Remember 2 things – these
must Concur:
1. Mode of attack must have been
consciously adopted by the accused.
2. To make sure that at the time of the
attack, the victim is defenseless.

Mode of Attack
The mode of attack must have been
consciously adopted by the accused meaning
that the mode of attack must have been
deliberately chosen by the accused. It is not an
impulsive attack. It is not simply an impulsive
reaction of the accused to any provocation on
the part of the victim.

Q. It must have been consciously adopted
by the accused or deliberately chosen by
the accused, for what purpose?
A. To ensure the accomplishment of his
purpose (without risking self), arising from any
defense that the victim might put up and to
make sure that at the time of the attack, the
victim was defenseless.
For as long as it was shown that the victim was
defenseless at the time of the attack –
treachery is there.

Q. What if X and Y quarreled. After their
fight, X attacked Y from behind. Is there
treachery? (People vs. Samson)
A. No. The SC said that the fact that they
quarreled, it must have put the victim Y on
guard that something is going to be done after
the fight.

Note: Even if the victim was attacked in front
but the attack was sudden and that at the time
of the attack, the victim had no weapon
(defenseless) → treachery

17. Ignominy

Ignominy vs. Cruelty
Ignominy – you committed the crime but in the
commission of the crime you still do something
to add to the moral suffering of the victim.

Note: Generally, ignominy is not applied to
crimes against chastity.

Cruelty – You commit a crime and you still do
something else in addition to the crime that
would add to the physical suffering of the
victim.

Example
Case of grave coercion – an old woman was
asked to show her underwear. That act adds to
the moral suffering of the old woman.

People vs. Yao (March 2000) – when you
committed rape in dog style position. This is
ignominy. But note that rape is a crime against
person.

Note: In cruelty, at the time you do other acts,
the victim must have been alive kasi nga it
adds to the physical suffering of the victim. The
manner is to augment the victim’s physical
sufferings.

New SC Decision: The number of wounds
sustained by the victim is not determinative of
existence of cruelty in the commission of the
crime. It must be proved that those wounds
were inflicted in a manner that would add to
the physical suffering of the victim.

Experiment with Your Back Burner
July 2008

24
People vs. Salvador (1987) – victim sustained
56 stabbed wounds. The offender was
convicted of murder. Is there cruelty?
Held: No cruelty. It must be shown by the
prosecution that those wounds were inflicted to
augment the victim’s physical sufferings.
Homicide not murder.

Example
If the wounds were inflicted successively and
the victim is still alive, usually, if it is
successive, hindi mo na nararamdaman. It
must be proved that such wounds were
inflicted to augment the physical sufferings of
the victim. There must be circumstantial
evidence to show that – tsak! Aray! Tsak! Aray!
Tsak! Ang sakit!

18. Unlawful Entry

19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or
window

20. Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle

Use of Motor Vehicle
Differentiate if the offense was committed with
the use of a motor vehicle → it is aggravating
but if the offense was committed inside a motor
vehicle → not aggravating.

Crime was Committed Under 15 Years of
Age
Mahirap na kasi di ba lahat ng 15 exempt?

It is hard to prosecute kasi sino nagsabi sa
kanila na gawin nila?

21. Causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission

ARTICLE 15
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Alternative (“either” “or”) – meaning that it
may either be mitigating or aggravating or even
empting.

1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of Instruction or Education of
the Offender

Q. Why 1, 2, 3 are alternative
circumstances?
A. Meaning that relationship could either be
aggravating or mitigating, intoxication could
either be aggravating or mitigating, degree of
instruction could either be aggravating or
mitigating. It would depend on the
circumstances that would be established.

1. Relationship
Generally, mitigating in crimes against property
although relationship may be exempting in
theft, estafa or swindling, malicious mischief, if
the crime is committed mutually by the
relatives.

Relatives – mutually committed between:
1. Spouses – the husband and the wife,
ascendants, descendants, relatives by affinity
in the same line
Example
Darling nasan na yung alahas ko? Di ka na
man nag aalahas ha. Binigay mo siguro sa
babae mo. (Nagnakawan sila)
2. The widowed spouse
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together. (Art. 332)

Other Rules:
1. Relationship is aggravating if the victim
is a relative of a higher or equal degree
than the accused.
2. Relationship is neither mitigating nor
aggravating if relationship is an
ingredient of the crime.
Example – parricide

2. Intoxication
Intoxication of the offender is mitigating - if the
offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.

If intoxication is habitual (G.S.M. Blue -
morning, noon and night©) or intentional – it is
aggravating but it must be subsequent to the
plan to commit the crime.

Q. Why is it aggravating?
A. If it is subsequent to the plan or after your
plan to commit the crime, uminom ka in order
for you to commit the crime → this is
Spend a Moment Every Day Thinking of Someone to Thank
July 2008

25
aggravating. But if intoxication is subsequent to
the commission of the crime → this is not
aggravating because you already committed
the crime. Your purpose for drinking is that you
are “celebrating” ©

3. Degree of Instruction or Education of the
Offender
Generally, it is mitigating if the offender has a
low degree of instruction or education but
definitely not mitigating or aggravating in
crimes against property or crimes against
chastity, even in treason. Why? Because no
need to be a lawyer to commit rape or robbery
or theft.

ARTICLE 16
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE?

Persons criminally liable
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories

ARTICLE 17
PRINCIPALS

Principals:
1. Principals by direct participation –
material perpetrator of the crime. The
one who actually committed the crime.
2. Principals by inducement – offering
promises to another to commit the
crime. The inducement must be the
determining factor for the commission
of the crime.
3. Principals by indispensable
cooperation – without him or without
his cooperation, the crime would not
have been committed. (relate this to
accomplice)

1, 2, 3 – for these principals to be liable, there
must be evidence of conspiracy. Why?
Because the act of 1 is the act of all. Even if
you induced him and he was not induced, he is
not liable.

If no evidence of conspiracy – only the one
who materially perpetrated the crime is liable.

Principals by indispensable cooperation vs.
Accomplice
Both cooperates only that in principals by
indispensable cooperation the crime could not
have been accomplishes without him or
without his cooperation.


Example
He was the only 1 who owns a banca that
could bring the offender to a very remote
island. The crime could not have been
accomplished without him.

ARTICLE 18
ACCOMPLICES

Accomplice – cooperates but even without his
cooperation, the crime could still have been
committed. The cooperation of the accomplice
is merely necessary to facilitate the
commission of the crime.

Rule: If there is a doubt with respect to the
liability of a person who gives cooperation,
whether he is a principal by indispensable
cooperation or accomplice, doubt should be
resolved in favor of the accused being
considered as an accomplice. Use this
principle only when there is doubt. Analyze if
his cooperation is necessary.

ARTICLE 19
ACCESSORIES

Accessories – takes part subsequent to the
commission of the crime. He is an accessory
after the fact of the commission of the crime.

Note: PD 1612 – Anti Fencing Law.
Yung fence takes part subsequent to the
commission of robbery or theft. This person will
be charged as a fence under PD 1612 or if he
takes part subsequent to the commission of
robbery or theft.
Example
Sold articles – if he profits.
If the offender takes part subsequent to the
commission of any other crime other than
robbery or theft. He will be charged as an
accessory under the RPC.

Smile at Strangers, Look into Their Eyes and Say Hello
July 2008

26
Importance
This is important because if you take part
subsequent to the commission of robbery or
theft, you are a fence, you are charged under
special law → the penalty is higher.
But if you take part subsequent to the
commission of any other crime other than theft
or robbery, you will be charged as an
accessory under RPC → entitled to a penalty
of 2 degrees lower.

Accomplice – 1 degree lower than the penalty
of the principal

Accessory – 2 degrees lower but that would
apply to accessories under the law and not
those of taking part subsequent to the
commission of theft or robbery.

Q. Can there be conviction of an
accomplice or accessory even without
prosecution or conviction of the principal?
A. Yes. If let us say that principal is acquitted
because he is exempt from criminal liability.
The importance is you have established the
fact of the commission of the crime.

Q. What if the principal is unknown or his
whereabouts is unknown or the principal is
at large or the principal is being tried
separately, can there be a conviction of an
accessory?
A. Yes. For as long as the act of the
commission of the crime had been established.
For as long as corpus delicti have been
established.

Corpus delicti – means the fact of the
commission of the crime.

ARTICLE 20
ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Accessories under Art. 20 who are exempt
from criminal liability → exempt with respect
to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, adopted brothers and
sisters or relatives by affinity within the same
degree except if they are accessories who
profited by the effects of the crime or who
assisted the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime.

Meaning: They are exempt with respect to 2
and 3 (of Article 19) from criminal liability.

ARTICLE 21
NO FELONY SHALL BE PUNISHABLE
BY ANY PENALTY NOT PRESCRIBED
BY LAW PRIOR TO ITS COMMISSION

Even if the act appears to be illegal or immoral
if there is no law punishing it, the same cannot
be penalize if its not even defined or
constitutive of a crime and there is no penalty
provided by the law, hence cannot be penalize.

ARTICLE 22
EXCEPTION – WHEN THE LAW SHALL
BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION

ARTICLE 23
PARDON BY THE OFFENDED
PARDON

1. By the Chief Executive (Art. 36)
a. extinguishes criminal liability
(absolute pardon)
b. does not extinguish civil liability
because the president cannot
give away anything which does
not belong to him/her
2. By the Offended party
a. Does not extinguish criminal
liability because the offended
party is simply a witness in a
criminal case.
b. Extinguishes civil liability if the
offended party waives the claim
to such civil liability.

ARTICLE 24
MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT
CONSIDERED AS PENALTY



Set Aside Quiet Time, Everyday
July 2008

27
ARTICLES 25 - 113
PENALTIES
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
PROBATION
_________________________________________

SCALES OF PENALTIES under RPC (3)

1. Art 25
Penalties which may be impose (Principal and
Accessory Penalities)

2. Art 70
Successive Service of Sentence (Penalties
According to their Severity)

3. Art 71
Graduated Scales of Penalties
^ It is in this article where we would see
the penalty next higher or lower in
degree.
Example
If in the problem there exist a privilege
mitigating circumstance and the imposable
penalty is Reclusion Temporal it will be
lowered to one (1) degree and to find out
what is one (1) degree lower that Reclusion
Temporal we would rely on Art. 71, which is
Prision Mayor.

.We only have scales of penalties under the
Revised Penal Code and none under Special
Law, therefore as far as modifying
circumstance are concerned, they are not to be
considered in criminal actions involving
violation of special law due absence of scale of
penalties. As for violations of RPC the
modifying circumstances should be considered
since there is scale of penalties provided for in
the same.

DURATION OF PENALTIES

Reclusion Perpetua :
20 years and 1 day – 40 years

Reclusion Temporal :
12 years and 1 day – 20 years

Prision Mayor
and Temporary Disqualification :
6 years and 1 day – 12 years
Prision Correccional, Suspension and
Destierro:
6 months and 1 day – 6 years

Arresto Mayor:
1 month and 1 day – 6 months

Arresto Menor:
1 day – 30 days

Bond to keep the peace:
Such period of time as the court may
determine.

Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Perpetua (RP) has been given a
duration (20 years and 1 day – 40 years), by
virtue of RA 7695 (Heinous Crime Law), upon
its promulgation there has been a confusion.
Everyone knows that RP is a indivisible
penalty, hence no period. It is only in divisible
penalty where we consider period, which
consist of (3 periods, minimum; medium;
maximum), in other words one period of a
divisible penalty is one of 3 equal portions of
periods.

+Nonetheless, RP remains to be an indivisible
penalty, as enunciated by the Supreme Court
(SC) in the case of Pp. v Lucas; the duration of
RP was only for the purpose of determining the
number of years when may a person be
incarcerated or imprisoned.


Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment
1. A penalty under the
RPC
1. Under the Special
Law

2. as to duration: 20
years and 1 day – 40
years
2. Indefinite

3. Has an accessory
penalty
3. None









Imaging the People in Your Life as Tiny Infants and
as 100-year old Adults
July 2008

28
Article 25 – Classification of Penalties


Principal Penalty


Accessory Penalty
1. Prescribe by the
RPC for the offense
charge
e.g. treason (RP –
death), espionage
(Pri. Cor)
1. Perpetual or
temporary absolute or
or special
disqualification,
forfeiture,
confiscation, civil
interdiction.

2. Has to be expressly
impose in the
judgment
2. Need not be
express since it is
deemed impose in
every judgment.
e.g. “is hereby
sentence to suffer the
RP with all the
accessory penalties
pertinent thereto
pursuant to the RPC”






Preventive
Imprisonment

Subsidiary
Imprisonment

1. There is yet no
judgment or the
accused is
charged with a non-
bailable offense or
even if bailable, has
no property or fund
with which to post
bail, who is being
detained during trial.

1. Only after
judgment has been
rendered
2. This is not a
penalty. If convicted
he will given a credit
for the period that he
was detained.
2. This is a principal
penalty, if convict is
sentence to pay fine,
but there is no fund to
enable him to pay, he
may be
imprisoned. Being a
principal penalty must
be expressly imposed
in the decision.
Example
If in the judgment it is
stated that “he is
hereby imposed to
pay a fine of P10K
with subsidiary
imprisonment in case
of insolvency”
(expressly imposed)

Example
If it is stated only “he
is hereby imposed to
pay a fine of P10K” →
no express
declaration as to
subsidiary
imprisonment, hence,
he cannot be made to
undergo subsidiary
imprisonment since it
is not stated in the
judgment

× Confiscation and Forfeiture of
Proceeds of a crime: an accessory
penalty hence need not be expressly
imposed in the judgment.

COMPLEX CRIME
1. Regular (Article 48)
a. Compound Crime – one act producing 2 or
more grace or less grave felonies (Concurso
Ideal)
Example
throwing of hand grenade (Pp. v. Hernandez),
the single act of throwing the grenade, killing
several and seriously wounding others
(multiple homicide, multiple physical injuries)

;As distinguished from Continuing,
Continued, Continuous Crime – there is a
single crime consisting of series of crime, all
arising from one criminal resolution, committed
at or about the same time and place.
(Concurso Real). In our jurisdiction, this
concept is no longer adopted. What is being
used instead is the concept of Transitory
Crimes, which usually contemplates
prosecution, and where several elements or a
crime occurred in different places for purposes
of venue.

Seek First to Understand
July 2008

29
b. Complex Crime Proper – one crime is a
necessary means to commit the other crime.
Example
Estafa thru falsification of public document;
forcible abduction with rape

2. Special - arising in the course of, by reason
of, on occasion of: (the law specifically
provides what penalty is to be imposed). E.g.
in the course of, by reason of, on occasion of
robbery someone is killed “Robbery with
homicide”; in the course of, by reason of, on
occasion of robbery someone is rape “
Robbery with rape”

Compound Crime
Q. What if one act produces 2 or more
grave, less grave and light felonies, will
there be a compound crime?
A. Yes, with respect to the grave and the less
grave and the light felony would be segregated
which cannot be complex.

People vs. Lawas (1960)
Involves a single act of pulling the trigger of an
machine gun which produces several bullets
and so several persons were killed. SC in this
case held that the single act of producing the
trigger and producing several deaths is a
compound crime. In this case there were
several accused holding a machine gun, and
all of them fired at the same time and it cannot
be determine, from whose gun the bullets
came from. In this case it was considered a
compound complex crime.

Pp. v. Tabaco (1992)
`Involves gunfire from a rifle, which resulted to
4 killings. It cannot be considered as
compound complex crime even a single act of
pulling the trigger, it is not the act of pulling the
trigger and producing several deaths because
that is the determining factor but the number of
bullets which are actually fired and produces
several death that would be determinative
whether it is complex or not. Each person hit
by different bullets is a victim of separate
homicide or murder. In this there is only one
accused, so he has been identified as the
person who killed several persons from whose
gun the bullets were fire. In Pp. v. Lawas it
cannot be determined from whose gun the
bullets came so what the SC held is that the
crime involves a compound crime.

Q. What if one of the components of a
complex crime has not been proved? What
is the effect? Can the accused nevertheless
be held liable of the other crime?
A. Yes, provided that the other crime is proven
beyond reasonable doubt and the other crime
not proven he shall be deemed acquitted.

Q. What if both crimes were proved? What
is the penalty?
A. The penalty for the most serious offense
shall be imposed in its maximum period. There
lies the difference between a regular and
special complex crime for in the latter, the law
specifically provides a penalty for that special
complex crime. While in the former, the penalty
for the most serious crime in its maximum
period shall be imposed.

Divisible Penalty – it is composed of 3
periods, 1 period of a divisible penalty is one of
the 3 equal portions of a divisible penalty
(Period: Minimum, Meduium, Maximum). A
period is different from a degree.

C A period is one of the 3 equal portions of a
divisible penalty, a PENALTY is 1 DEGREE.
However if one penalty consist of a period; For
example the penalty is PRISION MAYOR
MAXIMUM as illustrated below:


Prision Maximum 1 period 2 periods
Mayor Medium
Minimum

Q. If 1 penalty is 1 degree, what is the
penalty next lower in degree?
A. Prision Mayor Medium

If penalty consist of 2 periods, then the penalty
next lower in degree would be that 2 periods
lower as well. For instance, the penalty
prescribe by the law for the offense charged is
PM medium and maximum, that is one
penalty, one degree lower consist of 2
periods, then 2 periods down so the penalty
next lower in degree of PM medium and
maximum, would be PRISION
Become a Better Listener
July 2008

30
CORRECIONAL MAXIMUM AND PRISION
MAYOR MINIMUM.

If the penalty consist of the whole extent of
PRISION MAYOR, one degree lower
consist of 3 periods is PRISION
CORRECIONAL.

Penalty for the Principal (P), Accessory (*A)
and Accomplices (A)
The numbers represent the degrees

Consummated Frustrated Attempted
P 0 1 2
A 1 2 3
*A 2 3 X


=The basis in determining the imposable
penalty would always be the penalty prescribe
by the code for the offense charge. That
penalty is always imposed on the principal; the
penalty for the principal in the consummated
stage of the felony is the penalty prescribe by
the code for the offense charge, represented in
the table as 0. (Whenever the law prescribes
a penalty for a felony, in general terms it
shall be understood as applicable to the
consummated felony). The reckoning point is
penalty prescribe by law for the principal in the
consummated stage, which is the penalty
prescribe by the code for the offense charge

=The penalty for the accomplice in the
consummated stage of the felony is 1 degree
lower than that prescribe by the code for the
offense charged.

Example
The penalty prescribe by the code for the
offense charge is Reclusion Temporal (for
the principal in the consummated stage)

Accomplice-Consummated (Prision Mayor)
– 1 degree lower than the penalty prescribe by
for the principal in the consummated stage

Accessory- Consummated (Prision
Correcional) – 2 degrees lower than that
prescribe by for the principal in the
consummated stage


Principal Frustrated – 1 degree lower than
the penalty prescribe by law for the principal in
the consummated stage

Accomplice Frustrated – 2 degrees lower
than the penalty prescribe by law for the
principal in the consummated stage

Accessory Frustrated – 3 degrees lower than
the penalty prescribe by law for the principal in
the consummated stage

Principal Attempted - 2 degrees lower than
the penalty prescribe by law for the principal in
the consummated stage

Accomplice Attempted - 3 degrees lower
than the penalty prescribe by law for the
principal in the consummated stage

Rules for the Applicable of Indivisible
Penalties (Article 63)

The ff are Indivisible Penalties (where there
are no Periods)
1. Death
2. Reclusion Perpetua

1
st
Paragraph: in all cases where the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall
be impose regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance that may have
attended the commission of the deed.

Example
If the court says, the penalty for this offense is
RP (single indivisible); impose the same
irrespective of any mit / agg circumstance
except: if it is a privilege mitigation which
operates to, lower the same to one degree.

The law itself did not qualify, but in
jurisprudence, it held that in cases where the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of
agg/mit cir. except: if it is a privilege mitigation
(incomplete justifying exempting) which
operates to, lower the same to one degree.

In this case, RP lower by one degree is RT.

If on the other hand the law says the penalty
for this offense is RP and there is in
Choose Your Battles Wisely
July 2008

31
Maximum
Rules for the Applicable of Divisible Penalties (Article 62)
Divisible Penalty (Where it contain periods) Example RT Medium

Minimum
1M 0A = minimum
0M + 1A = maximum
0M + 0A = medium

attendance voluntary surrender, still is RP
because voluntary surrender is only Mitigating.

2
nd
Paragraph: in all cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty compose of 2 indivisible
penalties the following rule shall be observed

Example
If one penalty consist of two indivisible
penalties RP TO DEATH, now consider the
following circumstance:

1M 0A = impose the lesser penalty
0M + 1A = impose the greater penalty
0M + 0A = impose the lesser penalty












Successive Service of Sentences
(Article 70)

1
st
Paragraph: When the offender has to serve
2 or more penalties he shall serce them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
so permit.

Example
Q. If has to serve 10 yrs, 3 years, 2, years
and fine of 10,000, can this be serve
simultaneously?
A. Yes, with respect to fine pay them then
imprisonment.

Example
Q. If has to serve 10 yrs, 5 years, 3 years, 2
years of imprisonment, Can he serve them
successively?
A. No. It has to be served successively.

































If it cannot be served simultaneously, serve it
in accordance with order of their severity in the
following:
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arrestom Menor
Destierro
Perpetual Absolute
Disqualification
Temporary Absolute
Disqualification
Suspension from Public
Office, the right to vote and
be voted for, the right to
follow a profession or calling
Public Censure

Note: Notwithstanding the following rule, the
maximum duration of the convict’s sentences
shall not be more than “three-fold” , the length


Become Aware of Your Moods and Don’t Allow
Yourself to be Fooled by the Low Ones
July 2008

32
of time corresponding to the most sever of the
penalties impose upon him.
Requirements:
1. The convict has serves at least 4
sentences/penalties
2. The total sentences exceed the most sever
times 3 but in no case exceeds 40 years
Example
10 yrs, 20 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs = 46 ; the most
sever is 20 x 3 = 60 (3-fold length of time)
-In this case, the three-fold service of sentence
rule does not apply because the total sentence
is 46 and it does not exceed 60. But in no
case it should still exceed 40 yrs in the case

-In case where it would be the other way
around, where the three fold length of time is
46 and the total sentence is 60 yrs, then adopt
the three fold length of time which is 46, but
still in no case it would exceed 40 yrs, so in
this case, the year of imprisonment is still 40.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

Purpose: redeem valuable human material,
the offender is given another chance, in case
where he had served the minimum of the
indeterminate penalty he would be eligible of
parole.

This law does not apply to:
a. indivisible penalties of Death, Life
Imprisonment, Reclusion Perpetua
(pursuant to Article 63 parg. 1) that
when the penalty impose is single
and indivisible, the same shall be
imposed without regard to any of
modifying circumstance
b. Prison terms: of not more than 1
year.
c. Crimes of: Treason, Proposal or
Conspiracy to Commit Treason,
Misprision of Treason, Rebellion,
Espionage, Sedition, Piracy.
d. Offenders who are: Habitual
delinquents, escapees from
confinement, evaders of sentence
violators of conditional pardon
granted by the Chief Executive.
e. Non-prision sentences of:
destierro, disqualification etc.

Note: it happen it the Bar, where the
examinees are asked to compute the
imposable indeterminate penalty, they went
through the motions of computing. when in fact
the offender involve is disqualified.

Application

Always remember that the
indeterminate penalty always
consist of 2 penalties, the maximum
and the minimum. For purposes of
indeterminate penalty this are not
considered as periods of a divisible
penalties, but are considered penalties
in itself.

The indeterminate sentence law applies
to both crimes penalized by the RPC
and other special law, but only that
the application would differ, but both
always consist of 2 penalties still.

the application of ISL is mandatory
provided that the offender does not fall
to any of those disqualified under the
ISL

How to get the Minimum and
Maximum.
Example
In the bar where a question gives a
penalty (which is considered the
reckoning point: the penalties prescribe
by the code for the offense charge is
the reckoning period)

Application in Special law: Take
note that: Special law has no scale of
penalties, so one does not consider the
modifying circumstances, since it
provides its own penalty for the
violation of such law.

Ex: 2 years to 10 years imprisonment
(as given in the problem). Determine
now the imposable indeterminate
penalty. The rules said that if its an
offense penalize under the special law,
the minimum of the indeterminate
penalty should not be below the
minimum provided in the law and the
Life is a Test. It is Only a Test
July 2008

33
maximum should not be beyond the
maximum provided in the law

o So the penalty that may be
imposed is: “he is hereby
sentence to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of 2 years
as minimum to 8 years as
maximum.

o What is indicative that the
penalty given is indeterminate?
The phrase: “as minimum” “as
maximum”

Application if RPC: Take note that:
Even if a crime is penalized under the
RPC one cannot deviated from the rule
that indeterminate penalty always
consist of 2 penalties (minimum and
maximum)

Example
If the penalty prescribe by the code for the
offense charge is RT (always the reckoning
point as given in the exam). Apply now the
ISL, or determine the imposable indeterminate
penalty.

To get the minimum: it is fixed at 1 degree
lower that the maximum penalty impose of RT
in this case 1 degree lower is Prision Mayor (6
yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs).
· So the minimum is anywhere within the
range of the penalty next lower in
degree that that prescribe the code in
the offense charge. (within: 6yrs and 1
day to 12 yrs “as minimum”)

To get the maximum: is determined by
considering the presence of modifying
circumstances applying Rule 64. Remember
that Privilege Mitigating Circumstance must be
first considered before applying the said rules.
The basis is still the penalty prescribe by the
code for the offense charge which here is RT.

1M 0A = minimum
0M + 1A = maximum
0M + 0A = medium

So for instance if there is 1M,0A
the indeterminate penalty would
be:
o ―the convict is hereby
sentence to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of,
anywhere within the
range of PM as minimum
to RT minimum as
maximum (6 yrs. And 1
day as minimum to RT
minimum as maximum)

Another Example
The penalty prescribe by the code for the
offense charge is Prision Mayor

Minimum: (1 degree agad) = Prision
Correccional – 6 mon. and 1 day to 6 yrs.

Maximum: (0M + 0A) = Prision Mayor
medium

Indeterminate Penalty: is anywhere within the
range of PC as minimum to PM medium as
maximum

Q. What if in the problem there is an
attendance of Privilege Mitigating
Circumstance?
A. Lower the penalty impose to 1 degree at the
beginning before applying the same rule.

Example
The penalty imposed is RT, with attendance of
privilege mitigating circumstance, determine
the indeterminate penalty.
^ Immediately lower to 1 degree, which is
PM (now would be the reckoning point)

Minimum: (1 degree agad) = Prision
Correccional – 6 mon. and 1 day to 6 yrs.

Maximum: (0M + 1A) = Prision Mayor
maximum

Indeterminate Penalty: is anywhere within the
range of PC as minimum to PM maximum
as maximum.

Execution of Penalty:
No penalty shall be executed except by
virtue of Final Judgment. The judgment
Praise and Blame are all the Same
July 2008

34
must have attained finality before I may be
executed.

Q. When does a judgment attain its finality:
A.
· If one failed to file notice of appeal
within the reglementary period of 15
days, reckoned from promulgation or
notice of judgment.
· there is waiver of right to appeal,
· total or partial service of sentence
· filing application for probation

Suspension of Sentence
+ 15-18 years old acting with discernment
(suspended sentence)

+ Suspension of Sentence in case of
Insanity
· When a convict becomes insane
or imbecile after final sentence
has been pronounce, execution
of sentence only as regards the
personal penalty not payment of
his civil or pecuniary liability. If
he recovers reason his
sentence shall be executed
unless the penalty has prescribe
· If while serving sentence
becomes insane, above
provision applies.

+ Death sentence shall be suspended
when:
o Woman while pregnant
o Woman within 1 year from
delivery
o Person over 70 yrs of age
o Convict who becomes insane,
after final sentence of death has
been pronounced.

Total Extinction of Criminal Liability
D - death of convict that occurred before final
judgment Only as to his personal liability
A - absolute Pardon of Chief Executive
S - service of sentence\
P - prescription of offense
A - amnesty (extinguishes the penalty and all
its effects)
M - marriage of the offended woman with the
offender in the crimes of rape, seduction,
abduction, and
acts of lasciviousness that must be contracted
in good faith
P - prescription of penalty

Effect of death of the Accused pending
appeal of his Conviction
The death of the accused pending
the appeal of his conviction will
extinguish his criminal liability as
well as his civil liability arising from
the crime committed.
However, civil liability arising from
sources other than the crime
committed survives and maybe
pursued in separate civil action.
(law, contract, quasi contract, quasi
delict)

Prescription of Crimes: is the forfeiture or
loss of the right of the State to prosecute the
offender, after lapse of certain time.
Commence to run on the date discovered by
the offended party, authorized person or
agents. Base on penalty prescribe by RPC

1. Crimes punishable by:
a. Death, reclusion perpetua,
reclusion temporal - 20 years
b. Afflictive penalties - 15 years
c. Correccional penalties – 10
years, except: Arresto Mayor –
5 years
When the penalty
prescribe by law is a
compound one, the
highest penalty shall
be made the basis of
the application of the
rules contained above.
2. Crime of Libel – 1 year
3. Crime Oral defamation and Slander by
Deed – 6 months
a. Simple Slander – 2 months
b. Grave Slander – 6 months
4. Light Offenses – 2 months
5. Crimes punishable by fines:
a. If the fine is afflictive – 15 years
b. If the fine is correccional – 10
years
c. If it is light – 2 months.
The subsidiary penalty
for nonpayment of fine
should not be
Practice Random Acts of Kindness
July 2008

35
considered in
determining the period
of such crimes
When fine is an
alternative penalty
higher than the on the
penalty which is
imprisonment,
prescription of the
crime is base on the
fine

Prescription of Penalties: loss or forfeiture of
the right of the State to execute the final
sentence or penalty after certain lapse of time.

1. Death and RP – 20 years
2. Other Afflictive Penalties – 15 years
3. Correccional Penalties – 10 years
except; Arresto Mayor – 5 years
4. Light Penalties – 1 years

Pursuant to the rule that a judgment is
executed only when it becomes final,
hence we only talk of prescription of
penalty after the judgment has become
final
The penalty must be imposed by final
judgment. Hence, when the convict
appealed and thereafter fled to the
mountain, the penalty impose upon him
would never prescribe, because
pending the appeal, the sentence is not
final.
In prescription of crimes – It is the
penalty prescribe by law that should be
considered
In prescription of penalty – it is the
penalty imposed that is considered.

Commence to run: from the date when the
culprit evaded the service of sentence.

Interrupted when the convict:
Surrenders
Arrested
Goes to a foreign country with which
we have no extradition treaty, or
Commits any crime before the
expiration of the period of prescription

o Within the he period of
prescription of penalty it has to
be executed, the convict would
have to be made to serve the
penalty


Difference between Amnesty and Absolute
Pardon

Amnesty
1. Applies only to Political Offenses
2. Looks backward and abolishes the
offense, and the person would stand
before the law as though he committed
no offense. Makes an ex-convict no
longer a recidivist, because it
obliterates the crime itself
3. Granted by presidential proclamation
with concurrence of the Congress and
there for it has to be taken judicial
notice of by the courts. Ones the court
takes judicial notice of such fact, one
does not have to present evidence to
prove such fact. It is an official act of
the Chief Executive.
4. Amnesty may be granted even before
trial or during investigation, a conviction
is not necessary.

Pardon
1. includes any crime
2. Looks forward and relieves the offender
from the consequence of his conviction
3. Private act on the part of the Chief
Executive, therefore it must be pleaded
and proved by the person who has
been pardoned.
4. Pardon applies only when the person
has already been convicted

Every person criminally liable is also civilly
liable. This means he is civilly liable only for
the consequence of the crime, which is the
basis of the criminal action. This is the only
civil action which is impliedly instituted with the
criminal action, the civil action flowing from the
crime subject of the criminal case.





Look Beyond Behavior
July 2008

36
Subsidiary Liability

Subsidiary Liability of the employer
of the convict;
a. Is not automatic. If the accused-
employee fails to pay, the subsidiary
liability of the employer will set in. It is
not automatic in the sense that there
must first be conviction of the
employee.
b. A reservation to prosecute the
employer for his subsidiary liability is
not necessary. The subsidiary liability
of the employer is not determined in the
same criminal case against the
employee; hence there is no need to
reserve.

What Civil Liability Includes:

1. Restitution – the thing itself must be
restored, even though it is found in
possession of third person who
acquired it by lawful means, saving to
the latter his action against the proper
person who may be liable to him.
2. Reparation – 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.
3. Indemnification of consequential
damages – 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

Set Indemnification (by jurisprudence)
a. Homicide, murder – 50,000php
b. Rape of the first form –
50,000php + moral damages of
50,000php
c. Rape of the second form –
25,000php + moral damages of
25,000php
d. Rape committed under the
circumstances where
previously punishable by
death – 75,000php+ moral
damages 75,0000php
e. Rape with homicide –
100,000php + 100,000 moral
damages
Partial Extinction

1. Conditional Pardon
2. Commutation of Sentence
3. Good Conduct allowances which the
culprit may earn while he is serving his
sentence
4. Parole – because after you shall have
served the minimum indeterminate
penalty, he could be release.











































See the Innocence

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close