of 46

Criminal Law Reviewer (1)

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 3 | Comments: 0
271 views

Criminal law reviewer

Comments

Content


Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law
which defnes crimes, treats of their
nature and provides for their punishment.
Limitations on the power of Congress
to enact penal laws (ON)
1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of
an ex post facto law.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a
bill of attainder.
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or ecessive fnes.
Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. General ! the law is binding to all
persons who reside in the "hilippines
2. Territorial ! the law is binding to all
crimes committed within the #ational
$erritor% of the "hilippines
Exception to Territorial Application&
'nstances enumerated under Article 2.
3. Prospective ! the law does not have
an% retroactive e(ect.
Exception to Prospective Application&
when new statute is favorable to the
accused.
Efect of repeal of penal law to
liailit! of ofen"er
Total or absolute, or partial or
relative repeal. — As to the efect of
repeal of penal law to the liability of
ofender, qualify your answer by saying
whether the repeal is absolute or total or
whether the repeal is partial or relative
only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the
crie punished under the repealed law
has been decriinali!ed by the repeal.
"ecause of the repeal, the act or oission
which used to be a crie is no longer a
crie. An exaple is #epublic Act $o.
%&'&, which decriinali!ed subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the
crie punished under the repealed law
continues to be a crie inspite of the
repeal. This eans that the repeal erely
odi(ed the conditions afecting the
crie under the repealed law. The
odi(cation ay be pre)udicial or
bene(cial to the ofender. *ence, the
following rule+
Conse#$ences if repeal of penal law
is total or asol$te
,-. 'f a case is pending in court
involving the violation of the repealed law,
the sae shall be disissed, even though
the accused ay be a habitual delinquent.
,/. 'f a case is alread% decided and
the accused is alread% serving sentence
b% fnal )udgment, if the convict is not a
habitual delin*uent, then he will be
entitled to a release unless there is a
reservation clause in the penal law that it
will not apply to those serving sentence at
the tie of the repeal. +ut if there is no
reservation, those who are not habitual
delinquents even if they are already
serving their sentence will receive the
bene(t of the repealing law. They are
entitled to release.
'f the% are not discharged from
confnement, a petition for habeas corpus
should be (led to test the legality of their
continued con(neent in )ail.
'f the convict, on the other hand, is a
habitual delin*uent, he will continue
serving the sentence in spite of the fact
that the law under which he was
convicted has already been absolutely
repealed. This is so because penal laws
should be given retroactive application to
favor only those who are not habitual
delinquents.
Conse#$ences if repeal of penal law
is partial or relative
,-. 'f a case is pending in court
involving the violation of the repealed law,
and the repealing law is more favorable to
the accused, it shall be the one applied to
hi. 0o whether he is a habitual
delinquent or not, if the case is still
pending in court, the repealing law will be
the one to apply unless there is a saving
clause in the repealing law that it shall not
apply to pending causes of action.
,2- 'f a case is alread% decided and
the accused is alread% serving sentence
b% fnal )udgment,even if the repealing
law is partial or relative, the crie still
reains to be a crie. $hose who are not
habitual delin*uents will beneft on the
e(ect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is
more lenient to them, it will be the
repealing law that will henceforth appl% to
them.
1nder Article //, even if the ofender is
already convicted and serving sentence, a
law which is bene(cial shall be applied to
hi unless he is a habitual delinquent in
accordance with #ule 2 of Article '/.
Consequences if repeal of penal law
is express or implied
,-. 'f a penal law is impliedl%
repealed, the subsequent repeal of the
repealing law will revive the original law.
0o the act or oission which was
punished as a crie under the original law
will be revived and the sae shall again
be cries although during the iplied
repeal they ay not be
punishable.
,/. 'f the repeal is epress, the
repeal of the repealing law will not revive
the (rst law, so the act or oission will no
longer be penali!ed.
These efects of repeal do not apply to
self3repealing laws or those which have
autoatic terination. An exaple is
the #ent 4ontrol 5aw which is revived by
4ongress every two years.
Theories of Criminal Law
1. Classical Theor! ! Man is
essentiall% a moral creature with an
absolute free will to choose between
good and evil and therefore more
stress is placed upon the result of the
felonious act than upon the criminal
himself.
1. Positivist Theor! ! Man is subdued
occasionall% b% a strange and morbid
phenomenon which conditions him to
do wrong in spite of or contrar% to his
volition.
Eclectic or %i&e" Philosoph!
This cobines both positivist and classical
thin6ing. 4ries that are econoic and
social and nature should be dealt with in a
positivist anner7 thus, the law is ore
copassionate. *einous cries should be
dealt with in a classical anner7 thus,
capital punishen

'()*C %(+*%) *N C,*%*N(L L(-
.octrine of Pro ,eo
8henever a penal law is to be construed
or applied and the law adits of two
interpretations 9 one lenient to the
ofender and one strict to the ofender 9
that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the ofender will be adopted.
N$ll$m crimen/ n$lla poena sine lege
There is no crie when there is no law
punishing the sae. This is true to civil
law countries, but not to coon law
countries.
"ecause of this axi, there is no
coon law crie in the Philippines. $o
atter how wrongful, evil or bad the act
is, if there is no law de(ning the act, the
sae is not considered a crie.
(ct$s non facit re$m/ nisi mens sit
rea
The act cannot be criinal where the
ind is not criinal. This is true to a
felony characteri!ed by dolo, but not a
felony resulting fro culpa. This axi is
not an absolute one because it is not
applied to culpable felonies, or those that
result fro negligence.
0tilitarian Theor! or Protective
Theor!
The priary purpose of the punishent
under criinal law is the protection of
society fro actual and potential
wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in
exacting retribution for the wronged
society, should direct the punishent to
potential or actual wrongdoers, since
criinal law is directed against acts and
oissions which the society does not
approve. 4onsistent with this theory, the
ala prohibita principle which punishes
an ofense regardless of alice or criinal
intent, should not be utili!ed to apply the
full harshness of the special law.
)o$rces of Criminal Law
1. $he .evised "enal /ode
2. 0pecial "enal 1aws ! Acts enacted of
the "hilippine 1egislature punishing
o(enses or omissions.
Constr$ction of Penal Laws
1. /riminal 0tatutes are liberall%
construed in favor of the o(ender.
$his means that no person shall be
brought within their terms who is not
clearl% within them, nor should an%
act be pronounced criminal which is
not clearl% made so b% statute.
2. $he original tet in which a penal
law is approved in case of a con2ict
with an o3cial translation.
3. 'nterpretation b% analog% has no
place in criminal law
%(L( *N )E (N. %(L( P,O1*'*T(
:iolations of the #evised Penal 4ode are
referred to as malum in se, which literall%
means, that the act is inherentl% evil or
bad or per se wrongful. 4n the other
hand, violations of special laws are
generall% referred to as malum
prohibitum.
#ote, however, that not all violations of
special laws are mala prohibita. 5hile
intentional felonies are alwa%s mala in se,
it does not follow that prohibited acts
done in violation of special laws are
alwa%s mala prohibita. 6ven if the crime
is punished under a special law, if the act
punished is one which is inherentl% wrong,
the same is malum in se, and, therefore,
good faith and the lack of criminal intent
is a valid defense7 unless it is the product
of criminal negligence or culpa.
1ikewise when the special laws re*uires
that the punished act be committed
knowingl% and willfull%, criminal intent is
re*uired to be proved before criminal
liabilit% ma% arise.
5hen the act penali8ed is not inherentl%
wrong, it is wrong onl% because a law
punishes the same.
.istinction etween crimes p$nishe"
$n"er the ,evise" Penal Co"e an"
crimes p$nishe" $n"er special laws
23 As to moral trait of the
ofender
'n crimes punished under the .evised
"enal /ode, the moral trait of the o(ender
is considered. $his is wh% liabilit% would
onl% arise when there is dolo or culpa in
the commission of the punishable act.
'n crimes punished under special laws, the
moral trait of the o(ender is not
considered7 it is enough that the
prohibited act was voluntaril% done.
43 As to use of good faith as
defense
'n crimes punished under the .evised
"enal /ode, good faith or lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense7 unless the crime
is the result of culpa
'n crimes punished under special laws,
good faith is not a defense
53 As to degree of
accomplishment of the crime
'n crimes punished under the .evised
"enal /ode, the degree of accomplishment
of the crime is taken into account in
punishing the o(ender7 thus, there are
attempted, frustrated, and consummated
stages in the commission of the crime.
'n crimes punished under special laws, the
act gives rise to a crime onl% when it is
consummated7 there are no attempted or
frustrated stages, unless the special law
epressl% penali8e the mere attempt or
frustration of the crime.
63 As to mitigating and
aggravating circumstances
'n crimes punished under the .evised
"enal /ode, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account in
imposing the penalt% since the moral trait
of the o(ender is considered.
'n crimes punished under special laws,
mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are not taken into account in imposing the
penalt%.
73 As to degree of
participation
'n crimes punished under the .evised
"enal /ode, when there is more than one
o(ender, the degree of participation of
each in the commission of the crime is
taken into account in imposing the
penalt%7 thus, o(enders are classifed as
principal, accomplice and accessor%.
'n crimes punished under special laws, the
degree of participation of the o(enders is
not considered. All who perpetrated the
prohibited act are penali8ed to the same
etent. $here is no principal or
accomplice or accessor% to consider.
Test to "etermine if violation of
special law is mal$m prohiit$m or
mal$m in se
Analy!e the violation+ ;s it wrong because
there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it
as such< ;f you reove the law, will the
act still be wrong<
;f the wording of the law punishing the
crie uses the word =willfully>, then
alice ust be proven. 8here alice is a
factor, good faith is a defense.
;n violation of special law, the act
constituting the crie is a prohibited act.
Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability,
unless the special law punishes an
oission.
8hen given a proble, ta6e note if the
crie is a violation of the #evised Penal
4ode or a special law.
(rt3 23 This Co"e shall ta8e efect on
9an$ar! 2/ 2:543
(rt3 43 E&cept as provi"e" in the
treaties an" laws of preferential
application/ the provisions of this
Co"e shall e enforce" not onl!
within the Philippine (rchipelago
incl$"ing its atmosphere/ its interior
waters an" %aritime ;one/ $t also
o$tsi"e of its <$ris"iction/ against
those who:
23 )ho$l" commit an ofense while on
a Philippine ship or airship=
43 )ho$l" forge or co$nterfeit an!
coin or c$rrenc! note of the
Philippine *slan"s or oligations an"
sec$rities iss$e" ! the Government
of the Philippine *slan"s=
53 )ho$l" e liale for acts
connecte" with the intro"$ction into
these islan"s of the oligations an"
sec$rities mentione" in the prece"ing
n$mer=
63 -hile eing p$lic o>cers or
emplo!ees/ sho$l" commit an ofense
in the e&ercise of their f$nctions=
or ,0oe of these cries are bribery,
fraud against national treasury,
alversation of public funds or property,
and illegal use of public funds7 e.g., A
)udge who accepts a bribe while in ?apan..
73 )ho$l" commit an! crimes
against the national sec$rit! an" the
law of nations/ "e?ne" in Title One of
'oo8 Two of this Co"e3 ,These cries
include treason, espionage, piracy,
utiny, and violation of neutrality.
• Rules as to crimes committed
aboard foreign merchant vessels&
1. @rench ,$le ! 0uch crimes are not
triable in the courts of that countr%,
unless their commission a(ects the
peace and securit% of the territor% or
the safet% of the state is endangered.
1. English ,$le ! 0uch crimes are
triable in that countr%, unless the%
merel% a(ect things within the vessel
or the% refer to the internal
management thereof. ,$his is
applicable in the "hilippines-
two situations where the foreign country
ay not apply its criinal law even if a
crie was coitted on board a vessel
within its territorial waters and these are+
,-. 8hen the crie is coitted in
a war vessel of a foreign country,
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose naval
force they belong7
,/. 8hen the foreign country in
whose territorial waters the crie was
coitted adopts the French Rule,
which applies only to erchant vessels,
except when the crie coitted afects
the national security or public order of
such foreign country.
• Requirements of an ofense
committed while on a !hilippine
"hip or Airship9
1. .egistered with the "hilippine
+ureau of /ustoms
2. 0hip must be in the high seas or the
airship must be in international
airspace.
1nder international law rule, a vessel
which is not registered in accordance with
the laws of any country is considered a
pirate vessel and piracy is a crie against
huanity in general, such that wherever
the pirates ay go, they can be
prosecuted.
0) v3 '$ll
A crime which occurred on board of a
foreign vessel, which began when the ship
was in a foreign territor% and continued
when it entered into "hilippine waters, is
considered a continuing crime. :ence
within the )urisdiction of the local courts.
As a general rule, the #evised Penal 4ode
governs only when the crie coitted
pertains to the exercise of the public
[email protected] functions, those having to do
with the discharge of their duties in a
foreign country. The functions
conteplated are those, which are, under
the law, to be perfored by the public
[email protected] in the Boreign 0ervice of the
Philippine governent in a foreign
country.

Exception+ The #evised Penal 4ode
governs if the crie was coitted within
the Philippine Ebassy or within the
ebassy grounds in a foreign country.
This is because ebassy grounds are
considered an extension of sovereignty.
Paragraph 2 of Article /, use the phrase
=as de(ned in Title Cne of "oo6 Two of
this 4ode.>
This is a very iportant part of the
exception, because Title ; of "oo6 /
,cries against national security. does
not include rebellion.
(rt 53 (cts an" omissions p$nishale
! law are felonies3
• Acts ! an overt or eternal act
• #mission ! failure to perform a
dut% re*uired b% law. Exaple of an
oission& failure to render assistance
to an%one who is in danger of d%ing
or is in an uninhabited place or is
wounded ! abandonment.
• Felonies ! acts and omissions
punishable b% the .evised "enal
/ode
• Crime ; acts and omissions
punishable b% an% law
5hat re*uisites must concur before a
felon% ma% be committed<
There ust be ,-. an act or oission7 ,/.
punishable by the #evised Penal 4ode7
and ,&. the act is perfored or the
oission incurred by eans of dolo or
culpa.
• $ow felonies are committed&
1. ! means of "eceit (dolo) ! $here
is deceit when the act is performed
with deliberate intent.
Requisites%
1. freedom
2. intelligence
3. intent
Exaples& murder, treason, and robber%
Criminal intent is not necessar& in
these cases%
,-. 8hen the crie is the product of
culpa or negligence, rec6less iprudence,
lac6 of foresight or lac6 of s6ill7
,/. 8hen the crie is a prohibited
act under a special law or what is called
alu prohibitu.
'n criminal law, intent is categori(ed
into two%
,-. Deneral criinal intent7 and
,/. 0peci(c criinal intent.
)eneral criminal intent is presued
fro the ere doing of a wrong act. This
does not require proof. The burden is
upon the wrong doer to prove that he
acted without such criinal intent.
"peci*c criminal intent is not
presued because it is an ingredient or
eleent of a crie, li6e intent to 6ill in the
cries of attepted or frustrated
hoicideEparricideEurder. The
prosecution has the burden of proving the
sae. ;t requires proof and there ust be
the intent to gain.
+istinction between intent and
discernment
'ntent is the deterination to do a
certain thing, an ai or purpose of the
ind. ;t is the design to resolve or
deterination by which a person acts.
Cn the other hand, discernment is the
ental capacity to tell right fro wrong.
;t relates to the oral signi(cance that a
person ascribes to his act and relates to
the intelligence as an eleent of dolo,
distinct fro intent.
+istinction between intent and
motive
'ntent is deonstrated by the use of a
particular eans to bring about a desired
result 9 it is not a state of ind or a
reason for coitting a crie.
Cn the other hand, motive iplies
otion. ;t is the oving power which
ipels one to do an act. 8hen there is
otive in the coission of a crie, it
always coes before the intent. "ut a
crie ay be coitted without otive.
;f the crie is intentional, it cannot be
coitted without intent. ;ntent is
anifested by the instruent used by the
ofender. The speci(c criinal intent
becoes aterial if the crie is to be
distinguished fro the attepted or
frustrated stage.
1. b& means of fault ,culpa- ! $here
is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
1. 'mprudence ! defcienc% of action7
e.g. A was driving a truck along a
road. :e hit + because it was raining
! reckless imprudence.
2. .egligence / defcienc% of
perception7 failure to foresee
impending danger, usuall% involves
lack of foresight
0. c. Requisites%
1. =reedom
2. 'ntelligence
3. 'mprudence, negligence, lack
of skill or foresight
4. 1ack of intent
The concept of criminal negligence is
the inexcusable lac6 of precaution on the
part of the person perforing or failing to
perfor an act. ;f the danger ipending
fro that situation is clearly anifest, you
have a case of rec1less imprudence.
"ut if the danger that would result fro
such iprudence is not clear, not anifest
nor iediate you have only a case
of simple negligence.
• %ista8e of fact ! is a
misapprehension of fact on the part
of the person who caused in)ur% to
another. :e is not criminall% liable.
a. Requisites&
1. that the act done would have been
lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be7
2. intention of the accused is lawful7
3. mistake must be without fault of
carelessness.
E&ample% 2nited "tates v. Ah Chong.
Ah /hong being afraid of bad elements,
locked himself in his room b% placing a
chair against the door. After having gone
to bed, he was awakened b% somebod%
who was tr%ing to open the door. :e
asked the identit% of the person, but he
did not receive a response. =earing that
this intruder was a robber, he leaped out
of bed and said that he will kill the
intruder should he attempt to enter. At
that moment, the chair struck him.
+elieving that he was attacked, he sei8ed
a knife and fatall% wounded the intruder.
Fista6e of fact would be relevant only
when the felony would have been
intentional or through dolo, but not when
the felony is a result of culpa. 8hen the
felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss
ista6e of fact.
(rt3 63 Criminal liailit! shall e
inc$rre":
23 '! an! person committing
a felon!/ altho$gh the wrongf$l act
"one e "iferent from that which he
inten"e"3
Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that
the act done is the proimate cause of the
resulting felon%. 't must be the direct,
natural, and logical conse*uence of the
felonious act.
• Ca$ses which pro"$ce a
"iferent res$lt:
1. 3ista1e in identit& of the
victim ! in)uring one person who is
mistaken for another ,this is a
comple crime under Art. 4>- e.g., A
intended to shoot +, but he instead
shot / because he ,A- mistook / for
+.
4Error in personae, the intended
victim was not at the scene of the
crime. ;t was the actual victi upon
who the blow was directed, but he was
not really the intended victi.
*ow does error in personae afect criinal
liability of the ofender<
Error in personae is itigating if the crie
coitted is diferent fro that which
was intended. ;f the crie coitted is
the sae as that which was intended,
error in personae does not afect the
criinal liability of the ofender.
;n ista6e of identity, if the crie
coitted was the sae as the crie
intended, but on a diferent victi, error
in persona does not afect the criinal
liability of the ofender. "ut if the crie
coitted was diferent fro the crie
intended, Article GH will apply and the
penalty for the lesser crie will be
applied. ;n a way, ista6e in identity is a
itigating circustance where Article GH
applies. 8here the crie intended is
ore serious than the crie coitted,
the error in persona is not a itigating
circustance
2. 3ista1e in blow ! hitting
somebod% other than the target due
to lack of skill or fortuitous instances
,this is a comple crime under Art.
4>- e.g., + and / were walking
together. A wanted to shoot +, but
he instead in)ured /.
I Aberratio ictus, a person directed
the blow at an intended victi, but
because of poor ai, that blow landed on
soebody else. ;n aberratio ictus, the
intended victi as well as the actual
victi are both at the scene of the
crime.
aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to
a coplex crie. This being so, the
penalty for the ore serious crie is
iposed in the axiu period.
3. 'n5urious result is greater than
that intended ! causing in)ur%
graver than intended or epected
,this is a mitigating circumstance due
to lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong under Art. 13- e.g., A wanted
to in)ure +. :owever, + died.
I !raeter intentionem is
itigating, particularly covered by
paragraph & of Article -&. ;n order
however, that the situation ay qualify as
praeter intentione, there must be a
notable disparit& between the means
emplo&ed and the resulting felon&
• 'n all these instances the o(ender
can still be hel" criminall! liale,
since he is motivated b% criminal
intent.
Requisites&
1. the felon% was intentionall%
committed
2. the felon% is the proimate cause of
the wrong done
• +octrine of !roximate Cause !
such ade*uate and e3cient cause as,
in the natural order of events, and
under the particular circumstances
surrounding the case, which would
necessaril% produce the event.
Requisites&
1. the direct, natural, and logical cause
2. produces the in)ur% or damage
3. unbroken b% an% su3cient
intervening cause
4. without which the result would not
have occurred
• !roximate Cause is negated b&%
1. Active force, distinct act, or fact
absolutel% foreign from the felonious
act of the accused, which serves as a
su3cient intervening cause.
2. .esulting in)ur% or damage is due to
the intentional act of the victim.
Proxiate cause does not require that
the ofender needs to actually touch the
body of the ofended party. ;t is enough
that the ofender generated in the ind of
the ofended party the belief that ade
hi ris6 hiself.
• Requisite for !resumption blow
was cause of the death ! 5here
there has been an in<$r! inAicte"
s$>cient to pro"$ce "eath
followe" ! the "emise of the
person, the presumption arises that
the in)ur% was the cause of the death.
"rovided&
1. victim was in normal health
2. death ensued within a reasonable
time
The one who caused the proxiate
cause is the one liable. The one who
caused the iediate cause is also liable,
but erely contributory or soeties
totally not liable.
• +low accelerated death; cause for
the acceleration of death of the
deceased. :e is also liable 6. =ist
blow on back of adomen that
produced in2ammation of spleen
that caused his death.
• +low was proimate cause of death;
cause of proimate cause of death
of the deceased 6. "erson with
heart disease stabbed with knife,
the shock resulted his death.
43 '! an! person performing an act
which wo$l" e an ofense against
persons or propert!/ were it not for
the inherent impossiilit! of its
accomplishment or on acco$nt of the
emplo!ment of ina"e#$ate or
inefect$al means3
• ,e#$isites: (*%PO))*'LE C,*%E)
1. Act would have been an o(ense
against persons or propert%
2. Act is not an actual violation of
another provision of the /ode or of a
special penal law
3. $here was criminal or evil intent
4. Accomplishment was inherentl%
impossible7 or inade*uate or
ine(ectual means were emplo%ed.
• Notes:
1. 4(ender must believe that he can
consummate the intended crime, a
man stabbing another who he knew
was alread% dead cannot be liable for
an impossible crime.
2. $he law intends to punish the
criminal intent.
3. $here is no attempted or frustrated
impossible crime.
• Belonies against persons& parricide,
murder, homicide, infanticide,
ph%sical in)uries, etc.
• Belonies against property+ robber%,
theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.
• 'nherent impossibilit&:
#fense Against a !erson& A
thought that + was )ust sleeping. +
was alread% dead. A shot +. A is
liable. 'f A knew that + is dead and
he still shot him, then A is not liable.
#fense against propert&& A took a
watch form + then she found out that
the watch that she took was her?s.
8hen we say inherent ipossibility, this
eans that under any and all
circustances, the crie could not have
ateriali!ed. ;f the crie could have
ateriali!ed under a diferent set of facts,
eploying the sae ean or the sae
act, it is not an ipossible crie7 it would
be an attepted felony.
• 6mplo&ment of inadequate
means: A used poison to kill +.
:owever, + survived because A used
small *uantities of poison ! frustrated
murder.
• 6mplo&ment of 'nefectual
means: A aimed his gun at +. 5hen
he fred the gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empt%. A is
liable.
Ta6e $ote+
8henever you are confronted with a
proble where the facts suggest that an
ipossible crie was coitted, be
careful about the question as6ed. ;f the
question as6ed is+ 's an impossible
crime committed78, then you )udge that
question on the basis of the facts. ;f
really the facts constitute an
impossible crime, then you suggest
than an ipossible crie is coitted,
then you state the reason for the inherent
ipossibility.
;f the question as6ed is 's he
liable for an impossible crime78, this
is a catching question. Even though the
facts constitute an ipossible crie, if the
act done b& the ofender constitutes
some other crimes under the Revised
!enal Code, he will not be liable for
an impossible crime. *e will be
prosecuted for the crie constituted so
far by the act done by hi.
This idea of an impossible crime is
a one of last resort, )ust to teach the
ofender a lesson because of his
criminal perversit&. ;f he could be
taught of the sae lesson by charging
hi with soe other crie constituted by
his act, then that will be the proper way.
;f you want to play safe, you state there
that although an impossible crime is
presented, &et it is a principle of
criminal law that he will onl& be
penali(ed for an impossible crime if
he cannot be punished under some
other provision of the Revised !enal
Code.3 Pwede lang apenali!e ang
ipossible crie 6ung under sita sa
revised penal code.
Art @. 5henever a court has knowledge of
an% act which it ma% deem proper to
repress and which is not punishable b%
law, it shall render the proper decision and
shall report to the /hief 6ecutive,
through the Aepartment of Bustice, the
reasons which induce the court to believe
that said act should be made sub)ect of
legislation.
*n the same wa! the co$rt shall
s$mit to the Chief E&ec$tive/
thro$gh the .epartment of 9$stice/
s$ch statement as ma! e "eeme"
proper/ witho$t s$spen"ing the
e&ec$tion of the sentence/ when a
strict enforcement of the provisions
of this Co"e wo$l" res$lt in the
imposition of a clearl! e&cessive
penalt!/ ta8ing into consi"eration the
"egree of malice an" the in<$r!
ca$se" ! the ofense3
8hen a person is charged in court,
and the court (nds that there is no law
applicable, the court will acquit the
accused and the )udge will give his
opinion that the said act should be
punished.
• "aragraph 2 does not appl% to
crimes punishable b% special law,
including profteering, and illegal
possession of frearms or drugs.
$here can be no eecutive clemenc%
for these crimes.
Art. C. /onsummated felonies, as well as
those which are frustrated and attempted,
are punishable.
( felon! is cons$mmate" when all the
elements necessar! for its e&ec$tion
an" accomplishment are present= an"
it is fr$strate" when the ofen"er
performs all the acts of e&ec$tion
which wo$l" pro"$ce the felon! as a
conse#$ence $t which/
nevertheless/ "o not pro"$ce it !
reason of ca$ses in"epen"ent of the
will of the perpetrator3
There is an attempt when the
ofen"er commences the commission
of a felon! "irectl! ! overt acts/ an"
"oes not perform all the acts of
e&ec$tion which sho$l" pro"$ce the
felon! ! reason of some ca$se or
acci"ent other than his own
spontaneo$s "esistance3
• +evelopment of a crime
1. 'nternal acts ! intent and plans7
usuall% not punishable
2. 6ternal acts
1. "reparator% Acts ! acts
tending toward the crime 7 not
punishable
2. Acts of 6ecution ! acts
directl% connected the crime7
punishable under ."/
"tages of Commission of a Crime
Attempt Frustrated
Consummat
ed
• 4ve
rt
acts
of
eec
ution
are
start
ed
• #ot
all
acts
of
eec
ution
are
pres
ent
• Aue
to
reas
ons
othe
r
• "erforms all
the acts of
eecution
• Acts
performed
would
produce
felon% as
conse*uenc
e
• =elon% is not
produces
• 'ndependent
will of the
perpetrator
A felon% is
consummate
d when all
the elements
necessar% for
its eecution
and
accomplishm
ent are
present.
than
the
spon
tane
ous
desis
tanc
e of
the
perp
etrat
or
• All
acts
of
eec
ution
are
pres
ent
• /ri
me
soug
ht to
be
com
mitt
ed is
not
achi
eved
• Aue
to
inter
veni
ng
caus
es
inde
pend
ent
of
the
will
of
the
perp
etrat
or
• All
the
acts
of
eec
ution
are
pres
ent
• $he
resul
t
soug
ht is
achi
eved
• "tages of a Crime does not
appl& in:
1. 4(enses punishable b% 0pecial
"enal 1aws, unless the otherwise is
provided for.
2. =ormal crimes ,e.g., slander,
adulter%, etc.-
3. 'mpossible /rimes
4. /rimes consummated b% mere
attempt. Exaples+ attempt to 2ee to
an enem% countr%, treason,
corruption of minors.
@. =elonies b% omission
C. /rimes committed b% mere
agreement. Exaples+ betting in
sports ,endings in basketball-,
corruption of public o3cers.
.esistance
Jesistance on the part of the
ofender negates criinal liability in the
attepted stage. Jesistance is true only
in the attepted stage of the felony. ;f
under the de(nition of the felony, the act
done is already in the frustrated stage, no
aount of desistance will negate criinal
liability.
The spontaneous desistance of the
ofender negates only the attepted
stage but not necessarily all criinal
liability. Even though there was
desistance on the part of the ofender, if
the desistance was ade when acts done
by hi already resulted to a felony, that
ofender will still be criinally liable for
the felony brought about his act
;n deciding whether a felony is
attepted or frustrated or consuated,
there are three criteria involved+
,-. The anner of coitting the
crie7
,/. The eleents of the crie7 and
,&. The nature of the crie itself.
• Applications%
-. A put poison in +?s food. + threw
awa% his food. A is liable
! attepted urder.D1E
/. A stole +?s car, but he returned it. A
is liable ! ,consuated. theft.
&. A aimed his gun at +. / held A?s
hand and prevented him from
shooting + ! attepted urder.
G. A in2icted a mortal wound on +. +
managed to survive ! frustrated
urder.
2. A intended to kill + b% shooting him.
A missed ! attepted urder.
'. A doused +?s house with kerosene.
+ut before he could light the match,
he was caught ! attepted arson.
%. A cause a bla8e, but did not burn the
house of + ! frustrated arson.
K. +?s house was set on fre b% A
! ,consuated. arson.
H. A tried to rape +. + managed to
escape. $here was no penetration
! attepted rape.
-L. A got hold of +?s painting. A was
caught before he could leave +?s
house ! frustrated robbery.9:;
The attepted stage is said to be
within the sub)ective phase of execution
of a felony. Cn the sub)ective phase, it is
that point in tie when the ofender
begins the coission of an overt act
until that point where he loses control of
the coission of the crie already. ;f he
has reached that point where he can no
longer control the ensuing consequence,
the crie has already passed the
sub)ective phase and, therefore, it is no
longer attepted. The oent the
execution of the crie has already gone
to that point where the felony should
follow as a consequence, it is either
already frustrated or consuated. ;f the
felony does not follow as a consequence,
it is already frustrated. ;f the felony
follows as a consequence, it is
consuated.
although the ofender ay not have
done the act to bring about the felony as
a consequence, if he could have
continued coitting those acts but he
hiself did not proceed because he
believed that he had done enough to
consuate the crie, 0upree 4ourt
said the sub)ective phase has passed
.#T6" #. AR"#.<
The weight of the authority is that
the crie of arson cannot be coitted
in the frustrated stage. The reason is
because we can hardly deterine whether
the ofender has perfored all the acts of
execution that would result in arson, as a
consequence, unless a part of the
preises has started to burn. Cn the
other hand, the oent a particle or a
olecule of the preises has blac6ened,
in law, arson is consuated. This is
because consuated arson does not
require that the whole of the preises be
burned. ;t is enough that any part of the
preises, no atter how sall, has begun
to burn.
6"TAFA =". T$6FT
;n estafa, the ofender receives the
property7 he does not ta6e it. "ut in
receiving the property, the recipient ay
be coitting theft, not estafa, if what
was transferred to hi was only the
physical or aterial possession of the
ob)ect. ;t can only be estafa if what was
transferred to hi is not only aterial or
physical possession but )uridical
possession as well.
8hen you are discussing estafa, do
not tal6 about intent to gain. ;n the sae
anner that when you are discussing the
crie of theft, do not tal6 of daage.
Nat$re of the crime itself
;n cries involving the ta6ing of
huan life 9 parricide, hoicide, and
urder 9 in the de(nition of the frustrated
stage, it is indispensable that the victi
be ortally wounded. 1nder the
de(nition of the frustrated stage, to
consider the ofender as having
perfored all the acts of execution, the
acts already done by hi ust produce or
be capable of producing a felony as a
consequence. The general rule is that
there ust be a fatal in)ury inMicted,
because it is only then that death will
follow.
;f the wound is not ortal, the crie
is only attepted. The reason is that the
wound inMicted is not capable of bringing
about the desired felony of parricide,
urder or hoicide as a consequence7 it
cannot be said that the ofender has
perfored all the acts of execution which
would produce parricide, hoicide or
urder as a result.
An exception to the general rule is
the so3called sub)ective phase. The
0upree 4ourt has decided cases which
applied the sub)ective standard that when
the ofender hiself believed that he had
perfored all the acts of execution, even
though no ortal wound was inMicted, the
act is already in the frustrated stage.
The coon notion is that when
there is conspiracy involved, the
participants are punished as principals.
This notion is no longer absolute. ;n the
case of !eople v. .ierra, the 0upree
4ourt ruled that even though there was
conspiracy, if a co3conspirator erely
cooperated in the coission of the
crie with insigni(cant or inial acts,
such that even without his cooperation,
the crie could be carried out as well,
such co3conspirator should be punished as
an accoplice only.
Art. F. 1ight felonies are punishable onl%
when the% have been consummated with
the eception of those committed against
persons or propert%.
• Exaples of light felonies& slight
ph%sical in)uries7 theft7 alteration of
boundar% marks7 malicious mischief7
and intriguing against honor.
• 'n commission of crimes against
properties and persons, ever% stage
of eecution is punishable but onl%
the principals and accomplices are
liable for light felonies, accessories
are not.
Art. >. /onspirac% and proposal to commit
felon% are punishable onl% in the cases in
which the law speciall% provides a penalt%
therefore.
( conspirac! e&ists when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a
felon! an" "eci"e to commit it3
There is proposal when the person
who has "eci"e" to commit a felon!
proposes its e&ec$tion to some other
person or persons3
• 4onspiracy is punishable in the
following cases& treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, and
monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade.
• 4onspiracy to coit a crie is not
to be confused with conspiracy as a
eans of coitting a crie. 'n both
cases there is an agreement but
mere conspirac% to commit a crime is
not punished 6G/6"$ in treason,
rebellion, or sedition. 6ven then, if
the treason is actuall% committed,
the conspirac% will be considered as
a means of committing it and the
accused will all be charged for
treason and not for conspirac% to
commit treason.
Conspirac! an" Proposal to Commit a
Crime
Conspirac! Proposal
6lemen
ts
• Agreement
among 2 or
more persons to
commit a crime
• $he% decide to
commit it
• A person has
decided to
commit a crime
• :e proposes its
commission to
another
/rimes
1. /onspirac% to
commit sedition
2. /onspirac% to
commit
rebellion
3. /onspirac% to
commit treason
4. "roposal to
commit treason
@. "roposal to
commit
rebellion
• Mere conspirac% in combination in
restraint of trade ,Art. 1>C-, and
brigandage ,Art. 3HC-.
Two wa&s for conspirac& to exist%
,-. There is an agreeent.
,/. The participants acted in
concert or siultaneously which is
indicative of a eeting of the inds
towards a coon criinal goal or
criinal ob)ective. 8hen several
ofenders act in a synchroni!ed,
coordinated anner, the fact that their
acts copliented each other is
indicative of the eeting of the inds.
There is an iplied agreeent.
Two 1inds of conspirac&%
,-. 4onspiracy as a crie7 and
,/. 4onspiracy as a anner of
incurring criinal liability
8hen conspiracy itself is a crie, no
overt act is necessary to bring about the
criinal liability. The ere conspiracy is
the crie itself. This is only true when the
law expressly punishes the ere
conspiracy7 otherwise, the conspiracy
does not bring about the coission of
the crie because conspiracy is not an
overt act but a ere preparatory act.
Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup
dAetat are the only cries where the
conspiracy and proposal to coit to
the are punishable.
8hen the conspiracy is only a basis
of incurring criinal liability, there ust
be an overt act done before the co3
conspirators becoe criinally liable. Bor
as long as none of the conspirators has
coitted an overt act, there is no crie
yet. "ut when one of the coits any
overt act, all of the shall be held liable,
unless a co3conspirator was absent fro
the scene of the crie or he showed up,
but he tried to prevent the coission of
the crie.
As a general rule, if there has been a
conspiracy to coit a crie in a
particular place, anyone who did not
appear shall be presued to have
desisted. The exception to this is if such
person who did not appear was the
asterind.
Bor as long as none of the
conspirators has coitted an overt act,
there is no crie yet. "ut when one of
the coits any overt act, all of the
shall be held liable, unless a co3
conspirator was absent fro the scene of
the crie or he showed up, but he tried to
prevent the coission of the crie
As a general rule, if there has been a
conspiracy to coit a crie in a
particular place, anyone who did not
appear shall be presued to have
desisted. The exception to this is if such
person who did not appear was the
asterind.
8hen the conspiracy itself is a crie,
this cannot be inferred or deduced
because there is no overt act. All that
there is the agreeent. Cn the other
hand, if the co3conspirator or any of the
would execute an overt act, the crie
would no longer be the conspiracy but the
overt act itself.
conspiracy as a crie, ust have a
clear and convincing evidence of its
existence. Every crie ust be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. it ust be
established by positive and conclusive
evidence, not by con)ectures or
speculations.
8hen the conspiracy is )ust a basis of
incurring criinal liability, however, the
sae ay be deduced or inferred fro
the acts of several ofenders in carrying
out the coission of the crie. The
existence of a conspiracy ay be
reasonably inferred fro the acts of the
ofenders when such acts disclose or show
a coon pursuit of the criinal
ob)ective.
ere 6nowledge, acquiescence to,
or approval of the act, without
cooperation or at least, agreeent to
cooperate, is not enough to constitute a
conspiracy. There ust be an intentional
participation in the crie with a view to
further the coon felonious ob)ective.
8hen several persons who do not
6now each other siultaneously attac6
the victi, the act of one is the act of all,
regardless of the degree of in)ury inMicted
by any one of the. All will be liable for
the consequences. A conspiracy is
possible even when participants are not
6nown to each other. Jo not thin6 that
participants are always 6nown to each
other.
Conspirac& is a atter of
substance which ust be alleged in the
inforation, otherwise, the court will not
consider the sae.
!roposal is true only up to the point
where the party to who the proposal
was ade has not yet accepted the
proposal. Cnce the proposal was
accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is
unilateral, one party a6es a proposition
to the other7 conspiracy is bilateral, it
requires two parties.
)E.*T*ON=
Proposal to coit sedition is not a
crie. "ut if 1nion " accepts the
proposal, there will be conspiracy to
coit sedition which is a crie under
the #evised Penal 4ode.
Composite crimes
4oposite cries are cries which,
in substance, consist of ore than one
crie but in the eyes of the law, there is
only one crie. Bor exaple, the cries
of robbery with hoicide, robbery with
rape, robbery with physical in)uries.
;n case the crie coitted is a
coposite crie, the conspirator will be
liable for all the acts coitted during
the coission of the crie agreed
upon. This is because, in the eyes of the
law, all those acts done in pursuance of
the crie agreed upon are acts which
constitute a single crie.
As a general rule, when there is
conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one
is the act of all. This principle applies only
to the crie agreed upon.
The exception is if any of the co3
conspirator would coit a crie not
agreed upon. This happens when the
crie agreed upon and the crie
coitted by one of the co3conspirators
are distinct cries.
Exception to the exception+ ;n acts
constituting a single indivisible ofense,
even though the co3conspirator perfored
diferent acts bringing about the
coposite crie, all will be liable for such
crie. They can only evade responsibility
for any other crie outside of that agreed
upon if it is proved that the particular
conspirator had tried to prevent the
coission of such other act.
Art. I. Jrave felonies are those to which
the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in an% of their are
aKictive, in accordance with Article [email protected] of
this /ode.
Less grave felonies are those which
the law p$nishes with penalties
which in their ma&im$m perio" are
correctional/ in accor"ance with the
aoveBmentione" article3
Light felonies are those infractions of
law for the commission of which he
penalt! of arresto ma&oror a ?ne not
e&cee"ing 4CC pesos/ or oth is
provi"e"3
• /apital punishment ! death penalt%.
• "enalties ,imprisonment-& Jrave !
si %ears and one da% to reclusion
perpetua ,life-7 1ess grave ! one
month and one da% to si %ears7
1ight ! arresto enor ,one da% to 3H
da%s-.
CL())*@*C(T*ON [email protected] @ELON*E)
This question was as6ed in the bar
exaination+ *ow do you classify felonies
or how are felonies classi(ed<
8hat the exainer had in ind was
Articles &, ' and H. Jo not write the
classi(cation of felonies under "oo6 / of
the #evised Penal 4ode. That was not
what the exainer had in ind because
the question does not require the
candidate to classify but also to de(ne.
Therefore, the exainer was after the
classi(cations under Articles &, ' and H.
@elonies are classi?e" as follows:
(2) According to the
manner of their commission
1nder Article &, they are classi(ed as,
intentional felonies or those coitted
with deliberate intent7 and culpable
felonies or those resulting fro
negligence, rec6less iprudence, lac6 of
foresight or lac6 of s6ill.
,:- According to the stages
of their execution
1nder Article '., felonies are classi(ed as
attepted felony when the ofender
coences the coission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not
perfor all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of
soe cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance7 frustrated
felony when the ofender coences the
coission of a felony as a consequence
but which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which nevertheless do
not produce the felony by reason of
causes independent of the perpetrator7
and, consuated felony when all the
eleents necessary for its execution are
present.
(5) According to their
gravit&
1nder Article H, felonies are classi(ed as
grave felonies or those to which attaches
the capital punishent or penalties which
in any of their periods are aNictive7 less
grave felonies or those to which the law
punishes with penalties which in their
axiu period was correccional7 and
light felonies or those infractions of law for
the coission of which the penalty is
arresto enor.
8hy is it necessary to deterine whether
the crie is grave, less grave or light<
To deterine whether these felonies can
be coplexed or not, and to deterine
the prescription of the crie and the
prescription of the penalty. ;n other
words, these are felonies classi(ed
according to their gravity, stages and the
penalty attached to the. Ta6e note that
when the #evised Penal 4ode spea6s of
grave and less grave felonies, the
de(nition a6es a reference speci(cally
to Article /2 of the #evised Penal 4ode.
Jo not oit the phrase =;n accordance
with Article /2> because there is also a
classi(cation of penalties under Article /'
that was not applied.
;f the penalty is (ne and exactly P/LL.LL,
it is only considered a light felony under
Article H.
;f the (ne is iposed as an alternative
penalty or as a single penalty, the (ne of
P/LL.LL is considered a correctional
penalty under Article /'.
;f the penalty is exactly P/LL.LL, apply
Article /'. ;t is considered as correctional
penalty and it prescribes in -L years. ;f
the ofender is apprehended at any tie
within ten years, he can be ade to sufer
the (ne.
This classi(cation of felony according to
gravity is iportant with respect to the
question of prescription of cries.
;n the case of light felonies, cries
prescribe in two onths. ;f the crie is
correctional, it prescribes in ten years,
except arresto ayor, which prescribes in
(ve years.
(rt3 2C3 Ofenses which are or in the
f$t$re ma! e p$nishale $n"er
special laws are not s$<ect to the
provisions of this Co"e3 This Co"e
shall e s$pplementar! to s$ch laws/
$nless the latter sho$l" speciall!
provi"e the contrar!3
• =or 0pecial 1aws& "enalties should
be imprisonment, and not reclusion
perpetua, etc.
• 4(enses that are attempted or
frustrated are not punishable, unless
otherwise stated.
• "lea of guilt% is not mitigating for
o(enses punishable b% special laws.
• #o minimum, medium, and
maimum periods for penalties.
• #o penalt% for an accessor% or
accomplice, unless otherwise stated.

• !rovisions of R!C applicable to
special laws%
1. Art. 1C "articipation of Accomplices
2. Art. 22 .etroactivit% of "enal laws if
favorable to the accused
3. Art. [email protected] /onfscation of instruments
used in the crime
)0PPLETO,D (PPL*C(T*ON [email protected] T1E
,EE*)E. PEN(L CO.E
;n Article -L, there is a reservation
=provision of the #evised Penal 4ode ay
be applied suppletorily to special laws>.
Oou will only apply the provisions of the
#evised Penal 4ode as a suppleent to
the special law, or siply correlate the
violated special law, if needed to avoid an
in)ustice. ;f no )ustice would result, do not
give suppletorily application of the
#evised Penal 4ode to that of special law.
Bor exaple, a special law punishes a
certain act as a crie. The special law is
silent as to the civil liability of one who
violates the sae. *ere is a person who
violated the special law and he was
prosecuted. *is violation caused daage
or in)ury to a private party. Fay the court
pronounce that he is civilly liable to the
ofended party, considering that the
special law is silent on this point< Oes,
because Article -LL of the #evised Penal
4ode ay be given suppletory application
to prevent an in)ustice fro being done to
the ofended party. Article -LL states that
every person criinally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable. That article shall be
applied suppletory to avoid an in)ustice
that would be caused to the private
ofended party, if he would not be
indeni(ed for the daages or in)uries
sustained by hi.
;n !eople v. Rodrigue(, it was held that
the use of ars is an eleent of rebellion,
so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted
for possession of (rears. A violation of a
special law can never absorb a crie
punishable under the #evised Penal 4ode,
because violations of the #evised Penal
4ode are ore serious than a violation of
a special law. "ut a crie in the #evised
Penal 4ode can absorb a crie punishable
by a special law if it is a necessary
ingredient of the crie in the #evised
Penal 4ode
;n the crie of sedition, the use of
(rears is not an ingredient of the crie.
*ence, two prosecutions can be had+ ,-.
sedition7 and ,/. illegal possession of
(rears.
"ut do not thin6 that when a crie is
punished outside of the #evised Penal
4ode, it is already a special law. Bor
exaple, the crie of cattle3rustling is not
a ala prohibitu but a odi(cation of
the crie theft of large cattle. 0o
Presidential Jecree $o. 2&&, punishing
cattle3rustling, is not a special law. ;t can
absorb the crie of urder. ;f in the
course of cattle rustling, urder was
coitted, the ofender cannot be
prosecuted for urder. Furder would be
a qualifying circustance in the crie of
quali(ed cattle rustling. This was the
ruling in!eople v. 3artinada.
The aendents of Presidential Jecree
$o. 'G/2 ,The Jangerous Jrugs Act of
-H%/. by #epublic Act $o. %'2H, which
adopted the scale of penalties in the
#evised Penal 4ode, eans that
itigating and aggravating circustances
can now be considered in iposing
penalties. Presidential Jecree $o. 'G/2
does not expressly prohibit the suppletory
application of the #evised Penal 4ode.
The stages of the coission of felonies
will also apply since suppletory application
is now allowed.
Circ$mstances afecting criminal
liailit!
$here are fve circumstances a(ecting
criminal liabilit%&
,1- Bustif%ing circumstances7
,2- 6empting circumstances7
,3- Mitigating circumstances7
,4- Aggravating circumstances7
and
,@- Alternative circumstances.
There are two others which are fo$n"
elsewhere in the provisions of the
,evise" Penal Co"e:
,1- Absolutor% cause7 and
,2- 6tenuating circumstances.
;n )ustifying and exepting
circustances, there is no criinal
liability. 8hen an accused invo6es the,
he in efect adits the coission of a
crie but tries to avoid the liability
thereof. The burden is upon hi to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the
required conditions to )ustify or exept
his acts fro criinal liability. 8hat is
shifted is only the burden of evidence, not
the burden of proof.
?ustifying circustances conteplate
intentional acts and, hence, are
incopatible with dolo. Exepting
circustances ay be invo6ed in culpable
felonies.
(sol$tor! ca$se
The efect of this is to absolve the
ofender fro criinal liability, although
not fro civil liability. ;t has the sae
efect as an exepting circustance, but
you do not call it as such in order not to
confuse it with the circustances under
Article -/.
Article /L provides that the penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be
iposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitiate, natural and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives
by [email protected] within the sae degrees with
the exception of accessories who pro(ted
theselves or assisting the ofender to
pro(t by the efects of the crie.
Then, Article KH provides how criinal
liability is extinguished+
Jeath of the convict as to the personal
penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefor is extinguished if death
occurs before (nal )udgent7
0ervice of the sentence7
Anesty7
Absolute pardon7
Prescription of the crie7
Prescription of the penalty7 and
Farriage of the ofended woan as
provided in Article &GG.

1nder Article /G%, a legally arried
person who 6ills or inMicts physical in)uries
upon his or her spouse who he surprised
having sexual intercourse with his or her
paraour or istress in not criinally
liable.
1nder Article /-H, discovering secrets
through sei!ure of correspondence of the
ward by their guardian is not penali!ed.
1nder Article &&/, in the case of theft,
swindling and alicious ischief, there is
no criinal liability but only civil liability,
when the ofender and the ofended party
are related as spouse, ascendant,
descendant, brother and sister3in3law
living together or where in case the
widowed spouse and the property
involved is that of the deceased spouse,
before such property had passed on to the
possession of third parties.
1nder Article &GG, in cases of seduction,
abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and
rape, the arriage of the ofended party
shall extinguish the criinal action.
Absolutory cause has the efect of an
exepting circustance and they are
predicated on lac6 of voluntariness li6e
instigation. ;nstigation is associated with
criinal intent. Jo not consider culpa in
connection with instigation. ;f the crie is
culpable, do not tal6 of instigation. ;n
instigation, the crie is coitted with
dolo. ;t is confused with entrapent.
Entrapent is not an absolutory cause.
Entrapent does not exept the ofender
or itigate his criinal liability. "ut
instigation absolves the ofender fro
criinal liability because in instigation,
the ofender siply acts as a tool of the
law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting
without criinal intent because without
the instigation, he would not have done
the criinal act which he did upon
instigation of the law enforcers.
.iference etween instigation an"
entrapment
;n instigation, the criinal plan or design
exists in the ind of the law enforcer with
who the person instigated cooperated
so it is said that the person instigated is
acting only as a ere instruent or tool
of the law enforcer in the perforance of
his duties.
Cn the other hand, in entrapment, a
criinal design is already in the ind of
the person entrapped. ;t did not eanate
fro the ind of the law enforcer
entrapping hi. Entrapent involves only
ways and eans which are laid down or
resorted to facilitate the apprehension of
the culprit.
The eleent which a6es instigation an
absolutory cause is the lac6 of criinal
intent as an eleent of voluntariness.
;f the instigator is a law enforcer, the
person instigated cannot be criinally
liable, because it is the law enforcer who
planted that criinal ind in hi to
coit the crie, without which he would
not have been a criinal. ;f the instigator
is not a law enforcer, both will be
criinally liable, you cannot have a case
of instigation. ;n instigation, the private
citi!en only cooperates with the law
enforcer to a point when the private
citi!en upon instigation of the law
enforcer incriinates hiself. ;t would be
contrary to public policy to prosecute a
citi!en who only cooperated with the law
enforcer. The private citi!en believes that
he is a law enforcer and that is why when
the law enforcer tells hi, he believes
that it is a civil duty to cooperate.
;f the person instigated does not 6now
that the person is instigating hi is a law
enforcer or he 6nows hi to be not a law
enforcer, this is not a case of instigation.
This is a case of induceent, both will be
criinally liable.
;n entrapent, the person entrapped
should not 6now that the person trying to
entrap hi was a law enforcer. The idea
is incopatible with each other because
in entrapent, the person entrapped is
actually coitting a crie. The [email protected]
who entrapped hi only lays down ways
and eans to have evidence of the
coission of the crie, but even
without those ways and eans, the
person entrapped is actually engaged in a
violation of the law.
;nstigation absolves the person instigated
fro criinal liability. This is based on the
rule that a person cannot be a criinal if
his ind is not criinal. Cn the other
hand, entrapent is not an absolutory
cause. ;t is not even itigating.
;n case of sonabulis or one who acts
while sleeping, the person involved is
de(nitely acting without freedo and
without [email protected] intelligence, because he
is asleep. *e is oving li6e a robot,
unaware of what he is doing. 0o the
eleent of voluntariness which is
necessary in dolo and culpa is not
present. 0onabulis is an absolutory
cause. ;f eleent of voluntariness is
absent, there is no criinal liability,
although there is civil liability, and if the
circustance is not aong those
enuerated in Article -/, refer to the
circustance as an absolutory cause.
Fista6e of fact is an absolutory cause.
The ofender is acting without criinal
intent. 0o in ista6e of fact, it is
necessary that had the facts been true as
the accused believed the to be, this act
is )usti(ed. ;f not, there is criinal
liability, because there is no ista6e of
fact anyore. The ofender ust believe
he is perforing a lawful act.

6tenuating circumstances
The efect of this is to itigate the
criinal liability of the ofender. ;n other
words, this has the sae efect as
itigating circustances, only you do not
call it itigating because this is not found
in Article -&.

'llustrations%
An unwed other 6illed her child in order
to conceal a dishonor. The concealent
of dishonor is an extenuating
circustance insofar as the unwed
other or the aternal grandparents is
concerned, but not insofar as the father of
the child is concerned. Fother 6illing her
new born child to conceal her dishonor,
penalty is lowered by two degrees. 0ince
there is a aterial lowering of the penalty
or itigating the penalty, this is an
extenuating circustance.
The concealent of honor by other in
the crie of infanticide is an extenuating
circustance but not in the case of
parricide when the age of the victi is
three days old and above.
;n the crie of adultery on the part of a
arried woan abandoned by her
husband, at the tie she was abandoned
by her husband, is it necessary for her to
see6 the copany of another an.
Abandonent by the husband does not
)ustify the act of the woan. ;t only
extenuates or reduces criinal liability.
8hen the efect of the circustance is to
lower the penalty there is an extenuating
circustance.
A 6leptoaniac is one who cannot resist
the teptation of stealing things which
appeal to his desire. This is not
exepting. Cne who is a 6leptoaniac
and who would steal ob)ects of his desire
is criinally liable. "ut he would be given
the bene(t of a itigating circustance
analogous to paragraph H of Article -&,
that of sufering fro an illness which
diinishes the exercise of his will power
without, however, depriving hi of the
consciousness of his act. 0o this is an
extenuating circustance. The efect is
to itigate the criinal liability.
.istinctions etween <$stif!ing
circ$mstances an" e&empting
circ$mstances
'n 5ustif&ing circumstances >
,-. The circustance afects the
act, not the actor7
,/. The act coplained of is
considered to have been done within the
bounds of law7 hence, it is legitiate and
lawful in the eyes of the law7
,&. 0ince the act is considered
lawful, there is no crie, and because
there is no crie, there is no criinal7
,G. 0ince there is no crie or
criinal, there is no criinal liability as
well as civil liability.
'n exempting circumstances >
,-. The circustances afect the
actor, not the act7
,/. The act coplained of is
actually wrongful, but the actor acted
without voluntariness. *e is a ere tool
or instruent of the crie7
,&. 0ince the act coplained of
is actually wrongful, there is a crie. "ut
because the actor acted without
voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or
culpa. There is no criinal7
,G. 0ince there is a crie
coitted but there is no criinal, there
is civil liability for the wrong done. "ut
there is no criinal liability. *owever, in
paragraphs G and % of Article -/, there is
neither criinal nor civil liability.
8hen you apply for )ustifying or
exepting circustances, it is confession
and avoidance and burden of proof shifts
to the accused and he can no longer rely
on wea6ness of prosecutionAs evidence.
D1E$he di(erence between
murder and homicide will be discussed in
/riminal 1aw ''. $hese crimes are found in
Articles 24> and 24I, +ook '' of the
.evised "enal /ode.
D2E $he di(erence between theft
and robber% will be discussed in /riminal
1aw ''. $hese crimes are found in $itle
$en, /hapters 4ne and $hree, +ook '' of
the .evised "enal /ode.
(rt3 22: 9$stif!ing Circ$mstances –
those wherein the acts of the actor
are in accor"ance with law/ hence/ he
is <$sti?e"3 There is no criminal an"
civil liailit! eca$se there is no
crime3
• "elf/defense
1. .eason for lawfulness of self;
defense& because it would be
impossible for the 0tate to protect
all its citi8ens. Also a person cannot
)ust give up his rights without an%
resistance being o(ered.
2. .ights included in self;defense&
1. Aefense of person
2. Aefense of rights protected b% law
23 .efense of propert!:
a. $he owner or lawful possessor of a
thing has a right to eclude an% person
from the en)o%ment or disposal thereof.
=or this purpose, he ma% use such force as
ma% be reasonabl% necessar% to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
ph%sical invasion or usurpation of his
propert%. ,Art. G/H, $ew 4ivil 4ode-
b. defense of chastit%
3. 6lements&
1. 23 0nlawf$l (ggression; is a
ph%sical act manifesting danger to
life or limb7 it is either actual or
imminent.
1. ActualLreal aggression ! .eal
aggression presupposes an act
positivel% strong, showing the
wrongful intent of the
aggressor, which is not merel%
threatening or intimidating
attitude, but a material
attack. $here must be real
danger to life a personal
safet%.
2. 'mminent unlawful aggression
! it is an attack that is
impending or on the point of
happening. 't must not
consist in a mere threatening
attitude, nor must it be merel%
imaginar%. $he intimidating
attitude must be o(ensive and
positivel% strong.
3. 5here there is an agreement
to fght, there is no unlawful
aggression. 6ach of the
protagonists is at once
assailant and assaulted, and
neither can invoke the right of
self;defense, because
aggression which is an
incident in the fght is bound
to arise from one or the other
of the combatants. 6ception&
5here the attack is made in
violation of the conditions
agreed upon, there ma% be
unlawful aggression.
4. Mnlawful aggression in self;
defense, to be )ustif%ing, must
eist at the time the defense
is made. 't ma% no longer
eist if the aggressor runs
awa% after the attack or he
has manifested a refusal to
continue fghting. 'f the
person attacked allowed some
time to elapse after he
su(ered the in)ur% before
hitting back, his act of hitting
back would not constitute self;
defense, but revenge.
• A light push on the head with the
hand is not unlawful aggression, but
a slap on the face is, because his
dignit% is in danger.
• A police o3cer eceeding his
authorit% ma% become an unlawful
aggressor.
• $he nature, character, location, and
etent of the wound ma% belie claim
of self;defense.
43 ,easonale necessit! of
the means emplo!e" to prevent or
repel it=
a3 ,e#$isites:
• Means were used to prevent or repel
• Means must be necessar% and there
is no other wa% to prevent or repel it
• Means must be reasonable !
depending on the circumstances,
but generall% proportionate to the
force of the aggressor.
1. $he rule here is to stand %our
ground when in the right which ma%
invoked when the defender is
unlawfull% assaulted and the
aggressor is armed with a weapon.
2. $he rule is more liberal when the
accused is a peace o3cer who,
unlike a private person, cannot run
awa%.
3. $he reasonable necessit% of the
means emplo%ed to put up the
defense.
• $he gauge of reasonable necessit%
is the instinct of self;preservation,
i.e. a person did not use his rational
mind to pick a means of defense but
acted out of self;preservation, using
the nearest or onl% means available
to defend himself, even if such
means be disproportionatel%
advantageous as compared with the
means of violence emplo%ed b% the
aggressor.
• .easonableness of the means
depends on the nature and the
*ualit% of the weapon used, ph%sical
condition, character, si8e and other
circumstances.
53 Lac8 of s$>cient provocation on
the part of the person "efen"ing
himself3
1. 5hen no provocation at all was
given to the aggressor b% the person
defending himself.
2. 5hen even if provocation was given
b% the person defending himself,
such was not su3cient to cause
violent aggression on the part of the
attacker, i.e. the amount of
provocation was not su3cient to stir
the aggressor into the acts which
led the accused to defend himself.
3. 5hen even if the provocation were
su3cient, it was not given b% the
person defending himself.
4. 5hen even if provocation was given
b% the person defending himself, the
attack was not proimate or
immediate to the act of provocation.
@. 0u3cient means proportionate to
the damage caused b% the act, and
ade*uate to stir one to its
commission.
23 Fin"s of )elfB.efense
1. )elfB"efense of chastit! ! to
be entitled to complete self;
defense of chastit%, there
must be an attempt to rape,
mere imminence thereof will
su3ce.
2. .efense of propert! ! an
attack on the propert% must
be coupled with an attack on
the person of the owner, or of
one entrusted with the care of
such propert%.
3. )elfB"efense in liel !
ph%sical assault ma% be
)ustifed when the libel is
aimed at a person?s good
name, and while the libel is in
progress, one libel deserves
another.
N+urden of proof ! on the accused
,su3cient, clear and convincing evidence7
must rel% on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution-.
• .efense of ,elative
(3 Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessit% of the means
emplo%ed to prevent or repel the
attack7
3. in case provocation was given b%
the person attacked, that the person
making the defense had no part in
such provocation.
'3 ,elatives entitle" to the "efense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters
@. relatives b% a3nit% in the same
degree
C. relatives b% consanguinit% within the
4th civil degree.
• $he third element need not take
place. $he relative defended ma%
even be the original aggressor. All
that is re*uired to )ustif% the act of
the relative defending is that he
takes no part in such provocation.
• Jeneral opinion is to the e(ect that
all relatives mentioned must be
legitimate, ecept in cases of
brothers and sisters who, b%
relatives b% nature, ma% be
illegitimate.
• $he unlawful aggression ma%
depend on the honest belief of the
person making the defense.
• .efense of )tranger
(3 Elements
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessit% of the means
emplo%ed to prevent or repel the
attack7
3. the person defending be not
induced b% revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.
2. A relative not included in defense of
relative is included in defense of
stranger.
3. +e not induced b% evil motive
means that even an enem% of the
aggressor who comes to the defense
of a stranger ma% invoke this
)ustif%ing circumstances so long as
he is not induced b% a motive that is
evil.
• )tate of Necessit!
-. Art. --, Par. a provides+
(n! person who/ in or"er to avoi" an
evil or in<$r!/ "oes an act which
ca$ses "amage to another/ provi"e"
that the following re#$isites are
present:
@irst3 That the evil so$ght to e
avoi"e" act$all! e&ists=
)econ"3 That the in<$r! feare"
e greater than that "one to avoi" it=
an"
Thir"3 That there e no other
practical an" less harmf$l means of
preventing it3
1. A state of necessit% eists when
there is a clash between une*ual
rights, the lesser right giving wa% to
the greater right. Aside from the 3
re*uisites stated in the law, it should
also be added that the necessit%
must not be due to the negligence
or violation of an% law b% the actor.
2. $he person for whose beneft the
harm has been prevented shall be
civill% liable in proportion to the
beneft which ma% have been
received. $his is the onl% )ustif%ing
circumstance which provides for the
pa%ment of civil indemnit%. Mnder
the other )ustif%ing circumstances,
no civil liabilit% attaches. $he courts
shall determine, in their sound
discretion, the proportionate amount
for which law one is liable
• @$l?llment of .$t! or Lawf$l
E&ercise of a ,ight or O>ce
23 Elements:
1. that the accused acted in the
performance of a dut%, or in the
lawful eercise of a right or o3ce7
2. that the in)ur% caused or o(ense
committed be the necessar%
conse*uence of the due
performance of the dut%, or the
lawful eercise of such right or
o3ce.
2. A police o3cer is )ustifed in
shooting and killing a criminal who
refuses to stop when ordered to do
so, and after such o3cer fred
warning shots in the air.
• shooting an o(ender who refused to
surrender is )ustifed, but not a thief
who refused to be arrested.
3. $he accused must prove that he was
dul% appointed to the position he
claimed he was discharging at the
time of the commission of the
o(ense. 't must be made to appear
not onl% that the in)ur% caused or
the o(ense committed was done in
the fulfllment of a dut%, or in the
lawful eercise of a right or o3ce,
but that the o(ense committed was
a necessar% conse*uence of such
fulfllment of dut%, or lawful eercise
of a right or o3ce.
4. A mere securit% guard has no
authorit% or dut% to fre at a thief,
resulting in the latter?s death.
• Oe"ience to a )$perior Or"er
23 Elements:
1. there is an order7
2. the order is for a legal purpose7
3. the means used to carr% out said
order is lawful.
2. $he subordinate who is made to
compl% with the order is the part%
which ma% avail of this
circumstance. $he o3cer giving the
order ma% not invoke this.
3. $he subordinate?s good faith is
material here. 'f he obe%ed an order
in good faith, not being aware of its
illegalit%, he is not liable. :owever,
the order must not be patentl%
illegal. 'f the order is patentl% illegal
this circumstance cannot be validl%
invoked.
4. $he reason for this )ustif%ing
circumstance is the subordinate?s
mistake of fact in good faith.
@. 6ven if the order be patentl% illegal,
the subordinate ma% %et be able to
invoke the eempting circumstances
of having acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force,
or under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear.
6G6M"$'#J /'./MM0$A#/60
• 6empting circumstances ,non;
imputabilit%- are those ground for
eemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the
agent of the crime of an% of the
conditions which make the act
voluntar%, or negligent.
• +asis& $he eemption from
punishment is based on the
complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on
the absence of negligence on the
part of the accused.
• A person who acts 5'$:4M$ MA1'/6
,without intelligence, freedom of
action or intent- or 5'$:4M$
#6J1'J6#/6 ,without intelligence,
freedom of action or fault- is #4$
/.'M'#A11O 1'A+16 or is 6G6M"$
=.4M "M#'0:M6#$.
• $here is a crime committed but no
criminal liabilit% arises from it
because of the complete absence of
an% of the conditions which
constitute free will or voluntariness
of the act.
• +urden of proof& An% of the
circumstances is a matter of
defense and must be proved b% the
defendant to the satisfaction of the
court.
(rt3 243 C*,C0%)T(NCE) -1*C1
E+E%PT @,O% C,*%*N(L L*('*L*TD3
The following are e&empt from
criminal liailit!:
23 (n imecile or insane person/
$nless the latter has acte" "$ring a
l$ci" interval3
• 5hen the imbecile or an insane
person has committed an act which
the law defnes as a felon% ,delito-,
the court shall order his confnement
on one of the hospital or as%lums
established for persons thus
aKicted. :e shall not be permitted
to leave without frst obtaining the
permission of the same court.
• .e*uisites&
1. 4(ender is an imbecile
2. 4(ender was insane at the time of
the commission of the crime
• *%'EC*L*TD O, *N)(N*TD
• An imecile is eempt in all cases
from criminal liabilit%. $he insane is
not so eempt if it can be shown
that he acted during a lucid
interval. 'n the latter, loss of
consciousness of ones acts and not
merel% abnormalit% of mental
faculties will *ualif% ones acts as
those of an insane.
• "rocedure& court is to order the
confnement of such persons in the
hospitals or as%lums established.
0uch persons will not be permitted
to leave without permission from the
court. $he court, on the other hand,
has no power to order such
permission without frst obtaining
the opinion of the A4: that such
persons ma% be released without
danger.
• "resumption is alwa%s in favor of
sanit%. $he defense has the burden
to prove that the accused was
insane at the time of the
commission of the crime. =or the
ascertainment such mental
condition of the accused, it is
permissible to receive evidence of
the condition of his mind during a
reasonable period both before and
after that time. /ircumstantial
evidence which is clear and
convincing will su3ce. An
eamination of the outward acts will
help reveal the thoughts, motives
and emotions of a person and if
such acts conform to those of
people of sound mind.
• 'nsanit% at the time of the
commission of the crime and not
that at the time of the trial will
eempt one from criminal liabilit%.
'n case of insanit% at the time of the
trial, there will be a suspension of
the trial until the mental capacit% of
the accused is restored to a(ord him
a fair trial.
• 6vidence of insanit% must refer to
the time preceding the act under
prosecution or to the ver% moment
of its eecution. 5ithout such
evidence, the accused is presumed
to be sane when he committed the
crime. /ontinuance of insanit%
which is occasional or intermittent in
nature will not be presumed.
'nsanit% at another time must be
proved to eist at the time of the
commission of the crime. A person
is also presumed to have committed
a crime in one of the lucid intervals.
/ontinuance of insanit% will onl% be
presumed in cases wherein the
accused has been ad)udged insane
or has been committed to a hospital
or an as%lum for the insane.
• 'nstances of 'nsanit%&
• .e%es& =eeblemindedness is not
imbecilit% because the o(ender can
distinguish right from wrong. An
imbecile and an insane to be
eempted must not be able to
distinguish right from wrong.
• .elova& =eeblemindedness is
imbecilit%.
• /rimes committed while in a dream,
b% a somnambulist are embraced in
the plea of insanit%. :%pnotism,
however, is a debatable issue.
• /rime committed while su(ering
from malignant malaria is
characteri8ed b% insanit% at times
thus such person is not criminall%
liable.
1. +asis& complete absence of
intelligence, and element of
voluntariness.
2. Aefnition & An imbecile is one who
while advanced in age has a mental
development comparable to that of
children between 2 and F %ears of
age. An insane is one who acts with
complete deprivation of
intelligenceLreason or without the
least discernment or with total
deprivation of freedom of the will.
1. Aementia praeco is covered b% the
term insanit% because homicidal
attack is common in such form of
ps%chosis. 't is characteri8ed b%
delusions that he is being interfered
with seuall%, or that his propert% is
being taken, thus the person has no
control over his acts.
2. Pleptomania or presence of
abnormal, persistent impulse or
tendenc% to steal, to be considered
eempting, will still have to be
investigated b% competent
ps%chiatrist to determine if the
unlawful act is due to the irresistible
impulse produced b% his mental
defect, thus loss of will;power. 'f
such mental defect onl% diminishes
the eercise of his willpower and did
not deprive him of the
consciousness of his acts, it is onl%
mitigating.
3. 6pileps% which is a chronic nervous
disease characteri8ed b% convulsive
motions of the muscles and loss of
consciousness ma% be covered b%
the term insanit%. :owever, it must
be shown that commission of the
o(ense is during one of those
epileptic attacks.
2. A person under nine %ears of age.
• M'#4.'$O
• Mnder nine %ears to be construed
nine %ears or less. 0uch was
inferred from the net subse*uent
paragraph which does not totall%
eempt those over nine %ears of age
if he acted with discernment.
• "resumptions of incapabilit% of
committing a crime is absolute.
• Age is computed up to the time of
the commission of the crime. Age
can be established b% the
testimonies of families and relatives.
• 0enilit% or second childhood is onl%
mitigating.
• 4 periods of the life of a human
being&
1. .e*uisite& 4(ender is under I %ears
of age at the time of the commission
of the crime. $here is absolute
criminal irresponsibilit% in the case
of a minor under I;%ears of age.
2. +asis& complete absence of
intelligence.
(ge Criminal ,esponsiilit!
I %ears
and
below Absolute irresponsibilit%
+etween
I and [email protected]
%ears old
/onditional responsibilit%
5ithout discernment ! no
liabilit% 5ith Aiscernment !
mitigated liabilit%
+etween
[email protected] and 1>
%ears old Mitigated responsibilit%
+etween
1> and FH
%ears old =ull responsibilit%
4ver FH
%ears old Mitigated responsibilit
53 ( person over nine !ears of
age an" $n"er ?fteen/ $nless he has
acte" with "iscernment/ in which
case/ s$ch minor shall e procee"e"
against in accor"ance with the
provisions of article GC of this Co"e3
-hen s$ch minor is a"<$"ge" to e
criminall! irresponsile/ the co$rt/ in
conformit! with the provisions of this
an" the prece"ing paragraph/ shall
commit him to the care an" c$sto"!
of his famil! who shall e charge"
with his s$rveillance an" e"$cation=
otherwise/ he shall e committe" to
the care of some instit$tion or person
mentione" in sai" article GC3
• QMA1'='6A M'#4.'$O& +asis&
complete absence of intelligence
• 0uch minor over I %ears and under
[email protected] %ears of age must have acted
without discernment to be eempted
from criminal liabilit%. 'f with
discernment, he is criminall% liable.
• "resumption is alwa%s that such
minor has acted without
discernment. $he prosecution is
burdened to prove if otherwise.
• Aiscernment means the mental
capacit% of a minor between I and
[email protected] %ears of age to full% appreciate
the conse*uences of his unlawful
act. 0uch is shown b%& ,1- manner
the crime was committed ,i.e.
commission of the crime during
nighttime to avoid detection7 taking
the loot to another town to avoid
discover%-, or ,2- the conduct of the
o(ender after its commission ,i.e.
elation of satisfaction upon the
commission of his criminal act as
shown b% the accused cursing at the
victim-.
• =acts or particular facts concerning
personal appearance which lead
o3cers or the court to believe that
his age was as stated b% said o3cer
or court should be stated in the
record.
• 'f such minor is ad)udged to be
criminall% liable, he is charged to
the custod% of his famil%, otherwise,
to the care of some institution or
person mentioned in article >H. $his
is because of the court?s
presupposition that the minor
committed the crime without
discernment.
• Allegation of Rwith intent to kill9 in
the information is su3cient
allegation of discernment as such
conve%s the idea that he knew what
would be the conse*uences of his
unlawful act. $hus is the case
wherein the information alleges that
the accused, with intent to kill,
willfull%, criminall% and feloniousl%
pushed a child of > 1L2 %ears of age
into a deep place. 't was held that
the re*uirement that there should
be an allegation that she acted with
discernment should be deemed
ampl% met.
4. An% person who, while performing
a lawful act with due care, causes an
in)ur% b% mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
• A//'A6#$& +asis& lack of negligence
and intent.
• 6lements&
• Aischarge of a frearm in a thickl%
populated place in the /it% of Manila
being prohibited b% Art. [email protected]@ of the
."/ is not a performance of a lawful
act when such led to the accidental
hitting and wounding of 2 persons.
• Arawing a weaponLgun in the course
of self;defense even if such fred and
seriousl% in)ured the assailant is a
lawful act and can be considered as
done with due care since it could not
have been done in an% other
manner.
• 5ith the fact dul% established b% the
prosecution that the appellant was
guilt% of negligence, this eempting
circumstance cannot be applied
because application presupposes
that there is no fault or negligence
on the part of the person performing
the lawful act.
• Accident happens outside the swa%
of our will, and although it comes
about some act of our will, lies
be%ond the bounds of humanl%
foreseeable conse*uences.
• $he accused, who, while hunting
saw wild chickens and fred a shot
can be considered to be in the
performance of a lawful act
eecuted with due care and without
intention of doing harm when such
short recoiled and accidentall%
wounded another. 0uch was
established because the deceased
was not in the direction at which the
accused fred his gun.
• $he chau(eur, who while driving on
the proper side of the road at a
moderate speed and with due
diligence, suddenl% and
unepectedl% saw a man in front of
his vehicle coming from the
sidewalk and crossing the street
without an% warning that he would
do so, in e(ect being run over b%
the said chau(eur, was held not
criminall% liable, it being b% mere
accident.
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. 6ercise of due dare
3. :e causes in)ur% to another b% mere
accident
4. 5ithout fault or intention of causing
it.
@. An% person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.
• '..60'0$'+16 =4./6& +asis&
complete absence of freedom, an
element of voluntariness
• 6lements&
• =orce, to be irresistible, must
produce such an e(ect on an
individual that despite of his
resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and, as such, incapable
of committing a crime. 't compels
his member to act and his mind to
obe%. 't must act upon him from the
outside and b% a third person.
• +aculi, who was accused but not a
member of a band which murdered
some American school teachers and
was seen and compelled b% the
leaders of the band to bur% the
bodies, was not criminall% liable as
accessor% for concealing the bod% of
the crime. +aculi acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.
• 'rresistible force can never consist in
an impulse or passion, or
obfuscation. 't must consist of an
etraneous force coming from a
third person.
1. $hat the compulsion is b% means of
ph%sical force
2. $hat the ph%sical force must be
irresistible.
3. $hat the ph%sical force must come
from a third person
C. An% person who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
e*ual or greater in)ur%.
• M#/4#$.411A+16 =6A.& +asis&
complete absence of freedom
• 6lements
1. that the threat which causes the
fear is of an evil greater than, or at
least e*ual to that wLc he is re*uired
to commit
2. that it promises an evil of such
gravit% and imminence that the
ordinar% man would have
succumbed to it.
• Auress, to be a valid defense, should
be based on real, imminent or
reasonable fear for one?s life or limb.
't should not be inspired b%
speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
• $hreat of future in)ur% is not enough.
$he compulsion must leave no
opportunit% to the accused for
escape or self;defense in e*ual
combat.
• Auress is the use of violence or
ph%sical force.
• $here is uncontrollable fear is when
the o(ender emplo%s intimidation or
threat in compelling another to
commit a crime, while irresistible
force is when the o(ender uses
violence or ph%sical force to compel
another person to commit a crime.
• Ran act done b% me against m% will
is not m% act9
H3 (n! person who fails to
perform an act re#$ire" ! law/ when
prevente" ! some lawf$l or
ins$perale ca$se.
• 1A5=M1 4. '#0M"6.A+16 /AM06&
+asis& acts without intent, the third
condition of voluntariness in
intentional felon%
• 6lements&
1. $hat an act is re*uired b% law to be
done
2. $hat a person fails to perform such
act
3. $hat his failure to perform such act
was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause
• 6amples of lawful cause&
• $o be an 6G6M"$'#J circumstance !
'#$6#$ '0 5A#$'#J
• '#$6#$ ! presupposes the eercise
of freedom and the use of
intelligence
• Aistinction between )ustif%ing and
eempting circumstance&
1. "riest can?t be compelled to reveal
what was confessed to him
2. #o available transportation ! o3cer
not liable for arbitrar% detention
3. Mother who was overcome b%
severe di88iness and etreme
debilit%, leaving child to die ! not
liable for infanticide
1. 6empting ! there is a crime but
there is no criminal. Act is not
)ustifed but the actor is not
criminall% liable.
Jeneral .ule& $here is civil liabilit%
6ception& "ar 4 ,causing an in)ur% b%
mere accident- and "ar F ,lawful cause-
b. Bustif%ing ! person does not transgress
the law, does not commit an% crime
because there is nothing unlawful in the
act as well as the intention of the actor.
.istinction etween E&empting an"
9$stif!ing Circ$mstances
E&empting
Circ$mstance
9$stif!ing
Circ$mstance
6isten
ce of a
crime
$here is a crime
but there is no
criminal, the
actor is
eempted from
liabilit% of his act
$here is no crime,
the act is )ustifed
• Absolutor% /auses ! are those where
the act committed is a crime but for
some reason of public polic% and
sentiment, there is no penalt%
imposed.
• 6empting and Bustif%ing
/ircumstances are absolutor%
causes.
• 4ther eamples of absolutor%
causes&
1- Art C ! spontaneous desistance
2- Art 2H ! accessories eempt from
criminal liabilit%
3- Art 1I par 1 ! profting one?s self or
assisting o(enders to proft b% the e(ects
of the crime
• *nstigation v3 Entrapment
*N)T*G(T*ON ENT,(P%ENT
'nstigator
practicall% induces
the would;be
accused into the
commission of the
o(ense and himself
becomes co;
principal
$he wa%s and means
are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping
and capturing the
lawbreaker in the
eecution of his
criminal plan.
Accused will be
ac*uitted
#4$ a bar to accused?s
prosecution and
conviction
Absolutor% cause
#4$ an absolutor%
cause
%*T*G(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE)
• Aefnition ! $hose circumstance
which reduce the penalt% of a crime
• 6(ect ! .educes the penalt% of the
crime but does not erase criminal
liabilit% nor change the nature of the
crime
• Pinds of Mitigating /ircumstance&
Privilege"
%itigating
Or"inar!
%itigating
4(set b%
an%
aggravati
ng
circumsta
nce
/annot be
o(set b% an%
aggravating
circumstance
/an be o(set
b% a generic
aggravating
circumstance
6(ect on
the
penalt%
:as the e(ect
of imposing the
penalt% b% 1 or
2 degrees than
that provided
b% law
'f not o(set,
has the e(ect
of imposing the
penalt% in the
minimum
period
Pinds Minorit%,
'ncomplete 0elf;
defense, two or
more mitigating
circumstances
without an%
aggravating
circumstance
,has the e(ect
of lowering the
penalt% b% one
$hose
circumstances
enumerated in
paragraph 1 to
1H of Article 13
degree-
(rticle 253
23 Those mentione" in the prece"ing
chapter/ when all the re#$isites
necessar! to <$stif! the act or to
e&empt from criminal liailit! in the
respective cases are not atten"ant
• 9$stif!ing circ$mstances
1. "elf/defense?defense of
relative?defense of stranger !
unlawful aggression must be present
for Art 13 to be applicable. 4ther 2
elements not necessar%. 'f 2
re*uisites are present ! considered a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
Exaple+ Buan makes fun of "edro. "edro
gets pissed o(, gets a knife and tries to
stab Buan. Buan grabs his own knife and
kills "edro. 'ncomplete self;defense
because although there was unlawful
aggression and reasonable means to repel
was taken, there was su3cient
provocation on the part of Buan. +ut since
2 elements are present, it considered as
privileged mitigating.
b. "tate of .ecessit& ,par 4- avoidance
of greater evil or in)ur%7 if an% of the last 2
re*uisites is absent, there?s onl% an
ordinar% Mitigating /ircumstance.
Exaple& 5hile driving his car, Buan sees
"edro carelessl% crossing the street. Buan
swerves to avoid him, thus hitting a
motorbike with 2 passengers, killing them
instantl%. #ot all re*uisites to )ustif% act
were present because harm done to avoid
in)ur% is greater. /onsidered as mitigating.
c. !erformance of +ut& ,par @-
Exaple& Buan is supposed to arrest "edro.
:e thus goes to "edro?s hideout. Buan sees
a man asleep. $hinking it was "edro, Buan
shot him. Buan ma% have acted in the
performance of his dut% but the crime was
not a necessar% conse*uence thereof.
/onsidered as mitigating.
• E&empting circ$mstance
a. 3inorit& over @ and under AB ! if
minor acted with discernment, considered
mitigating
Exaple& 13 %ear old stole goods at
nighttime. Acted with discernment as
shown b% the manner in which the act was
committed.
b. Causing in5ur& b& mere accident ! if
2
nd
re*uisite ,due care- and 1
st
part of
4
th
re*uisite ,without fault ! thus
negligence onl%- are A+06#$, considered
as mitigating because the penalt% is lower
than that provided for intentional felon%.
Exaple& "olice o3cer tries to stop a fght
between Buan and "edro b% fring his gun
in the air. +ullet ricocheted and killed
"etra. 43cer willfull% discharged his gun
but was unmindful of the fact that area
was populated.
c. 2ncontrollable fear ! onl% one
re*uisite present, considered mitigating
Exaple& Mnder threat that their farm will
be burned, "edro and Buan took turns
guarding it at night. "edro fred in the air
when a person in the shadows refused to
reveal his identit%. Buan was awakened and
shot the unidentifed person. $urned out to
be a neighbor looking for is pet. Buan ma%
have acted under the in2uence of fear but
such fear was not entirel% uncontrollable.
/onsidered mitigating
43 That the ofen"er is $n"er 2G !ears
of age or over HC !ears3 *n the case of
a minor/ he shall e procee"e"
against in accor"ance with the
provisions of (rt 2:4 of P. :C5
• Applicable to&
a. 4(ender over I, under [email protected] who acted
with discernment
b. 4(ender over [email protected], under 1>
c. 4(ender over FH %ears
• Age of accused which should be
determined as his age at the date of
commission of crime, not date of
trial
• =arious Ages and their Cegal
6fects
a. under I ! eemptive circumstance
b. over I, below [email protected] ! eemptive7 ecept if
acted with discernment
c. minor delin*uent under 1> ! sentence
ma% be suspended ,"A CH3-
d. under 1> ! privileged mitigating
circumstance
e. 1> and above ! full criminal
responsibilit%
f. FH and above ! mitigating
circumstance7 no imposition of death
penalt%7 eecution g. of death sentence if
alread% imposed is suspended and
commuted.
53 That the ofen"er ha" no intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that
committe" (praeter intentionam)
• /an be used onl% when the facts
prove to show that there is
a notable and evident disproportion
between eans eployed to
execute the criinal act and its
consequences
• 'ntention& as an internal act, is
)udged b% the proportion of the
means emplo%ed to the evil
produced b% the act, and also b% the
fact that the blow was or was not
aimed at a vital part of the bod%.
• Budge b% considering ,1- the weapon
used, ,2- the in)ur% in2icted and ,3-
the attitude of mind when the
accuser attacked the other.
Exaple& "edro stabbed $omas on the
arm. $omas did not have the wound
treated, so he died from loss of blood.
• #ot applicable when o(ender
emplo%ed brute force
Exaple& .apist choked victim. +rute
force of choking contradicts claim that he
had no intention to kill the girl.
• Art 13, par 3 addresses itself to the
intention of the o(ender at the
particular moment when he
eecutes or commits the criminal
act, not to his intention during the
planning stage.
• 'n crimes against persons ! if victim
does not die, the absence of the
intent to kill reduces the felon% to
mere ph%sical in)uries. 't is not
considered as mitigating. Mitigating
onl% when the victim dies.
Exaple& As part of fun;making, Buan
merel% intended to burn "edro?s clothes.
"edro received minor burns. Buan is
charged with ph%sical in)uries. :ad "edro
died, Buan would be entitled to the
mitigating circumstance.
• #ot applicable to felonies b%
negligence. 5h%< 'n felonies
through negligence, the o(ender
acts without intent. $he intent in
intentional felonies is replaced b%
negligence, imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill in culpable
felonies. $here is no intent on the
part of the o(ender which ma% be
considered as diminished.
• +asis of par 3& intent, an element of
voluntariness in intentional felon%, is
diminished
63 That the s$>cient provocation or
threat on the part of the ofen"e"
part! imme"iatel! prece"e" the act3
• "rovocation ! an% un)ust or improper
conduct or act of the o(ended part%,
capable of eciting, inciting or
irritating an%one.
• +asis& diminution of intelligence and
intent
• .e*uisites&
a. "rovocation must be su3cient.
1. 0u3cient ! ade*uate enough to ecite a
person to commit the wrong and must
accordingl% be proportionate to its gravit%.
2. 0u3cienc% depends on&
• the act constituting the provocation
• the social standing of the person
provoked
• time and place provocation took
place
3. Exaple& Buan likes to hit and curse his
servant. :is servant thus killed him.
$here?s mitigating circumstance because
of su3cient provocation.
4. 5hen it was the defendant who sought
the deceased, the challenge to fght b%
the deceased is #4$ su3cient
provocation.
b. 't must originate from the o(ended
part%
1. 5h%< 1aw sa%s the provocation is Ron
the part of the o(ended part%9
2. 6ample& $omas? mother insulted "etra.
"etra kills $omas because of the insults.
#o Mitigating /ircumstance because it
was the mother who insulted her, not
$omas.
3. "rovocation b% the deceased in the
frst stage of the fght is not Mitigating
/ircumstance when the accused killed him
after he had 2ed because the deceased
from the moment he 2ed did not give an%
provocation for the accused to pursue and
attack him.
c. "rovocation must be immediate to the
act., i.e., to the commission of the crime
b% the person who is provoked
1. 5h%< 'f there was an interval of
time, the conduct of the o(ended
part% could not have ecited the
accused to the commission of the
crime, he having had time to regain
his reason and to eercise self;
control.
2. $hreat should not be o(ensive and
positivel% strong because if it was,
the threat to in2ict real in)ur% is an
unlawful aggression which ma% give
rise to self;defense and thus no
longer a Mitigating /ircumstance
73 That the act was committe" in the
imme"iate vin"ication of a grave
ofense to the one committing the
felon! ("elito)/ his spo$se/
ascen"ants/ "escen"ants/ legitimate/
nat$ral or a"opte" rother or sisters/
or relatives ! a>nit! within the
same "egree3
23 ,e#$isites:
• there?s a grave o(ense done to the
one committing the felon% etc.
• that the felon% is committed in
vindication of such grave o(ense.
2. 1apse of time is allowed between the
vindication and the one doing the o(ense
,proimate time, not )ust immediatel%
after-
3. Exaple& Buan caught his wife and his
friend in a compromising situation. Buan
kills his friend the net da% ! still
considered proimate.
".4S4/A$'4# S'#A'/A$'4#
Made directl% onl%
to the person
committing the
felon%
Jrave o(ense ma% be
also against the
o(ender?s relatives
mentioned b% law
/ause that brought
about the
provocation need
not be a grave
o(ense
4(ended part% must
have done a grave
o(ense to the
o(ender or his
relatives
#ecessar% that
provocation or
threat immediatel%
preceded the act.
#o time interval
Ma% be proimate.
$ime interval allowed
• More lenient in vindication because
o(ense concerns the honor of the
person. 0uch is more worth% of
consideration than mere spite
against the one giving the
provocation or threat.
• Sindication of a grave o(ense and
passion and obfuscation can?t be
counted separatel% and
independentl%
I3 That of having acte" $pon an
imp$lse so powerf$l as nat$rall! to
have pro"$ce" passion or of$scation
• "assion and obfuscation is
mitigating& when there are causes
naturall% producing in a person
powerful ecitement, he loses his
reason and self;control. $hereb%
dismissing the eercise of his will
power.
• "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# are
Mitigating /ircumstances onl% when
the same arise from lawful
sentiments ,not Mitigating
/ircumstance when done in the
spirit of revenge or lawlessness-
• .e*uisites for "assion T 4bfuscation
a. $he o(ender acted on impulse powerful
enough to produce passion or obfuscation
b. $hat the act was committed not in the
spirit of lawlessness or revenge
c. $he act must come from lawful
sentiments
• Act which gave rise to passion and
obfuscation
a. $hat there be an act, both unlawful and
un)ust
b. $he act be su3cient to produce a
condition of mind
c. $hat the act was proimate to the
criminal act
d. $he victim must be the one who caused
the passion or obfuscation
• 6ample& Buan saw $omas hitting his
,Buan- son. Buan stabbed $omas. Buan
is entitled to Mitigating
/ircumstance of "T4 as his
actuation arose from a natural
instinct that impels a father to rush
to the rescue of his son.
• $he eercise of a right or a
fulfllment of a dut% is not the proper
source of "T4.
Exaple& A policeman arrested Buan as he
was making a public disturbance on the
streets. Buan?s anger and indignation
resulting from the arrest can?t be
considered passionate obfuscation
because the policeman was doing a lawful
act.
• $he act must be su3cient to
produce a condition of mind. 'f the
cause of the loss of self;control was
trivial and slight, the obfuscation is
not mitigating.
Exaple& Buan?s boss punched him for not
going to work he other da%. /ause is
slight.
• $here could have been no Mitigating
/ircumstance of "T4 when more
than 24 hours elapsed between the
alleged insult and the commission of
the felon%, or several hours have
passed between the cause of the
"T4 and the commission of the
crime, or at least U hours
intervened between the previous
fght and subse*uent killing of
deceased b% accused.
• #ot mitigating if relationship is
illegitimate
• $he passion or obfuscation will be
considered even if it is based onl%
on the honest belief of the o(ender,
even if facts turn out to prove that
his beliefs were wrong.
• "assion and obfuscation cannot co;
eist with treacher% since the means
that the o(ender has had time to
ponder his course of action.
• "A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4# arising
from one and the same cause
should be treated as onl% one
mitigating circumstance
• Sindication of grave o(ense can?t
co;eist wL "A00'4# A#A
4+=M0/A$'4#
P())*ON (N.
O'@0)C(T*ON *,,E)*T*'LE @O,CE
Mitigating 6empting
#o ph%sical force
needed
.e*uires ph%sical
force
=rom the o(ender
himself
Must come from a 3rd
person
Must come from
lawful sentiments Mnlawful
P())*ON (N. P,OEOC(T*ON
O'@0)C(T*ON
"roduced b% an impulse
which ma% be caused b%
provocation /omes from in)ured part%
4(ense, which engenders
perturbation of mind, need
not be immediate. 't is
onl% re*uired that the
in2uence thereof lasts
until the crime is
committed
Must immediatel% precede the
commission of the crime
6(ect is loss of reason and
self;control on the part of
the o(ender 0ame
H3 That the ofen"er ha" vol$ntaril!
s$rren"ere" himself to a person in
a$thorit! or his agents/ or that he
ha" vol$ntaril! confesse" his g$ilt
efore the co$rt prior to the
presentation of the evi"ence for the
prosec$tion3
• 2 Mitigating /ircumstances present&
a- voluntaril% surrendered
b- voluntaril% confessed his guilt
• 'f both are present, considered as 2
independent mitigating
circumstances. Mitigate penalt% to a
greater etent
• .e*uisites of voluntar% surrender&
a- o(ender not actuall% arrested
b- o(ender surrendered to a person in
authorit% or the latter?s agent
c- surrender was voluntar%
• 0urrender must be spontaneous !
shows his interest to surrender
unconditionall% to the authorities
• 0pontaneous ! emphasi8es the idea
of inner impulse, acting without
eternal stimulus. $he conduct of
the accused, not his intention alone,
after the commission of the o(ense,
determines the spontaneit% of the
surrender.
Exaple& 0urrendered after @ %ears, not
spontaneous an%more.
Exaple& 0urrendered after talking to
town councilor. #ot S.0. because there?s
an eternal stimulus
• /onduct must indicate a desire to
own the responsibilit%
• #ot mitigating when warrant alread%
served. 0urrender ma% be
considered mitigating if warrant not
served or returned unserved
because accused can?t be located.
• 0urrender of person re*uired. #ot
)ust of weapon.
• "erson in authorit% ! one directl%
vested with )urisdiction, whether as
an individual or as a member of
some
courtLgovernmentLcorporationLboard
Lcommission. +arrio
captainLchairman included.
• Agent of person in authorit% !
person who b% direct provision of
law, or be election, or b%
appointment b% competent
authorit% is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the
protection and securit% of life and
propert% and an% person who comes
to the aid of persons in authorit%.
• ."/ does not make distinction
among the various moments when
surrender ma% occur.
• 0urrender must be b% reason of the
commission of the crime for which
defendant is charged
• .e*uisites for plea of guilt%
a- o(ender spontaneousl% confessed
his guilt
b- confession of guilt was made in open
court ,competent court-
c- confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution
• plea made after arraignment and
after trial has begun does not entitle
accused to have plea considered as
Mitigating /ircumstance
• plea in the .$/ in a case appealed
from the M$/ is not mitigating !
must make plea at the frst
opportunit%
• plea during the preliminar%
investigation is no plea at all
• even if during arraignment, accused
pleaded not guilt%, he is entitled to
Mitigating /ircumstance as long as
withdraws his plea of not guilt% to
the charge before the fscal could
present his evidence
• plea to a lesser charge is not
Mitigating /ircumstance because to
be voluntar% plea of guilt%, must be
to the o(ense charged
• plea to the o(ense charged in the
amended info, lesser than that
charged in the original info, is
Mitigating /ircumstance
• present .ules of /ourt re*uire that
even if accused pleaded guilt% to a
capital o(ense, its mandator% for
court to re*uire the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused being
likewise entitled to present evidence
to prove, inter alia, Mitigating
/ircumstance
>. $hat the o(ender is deaf and dumb,
blind or otherwise su(ering from some
ph%sical defect wLc thus restricts his
means of action, defense or
communication wL his fellow beings.
• +asis& one su(ering from ph%sical
defect which restricts him does not
have complete freedom of action
and therefore, there is diminution of
that element of voluntariness.
• #o distinction between educated
and uneducated deaf;mute or blind
persons
• $he ph%sical defect of the o(ender
should restrict his means of action,
defense or communication with
fellow beings, this has been
etended to cover cripples, armless
people even stutterers.
• $he circumstance assumes that with
their ph%sical defect, the o(enders
do not have a complete freedom of
action therefore diminishing the
element of voluntariness in the
commission of a crime.
I. 0uch illness of the o(ender as would
diminish the eercise of the will;power of
the o(ender wLo depriving him of
consciousness of his acts.
• +asis& diminution of intelligence and
intent
• .e*uisites&
a- illness of the o(ender must diminish
the eercise of his will;power
b- such illness should not deprive the
o(ender of consciousness of his acts
• when the o(ender completel% lost
the eercise of will;power, it ma% be
an eempting circumstance
• deceased mind, not amounting to
insanit%, ma% give place to
mitigation
2C3 (n" an! other circ$mstance of a
similar nat$re an" analogo$s to those
aoveBmentione"
• 6amples of Ran% other
circumstance9&
a- defendant who is CH %ears old with
failing e%esight is similar to a case of one
over FH %ears old
b- outraged feeling of owner of animal
taken for ransom is analogous to
vindication of grave o(ense
c- impulse of )ealous feeling, similar to
"A00'4# A#A 4+=M0/A$'4#
d- voluntar% restitution of propert%,
similar to voluntar% surrender
e- etreme povert%, similar to
incomplete )ustifcation based on state of
necessit%
• #4$ analogous&
a- killing wrong person
b- not resisting arrest not the same as
voluntar% surrender
c- running amuck is not mitigating
• M'$'JA$'#J /'./MM0$A#/6 which
arise from&
a- moral attributes of the o(ender
Exaple& Buan and $omas killed "edro.
Buan acted wL "A00'4# A#A
4+=M0/A$'4#. 4nl% Buan will be entitled
to Mitigating /ircumstance
b- private relations with the o(ended
part%
Exaple& Buan stole his brother?s watch.
Buan sold it to "edro, who knew it was
stolen. $he circumstance of relation arose
from private relation of Buan and the
brother. Aoes not mitigate "edro.
c- other personal cause
Exaple& Minor, acting with discernment
robbed Buan. "edro, passing b%, helped the
minor. /ircumstance of minorit%, mitigates
liabilit% of minor onl%.
• 0hall serve to mitigate the liabilit% of
the principals, accomplices and
accessories to whom the
circumstances are attendant.
• /ircumstances which are neither
eempting nor mitigating
a- mistake in the blow
b- mistake in the identit% of the victim
c- entrapment of the accused
d- accused is over 1> %ears old
e- performance of a righteous action
Exaple& Buan saved the lives of II
people but caused the death of the last
person, he is still criminall% liable
(GG,(E(T*NG C*,C0%)T(NCE)
• Aefnition ! $hose circumstance
which raise the penalt% for a crime
without eceeding the maimum
applicable to that crime.
• +asis& $he greater perversit% of the
o(ense as shown b%&
a- the motivating power behind the act
b- the place where the act was
committed
c- the means and wa%s used
d- the time
e- the personal circumstance of the
o(ender
f- the personal circumstance of the
victim
• Pinds&
a- Jeneric ! generall% applicable to all
crimes
b- 0pecifc ! appl% onl% to specifc
crimes ,ignomin% ! for chastit% crimes7
treacher% ! for persons crimes-
c- Qualif%ing ! those that change the
nature of the crime ,evident premeditation
! becomes murder-
d- 'nherent ! necessaril% accompanies
the commission of the crime ,evident
premeditation in theft, estafa-
J0(L*@D*NG
(GG,(E(T*NG
C*,C0%)T(NCE
GENE,*C
(GG,(E(T*NG
C*,C0%)T(NCE
Jives the proper
and eclusive
name, places the
author thereof in
such a situation as
to deserve no other
penalt% than that
specifcall%
prescribed b% law
'ncrease penalt% to the
maimum, without
eceeding limit
prescribed b% law
/an?t be o(set b%
Mitigating
/ircumstance
Ma% be compensated
b% Mitigating
/ircumstance
Must be alleged in
the information.
'ntegral part of the
o(ense
#eed not be alleged.
Ma% be proved over
the ob)ection of the
defense. Qualif%ing if
not alleged will make
it generic
• Aggravating /ircumstances which
A4 #4$ have the e(ect of
increasing the penalt%&
1- which themselves constitute a crime
specifcall% punishable b% law or which are
included in the law defning a crime and
prescribing the penalt% thereof
Exaple& breaking a window to get inside
the house and rob it
2- aggravating circumstance inherent
in the crime to such degree that it must of
necessit% accompan% the commission
thereof
Exaple& evident premeditation inherent
in theft, robber%, estafa, adulter% and
concubinage
• Aggravating circumstances are not
presumed. Must be proved as full%
as the crime itself in order to
increase the penalt%.
(rt 263 (ggravating circ$mstances3 K
The following are aggravating
circ$mstances:
23 23 That a"vantage e ta8en
! the ofen"er of his p$lic
position
• ,e#$isites:
1. $he o(ender is a public o3cer
2. $he commission of the crime would
not have been possible without the
powers, resources and in2uence of
the o3ce he holds.
• 6ssential ! "ublic o3cer used the
in2uence, prestige or ascendanc%
which his o3ce gives him as the
means b% which he reali8ed his
purpose.
• =ailure in o3cial is tantamount to
abusing of o3ce
• 5earing of uniform is immaterial !
what matters is the proof that he
indeed took advantage of his
position
23 43 That the crime e
committe" in contempt of or
with ins$lt to the p$lic
a$thorities
• ,e#$isites:
1. $he o(ender knows that a public
authorit% is present
2. $he public authorit% is engaged in
the eercise of his functions
3. $he public authorit% is not the victim
of the crime
4. $he public authorit%?s presence did
not prevent the criminal act
• Exaple& Buan and "edro are
*uarrelling and the municipal
ma%or, upon passing b%, attempts to
stop them. #otwithstanding the
intervention and the presence of the
ma%or, Buan and "edro continue to
*uarrel until Buan succeeds in killing
"edro.
• "erson in authorit% ! public authorit%
who is directl% vested with
)urisdiction, has the power to govern
and eecute the laws
• 6amples of "ersons in Authorit%
1. Jovernor
2. Ma%or
3. +aranga% captain
4. /ouncilors
@. Jovernment agents
C. /hief of "olice
• .ule not applicable when committed
in the presence of a mere agent.
• Agent ! subordinate public o3cer
charged with the maintenance of
public order and protection and
securit% of life and propert%
Exaple& barrio vice lieutenant, barrio
councilman
23 53 That the act e
committe":
(2) with ins$lt or in "isregar" of the
respect "$e to the ofen"e" part! on
acco$nt of his (a) ran8/ () age/ (c)
se& or
(4) that it e committe" in the
"welling of the ofen"e" part!/ if the
latter has not given provocation3
• circumstances ,rank, age, se- ma%
be taken into account only in cries
against persons or honor, it cannot
be invoked in crimes against
propert%
• .ank ! refers to a high social
position or standing b% which to
determine one?s pa% and
emoluments in an% scale of
comparison within a position
• Age ! the circumstance of lack of
respect due to age applies in case
where the victim is of tender age as
well as of old age
• 0e ! refers to the female se, not to
the male se7 not applicable when
1. $he o(ender acted wL "A00'4# A#A
4+=M0/A$'4#
2. there eists a relation between the
o(ender and the victim ,but in cases
of divorce decrees where there is a
direct bearing on their child, it is
applicable-
3. the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of
the crime ,6. "arricide, rape,
abduction-
• .e*uisite of disregard to rank, age,
or se
1. /rimes must be against the victim?s
person or his honor
2. $here is deliberate intent to o(end
or insult the respect due to the
victim?s rank, age, or se
• Aisregard to rank, age, or se is
absorbed b% treacher% or abuse of
strength
• Awelling ! must be a building or
structure eclusivel% used for rest
and comfort ,combination house and
store not included-
1. ma% be temporar% as in the case of
guests in a house or bedspacers
2. basis for this is the sanctit% of
privac% the law accords to human
abode
• dwelling includes dependencies, the
foot of the staircase and the
enclosure under the house
• 6lements of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling
1. /rime occurred in the dwelling of
the victim
2. #o provocation on the part of the
victim
• ,e#$isites for Provocation: (LL
%0)T CONC0,
1. given b% the owner of the dwelling
2. su3cient
3. immediate to the commission of the
crime
-hen "welling ma! an" ma! not e
consi"ere"
-hen it ma! e
consi"ere"
-hen it ma! not
e consi"ere"
• although the
o(ender fred
the shot from
outside the
house, as long
as his victim was
inside
• even if the killing
took place
outside the
dwelling, so long
as the
commission
began inside the
dwelling
• when adulter% is
committed in the
dwelling of the
husband, even if
it is also the
dwelling of the
wife, it is still
aggravating
because she and
her paramour
committed a
grave o(ense to
the head of the
house
• 'n robber% with
violence against
persons, robber%
with homicide,
abduction, or
illegal detention
• 'f the o(ended
part% has given
provocation
• 'f both the
o(ender and the
o(ended part%
are occupants of
the same
dwelling
• 'n robber% with
force upon
things, it is
inherent
63 That the act e committe" with (2)
a$se of con?"ence or (4) ovio$s
$ngratef$lness
,e#$isites of
($se of
Con?"ence
,e#$isite of Ovio$s
0ngratef$lness
a- 4(ended
part% has trusted
the o(ender
b- 4(ender
abused such trust
c- Abuse of
confdence
facilitated the
commission of
the crime
a- ungratefulness
must be obvious, that is,
there must be
something which the
o(ender should owe the
victim a debt of
gratitude for
#ote& robber% or theft
committed b% a visitor
in the house of the
o(ended part% is
aggravated b% obvious
ungratefulness
• Exaple& A )ealous lover, alread%
determined to kill his sweetheart,
invited her for a ride and during that
ride, he stabbed her
• Abuse of confdence is inherent in&
1. malversation
2. *ualifed theft
3. estafa b% conversion
4. misappropriation
@. *ualifed seduction
@. $hat the crime be committed in the
palace of the /hief 6ecutive, or in his
presence, or when public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties,
or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
• .e*uirements of the aggravating
circumstance of public o3ce&
• A polling precinct is a public o3ce
during election da%
• #ature of public o3ce should be
taken into account, like a police
station which is on dut% 24 hrs. a
da%
• place of the commission of the
felon% ,par @-& if it is MalacaVang
palace or a church is aggravating,
regardless of whether 0tate or
o3cial7 functions are being held.
• as regards other places where public
authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, there must
be some performance of public
functions
• the o(ender must have intention to
commit a crime when he entered
the place
• .e*uisites for aggravating
circumstances for place of worship&
1. $he crime occurred in the public
o3ce
2. "ublic authorities are actuall%
performing their public duties
1. $he crime occurred in a place
dedicated to the worship of Jod
regardless of religion
2. 4(ender must have decided to
commit the crime when he entered
the place of worship
-hen Paragraph 4 an" 7 of (rticle 26
are applicale
/ommitted in the
presence of the
/hief 6ecutive, in
the "residential
"alace or a place of
worship,"ar. @, Art.
14-
/ommitted in
contempt of "ublic
Authorit%
,"ar. 2, Art 14-
"ublic authorities
are performing of
their duties when
the crime is
committed 0ame
5hen crime is
committed in the
public o3ce, the
o3cer must be
performing his
duties, ecept in
the "residential
"alace
4utside the o3ce ,still
performing dut%-
"ublic authorit%
ma% be the
o(ended part%
"ublic authorit% is not
be the o(ended part%
Ia3 That the crime e committe" (2)
in the nighttime/ or (4) in an
$ninhaite" place (5) ! a an"/
whenever s$ch circ$mstances ma!
facilitate the commission of the
ofense3
• #ighttime, Mninhabited "lace or +% a
+ang Aggravating when&
• 'mpunit% ! means to prevent
the accused?s being
recogni8ed or to secure
himself against detection or
punishment
• #ighttime begins at the end of dusk
and ending at dawn7 from sunset to
sunrise
• Mninhabited "lace ! one where there
are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town,
where the houses are scattered at a
great distance from each other
1. it facilitated the commission of the
crime
2. especiall% sought for b% the o(ender
to insure the commission of the
crime or for the purpose of impunit%
3. when the o(ender took the
advantage thereof for the purpose
of impunit%
4. commission of the crime must have
began and accomplished at
nighttime
1. commission of the crime must begin
and be accomplished in the
nighttime
2. when the place of the crime is
illuminated b% light, nighttime is not
aggravating
3. absorbed b% $reacher%
,e#$isites:
1. $he place facilitated the commission
or omission of the crime
2. Aeliberatel% sought and not
incidental to the commission or
omission of the crime
3. $aken advantage of for the purpose
of impunit%
• what should be considered here is
whether in the place of the
commission of the o(ense, there
was a reasonable possibilit% of the
victim receiving some help
I3 – -henever more than 5 arme"
malefactors shall have acte" together
in the commission of an ofense/ it
shall e "eeme" to have een
committe" ! a an"3
• ,e#$isites:
• if one of the four;armed malefactors
is a principal b% inducement, the%
do not form a band because it is
undoubtedl% connoted that he had
no direct participation,
• +and is inherent in robber%
committed in band and brigandage
• 't is not considered in the crime of
rape
• 't has been applied in treason and in
robber% with homicide
1. =acilitated the commission of the
crime
2. Aeliberatel% sought
3. $aken advantage of for the purposes
of impunit%
4. $here must be four or more armed
men
F. $hat the crime be committed on the
occasion of a con2agration, shipwreck,
earth*uake, epidemic or other calamit% or
misfortune
• ,e#$isites:
1. /ommitted when there is a calamit%
or misfortune
1. /on2agration
2. 0hipwreck
3. 6pidemic
2. 4(ender took advantage of the
state of confusion or chaotic
condition from such misfortune
• +asis& /ommission of the crime adds
to the su(ering b% taking advantage
of the misfortune.
• based on time
• o(ender must take advantage of the
calamit% or misfortune
Aistinction between "aragraphs F and 12
of Article 14
/ommitted during
a calamit% or
misfortune
/ommitted with the
use of wasteful means
/rime is committed
AM.'#J an% of the
calamities
/rime is committed
+O using fre,
inundation, eplosion
or other wasteful
means
G3 That the crime e committe" with
the ai" of (2) arme" men or (4)
persons who ins$re or afor"
imp$nit!
• based on the means and wa%s
• .e*uisites&
• 6ceptions&
1. that armed men or persons took
part in the commission of the crime,
directl% or indirectl%
2. that the accused availed himself of
their aid or relied upon them when
the crime was committed
1. when both the attacking part% and
the part% attacked were e*uall%
armed
2. not present when the accused as
well as those who cooperated with
him in the commission of the crime
acted under the same plan and for
the same purpose.
3. /asual presence, or when the
o(ender did not avail himself of an%
of their aid nor did not knowingl%
count upon their assistance in the
commission of the crime
-*T1 T1E (*. [email protected]
(,%E. %EN 'D ( '(N.
"resent even if one
of the o(enders
merel% relied on
their aid. Actual aid
is not necessar%
.e*uires more than 3
armed malefactors
who all acted together
in the commission of
an o(ense
• if there are more than 3 armed men,
aid of armed men is absorbed in the
emplo%ment of a band.
:3 That the acc$se" is a reci"ivist
• .ecidivist ! one who at the time of
his trial for one crime, shall have
been previousl% convicted b% fnal
)udgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the
."/
• +asis& Jreater perversit% of the
o(ender as shown b% his inclination
to commit crimes
• .e*uisites&
• 5hat is controlling is the time of the
trial, not the time of the commission
of the o(ense. At the time of the
trial means from the arraignment
until after sentence is announced b%
the )udge in open court.
• 5hen does )udgment become fnal<
,.ules of /ourt-
• 6ample of /rimes embraced in the
0ame title of the ."/
• Q& $he accused was prosecuted and
tried for theft, robber% and estafa.
Budgments were read on the same
da%. 's he a recidivist<
1. o(ender is on trial for an o(ense
2. he was previousl% convicted b% fnal
)udgment of another crime
3. that both the frst and the second
o(enses are embraced in the same
title of the ."/
4. the o(ender is convicted of the new
o(ense
1. after the lapse of a period for
perfecting an appeal
2. when the sentence has been
partiall% or totall% satisfed or served
3. defendant has epressl% waived in
writing his right to appeal
4. the accused has applied for
probation
1. robber% and theft ! title 1H
2. homicide and ph%sical in)uries ! title
>
A& #o. +ecause the )udgment in an% of the
frst two o(enses was not %et fnal when
he was tried for the third o(ense
• .ecidivism must be taken into
account no matter how man% %ears
have intervened between the frst
and second felonies
• "ardon does not obliterate the fact
that the accused was a recidivist,
but amnest% etinguishes the
penalt% and its e(ects
• $o prove recidivism, it must be
alleged in the information and with
attached certifed copies of the
sentences rendered against the
accused
• 6ceptions& if the accused does not
ob)ect and when he admits in his
confession and on the witness
stand3
1H. $hat the o(ender has been previousl%
punished for an o(ense to which the law
attaches an e*ual or greater penalt% or for
two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalt%
• .eiteracion or :abitualit% ! it is
essential that the o(ender be
previousl% punished7 that is, he has
served sentence.
• "ar. 1H speaks of penalt% attached
to the o(ense, not the penalt%
actuall% imposed
,E*TE,(C*ON ,EC*.*E*)%
#ecessar% that
o(ender shall have
6nough that fnal
)udgment has been
served out his
sentence for the
frst sentence
rendered in the frst
o(ense
"revious and
subse*uent
o(enses must not
be embraced in the
same title of the
/ode 0ame title
#ot alwa%s an
aggravating
circumstance Alwa%s aggravating
• 4 =orms of .epetition
• :abitual Aelin*uenc% ! when a
person within a period of 1H %ears
from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious
or less serious ph%sical in)uries,
robber%, theft, estafa or falsifcation
is found guilt% of an% of said crimes
a third time or oftener.
• Quasi;.ecidivism ! an% person who
shall commit a felon% after having
been convicted b% fnal )udgment,
before beginning to serve such
sentence, or while serving the same,
shall be punished b% the maimum
period of the penalt% prescribed b%
law for the new felon%
1. .ecidivism ! generic
2. .eiteracion or :abitualit% ! generic
3. Multiple recidivism or :abitual
delin*uenc% ! etraordinar%
aggravating
4. Quasi;.ecidivism ! special
aggravating
223 That the crime e committe" in
consi"eration of a price/ rewar" or
promise3
• ,e#$isites:
1. At least 2 principals
1. $he principal b% inducement
2. $he principal b% direct participation
2. the price, reward, or promise should
be previous to and in consideration
of the commission of the criminal
act
• Applicable to both principals.
243 That the crime e committe" !
means of in$n"ation/ ?re/ poison/
e&plosion/ stran"ing a vessel or
intentional "amage thereto/ or
"erailment of a locomotive/ or ! $se
of an! other arti?ce involving great
waste or r$in3
• .e*uisite& $he wasteful means were
used b% the o(ender to accomplish
a criminal purpose
253 That the act e committe" with
evi"ent preme"itation
• 6ssence of premeditation& the
eecution of the criminal act must
be preceded b% cool thought and
re2ection upon the resolution to
carr% out the criminal intent during
the space of time su3cient to arrive
at a calm )udgment
• .e*uisites&
• /onspirac% generall% presupposes
premeditation
• 5hen victim is di(erent from that
intended, premeditation is not
aggravating. Although it is not
necessar% that there is a plan to kill
a particular person for
premeditation to eist ,e.g. plan to
kill frst 2 persons one meets,
general attack on a villageWfor as
long as it was planned-
• $he premeditation must be based
upon eternal facts, and must be
evident, not merel% suspected
indicating deliberate planning
• 6vident premeditation is inherent in
robber%, adulter%, theft, estafa,
falsifcation, and etc.
1. the time when the o(ender
determined to commit the crime
2. an act manifestl% indicating that the
culprit has clung to his
determination
3. a su3cient lapse of time between
the determination and eecution to
allow him to re2ect upon the
conse*uences of his act and to allow
his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will
263 That (2) craft/ (4) fra$"/ or (5)
"isg$ise e emplo!e"
• /raft ! involves intellectual tricker%
and cunning on the part of the
accused.
't is emplo%ed as a scheme in the
eecution of the crime ,e.g. accused
pretended to be members of the
constabular%, accused in order to
perpetrate rape, used chocolates
containing drugs-
• =raud !involves insidious words or
machinations used to induce victim
to act in a manner which would
enable the o(ender to carr% out his
design.
• as distinguished from craft which
involves acts done in order not to
arouse the suspicion of the victim,
fraud involves a direct inducement
through entrapping or beguiling
language or machinations
• Aisguise ! resorting to an% device to
conceal identit%. "urpose of
concealing identit% is a must.
Aistinction between /raft, =raud, and
Aisguise
Craft @ra$" .isg$ise
'nvolves the
use of
intellectual
tricker% and
cunning to
arouse
suspicion of
the victim
'nvolves the use
of direct
inducement b%
insidious words
or machinations
'nvolves the
use of
devise to
conceal
identit%
• .e*uisite& $he o(ender must have
actuall% taken advantage of craft,
fraud, or disguise to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
• 'nherent in& estafa and falsifcation.
273 That (2) a"vantage e ta8en of
s$perior strength/ or (4) means e
emplo!e" to wea8en the "efense
• $o purposel% use ecessive force out
of the proportion to the means of
defense available to the person
attacked.
• .e*uisite of Means to 5eaken
Aefense
• $o weaken the defense ! illustrated
in the case where one struggling
with another suddenl% throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent
and while in the said situation, he
wounds or kills him. 4ther means of
weakening the defense would be
intoication or disabling thru the
senses ,casting dirt of sand upon
another?s e%es-
1. 0uperiorit% ma% arise from
aggressor?s se, weapon or number
as compared to that of the victim
,e.g. accused attacked an unarmed
girl with a knife7 3 men stabbed to
death the female victim-.
2. #o advantage of superior strength
when one who attacks is overcome
with passion and obfuscation or
when *uarrel arose unepectedl%
and the fatal blow was struck while
victim and accused were struggling.
3. Ss. b% a band & circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, what is
taken into account is not the
number of aggressors nor the fact
that the% are armed but their
relative ph%sical might vis;X;vis the
o(ended part%
1. Means were purposel% sought to
weaken the defense of the victim to
resist the assault
2. $he means used must not totall%
eliminate possible defense of the
victim, otherwise it will fall under
treacher%
2I3 That the act e committe" with
treacher! (alevosia)
• $.6A/:6.O& when the o(ender
commits an% of the crime against
the person, emplo%ing means,
methods or forms in the eecution
thereof which tend directl% and
speciall% to insure its eecution
without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the o(ended
part% might make.
• .e*uisites&
• $reacher% ! can?t be considered
when there is no evidence that the
accused, prior to the moment of the
killing, resolved to commit to crime,
or there is no proof that the death of
the victim was the result of
meditation, calculation or re2ection.
• 6amples& victim asleep, half;awake
or )ust awakened, victim grappling
or being held, stacks from behind
• +ut treacher% ma% eist even if
attack is face;to;face ! as long as
victim was not given an% chance to
prepare defense
1. that at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in the position to
defend himself
2. that the o(ender consciousl%
adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack emplo%ed
b% him
1. does not eist if the accused gave
the deceased chance to prepare or
there was warning given or that it
was preceded b% a heated argument
2. there is alwa%s treacher% in the
killing of child
3. generall% characteri8ed b% the
deliberate and sudden and
unepected attack of the victim
from behind, without an% warning
and without giving the victim an
opportunit% to defend himself
T,E(C1E,
D
('0)E [email protected]
)0PE,*O,
)T,ENGT1
%E(N)
E%PLODE.
TO -E(FEN
[email protected])E
Means,
methods or
forms are
emplo%ed
b% the
o(ender to
make it
impossible
or hard for
the
o(ended
part% to put
an% sort of
resistance
4(ender does
not emplo%
means,
methods or
forms of
attack, he onl%
takes
advantage of
his superior
strength
Means are
emplo%ed but
it onl%
materiall%
weakens the
resisting power
of the o(ended
part%
• 5here there is conspirac%, treacher%
is considered against all the
o(enders
• $reacher% absorbs abuse of
strength, aid of armed men, b% a
band and means to weaken the
defense
1F. $hat the means be emplo%ed or
circumstances brought about which add
ignomin% to the natural e(ects of the acts
• 'J#4M'#O ! is a circumstance
pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace and oblo*u% to the
material in)ur% caused b% the crime
Applicable to crimes against chastit% ,rape
included-, less serious ph%sical in)uries,
light or grave coercion and murder
• .e*uisites&
• 6amples& accused embraced and
kissed the o(ended part% not out of
lust but out of anger in front of
man% people, raped in front of the
husband, raped successivel% b% fve
men
• tend to make the e(ects of the
crime more humiliating
• 'gnomin% not present where the
victim was alread% dead when such
acts were committed against his
bod% or person
1. /rime must be against chastit%, less
serious ph%sical in)uries, light or
grave coercion, and murder
2. $he circumstance made the crime
more humiliating and shameful for
the victim
2G3 That the crime e committe"
after an $nlawf$l entr!
• Mnlawful entr% ! when an entrance
is e(ected b% a wa% not intended for
the purpose. Meant to e(ect
entrance and #4$ eit.
• 5h% aggravating< 4ne who acts, not
respecting the walls erected b% men
to guard their propert% and provide
for their personal safet%, shows
greater perversit%, a greater
audacit% and hence the law
punishes him with more severit%
• 6ample& .apist gains entrance thru
the window
• 'nherent in& $respass to dwelling,
robber% with force upon things, and
robber% with violence or intimidation
against persons.
2:3 That as a means to the
commission of the crime/ a wall/ roof/
"oor or win"ow e ro8en
• ,e#$isites:
• Applicable onl% if such acts were
done b% the o(ender to e(ect
entrance.
• +reaking is lawful in the following
instances&
1. A wall, roof, window, or door was
broken
2. $he% were broken to e(ect entrance
1. an o3cer in order to make an arrest
ma% break open a door or window of
an% building in which the person to
be arrested is or is reasonabl%
believed to be7
2. an o3cer if refused admittance ma%
break open an% door or window to
eecute the search warrant or
liberate himself,
2H. $hat the crime be committed ,1- with
the aid of persons under [email protected] %ears of age,
or ,2- b% means of motor vehicles, airships
or other similar means.
• .eason for Y1& to repress, so far as
possible, the fre*uent practice
resorted to b% professional criminals
to avail themselves of minors taking
advantage of their responsibilit%
,remember that minors are given
lenienc% when the% commit a crime-
Exaple& Buan instructed a 14;%ear old to
climb up the fence and open the gate for
him so that he ma% rob the house
• .eason for Y2& to counteract the
great facilities found b% modern
criminals in said means to commit
crime and 2ee and abscond once
the same is committed. #ecessar%
that the motor vehicle be an
important tool to the consummation
of the crime ,bic%cles not included-
Exaple& Buan and "edro, in committing
theft, used a truck to haul the appliances
from the mansion.
21. $hat the wrong done in the
commission of the crime be deliberatel%
augmented b% causing other wrong not
necessar% for its commission

• /ruelt%& when the culprit en)o%s and
delights in making his victim su(er
slowl% and graduall%, causing him
unnecessar% ph%sical pain in the
consummation of the criminal act.
/ruelt% cannot be presumed nor
merel% inferred from the bod% of the
deceased. :as to be proven.
1. mere pluralit% of words do not show
cruelt%
2. no cruelt% when the other wrong
was done after the victim was dead
• ,e#$isites:
1. that the in)ur% caused be
deliberatel% increased b% causing
other wrong
2. that the other wrong be
unnecessar% for the eecution of the
purpose of the o(ender
*GNO%*ND C,0ELTD
Moral su(ering !
sub)ected to
humiliation "h%sical su(ering
(rt 273 (LTE,N(T*EE
C*,C0%)T(NCE)3 Their concept3 K
(lternative circ$mstances are those
which m$st e ta8en into
consi"eration as aggravating or
mitigating accor"ing to the nat$re
an" efects of the crime an" the other
con"itions atten"ing its commission3
The! are the relationship/
into&ication an" the "egree of
instr$ction an" e"$cation of the
ofen"er3
The alternative circ$mstance of
relationship shall e ta8en into
consi"eration when the ofen"e"
part! in the spo$se/ ascen"ant/
"escen"ant/ legitimate/ nat$ral/ or
a"opte" rother or sister/ or relative
! a>nit! in the same "egrees of the
ofen"er3
The into&ication of the
ofen"er shall e ta8en into
consi"eration as a mitigating
circ$mstances when the ofen"er has
committe" a felon! in a state of
into&ication/ if the same is not
hait$al or s$se#$ent to the plan to
commit sai" felon! $t when the
into&ication is hait$al or intentional/
it shall e consi"ere" as an
aggravating circ$mstance3
• Alternative /ircumstances ! those
which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature
and e(ects of the crime and other
conditions attending its commission.
• $he% are&
1. relationship ! taken into
consideration when o(ended part%
is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, or relative
b% a3nit% in the same degree of the
o(ender
2. intoication ! mitigating when the
o(ender has committed a felon% in
the state of intoication, if the same
is not habitual or subse*uent to the
plan to commit the said felon%.
Aggravating if habitual or intentional
3. degree of instruction and education
of the o(ender
,EL(T*ON)1*P
%itigating
Circ$mstance
(ggravating
Circ$mstance
'n crimes against
propert% ,robber%,
usurpation,
fraudulent
insolvenc%, arson-
'n crimes against
persons ! in cases
where the o(ender, or
when the o(ender and
the o(ended part% are
relatives of the same
level, as killing a
brother, adopted
brother or half;brother.
Alwa%s aggravating in
crimes against
chastit%.
6ception& Art 332
of // ! no criminal
liabilit%, civil
liabilit% onl% for the
crimes of theft,
swindling or
malicious mischief
committed or
caused mutuall% b%
spouses,
ascendants,
descendants or
relatives b% a3nit%
,also brothers,
sisters, brothers;in;
law or sisters;in;law
if living together-. 't
becomes an
6G6M"$'#J
circumstance.
• .elationship neither mitigating nor
aggravating when relationship is an
element of the o(ense.
6ample& parricide, adulter%, concubinage.
*NTO+*C(T*ON
%*T*G(T*NG (GG,(E(T*NG
C*,C0%)T(NCE C*,C0%)T(NCE
a- if intoication
is not habitual
b- if intoication
is not subse*uent
to the plan to
commit a felon%
a- if intoication is
habitual ! such habit
must be actual and
confrmed
b- if its intentional
,subse*uent to the
plan to commit a
felon%-
• Must show that he has taken such
*uantit% so as to blur his reason and
deprive him of a certain degree of
control
• A habitual drunkard is given to
inebriet% or the ecessive use of
intoicating drinks.
• :abitual drunkenness must be
shown to be an actual and
confrmed habit of the o(ender, but
not necessaril% of dail% occurrence.
.EG,EE [email protected] *N)T,0CT*ON (N.
E.0C(T*ON
%*T*G(T*NG
C*,C0%)T(NCE
(GG,(E(T*NG
C*,C0%)T(NCE
1ow degree of
instruction
education or the
lack of it. +ecause
he does not full%
reali8e the
conse*uences of
his criminal act.
#ot )ust mere
illiterac% but lack of
intelligence.
:igh degree of
instruction and
education ! o(ender
avails himself of his
learning in committing
the o(ense.
• Aetermined b%& the court must
consider the circumstance of lack of
instruction
• 6ceptions ,not mitigating-&
1. crimes against propert%
2. crimes against chastit% ,rape
included-
3. crime of treason
(rt 2I3 -ho are criminall! liale3 K
The following are criminall! liale for
grave an" less grave felonies:
1. "rincipals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories3

The following are criminall! liale for
light felonies:
23 Principals
43 (ccomplices3
• Accessories ! not liable for light
felonies because the individual
pre)udice is so small that penal
sanction is not necessar%
• 4nl% natural persons can be
criminals as onl% the% can act with
malice or negligence and can be
subse*uentl% deprived of libert%.
Buridical persons are liable under
special laws.
• Manager of a partnership is liable
even if there is no evidence of his
direct participation in the crime.
• /orporations ma% be the in)ured
part%
• Jeneral .ule& /orpses and animals
have no rights that ma% be in)ured.
• 6ception& defamation of the dead is
punishable when it blackens the
memor% of one who is dead.
(rt 2H3 Principals3 K The following
are consi"ere" principals:
23 23 Those who ta8e a "irect
part in the e&ec$tion of the act=
43 43 Those who "irectl! force
or in"$ce others to commit it=
53 53 Those who cooperate in
the commission of the ofense
! another act witho$t which it
wo$l" not have een
accomplishe"3
Principals ! .irect Participation
,e#$isites for 4 or more to e
principals ! "irect participation:
1. participated in the criminal
resolution ,conspirac%-
2. carried out their plan and personall%
took part in its eecution b% acts
which directl% tended to the same
end
• /onspirac% ! 's unit% of purpose and
intention.
Estalishment of Conspirac!
1. proven b% overt act
2. #ot mere knowledge or approval
3. 't is not necessar% that there be
formal agreement.
4. Must prove be%ond reasonable
doubt
@. /onspirac% is implied when the
accused had a common purpose and
were united in eecution.
C. Mnit% of purpose and intention in the
commission of the crime ma% be
shown in the following cases&
1. 0pontaneous agreement at
the moment of the
commission of the crime
2. Active /ooperation b% all the
o(enders in the perpetration
of the crime
3. /ontributing b% positive acts
to the reali8ation of a common
criminal intent
4. "resence during the
commission of the crime b% a
band and lending moral
support thereto.
@. 5hile conspirac% ma% be
implied from the
circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, it is
nevertheless a rule that
conspirac% must be
established b% positive and
conclusive evidence.
• /onspirator not liable for the crimes
of the other which is not the ob)ect
of the conspirac% or is not a logical
or necessar% conse*uence thereof
• Multiple rape ! each rapist is liable
for another?s crime because each
cooperated in the commission of the
rapes perpetrated b% the others
• 6ception& in the crime of murder
with treacher% ! all the o(enders
must at least know that there will be
treacher% in eecuting the crime or
cooperate therein.
6ample& Buan and "edro conspired to kill
$omas without the previous plan of
treacher%. 'n the crime scene, Buan used
treacher% in the presence of "edro and
"edro knew such. +oth are liable for
murder. +ut if "edro sta%ed b% the gate
while Buan alone killed $omas with
treacher%, so that "edro didn?t know how
it was carried out, Buan is liable for murder
while "edro for homicide.
• #o such thing as conspirac% to
commit an o(ense through
negligence. :owever, special laws
ma% make one a co;principal.
Exaple+ 1nder the Pure Bood and
Jrug Act, a storeowner is liable for
the act of his emplo%ees of selling
adulterated co(ee, although he
didn?t know that co(ee was being
sold.
• /onspirac% is negatived b% the
ac*uittal of co;defendant.
• $hat the culprits Rcarried out the
plan and personall% took part in the
eecution, b% acts which directl%
tended to the same end9&
1. $he principals b% direct participation
must be at the scene of the crime,
personall% taking part, although he
was not present in the scene of the
crime, he is e*uall% liable as a
principal b% direct participation.
2. 4ne serving as guard pursuant to
the conspirac% is a principal direct
participation.
• 'f the second element is missing,
those who did not participate in the
commission of the acts of eecution
cannot be held criminall% liable,
unless the crime agreed to be
committed is treason, sedition, or
rebellion.
Principals ! *n"$ction
a3 LThose who "irectl! force or
in"$ce others to commit itM
2. "rincipal b% induction liable onl%
when principal b% direct
participation committed the act
induced
53 ,e#$isites:
1. inducement be made directl% with
the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime
2. such inducement be the determining
cause of the commission of the
crime b% the material eecutor
"3 @orms of *n"$cements
1. +% "rice, reward or promise
2. +% irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear
3. /ommander has the intention of
procuring the commission of the
crime
4. /ommander has ascendanc% or
in2uence
@. 5ords used be so direct, so
e3cacious, so powerful
C. /ommand be uttered prior to the
commission
F. 6ecutor had no personal reason
4. 'mprudent advice does not
constitute su3cient inducement
@. .e*uisites for words of command to
be considered inducement&
C. 5ords uttered in the heat of anger
and in the nature of the command
that had to be obe%ed do not make
one an inductor.
*N.0CTO,
P,OPO)E) TO
CO%%*T ( @ELOND
*n"$ce others )ame
1iable onl% when
the crime is
eecuted
"unishable at once when
proposes to commit
rebellion or treason. $he
person to whom one
proposed should not
commit the crime,
otherwise the latter
becomes an inductor
/overs an% crime
/overs onl% treason and
rebelli
Efects of (c#$ittal of Principal !
"irect participation on liailit! of
principal ! in"$cement
1. /onspirac% is negated b% the
ac*uittal of the co;defendant.
2. 4ne can not be held guilt% of
instigating the commission of the
crime without frst showing that the
crime has been actuall% committed
b% another. +ut if the one charged
as principal b% direct participation
be ac*uitted because he acted
without criminal intent or malice, it
is not a ground for the ac*uittal of
the principal b% inducement.
Principals ! *n"ispensale
Cooperation
-. RThose who cooperate in the
coission of the ofense by
another act without which it would
not have been accoplished>
/. .e*uisites&
1. "articipation in the criminal
resolution
2. /ooperation through another act
,includes negligence-
• Nthere is collective criminal
responsibilit% when the o(enders
are criminall% liable in the same
manner and to the same etent. $he
penalt% is the same for all.
• there is individual criminal
responsibilit% when there is no
conspirac%.
(rt3 2G3 (ccomplices3 K
(ccomplices are those persons who/
not eing incl$"e" in (rt3 2H/
cooperate in the e&ec$tion of the
ofense ! previo$s or sim$ltaneo$s
acts3
• ,e#$isites:
• 6amples& a- Buan was choking
"edro. $hen $omas ran up and hit
"edro with a bamboo stick. Buan
continued to choke "edro until he
was dead. $omas is onl% an
accomplice because the fatal blow
came from Buan. b- 1ending a
dagger to a killer, knowing the
latter?s purpose.
• An accomplice has knowledge of the
criminal design of the principal and
all he does is concur with his
purpose.
• $here must be a relation between
the acts done b% the principal and
those attributed to the person
charges as accomplice
• 'n homicide or murder, the
accomplice must not have in2icted
the mortal wound.
1. there be a communit% of design
,principal originates the design,
accomplice onl% concurs-
2. he cooperates in the eecution b%
previous or simultaneous acts,
intending to give material and moral
aid ,cooperation must be knowingl%
done, it must also be necessar% and
not indispensable
3. $here be a relation between the acts
of the principal and the alleged
accomplice
(rt3 2:3 (ccessories3 K
(ccessories are those who/ having
8nowle"ge of the commission of the
crime/ an" witho$t having
participate" therein/ either as
principals or accomplices/ ta8e part
s$se#$ent to its commission in an!
of the following manners:
23 '! pro?ting themselves or
assisting the ofen"er to pro?t ! the
efects of the crime3
43 '! concealing or "estro!ing the
o"! of the crime/ or the efects or
instr$ments thereof/ in or"er to
prevent its "iscover!3
53 '! haroring/ concealing/ or
assisting in the escape of the
principals of the crime/ provi"e" the
accessor! acts with a$se of his
p$lic f$nctions or whenever the
a$thor of the crime is g$ilt! of
treason/ parrici"e/ m$r"er/ or an
attempt to ta8e the life of the Chief
E&ec$tive/ or is 8nown to e
hait$all! g$ilt! of some other crime3
• 6ample of "ar 1& person received
and used propert% from another,
knowing it was stolen
• 6ample of "ar 2& placing a weapon
in the hand of the dead who was
unlawfull% killed to plant evidence,
or bur%ing the deceased who was
killed b% the principals
• 6ample of "ar 3& a- public o3cers
who harbor, conceal or assist in the
escape of the principal of an% crime
,not light felon%- with abuse of his
public functions, b- private persons
who harbor, conceal or assist in the
escape of the author of the crime !
guilt% of treason, parricide, murder
or an attempt against the life of the
"resident, or who is known to be
habituall% guilt% of some crime.
• Jeneral .ule& "rincipal ac*uitted,
Accessor% also ac*uitted
• 6ception& when the crime was in
fact committed but the principal is
covered b% eempting
circumstances.
6ample& Minor stole a ring and Buan,
knowing it was stolen, bought it. Minor is
eempt. Buan liable as accessor%
• $rial of accessor% ma% proceed
without awaiting the result of the
separate charge against the
principal because the criminal
responsibilities are distinct from
each other
• 1iabilit% of the accessor% ! the
responsibilit% of the accessor% is
subordinate to that of a principal in
a crime because the accessor%?s
participation therein is subse*uent
to its commission, and his guilt is
directl% related to the principal. 'f
the principal was ac*uitted b% an
eempting circumstance the
accessor% ma% still be held liable.
• Ai(erence of accessor% from
principal and accomplice&
1. Accessor% does not take direct part
or cooperate in, or induce the
commission of the crime
2. Accessor% does not cooperate in the
commission of the o(ense b% acts
either prior thereto or simultaneous
therewith
3. "articipation of the accessor% in all
cases alwa%s takes place after the
commission of the crime
4. $akes part in the crime through his
knowledge of the commission of the
o(ense.
(rt3 4C3 (ccessories who are
e&empt from criminal liailit!3 K The
penalties prescrie" for accessories
shall not e impose" $pon those who
are s$ch with respect to their
spo$ses/ ascen"ants/ "escen"ants/
legitimate/ nat$ral/ an" a"opte"
rothers an" sisters/ or relatives !
a>nit! within the same "egrees/ with
the single e&ception of accessories
falling within the provisions of
paragraph 2 of the ne&t prece"ing
article3
• +asis& $ies of blood and the
preservation of the cleanliness of
one?s name which compels one to
conceal crimes committed b%
relatives so near as those
mentioned.
• #ephew and #iece not included
• Accessor% not eempt when helped
a relative;principal b% profting from
the e(ects of the crime, or assisted
the o(ender to proft from the
e(ects of the crime.
• 4nl% accessories covered b% par 2
and 3 are eempted.
• "ublic o3cer who helped his guilt%
brother escape does not incur
criminal liabilit% as ties of blood
constitutes a more powerful
incentive than the call of dut%.
• "6#A1$O ! su(ering in2icted b% the
0tate for the transgression of a law.
• 3 fold purpose&
• Buridical /onditions of "enalt%
1. retribution or epiation ! penalt%
commensurate with the gravit% of
the o(ense
2. correction or reformation ! rules
which regulate the eecution of
penalties consisting of deprivation of
libert%
3. social defense ! in2eible severit% to
recidivists and habitual delin*uents
a. Must be productive of su(ering ! limited
b% the integrit% of human personalit%
b. Must be proportionate to the crime
c. Must be personal ! imposed onl% upon
the criminal
d. Must be legal ! according to a )udgment
of fact and law
e. Must be e*ual ! applies to ever%one
regardless of the circumstance
f. Must bee correctional ! to rehabilitate
the o(ender

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