CRIMINAL LAW

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF 1. PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES

CRIMINAL LAW a. Utilitarian theory or protective

theory
The first section is a review on certain The primary purpose: Protection of society
definitions, principles and concepts from actual or potential wrongdoers
underlying Criminal Law as a branch of
study. b. Classical or juristic philosophy

There are FOUR MAJOR LESSONS in this Best remembered by the maxim “An eye
section: for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” [Note: If you
want to impress the examiner, use the latin
A. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF version- Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.]
CRIMINAL LAW The primary purpose: Retribution.
c. Positivist or realistic philosophy
B. RATIONALE BEHIND STATE
AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME
The primary purpose: Reformation.
C. REVIEWING BASIC PRINCIPLES
There is great respect for the human
D. MEMORIZING RELEVANT LATIN
element because the offender is regarded as
MAXIMS
socially sick who needs treatment, not
punishment.
d. Eclectic or mixed philosophy
A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of This combines both positivist and classical
municipal law which thinking. Crimes that are economic and social
by nature should be dealt with in a positivist
Ø defines crimes, manner; thus, the law is more
Ø treats of their nature and compassionate. Heinous crimes should be
Ø provides for their punishment. dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital
punishment.
It is that branch of public substantive law The Revised Penal Code today follows the
which defines offenses and prescribes their mixed or eclectic philosophy.
penalties. For example:
Ø It is substantive because it defines the Ø intoxication of the offender is considered
to mitigate his criminal liability, unless
state’s right to inflict punishment
it is intentional or habitual;
and the liability of the offenders.
Ø the age of the offender is considered;
Ø It is public law because it deals with the Ø the woman who killed her child to conceal
relation of the individual with the her dishonor has in her favor a
state. mitigating circumstance.

B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME 2. LIMITATIONS

1987 Constitution Article II, Section 5 a. Must be general in application.

Declaration of Principles and State
Policies. The maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty and property, and
the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of
the blessings of democracy.
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
b. Must not partake of the nature of an ex
post facto law. (1987 Const. Art III,
Sec.22)
c. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of
attainder. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec 22)
d. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines. (1987
Const. Art III, Sec 19)

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) C. REVIEWING BASIC PRINCIPLES
and its amendments
2. Special penal laws passed by the 1. Generality (WHO)
Philippine Commission, Philippine
2. Territoriality (WHERE)
Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Assembly, the Congress of the 3. Prospectivity (WHEN)
Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa. 4. Legality
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during 5. Strict Construction of penal laws
Martial Law. against the State

1. GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER:
Ø The state’s authority is grounded on what
is called the penological objectives.
Ø However, such power is also subject to
certain limitations.
MEANS THAT THE…
Ø Criminal law of the country governs
Ø all persons within the country regardless
of their race, belief, sex or creed.
Ø Generality has no reference to territory.
Ø It refers to persons that may be governed
by the penal law

Ø However, it is subject to certain exceptions

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 1 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

• Art. 2, RPC, “Except as provided in the Ø The territory of the country is not limited to
treatise or laws of preferential the land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior
application…”
waters as well as its atmosphere.
• Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
• Art. 14, Civil Code, “…subject to the
exercised over land.
principles of public international law and • Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
to treaty stipulations.” exercised over maritime and interior
waters.
o An example of a treaty or treat • Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
stipulation is the Bases Agreement exercised over the atmosphere.
entered into by the Philippines and
Ø Excepted under the territoriality
the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired
characteristic of penal laws are the cases
on Sept. 16, 1991.
provided for by Art. 2 of the Revised
o Another example would be the VFA1 Penal Code. The Code therefore has
signed on Feb. 10, 1998 territorial and extraterritorial applications.

• Also excepted under the law of generality b. Scope Of Application Of The Provisions
are Members of the Congress who are not Of The Revised Penal Code
liable for libel or slander with any speech
in Congress or congressional committee. Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except
as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
(Sec 11, Art VI 1987 Constitution) application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine
• Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
diplomatic officials are immune from the waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
application of penal laws when they are
in the country where they are assigned2. 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
o EXCEPTIONS TO THE ship or airship
EXCEPTION…
(1) Note that consuls are not 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
diplomatic officers.
securities issued by the Government of the
(2) This includes consul-general, Philippine Islands;
vice-consul or and consul in a
foreign country, who are 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
therefore, not immune to the introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
operation or application of the
penal law of the country where
4. While being public officers or employees, should
they are assigned. commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
*^*
2. TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW 5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined in
a. General rule Title One of Book Two of this Code.
b. Scope of the RPC
Important Things to Remember:
a. General Rule
The provisions in Article 2 embraces two scopes
Territoriality--
of applications:
MEANS THAT THE… Intraterritorial application

Ø Penal laws of the country have
Ø force and effect only within its territory.
Ø It cannot penalize crimes committed outside
the same.
1 Archipelagic Rule shall be observed.
Take note of the Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V,
which defines Criminal Jurisdiction over United States
military and civilian personnel temporarily in the
Philippines in connection with activities approved by
the Philippine Government
1. Intraterritorial refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code within the Philippine
territory (land, air and water).
2. As far as jurisdiction or application of the
Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on
maritime zones or interior waters, the
3. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has
been modified by the rule.

2
R.A. No. 75 which penalizes acts which would impair the
proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the
Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the
Philippines

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 2 of 62


Extraterritorial application
1. Extraterritoria3l refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code outside the Philippines
territory:
Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels
1) The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels4 if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading:
a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial
application), or
b) The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial
application)
2) Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard merchant vessels while in
the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a
foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR
Philippine vessels treading waters under the
jurisdiction of another state):
a) FRENCH RULE: It is the FLAG/Nationality of
the vessel which determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime violates the peace and
order of the host country.
b) ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of the
crime determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime merely relates to internal
management of the vessel. NOTE:
Philippines adhere to ENGLISH RULE.
Illustration:
If two petty officers aboard a Russian
ship docked in Manila North Harbor got into a
fistfight which resulted in serious physical
injuries, it is Russian Law which will apply.
However, if the cause of the fight is a dispute
over the ownership of several hundred grams of
cocaine stashed somewhere in the ship, then
Philippine Law must apply because importation of
illegal substance is a violation of public peace
and order.
NOTE: This illustration works for both rules
because the general rule in one is the exception
of the other.
NOTE: These rules are NOT applicable if the
vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed, in these cases, the laws of the
nationality of the ship will always apply.
3. When the crime is committed in a war vessel
of a foreign country, the NATIONALITY of the
vessel will ALWAYS determine jurisdiction
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose navel
force they belong.
3 Illustration:
RA9327 (The Human Security Act) contains
provisions for extraterritorial application
4
The country of registry determines the nationality of
the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned
vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
4. Three International Theories On Aerial
Jurisdiction
a. Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free and
not subject to the jurisdiction of the
subjacent state, except for the protection of
its national security and public order.
b. Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over
the atmosphere only to the extent that it can
effectively exercise control thereof.
c. Absolute Theory
i. The subjacent state has complete
jurisdiction over the atmosphere above
it subject only to the innocent passage
by aircraft of a foreign country. NOTE:
The Philippines adopts this theory.
ii. Under this theory, if the crime is
committed in an aircraft, no matter
how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine
5
criminal law will govern.
Par. 2 & 3: Forging/Counterfeiting and
Introducing Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines
1. The forgery is committed abroad
2. And it refers to Philippine coin, currency
note, obligation and security
Par. 4: When public officers or employees
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions
1) The most common subject of bar problems in
Article 2 is paragraph 4.
2) As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code
governs only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public
official’s functions:
a) Those having to do with the discharge of
their duties in a foreign country.
b) The functions contemplated are those,
which are, under the law:
i) to be performed by the public officer
ii) in the Foreign Service of the
Philippine government
iii) in a foreign country.
NOTE: The Revised Penal Code governs if the
crime (whether or not in relation to the
exercise of public functions) was committed
within the Philippine Embassy or within the
embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is
because embassy grounds are considered an
extension of sovereignty. Thus the crime is
deemed to have been committed in Philippine
soil.
A Philippine consulate official who is validly
married here in the Philippines and who marries
again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted
5
See Anti-hijacking Law, pg___
2008 Page 3 of 62

here for bigamy because this is a crime not
connected with his official duties. However, if the
second marriage was celebrated within the
Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here,
since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in
the Philippines.
Par. 5: Commit any of The Crimes Against
National Security and the Law Of Nations,
Defined In Title One Of Book Two Of This
Code.
1. Rebellion is not included.
2. Any crime against public order is under the
jurisdiction of the host country.
*^*
3. PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW
MEANS THAT…
Ø Acts or omissions will only be subject to
a penal law if they are committed AFTER a
penal law had already taken effect.
Ø Vice versa, this act or omission which has
been committed before the effectivity of a
penal law could not be penalized by such
penal law because penal laws operate only
prospectively.
Ø This is also called irretrospectivity.
Ø General Rule: Ex post facto law is
prohibited.
• Ex post facto law is one that is
specifically made to retroact to cover
acts before it became effective to the
prejudice of the accused;
• or to make a certain crime graver or
prescribe a heavier penalty for it.
Ø Exception:
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal
Laws shall have a retroactive effect
--insofar as they favor the persons guilty
of a
felony,
--who is not a habitual criminal,
as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of
this Code, although at the time of the publication
of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Ø This is consistent with the general principle
that criminal laws, being a limitation on the
rights of the people, should be construed
strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused.
Ø Different effects of repeal of penal law.
• If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in
the new law,
◦ the new law shall be applied,
◦ except when the offender is a
habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
• If the new law imposes a heavier penalty,
◦ the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offense shall
be applied.
• If the new law totally repeals the existing
law so that the act which was penalized
under the old law is no longer punishable,
◦ the crime is obliterated.
Ø Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial
decisions6, administrative rulings and
circulars.
1. Co vs. CA (1993),
In this case, Circular No. 4 of the Ministry of
Justice, dated December, 15, 1981, provides that
“where the check is issued as part of an
arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment
of an obligation, whether pre-existing or not, the
drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or
violation of BP 22.”
Subsequently, the administrative interpretation
was reversed in Circular No. 12, issued on August
8, 1984, such that the claim that the check was
issued as a guarantee or part of an arrangement
to secure an obligation or to facilitate collection,
is no longer a valid defense for the prosecution of
BP 22.
Hence, it was ruled in Que vs. People that
under the new Circular, a check issued merely to
guarantee the performance of an obligation is
covered by BP 22.
However, consistent with the principle of
prospectivity, the new doctrine should not
apply to parties who had relied on the old
Circular and acted on the faith thereof. No
retrospective effect.
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the
punishability of an act must be reasonably for the
guidance of society.
4. LEGALITY (NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA
POENA SINE LEGE)
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. —
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Ø There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same.
• This is true to civil law countries, but not
to common law countries.
Ø Limitation:
• Not any law punishing an act or omission
may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null
and void.
5. STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
AGAINST STATE: THE “DOCTRINE OF
PRO REO”
Ø Whenever a penal law is to be construed or
applied and the law admits of two
interpretations - one lenient to the offender
and one strict to the offender-
6
Art. 8, Civil Code
2008 Page 4 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

• that interpretation which is lenient or II. FELONIES

favorable to the offender will be
adopted. This section discusses how and why an act is
subject to criminal liability, the different stages of
Ø This is in consonance with the fundamental
committing an as well as the classification of
rule that all doubts shall be construed in
punishable conduct.
favor of the accused .
Ø Consistent with the presumption of There are FIVE MAJOR LESSONS in this
innocence of the accused. section:

1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 14(2) A. DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved….
Ø This is peculiar only to criminal law. B. FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED
Ø EQUIPOISE RULE:
• When the evidence of the prosecution C. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
and the defense are equally balanced, the
scale should be tilted in favor of the
accused in obedience to the constitutional D. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY
presumption of innocence.7 SPECIAL LAWS

D. BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

A. DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
1. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT
REA
1. FELONY
The act cannot be criminal where the mind
Ø The term felony is limited only to
is not criminal. This is true to a felony
violations of the Revised Penal Code.
characterized by dolo, but not a felony
When the crime is punishable under a special
resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
law you do not refer to this as a felony.
absolute one because it is not applied to
culpable felonies, or those that result from
Ø IMPORTANCE:
negligence.
• There are certain provisions in the
Revised Penal Code where the term
2. ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST
“felony” is used, which means that the
MEUS ACTUS
provision is not extended to crimes under
special laws.
An act done by me against my will is not
• A specific instance is found in Article
my act. This is related to the preceding maxim
160- Quasi-Recidivism, which reads:
and is manifested in People v. Ah Chong.
“A person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final
3. EL QUE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA
judgment, before beginning to serve
DEL MAL CAUSADO
sentence or while serving the same,
shall be punished under the
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
maximum period of the penalty.”
the evil caused. This is the rationale in par. 1 of
Note that the word “felony” is
Article 4 which enunciates the doctrine of
used.
proximate cause. He who commits an intentional
felony is responsible for all the consequences
2. OFFENSE
which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Ø A crime punished under a special law is
called a statutory offense.

3. MISDEMEANOR

Ø A minor infraction of the law, such as a

violation of an ordinance.

4. CRIME

Ø Whether the wrongdoing is punished under

the Revised Penal Code or under a special
law, the generic word “crime” can be used.

7
Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 5 of 62


B. FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED
Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed
not only be means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when
the act is performed with deliberate intent and
there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
1. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
a. There must be an act or omission
b. That the act or omission must be
punishable by the RPC
c. That the act is performed or the
commission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT
Ø To be considered as a felony, there must be
an act or omission;
Ø An act refers to any kind of body movement
that produces change in the outside world.
Ø A mere imagination no matter how wrong
does not amount to a felony.
Illustration:
If A, a passenger of a jeepney seated in front
of a lady, started putting out his tongue
suggesting lewdness that is already an act in
contemplation of criminal law8. He cannot claim
that there was no crime committed.
If A scratches something, this is already an act
which annoys the lady he may be accused of
unjust vexation, not malicious mischief.
Ø ACT v. STATUS
• An act must produce some kind of
change with a physical manifestation,
status, on the other hand is a concept
which lies between an action and the
imagination; it is defined as
Ø Omission is
• the failure to perform a duty
• required by law.
• It is important that there is a law
requiring the performance of an act, if
there is no positive duty, there is no
liability.
• Examples of such are failure to render
assistance9, failure to issue receipt or non
disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government10.
8
Unjust vexations under Art. 287. Light coercions.
9
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim
10
Art. 116. Misprision of treason.
100% UP LAW UP
CRIMINAL LAW
MENS REA/MENTAL ELEMENT
Ø mens rea, is defined as "a guilty mind, a
guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal
intent"11,
Ø It sometimes referred to in common parlance
as the gravamen of the offense (bullseye
of the crime).
Ø This term is used synonymously with
criminal or deliberate intent
Ø It does not mean that if an act or omission is
punished under the Revised Penal Code, a
felony is already committed.
Ø For an act to be punishable, THERE MUST BE
A CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE ACT AND
THE INTENT.
1. DOLO (DELIBERATE INTENT)
a. Elements
b. Categories of Intent
c. Distinction between Intent and
i. Discernment
ii. Motive
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
Ø Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is
deceit.
Ø This is no longer true. At the time the
Revised Penal Code was codified, the term
nearest to dolo was deceit.
Ø However, deceit means fraud, and this is not
the meaning of dolo.
Ø Dolo is DELIBERATE INTENT otherwise
referred to as criminal intent, and must be
coupled with freedom of action and
intelligence on the part of the offender as to
the act done by him.
Ø Presumption Criminal Intent
• Intent is a mental state,
• the existence of which is shown by the
overt act of a person,
• so criminal intent is presumed to exist
only if the act is unlawful. It does not
apply if the act is not criminal.
• The presumption of criminal intent may
arise from proof of the criminal act
and it is for the accused to rebut this
presumption.
• However, in some crimes intent cannot
be presumed being an integral element
thereof; so it has to be proven (i.e. in
frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill
is not presumed but must be proven,
otherwise it is merely physical injuries).
Ø Liability Even in the Absence of Criminal
Intent
• There are 2 exceptions to the
requirement of Criminal Intent:
◦ FELONIES COMMITTED by CULPA
(infra)
◦ OFFENSE MALA PROHIBITA (infra)
11
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889
BAROPS 2008 Page 6 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

a. Elements of DOLO whether he planned to kill Burt or merely to

inflict a whole lot of pain.
i. Criminal intent;
§ This is shown by overt acts Ernie can overturn the presumption of general
§ It presupposes the existence of the criminal intent by proving that he was justified
two subsequent elements (infra), entitled to any exempting circumstances
ii. Freedom of action; and (due to lack of discernment) or there was a
§ The lack of freedom makes one mistake of fact (infra). If he is successful, then
merely a tool the presumption that he intended to do
iii. Intelligence something wrong is obliterated along with the
§ The lack of intelligence makes one need to determine specific intent.
unable to determine However, the result of Ernie’s act will now
→ The morality of his acts determine his liability. Was his act justified that
→ The effect of his actions he incurs no liability? Is he entitled to any
exemption? Or is his liability only mitigated?
Ø The presence of JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES indicates LACK OF Ø Establishing the specific intent is the way to
FREEDOM hit the “bullseye” of the crime:
• E.g. If the prosecution wants to hold
Ø Some of the EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Ernie liable for homicide/murder, then
exculpate those who LACK THE they have to establish Ernie’s intent to
INTELLIGENCE to determine the nature and kill, which is the “bullseye” of the crimes
consequences of their actions. mentioned.
• In theft, the gravamen of the offense
Ø The lack of CRIMINAL INTENT can be a would be the taking with intent to gain as
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE or the distinguished from estafa where the
accused can be merely held liable for essence is deceit.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. • Attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness have similar elements
Ø If any of the elements is absent, there is no separated only by the offender’s intent to
dolo. have sexual intercourse with the victim.

Ø If there is no dolo, there could be no c. Distinctions Between Intent,

intentional felony.12 Discernment and Motive

b. Categories of Intent INTENT DISCERNMEN MOTIVE

T
In criminal law, intent is categorized Determination the mental It is the
into two types: to do a capacity to moving
certain thing, tell right from power
General Criminal Specific Criminal an aim or wrong which
Intent Intent purpose of impels one
The intention to do The intention to the mind. to do an act
something wrong commit a definite (ex.
act vengeance).
Presumed from the Existence is not Establish the Integral to Important
mere doing of a presumed nature and the element only in
wrong act extent of of certain
The burden is upon Since the specific culpability intelligence cases (see
the wrong doer to intent is an element NOT intent. below)
prove that he acted of the crime, the
without such criminal burden is upon the When Motive becomes Material in
intent. prosecution to determining Criminal Liability:
establish its
existence. 1) When the act brings about variant crimes
e.g. kidnapping v. robbery13
Illustration 2) The identity of the accused is doubtful
Ernie, without any provocation, stabbed 3) The evidence on the commission of the
Burt. crime is purely circumstantial.
The very act of stabbing is the quantum of 4) Also, lack of motive can aid in showing
proof needed to establish the fact that Ernie the innocence of the accused.14
intended to do something wrong. This is the
GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT. Illustration:
Ernie came home and found his wife in a
However, Ernie can be liable for more than pleasant conversation with Burt, former suitor.
one crime; thus, prosecution must establish Thereupon, he went to the kitchen, opened a
Ernie’s SPECIFIC INTENT in order to determine drawer and pulled out a knife. He then stabbed
Burt.
12 The moving force is jealousy.
Visbal vs. Buban, 2003
13
People v. Puno (1993)
14
People vs Hassan, 1988

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 7 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

The intent is the resort to the knife,
so that means he desires to kill the Burt, the
former suitor.
Ernie’s deliberate choice of
something as lethal as the knife shows the
presence of intelligence because it is his very
awareness of the danger which prompted his
choice. This only means that he knew what is
right from wrong and deliberately chose to do
what is wrong.
Stabbing the victim whom the accused
believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of
fact on his part which led him to take the facts as
they appear to him and was pressed to take
immediate action.
2. CULPA (CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT)
a. Elements
b. Doctrines Concerning Culpable Crimes

NOTE: Discernment does not indicate the

presence of intent, merely intelligence.15 Thus,
discernment is necessary whether the crime is
dolo or culpa. IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:

Ø Although there is no intentional felony, there

d. Mistake of Fact could be culpable felony.
(ignorantia facti excusat) Ø The element of criminal intent is replaced by
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
Ø Is culpa merely a mode of committing a
Ø When an offender acted out of a
crime or a crime in itself?
misapprehension of fact,
• it cannot be said that he acted with
AS A MODE
criminal intent.
• When the offender acted out of a mistake
Ø Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is
of fact, criminal intent is negated, so
just a modality by which a felony may be
do not presume that the act was done
committed.
with criminal intent.
Ø A felony may be committed or incurred
• This is absolutory if the crime involved
through dolo or culpa.
dolo.
Ø Culpa is just a means by which a felony may
16 result.
The Requisites of Mistake of Fact are:

i. That the act done would have been lawful Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
ii. That the intention of the accused in FELONY
performing the act should be lawful;
iii. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
When the accused is negligent, mistake
of fact is not a defense.
People vs. Faller (1939),
Ø It was stated indirectly that criminal
Illustration:
negligence or culpa is just a mode of
incurring criminal liability.
People v. Ah Chong (1910)
Ø In this case, the accused was charged with
A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the
malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an
dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber
intentional negligence under Article 327 of
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area,
the Revised Penal Code You do not have
and after crying out sufficient warnings and
malicious mischief through simple negligence
believing himself to be under attack, cannot be
or reckless imprudence because it requires
held criminally liable for homicide.
deliberateness.
1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the
Ø Faller was charged with malicious mischief,
facts were really what the houseboy
but was convicted of damage to property
believed?
through reckless imprudence.
a. Yes. If it was really the robber and
Ø The Supreme Court pointed out that
not the roommate then the
although the allegation in the information
houseboy was justified.
charged the accused with an intentional
2) Was the houseboy’s intention lawful?
felony, yet the words feloniously and
a. Yes. He was acting out of self-
unlawfully, which are standard languages in
preservation.
an information, covers not only dolo but
3) Was the houseboy without fault or
also culpa because culpa is just a mode
negligence?
of committing a felony.
a. Yes. His deliberate intent to
defend himself with the knife can
be determined by the fact that he
AS A CRIME
cried out sufficient warnings prior
to the act.
Ø In Article 365, you have criminal negligence
as an omission which the article definitely or
specifically penalized.
15
People v. Cordova 1993 Ø The concept of criminal negligence is the
16
People vs Oanis, 1988 inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 8 of 62


the person performing or failing to perform
an act.
Ø Because Article 365, creates a distinction
between imprudence and negligence; simple
or reckless, one might think that criminal
negligence is the one being punished.
Ø That is why a question is created that
criminal negligence is the crime in itself.
Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE
(ART 365)
FELONIES
Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace (1995),
Ø Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented and claimed
that criminal negligence is a quasi-
offense, and the correct designation should
not be homicide through reckless
imprudence, but reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide.
Ø The view of Justice Reyes is sound, but the
problem is Article 3, which states that culpa
is just a mode by which a felony may result.
a. Elements of CULPA
Culpa Requires the Concurrence of Three
Requisites:
Ø Criminal negligence on the part of the
offender,
• that is, the crime was the result of
negligence, reckless imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill;
Ø Freedom of action on the part of the
offender, that is, he was not acting under
duress;
• Negligence presupposes the ability to be
vigilant; and vigilance depends on
whether the person chose to be or not.
Ø Intelligence on the part of the offender in
the performance of the negligent act.
• The absence of intelligence means that
the person is unable to assess the danger
of a situation.
• He cannot be charged for lack of foresight
and/or prudence because the person
cannot discern and predict the
consequence of his course of action.
People v. Buan (1968)
Facts: The accused was driving a passenger bus.
Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus
collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the
latter. A case was filed against the accused for
slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence for which he was tried and acquitted.
Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence was filed. Accused claimed that he
was placed in twice in jeopardy.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
Held: The second case must be dismissed.
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for the same act. For the
essence of the quasi-offense under Art. 365 of
the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent act
which would be punishable as a felony. The law
penalizes the negligent act and not the
result. The gravity of the consequences is only
taken into account to determine the penalty. It
does not qualify the substance of the
offense.
b. Doctrines Concerning Culpable Crimes
Ø Emergency Rule
• A person who is confronted with a
sudden emergency
• may be left no time for thought.
• so must make speedy decision based
largely upon impulse or instinct,
◦ and cannot be held to the same
conduct as one who has had an
opportunity to reflect,
◦ even though it later appears that he
made the wrong decision.
Ø Doctrine Of “Last Clear Chance”
• The contributory negligence of the party
injured
◦ will not defeat the action
• if it be shown that the accused might, by
the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence,
• have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party.
• The applicability of this doctrine in
criminal cases is somewhat dubious:
Anuran v. Buno (1966)
◦ The principle about the "last clear
chance" would call for application in a
suit between the owners and drivers
of the two colliding vehicles.
◦ It does not arise where a passenger
demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual
obligation
• Last Clear Chance is a defense by the
defendant in a damage suit against
liability by transferring it to the plaintiff.
• This dynamics cannot be replicated in a
criminal case because
◦ the liability is penal in nature and
thus cannot be transferred within the
same case
◦ It is not a case between two parties
involved in an incident but rather
between an individual and the State.
Ø Rule Of Negative Ingredient
• This is related to the doctrine of
proximate cause and applicable when
certain causes leading to the result are
not identifiable.
• This rule states that
◦ the prosecution must first
identify what the accused failed
to do.
◦ Once this is done, the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused.
2008 Page 9 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

◦ The accused must show that the Ø But even certain crimes which are punished
failure did not set in motion the chain under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of
of events leading to the injury.17 these stages.
Ø A more detailed discussion can be found
under LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE
E. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ELEMENTS (pg___)

Ø Related to this classification of felonies as to:

Ø This question was asked in the bar
examination:
1. Formal Crimes

How do you classify felonies and how are

a. Formal crimes are crimes, which are
felonies classified?
consummated in one instance.
b. Illegal exaction under Article 213 is
TIP: a crime committed when a public
What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 officer who is authorized to collect
and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies taxes, licenses or impose for the
under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. government, shall demand an amount
bigger than or different from what the
Ø The question does not require the candidate law authorizes him to collect.
to classify but also to define. ◦ Under sub-paragraph (a) of Article
Ø Therefore, the examiner was after the 213 on illegal exaction, the law
classifications under Articles 3, 6 and 9. uses the word “demanding.”
Ø The purpose of classifying penalties is to ◦ Mere demanding of an amount
bring about a proportionate penalty and different from what the law
equitable punishment. authorizes him to collect will
Ø The penalties are graduated according to already consummate a crime,
their degree of severity. whether the taxpayer pays the
• The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all amount being demanded or not.
kinds of felonies. ◦ Payment of the amount being
• There are felonies which do not admit of demanded is not essential to the
division. consummation of the crime.

FELONIES ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 2. Material Felonies

1. According to the manner of their a. Those that have various stages of

commission execution
2. According to the stages of their execution b. Ex. Homicide
3. According to their gravity
3. Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS STAGE

4. As to count a. The essence of the crime is the act

5. As to nature itself;
b. Hence in rape, the slightest penetration
already consummates the crime; the
1. ACCORDING TO THE MANNER OF THEIR same is true for arson where the
COMMISSION slightest burning already renders the
crime complete.
Ø Under Article 3, they are classified as:
3. ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAVITY
a. intentional felonies or those committed
with deliberate intent; and Ø Under Article 9, felonies are classified as:
b. culpable felonies or those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of a. Grave felonies or those to which
foresight or lack of skill. attaches
◦ the capital punishment or
2. ACCORDING TO THE STAGES OF THEIR ◦ penalties which in any of their periods
EXECUTION are afflictive;
a. Less grave felonies or
Ø Under Article 6, felonies are classified as: ◦ those to which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum
a. attempted felony period is correctional;
b. frustrated felony a. Light felonies or those infractions of law
c. consummated felony for the commission of which
◦ the penalty is arresto menor.
Ø The classification of stages of a felony in
Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Ø Why is it necessary to determine whether the
Revised Penal Code. crime is grave, less grave or light?
Ø This does not apply to crimes punished under • To determine
special laws. ◦ whether these felonies can be
complexed or not;
17 ◦ the prescription of the crime and
Carillo vs People, 1994
◦ the prescription of the penalty.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 10 of 62


• In other words, these are felonies
classified according to their gravity,
stages and the penalty attached to them.
Ø Take note that when the Revised Penal Code
speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the
definition makes a reference specifically
to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ø Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with
Article 25” because there is also a
classification of penalties under Article 26
that was not applied.
Ø This classification of felony according to
gravity is important with respect to the
question of prescription of crimes.
• Ex. If the penalty is a fine and exactly
P200.00, it is only considered a light
felony under Article 9. If the fine is
imposed as an alternative penalty or as a
single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is
considered a correctional penalty under
Article 26.
• If the penalty is exactly P200.00,
apply Article 26. It is considered as a
correctional penalty and it prescribes in
10 years. If the offender is apprehended
at any time within ten years, he can be
made to suffer the fine.
4. AS TO COUNT
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
a) Compound Crime,
b) Complex crime; and
c) Composite crime.
5. AS TO NATURE
a) Mala in se
b) Mala prohibita
C. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY
SPECIAL LAWS
1. TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OF
SPECIAL LAW IS MALUM PROHIBITUM OR
MALUM IN SE
2. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS:
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
3. DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
SPECIAL LAWS
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER :
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the
provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are
or in the future may be punishable under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this
Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such
laws, unless the latter should specially provide
the contrary.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø Dolo is not required in crimes punished by
special laws because these crimes are mala
prohibita.
Ø In those crimes punished by special laws, the
act alone irrespective of its motives,
constitutes the offense.
Ø Good faith and absence of criminal
intent are not valid defenses in crimes
punished by special laws
MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA
Mala in se
Ø an act, by its very nature, is inherently
and morally wrong;
Ø it should be done with criminal intent
Malum prohibitum
Ø An act is wrong only because there is a
law punishing it.
Ø It is enough that the prohibited act was
voluntarily committed and need not be
committed with malice or criminal intent
to be punishable.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)
Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law.
One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is
a malum prohibitum or malum in se.
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires
proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisely
because the constitutive crimes are mala in se
the element of mens rea must be proven in a
prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the
amended information alleges that the crime of
plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully and
criminally.” It thus alleges guilt knowledge on the
part of the petitioner.
Ø While intentional felonies are always mala in
se, it does not follow that prohibited acts
done in violation of special laws are
always mala prohibita.
Ø Even if the crime is punished under a special
law, if the act punished is one which is
inherently wrong, the same is malum in
se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is
the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
Ø Likewise when the special laws require that
the punished act be committed knowingly
and willfully, criminal intent is required
to be proved before criminal liability may
arise.
1. TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OF
SPECIAL LAW IS MALUM PROHIBITUM OR
MALUM IN SE
1) Analyze the violation:
Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting
it or punishing it as such?
If you remove the law, will the act still be
wrong?
2) If the working of the law punishing the
crime uses the word “willfully,” then
malice must be proven.
2008 Page 11 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

Where malice is a factor, good faith is a 2. People vs. Rodriguez (1960),

defense.
3) In violation of special law, the act
constituting the crime is a prohibited
act.
Therefore, culpa is not a basis of liability,
unless the special law punishes an omission.
TIP:
When given a problem, take note if the crime is a
violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special
law.
Ø It was held that a violation of a special law
can never absorb a crime punishable
under the Revised Penal Code, because
violations of the Revised Penal Code are more
serious than a violation of a special law.
Ø But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can
absorb a crime punishable by a special
law if it is a necessary ingredient of the
crime in the Code.
Ø But do not think that when a crime is
punished outside of the Revised Penal Code,
it is already a special law.

2. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: 3. People vs. Martinada.

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
Ø The crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala
Ø Offenses punishable under special laws are prohibitum but a modification of the
crime of theft of large cattle.
not subject to the provisions of the RPC.
Ø So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing
cattle-rustling, is not a special law.
Ø The RPC shall be supplementary to special
laws, unless the latter should specially Ø It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the
provide the contrary (Art. 10, RPC) course of cattle rustling, murder was
committed, the offender cannot be
prosecuted for murder.
Ø Article 10 is the consequence of the legal
• Murder would be a qualifying
requirement that one must distinguish
circumstance in the crime of qualified
those punished under special laws and those
cattle rustling18.
under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to
Article 10, observe the distinction.

Ø When Applied?
3. DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
• As a supplement to the special law, or
CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
• simply correlate the violated special law,
if needed to avoid an injustice. SPECIAL LAWS

Ø If no justice would result, do not give a. As To Moral Trait Of The Offender

suppletory application of the Revised Penal
Code to that of the special law. MALA IN SE MALUM
PROHIBITUM
1. Ladonga vs. People, 451 SCRA 673 o The moral trait of the o The moral trait of
offender is the offender is
Ø The second clause (of Art. 10) contains the considered. not considered;
soul of the article. o This is why liability o it is enough that
Ø The main idea and purpose of the article is would only arise when the prohibited act
embodied in the provision that the "code there is dolo or culpa was voluntarily
shall be supplementary" to special laws, in the commission of done.
unless the latter should specifically provide the punishable act.
the contrary.

For Example: b. As To Use Of Good Faith As Defense

• A special law punishes a certain act as a In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
crime. Code,
• The special law is silent as to the civil
liability of one who violates the same.
• May the court pronounce that a MALA IN SE MALUM PROHIBITUM
person is civilly liable to the offended o Good faith or lack o In crimes
party, considering that the special of criminal intent punished under
law is silent on this point? is a valid defense; special laws, good
◦ Yes. Article 100 states that every unless the crime faith is not a
person criminally liable for a felony is is the result of defense.
also civilly liable. culpa.
◦ That article shall be applied
suppletorily to avoid an injustice that
would be caused to the private c. As To Degree Of Accomplishment Of
offended party, if he would not be The Crime
indemnified for the damages or
injuries sustained by him. MALA IN SE MALUM PROHIBITUM
o the degree of o the act gives rise to

18
Sec. 8, PD no. 533

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 12 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

accomplishment of a crime only when 2. Taer v. CA (1990)

the crime is taken it is consummated;
into account in Ø The offense for which Taer is accused is
punishing the o there are no covered by-Articles 308, 309, and 310, as
offender; attempted or amended by "The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law
frustrated stages, of 1974." The penalty imposed on the
o thus, there are unless the special principal for the crime of cattle rustling is:
attempted, law expressly xxxxxxxxx
frustrated and penalizes a mere Ø Inasmuch as Taer's culpability is only that
consummated attempt or of an accessory after the fact, under Art.
stages in the frustration of the 53 of the Revised Penal Code, the
commission of the crime. penalty lower by two degrees than that
crime. prescribed by law for the consummated
felony shall be imposed.

d. As To Mitigating And Aggravating

Circumstances

MALA IN SE MALUM PROHIBITUM

o Mitigating and o Mitigating and
aggravating aggravating
circumstances are circumstances are
taken into not taken into
account since the account in
moral trait of the imposing the
offender is penalty.

Ø The amendments of Presidential Decree

No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) by Republic Act NO. 7659:
• Adopted the scale of penalties in the
Revised Penal Code,
• Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances can now be
considered in imposing penalties.
• Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not
expressly prohibit the suppletory
application of the Revised Penal Code.
• The stages of the commission of
felonies will also apply since
suppletory application is now
allowed.

1. People v. Simon (1994)

Ø For cases of Illegal possession of firearms,
• although Presidential Decree No. 1866 is
a special law,
• the penalties therein were taken from the
Revised Penal Code,
• hence the rules in said Code for
graduating by degrees or
determining the proper period should
be applied.

e. As To Degree Of Participation

MALA IN SE MALUM
PROHIBITUM
o When there is more o The degree of
than one offender, participation of
o the degree of the offenders is
participation of each not considered.
in the commission of o All who
the crime is taken perpetrated the
into account in prohibited act are
imposing the penalized to the
penalty; same extent.
o thus, offenders are o There is no
classified as principal or
principal, accomplice accessory to
and accessory. consider.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 13 of 62


III. Fundamental Principles
Criminal Liability
This section will dissect each instance
where criminal liability may be incurred,
mainly through:
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
B. OMISSION
C. TRANSFERRED INTENT
D. LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS
AND INCOMPLETE CRIMES
E. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY
F. LIABILITY FOR PLURAL CRIMES
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1. HOW IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY INCURRED?
Ø Since in Art. 3, a felony is an act or omission
punishable by law, particularly the Revised
Penal Code,
• it follows that whoever commits a
felony incurs criminal liability
• it is important to note that if the
criminal liability arises from an
omission
◦ such as misprision of treason or
◦ abandonment of helpless persons,
• there must be a law requiring the
performance of such act.
Ø In par.1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word
“felony,” that whoever commits a felony
incurs criminal liability.
• A felony may arise not only when it is
intended, but also when it is the product
of criminal negligence.
Ø What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4
confusing is the addition of the qualifier
“although the wrongful act be different from
what he intended.” This is called
transferred intent.
Ø The 2nd par. of Art. 4 makes a person liable
even if the accomplishment of his crime is
inherently impossible.
Ø Art. 6 also provides liability for
incomplete elements of a crime.
Ø There are certain crimes which provide
specific liability for conspiring to and
proposing the commission of certain acts,
the principle behind this can be found in Art.
8.
Ø Plural crimes on the other hand
discussed under Art. 48.
100% UP LAW UP
CRIMINAL LAW
Of 2. THERE IS NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW
PUNISHING IT
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with
acts which should be repressed but which
are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which
is not punishable by law, it shall render the
proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe
that said act should be made the subject of
legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.
Article 5 covers two situations:
1. The court cannot convict the accused because
the acts do not constitute a crime.
a. The proper judgment is acquittal.
b. The court is mandated to report to the
Chief Executive that said act be made
subject of penal legislation and why.
2. Where the court finds the penalty
prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime,
a. the judge should impose the law.
b. The most that he could do is recommend
to the Chief Executive to grant executive
clemency.
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
Ø For most felonies, criminal liability exists
from the concurrence of the mens rea and
the actus reus.
Illustration:
A and B are supposed to meet in A’s home but
when B arrived A was not home. B received an
the
SMS from A telling the former to get the house
key from under the doormat. B lets himself in
and saw an IPOD on the table. B took the IPOD.
What is B’s criminal liability?
B is liable only for theft because the act and the
intent occurred only in the act of taking, there
was no malicious intent in the act of letting
himself in.
are
Ø Criminal liability for some felonies, arises only
upon a specific resulting harm
• In homicide and its qualified forms, if the
victim does not die the accused may be
liable only for physical injuries.
BAROPS 2008 Page 14 of 62

• Another example is the crime of estafa
wherein the victim, for criminal liability to
arise, must incur damage.
Ø It was discussed in the previous section that
CRIMINAL INTENT and CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE are elements for criminal
liability.
Ø Article 4, paragraph 1 deals with
CAUSATION as the third means of
determining criminal liability.
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957)
Proximate cause is
that cause,
which sets into motion other causes
and which unbroken by any efficient
supervening cause,
produces a felony and
without which such felony
could not have resulted.
Ø As a general rule, the offender is
criminally liable for all the consequences
of his felonious act,
• although not intended,
• if the felonious act is the proximate
cause of the felony or resulting
felony.
Proximate v. Immediate v. Remote
Illustrations:
#1
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles
along Ortigas Ave. A’s car was ahead, followed by
those of B, C, D, and E. When A’s car reached the
intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, the
traffic light turned red so A immediately stepped
on his break, followed by B, C, and D. However,
E was not aware that the traffic light had turned
to red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the
car of C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B
hit the car of A.
In this case, the immediate cause of the
damage to the car of A is the car of B, but that is
not the proximate cause.
The proximate cause is the car of E
because it was the care of E which sets into
motion the cars to bump into each other.
#2
In one case, A and B, who are brothers-in-law,
had a quarrel. At the height of their quarrel, A
shot B with an airgun. B was hit at the stomach,
which bled profusely. When A saw this, he put B
on the bed and told him not to leave because he
will call a doctor.
While A was away, B rose from the bed, went
into the kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut
his throat. The doctor arrived and said that the
wound in the stomach is only superficial; only
that it is a bleeder, but the doctor could no
longer save him because B’s throat was already
cut. Eventually, B died. A was prosecuted for
manslaughter.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
The Supreme Court rationalized that what
made B cut his throat, in the absence of evidence
that he wanted to commit suicide, is the belief
that sooner or later, he would die out of the
wound inflicted by A. Because of that belief, he
decided to shorten the agony by cutting his
throat.
That belief would not be engendered in his
mind were it not because of the profuse bleeding
from his wound.
Now, that profusely bleeding wound would not
have been there, were it not for the wound
inflicted by A.
As a result, A was convicted for manslaughter.
1. US vs. Valdez (1921),
Facts: The deceased is a member of the crew of a
vessel. Accused is in charge of the crewmembers
engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel.
Because the offended party was slow in his
work, the accused shouted at him. The offended
party replied that they would be better if he
would not insult them. The accused resented this,
and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim,
with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him.
The victim believing himself to be in
immediate peril threw himself into the
water. The victim died of drowning.
The accused was prosecuted for homicide.
His contention that his liability should be only for
grave threats since he did not even stab the
victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this
can be considered as a supervening cause.
Held: The deceased, in throwing himself into the
river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of
self-preservation, and was in no sense legally
responsible for his own death. As to him, it was
but the exercise of a choice between two
evils, and any reasonable person under the
same circumstance might have done the same.
The accused must, therefore, be considered the
author of the death of the victim.
Ø This case illustrates that proximate cause
does not require that the offender needs to
actually touch the body of the offended party.
Ø It is enough that the offender generated
in the mind of the offended party the
belief that made him risk himself.
2. Urbano vs. IAC (1988)
Facts: A and B had a quarrel and started hacking
each other. B was wounded at the back.
Cooler heads intervened and they were
separated. Somehow, their differences were
patched up. A agreed to shoulder all the
expenses for the treatment of the wound of B,
and to pay him also whatever loss of income B
may have suffered. B, on the other hand, signed
forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition,
he withdrew the complaint that he filed against
A.
After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic,
the doctor pronounced that the wound was
already healed.
Thereafter, B went back to his farm. Two
months later, B came home and was chilling.
Before midnight, he died out of tetanus
poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of
homicide against A.
2008 Page 15 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

Held: The Supreme Court held that A is not the appellant and the injuries sustained by the
liable. It took into account the incubation period victim.
of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence were presented
that tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. It does not constitute efficient
That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus intervening cause.
poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he
would not have lasted two months. The proximate cause of the death of the
What brought about the tetanus to infect deceased is the shooting by the appellant.
his body was his work in the farm using his It is settled that anyone inflicting injuries
bare hands. is responsible for all the consequences of
Because of this, the Supreme Court said that his criminal act such as death that
the act of B working in his farm where the soil is supervenes in consequence of the injuries.
filthy, using is own hands, is an efficient The fact that the injured did not receive
supervening cause which relieves A of any proper medical attendance would not affect
liability for the death of B. A, if at all, is only appellant's criminal responsibility.
liable for the physical injuries inflicted upon B. The rule is founded on the practical policy of
closing to the wrongdoer a convenient avenue of
3. People v. Enguito (2000) escape from the just consequences of his
Facts: A was mauled by B. The latter took off by wrongful act. If the rule were otherwise, many
riding a motorela which contained other criminals could avoid just accounting for their
passengers. A followed behind in another vehicle acts by merely establishing a doubt as to the
with the intent of reporting the incident to the immediate cause of death.
police. A forced his vehicle to bump the motorela
a few times , which prompted B to jump. The
force of the jump caused the motorela to lose B. OMISSION
balance thereby flipping to its left side and
injuring the other passengers. Omission is the inaction, the failure to
A contends that he could not be guilty of any perform a positive duty which he is bound to
physical injuries suffered by the other passengers do. There must be a law requiring the doing or
because the direct cause of the motorela turning performing of an act.
on its left side was the act of the driver in guiding
the vehicle while the proximate cause is the
thrust which resulted when B suddenly jumped C. TRANSFERRED INTENT
out of the motorela.
Ø Aberration Ictus
Held: The argument is devoid of merit. A
Ø Error in Personae
disregarded the basic rule in criminal law that a
Ø Praeter Intentionem
person is responsible for all the
consequences of his unlawful or wrongful
act although such consequences were Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be
different from those which he originally incurred:
intended. 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
Even if it be assumed that the real intention the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
of accused-appellant was to surrender the victim
to the police for mauling him, his act of
pursuing the victim, who was a passenger of
the motorela, resulted in the injuries of the
driver and the other passenger of the
motorela.
Upon seeing that B was trying to jump out of
the motorela, A should have known that by
closely following, pushing and bumping the
motorela, he could injure the passengers, which
is what happened in this case. Instead, he
persisted resulting in the motorela turning on its
side and in the opposite direction
The act of accused-appellant in relentlessly
pursuing the motorela is a manifestation of his
intention to perpetrate the crime.

4. People v. Acuram (2000)

Appellant blames the death of the victim on
the lack of prompt and proper medical attention
given.
He insists that the delay in giving proper
medical attendance to the victim constitutes an
efficient intervening cause which exempts him
from criminal responsibility.

Held: The attending doctors are not liable for the

death of the victim.
The perceived delay in giving medical
treatment to the victim does not break at all the
causal connection between the wrongful act of

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 16 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from
that intended. —
In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the
following rules shall be observed:

1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the
offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed
by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for
the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

KIND DEFINITION ILLUSTRATION LEGAL EFFECT

1. Aberratio Ictus Person directed the blow
at an intended victim, but
In aberratio ictus, the because of poor aim, that
intended victim as well as blow landed on someone
the actual victim are both else.
at the scene of the crime.
Distinguish this from
error in personae, where
the victim actually
received the blow, but he
was mistaken for another
who was not at the scene
of the crime.
The distinction is
important because the
legal effects are not
the same.
4. Error In Personae A mistake in identity.
It was the actual
victim upon whom the
blow was directed, but
he was not really the
intended victim.
A shot at B. You have a complex crime,
However, because of unless the resulting
poor aim, it was not consequence is not a grave or
B who was hit but C. less grave felony. You have a
There is only one single act as against the
single act—the act of intended victim and also
firing at B. giving rise to another felony
as against the actual victim.,
In so far as B is there is no intent to kill.
concerned, the crime
at least is attempted In other words, aberratio
homicide or ictus, generally gives rise to
attempted murder. a complex crime. This being
so, the penalty for the more
As far as the third serious crime is imposed in the
party C is concerned, maximum period. This is the
if C were killed, the legal effect.
crime is homicide. If
C was only wounded, The only time when aberratio
the crime is only ictus may not result in a
physical injuries. You complex crime is when one of
cannot have the resulting felonies is a light
attempted or felony.
frustrated homicide
or murder as far as C
is concerned,
because as far as he
is concerned, there is
no intent to kill.
serious or slight.
A thought of killing Article 49 applies only in a
B. He positioned case of error in personae
himself at one and not in a case of
corner where B aberratio ictus.
usually passes.
When a figure When the crime intended is
resembling B was more serious than the crime
approaching, A hid actually committed or vice
and when that versa:
figure was near
him, he suddenly o whichever crime
hit him with a carries the lesser
piece of wood on penalty, that penalty will
the nape, killing be the one imposed,
him. But it turned whatever the crime the
out that it was his offender is prosecuted
own father. under.
The crime
committed is o But it will be imposed in
parricide, although the maximum period.
what was intended
was homicide. o In any event, the
Article 49, offender is prosecuted
therefore, will for the crime
apply because out committed not for the
of a mistake in crime intended.
identity, a crime

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 17 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

was committed Error in personae is

different from that mitigating if the crime
which was committed is:
intended. o Different and
A will be o Less serious
prosecuted for from that which was
parricide but his intended.
penalty will be for
homicide in its
maximum period.

In another
instance, A
thought of killing
B. Instead of B, C
passed. A thought
that he was B, so
he hit C on the
neck, killing the
latter.
Just the same the
crime intended to
be committed is
homicide and what
was committed is
actually homicide.
Article 49 does not
apply. Here, error
in personae is of
no effect.
5. Praeter The result is greater The accused Praeter intentionem is
Intentionem than what was entered the store mitigating, particularly
intended of a Chinese covered by paragraph 3 of
couple, to commit Article 13. In order however,
In Ramos-Andan v. robbery. They that the situation may
People (2006) the hogtied the qualify as praeter
court said that the Chinaman and his intentionem, there must be a
mitigating wife. Because the notable disparity between
circumstance of lack of wife was so the means employed and the
intention to commit so talkative, one of resulting felony. If there is
grave a wrong may the offenders got a no disparity between the
not be availed of when pan de sal and means employed by the
fraud is employed. placed it in her offender and the resulting
mouth. But felony, this circumstance
because the cannot be availed of.
woman was trying
to wiggle from the It cannot be a case of
bondage, the pan praeter intentionem because
de sal slipped the intention of a person is
through her determined by the means
throat. She died resorted to by him in
because of committing the crime.
suffocation. The
offenders were If the resulting felony can be
convicted for foreseen or anticipated from
robbery with the means employed, the
homicide because circumstance of praeter
there was a intentionem does not apply.
resulting death,
although their
intention was only
to rob. However,
There was really
no intention to
bring about the
killing, because it
was the pan de sal
that they put into
the mouth. Had it
been a piece of
rag, it would be
different. The SC
gave the offenders

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 18 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

the benefit of
praeter
intentionem as a
mitigating
circumstance. The
means employed
is not capable of
producing death
if only the
woman chewed
the pan de sal.

A man raped a
young girl. The
young girl was
shouting so the
man placed his
hand on the
mouth and nose of
the victim. He
found out later
that the victim
was already dead;
she died of
suffocation. The
offender begged
that he had no
intention of killing
the girl and that
his only intention
was to prevent her
from shouting.
The Supreme
Court rejected
the plea saying
that a person
who is
suffocated may
eventually die.
The offender was
prosecuted for the
serious crime of
rape with homicide
and was not given
the benefit of
paragraph 3 of
Article 13.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 19 of 62


C. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Under par. 2, Article 4
Ø An impossible crime is an act which would be
an offense only against person or
property
• were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or
• on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
Ø Liability under this paragraph is incurred only
if:
• the offender has actually performed the
act against the person or property of the
intended victim and
• such act does not constitute another
felony.
Example:
The dead victim was shot to make it appear that
he was trying to escape, the accused is not a
principal to an impossible crime but an accessory
to the killing committed by the principal.
Modified Concept of impossible crime
Intod vs. CA, et. al., 285 SCRA 52.
In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms
and with intent to kill, went to the intended
victim’s house and after having pinpointed the
latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the
said room with bullets, thinking that the intended
victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in
the evening. It so happened that the intended
victim did not come home on that evening and so
was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually
the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the
trial court for attempted murder. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme
Court modified the same and held the petitioner
liable only for the so-called impossible crime. As
a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
imprisonment of only six months of arresto
mayor for the felonious act he committed with
intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to
the intended victim’s house.
Ø Somehow, the decision depreciated the
seriousness of the act committed,
considering the lawlessness by which the
culprits carried out the intended crime.
Ø Some asked questions:
• Was it really the impossibility of
accomplishing the killing that brought
about its non-accomplishment?
• Was it not purely accidental that the
intended victim did not come home that
evening and, thus, unknown to the
culprits, she was not in her bedroom at
the time it was shot and riddled with
bullets?
• Suppose, instead of using firearms, the
culprits set fire on the intended victim’s
house, believing that she was there when
in fact she was not, would the criminal
liability be for an impossible crime?
Ø Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude
was that the provision of the Revised Penal
Code on impossible crime would only
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
apply when the wrongful act, which would
have constituted a crime against persons or
property, could not and did not constitute
another felony.
Ø Otherwise, if such act constituted any other
felony although different from what the
offender intended, the criminal liability
should be for such other felony and not
for an impossible crime.
Ø The attitude was so because Article 4 of
the Code provides two situations where
criminal liability shall be incurred.
Ø Because criminal liability for impossible crime
presupposes that no felony resulted form the
wrongful act done, the penalty is fixed at
arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to
P500.00, depending on the “social
danger and degree of criminality shown
by the offender”(Article 59), regardless of
whether the wrongful act was an impossible
crime against persons or against property.
Ø In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the
culprits caused destruction to the house of
the intended victim; this felonious act
negates the idea of an impossible crime.
• But whether we agree or not, the
Supreme Court has spoken, we have to
respect its ruling.
D. LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS
1. CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 6
2. DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
3. ATTEMPT AND FRUSTRATION
4. FACTORS DETERMINING STAGES OF
EXECUTION
1. CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 6
Art. 6. Consummated felonies, as well as
those which are frustrated and attempted, are
punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present;
and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
A. Consummated Felony
Ø When all the elements necessary for its
execution are present.
Ø The felony is produced
B. Frustrated Felony
2008 Page 20 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

Ø When the offender performs all the acts of

execution; Example: If Ernie stabbed Burt from
Ø All the acts performed would produce behind, the nature of his act indicated the
the felony as a consequence; intent to kill because of the treachery
Ø The felony is not produced; employed—he is liable for any of the
Ø By reason of causes independent of the stages of murder depending on the actual
will of the perpetrator. result:
a.If Burt dies, the crime is
C. Attempted Felony consummated;
b.If Burt was stabbed in a critical
Ø When the offender commences the body part but managed to
commission of a felony directly by overt survive due to timely medical
acts; assistance, the crime is
Ø He does not perform all the acts of frustrated;
execution which should produce the felony; c. If Ernie lunged at Burt from
Ø By reason of some cause or accident other behind but was only able to
than his own spontaneous desistance; graze Burt’s arm because of the
latter’s reflex, the crime is an
2. DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME attempt.

Ø Overt act
• Are external acts which if allowed to
continue its natural course would definitely
result into a felony.
• It is the start of criminal liability
because the offender has commenced the
commission of an offense with overt acts.
Ø Development of a crime
3. ATTEMPT AND FRUSTRATION
Ø The difference between the attempted stage
and the frustrated stage lies on
• whether the offender has performed
• all the acts of execution
• for the accomplishment of a felony.

1. Internal acts – intent and plans; usually Attempted Frustrated

not punishable ACTS PERFORMED: ACTS PERFORMED:

Example: Ernie plans to kill Burt Overt acts of All acts of execution
execution are started are finished
2. External acts
BUT BUT
a. Preparatory Acts –
o acts tending toward the crime Not all acts of Crime sought to be
o ordinarily not punished except execution are committed is not
when considered by law as present achieved
independent crimes (Art. 304 –
possession of picklocks)
o these acts do not yet WHY: WHY:
constitute even the first stage
of the acts of execution Due to reasons other Due to intervening
o intent not yet disclosed than the causes independent of
spontaneous the will of the
Example: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get desistance of the perpetrator
a perpetrator
knife
POSITION IN THE POSITION IN THE
b. Acts of Execution TIMELINE: TIMELINE:
o acts directly connected to the
crime Offender still in Offender is already in
o Punishable under the RPC subjective phase the objective phase
o usually overt acts with a because he still has because all acts of
logical relation to a particular control of his acts execution are already
concrete offense present and the cause
of its non-
Example: Ernie stabs Burt accomplishment is
other than the
Ø Indeterminate offense offender’s will

• It is one where the purpose of the Attempted Stage

offender in performing an act is not
certain. Its nature in relation to its
Elements:
objective is ambiguous.
1.The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
• The intention of the accused must be
2.He does not perform all the acts of execution
viewed from
which should produce the felony;
◦ the nature of the acts executed by
3.The offender’s act is not stopped by his own
him, and
spontaneous desistance;
◦ not from his admission.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 21 of 62


4.The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Ø Marks the commencement of the subjective
phase
• Subjective phase – that portion of the
acts constituting a crime,
◦ starting from the point where the
offender begins the commission of
the crime
◦ to that point where he still has
control over his acts including
their (acts) natural course
Ø If between those two points
• the offender is stopped
• by reason of any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance,
◦ the subjective phase has not
been passed and it is an attempt.
Ø If he is not stopped but continues until he
performs the last act, it is either
consummated or frustrated.
Example: The subjective phase for Ernie was
from the moment he swung his arm to stab Burt
up until he finished his stroke. This is the interim
where he still has control of his actions
Ø Desistance
• It is the act which will negate criminal
liability when made during the
attempted stage.
• Desistance is true only in the
attempted stage of the felony. If
under the definition of the felony, the act
done is already in the frustrated stage,
no amount of desistance will negate
criminal liability.
• The spontaneous desistance of the
offender negates only the attempted
stage
◦ but not necessarily all criminal
liability.
• Even though there was desistance on the
part of the offender, if the desistance
was made when acts done by him
already resulted to a felony,
◦ that offender will still be criminally
liable for the felony brought about his
act.
◦ What is negated is only the
attempted stage, but there may be
other felonies constituting his act.
Example: Supposing Ernie (because he thought
killing Burt was too easy a revenge) desisted
mid-stroke. However, Burt felt the movement
and turned. He was so shocked that he suddenly
backed away and tripped over his own feet. As
Burt went down, his left eye caught the sharp
corner of a table causing a puncture on his
eyeball rendering him completely blind on the left
side.
a. Ernie would not be liable for
attempted murder because of his
desistance (regardless of his reason
for doing so)
b.His liability would now be for serious
physical injuries because his act of
raising the knife was the proximate
cause for Burt losing an eye.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø In the attempted stage, the definition uses
the word “directly.”
• This is significant.
Ø In the attempted stage,
• the acts so far performed may already be
a crime or
• it may just be an ingredient of another
crime.
• The word “directly” emphasizes the
requirement that the attempted felony
is that which is
◦ directly linked to the overt act
performed by the offender,
◦ not the felony he has in his mind.
Ø In criminal law, you are not allowed to
speculate, not to imagine what crime is
intended, but apply the provisions of the law
to the facts given.
People v. Lamahang (1935)
The accused was arrested while he was detaching
some of the wood panels of a store. He was
already able to detach two panels. To a
layman, the only conclusion that will come to
your mind is that this fellow started to enter the
store to steal something. He would not be there
just to sleep there. But in criminal law, since
the act of removing the panel indicates only at
most the intention to enter, he can only be
prosecuted for trespass. The removal of the
paneling is just an attempt to trespass, not an
attempt to rob. Although Lamahang was
prosecuted for attempted robbery, the Supreme
Court held it is only attempted trespass because
that is the crime that can be directly linked to his
act of removing the wood panel.
Ø There are some acts which are
ingredients of a certain crime, but which
are, by themselves, already criminal
offenses.
People v. Campuhan (2000)
Facts: The mother of the 4-year-old victim
caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of
almost raping her daughter. The hymen of the
victim was still intact but since in previous Orita
ruling, entry into labia is considered rape even
without rupture of hymen and full penetration is
not necessary, question arises whether what
transpired was attempted or consummated rape.
Held: Attempted rape only. Mere
touching of external genitalia by the penis is
already rape. However, touching should be
understood as inherently part of entry of penis
into labia and not mere touching of the
pudendum. There must be clear and convincing
proof that the penis indeed touched the labia and
slid into the female organ and NOT MERELY
STROKED THE EXTERNAL SURFACE. Some
degree of penetration beneath the surface must
be achieved and the labia major must be
entered. Prosecution did not prove that the
Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate victim’s
vagina because the kneeling position of the
accused obstructed the mother’s view of the
alleged sexual contact. The testimony of the
victim herself claimed that penis grazed but did
not penetrate her organ.
There was only a shelling of the castle but
no bombardment of the drawbridge ye (I
2008 Page 22 of 62

suppose, this, if nothing else, will make you
remember this case).
Frustrated Stage
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
Ø The end of the subjective phase and the
beginning of the objective phase
• Objective phase – the result of the acts
of execution, that is, the accomplishment
of the crime
Ø If the subjective and objective phases are
present, there is a consummated felony.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF A
FRUSTRATED STAGE
1. RAPE
2. ARSON
3. BRIBERY
4. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
5. ADULTERY
6. PHYSICAL INJURIES
7. THEFT
1. RAPE
Ø The essence of the crime is carnal
knowledge.
Ø No matter what the offender may do to
accomplish a penetration,
• if there was no penetration yet, it cannot
be said that the offender has performed
all the acts of execution.
• We can only say that the offender in rape
has performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration.
Ø Once there is penetration already,
• no matter how slight, the offense is
consummated.
• For this reason, rape admits only of
the attempted and consummated
stages, no frustrated stage. This was
the ruling in the case of People vs.
Orita (see the previously cited case
of People v. Campuhan for the most
recent doctrine on penetration).
2. ARSON
Ø One cannot say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed all the
acts of execution which could produce the
destruction of the premises through the use
of fire,
• unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
• If it has not begun to burn, that means
that the offender has yet to perform all
the acts of execution. On the other hand,
the moment it begins to burn, the crime
is consummated.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
• There is no middle stage between being
not burned and burned.
3. BRIBERY
Ø The manner of committing the crime requires
• the meeting of the minds between
the giver and the receiver.
• If there is a meeting of the minds, there
is consummated bribery or consummated
corruption.
• If there is none, it is only attempted.
• This leaves out the frustrated stage
because of the manner of committing the
crime.
4. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Ø Same with bribery.
5. ADULTERY
Ø This requires the sexual contact two
participants.
• If that link is there, the crime is
consummated;
• if such link is absent, there is only an
attempted adultery.
6. PHYSICAL INJURIES
Ø Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
physical injuries is penalized on the basis of
the gravity of the injuries. Actually, there is
no simple crime of physical injuries. You have
to categorize because there are specific
articles that apply whether the physical
injuries are serious, less serious or slight.
Ø If you merely say physical injuries, you would
not know which article to apply.
Ø This being so, you could not punish the
attempted or frustrated stage because
• you do not know what crime of physical
injuries was committed.
• Physical injuries are punished by the
result.
Example: When Burt lost his left eye, Ernie’s
liability was automatically for serious physical
injuries. He would have no liability if the eye was
intact. If the eye suffered damage due to the
impact, the crime would not be frustrated nor
attempted physical injuries because the RPC still
considers this as a consummated physical injury,
its gravity depending on the duration that it took
for the damage to heal.
7. THEFT
Ø There is no crime of frustrated theft.
Ø Once there is unlawful taking, theft is
consummated.
• Either the thing was taken or not.
Ø Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC19.
4. FACTORS IN DETERMINING THE STAGE
OF
EXECUTION OF A FELONY
1. The manner of committing the crime;
2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.
1919
Valenzuela v. People
2008 Page 23 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

TIP: M.E.N. capable of producing a felony as a

consequence.
• Hence, the general rule is that there
Ø These three factors are helpful in trying to
must be a fatal injury inflicted,
pinpoint whether the crime is still in its
because it is only then that death will
attempted, frustrated or consummated stage.
follow.

1. The Manner of Committing the Crime

Ø Under the RPC, some crimes take two to

commit the crime like adultery.

• In bribery, the manner of committing the

crime requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
When the giver delivers the money to the
supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act done
by the giver is an attempt.

Ø There are instances where an intended

felony could already result from the acts
of execution already done.
• Because of this, the offender is
deemed to have performed all the
acts of execution ONLY by the
existence of the result.
Ø Without the resulting felony, there is no way
of determining whether the offender has
already performed all the acts of execution or
not like rape and arson.
Ø Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
pivotal in determining the end of the
subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
performs the act in the manner provided
for in the law, HE HAS ALREADY DEEMED
TO HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR
ITS EXECUTION.

2. The Elements of the Crime

Ø Along with the manner of execution, there

are crimes wherein the existence of certain
elements becomes the factor in determining
its consummation.
• In the crime of estafa, the element of
damage is essential before the crime
could be consummated. If there is no
damage, even if the offender succeeded
in carting away the personal property
involved, estafa cannot be considered as
consummated.
• On the other hand, if it were a crime of
theft, damage or intent to cause damage
is not an element of theft. What is
necessary only is intent to gain, not
even gain is important.
• In the crime of abduction, the crucial
element is the taking away of the
woman with lewd designs.

3. The Nature of the Crime Itself

Ø In crimes involving the taking of human

life—parricide, homicide, and murder—
• in the definition of the frustrated stage,
◦ it is indispensable that the victim
be mortally wounded.
Ø Under the definition of the frustrated
stage, to consider the offender as having
performed all the acts of execution, the acts
already done by him must produce or be

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 24 of 62


E. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Ø Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
are two different acts or felonies.
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony are not punishable
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefore.
CRIMINAL LAW
PROPOSAL:
Proposal is true only up to the point where the
party to whom the proposal was made has NOT
yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal
was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is
unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two
parties.
RATIONALE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit
a crime are only preparatory acts and the law
regards them as innocent or at least permissible
except in rare and exceptional cases.

TWO STAGE HOW LEGAL ILLUSTRATION

CONCEPTS INCURRED REQUIREMENTS
OF
CONSPIRACY
AS A CRIME PREPARATORY Mere The RPC must specifically A, B, C and D came to an
ACTS agreement punish the act of conspiring agreement to commit
(and proposing) rebellion. Their agreement
was to bring about the
Treason, rebellion, sedition rebellion on a certain date.
and coup d’ etat are the only Even if none of them has
crimes where the conspiracy performed the act of
and proposal to commit them rebellion, there is already
are punishable criminal liability arising
from the conspiracy to
The act MUST NOT BE commit the rebellion. But if
ACCOMPLISHED, else the anyone of them has
conspiracy is obliterated and committed the overt act of
the ACT ITSELF IS PUNISHED. rebellion, the crime of all is
no longer conspiracy but
QUANTUM OF PROOF: rebellion itself. This
Conspiracy as a crime must be subsists even though the
established beyond reasonable other co-conspirator does
doubt not know that one of them
had already done the act of
rebellion.
AS A EXECUTORY Commission The participants acted in Three persons plan to rob a
BASIS FOR ACTS of overt act concert or simultaneously or bank.
LIABILITY IN ANY WAY which is For as long as the
indicative of a meeting of the conspirators merely
minds towards a common entered the bank there is
criminal goal or criminal no crime yet.
objective. But when one of them
draws a gun and
The act of meeting together is disarms the security
not necessary as long as a guard, all of them shall be
common objective can be held liable, unless a
discerned from the overt acts.
co-conspirator was absent
THE ACT MUST BE from the scene of the
ACCOMPLISHED, if there is crime or
only conspiracy or proposal,
THERE IS NO CRIME TO BE he showed up, but he
PUNISHED. tried to prevent the
commission of the
QUANTUM OF PROOF: crime.
Reasonably inferred from the
acts of the offenders when
such acts disclose or show a
common pursuit of the
criminal objective. This was
the ruling in People vs.
Pinto.

1) People vs. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489,

It must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or
speculations.

2) People v. Bulan, 2005

The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the
same quantum of evidence as the felony charged
itself although, proof of previous agreement
among the malefactors to commit the crime is
not essential to prove conspiracy. It is not
necessary to show that all the conspirators
actually hit and killed the victim; what is
primordial is that all the participants performed

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 25 of 62


specific acts with such closeness and coordination
as to indicate a common purpose or design to
bring out the victim’s death.
3) People v. Pangilinan,
Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy need not be direct but may be
inferred from the conduct of the parties, their
joint purpose, community of interest and in the
mode and manner of commission of the offense.
The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
a. Not all those present at the crime scene will
be considered conspirators;
b. Only those who participated in the criminal
acts during the commission of the crime will
be considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
4) Taer vs. CA, 186 SCRA 5980,
Mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or
approval of the act, without cooperation at
least, agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute a conspiracy. There
must be an intentional participation in the crime
with a view to further the common felonious
objective.
5) A conspiracy is possible even when
participants are not known to each other.
When several persons who do not know each
other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of
one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of
injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be
liable for the consequences. Do not think that
participants are always known to each other.
6) The Supreme Court has ruled that one
who desisted is not criminally liable. As
pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the
attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only
a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the
preparatory stage..
Illustrations:
A thought of having her husband killed because
the latter was maltreating her. She hired some
persons to kill him and pointed at her husband.
The goons got hold of her husband and started
mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted
for them to stop but the goons continued.
The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for
parricide. But the Supreme Court said that
there was desistance so she is not criminally
liable.
7) Do not search for an agreement among
the participants. If they acted simultaneously
to bring about their common intention,
conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do
not consider the degree of participation of each
conspiracy because the act of one is the act of
all. As a general rule, they have equal
responsibility.
Illustration:
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
A, B and C have been courting the same lady for
several years. On several occasions, they even
visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of
this, A, B and C became hostile with one another.
One day, D invited the young lady and she
accepted the invitation. Eventually, the young
lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned
about this, they all stood up to leave the house of
the young lady feeling disappointed. When A
looked back at the young lady with D, he saw D
laughing menacingly. At that instance, A stabbed
D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that
conspiracy was present
8) People vs. Nierra
If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in
the commission of the crime with
insignificant or minimal acts, such co-
conspirator should be punished as an
accomplice only.
The common notion is that when there is
conspiracy involved, the participants are
punished as principals. This notion is no longer
absolute. The reason given is that penal laws
always favor a milder form of responsibility upon
and offender.
Illustration:
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver
was present during the planning. The taxi
driver agreed for the use of his cab but said,
“I will bring you there, and after committing
the robbery I will return later.” The taxi
driver brought the conspirators where the
robbery would be committed. After the robbery
was finished, he took the conspirators back to his
taxi and brought them away. It was held that
the taxi driver was liable only as an
accomplice. His cooperation was not really
indispensable. The robbers could have engaged
another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay
during the commission of the robbery. At most,
what he only extended was his cooperation.
9) Siton vs. CA,
The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible
with the idea of a free for all. There is no
definite opponent or definite intent as when a
basketball crowd beats a referee to death.
E. PLURAL CRIMES
1) PLURALITY OF CRIMES
2) KINDS OF PLURAL CRIMES
a. COMPLEX CRIMES
b. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
c. CONTINUED AND
CONTINUING CRIMES
1) PLURALITY OF CRIMES
Ø Consists in the successive execution
Ø by the same individual
Ø of different criminal acts
Ø upon any of which no conviction has yet
been declared.
Ø Philosophy behind plural crimes:
• The treatment of plural crimes as one is
to be lenient to the offender, who,
2008 Page 26 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

◦ instead of being made to suffer committed. (SPECIAL COMPLEX

distinct penalties for every resulting CRIMES)
crime
◦ is made to suffer one penalty only, c. When the offender commits continued
although crimes. (CONTINUING AND
§ it is the penalty for the most CONTINUED CRIMES)
serious one and
§ is in the maximum period. Complex Crimes

Ø If by complexing the crime, the penalty

a. NATURE OF COMPLEX CRIMES
would turn out to be higher, do not
complex anymore. b. TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
c. GENERAL RULES IN COMPLEXING
Example:
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. —
Crimes:
Murder and theft (killed with treachery, and When a single act constitutes two or more
then stole the wallet). grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for
Penalty: committing the other,
If complex:
Reclusion temporal maximum to death. the penalty for the
If treated individually: most serious crime shall be imposed, the
Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua same to be applied in its maximum
period.
Ø Complex-crime is not just a matter of
penalty, but of substance under the Ø Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2
Revised Penal Code. crimes.
Ø But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE
PLURALITY OF RECIDIVISM felonies must be
CRIMES • the result of a SINGLE ACT, or
There is no conviction There must be • an offense must be a NECESSARY MEANS
of any of the crimes conviction by final FOR COMMITTING the other.
committed. judgment of the first
or prior offense. a. NATURE OF COMPLEX CRIMES:

Ø although two or more crimes are actually

2) KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES
Ø Real or Material Plurality
• There are different crimes in law as well
as in the conscience of the offender.
• In such cases, the offender shall be
punished for each and every offense
that he committed.
Example:
A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C. There are
two crimes committed.
Ø Formal or Ideal Plurality
committed,
Ø they constitute only one crime
• in the eyes of the law as well
• as in the conscience of the offender.
Ø Even in the case where an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other,
the evil intent of the offender is only
one.
b. TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act
results in two or more grave or less grave
felonies
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an
offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.

Single Act Several Acts

Throwing a hand Submachine gun – 1. COMPOUND CRIME
grenade because of the number
of bullets released REQUISITES:
A single bullet killing Firing of the revolver
two person twice in succession 1. That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by
• There is but one criminal liability in this the offender
kind of plurality.

• Divided into 3 groups:

2. That the single acts produces
a.When the offender commits any of the
complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of the (a) 2 or more grave felonies, or
Code. (COMPLEX CRIMES) (b) 1 or more grave and 1 or more
less
b.When the law specifically fixes a single grave felonies, or
penalty for 2 or more offenses (c) 2 or more less grave felonies

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 27 of 62


Ø Light felonies produced by the same act
should be treated and punished as separate
offenses or may be absorbed by the grave
felony.
Example:
When the crime is committed by force or
violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.
Ø The basis in compounding the crime is the
act.
Ø So that when an offender
• performed more than one act,
• although similar,
• if they result in separate crimes,
◦ there is no complex crime at all,
• instead, the offender shall be prosecuted
for as many crimes as are committed
under separate information.
Example of a compound crime:
#1
The victim was killed while discharging his duty
as barangay captain to protect life and property
and enforce law and order in his barrio.
The crime is a complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority.
#2
When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without
evidence how many each killed, there is only a
single offense, there being a single criminal
impulse.
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
REQUISITES:
1. That at least two offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the same statute.
Ø The phrase “necessary means” does not
mean “indispensable means”
Ø In complex crime, when the offender
executes various acts, he must have a single
purpose.
• When there are several acts performed,
• the assumption is that each act is
impelled by a distinct criminal
impulse, hence each will have a separate
penalty.
• However, it may happen that
◦ the offender is impelled only by a
single criminal impulse
◦ in committing a series of acts that
◦ brought about more than one crime
• In this case, the BASIS for
COMPLEXING is not the singleness of
the act but the singleness of the
impulse that is considered.
NO COMPLEX CRIME PROPER:
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
1. Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible
abduction with rape, are separate acts of
rape.
2. Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling
is a direct means to commit a grave offense.
3. No complex crime, when one offense is
committed to conceal the other.
4. When the offender had in his possession the
funds which he misappropriated, the
falsification of a public or official document
involving said offense is a separate offense.
5. No complex crime where one of the offense is
penalized by a special law.
6. There is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder, arson, robbery, or other common
crimes (re: rebellion, Ortega thinks
otherwise).
c. GENERAL RULES IN COMPLEXING CRIMES
1. When two crimes produced by a single act
are respectively within the exclusive
jurisdiction of two courts of different
jurisdiction, the court of higher
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
2. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty
for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
3. When two felonies constituting a complex
crime are punishable by imprisonment and
fine, respectively, only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed.
4. Art. 48 applies only to cases where the
Code does not provide a definite specific
penalty for a complex crime.
5. One information should be filed when a
complex crime is committed.
6. When a complex crime is charged and one
offense is not proven, the accused can
be convicted of the other.
7. Article 48 also applies in cases when out
a single act of negligence or imprudence,
two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted, but only the first part thereof
(compound crime). The second part of
Article 48 does not apply, referring to the
complex crime proper because this applies or
refers only to a deliberate commission of one
offense to commit another offense.
8. Art. 48 does not apply when the law
provides one single penalty for special
complex crimes.
Special Complex/Composite Crimes
Ø The substance is made up of more than one
crime but which
• in the eyes of the law is only a single
2008 Page 28 of 62

indivisible offense.
• all those acts done in pursuance of the
crime agreed upon are acts which
constitute a single crime.
Ø Special Complex Crimes
• Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
• Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
• Kidnapping with serious physical injuries
(Art. 267 (3))
• Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
Ø The liability for special complex crimes is
linked with that of conspiracy.
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 crime
agreed upon.
The exception is
• if any of the co-conspirator would
commit a crime not agreed upon.
• This happens when the crime agreed
upon and the crime committed by one
of the co-conspirators are distinct
crimes.
Exception to the exception:
• In acts constituting a single
indivisible offense,
o even though the co-conspirator
performed different acts bringing
about the composite crime,
§ all will be liable for such
crime.
o They can only evade
responsibility for any other crime
outside of that agreed upon if it is
proved that the particular
conspirator had tried to prevent
the commission of such other act.
Illustration:
A, B, and C decided to commit robbery in the
house of D. Pursuant to their agreement, A would
ransack the second floor, B was to wait outside,
and C would stay on the first floor.
Unknown to B and C, A raped a girl upstairs.
All of them will be liable for robbery with rape.
The crime committed is robbery with rape,
which is not a complex crime, but an indivisible
felony under the Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Even if B and C did not know that rape was
being committed and they agreed only and
conspired to rob, yet rape was part of
robbery. Rape cannot be separated from
robbery.
Ø The rule would be different if the crime
committed was not a composite crime.
Illustration:
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
A, B, and C agreed to kill D. When they saw the
opportunity, A, B, and C killed D and after that, A
and B ran into different directions.
C inspected the pocket of the victim and found
that the victim was wearing a ring—a diamond
ring—and he took it.
The crimes committed are homicide and theft.
As far as the homicide is concerned, A, B,
and C are liable because that was agreed upon
and theft was not an integral part of homicide.
This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply
because it was not the crime agreed upon.
Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned, C
will be the only one liable. So C will be liable for
homicide and theft.
Continued and Continuing Crimes
CONTINUED CRIME
.
Ø A continuous, unlawful act or series of acts
Ø set on foot by a single impulse and
Ø operated by an unintermittent force,
Ø however long a time it may occupy.
Example:
A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates
for his personal use several amounts collected by
him from different persons.
One crime only because the different
appropriations are but the different moments
during which once criminal resolution arises and
a single defraudation develops.
Ø A continuing crime is not a complex crime.
Ø A continued crime is different from a
TRANSITORY CRIME which is also called a
MOVING/CONTINUING CRIME.
CONTINUING CRIME
Ø The term used in criminal procedure to
denote that
• a certain crime may be prosecuted and
tried not only before the court of the
place where it was originally
committed or began,
• but also before the court of the place
where the crime was continued.
Ø The term is used in criminal procedure when
• any of the material ingredients of the
crime was committed in different
places.
1) People v. de Leon (1926)
The accused took
five roosters
from one and the same chicken coop,
the roosters were owned by different persons,
2008 Page 29 of 62

It was held that there is only one crime of
theft committed because the accused acted
out of a single criminal impulse only.
Illustration:
A band of robbers came across a compound
where a sugar mill is located.
The workers of said mill have their quarters
within the compound.
The band of robbers ransacked the different
quarters therein.
It was held that there is only one crime
committed – multiple robbery,
--not because of Article 48 but
because this is a continued crime.
When the robbers entered the compound, they
were moved by a single criminal intent
which is why it does not matter that there were
several quarters robbed. This was a complex
crime.
Ø The definition in Article 48 is not honored
because the accused PERFORMED MORE
THAN ONE ACT.
Ø The confusion lies in this:
• While Article 48 speaks of a complex
crime where a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave offenses,
• those cases involving a series of acts
resulting to two or more grave and
less grave felonies,
◦ were considered by the Supreme
Court as a complex crime
◦ when it is shown that the act is the
product of one single criminal
impulse.
TIP:
If confronted with a problem, the Supreme
Court has extended this class of complex crime
to those cases when the offender performed
not a single act but a series of acts as long as
it is the product of a single criminal
impulse.
2. People v. Garcia (1980),
The accused were convicts who were members of
a certain gang and they conspired to kill the
other gang.
Some of the accused killed their victims in one
place within the same penitentiary, some killed
the others in another place within the same
penitentiary.
The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should
be punished under one information because
they acted in conspiracy. The act of one is the
act of all.
Because there were several victims killed and
some were mortally wounded, the accused
should be held for the complex crime of
multiple homicide with multiple frustrated
homicide.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
There is a complex crime not only when there is
a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that
when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime
is considered as one and prosecuted under one
information. Although in this case, the
offenders did not only kills one person but
killed different persons, the Supreme Court
considered this as complex.
Ø Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that
the criminal should be punished only once,
because they acted in conspiracy or under
the same criminal impulse,
• it is necessary to embody these crimes
under one single information.
• It is necessary to consider them as
complex crimes even if the essence of
the crime does not fit the definition
of Art 48, because there is no other
provision in the RPC.
3) People v. Jose,
There were four participants here. They
abducted the woman, after which, the four took
turns in abusing her. It was held that each one
of the four became liable not only for his own
rape but also for those committed by the
others. One of the four rapes committed by one
of them was complexed with the crime of
abduction. Each of the four offenders was
convicted of four rapes. The consecutive
abuse cannot be considered as continued
crimes because there is a different intent for
each act of rape. Hence, there was no single
purpose for the rapes. Each must be considered
as a separate act.
4) People v. Bulaong (1981), the Supreme
Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice
Aquino in People v. Pabasa, that when several
persons abducted a woman and abused her,
regardless of the number of rapes committed,
there should only be one complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. The rapes
committed were in the nature of a continued
crime characterized by the same lewd design
which is an essential element in the crime of
forcible abduction. The abuse amounting to
rape is complexed with forcible abduction
because the abduction was already
consummated when the victim was raped. The
forcible abduction must be complexed
therewith. But the multiple rapes should be
considered only as one because they are in the
nature of a continued crime.
NOTE: This is a dangerous view because the
abductors will commit as much rape as they
can, after all, only one complex crime of
rape would arise.
Ø Applying the concept of the “continued
crime”, the following cases have been
treated as constituting one crime only:
(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two
different persons committed by the
accused at the same place and period
of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil.
320);
(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to
two different owners from the same
2008 Page 30 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

coop and at the same period of time IV. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
(People v. Jaranilla);
(3) The illegal charging of fees for service
Ø Under the Revised Penal Code, when more
rendered by a lawyer every time he
than one person participated in the
collected veteran’s benefits on behalf of
commission of the crime, the law looks into
a client who agreed that attorney’s fees
their participation because in punishing
shall be paid out of such benefits
offenders, the Revised Penal Code classifies
(People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156).
them as:
The collections of legal fees were
impelled by the same motive, that of
• PRINCIPAL;
collecting fees for services rendered,
• ACCOMPLICE; OR
and all acts of collection were made
• ACCESSORY.
under the same criminal impulse.
Ø This classification is true only under the
Ø The Supreme Court declined to apply the
Revised Penal Code and is not applied
concept in the following cases:
under special laws, because the penalties
(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was
under the latter are never graduated.
committed during the period from
Ø Do not use the term “principal” when the
January 19 to December, 1955 and the
crime committed is a violation of special law
other from January 1956 to July 1956
(use the term “offender/s, culprit/s,
(People v. Dichupa, 13 Phil 306).
accused”).
Said acts were committed on two
different occasions;
(2) Several malversations committed in
Ø As to the liability of the participants in a
May, June and July 1936 and
grave, less grave or light felony:
falsifications to conceal said offenses
1. When the felony is grave, or less
committed in August and October,
grave, all participants are criminally
1936. The malversations and
liable.
falsifications were not the result of one
2. But where the felony is only light,
resolution to embezzle and falsity
(People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351); only the principal and the accomplice
(3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by are liable. The accessory is not.
the conversion by the agents of a. Therefore, it is only when the
collections from the customers of the light felony is against persons
employers made on different dates. or property that criminal
liability attaches to the
Ø In the theft cases, principal or accomplice, even
• the trend is to follow the single though the felony is only
larceny doctrine, attempted or frustrated, but
◦ that is taking of several things, accessories are not liable for
◦ whether belonging to the same or light felonies.
different owners,
◦ at the same time and place, A. PRINCIPALS
• constitutes one larceny only.
1. BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
2. BY INDUCTION
Ø Abandoned is the doctrine that the
3. BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
government has the discretion to
prosecute the accused
• for one offense or
• for as many distinct offenses as there are
1. BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
victims
Ø Those who are liable:
5) Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, (1993)
a. materially execute the crime
Here, the accused was charged with performing a b. appear at the scene of the crime
single act – that of approving the legalization c. perform acts necessary in the
of aliens not qualified under the law. The commission of the offense
prosecution manifested that they would only file
one information. Subsequently, 32 amended Ø Why one who does not appear at the scene
informations were filed. of the crime is not liable:
a. His non-appearance is deemed
The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to
desistance which is favored and
consolidate the cases into one offense because
encouraged;
(1) they were in violation of the same law –
b. Conspiracy is generally not a
Executive Order No. 324;
crime unless the law specifically
(2) caused injury to one party only – the
provides a penalty therefor.
government; and
c. There is no basis for criminal
(3) they were done in the same day.
liability because there is no criminal
participation.
The concept of delito continuado has been
applied to crimes under special laws since in
Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall be
supplementary to special laws, unless the
latter provides the contrary.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 31 of 62


2. BY INDUCTION
Ø Inducement must be strong enough that
the person induced could not resist.
• This is tantamount to an irresistible
force compelling the person induced
to carry out the crime.
• Ill-advised language is not
enough unless he who made such
remark or advice is a co-conspirator
in the crime committed.
Ø When does a principal by induction become
liable:
• The principal by induction becomes
liable only when the principal by
direct participation committed the
act induced.
Ø What are the effects of acquittal of principal
by direct participation upon the liability of
principal by inducement:
a. Conspiracy is negated by the
acquittal of co-defendant.
b. One cannot be held guilty of
having instigated the commission of a
crime without first being shown that
the crime has been actually
committed by another.
Examples:
• While in the course of a quarrel, a person
shouted to A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed
the other person. Is the person who
shouted criminally liable? Is that
inducement? No. The shouting must be
an irresistible force for the one
shouting to be liable.
• There was a quarrel between two
families. One of the sons of family A
came out with a shotgun. His mother
then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed
someone. Is the mother liable? No.
1) People v. Balderrama 226 SCRA 537
(1993), Ernesto shouted to his younger brother
Oscar, “Birahin mo na, birahin mo na!” Oscar
stabbed the victim. It was held that there was
no conspiracy. Joint or simultaneous action
per se is not indicia of conspiracy without
showing of common design. Oscar has no
rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter.
Considering that Ernesto had great moral
ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being
much older (35 years old), than the latter, who
was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who
provided his allowance, clothing, as well as food
and shelter, Ernesto is principal by inducement.
2) People v. Agapinay, 188 SCRA 812
(1990),
The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him.”
while the felonious aggression was taking place
cannot be held liable as principal by inducement.
Utterance was said in the excitement of the
hour, not a command to be obeyed.
3) People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69 (1990),
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
the son was mauled. The family was not in good
terms with their neighbors. The father challenged
everybody and when the neighbors approached,
he went home to get a rifle. The shouts of his
wife “here comes another, shoot him”
cannot make the wife a principal by
inducement. It is not the determining cause
of the crime in the absence of proof that the
words had great influence over the
husband. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming
the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the
killing. She assisted her husband in taking good
aim, but such assistance merely facilitated the
felonious act of shooting. Considering that it was
not so dark and the husband could have
accomplished the deed without his wife’s help,
and considering further that doubts must be
resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of
the wife is only that of an accomplice.
3. BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
Ø What is the essence of being a principal by
indispensable cooperation:
• The focus is not just on participation but on
the importance of participation in
committing the crime.
• The basis is the importance of the
cooperation to the consummation of the
crime.
o If the crime could hardly be
committed without such
cooperation, then such cooperation
would bring about a principal.
o If the cooperation merely facilitated
or hastened the consummation of
the crime, this would make the
cooperator merely an accomplice.
• In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or
liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.
B. ACCOMPLICES
Ø When is one regarded as an accomplice:
1. Determine if there is a conspiracy.
• If there is, as a general rule, the
criminal liability of all will be the
same, because the act of one is
the act of all.
• Exception:
o If the participation of one is
so insignificant
o such that even without his
cooperation,
o the crime would be
committed just as well,
o then notwithstanding the
existence of a conspiracy,
such offender will be
regarded only as an
accomplice.
Ø What are the other traits of an accomplice
• does not have a previous agreement
or understanding; or
• is not in conspiracy with the principal
by direct participation
2008 Page 32 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

• He is already a principal or an
CONSPIRATOR ACCOMPLICE accomplice
They know and agree with the criminal design.
Conspirators know the Accomplices come to Ø When is an accessory exempt from criminal
criminal intention know about it after liability:
because they the principals have
themselves have reached the decision
• when the principal is his:
decided upon such and only then do they
course of action. agree to cooperate in 1. spouse,
its execution. 2. ascendant,
3. descendant,
Conspirators decide Accomplices merely
4. legitimate, natural or adopted
that a crime should be assent to the plan and
brother, sister or relative by affinity
committed. cooperate in it
within the same degree.
accomplishment
Conspirators are the Accomplices are
NOTE: Even if only two of the principals
authors of a crime merely instruments
guilty of murder are the brothers of the
who perform acts not
accessory and the others are not related to
essential to the
him, such accessory is exempt from criminal
perpetration of the
liability.
offense.
Ø When is an accessory NOT exempt from
Ø REQUISITES:
criminal liability even if the principal is
1. That there be community of design; related to him:
i. that is, knowing the criminal design of • if such accessory
the principal by direct participation, he (1) profited by the effects of the
concurs with the latter in his purpose; crime, or
(2) assisted the offender to
2. That he cooperates in the execution of profit by the effects of the crime
the offense
Ø Other instances when one becomes an
i. by previous or simultaneous acts, with accessory:
the intention of supplying material or
moral aid in the execution of the crime in • Accessory as a fence
an efficacious way; and
• Acquiring the effects of piracy or
3. That there be a relation between the acts brigandage
done by the principal and those • Destroying the corpus delicti
attributed to the person charged as
accomplice. • Harboring or concealing an offender
• Whether the accomplice and the
PRINCIPAL by ACCOMPLICE accessory may be tried and convicted
COOPERATION even before the principal is found
Cooperation is Cooperation is not guilty
indispensable in the indispensable in the
commission of the commission of the
act. act. 1. ACCESSORY AS A FENCE

C. ACCESSORIES Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing

Law).
Ø When are accessories not criminally liable:

1. When the felony committed is a light
felony
2. When the accessory is related to the
principal as
a. spouse, or
b. an ascendant, or descendant, or
c. brother or sister whether legitimate,
natural or adopted or
d. where the accessory is a relative by
affinity within the same degree,
Ø unless the accessory himself
profited from the effects or
proceeds of the crime or assisted
the offender to profit therefrom.
Ø When can one not be an accessory:
• He does not know of the commission
of the crime
• He participated in the crime
Ø One who knowingly profits or assists the
principal to profit by the effects of robbery or
theft (i.e. a fence) is not just an accessory to
the crime, but principally liable for fencing
Ø The penalty is higher than that of a mere
accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.
Ø Mere possession of any article of value
which has been the subject of robbery or
theft brings about the presumption of
“fencing.”
Ø Presidential Decree No. 1612 has,
therefore, modified Article 19 of the
Revised Penal Code.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 33 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

2. ACQUIRING THE EFFECTS OF PIRACY OR

BRIGANDAGE 4. HARBORING OR CONCEALING AN
OFFENDER

Presidential Decree 532 (Anti-piracy and Ø In the fourth form or manner of becoming an
Anti-Hghway Robbery Law of 1974) accessory, take note that the law
distinguishes between:
Ø If the crime was piracy or brigandage under o a public officer harboring, concealing,
PD 532, or assisting the principal to escape,
o said act constitutes the crime of and
abetting piracy or abetting o a private citizen or civilian harboring,
brigandage as the case may be, concealing, or assisting the principal
o although the penalty is that for an to escape.
accomplice, not just an accessory, to
the piracy or brigandage. PUBLIC OFFICER CIVILIAN
The nature of the The nature of the
Ø Section 4 of PD 532 crime is immaterial. crime is material.
o provides that any person
§ who knowingly and in any What is material is For him to become
that he used his an accessory, the
manner…
public function is principal must have
§ acquires or receives property assisting the escape. committed the crime of
taken by such pirates or treason, parricide,
brigands or in any manner murder or attempt
derives benefit therefrom… on the life of the
§ shall be considered as an Chief Executive.
accomplice of the principal
offenders in accordance with
Illustration:
the Rules prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code. Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom.
o It shall be presumed that any Principal was being chased by soldiers. His aunt
person who does any acts provided in hid him in the ceiling of her house and she told
this Section has performed them the soldiers that her nephew had never visited
her. When the soldiers left, the aunt even gave
knowingly, unless the contrary is
money to her nephew for the latter to go to the
proven.
province.

Ø Although Republic Act 7659, in amending Is the aunt criminally liable? No. Article 20 does
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, not include an aunt. However, this is not the
incorporated therein the crime of piracy in reason. The principal must have committed either
Philippine territorial waters and thus treason, parricide, murder, or attempt on the life
correspondingly superseding PD 532 of the Chief Executive, or that the principal is
known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime, for a person who is not a public officer and
o section 4 of said Decree, which
who assists an offender to escape or otherwise
punishes said acts as a crime of harbors, or conceals such offender, to be
abetting piracy or brigandage, still criminally liable. In this case, the crime
stands as it has not been repealed committed was kidnapping.
nor modified, and is not inconsistent
with any provision of RA 7659.
Criminal liability of accessory
3. DESTROYING THE CORPUS DELICTI
Revised Penal Code PD 1829
Ø When the crime is robbery or theft, with (Also Known as the
respect to the third involvement of an law penalizing
accessory, do not overlook the purpose “Obstruction of
Justice”)
which must be to prevent discovery of the
Specifies the There is no
crime.
crimes that should be specification of the
committed in case a crime to be
Ø The corpus delicti is not the body of the
civilian aids in the committed by the
person who is killed. escape offender in order that
criminal liability be
o Even if the corpse is not incurred
recovered, as long as that killing is The offender is The offender need
established beyond reasonable doubt, the principal or must not even be the
criminal liability will arise. be convicted of the principal or need not
o If there is someone who destroys crime charged be convicted of the
crime charged
the corpus delicti to prevent
The one who An offender of any
discovery, he becomes an accessory. harbored or concealed crime is no longer an

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 34 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

an offender is still an accessory but is ◦ then the supposed accomplice and

accessory simply an offender accessory should also be acquitted.
without regard to the
crime of the person • If there is no crime, then there is no
assisted to escape criminal liability, whether principal,
accomplice, or accessory.
In the preceding illustration, the aunt is not
criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code
1) Taer v. CA (1990),
because the crime is kidnapping, but under PD
Facts: Accused received from his co-accused two
1829.
stolen male carabaos. Conspiracy was not
proven. Taer was held liable as an accessory in
5. WHETHER THE ACCOMPLICE AND THE
the crime of cattle-rustling under PD 533.
ACCESSORY MAY BE TRIED AND
• Taer should have been liable for violation
CONVICTED EVEN BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL IS FOUND GUILTY of the Anti-Fencing Law since castle-
rustling is a form of theft or robbery of
Ø There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that large cattle, except that he was not
the accessory and accomplice must be charged with fencing.
charged together with the principal
2) Enrile v. Amin 189 SCRA 573 (1990),
• if the latter is acquitted, the accomplice A person charged with rebellion should not be
and accessory shall also not be criminally separately charged under PD 1829. The theory of
absorption must not confine itself to common
liable, unless the acquittal is based on a
crimes but also to offenses punished under
defense which is personal only to the special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance
principal. of the political offense.

• This is not true in all cases.

◦ It is not always true that the

accomplice and accessory cannot be
criminally liable without the principal
being first convicted.

Ø Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure, it is required that

• all those involved in the commission of

the crime

• must be included in the information that

may be filed.

Ø The liability of the accused will depend on

the quantum of evidence adduced by the
prosecution against the particular accused.

• But the prosecution must initiate the

proceedings against the principal.

Ø Even if the principal is convicted,

• if the evidence presented against a

supposed accomplice or accessory

• does not meet the required proof beyond

reasonable doubt,

• then said accused will be acquitted.

Ø So the criminal liability of an accomplice or

accessory does not depend on the
criminal liability of the principal but
depends on the quantum of evidence.

Ø But if the evidence shows that

• the act done does not constitute a crime

and

• the principal is acquitted,

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 35 of 62


VI. PENALTIES
Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by
the State for the transgression of a law.
Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:
1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING,
without affecting the integrity of the human
personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE with the offense –
different crimes must be punished with
different penalties.
3. Must be PERSONAL – no one should be
punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be LEGAL – it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
5. Must be CERTAIN – no one may escape its
effects.
6. Must be EQUAL for all.
7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.
Theories justifying penalty:
1. PREVENTION – to suppress danger to the
State
2. SELF-DEFENSE – to protect the society from
the threat and wrong inflicted by the
criminal.
3. REFORMATION – to correct and reform the
offender.
4. EXEMPLARITY – to serve as an example to
deter others from committing crimes.
5. JUSTICE – for retributive justice, a
vindication of absolute right and moral law
violated by the criminal.
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
1. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION – the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the
offense.
2. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION – as shown
by the rules which regulate the execution of
the penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty.
3. SOCIAL DEFENSE – shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual
delinquents.
This Section discusses the following:
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
C. ACCESSORY PENALTIES
D. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY
F. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES
G. SPECIAL RULES
H. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
I. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
I. A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. —
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Ø This article prohibits the Government from
punishing any person for any felony with any
penalty which has not been prescribed by the
law.
Ø It has no application to any of the provisions
of the RPC for the reason that for every
felony defined in the Code, a penalty has
been prescribed.
Ø REASON: An act or omission cannot be
punished by the State if at the time it was
committed there was no law prohibiting it,
because a law cannot be rationally obeyed
unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be
expected to obey an order that has not been
given.
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITIONS
1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 18. (1) No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his political beliefs
and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not
be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty
be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Section 20. No person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill
of attainder shall be enacted.
II. B. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed.
The penalties which may be imposed according to
this Code, and their different classes, are those
included in the following:
A. Scale OF PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Ø Capital punishment:
• Death.
Ø Afflictive penalties:
• Reclusion perpetua,
• Reclusion temporal,
• Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification,
• Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification,
• Prision mayor.
Ø Correctional penalties:
• Prision correccional,
• Arresto mayor,
2008 Page 36 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

• Suspension, NOTE:
• Destierro. Ø Public censure is a penalty,
• thus, it is not proper in acquittal.
Ø Light penalties: • However, the Court in acquitting the
• Arresto menor, accused may criticize his acts or conduct.
• Public censure.
Ø Penalties that are either principal or
Ø Penalties common to the three accessory:
preceding • Perpetual or temporary absolute
classes: disqualification,
• Fine, and • perpetual or temporary special
• Bond to keep the peace. disqualification, and
• suspension
◦ may be principal or accessory
B. SCALE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES penalties, because they formed in
the 2 general classes.
Ø Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification,
Ø Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification,
Ø Suspension from public office, the right
to vote and be voted for, the profession III. C. SPECIFIC PRINCIPAL AND
or calling. ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Ø Civil interdiction,
Ø Indemnification,
Ø Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments A. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
and proceeds of the offense,
Ø Payment of costs. 1. Death penalty

Ø RA 9346 or “An Act Prohibiting the

C. MaJOR CLASSIFICATION
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – those expressly
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES – those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the principal
penalties.
D. Other classifications of penalties:
Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines”
• expressly repealed RA 8177 or “Act
Designating Death by Lethal Injection”
and RA 7659 or “Death Penalty Law”.
Ø RA 9346 repealed all the other laws imposing
death penalty.
• Section 2 states that: “In lieu of the
death penalty, the following shall be
imposed:

Ø According to their divisibility: a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua,

• Divisible when the law violated makes use of
◦ those that have fixed duration and the nomenclature of the penalties of
are the Revised Penal Code; or
◦ divisible into three periods. b. the penalty of life imprisonment,
• Indivisible when the law violated does not make
◦ those which have no fixed duration. use of the nomenclature of the
§ Death penalties of the Revised Penal Code.”
§ Reclusion perpetua
§ Perpetual B. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
absolute or special
disqualification Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person
§ Public censure sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall
be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for
Ø According to subject-matter thirty years, unless such person by reason of his
• Corporal conduct or some other serious cause shall be
◦ (death) considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of
• Deprivation of freedom pardon.
◦ (reclusion, prision, arresto) Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion
• Restriction of freedom temporal shall be from twelve years and one day
◦ (destierro) to twenty years.
• Deprivation of rights Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. —
◦ (disqualification and suspension) The duration of the penalties of prision mayor
• Pecuniary and temporary disqualification shall be from six
◦ (fine) years and one day to twelve years, except when
the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
Ø According to their gravity accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall
• Capital be that of the principal penalty.
• Afflictive
• Correctional
• Light

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 37 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

The following table also contains DISQUALIFICATION as an afflictive penalty, because its
different forms can also be imposed as a principal although it is primarily categorized as an
accessory penalty.

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

Death Indivisible
(REPEALED)
Death, when not Ø PAD
executed due to pardon Ø Civil
or commutation interdiction 30
(REPEALED) yrs from
sentence
Ø PAD
20 years & 1 day
Ø Civil
Reclusion perpetua to 40 years
interdiction for
(Indivisible)
life
Ø Deprivation of public office,
even if by election
Ø Deprivation of right to vote &
Perpetual absolute
For life be voted for
disqualification (PAD)
Ø Disqualification from public
office held
Ø Loss of retirement rights
Ø Deprivation of office,
employment, profession, or
Perpetual special
For life calling affected
disqualification (PSD)
Ø Disqualification from similar
offices or employments
Ø PAD
Ø Civil
12 years & 1 day
Reclusion temporal interdiction for
to 20 years
duration of
sentence
Ø TAD
6 years & 1 day
Prision mayor Ø PSD of
to 12 years
suffrage
Ø Deprivation of public office,
even if by election
Temporary absolute Ø Deprivation of right to vote &
6 years & 1 day
disqualification be voted for during sentence
to 12 years
(TAD) Ø Disqualification from public
office held during sentence
Ø Loss of retirement rights
Ø Deprivation of office,
Temporary special 1) RECLUSION
employment, PERPETUA
profession, or
6 years & 1 day
disqualification calling affected
to 12 years
(TSD) Ø Disqualification from similar
offices or employments

Ø Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years

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

Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory 1) People v. Gatward (1997)

penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall
carry with it that of temporary absolute
disqualification and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage which
the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to
the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Facts: The accused was convicted of violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act for unlawfully importing
into the Philippines heroin. The trial court
sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for 35 years of reclusion perpetua
there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance shown to have attended in the
commission of the crime.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 38 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

Held: As amended by RA 7659, the penalty of a. Civil interdiction for life or during the
reclusion perpetua is now accorded a defined period of the sentence as the case may
duration ranging from 20 years and 1 day to 40 be.
years. The Court held that in spite of the b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which
amendment putting the duration of RP, it should the offender shall suffer even though
remain as an indivisible penalty since there was pardoned as to the principal penalty,
never intent on the part of Congress to reclassify unless the same shall have been
it into a divisible penalty. The maximum duration expressly remitted in the pardon.
of reclusion perpetua is not and has never been
30 years which is merely the number of ears 3) PRISION MAYOR
which the convict must serve in order to be
eligible for pardon or for the application of the 3- Ø Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
fold rule.
Ø Accessory Penalties:
2) People v. Ramirez (2001) a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
The SC disagrees with the trial court in b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from
sentencing appellant "to suffer imprisonment of the right to suffrage which the offender
forty (40) years reclusion perpetua." There was shall suffer although pardoned as to the
no justification or need for the trial court to principal penalty unless the same shall
specify the length of imprisonment, because have been expressly remitted in the
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. The pardon.
significance of this fundamental principle was laid
down by the Court in People v. Diquit. "Since
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has
no minimum, medium or maximum periods. It is B. C. CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES
imposed in its entirety regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the crime. (Art. Art. 27 (4). Prision correccional, suspension,
63, Revised Penal Code) Reclusion Perpetua is and destierro.
imprisonment for life but the person sentenced to
suffer it shall be pardoned after undergoing the The duration of the penalties of prision
penalty for thirty (30) years, unless by reason of correccional, suspension and destierro shall be
his conduct or some other serious cause, he shall from six months and one day to six years, except
be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy when suspension is imposed as an accessory
of pardon (Art. 27, Revised Penal Code)." penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that
of the principal penalty.
Ø Distinguished from Life Imprisonment
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of
3) People v. Ballabare (1996) arresto mayor shall be from one month and one
The trial court erred in imposing the penalty of day to six months.
life imprisonment for violation of PD 1866. The
crime of illegal possession of firearm in its
aggravated form is punished by the penalty of
death. Since the offense was committed on Sep.
16, 1990, at a time when the imposition of the
death penalty was prohibited, the penalty next
lower in degree which is reclusion perpetua
should be imposed. This is not equivalent to
life imprisonment. While life imprisonment may
appear to be the English translation of reclusion
perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that.

LIFE RECLUSION
IMPRISONMENT PERPETUA
Imposed for serious Prescribed under the
offenses penalized by RPC
special laws
Does not carry with it Carries with it
accessory penalties accessory penalties
Does not appear to Entails imprisonment
have any definite for at least 30 years
extent or duration after which the
convict becomes
eligible for pardon
although the
maximum period shall
in no case exceed 40
years

2) RECLUSION TEMPORAL

Ø Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years

Ø Accessory Penalties:

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 39 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

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

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed
six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall
be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but
such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding
rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty
consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency
shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As
amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).

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

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

Accessories
Ø Suspension from public
office
6 months & 1 day Ø Suspension from
Prision correccional
to 6 years profession or calling PSD
of suffrage, if penalty
exceeds 18 mos.
Ø Public office
6 months & 1 day
Suspension Ø Profession or calling
to 6 years
Ø Suffrage
Ø Prohibition to enter
6 months & 1 day w/in 25-250 km
Destierro
to 6 years radius from the
designated place
Ø Suspension of right to
1 month & 1 day hold office and
Arresto mayor
to 6 months Ø right of suffrage

1) PRISION CORRECCIONAL 2) ARRESTO MAYOR

Ø Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 Ø Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6

years
Ø Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension from public office
b. Suspension from the right to follow a
profession or calling
c. Perpetual Special Disqualification fro
the right of suffrage, if the duration
of the imprisonment shall exceed 18
months
months
C. LIGHT PENALTIES
Ø Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 40 of 62


Art. 27 (6). Arresto menor. — The duration of
the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one
day to thirty days.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. SUPRA
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The
penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of
suspension of the right too hold office and the
right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
1) ARRESTO MENOR
Ø Duration: 1 day to 30 days
Ø Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during
the term of the sentence.
2) PUBLIC CENSURE
Ø Censure, being a penalty is not proper in
acquittal.
D. PENALTIES COMMON TO AFFLICTIVE,
CORRECCIONAL AND LIGHT
PENALTIES
1) FINE
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or
light penalty. —
A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an
alternative penalty, shall be considered an
afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000
pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light
penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
Ø This article merely classifies fine and has
nothing to do with the definition of light
felony.
Ø Fine is:
1. Afflictive – over P6,000
2. Correctional – P200 to P6,000
3. Light Penalty – less than P200
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing
fines the courts may fix any amount within the
limits established by law; in fixing the amount in
each case attention shall be given, not only to
the mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
but more particularly to the wealth or means of
the culprit.
Ø The court can fix any amount of the fine
within the limits established by law.
Ø The court must consider:
• The mitigating and aggravating
circumstances; and
• More particularly, the wealth or means of
the culprit.
Ø When the law does not fix the minimum
of the fine,
• the determination of the amount of the
fine to be imposed upon the culprit
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
• is left to the sound discretion of the
court,
• provided it shall not exceed the
maximum authorized by law.
Ø Fines are not divided into 3 equal
portions.
2) BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. —
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to
give bond to keep the peace, to present two
sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such
person will not commit the offense sought to be
prevented, and that in case such offense be
committed they will pay the amount determined
by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to
deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of
the court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its
discretion, the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond
as required he shall be detained for a period
which shall in no case exceed six months, is he
shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if
for a light felony.
1. 2 WAYS OF GIVING BOND
1) The offender must present
• 2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake
that
◦ the offender will not commit the
offense sought to be prevented,
◦ and that in case such offense be
committed
§ they will pay the amount
determined by the court;
2) The offender must
• deposit such amount with the clerk of
court to guarantee said undertaking;
Ø The court shall determine the period of
duration of the bond.
Ø The offender may be detained, if he
cannot give the bond,
• for a period not to exceed 6 months if
prosecuted for grave or less grave felony,
or
• for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for
a light felony.
Ø Bond to keep the peace is different from
bail bond which is posted for the provisional
release of a person arrested for or accused of
a crime.
2008 Page 41 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

Suspension of right to
Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days hold office and right
of suffrage
Public censure
Penalty (Common to All
Three Types)
Fine

IV. D. ACCESSORY PENALTIES Effects:

a. Deprivation of any public office or

1) Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification,
2) Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification,
3) Suspension from public office, the right
to vote and be voted for, the profession
or calling.
4) Civil interdiction,
5) Indemnification/ Forfeiture or
confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense,
6) Payment of costs.
1) PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY
ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual
or temporary absolute disqualification. —
The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification for public office shall produce the
following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and
employments which the offender may have held
even if conferred by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular office or to be elected to
such office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of any of the
rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification,
such
disqualification as is comprised in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall
last
during the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held.
employment f offender
b. Deprivation of the right to vote in
any election or to be voted upon
c. Loss of rights to retirement pay or
pension
Ø All these effects
• last during the lifetime of the convict and
• even after the service of the sentence
Ø except as regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
above in connection with temporary absolute
disqualification.
Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual
or temporary special disqualification for the
exercise of the right of suffrage. — The
perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive
the offender perpetually or during the term of the
sentence, according to the nature of said penalty,
of the right to vote in any popular election for
any public office or to be elected to such office.
Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to
hold any public office during the period of his
disqualification.
Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of
suspension from any public office,
profession or calling, or the right of
suffrage. — The suspension from public office,
profession or calling, and the exercise of the right
of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from
holding such office or exercising such profession
or calling or right of suffrage during the term of
the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office
shall not hold another having similar functions
during the period of his suspension.
Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction
shall deprive the offender during the time of his
sentence of the rights of parental authority, or
guardianship, either as to the person or property
of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to
manage his property and of the right to dispose
of such property by any act or any conveyance
inter vivos.

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the

proceeds or instruments of the crime. —
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a
felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 42 of 62


proceeds of the crime and the instruments or
tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be property of a third
person not liable for the offense, but those
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce
shall be destroyed.
2) PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
DISQUALIFICATION
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual
or temporary special disqualification.
The penalties of perpetual or temporal special
disqualification for public office, profession or
calling shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices
or employments either perpetually or during the
term of the sentence according to the extent of
such disqualification.
Effects:
For public office, profession or calling:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected;
b. Disqualification for holding similar
offices or employments during the
period of disqualification;
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be
elected in an office;
b. Cannot hold any public office during
the period of disqualification
∗ The penalty for disqualification if imposed as
an accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION
and NOT for the withholding of a privilege.
∗ Temporary disqualification or suspension if
imposed as an accessory penalty, the duration is
the same as that of the principal penalty.
SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE
RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE
RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR
CALLING
Effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office
or the exercise of such profession or right
of suffrage during the term of the
sentence;
b. Cannot hold another office having similar
functions during the period of suspension.
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Effects:
Deprivation of the following rights:
1) Parental authority
2) Guardianship over the ward
3) Marital authority
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
4) Right to manage property and to dispose
of the same by acts inter vivos
∗ Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to the
following principal penalties:
a) Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
b) Reclusion perpetua
c) Reclusion temporal
INDEMNIFICATION OR CONFISCATION OF
INSTRUMENTS ORPROCEES OF THEOFFENSE
∗ This is included in every penalty for the
commission of the crime.
∗ The confiscation is in favor of the government.
∗ Property of a third person not liable for the
offense is not subject to confiscation.
∗ If the trial court did not order any confiscation
of the procees of the crime, the government
cannot appeal from the confiscation as that would
increase the penalty already imposed.
PAYMENT OF COSTS
Includes:
a. Fees, and
b. Indemnities, in the course of judicial
proceedings.
∗ Costs may be fixed amounts already
determined by law or regulations or amounts
subject to a schedule.
∗ If the accused is convicted; costs may be
charged against him. If he is acquitted, costs are
de officio, meaning each party bears his own
expense.
E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY
RPC, Art. 24. Measures of prevention
or safety which are nor considered
penalties. — The following shall not be
considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their detention by
reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of
the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for
the purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of
public office during the trial or in order to
institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures
which, in the exercise of their administrative
disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose
upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the
reparations which the civil laws may establish in
penal form.
♠ They are not penalties because they are not
imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. Those
mentioned in par. 3 and 4 are merely preventive
measures before conviction of offenders.
♠ The commitment of a minor mentioned in par.
2 is not a penalty because it is not imposed by
the court in a judgment of conviction. The
imposition of the sentence in such case is
suspended.
♠ The succeeding provisions are some examples
of deprivation of rights established in penal form:
2008 Page 43 of 62

Family Code, Art. 228. Parental
authority terminates permanently:
(1) Upon the death of the parents;
(2) Upon the death of the child; or
(3) Upon emancipation of the child.
(327a)
Family Code, Art. 229. Unless
subsequently revived by a final judgment,
parental authority also terminates:
(1) Upon adoption of the child;
(2) Upon appointment of a general
guardian;
(3) Upon judicial declaration of
abandonment of the child in a case filed for the
purpose;
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent
court divesting the party concerned of parental
authority; or
(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence
or incapacity of the person exercising parental
authority. (327a)
F. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. —
If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the
duration of the temporary penalties shall be
computed from the day on which the judgment of
conviction shall have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term
of the duration of the penalty consisting of
deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the
day that the offender is placed at the disposal of
the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall
be computed only from the day on which the
defendant commences to serve his sentence.
Rules for the computation of penalties:
1. WHEN THE OFFENDER IS IN PRISON – the
duration of temporary penalties is from the
day on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final.
2. WHEN THE OFFENDER IS NOT IN PRISON –
the duration of penalty consisting in
deprivation of liberty, is from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of judicial
authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty.
3. THE DURATION OF OTHER PENALTIES – the
duration is from the day on which the
offender commences to serve his sentence
Examples of temporary penalties:
1. Temporary absolute disqualification
2. Temporary special disqualification
3. Suspension
♠ If offender is under detention, as when he is
undergoing preventive imprisonment, Rule No. 1
applies.
♠ If not under detention, because the offender
has been released on bail, Rule No. 3 applies.
Examples of penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty:
1. Imprisonment
2. Destierro
♠ When the offender is not in prison, Rule No. 2
applies.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
♠ If the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment, Rule No. 3 applies but the
offender is entitled to a deduction of full time or
4/5 of the time of his detention.
Art. 29. Period of preventive
imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment. — Offenders who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full
time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, if the detention
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been
convicted previously twice or more times of any
crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the
execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree
to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in
the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the
time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act
6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
more than the possible maximum imprisonment
of the offense charged to which he may be
sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he
shall be released immediately without prejudice
to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. In case the maximum penalty to which
the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O.
No. 214, July 10, 1988).
♠ The accused undergoes preventive
imprisonment when the offense charged is
nonbailable, or even if bailable, he cannot furnish
the required bail.
♠ The convict is to be released immediately if the
penalty imposed after trial is less than the full
time or four-fifths of the time of the preventive
imprisonment.
♠ The accused shall be released immediately
whenever he has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment for the
offense charged.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon
principals in general. — The penalty prescribed
by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in the commission of
such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty
for a felony is general terms, it shall be
understood as applicable to the consummated
felony.
GENERAL RULE:
The penalty prescribed by law in general terms
shall be imposed:
a. Upon the principals
b. For consummated felony
2008 Page 44 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

EXCEPTION: Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon

The exception is when the penalty to be
imposed upon the principal in frustrated or
attempted felony is fixed by law.
♠ Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower
by one or two degrees corresponding to said acts
of execution is not in proportion to the wrong
done, the law fixes a distinct penalty for the
principal in frustrated or attempted felony.
♠ The graduation of penalties by degrees refers
to STAGES OF EXECUTION (consummated,
frustrated or attempted) and to the DEGREE OF
THE CRIMINAL PARTICIPATION OF THE
OFFENDER (whether as principal, accomplice or
accessory)
♠ The division of a divisible penalty into three
periods, as maximum, medium and minimum,
refers to the proper period of the penalty which
should be imposed when aggravating or
mitigating circumstances attend the commission
of the crime.
accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony. — The penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
accessories to the commission of a consummated
felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon
accomplices in a frustrated crime. — The
penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by
law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed
upon the accomplices in the commission of a
frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon
accessories of a frustrated crime. — The
penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall
be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.

People v. Formigones (1950) Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon

Facts: The accused without a previous accomplices in an attempted crime. — The
quarrel or provocation took his bolo and stabbed penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
his wife in the back resulting to the latter’s death. by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be
The accused was sentenced to the penalty of imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to
reclusion perpetua. commit the felony.
Held: The penalty applicable for parricide
under Art. 246 of the RPC is composed only of 2 Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon
indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death. accessories of an attempted crime. — The
Although the commission of the act is attended penalty lower by two degrees than that
by some mitigating circumstance without any prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall
aggravating circumstance to offset them, Art. 63 be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt
of the RPC should be applied. The said article to commit a felony.
provides that when the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstance and CONSU FRUSTRA ATTEMPT
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser MMATE TED ED
penalty shall be applied. D
PRINCI 0 1 2
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND PALS
ACCESSORIES IN CONSUMMATED, ACCOM 1 2 3
FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES. PLICES
ACCESS 2 3 4
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon ORIES
principals in general. — The penalty prescribed
by law for the commission of a felony shall be DIAGRAM OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTS.
imposed upon the principals in the commission of 50-57:
such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in
felony is general terms, it shall be understood as defining a crime, which is to be imposed n the
applicable to the consummated felony. PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 46. The
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon other figures represent the degrees to which the
principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty must be lowered, to meet the different
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed situation anticipated by law.
by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony. EXCEPTIONS: Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of cases where the law expressly prescribes the
attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two penalty for frustrated or attempted felony, or to
degrees than that prescribed by law for the be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principals in an attempt to commit a felony. BASES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE
EXTENT OF PENALTY:
1. The stage reached by the crime in its
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon development (either attempted,
accomplices in consummated crime. — The frustrated or consummated)
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed 2. The participation therein of the person
by law for the consummated shall be imposed liable.
upon the accomplices in the commission of a 3. The aggravating or mitigating
consummated felony. circumstances which attended the
commission of the crime.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 45 of 62


♠ A DEGREE is one entire penalty, one whole
penalty or one unit of the penalties enumerated
in the graduated scales provided for in Art. 71.
Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua,
reclusion temporal, prision mayor, etc.,
enumerated in the graduated scales of Art. 71 is
a degree.
♠ When there is a mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the penalty is lowered or increased
by PERIOD only, except when the penalty is
divisible and there are two or more mitigating
and without aggravating circumstances, in which
case the penalty is lowered by degree.
♠ A PERIOD is one of the three equal
portions called the minimum, medium and
maximum of a divisible penalty.
Art. 60. Exception to the rules
established in Articles 50 to 57. — The
provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to
cases in which the law expressly prescribes the
penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories.
♠ Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases where
the law expressly prescribes the penalty for
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed
upon accomplices or accessories.
GENERAL RULE: An accomplice is punished by a
penalty one degree lower than the penalty
imposed upon the principal.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. The ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers and any person who by abuse of
authority or confidential relationship, shall
cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of
rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction,
corruption of minors, white slate trade or
abduction. (Art. 346)
b. One who furnished the place for the
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal
detention. (Art. 268)
GENERAL RULE: An accessory is punished by a
penalty two degrees lower than the penalty
imposed upon the principal.
EXCEPTION: When accessory is punished as
principal – knowingly concealing certain evil
practices is ordinarily an act of the accessory, but
in Art. 142, such act is punished as the act of the
principal.
When accessories are punished with a
penalty one degree lower:
a. Knowingly using counterfeited seal or
forged signature or stamp of the
President (Art. 162).
b. Illegal possession and use of a false
treasury or bank note (Art. 168).
c. Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3 )
d. Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
Art. 61. Rules for graduating
penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the
penalties which, according to the provisions of
Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to
be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of
any frustrated or attempted felony, or as
accomplices or accessories, the following rules
shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the
felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
lower in degrees shall be that immediately
following that indivisible penalty in the respective
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this
Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or
of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to
their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that immediately following the lesser of
the penalties prescribed in the respective
graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of one or two indivisible
penalties and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be composed of the medium and
minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty
and the maximum periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that
immediately following in said respective
graduated scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of several periods,
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be composed
of the period immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following, which
shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if
possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately
following in the above mentioned respective
graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for
a crime in some manner not especially provided
for in the four preceding rules, the courts,
proceeding by analogy, shall impose
corresponding penalties upon those guilty as
principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt
to commit the same, and upon accomplices and
accessories.
♠ This article provides for the rules to be
observed in lowering the penalty by one or two
degrees.
a. For the principal in frustrated felony – one
degree lower;
b. For the principal in attempted felony – two
degrees lower;
c. For the accomplice in consummated felony
– one degree lower; and
d. For the accessory in consummated felony –
two degrees lower.
♠ The rules provided for in Art. 61 should also
apply in determining the MINIMUM of the
indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The MINIMUM of the
indeterminate penalty is within the range of the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by the
RPC for the offense.
♠ Those rules also apply in lowering the penalty
by one or two degrees by reason of the presence
of privileged mitigating circumstance (Arts. 68
and 69), or when the penalty is divisible and
there are two or more mitigating circumstances
(generic) and no aggravating circumstance (Art.
64).
♠ The lower penalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in Art. 71.
The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. death
b. reclusion perpetua
c. public censure
The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. reclusion temporal
2008 Page 46 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

b. prision mayor Reclusion Maximum

c. prision correccional temporal Medium
d. arresto mayor Minimum Penalty for the
e. destierro Prision Maximum principal in the
f. arresto menor Mayor Medium consummated felony
* the divisible penalties are divided into three Minimum Penalty for the
periods: MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND THE MAXIMUM Prision Maximum accomplice; or
Correccional Medium principal in frustrated
RULES: felony
Minimum
FIRST RULE:
When the penalty is single and indivisible. FIFTH RULE:
Ex. reclusion perpetua When the penalty has two periods
♠ The penalty immediately following it is Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM
reclusion temporal. Thus, reclusion temporal is and MEDIUM periods
the penalty next lower in degree.
Prision Maximum
SECOND RULE: correccional Medium The penalty prescribed
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
Minimum for the felony
penalties
Maximum
Ex. reclusion perpetua to death
Arresto Medium The penalty next lower
♠ The penalty immediately
Mayor Minimum
following the lesser of the penalties,
which is reclusion perpetua, is reclusion
temporal. When the penalty has one period
When the penalty is composed of one or more - If the penalty is any one of the three
divisible penalties to be imposed to their full periods of a divisible penalty, the penalty next
extent lower in degree shall be that period next
Ex. prision correccional to prision mayor following the given penalty.
♠ The penalty immediately Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM period
following the lesser of the penalties of ♠ The penalty immediately inferior is
prision correccional to prision mayor is prision mayor in its MEDIUM period.
arresto mayor.
SIMPLIFIED RULES:
THIRD RULE: The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible Art. 61 may be simplified as follows:
penalties and the maximum period of a divisible 1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists
penalty in 3 periods, corresponding to different
Ex. reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in
period to death degree is the penalty consisting in the 3
periods down in the scale.
Death 2. If the penalty prescribed b the Code consists
Penalty for the in 2 periods, the penalty next lower in degree
Reclusio
principal in is the penalty consisting in 2 periods down in
n
consummated murder the scale.
Perpetu
3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists
a
in only 1 period, the penalty next lower in
Maximum
degree is the next period down in the scale.
Reclusio Medium Penalty for
n Minimum accomplice; or for
Tempor principal in frustrated EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND
al murder AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Maximum
Prision Medium Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of
Mayor Minimum mitigating or aggravating circumstances
and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or
When the penalty is composed of one indivisible aggravating circumstances and habitual
penalty and the maximum period of a divisible delinquency shall be taken into account for the
penalty purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty
Ex. Reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM in conformity with the following rules:
period to Reclusion perpetua 1. Aggravating circumstances which in
♠ The same rule shall be observed in themselves constitute a crime specially
lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. punishable by law or which are included by the
law in defining a crime and prescribing the
FOURTH RULE: penalty therefor shall not be taken into account
When the penalty is composed of several periods for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
- This rule contemplates a penalty 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to
composed of at least 3 periods. The several any aggravating circumstance inherent in the
periods must correspond to different divisible crime to such a degree that it must of necessity
penalties. accompany the commission thereof.
Ex. Prision Mayor in its MEDIUM period to 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Reclusion temporal in its MINIMUM which arise from the moral attributes of the
period. offender, or from his private relations with the
offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 47 of 62


the liability of the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the
material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the
time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the
following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be found guilty and to
the additional penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the
culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided
for the last crime of which he be found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article,
the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon
the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no
case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall
be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a
period of ten years from the date of his release
or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener.
What are the effects of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances?
a. Aggravating circumstances which are not
considered for the purpose of increasing
the penalty:
1. Those which in themselves constitute
a crime especially punishable by law.
2. Those included by law in defining the
crime.
3. Those inherent in the crime but of
necessity they accompany the
commission thereof.
b. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of the offender to whom such are
attendant. Those arising from:
1. Moral attributes of the offender
2. His private relations with the
offended party
3. Any other personal cause
c. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that affect the offenders only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. Those which consist:
1. In the material execution of the act
- will not affect all the offenders but
only those to whom such act are
attendant
2. Means to accomplish the crime
- will affect only those offenders who
have knowledge of the same at the
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
time of the act of execution or their
cooperation therein
What are the legal effects of habitual
delinquency?
1) Third conviction
- the culprit is sentenced to the penalty
for the crime committed and to the
additional penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum period.
2) Fourth conviction
- the penalty is that provided by law for
the last crime and the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods.
3) Fifth or additional conviction
- the penalty is that provided by law for
the last crime and the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
Note:
• In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties
imposed upon the offender exceed 30
years.
• The law does not apply to crimes described
in Art. 155
• The imposition of the additional penalty on
habitual delinquents are CONSTITUTIONAL
because such law is neither an EX POST
FACTO LAW nor an additional punishment
for future crimes. It is simply a punishment
on future crimes on account of the criminal
propensities of the accused.
• The imposition of such additional penalties
is mandatory and is not discretionary.
• Habitual delinquency applies at any stage
of the execution because subjectively, the
offender reveals the same degree of
depravity or perversity as the one who
commits a consummated crime.
• It applies to all participants because it
reveals persistence in them of the
inclination to wrongdoing and of the
perversity of character that led them to
commit the previous crime.
Cases where attending aggravating or
mitigating circumstances are not considered
in the imposition of penalties
- Penalty that is single and indivisible
- Felonies through negligence
- When the penalty is a fine
- When the penalty is prescribed by a special
law.
Art. 63. Rules for the application of
indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which
the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there
is present only one aggravating circumstance,
the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.
2008 Page 48 of 62

3. When the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstances and
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the
act, the court shall reasonably allow them to
offset one another in consideration of their
number and importance, for the purpose of
applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties:
1. Penalty is single and indivisible
- The penalty shall be applied regardless
of the presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. Ex. reclusion perpetua or
death
2. Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible
penalties:
a. One aggravating circumstance present
- HIGHER penalty
b. No mitigating circumstances present
- LESSER penalty
c. Some mitigating circumstances present
and no aggravating
- LESSER penalty
d. Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances offset each other
- Basis of penalty: number and
importance.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of
penalties which contain three periods. — In
cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single
divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and
77, the court shall observe for the application of
the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall impose the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable, according to
th7e number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature
of the aggravating circumstances, the courts
shall not impose a greater penalty than that
prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court
shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime.
Rules for the application of DIVISIBLE
PENALTIES
a. No aggravating and No mitigating
- MEDIUM PERIOD
b. One mitigating
- MINIMUM PERIOD
c. One aggravating (any number cannot
exceed the penalty provided by law in its
maximum period)
- MAXIMUM PERIOD
d. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
present
- to offset each other according to
relative weight
e. 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating
- one degree lower (has the effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance)
NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:
- indivisible penalties
- penalties prescribed by special laws
- fines
- crimes committed by negligence
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not
all the requisites of exemption of the fourth
circumstance of Article 12 are present.—
When all the conditions required in circumstances
Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt
from criminal liability are not present, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been
guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave
felony.
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of
accident (Art. 12 par 4) are not all present:
b. GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor maximum period to
prision correccional minimum period
c. LESS GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor minimum period and
medium period
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the
crime committed is not wholly excusable. —
A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is
not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of
some of the conditions required to justify the
same or to exempt from criminal liability in the
several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12,
provided that the majority of such conditions be
present. The courts shall impose the penalty in
the period which may be deemed proper, in view
of the number and nature of the conditions of
exemption present or lacking.
Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable
- One or two degrees lower if the majority of the
conditions for justification or exemption in the
cases provided in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.
2008 Page 49 of 62

People v. Lacanilao (1988)
Facts: The CFI found the accused, a
policeman, guilty of homicide. On appeal before
the CA, the CA found that the accused acted in
the performance of a duty but that the shooting
of the victim was not the necessary consequence
of the due performance thereof, therefore
crediting to him the mitigating circumstance
consisting of the incomplete justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of duty. The CA
lowered the penalty merely by one period
applying Art. 64 (2) appreciating incomplete
fulfillment of duty as a mere generic mitigating
circumstance lowering the penalty to minimum
period.
Held: CA erred because incomplete
fulfillment of duty is a privileged mitigating
circumstance which not only cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstances but also reduces the
penalty by one or two degrees than that
prescribed b law. The governing provision is Art.
69 of the RPC.
G. SPECIAL RULES
COMPLEX CRIMES
CRIME DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
PLURAL CRIMES
ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN
ACCESSORIES
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be
imposed upon certain accessories. — Those
accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs
3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with
abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the
additional penalty of absolute perpetual
disqualification if the principal offender shall be
guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute
temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of
a less grave felony.
♣ Absolute perpetual disqualification if the
principal offender is guilty of a grave felony.
♣ Absolute temporary disqualification if the
principal offender is guilt of less grave felony.
WHERE THE OFFENDER IS BELOW 18 YEARS
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon
a person under eighteen years of age. —
When the offender is a minor under eighteen
years and his case is one coming under the
provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall
be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over
nine years of age, who is not exempted from
liability by reason of the court having declared
that he acted with discernment, a discretionary
penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by
two degrees at least than that prescribed by law
for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under
eighteen years of age the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
always in the proper period.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
PD No. 603. ART. 192. Suspension of
Sentence and Commitment of Youthful
Offender.
If after hearing the evidence in the
proper proceedings, the court should find that the
youthful offender has committed the acts
charged against him the court shall determine
the imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him. However, instead of
pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court
shall suspend all further proceedings and shall
commit such minor to the custody or care of the
Department of Social Welfare, or to any training
institution operated by the government, or duly
licensed agencies or any other responsible
person, until he shall have reached twenty-one
years of age or, for a shorter period as the court
may deem proper, after considering the reports
and recommendations of the Department of
Social Welfare or the agency or responsible
individual under whose care he has been
committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to
visitation and supervision by a representative of
the Department of Social Welfare or any duly
licensed agency or such other officer as the court
may designate subject to such conditions as it
may prescribe.
♣ Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application
for suspension of sentence is disapproved or if
while in the reformatory institution he becomes
incorrigible in which case he shall be returned to
the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
♣ 9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least 2
degrees lower.
♣ 15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
♣ Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
♣ If the act is attended by two or more mitigating
and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty
being divisible, a minor over 15 but under 18
years old may still get a penalty two degrees
lower.
THE THREE-FOLD RULE
Art. 70. Successive service of
sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two
or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be
observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the
order of their respective severity shall be
followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible,
should a pardon have been granted as to the
penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they
have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph the
respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following
scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
2008 Page 50 of 62

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the
right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow
a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule
next preceding, the maximum duration of the
convict's sentence shall not be more than three-
fold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case
exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the
duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua)
shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).
Outline of the provisions of this Article:
1. When the culprit has to serve 2 or more
penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit.
2. Otherwise, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed.
3. The respective severity of the penalties is
as follows:
a.Death
b.Reclusion perpetua
c. Reclusion temporal
d.Prision mayor
e.Prision correccional
f. Arresto mayor
g.Arresto menor
h.Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
k.Suspension from public office, the right to
vote, and be voted for, the right to
follow profession or calling, and
l. Public censure
The penalties which can be simultaneously
served are:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public Censure
8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace
9. Civil interdiction
10. Confiscation and payment of costs
• The above penalties, except destierro,
can be served simultaneously with
imprisonment.
• Penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty cannot be served simultaneously
by reason of the nature of such penalties.
Three-fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convict’s
sentence shall not be more than three times the
length of time corresponding to the most severe
of the penalties imposed upon him.
♣ The phrase “the most severe of the penalties”
includes equal penalties.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
♣ The three-fold rule applies only when the
convict has to serve at least four sentences.
♣ All the penalties, even if by different courts at
different times, cannot exceed three-fold the
most severe.
- The Rules of Court specifically provide
that any information must not charge more than
one offense. Necessarily, the various offense
punished with different penalties must be
charged under different informations which may
be filed in the same court or in different courts,
at the same time or at different times.
♣ Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the
penalty.
♣ Indemnity is a penalty.
♣ Court must impose all the penalties for all the
crimes of which the accused is found guilty, but
in the service of the same, they shall not exceed
three times the most severe and shall not exceed
40 years.
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987)
Facts: The petitioner was convicted of
violating Section 3(E) of RA No. 3019 aka the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. One of the
issues raised by the petitioner concerns the
penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which
totals 56 years and 8 days of imprisonment. He
impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule
and insists that the duration of the aggregate
penalties should not exceed 40 years.
Held: Petitioner is mistaken in his
application of the 3-fold rule as set forth in Art.
70 of the RPC. This article is to be taken into
account not in the imposition of the penalty but
in connection with the service of the sentence
imposed. Art. 70 speaks of “service” of sentence,
“duration” of penalty and penalty “to be
inflicted”. Nowhere in the article is anything
mentioned about the “imposition of penalty”. It
merely provides that the prisoner cannot be
made to serve more than three times the most
severe of these penalties the maximum which is
40 years.
WHERE THE PENALTY IS NOT
COMPOSED OF 3 PERIODS
Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the
penalty is not composed of three periods. —
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is
not composed of three periods, the courts shall
apply the rules contained in the foregoing
articles, dividing into three equal portions of time
included in the penalty prescribed, and forming
one period of each of the three portions.
MEANING OF THE RULE
1. Compute and determine first the 3
periods of the entire penalty.
2. The time included in the penalty
prescribed should be divided into 3 equal
portions, after subtracting the minimum
(eliminate the 1 day) from the maximum of the
penalty.
3. The minimum of the minimum period
should be the minimum of the given penalty
(including the 1 day)
4. The quotient should be added to the
minimum prescribed (eliminate the 1 day) and
the total will represent the maximum of the
minimum period. Take the maximum of the
minimum period, add 1 day and make it the
2008 Page 51 of 62

minimum of the medium period; then add the
quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of
the medium period and the total will represent
the maximum of the medium period. Take the
maximum of the medium period, add 1 day and
make it the minimum of the maximum period;
then add the quotient to the minimum (eliminate
the 1 day) of the maximum period and the total
will represent the maximum of the maximum
period.
H. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
♣ The indeterminate sentence is composed of:
1. a MAXIMUM taken from the penalty
imposable under the penal code
2. a MINIMUM taken from the penalty
next lower to that fixed in the code.
♣ The law does not apply to certain offenders:
1. Persons convicted of offense punished
with death penalty or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence.
7. Those who violated the terms of
conditional pardon granted to them by
the Chief Executive.
8. Those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year.
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law,
had been sentenced by final judgment.
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of
destierro or suspension.
♣ Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem
valuable human material and prevent
unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty
and economic usefulness
- It is necessary to consider the criminal
first as an individual, and second as a member of
the society.
- The law is intended to favor the
defendant, particularly to shorten his term of
imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and
his physical, mental and moral record as a
prisoner, to be determined by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence.
♣ The settled practice is to give the accused the
benefit of the law even in crimes punishable with
death or life imprisonment provided the resulting
penalty, after considering the attending
circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less.
♣ ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is
expressly granted to those who are sentenced to
imprisonment exceeding 1 year.
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMING THE
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SENTENCE
♣ Is consists of a maximum and a minimum
instead of a single fixed penalty.
♣ Prisoner must serve the minimum before he is
eligible for parole.
♣ The period between the minimum and
maximum is indeterminate in the sense that the
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
prisoner may be exempted from serving said
indeterminate period in whole or in part.
♣ The maximum is determined in any case
punishable under the RPC in accordance with the
rules and provisions of said code exactly as if the
ISL had never been enacted.
♣ Apply first the effect of privileged mitigating
circumstances then consider the effects of
aggravating and ordinary mitigating
circumstances.
♣ The minimum depends upon the court’s
discretion with the limitation that it must be
within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense committed.
NOTE: A minor who escaped from confinement in
the reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the
ISL because his confinement is not considered
imprisonment.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of
penalties which contain three periods. — In
cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single
divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and
77, the court shall observe for the application of
the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating
nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose
the penalty prescribed by law in its medium
period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall impose the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable, according to
the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and
nature of the aggravating circumstances, the
courts shall not impose a greater penalty than
that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the
court shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime.
De la Cruz v. CA (1996)
In as much as the amount of P715k is
P693k more than the abovementioned
benchmark of P22k, then adding one year for
each additional P10k, the maximum period of 6
years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision
mayor minimum would be increased by 69 years,
as computed by the trial court. But the law
categorically declares that the maximum penalty
then shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion
2008 Page 52 of 62

temporal. Under the ISL, the minimum term of
the indeterminate penalt should be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed b the Code for the offense committed,
which is prision correccional.
People v. Campuhan (supra)
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2)
degrees lower than the imposable penalty of
death for the offense charged, which is statutory
rape of a minor below seven (7) years. Two (2)
degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the range of
which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, and in the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused shall be taken from the medium period
of reclusion temporal, the range of which is
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and (1)
day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, while the minimum shall be taken from
the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision
mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of
its periods.
People v. Saley (supra)
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum term of the penalty shall be "that
which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed" under the Revised
Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within
the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed" for the offense. The penalty next
lower should be based on the penalty prescribed
by the Code for the offense, without first
considering any modifying circumstance
attendant to the commission of the crime. The
determination of the minimum penalty is left by
law to the sound discretion of the court and it can
be anywhere within the range of the penalty next
lower without any reference to the periods into
which it might be subdivided. The modifying
circumstances are considered only in the
imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
The fact that the amounts involved in the
instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be
considered in the initial determination of the
indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter
should be so taken as analogous to modifying
circumstances in the imposition of the maximum
term of the full indeterminate sentence. This
interpretation of the law accords with the rule
that penal laws should be construed in favor of
the accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law
for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is
prision correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum, the penalty next lower would then be
prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus,
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence
should be anywhere within six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months
. Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty
I. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Execution of Penalties
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is
to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed
except by virtue of a final judgment.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form
than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly
authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the
special regulations prescribed for the government
of the institutions in which the penalties are to be
suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time
of its performance, and other incidents connected
therewith, the relations of the convicts among
themselves and other persons, the relief which
they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the
separation of the sexes in different institutions,
or at least into different departments and also for
the correction and reform of the convicts.
♠ The judgment must be final before it can be
executed, because the accused may still appeal
within 15 days from its promulgation. But if the
defendant has expressly waived in writing his
right to appeal, the judgment becomes final and
executory.
♠ See Rules and regulations to implement RA No.
8177 under Capital Punishment.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua,
reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision
correccional and arresto mayor. — The
penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and
arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in
the places and penal establishments provided by
the Administrative Code in force or which may be
provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person
sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to
enter the place or places designated in the
sentence, nor within the radius therein specified,
which shall be not more than 250 and not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
♠ Convict shall not be permitted to enter the
place designated in the sentence nor within the
radius specified, which shall not more than 250
and not less than 25 km from the place
designated.
♠ If the convict enters the prohibited area, he
commits evasion of sentence.
♠ Destierro is imposed:
a. When the death or serious physical
injuries is caused or are inflicted under
exceptional circumstances (art. 247)
b. When a person fails to give bond for good
behavior (art. 284)
c. As a penalty for the concubine in the
crime of concubinage (Art. 334)
d. When after lowering the penalty by
degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal
jail, or in the house of the defendant himself
under the surveillance of an officer of the law,
when the court so provides in its decision, taking
into consideration the health of the offender and
other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
Service of the penalty of arresto menor:
a. In the municipal jail
2008 Page 53 of 62

b. In the house of the offender, but
under the surveillance of an officer of
the law, whenever the court so
provides in the decision due to the
health of the offender.
In the Matter of the petition for Habeas
Corpus of Pete Lagran (2001)
Facts: The accused was convicted of 3
counts of violating BP22 and was sentenced to
imprisonment of 1 year for each count. He was
detained on Feb. 24, 1999. On Mar. 19, 2001, he
filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming he
completed the service of his sentence. Citing Art.
70, RPC, he claimed that he shall serve the
penalties simultaneously. Thus, there is no more
legal basis for his detention.
Held: Art. 70 allows simultaneous service
of two or more penalties only if the nature of the
penalties so permit. In the case at bar, the
petitioner was sentenced to suffer one year
imprisonment for every count of the offense
committed. The nature of the sentence does not
allow petitioner to serve all the terms
simultaneously. The rule of successive service of
sentence must be applied.
Effects of the Probation Law
THE PROBATION LAW
Taken from the DOJ website
Section 3(a) of Presidential Decrees 968, as
amended, defines probation as a disposition
under which an accused, after conviction and
sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer. It is a privilege granted by the
court; it cannot be availed of as a matter of right
by a person convicted of a crime. To be able to
enjoy the benefits of probation, it must first be
shown that an applicant has none of the
disqualifications imposed by law.
Disqualified Offenders
Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is
intended for offenders who are 18 years of age
and above, and who are not otherwise
disqualified by law. Offenders who are
disqualified are those: (1) sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years; (2) convicted of subversion or any offense
against the security of the State, or the Public
Order; (3) who have previously been convicted
by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not more than Two
Hundred Pesos; (4) who have been once on
probation under the provisions of this Decree;
Post-Sentence Investigation
The Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and the
submission of the Post-Sentence Investigation
Report (PSIR) are pre-requisites to the court
disposition on the application for probation.
Period of Probation
The period of probation is in essence a time-
bound condition. It is a condition in point of time
which may be shortened and lengthened within
the statutory limits and the achievements by the
probationer of the reasonable degrees of social
stability and responsibility from the measured
observation of the supervising officer and the
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
exercise discretion by the court in decisive order.
Probation Conditions
The grant of probation is accompanied by
conditions imposed by the court:
• The mandatory conditions require that
the probationer shall (a) present himself
to the probation officer designated to
undertake his supervision at each place
as may be specified in the order within
72 hours from receipt of said order, and
(b) report to the probation officer at least
once a month at such time and place as
specified by said officer.
• Special or discretionary conditions are
those additional conditions imposed on
the probationer which are geared towards
his correction and rehabilitation outside
of prison and right in the community to
which he belongs.
A violation of any of the conditions may lead
either to a more restrictive modification of the
same or the revocation of the grant of probation.
Consequent to the revocation, the probationer
will have to serve the sentence originally
imposed.
Modification of Conditions of Probation
During the period of probation, the court may,
upon application of either the probationers or the
probation officer, revise or modify the conditions
or period of probation. The court shall notify
either the probationer or the probation officer of
the filing of such an application so as to give both
parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.
Transfer of Residence
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in
a place under the jurisdiction of another court,
control over him shall be transferred to the
executive judge of the "Court of First Instance" of
that place, and in such case, a copy of the
Probation Order, the investigation report and
other pertinent records shall be furnished to said
executive judge. Thereafter, the executive judge
to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is
transferred shall have the power with respect to
him that was previously possessed by the court
which granted the probation.
Revocation of Probation
At any time during probation, the court may
issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for
any serious violation of the conditions of
probation. The probationer, once arrested and
detained, shall immediately be brought before
the court for a hearing of the violation charged.
The defendant may be admitted to bail pending
such hearing. In such case, the provisions
regarding release on bail of persons charged with
crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested
under this provision. An order revoking the grant
of probation or modifying the terms and
conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Termination of Probation
After the period of probation and upon
consideration of the report and recommendation
of the probation officer, the court may order the
final discharge of the probationer upon finding
that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of
his probation and thereupon the case is deemed
terminated.
2008 Page 54 of 62

Programs and Services
Post-Sentence Investigation. After conviction
and sentence, a convicted offender or his counsel
files a petition for probation with the trail court,
who in turn orders the Probation Officer to
conduct a post-sentence investigation to
determine whether a convicted offender may be
placed on probation or not. The role of the
probation officer in this phase is to conduct the
post-sentence investigation and to submit his
report to the court within the period not later
than 60 days from receipt of the order of the
Court to conduct the said investigation.
Pre-Parole Investigation. The PAROLE AND
PROBATION ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) conducts
pre-parole investigation of all sentenced
prisoners confined in prisons and jails within their
jurisdiction. The purpose is to determine whether
offenders confined in prisons/jails are qualified
for parole or any form of executive clemency and
to discuss with them their plans after release.
Probation officers submit their pre-parole
assessment reports to the Board of Pardons and
Parole.
Supervision of Offenders. The Agency
supervises two types of offenders under
conditional release: (1) probationers, or persons
placed under probation by the courts; (2)
parolees and pardonees, or prisoners released on
parole or conditional pardon and referred by the
Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) to PAROLE
AND PROBATION ADMINISTRATION - (PPA)
(PPA). The objectives of supervision are to carry
out the conditions set forth in the
probation/parole order, to ascertain whether the
probationer/parolee/pardonee is complying with
the said conditions, and to bring about the
rehabilitation of the client and his re-integration
into the community.
Rehabilitation Programs. The treatment
process employed by the field officers focused on
particular needs of probationers, parolees and
pardonees. Assistance is provided to the clientele
in the form of job placement, skills training,
spiritual/moral upliftment, counseling, etc.
Community Linkages
Probation/Parole, as a community-based
treatment program, depends on available
resources in the community for the rehabilitation
of offenders. Thus, the Agency, recognizing the
important role of the community as a
rehabilitation agent, involves the community in
probation work through the use of volunteer
workers and welfare agencies.
Presidential Decree No. 968 permits the
utilization of the services of Volunteer Probation
Aides to assist the Probation and Parole Officers
in the supervision of probationers, parolees and
pardonees particularly in the areas where the
caseload is heavy and the office is understaff or
where the residence of the clientele is very far
from the Parole and Probation Office. As defined,
a Volunteer Probation Aide is a volunteer who is a
citizen of good moral character and good
standing in the community, who has been
carefully selected and trained to do volunteer
probation work. He is appointed by the
Administrator after successful completion of the
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
Introductory Training Course for probation
volunteers. His term of office is one year but can
be renewed thereafter or terminated earlier
depending upon his performance and willingness
to serve.
Further, the PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION - (PPA), through its
Community Services Division, Regional and Field
Offices nationwide, has been tapping
government/non-government
organizations/individuals for various rehabilitation
programs and activities for probationers, parolees
and pardonees.
Llamado v. CA (1989)
In its present form, Section 4 of the
Probation Law establishes a much narrower
period during which an application for probation
ma be filed with the trial curt: “after the trial curt
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant
and – within the period for perfecting an appeal”.
The provision expressly prohibits the grant of an
application for probation if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
Petitioner’s right to apply for probation
was lost when he perfected his appeal from the
judgment of the trial court. The trial court lost
jurisdiction already over the case.
Bala v. Martinez (1990)
PD 1990 which amends Sec. 4 of PD 968
is not applicable to the case at bar. It went into
effect on Jan. 15, 1985 and cannot be given
retroactive effect because it would be prejudicial
to the accused. Bala was placed on probation on
Aug. 11, 1982.
Expiration of probation period alone does
not automatically terminate probation; a final
order of discharge from the court is required.
Probation is revocable before the final discharge
by the court. Probationer failed to reunite with
responsible society. He violated the conditions of
his probation. Thus, the revocation of his
probation is compelling.
Salgado v. CA (1990)
There is no question that the decision
convicting Salgado of the crime of serious
physical injuries had become final and executory
because the filing by respondent of an application
for probation is deemed a waiver of his right to
appeal.
The grant of probation does not
extinguish the civil liability of the offender. The
order of probation with one of the conditions
providing for the manner of payment of the civil
liability during the period of probation, did not
increase or decrease the civil liability adjudged.
The conditions listed under Sec. 10 of the
Probation law are not exclusive. Courts are
allowed to impose practically any term it
chooses, the only limitation being that it does not
jeopardize the constitutional rights of the
accused.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado
(1996)
Facts: The respondent is a deputy sheriff
who was charged of violating the Dangerous
Drugs Act and is now claiming he is in probation.
The OCA filed an administrative case against him
and he was suspended from office.
2008 Page 55 of 62

Held: While indeed the purpose of the
Probation Law is to save valuable human
material, it must not be forgotten that unlike
pardon probation does not obliterate the crime of
which the person under probation has been
convicted. The image of the judiciary is tarnished
by conduct involving moral turpitude. The reform
and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot
justify his retention in the government service.
Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution
and service of the penalties in case of
insanity. — When a convict shall become insane
or an imbecile after final sentence has been
pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall
be suspended only with regard to the personal
penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph
of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being
observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover
his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless
the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section
shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility
occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
♠ Only execution of personal penalty is
suspended: civil liability may be executed even in
case of insanity of convict.
♠ An accused may become insane:
a. at the time of commission of the
crime
– exempt from criminal liability
b. at the time of the trial
- court shall suspend hearings and
order his confinement in a hospital
until he recovers his reason
c. at the time of final judgment or while
serving sentence
– execution suspended with regard to
the personal penalty only
♠ see Exempting Circumstance of Minority for PD
No. 603 and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with
Law.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
VII. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
This section enumerates and explains the ways in
which criminal liability is extinguished, one of
which is prescription (of both the crime and the
penalty) which will be discussed in detail.
Ø Two kinds of extinguishment of criminal
liability:
§ Total Extinguishment
§ Partial Extinguishment
Ø Kinds of Total Extinguishment:
§ By the death of the convict
§ By Service of sentence
§ By Amnesty
§ By Absolute Pardon
§ By prescription of crime
§ By prescription of penalty
§ By the marriage of the offended
woman and the offender in the
crimes of rape, abduction, seduction
and acts of lasciviousness. (Art.
344)
Ø Kinds of Partial Extinguishment:
§ By Conditional Pardon
§ By Commutation of sentence
§ For good conduct, allowances which
the culprit may earn while he is
serving sentence
§ By Parole
§ By Probation
Important: The Supreme Court ruled that re-
election to public office is not one of the grounds
by which criminal liability is extinguished. This is
only true in administrative cases but not in
criminal cases.
Total Extinguishment
A. BY THE DEATH OF THE CONVICT
Ø Extinguishes criminal liability as to
personal penalties;
Ø As to pecuniary penalties, liability
is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final
judgment.
EXCEPTION: Art. 33 (based on
contracts). Even if the accused
dies pending appeal, the right to
file a separate civil action is not
lost.
2008 Page 56 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

Illustration: offense. offense, but rights not

restored unless
1. People v. Bayotas (1991) explicitly provided by
the terms of the
Where the offender dies before final judgment, pardon
his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil Both do not extinguish civil liability
liabilities. So while a case is on appeal, the Public act which the Private act of the
offender dies, the case on appeal will be court shall take President and must be
dismissed. The offended party may file a judicial notice of pleaded and proved by
separate civil action under the Civil Code if any the person pardoned
other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as Valid only when Valid if given either
provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. there is final before or after final
judgment judgment
2. People v. Abungan (2000)

The death of appellant extinguished his criminal

liability. Moreover, because he died during the
pendency of the appeal and before the finality of
the judgment against him, his civil liability arising
from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto)
was also extinguished. It must be added, though,
that his civil liability may be based on sources of
obligation other than delict. For this reason, the
victims may file a separate civil action against his
estate, as may be warranted by law and
procedural rules.
B. BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE
C. BY AMNESTY
Ø An act of the sovereign power
granting oblivion or general pardon
for a past offense.
Ø Rarely exercised in favor of a single
individual; usually extended in behalf
of certain classes of persons who
are subject trial but have not yet
been convicted.
Ø Erases not only the conviction but
also the crime itself.
D. BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
Question: An offender was convicted of
rebellion, but he was given amnesty. Years later,
he was convicted again of rebellion. Is he a
recidivist?
Answer: No. Because the amnesty granted to
him erased not only the conviction but also the
effects of the conviction itself.
Question: Suppose what was given him was not
amnesty but pardon?
Answer: Yes. Pardon, although absolute does
not erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only
excuses the convict from serving the sentence.
Question: A person convicted of rebellion has
already served the sentence; yet, despite of this,
he was still given absolute pardon. Years later,
he was again convicted of rebellion. Is he a
recidivist?
Answer: No. When the convict has already
served the sentence such that there is no more
service of sentence to be executed then the
pardon shall be understood as intended to erase
the effects of the conviction.

Ø An act of grace, proceeding from Question: What if the pardon was given to him
the power entrusted with the while he was serving his sentence?
execution of the laws
Ø Exempts the individual from the Answer: The pardon will not wipe out the effects
penalty of the crime he has of the crime, unless the language of the pardon
committed. specifically relieves him of the effects of the
crime.
Monsanto V. Factoran, Jr. (1989)
E. BY PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME (Art. 90)
Absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the
convict to reinstatement to the public office Ø Definition: The forfeiture or loss of
forfeited by reason of his conviction. Although the right of the State to prosecute
pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to the offender, after the loss of a
that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for certain time.
the new appointment. Ø General Rule: Prescription of the
crime begins on the day the crime
Difference between Amnesty was committed.
and Absolute Pardon § Exception: The crime was
concealed, not public, in
Amnesty Absolute pardon which case, the prescription
Blanket pardon to Includes any crime thereof would only
classes of persons, and is exercised commence from the time
guilty of political individually the offended party or the
offenses government learns of the
May still be exercised The person is already commission of the crime.
even before trial or convicted
investigation
Looks backward – it is Looks forward – he is
as if he has relieved from the
committed no consequences of the

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 57 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

Difference between Prescription of Crime § Note: Termination must be

and Prescription of the Penalty FINAL as to amount to a
jeopardy that would bar a
Prescription of crime Prescription of the subsequent prosecution.
penalty Ø The term of prescription shall not
Forfeiture of the State Forfeiture to execute run when the offender is absent from
to prosecute after a the final sentence after the Philippine archipelago.
lapse of a certain time the lapse of a certain Ø For continuing crimes, prescriptive
time period cannot begin to run because
the crime does not end.
Question: What happens when the last day of
the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal
holiday? F. BY PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES (Art. 92)

Answer: The information can no longer be filed Ø Definition: The loss or forfeiture of
on the next day as the crime has already the right of the government to
prescribed. execute the final sentence after the
lapse of a certain time.
Prescriptive Periods of Crimes
Prescriptive Periods of Penalties
Crimes punishable by death, 20 years
reclusion perpetua or reclusion Death and reclusion perpetua 20 years
temporal Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Afflictive penalties 15 years Correctional penalties 10 years
Correctional penalties 10 years Note: If arresto mayor 5 years
Light penalties 1 year
Note: Those punishable by 5 years
arresto mayor
The Computation of the Prescription of Penalties
highest (Art. 93)
Note: When the penalty fixed penalty
law is a compound one shall be Elements:
made a
basis 1. Penalty is imposed by final judgment
2. Convict evaded service of sentence by
Libel 1 year
escaping during the term of his
Oral defamation and slander by 6 months sentence
deed 3. The convict who has escaped from
Simple slander 2 months prison has not given himself up, or
Grave slander 6 months been captured, or gone to a foreign
Light offenses 2 months country with which we have no
extradition treaty, or committed
Crimes punishable by fines
another crime
Fine is afflictive 15 years 4. The penalty has prescribed because of
Fine is correctional 10 years the lapse of time from the date of the
Fine is light 2 months evasion of service of the sentence by
the convict.
Note: Subsidiary penalty
for nonpayment not
considered in Ø Period commences to run from the
determining the period date when he culprit evaded20 the
service of sentence
Note: When fine is an Ø When interrupted:
alternative penalty § Convict gives himself up
higher than the other § Is captured
penalty which is by § Goes to a foreign country
imprisonment, with which we have no
prescription of the crime extradition treaty
is based on the fine. § Commits any crime before
Computation of Prescription of Offenses the expiration of the period of
(Art. 91) prescription

Ø Commences to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by
the offended party, the authorities or
their agents.
Ø Interrupted by the filing of
complaint or information
§ It shall commence to run
again when such proceedings
terminate without the
accused being convicted or
acquitted, or unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.
Question: What happens in cases where our
government has extradition treaty with another
country but the crime is not included in the
treaty?
Answer: It would interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period.
20
"Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and
157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his
custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to
have escaped therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002).

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 58 of 62

 CRIMINAL LAW

Question: What is the effect of the acceptance Question: What happens if the convict fails to
of the convict of a conditional pardon? observe the condition of the parole?

Answer: It would interrupt the acceptance of the Answer: The Board of Pardons and Parole is
prescriptive period. authorized to:
1. Direct his arrest and return to
Question: What happens if the culprit is custody
captured but he evades again the service of his 2. To carry out his sentence
sentence? without deduction of the time
that has elapsed between the
Answer: The period of prescription that ran date of the parole and the
during the evasion is not forfeited. The period of subsequent arrest.
prescription that has run in his favor should be
taken into account. Difference between Conditional Pardon
and Parole
G. BY MARRIAGE OF THE FFENDED WOMAN
WITH THE OFFENDER Conditional Pardon Parole
May be give at any May be given after
Ø This applies only to the following time after final the prisoner has
crimes: judgment; is granted served the
§ Rape by he Chief minimum penalty;
§ Seduction Executive under the is granted by the
§ Abduction provisions of the Board of Pardons
§ Acts of lasciviousness Administrative Code and Parole under the
Ø The marriage under Art. 344 must be provisions of the
contracted in good faith Indeterminate
Sentence Law
Partial Extinguishment In case of violation, In case of violation,
the convict may be the convict may not
A. A. BY CONDTIONAL PARDON prosecuted under be prosecuted under
Ø If delivered and accepted, it is a Art. 159 of the RPC. Art. 159 of the RPC.
contract between the executive
and the convict that the former will
release the latter upon compliance E. BY PROBATION
with the condition.
Ø Example of a condition: Note: Please see Probation Law on page
“Not to violate any of the penal 117.
laws of the country again”.
B.
B. BY COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

C. FOR GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES

Ø The convict may earn these while he

is serving his sentence.
Ø Example: Article 158. A convict who
escapes the place of confinement on
the occasion of disorder resulting
from a conflagration, earthquake or
similar catastrophe, or during a
mutiny in which he has not
participated; but who returns within
48 hours after the proclamation that
the calamity had passed shall be
given credit of 1/5 deduction of the
original sentence.

Note: Not an automatic right for it has to

be granted by the Director of Prisons (Art.
99). Also, he must be serving his sentence.
Thus, if released because of conditional
pardon, this provision is not applicable.

D. BY PAROLE

Ø Definition: The suspension of the

sentence of the convict after serving
the minimum term of the
intermediate penalty, without being
granted a pardon, prescribing the
terms upon which the sentence shall
be suspended.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 59 of 62


VIII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
A FELONY
A. IN GENERAL
B. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES
C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
D. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
A. IN GENERAL
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of
felony. — Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.
Ø Civil liability arises from the commission of
the felony.
Ø It is determined in the criminal action except
if:
a. the offended party waives his right to
file a civil action
b. the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
c. the offended party institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
Ø Effect of ACQUITTAL:
• As a rule, if the offender is acquitted,
the civil liability is extinguished,
except:
a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt
b) the acquittal was due to an exempting
circumstance like insanity and
c) when the court finds that there is only
civil liability.
B. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES
1) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED
BY AN INSANE OR IMBECILE OR MINOR
UNDER 9 OR OVER 9 AND LESS THAN 15
WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT
2) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED
BY PERSONS ACTING UNDER
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR
UNCONTROLLABE FEAR
3) CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING
UNDER JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
4) CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND
SIMILAR PERSONS
5) SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER
PERSONS
Ø CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
• Exemption from criminal liability does
not include exemption from civil
liability.
• Exceptions:
1.There is no civil liability in
paragraph 4 of Art. 12 which
provides for injury caused by mere
accident.
2.There is no civil liability in par. 7
of Art. 12 which provides for failure
to perform an act required by law
when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.
1) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED
BY AN INSANE OR IMBECILE OR MINOR
UNDER 9 OR OVER 9 AND LESS THAN 15
WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT
Ø A minor
• over 15 years of age
• who acts with discernment
◦ is not exempt from criminal liability.
◦ Parents are subsidiarily liable
according to Art 2180 of the Civil
Code.
Ø The final release of a child based on good
conduct does not obliterate his civil
liability for damages.
2) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED
BY PERSONS ACTING UNDER IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABE FEAR
Ø The persons using violence or causing the
fear are primarily liable.
Ø If there be no such persons, those doing the
act shall be liable secondarily.
3) CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING
UNDER JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Ø There is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances except in par. 4 of Art. 11
4) CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND
SIMILAR PERSONS
ELEMENTS OF At 102 PAR. 1:
1. That the INNKEEPER, TAVERNKEEPER OR
PROPRIETOR of establishment or his
employee committed a violation of
municipal ordinance or some general
or special police regulation.
2. That a crime is committed in such
inn, tavern or establishment.
3. That the person criminally liable is
insolvent.
ELEMENTS OF PAR 2.
1. The guests notified in advance the
innkeeper or the person representing
him of the deposit of their goods
within the inn or house.
2. The guest followed the directions of the
innkeeper or his representative with
2008 Page 60 of 62

respect to the care of the vigilance over
such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein
were taken by robbery with force
upon things or theft committed within
the inn or house.
Ø No liability shall attach in case of
robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons,
• unless committed by the innkeeper’s
employees.
Ø It is not necessary that the effects of the
guest be actually delivered to the
innkeeper,
• it is enough that they were within the
inn.
5) SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER
PERSONS
Art 103 ELEMENTS:
1. The employer, teacher, person or
corporation is engaged in any kind of
industry.
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a
felony while in the discharge of his
duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has
not satisfied his civil liability.
Ø No defense of diligence of a good father
of a family.
Ø Supreme Court ruled that even though the
guest did not obey the rules and
regulations, the guests will only be
regarded as contributory negligence, but
it won’t absolve the management from
civil liability (Esguerra notes)
Ø Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the
following:
1. In case of a felony committed under the
compulsion of an irresistible force. The
person who employed the irresistible
force is subsidiarily liable;
2. In case of a felony committed under an
impulse of an equal or greater injury. The
person who generated such an
impulse is subsidiarily liable.
C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Civil liability of the offender falls under
three categories:
1. Restitution or Restoration
2. Reparation of the damage caused
3. Indemnification of consequential
damages
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
CRIMINAL LAW
1. RESTITUTION OR RESTORATION
Ø Presupposes that
• the offended party was divested of
property,
• and such property must be returned.
Ø If the property is in the hands of a third
party,
• the same shall be restored to the
offended party
• even if third party may be a holder for
value and a buyer in good faith of the
property
Ø Except when such third party buys the
property from a public sale where the law
protects the buyer.
ILLUSTRATION:
If a third party bought a property in a public
auction conducted by the sheriff, the buyer of the
property at such execution sale is protected by
law. The offended party may only resort to
reparation of the damage done from the
offender.
Ø Regardless of the crime committed,
• if the property is illegally taken from the
offended party during the commission of
the crime,
• the court may direct the offender to
restore or restitute such property to the
offended party.
ILLUSTRATION:
Where the offender committed rape, during the
rape, the offender took the earrings of the victim.
The offender was prosecuted for rape and theft.
The offender reasoned that he took the earrings
of the victim to have a souvenir of the sexual
intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime
committed is not theft and rape but rape and
unjust vexation for the taking of the earning.
The latter crime is not a crime against property
but a crime against personal security and liberty
under Title IX of Book II of the RPC.
Ø If there is violation of Anti-Fencing Law
the fence
• incurs criminal liability
• aside from being required to restitute the
personal property
Ø If RESTITUTION cannot be made then
REPARATION should be made
Ø IF OFFENDER DIES provided he died after
judgment became final:
• The heirs of offender
• shall assume the civil liability,
• but only to the extent that they inherit
property from the deceased
Ø IF OFFENDED PARTY DIES:
• the heirs of the offended party step into
the shoes of the latter to demand civil
liability from the offender.
2. REPARATION OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED
2008 Page 61 of 62
 CRIMINAL LAW

Ø Reparation is made by requiring the • Anyone of them may be required to pay

offender to pay the value of damages. the civil liability pertaining to such
offender
Ø The court determines the amount of damages • without prejudice to recovery from those
by considering: whose share have been paid by another.

a) the price of the thing and
b) Its special sentimental value to
offended party by.
Ø If property is brand new, then there will be
an allowance for depreciation
Ø The damages are limited to those caused by
the crime.
3. INDEMNIFICATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES
Ø Indemnification of consequential damages
refers to the loss of earnings, loss of
profits.
Ø Where DEATH results:
1. INDEMNITY: P50,000
2. Lost of Earning Capacity
3. Support to a non-heir
4. Moral damages for mental anguish…
5. Exemplary damages if attended by 1 or
more aggravating circumstances
Ø If all the principals are insolvent, the
the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s)
or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have
the right of covering the share of the obligation
from those who did not pay but are civilly liable.
Ø To relate with Article 38,
• when there is an order or preference of
pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,
restitution is not included here.
Ø There is no subsidiary penalty for non-
payment of civil liability.
2) People vs. Tupal, 2003,
Exemplary damages were awarded when the
offense was committed with at least 1
aggravating circumstance.
D. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY

Ø Indemnification for consequential damages Ø Extinguished in the same manner as other

includes: obligations in accordance with the provisions of
1) those caused the injured party the Civil Code.

2) those suffered by the family, or Ø Loss of the thing due

3) those suffered by 3rd person by reason of
the crime
ILLUSTRATION:
The offender carnapped a bridal car while the
newly-weds were inside the church. Since the
car was only rented, consequential damage not
only to the newly-weds but also to the entity
which rented the car to them.
1) Espaňa v. People (2005)
The award for civil indemnity ex delicto is
mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the
victim without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime.
• does not extinguish civil liability
• because if the offender cannot make
restitution, he is obliged to make
reparation.
Ø Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists
• even if the offender has served
sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty or other rights or has served the
same, due to amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other
reason.

Ø In the crime of rape, the damages awarded

to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00
for the damage to her honor.

Ø The present procedural law

• does not allow a blanket recovery of
damages.
• Each kind of damages must be specified
and the amount duly proven.

Ø When there are several offenders,

• the court shall determine what shall be
the share of each offender
• depending upon the degree of
participation – as principal, accomplice or
accessory.

Ø If there are more than one principal or

more than one accomplice or accessory,
• the liability in each class of offender shall
be subsidiary.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 62 of 62