ART.

RPC When Act Takes Effect February 1, 1932

Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall take effect on the first
day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
Criminal law is that branch or division of municipal law which
- defines crimes,
- treats of their nature and
- provides for their punishment.
Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. General binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in
the Philippines
Exceptions:
a. Treaty Stipulation
b. Laws of Preferential Application
c. Principles of Public International Law
Example
(1). sovereigns and other chiefs of state
(2). Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, minister resident
and charges daffaires (BUT consuls, vice-consuls and
other foreign commercial representatives CANNOT claim the
privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and
ministers.)
2. Territorial penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable
only within its territory
Exceptions: (Art. 2 of RPC binding even on crimes
committed outside the Philippines)
a. offense committed while on a Philippine ship or airship
b. forging or counterfeiting any coin or
currency note of the Philippines or obligations and the
securities issued by the Government
c. introduction into the country of the above-mentioned
obligations and securities
d. while being public officers and employees, an offense
committed in the exercise of their functions
e. crimes against national security and the law of the
nations defined in Title One of Book Two
The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty
resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.

Terrestrial: jurisdiction exercised over the land

Fluvial: jurisdiction over maritime and interior waters (3-5 nautical

miles from the shore)

Aerial: jurisdiction over the atmosphere

French Rule
The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag
which the vessel flies, unless the crime committed endangers the national
security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which
case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel.
American Rule / Anglo-Saxon Rule
This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the
foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly
applied, except if the crime affects only the internal management of the
vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is
registered.
3. Prospective the law does not have any retroactive effect.
Exception: when the law is favorable to the accused
Exceptions to the Exception:
a. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending
actions or existing causes of action
b. Offender is a habitual criminal
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. As to the effect of repeal of penal
law to the liability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is
absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been
decriminalized by the repeal. Because of the repeal, the act or omission which used to
be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which
decriminalized subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law
continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely
modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification
may be prejudicial or beneficial to the offender. Hence, the following rule:
Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute
(1)
If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the
same shall be dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.

(2)
If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by
final judgment, if the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a
release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to
those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation, those
who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will
receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.
If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be
filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in jail.
If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the
sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already
been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive
application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative
(1)
If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and
the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him.
So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the
repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing
law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action.
(2)
If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by
final judgment,even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to
be a crime. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that
repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will
henceforth apply to them.
Under Article 22, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law
which is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in
accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied
(1)
If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing
law will revive the original law. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime
under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although
during the implied repeal they may not be punishable.
(2)
If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first
law, so the act or omission will no longer be penalized.
These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have
automatic termination. An example is the Rent Control Law which is revived by
Congress every two years.
Theories of Criminal Law:
1. Classical Theory basis is mans free will to choose between
good and evil, that is why more stress is placed upon the
result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The RPC is generally
governed by this theory.

Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to

choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result
of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
2. Positivist Theory basis is the sum of social and economic
phenomena which conditions man to do wrong in spite of or
contrary to his volition. This is exemplified in the provisions
on impossible crimes and habitual delinquency.

Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon

which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.
3. Mixed Theory combination of the classical and positivist
theories wherein crimes that are economic and social in nature
should be dealt in a positive manner. The law is thus
more compassionate.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
Doctrine of Pro Reo
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Nullumcrimen, nullapoena sine lege
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.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter
how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.
Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence.
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution
for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual
wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the
society does not approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be
utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.
Sources of Criminal Law
1.
The Revised Penal Code

2.

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
1. The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction
over the atmosphere above it subject only to the
innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country.

Special Penal Laws Acts enacted of the Philippine Legislature punishing

offenses or omissions.

Construction of Penal Laws:

1. Liberally construed in favor of offender
Ex:
a. the offender must clearly fall within the terms of the law
b. an act is criminal only when made so by the statute
2. In cases of conflict with official translation, original
Spanish text is controlling,
3. No interpretation by analogy.
LIMITATIONS ON POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL
LAWS
1. ex post facto law
2. bill of attainder
3. law that violates the equal protection clause
of the constitution
4. law which imposes cruel and unusual punishments nor excessive
fines
R.A. No. 75 - 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
Art. 2.

Application of RPC Provisions

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and

laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands; chan robles virtual law library
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands
of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

NOTE: The Philippines adopts this theory.

2. 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 criminal law will govern.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippine Islands;
1. The forgery is committed abroad
2. And it refers to Philippine coin, currency note,
obligation and security
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
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.

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or

airship
RULES:
1. Philippine vessel or airship Philippine law shall apply to
offenses committed in vessels registered with the Philippine
Bureau of Customs. It is the registration, not the
citizenship of the owner which matters.

Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is

validly married here in the Philippines and who marries
again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted
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.

2. Foreign vessel
a. French Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel
within the territorial waters of a country are NOT
triable in the courts of such country.
Exception: commission affects the peace and security of
the territory, or the safety of the state is endangered.
b. English Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel
within the territorial waters of a country are triable
in the courts of such country.
Exception: When the crime merely affects things within
the vessel or it refers to the internal management
thereof.
This is applicable in the Philippines.
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.
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.
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.
Extraterritorial refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code outside the Philippines territory:
Three International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
a. Free Zone Theory

5. Should 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.
Art. 3.

Felonies

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.
Felonies acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Crime acts and omissions punishable by any law.
Act an overt or external act
Omission failure to perform a duty required by law
Misdemeanor: a minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an
ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally
means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand,
violations of special laws are generally referred to as malumprohibitum.

People v. Ah Chong (1910)

A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark,
honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area,
and after crying out sufficient warnings and
believing himself to be under attack, cannot be
held criminally liable for homicide.

Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. 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. 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.
Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly
and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may
arise.
When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law
punishes the same.
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
Dolo - deliberate intent.Must be coupled with freedom of action
and intelligence on the part of the offender as to the
act done by him.
Actus Reus - Physical act
Mens rea - a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or
criminal intent.
Gravamen of the offense
Omission is a. the failure to perform a duty
b. required by law.
c. 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: Omission
1. Failure to render assistance
2. Failure to issue receipt
3. non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government.
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE There is no crime
when there is no law punishing it.
Classification Of Felonies According To The Means By Which They Are
Committed:
1. Intentional Felonies- by means of deceit (dolo)
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent.
Examples: murder, treason, and robbery
Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
(1) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill;
(2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called
malumprohibitum.
In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:
1.) General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This
does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he
acted without such criminal intent.
2.) Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element
of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated
homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the
same.
Distinction between intent and discernment
Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is
the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.
Discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral
significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an
element of dolo, distinct from intent.
Distinction between intent and motive
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result
it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.
On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to
do an act. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before
the intent. But a crime may be committed without motive.
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested
by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material
if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.
MISTAKE OF FACT (Ignorantia Facti Excusat) misapprehension
of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not criminally liable.
Requisites:
a. the act done would have been lawful had the facts
been as the accused believed them to be
b. intention is lawful
c. mistake must be without fault or carelessness by
the accused
Example:

2. Culpable Felonies- by means of fault (culpa)

Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. negligence (lack of foresight) and imprudence (lack of skill)
d.Lack of intent
1.
1.
2.

ART.4

by means of fault (culpa) There is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Imprudence deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road.
He hit B because it was raining reckless imprudence.
Negligence - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger,
usually involves lack of foresight

Criminal Liability

Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Par.1 Criminal liability for a felony committed different from
that intended to be committed
Requisites:
1. felony has been committed intentionally
2. injury or damage done to the other party is the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony
Hence, since he is still motivated by criminal intent,
the offender is criminally liable in:
1. Error in personae mistake in identity
2. Abberatio ictus mistake in blow
3. Praetor intentionem - lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong
PROXIMATE CAUSE the cause, which in the natural and
continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, without which the result would
not have occurred
Requisites:
1.
the felony was intentionally committed
2.
the felony is the proximate cause of the wrong done

Doctrine of Proximate Cause such adequate and efficient cause as, in the
natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding
the case, which would necessarily produce the event.
Requisites:
1.
the direct, natural, and logical cause
2.
produces the injury or damage
3.
unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
4.
without which the result would not have occurred

Proximate Cause is negated by:

Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
2.
Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body
of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the
offended party the belief that made him risk himself.
1.

Requisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death Where there has
been an injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of
the person, the presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death.
Provided:
1.
victim was in normal health
2.
death ensued within a reasonable time
The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused
the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not
liable.

Par. 2 Impossible Crime

Requisites:
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property.
2. There was criminal intent.
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or inadequate
or ineffectual means are employed.
4. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of
the Code or of special law.

Impossible crime occurs when there is:

1. inherent impossibility to commit the crime
2. inadequate means to consummate the crime
3. ineffectual means to consummate the crime
Art. 5:

Duty Of The Courts, Acts Not Covered By Law

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.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Bribery
Corruption of Public Officers
Adultery
Physical Injury

2 stages in the development of a crime:

1. Internal acts
- e.g. mere ideas of the mind
- not punishable
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable except when
considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304,
Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC

Note: Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special

law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms
or drugs. There can be no executive clemency for these crimes.
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.

Consummated, Frustrated, And Attempted

Felonies
ART.6

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. 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 or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this
own spontaneous desistance.
STAGES OF EXECUTION:
1. CONSUMMATED when all the elements necessary for
its execution
and accomplishment are present
2. FRUSTRATED
Elements:
a. offender performs all acts of execution
b. all these acts would produce the felony as a consequence
c. BUT the felony is NOT produced
d. by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
3. ATTEMPTED
Elements:
a. offender commences the felony directly by overt acts
b. does not perform all acts which would produce the felony
c. his acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and Attempted Stages:
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the law
provides otherwise
2. Formal crimes consummated in one instance
(Ex: slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt
(Ex: attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of
minors)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (Ex: betting in sports:
ending,
corruption of public officers)
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage:
1. Rape

Attempted vs. Frustrated Felony

Desistance
Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in 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
In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there
are three criteria involved:
(1)
The manner of committing the crime;
(2)
The elements of the crime; and
(3)
The nature of the crime itself.
Formal Crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance.
ART.7

When Light Felonies Are Punishable

Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are punishable only
when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed
against person or property.
General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated
Exception:
Even if not consummated, if committed against persons or
property
Ex: slight physical injuries, theft, alteration of
boundary marks, malicious mischief, and intriguing
against honor.
Note: Only principals and accomplices are liable;
accessories are NOT liable even if committed against
persons or property.
ART.8

Conspiracy and Proposal To Commit Felony

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy and proposal

to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
CONSPIRACY
a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court
will not consider the same.
Requisites:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement

2. For the commission of a felony

3. And they decide to commit it
Two ways for conspiracy to exist:
(1)
There is an agreement.
(2)
The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a
meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When
several offenders act in a synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts
complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied
agreement.
Concepts of Conspiracy:
1. As a crime in itself
Ex: conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection, treason,
sedition, coup d etat
2. Merely as a means to commit a crime
Requisites:
a. a prior and express agreement
b. participants acted in concert or simultaneously, which is
indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a
common criminal objective
Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable since
it is merely a preparatory act.
Exception: when the law specifically provides for a penalty
Ex: rebellion, insurrection, sedition,
coup d etat
General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators
committed some other crime which
is not part of the intended crime.
Exception to the exception: When the act
constitutes an indivisible offense.
People v. Abut, et al. (GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)
OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST OF:
1. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself, or
2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at
the time of the commission of the crime, or
3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators
by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY
Requisites:
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. And proposes its execution to some other person or persons
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one
crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. Ex. Crimes with
robbery with rape, robbery with homicide, robbery with physical injuries.
Complex crimes are crimes which in sum, consist of a mixture of two
crimes, but the penalty that will be imposed shall be the one with the graver
offense

Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies And Light

Felonies
ART.9

Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. Grave felonies are
those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned Art..
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a
penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
Importance of Classification
1. To determine whether the felonies can be complexed or not.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and of the penalty.
Penalties (imprisonment):
1. Grave felonies afflictive penalties: 6 yrs. and 1 day to
reclusion perpetua (life)
2. Less grave felonies correctional penalties: 1 month and 1
day to 6 years
3. Light felonies - arresto menor (1 day to 30 days)
As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave
or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are
criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and
the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not.
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons
or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal
or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or
frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how
are felonies classified?
What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the classification
of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. That was not what the examiner
had in mind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to
define. Therefore, the examiner was after the classifications under Articles 3, 6 and 9.
ART.10

Offenses Not Subject To The Provisions Of

RPC
ARTICLE 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.
General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.

For Special Laws: Penalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion

perpetua, etc.
Offenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise
stated.
Plea of guilty is not mitigating for offenses punishable by special laws.
No minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties.
No penalty for an accessory or accomplice, unless otherwise stated

When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and

avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on
weakness of prosecutions evidence.
ART.11

Justifying Circumstances

ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. The following do not incur any

criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters,
or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further
requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the
one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided
that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this
article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.

Exceptions:
1. when special law provides otherwise
2. when provision of RPC are impossible of application, either
by express provision or by necessary implication

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

- Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
- Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
- Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office.

Note: When the special law adopts the penalties

imposed in the RPC i.e. penalties as reclusion
perpetua, prision correccional, etc. the provisions of
the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stages
of execution, degree of participation and attendance
of mitigating and aggravating circumstance may be
applied by necessary implication.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES where the act of a person is
in accordance with law such that said person is deemed not to
have violated the law.
General Rule: No criminal and civil liability incurred.
Exception: There is civil liability with respect to par. 4
where the liability is borne by persons benefited
by the act.
Par. 1 Self-defense
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression
- indispensable requirement
- There must be actual physical assault or aggression or
an immediate and imminent threat, which must be offensive
and positively strong.
- The defense must have been made during the existence of
aggression, otherwise, it is no longer justifying.
- While generally an agreement to fight does not constitute
unlawful aggression, violation of the terms of the agreement
to fight is considered an exception.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it

Special Laws vs. Penal Laws

Absolutory cause
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from
civil liability. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call
it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12.
Extenuating circumstances
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. In other words,
this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating
because this is not found in Article 13.
Distinctions between justifying circumstances and exempting circumstances
In justifying circumstances
(1)
The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
(2)
The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds
of law; hence, it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law;
(3)
Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is
no crime, there is no criminal;
(4)
Since there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well
as civil liability.
In exempting circumstances
(1)
The circumstances affect the actor, not the act;
(2)
The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without
voluntariness. He is a mere tool or instrument of the crime;
(3)
Since the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. But
because the actor acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa.
There is no criminal;
(4)
Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil
liability for the wrong done. But there is no criminal liability. However, in
paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12, there is neither criminal nor civil liability.

*Means were used to prevent or repel

*Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
*Means must be reasonable depending on the circumstances, but generally
proportionate to the force of the aggressor.
Test of reasonableness depends on:
(1) weapon used by aggressor
(2) physical condition, character, size and other circumstances
of aggressor
(3) physical condition, character, size and circumstances of
person defending himself
(4) place and occasion of assault
*The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a
person did not use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out
of self-preservation, using the nearest or only means available to defend
himself, even if such means be disproportionately advantageous as compared
with the means of violence employed by the aggressor.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself
NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used,
nor material commensurability between the means of
attack and defense by the one defending himself and
that of the aggressor is not required
REASON: the person assaulted does not have sufficient
opportunity or time to think and calculate.
Rights included in self-defense:
1. defense of person
2. defense of rights protected by law
3. defense of property (only if there is also an actual and

imminent danger on the person of the one defending)

4. defense of chastity
Kinds of Self-Defense:
1. self-defense of chastity there must be an attempt to
rape the victim
2. defense of property must be coupled with an attack on the
person of the owner, or on one entrusted with the care of
such property.
People v. Narvaez, (GR No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983)
Attack on property alone was deemed sufficient to comply
with element of unlawful aggression.

NOTE: The superior officer giving the order cannot

invoke this justifying circumstance. Good faith is
material, as the subordinate is not liable for carrying
out an illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality
and he is not negligent.
General Rule: Subordinate cannot invoke this
circumstance when order is patently illegal.
Exception: When there is compulsion of an
irresistible force, or under impulse of
uncontrollable fear.

3. self-defense in libel justified when the libel is aimed

at a persons good name.

ART.12

Stand ground when in the right - the law does not require
a person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing
upon him with a deadly weapon.

ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability. The

following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not
be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

NOTE: Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women

and Their Children Act of 2004), victim-survivors who are
found by the Courts to be suffering from Battered Woman
Syndrome (BWS) do not incur any criminal or civil liability
despite absence of the necessary elements for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense in the RPC. BWS is a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as
a result of cumulative abuse.
*Burden of proof on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence;
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution).
Par. 2 Defense of Relative
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked,
the one making the defense had no part in such provocation.
Relative entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
5. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
NOTE: The relative defended may be the original
aggressor. All that is required to justify the act of the
relative defending is that he takes no part in such
provocation.
Par. 3 Defense of Stranger
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it
3. person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or
other evil motive
Par. 4 State of Necessity (Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury)
Elements:
1. evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
NOTE: The necessity must not be due to the negligence or
violation of any law by the actor.
Par. 5 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or
Office
Elements:
1. accused acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office
2. the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of the duty, or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.
NOTE: The accused must prove that he was duly
appointed to the position claimed he was discharging
at the time of the commission of the offense. It must
also be shown that the offense committed was the
necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or
lawful exercise of a right or office.
Par. 6 Obedience to a Superior Order
Elements:
1. an order has been issued
2. order has a lawful purpose (not patently illegal)
3. means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal

Liability

2. A person under nine years of age.

3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of
some institution or person mentioned in said article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES grounds for exemption from
punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any
of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the
absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense
and must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity
IMBECILE one while advanced in age has a mental development
comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 years old.
He is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
INSANE one who acts with complete deprivation of
intelligence/reason or without the least discernment or with
total deprivation of freedom of will. Mere abnormality of the
mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability
Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval.
NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was insane at the
time of the commission of the crime because the presumption is
always in favor of sanity.
*Continuance of insanity will only be presumed in cases wherein the
accused has been adjudged insane or has been committed to a hospital or an
asylum for the insane.
Procedure: court is to order the confinement of such persons in the hospitals
or asylums established. Such persons will not be permitted to leave without
permission from the court. The court, on the other hand, has no power to order
such permission without first obtaining the opinion of the DOH that such
persons may be released without danger.
Insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of
the trial will exempt one from criminal liability. In case of insanity at the time of
the trial, there will be a suspension of the trial until the mental capacity of the
accused is restored to afford him a fair trial.

Reyes: Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the offender can

distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be
exempted must not be able to distinguish right from wrong.
Relova: Feeblemindedness is imbecility.
Crimes committed while in a dream, by a somnambulist are embraced
in the plea of insanity. Hypnotism, however, is a debatable issue.

Crime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is

characterized by insanity at times thus such person is not criminally
liable.
Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity because homicidal
attack is common in such form of psychosis. It is characterized by
delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property
is being taken, thus the person has no control over his acts.
Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendency
to steal, to be considered exempting, will still have to be investigated
by competent psychiatrist to determine if the unlawful act is due to the
irresistible impulse produced by his mental defect, thus loss of willpower. If such mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his
willpower and did not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, it is
only mitigating.
Epilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease characterized by
convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness may be
covered by the term insanity. However, it must be shown that
commission of the offense is during one of those epileptic attacks.

Par. 2 Under Nine Years of Age

Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime. There is absolute criminal
irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9
years of age.
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act
a minor 15 years and below is exempt from criminal liability
*Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be
established by the testimonies of families and relatives.
Par. 3 Person Over 9 and Under 15 Acting Without Discernment
NOTE: Such minor must have acted without discernment to be
exempt. If with discernment, he is criminally liable.
Presumption: The minor committed the crime without
discernment.
DISCERNMENT mental capacity to fully appreciate
the consequences of the unlawful act, which is shown by the:
1. manner the crime was committed
2. conduct of the offender after its commission
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but but below 18 who
acted without discernment is exempt from criminal liability
Age
15 years and
below

Criminal Responsibility

Absolute irresponsibility
Conditional responsibility

Between 15 and
18 years old

Without discernment no liability With Discernment

mitigated liability

Between 15 and
18 years old

Mitigated responsibility

Between 18 and
70 years old

Full responsibility

Over 70 years
old

Mitigated responsibility

Presumption is always that such minor has acted without

discernment. The prosecution is burdened to prove if otherwise.
Discernment means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15
years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Such is shown by: (1) manner the crime was committed (i.e.
commission of the crime during nighttime to avoid detection; taking
the loot to another town to avoid discovery), or (2) the conduct of the
offender after its commission (i.e. elation of satisfaction upon the
commission of his criminal act as shown by the accused cursing at
the victim).
Facts or particular facts concerning personal appearance which lead
officers or the court to believe that his age was as stated by said
officer or court should be stated in the record.

Par. 4 Accident without fault or intention of causing it

ACCIDENT: Basis: lack of negligence and intent
happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about some act of
our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. with due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Par. 5 Irresistible Force
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE offender uses violence or physical force
to compel another person to commit a crime.
Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness
Elements:
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. The physical force must be irresistible.
3. The physical force must come from a third person
NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce the
individual to a mere instrument.
Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR offender employs intimidation or threat
in compelling another to commit a crime.
Basis: complete absence of freedom
DURESS use of violence or physical force
Elements:
1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at
least equal to, that which he is required to commit.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that
an ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based
on real, imminent or reasonable fear for ones life or
limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful
or remote fear. A threat of future injury is not enough.
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS Any act done by
me against my will is not my act.
PAR 7. Insuperable Cause
INSUPERABLE CAUSE some motive, which has lawfully, morally
or physically prevented a person to do what the law commands
Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause.
Ex:
1. A priest cant be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him.
2. No available transportation officer not liable for
arbitrary detention
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme
debility, leaving child to die not liable for infanticide
(People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530)
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES where the act committed is a crime but for
some reason of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty
imposed. Exempting and justifying circumstances are absolutory
causes.
Examples of such other circumstances are:
1. spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
2. accessories exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247)
4. persons exempt from criminal liability from theft, swindling,
malicious mischief (Art 332)
5. instigation

If such minor is adjudged to be criminally liable, he is charged to the

custody of his family, otherwise, to the care of some institution or
person mentioned in article 80. This is because of the courts
presupposition that the minor committed the crime without
discernment.

NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust

operation conducted in connection with illegal drug-related
offenses is a form of entrapment.

Allegation of with intent to kill in the information is sufficient

allegation of discernment as such conveys the idea that he knew what
would be the consequences of his unlawful act. Thus is the case
wherein the information alleges that the accused, with intent to kill,
willfully, criminally and feloniously pushed a child of 8 1/2 years of age
into a deep place. It was held that the requirement that there should
be an allegation that she acted with discernment should be deemed
amply met.

Entrapment from Instigation

1. The ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping
and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his
criminal plan. while The Instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the offense and
himself becomes a co-principal
2. In Entrapment, not a bar to accused prosecution and conviction
while in Instigation, Accused will be acquitted.

3. Entrapment is not an absolutoty cause while Instigation is an

absolutory cause.
INSTIGATION

The ways and means are resorted to

for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal plan.

Accused will be acquitted

NOT a bar to accuseds prosecution

and conviction

Absolutory cause

NOT an absolutory cause

Complete Defenses in Criminal Cases:

1.) any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved
by the prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any
crime.
2.) act of the accused falls under justifying circumstances.
3.) case of the accused falls under exempting circumstances.
4.) covered by absolutory causes:
a.)spontaneous desistance; no crime under other provision or
penal law is committed
b.) attempted or frustrated light felony not against person or
property
c.) accessory is relative of principal
d.) legal grounds for arbitrary detention
e.) legal grounds for trespass
f.) theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a
relative
g.) slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the
person who surprised spouse/daughter in the act of sexual
intercourse w/ another
h.) marriage of the offender with the offended party in crimes of
rape, abduction, seduction or acts of lasciviousness
i.) instigation
5.) guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
6.) prescription of crimes
7.) pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal
action in crime against chastity.

Mitigating Circumstances

ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. The following are mitigating

circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In
the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of article 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority
or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some
physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power
of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to
those above mentioned.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES those which if present in the
commission of the crime reduces the penalty of the crime but does
not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the crime
These are accompanying or accessory condition, event, or fact that (though
not constituting a justification or excuse of an offense) may be considered
by the courts as reducing the degree of culpability or liability of the
accused. Such circumstances may include family or personal situations, and
may help in attracting a sentence less severe than a typical sentence for
similar offenses.
There are two distinctions: ordinary and privileged.
o

Privileged Mitigating

ENTRAPMENT

Instigator practically induces the

would-be accused into the
commission of the offense and
himself becomes co-principal

ART.13

probation). With privileged, it operates to reduce the penalty by one

or two degree, depending on what the law provides.

As to the nature of the circumstances, ordinary mitigating

circumstance can be offset by aggravating circumstances, while
privileged can never be offset.
As to effect, ordinary, if not offset will operate to reduce the penalty
to a minimum period, provided the penalty is a divisible one
(negotiable. Meaning if you hear the words of an officer Man 1, but
because of the offenders confession and divulging of other vital
information, Man 1 with reduced sentence of up to 5 years with

Ordinary Mitigating

Offset by any
aggravating
circumstance

Cannot be offset by any

aggravating circumstance

Can be offset by a
generic aggravating
circumstance

Effect on the
penalty

Has the effect of imposing

the penalty by 1 or 2
degrees than that provided
by law

If not offset, has the

effect of imposing the
penalty in the minimum
period

Kinds

Minority, Incomplete Selfdefense, two or more

mitigating circumstances
without any aggravating
circumstance (has the
effect of lowering the
penalty by one degree)

Those circumstances
enumerated in paragraph
1 to 10 of Article 13

NOTE: A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact absorbs

all the other mitigating circumstances arising from that same fact.
Par. 1 Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances
NOTE: This applies when not all the requisites are present.
If two requisites are present, it is considered a privileged
mitigating circumstance. However, in reference to Art.11(4) if
any of the last two requisites is absent, there is only an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Remember though, that in selfdefense, defense of relative or stranger, unlawful aggression
must always be present as it is an indispensable requirement

Justifying circumstances
a. Self-defense/defense of relative/defense of stranger unlawful
aggression must be present for Art 13 to be applicable. Other 2 elements not
necessary. If 2 requisites are present considered a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Example: Juan makes fun of Pedro. Pedro gets pissed off, gets a knife and
tries to stab Juan. Juan grabs his own knife and kills Pedro. Incomplete selfdefense because although there was unlawful aggression and reasonable
means to repel was taken, there was sufficient provocation on the part of Juan.
But since 2 elements are present, it considered as privileged mitigating.
b. State of Necessity (par 4) avoidance of greater evil or injury; if any of the
last 2 requisites is absent, theres only an ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.
Example: While driving his car, Juan sees Pedro carelessly crossing the street.
Juan swerves to avoid him, thus hitting a motorbike with 2 passengers, killing
them instantly. Not all requisites to justify act were present because harm done
to avoid injury is greater. Considered as mitigating.
c. Performance of Duty (par 5)
Example: Juan is supposed to arrest Pedro. He thus goes to Pedros hideout.
Juan sees a man asleep. Thinking it was Pedro, Juan shot him. Juan may
have acted in the performance of his duty but the crime was not a necessary
consequence thereof. Considered as mitigating.
Exempting circumstance
a. Minority over 9 and under 15 if minor acted with discernment,
considered mitigating
Example: 13 year old stole goods at nighttime. Acted with discernment as
shown by the manner in which the act was committed.
b. Causing injury by mere accident if 2nd requisite (due care) and 1st part
of 4th requisite (without fault thus negligence only) are ABSENT, considered
as mitigating because the penalty is lower than that provided for intentional
felony.
Example: Police officer tries to stop a fight between Juan and Pedro by firing
his gun in the air. Bullet ricocheted and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged
his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area was populated.
c. Uncontrollable fear only one requisite present, considered mitigating
Example: Under threat that their farm will be burned, Pedro and Juan took
turns guarding it at night. Pedro fired in the air when a person in the shadows
refused to reveal his identity. Juan was awakened and shot the unidentified
person. Turned out to be a neighbor looking for is pet. Juan may have acted
under the influence of fear but such fear was not entirely uncontrollable.
Considered mitigating
Par. 2 Under 18 or Over 70 Years Old
NOTE: Age of accused is determined by his age at
the date of commission of crime, not date of trial.
Par. 3 No Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong
NOTE: Can be used only when the proven facts show that there
is a notable and evident disproportion between the means
employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
Factors that can be considered are:
1. weapon used
2. injury inflicted
3. part of the body injured
4. mindset of offender at the time of commission of crime
This provision addresses the intention of the offender at the
particular moment when the offender executes or commits the

criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage

NOTE: In crimes against persons if victim does not die, the
absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere
physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. It is
mitigating only when the victim dies.
NOTE: It is not applicable to felonies by negligence because
in felonies through negligence, the offender acts without
intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by
negligence or imprudence. There is no intent on the part of
the offender, which may be considered as diminished
*Basis of par 3: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is
diminished
Par. 4 Provocation or Threat
Provocation any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
irritating anyone.
Requisites:
1. provocation must be sufficient
2. it must originate from the offended party
3. must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked
Sufficient adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and
must
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
Sufficiency depends on:

the act constituting the provocation

passion or obfuscation in him

Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation
a. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or
obfuscation
b. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge
c. The act must come from lawful sentiments
NOTE: Act must have been committed not in the spirit of
lawlessness or revenge; act must come from lawful sentiments.
Act, Which Gave Rise To Passion And Obfuscation:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
2. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
3. That the act was proximate to the criminal act, not admitting
of time during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity
4. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or
obfuscation
NOTE: Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery
since this means that the offender had time to ponder his
course of action.
Passion or Obfuscation from Irresistable Force
1. Passion or obfuscation is mitigating while Irresistable force
is exempting
2. Passion or Obfuscation, no physical force needed while
irresistable force requires physical force.
3. Passion and Obfuscation must come from the offender himself
while Irresistable Force must come from 3rd peson
4. Paasion or Obfuscation must come from lawful sentiments
while Irresistable force is unlawful.

the social standing of the person provoked

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

IRRESITIBLE FORCE

When it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fight by
the deceased is NOT sufficient provocation.

Mitigating

Exempting

. Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the

crime by the person who is provoked

Why? If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party
could not have excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he
having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control.

No physical force needed

Requires physical force

From the offender himself

Must come from a 3rd person

Must come from lawful sentiments

Unlawful

time and place provocation took place

NOTE: Threat should not be offensive and positively strong.

Otherwise, it would be an unlawful aggression, which may
give rise to self-defense and thus no longer a mitigating
circumstance.
Par. 5 Vindication of Grave Offense
Requisites:
1. a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees
2. the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such
grave offense
NOTE: Immediate allows for a lapse of time, as long as
the offender is still suffering from the mental agony
brought about by the offense to him. (proximate time, not
just immediately after)
PROVOCATION

VINDICATION

Made directly only to the person

committing the felony

Grave offense may be also against

the offenders relatives mentioned
by law

Cause that brought about the

provocation need not be a grave
offense

Offended party must have done a

grave offense to the offender or his
relatives

Necessary that provocation or threat

immediately preceded the act. No
time interval

May be proximate. Time interval

allowed

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

PROVOCATION

Produced by an impulse which may be

caused by provocation

Comes from injured party

Offense, which engenders perturbation of

mind, need not be immediate. It is only
required that the influence thereof lasts until
the crime is committed

Must immediately precede the commissi

crime

Effect is loss of reason and self-control on

the part of the offender

Same

Par. 7 Surrender and Confession of Guilt

WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY
- must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either
because:
1. he acknowledges his guilt; or
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture.
NOTE: If both are present, considered as two independent
mitigating circumstances. Further mitigates penalty
Requisites of voluntary surrender:
a)
offender not actually arrested
b)
offender surrendered to a person in authority or the latters agent
c)
surrender was voluntary

More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the

person. Such is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against
the one giving the provocation or threat.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cant be
counted separately and independently

Par. 6 Passion or Obfuscation

mitigating: when there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful
excitement, he loses his reason and self-control. Thereby dismissing the
exercise of his will power.
Requisites:
1. offender acted upon an impulse
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced

Surrender must be spontaneous shows his interest to surrender

unconditionally to the authorities
Spontaneous emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without
external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone,
after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the
surrender.

Conduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibility

Surrender of person required. Not just of weapon.

Not mitigating when warrant already served. Surrender may be

considered mitigating if warrant not served or returned unserved
because accused cant be located.
Person in authority one directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as
an individual or as a member of some
court/government/corporation/board/commission. Barrio
captain/chairman included.
Agent of person in authority person who by direct provision of law,
or be election, or by appointment by competent authority is charged

with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security
of life and property and any person who comes to the aid of persons
in authority.

RPC does not make distinction among the various moments when
surrender may occur.
Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for
which defendant is charged

Requisites for plea of guilty

a)
offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
b)
confession of guilt was made in open court (competent court)
c)
confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution
NOTES:
Plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does
not entitle accused to the mitigating circumstance
If accused pleaded not guilty, even if during arraignment,
he is entitled to mitigating circumstance as long as he
withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the
fiscal could present his evidence.
Plea to a lesser charge is not a Mitigating Circumstance
because to be such, the plea of guilt must be to the
offense charged.
Plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser
than that charged in the original info, is Mitigating
Circumstance.
Par. 8 Physical Defect of Offender
The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
from some physical defect, restricting his means of action,
defense or communication with others.

Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not
have complete freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of
that element of voluntariness.
No distinction between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind
persons
The physical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action,
defense or communication with fellow beings, this has been extended
to cover cripples, armless people even stutterers.
The circumstance assumes that with their physical defect, the
offenders do not have a complete freedom of action therefore
diminishing the element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime

NOTE: The physical defect must relate to the offense committed.

Par. 9 Illness of the Offender

Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent

Requisites:
1. The illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of
his will-power.
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.

when the offender completely lost the exercise of will-power, it may be

an exempting circumstance
diseased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation

Par. 10 Similar and Analogous Circumstances

Example:
1. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is
similar to a case of one over 70 years old.
2. Outraged feeling of an owner of an animal taken for
ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense.
3. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and
obfuscation.
4. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary
surrender.
5. Extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based
on state necessity.

a)
b)
c)

a)

Example: Juan stole his brothers watch. Juan sold it to Pedro, who knew it
was stolen. The circumstance of relation arose from private relation of Juan
and the brother. Does not mitigate Pedro.

NOT analogous:
killing wrong person
not resisting arrest not the same as voluntary surrender
running amuck is not mitigating
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE which arise from:
moral attributes of the offender

Example: Juan and Tomas killed Pedro. Juan acted w/ PASSION AND
OBFUSCATION. Only Juan will be entitled to Mitigating Circumstance
b) private relations with the offended party

c) other personal cause

Example: Minor, acting with discernment robbed Juan. Pedro, passing by,
helped the minor. Circumstance of minority, mitigates liability of minor only.

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and

accessories to whom the circumstances are attendant.
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating:
mistake in the blow
mistake in the identity of the victim
entrapment of the accused
accused is over 18 years old
performance of a righteous action

Example: Juan saved the lives of 99 people but caused the death of the last
person, he is still criminally liable

Introduction - Aggravating Circumstances

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Those which, if attendant in
the commission of the crime, serve to have the penalty imposed in
its maximum period provided by law for the offense or those that
change the nature of the crime.
BASIS: The greater perversity of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by:
1. the motivating power itself,
2. the place of the commission,
3. the means and ways employed
4. the time, or
5. the personal circumstances of the offender, or the offended party.
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Generic - those which apply to all crimes
2. Specific - those which apply only to specific crimes,
(ignominy for chastity crimes; treachery for persons crimes)
3. Qualifying - those that change the nature of the crime
(evident premeditation becomes murder)
4. Inherent - which of necessity accompany the commission of the
crime, therefore not considered in increasing the penalty
to be imposed
(evident premeditation in theft, estafa)
5. Special - those which arise under special conditions to
increase the penalty of the offense and cannot be offset
by mitigating circumstances
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE

GENERIC AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE

Gives the proper and exclusive

name, places the author thereof in
such a situation as to deserve no
other penalty than that specifically
prescribed by law

Increase penalty to the maximum,

without exceeding limit prescribed
by law

Cant be offset by Mitigating

Circumstance

May be compensated by Mitigating

Circumstance

Must be alleged in the information.

Integral part of the offense

Need not be alleged. May be proved

over the objection of the defense.
Qualifying if not alleged will make it
generic

Generic Aggravating Circumstance Distinguished From Qualifying

Aggravating Circumstance
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - EFFECT : When not set
off by any mitigating circumstance, Increases the penalty
which should be imposed upon the accused to the maximum
period but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance - EFFECT: Gives the crime
its proper and exclusive name and places the author of the
crime in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty
than that specially prescribed by law for said crimes
(People v. Bayot, 64Phil269, 273)
2. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - If not alleged in the
information, a qualifying aggravating circumstance will be
considered generic
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - To be considered
as such, MUST be alleged in the information.
3. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - May be offset by a
mitigating circumstance.
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - Cannot be offset by a
mitigating circumstance.
RULES ON AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Aggravating circumstances shall NOT be appreciated if:
a) They constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or
b) It is included by the law in defining a crime with a penalty

prescribed, and therefore shall not be taken into account

for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
Ex: That the crime be committed by means of ...fire,...
explosion (Art. 14, par. 12) is in itself a crime of arson
(Art. 321) or a crime involving destruction (Art. 324). It
is not to be considered to increase the penalty for the
crime of arson or for the crime involving destruction.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
must of necessity accompany the commission thereof
(Art.62, par.2)

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add

ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended
for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of
age or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

3. Aggravating circumstances which arise:

a) From the moral attributes of the offender;
b) From his private relations with the offended party; or
c) From any personal cause,
shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the
principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances and a attendant. (Art.62, par. 3)

Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position

4. The circumstances which consist :

a) In the material execution of the act, or
b) In the means employed to accomplish it,
shall serve to aggravate the liability of only those
persons who had knowledge of them at the time
of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. Except when there is proof of conspiracy
in which case the act of one is deemed to be the
act of all, regardless of lack of knowledge of the
facts constituting the circumstance. (Art. 62, par.4)

It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where taking

advantage of official position is made by law an integral element
of the crime or inherent in the offense,

Requisites:
1. Offender is public officer
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy
which his office gives him as means to realize criminal purpose

Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a document

committed by public officers (Art. 171).
When the public officer did not take advantage of the influence of his
position, this aggravating circumstance is not present
NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position is
also inherent in the case of accessories under
Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting
in the escape of the principal of the crime), and in
crimes committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).

5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its kind, should

be specifically alleged in the information AND proved as
fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty.
(Sec. 9, Rule 110, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)
6. When there is more than one qualifying aggravating
circumstance present, one of them will be appreciated as
qualifying aggravating while the others will be considered
as generic aggravating.
ART.14

Aggravating Circumstances

ARTICLE 14. Aggravating Circumstances. The following are aggravating

circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to
the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed
in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or
by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who
insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or
promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to
weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.

Essential Public officer used the influence, prestige or ascendancy

which his office gives him as the means by which he realized his
purpose.
Failure in official is tantamount to abusing of office
Wearing of uniform is immaterial what matters is the proof that he
indeed took advantage of his position

Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with

insult to public authorities
Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is
not the person against whom the crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the
criminal act.
PERSON IN AUTHORITY public authority, or person who is directly
vested with jurisdiction and has the power to govern and execute the
laws
Ex:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or recognized
private school is not a public authority within the
contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person
in authority under Art. 152, that status is only for
purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.
152 (resistance and disobedience)
The crime should not be committed against the public authority
(otherwise it will constitute direct assault under Art.148) This is NOT
applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent.
AGENT subordinate public officer charged w/ the maintenance of
public order and protection and security of life and property
Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
Par. 3. That the act be committed:
(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his
(a)rank,
(b) age, or
(c) sex or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation
Rules regarding par 3(1):
1. These circumstances shall only be considered as one aggravating

circumstance.
2. Rank, age, sex may be taken into account only in crimes against
persons or honor, they cannot be invoked in crimes against property.
3. It must be shown that in the commission of the
crime the offender deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex,
age and rank of the offended party.
RANK The designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative
position of the offended party in reference to others (There must
be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the
offended party).
*refers to a high social position or standing by which to determine ones pay
and emoluments in any scale of comparison within a position
AGE may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
SEX refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not applicable in the
following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and
the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the
commission of the crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)
Requisite of disregard to rank, age, or sex
1.
Crimes must be against the victims person or his honor
2.
There is deliberate intent to offend or insult the respect due to the
victims rank, age, or sex
People vs. Lapaz, March 31, 1989
Disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery
because treachery refers to the manner of the commission
of the crime, while disregard of sex and age pertains
to the relationship of the victim.
DWELLING must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest
and comfort (combination of house and store not included), may be
temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers. It
includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure
under the house
*basis for this is the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode

1.
2.

Elements of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling

Crime occurred in the dwelling of the victim
No provocation on the part of the victim
When dwelling may and may not be considered

When it may be considered

When it may not be considered

although the offender fired the

Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling:

The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the offended
party is deemed to have given the provocation, and the
fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the
offended party is NOT an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked
the incident, he loses his right to the respect and
consideration due him in his own house
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:
1. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of
the same house, and this is true even if offender is a servant in the
house.
exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the
same is aggravating. However, if the paramour also dwells in the
conjugal dwelling, the applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse
of confidence.
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon
things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent.
However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons because this class of robbery can be
committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended partys house.
3. In the crime needed to see this picture. dwelling, it is inherent or
included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate
provocation.
There must exist a close relation between the provocation made by
the victim and the commission of the crime by the accused.
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.
Par. 4. That the act be committed with:
(1) abuse of confidence or
(2) obvious ungratefulness
Requisites of Abuse of
Confidence
a)
Offended party has trusted
the offender

shot from outside the house,

as long as his victim was
inside

b)

even if the killing took place

Requisite of Obvious Ungratefulness

a)
ungratefulness must be obvious,
that is, there must be something which
the offender should owe the victim a
debt of gratitude for

Offender abused such trust

Note: robbery or theft committed by a
visitor in the house of the offended
party is aggravated by obvious
ungratefulness

outside the dwelling, so long

as the commission began
inside the dwelling

c)
Abuse of confidence
facilitated the commission of the
crime

dwelling of the husband, even

if it is also the dwelling of the
wife, it is still aggravating
because she and her
paramour committed a grave
offense to the head of the
house

There are two aggravating circumstances present under par.4 which

must be independently appreciated if present in the same case

when adultery is committed in the

In robbery with violence against

persons, robbery with
homicide, abduction, or illegal
detention

If the offended party has

given provocation

If both the offender and the

offended party are
occupants of the same
dwelling

In robbery with force upon

things, it is inherent

NOTES:
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that
the crime be wholly or partly committed therein or in
any integral part thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or
domicile of the offended party or that he must be the
owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or
dwelling therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.
It is not necessary that the accused should have actually
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense;
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own
house, although the assailant may have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from without.
What aggravates the commission of the crime in ones dwelling:
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in
the offender by opening the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein
with violence or against the will of the owner.

While one may be related to the other in the factual situation in the
case, they cannot be lumped together.
Abuse of confidence requires a special confidential relationship
between the offender and the victim, while this is not required for
there to be obvious ungratefulness
Requisites Of Abuse Of Confidence:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the
crime.
NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation
(Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified
seduction (Art. 337).
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be
such clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of
the accused.
Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties or in a place

dedicated to religious worship.

EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and
nocturnity were deliberately decided upon in the same case,
they can be considered separately if such circumstances
have different factual bases. Thus:

Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime is

committed in the palace or in the presence of the Chief Executive
Requisites Regarding Public Authorities:
1. crime occurred in the public office
2. public authorities are actually performing their public duties

A polling precinct is a public office during election day

Nature of public office should be taken into account, like a police station
which is on duty 24 hrs. a day

the offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered the
place
Requisites (Place Dedicated To Religious Worship):
1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God
regardless of religion
2. The offender must have decided to commit the crime when he
entered the place of worship
Except for the third which requires that official functions are being
performed at the time of the commission of the crime, the other
places mentioned are aggravating per se even if no official duties or
acts of religious worship are being conducted there.
Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as
place dedicated to the worship of God.

When Paragraph 2 and 5 of Article 14 are applicable

Committed in the presence of the

Chief Executive, in the Presidential
Palace or a place of worship(Par. 5,
Art. 14)

Committed in contempt of Public

Authority

(Par. 2, Art 14)

Public authorities are performing of

their duties when the crime is
committed

Same

When crime is committed in the

public office, the officer must be
performing his duties, except in the
Presidential Palace

Outside the office (still performing

duty)

Public authority may be the offended

party

Public authority is not be the

offended party

In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966),

nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought,
and treachery was further appreciated because the
victims hands and arms were tied together before he
was beaten up by the accused.
In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was
treachery as the victim was stabbed while lying face
up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon
proof that it facilitated the commission of the offense
and was taken advantage of by the accused.
UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) one where there are no houses
at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, where the
houses are scattered at a great distance from each other
Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose
What should be considered here is whether in the place of the
commission of the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help.
Requisites:
1.
The place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime
2.
Deliberately sought and not incidental to the commission or omission
of the crime
3.
Taken advantage of for the purpose of impunity
BAND (en cuadrilla) whenever there are more than 3 armed
malefactors that shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense
NOTE: There must be four or more armed men

Par. 6. That the crime be committed

(1) in the nighttime, or
(2) in an uninhabited place, or
(3) by a band,
whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission
of the offense
NOTE: When present in the same case and their
element are distinctly palpable and can subsist
independently, they shall be considered separately.
When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of
impunity
*Impunity means to prevent the accuseds being recognized or to secure
himself against detection or punishment
NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) that period of darkness beginning at the
end of dusk and ending at dawn.
Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the
nighttime. When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating. It is not considered aggravating when
the crime began at daytime.
Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to commit the
crime was conceived of shortly before commission or when crime
was committed at night upon a casual encounter
However, nighttime need not be specifically sought for when
(1) it facilitated the commission of the offense, or
(2) the offender took advantage of the same to commit the crime
A bare statement that crime was committed at night is insufficient.
The information must allege that nighttime was sought for or taken
advantage of, or that it facilitated the crime
GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.

If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement,

they do not form a band because it is undoubtedly connoted that he
had no direct participation.
By a band is aggravating in crimes against property or against
persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason but does not
apply to crimes against chastity
By a band is inherent in brigandage
* in robbery committed in band and brigandage
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength

It is not considered in the crime of rape

It has been applied in treason and in robbery with homicide

Requisites:
1.
Facilitated the commission of the crime
2.
Deliberately sought
3.
Taken advantage of for the purposes of impunity
4.
There must be four or more armed men
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
Requisites:
1. The crime was committed when there was a calamity or
misfortune
2. The offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic
condition from such misfortune
*Basis: Commission of the crime adds to the suffering by taking advantage
of the misfortune.

based on time
offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune

If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party during the

calamity/misfortune, this aggravating circumstance may not be
taken into consideration.
Distinction between Paragraphs 7 and 12 of Article 14
Committed during a calamity or
misfortune

Committed with the use of wasteful

means

Crime is committed DURING any of

the calamities

Crime is committed BY using fire,

inundation, explosion or other
wasteful means

Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of

(1) armed men or
(2) persons who insure or afford impunity

Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the
crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them
when the crime was committed
NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed
men are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity
directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely
present at the crime scene. Neither should they constitute
a band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance
would be cuadrilla.
When This Aggravating Circumstance Shall Not Be Considered:
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in
the commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the
same purpose.
3. When the others were only casually present and the offender did
not avail himself of any of their aid or when he did not knowingly
count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime
WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN
Present even if one of the offenders
merely relied on their aid. Actual aid
is not necessary

BY A BAND
Requires more than 3 armed
malefactors who all acted together
in the commission of an offense

If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in

employment of a band. If there are three armed men or less, aid of
armed men may be the aggravating circumstance.
Aid of armed men includes armed women.

If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be

considered as only one, hence, they cannot be separately counted in
order to constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of convicted handed
down on the same day shall be considered as only one conviction.
REASON: Because the Code requires that to be considered as a
separate convictions, at the time of his trial for one crime the
accused shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
the other.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
Reiteracion or Habituality it is essential that the offender be previously
punished; that is, he has served sentence.
Par. 10 speaks of penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually
imposed
Requisites Of Reiteracion Or Habituality:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which
the law attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty
than that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
REITERACION

RECIDIVISM

Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist

Necessary that offender shall have

served out his sentence for the first
sentence

Enough that final judgment has

been rendered in the first offense

RECIDIVIST one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC.

Previous and subsequent offenses

must not be embraced in the same
title of the Code

Same title

Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to commit

crimes

Not always an aggravating

circumstance

Always aggravating

Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the
same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender shall have served out
his sentence for the first offense.
Recidivism - It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in
the first offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent offenses must not be
embraced in the same title of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be included in the same title
of the code.

MEANING OF at the time of his trial for one crime.

It is employed in its general sense, including the rendering of the
judgment. It is meant to include everything that is done in the
course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is
announced by the judge in open court.
What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL,
not the time of the commission of the offense.
When does judgment become final? (Rules of Court)
1.
after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal
2.
when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
3.
defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal
4.
the accused has applied for probation
GENERAL RULE: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the
same in the information and to attach thereto certified copy of the
sentences rendered against the accused.
Exception: If the accused does not object and when he admits in his
confession and on the witness stand.
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years
have intervened between the first and second felonies.
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects.
However, pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a
recidivist. Thus, even if the accused was granted a pardon for the
first offense but he commits another felony embraced in the same
title of the Code, the first conviction is still counted to make him a
recidivist
Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism affects only
the periods of a penalty, except in prostitution and vagrancy (Art.
202) and gambling (PD 1602) wherein recidivism increases the
penalties by degrees. No other generic aggravating circumstance
produces this effect
In recidivism it is sufficient that the succeeding offense be
committed after the commission of the preceding offense provided
that at the time of his trial for the second offense, the accused
had already been convicted of the first offense.

THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:

1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) Where a person, on separate
occasions, is convicted of two offenses embraced in the same title in
the RPC. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) Where the offender
has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating
circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art. 62, par, 5) Where
a person 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, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of the
said crimes a third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary
aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) Where a person commits felony
before beginning to serve or while serving sentence on a previous
conviction for a felony. This is a special aggravating circumstance.
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the
sentence for his previous conviction/s, or is legally considered to
have done so, quasi-recidivism cannot at the same time constitute
reiteracion, hence this aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a
quasi-recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and reiteracion, the
liability of the accused should be aggravated by recidivism which can
easily be proven.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of
price, reward or promise.
Requisites:
1. There are at least 2 principals:
- The principal by inducement (one who offers)
- The principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in

consideration of the commission of the criminal act

NOTE: The circumstance is applicable to both principals.
It affects the person who received the price / reward as
well as the person who gave it.
If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the crime
had been committed as an expression of his appreciation for the
sympathy and aid shown by the other accused, it should not be
taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer to material
things or that the same were actually delivered, it being sufficient
that the offer made by the principal by inducement be accepted by
the principal by direct participation before the commission of the
offense.

to carry out his design

as distinguished from craft which involves acts done in order not to

arouse the suspicion of the victim, fraud involves a direct inducement
through entrapping or beguiling language or machinations
Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have been
deliberately adopted as the means, methods or forms for the
treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist independently where
they are adopted for a different purpose in the commission
of the crime.

The inducement must be the primary consideration for the

commission of the crime.

Ex:
In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980),
where the accused pretended to hire the driver in order to
get his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed
to the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless
driver.

Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation,

fire, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any artifice
involving great waste and ruin

In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986)

there was also craft where after hitching a ride, the accused
requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody,
when in fact they had already planned to kill the driver.

The circumstances under this paragraph will only be considered as

aggravating if and when they are used by the offender as a means to
accomplish a criminal purpose (requisite).
When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the crime,
any of these aggravating circumstances shall be considered as
generic aggravating circumstance only
When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is qualified
to murder.
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident
premeditation
Requisites:
The prosecution must prove
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Essence of premeditation: The execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at
a calm judgment.

Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation

To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there was
a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for meditation and
reflection, a time adequate to allow the conscience to overcome the
resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing the intent to
kill. It must be shown that the offender had sufficient time to reflect
upon the consequences of his act but still persisted in his
determination to commit the crime. (PEOPLE vs. SILVA, et. al., GR
No. 140871, August 8, 2002)
Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise.
When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not
aggravating. However, if the offender premeditated on the killing of
any person, it is proper to consider against the offender the
aggravating circumstance of premeditation, because whoever is
killed by him is contemplated in his premeditation.

The premeditation must be based upon external facts, and must be

evident, not merely suspected indicating deliberate planning

Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, adultery, theft, estafa,

falsification, and etc.

DISGUISE (disfraz) resorting to any device to conceal identity

The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance
resorted to by the offender was intended to or did make
identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or
false hair or beard.
The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel
constitutes disguise.
Distinction between Craft, Fraud, and Disguise
Craft

Fraud

Involves the use of

intellectual trickery and
cunning to arouse
suspicion of the victim

Involves the use of direct

inducement by insidious
words or machinations

Disguise

Involves the use

of devise to
conceal identity

Par. 15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or

(2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
Par. 15 contemplates two aggravating circumstances, either of
which qualifies a killing to murder.
MEANING OF advantage be taken:
To deliberately use excessiveforce that is out of proportion to the
means for self-defense available to the person attacked. (PEOPLE vs.
LOBRIGAS, et. al., GR No. 147649, December 17, 2002)
Superiority may arise from aggressors sex, weapon or number as compared to
that of the victim (e.g. accused attacked an unarmed girl with a knife; 3 men
stabbed to death the female victim).
Requisites:
1.
Means were purposely sought to weaken the defense of the victim to
resist the assault
2.
The means used must not totally eliminate possible defense of the
victim, otherwise it will fall under treachery
No Advantage Of Superior Strength In The Following:
1. One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength.
2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were
engaged against each other as man to man.
TEST for abuse of superior strength: the relative strength of the
offender and his victim and whether or not he took advantage of his
greater strength.

Par. 14. That (1) craft,

(2) fraud, or
(3) disguise be employed.

When there are several offenders participating in the crime, they

must ALL be principals by direct participation and their attack
against the victim must be concerted and intended to be so.

Requisite
The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or disguise to
facilitate the commission of the crime.

Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of parricide where

the husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted that the husband
is physically stronger than the wife.

CRAFT (astucia) involved the use of intellectual trickery or

cunning on the part of the accused. A chicanery resorted to
by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design.
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime

Abuse of superior strength is also present when the offender uses a

weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the
offended party.
NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (band).

(e.g. accused pretended to be members of the constabulary, accused in order

to perpetrate rape, used chocolates containing drugs)
FRAUD (fraude) insidious words or machinations used to induce
the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender

MEANING OF Means employed to weaken defense - the

offender employs means that materially weaken the resisting power
of the offended party.

Ex:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latters resisting power.

delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot

be said that the crime was attended by treachery.
2. When the assault was not continuous, in that there was
interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present
at the moment the fatal blow was given.
Hence, even though in the inception of the aggression
which ended in the death of the deceased, treachery
was not present, if there was a break in the continuity of
the aggression and at the time of the fatal wound was
inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the
circumstance of treachery must be taken into account.

NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against

persons, and sometimes against person and property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
TREACHERY when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
Requisites:
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
TEST: It is not only the relative position of the parties but, more
specifically, whether or not the victim was forewarned or afforded
the opportunity to make a defense or to ward off the attack.

Examples: victim asleep, half-awake or just awakened, victim grappling or

being held, stacks from behind

But treachery may exist even if attack is face-to-face as long as victim

was not given any chance to prepare defense
* does not exist if the accused gave the deceased chance to prepare or there
was warning given or that it was preceded by a heated argument
* there is always treachery in the killing of child
* generally characterized by the deliberate and sudden and unexpected attack
of the victim from behind, without any warning and without giving the victim an
opportunity to defend himself

TREACHERY
Means, methods or
forms are employed by
the offender to make it
impossible or hard for
the offended party to
put any sort of
resistance

ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR
STRENGTH

Offender does not

employ means,
methods or forms of
attack, he only takes
advantage of his
superior strength

MEANS EMPLOYED
TO WEAKEN
DEFENSE

Means are employed

but it only materially
weakens the resisting
power of the offended
party

Rules Regarding Treachery:

1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of
crime.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
Treachery is taken into account even if the crime against the person
is complexed with another felony involving a different classification
in the Code. Accordingly, in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, treachery but can be appreciated insofar as the killing
is concerned.
The suddenness of attack in itself does not constitute treachery,
even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all
of a sudden and the victims helpless position was accidental.
Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if the manner of attack
is not shown.
Treachery must be convincing evidence proved by clear and
convincing evidence.

Treachery Should Be Considered Even If:

1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a generic
intent to treacherously kill any first two persons belonging
to a class. (The same rule obtains for evident premeditation).
2. There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a person different
from that intended. (The rule is different in evident
premeditation).
3. There was error in personae, hence the victim was not the
one intended by the accused. (A different rule is applied in
evident premeditation).
REASON FOR THE RULE: When there is treachery, it is impossible
for either the intended victim or the actual victim to defend
himself against the aggression.
TREACHERY ABSORBS:
1. Craft
2. Abuse of superior strength
3. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Cuadrilla (band)
5. Aid of armed men
6. Nighttime
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act
IGNOMINY is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the
crime.
MEANING OF which add ignominy to the natural effects thereof:
The means employed or the circumstances brought about must
tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or
to put the offended party to shame, or add to his moral suffering.
Thus it is incorrect to appreciate ignominy where the victim was
already dead when his body was dismembered, for such act may not
be considered to have added to the victims moral suffering or
humiliation. (People vs. Carmina, G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991)
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries,
light or grave coercion, and murder.
Requisite:
1.
Crime must be against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or
grave coercion, and murder
2.
The circumstance made the crime more humiliating and shameful for
the victim
Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way
not intended for the purpose.
NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and
not for escape.
REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not respecting the walls
erected by men to guard their property and provide for their
personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity;
hence, the law punishes him with more severity.

Example: Rapist gains entrance thru the window

Inherent in: Trespass to dwelling, robbery with force upon things, and
robbery with violence or intimidation against persons.

*cant be considered when there is no evidence that the accused, prior to the
moment of the killing, resolved to commit to crime, or there is no proof that the
death of the victim was the result of meditation, calculation or reflection.

Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a

wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

Treachery is considered against all the offenders when there is

conspiracy.

Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect

ENTRANCE. If the wall, etc., is broken in order to get out of the
place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.

WHEN MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT:

1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present
in the beginning of the assault. (PEOPLE vs. MANALAD, GR
No. 128593, August 14, 2002)

Requisite:
1.
A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
2.
They were broken to effect entrance

Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded
on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was
a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was
wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the

It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered the

building Therefore, If the offender broke a window to enable
himself to reach a purse with money on the table near that
window, which he took while his body was outside of the building,

the crime of theft was attended by this aggravating circumstance.

NOTE: Breaking in is lawful in the following instances:
1. An officer, in order to make an arrest, may break open a door
or window of any building in which the person to be arrested
is or is reasonably believed to be;
2. An officer, if refused admittance, may break open any door
or window to execute the search warrant or liberate himself,
3. Replevin, Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court
Par. 20. That the crime be committed
(1) with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age, or
(2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar
means.
TWO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES GROUPED IN THIS PARAGRAPH:
1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age:
Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent
practice resorted to by professional criminals to avail
themselves of minors taking advantage of their
irresponsibility.
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means:
Intended to counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee
and abscond once the same is committed.

said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be

considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Those which must be taken
into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission.
BASIS:
The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission.
THE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE:
1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.
RELATIONSHIP
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the
1. Spouse,
2. Ascendant,
3. Descendant,
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

Mitigating Circumstance

Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused

purposely and deliberately used the motor vehicle in
going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the
effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape.

In crimes against persons in

cases where the offender, or when
the offender and the offended party
are relatives of the same level, as
killing a brother, adopted brother or
half-brother.

MEANING OF or other similar means Should be understood

as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient means
of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong
not necessary for its commission
CRUELTY there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in
making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary
physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other
wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the
purpose of the offender.
Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against persons.
In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that
the wounds found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he
was still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong physical suffering.
Cruelty cannot be presumed
*nor merely inferred from the body of the deceased. Has to be proven.
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were
being performed, this would also qualify the killing to murder due to
outraging of his corpse.
IGNOMINY

CRUELTY

Moral suffering subjected to

humiliation

Physical suffering

Ignominy involves moral suffering. Cruelty refers to physical

suffering.
Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is NO
provision for aggravating circumstances of a similar or analogous
character.
ART.15

Alternative Circumstances

Concept of Alternative Circumstances

ARTICLE 15. Their Concept. Alternative circumstances are those which
must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees
of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating
circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit

Aggravating Circumstance

In crimes against property (robbery,

usurpation, fraudulent insolvency,
arson)

Always aggravating in crimes

against chastity.

Exception: Art 332 of CC no

criminal liability, civil liability only for
the crimes of theft, swindling or
malicious mischief committed or
caused mutually by spouses,
ascendants, descendants or
relatives by affinity (also brothers,
sisters, brothers-in-law or sisters-inlaw if living together). It becomes an
EXEMPTING circumstance.
Other Relatives Included (By Analogy):
1. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter.
REASON: It is the duty of the step-parents to bestow upon
their stepchildren a mothers/fathers affection,
care and protection.
2. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child.
NOTE: But the relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by
any of the relationship mentioned.
When Relationship Mitigating And When Aggravating:
1. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against
property, by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery
(Arts. 294-302), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency
(Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321-322, 325-326).
2. In crimes against persons
a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of
(1). a higher degree than the offender, or
(2). when the offender and the offended party are relatives
of the same level (e.g. brothers)
b) But when it comes to physical injuries:
(1). It is aggravating when the crime involves serious
physical injuries (Art.263), even if the offended
party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious
physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon
his child by excessive chastisement.
(2). It is mitigating when the offense committed is less
serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries,
if the offended party is a relative of a lower degree.
(3). It is aggravating if the offended party is a relative
of a higher degree of the offender.
c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is

aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a relative

of a lower degree.
d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather
raped his stepdaughter or in a case where a father raped his
own daughter.
3. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness
(Art. 336), relationship is always aggravating, regardless of
whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree
of the offended party. When the qualification given to the
crime is derived from the relationship between the offender
and the offended party, it is neither mitigating nor
aggravating, because it is inseparable from and inherent in the
offense. (e.g. parricide, adultery and concubinage).
INTOXICATION - When Intoxication Mitigating And When
Aggravating:
1. Mitigating
a. If intoxication is not habitual, or
b. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit
a felony.
2. Aggravating
a. If intoxication is habitual, or
b. If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit
a felony).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

a)

if intoxication is not habitual

b)
if intoxication is not
subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
a)
if intoxication is habitual
such habit must be actual and
confirmed
b)
if its intentional (subsequent to
the plan to commit a felony)

To Be Entitled To The Mitigating Circumstance Of Intoxication,

It Must Be Shown:
1. That at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the
accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to
blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
control, and
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the
plan to commit the felony.
To be mitigating, the accuseds state of intoxication must be
proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory
evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is
presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional.
INSTRUCTION OR EDUCATION
As an alternative circumstance it does not refer only to literacy
but more to the level of intelligence of the accused.
Refers to the lack or presence of sufficient intelligence and
knowledge of the full significance of ones acts.
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is
generally mitigating. High degree of instruction and education
is aggravating, when the offender took advantage of his learning
in committing the crime.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Low degree of instruction education
or the lack of it. Because he does
not fully realize the consequences of
his criminal act. Not just mere
illiteracy but lack of intelligence.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

High degree of instruction and

education offender avails himself
of his learning in committing the
offense.

GENERAL RULE: Lack of sufficient education is mitigating

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity, and
3. Treason because love of country should be a natural feeling of
every citizen, however unlettered or uncultured he may be.
ART.16

Who Are Criminally Liable

ARTICLE 16. Who are Criminally Liable. The following are criminally liable
for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person
participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into
their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised
Penal Code classifies them as:

PRINCIPAL;
ACCOMPLICE; OR
ACCESSORY.
This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code
and is not applied under special laws, because the penalties
under the latter are never graduated.
Do not use the term principal when the crime committed is a
violation of special law (use the term offender/s, culprit/s,
accused).
As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave
or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are
criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and
the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not.
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons
or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal
or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or
frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.
Note that accessories are not liable for light felonies.
REASON: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong
as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal
sanction is unnecessary.
The classification of the offenders as principal, accomplice
or an accessory is essential under the RPC. The classification
maybe applied to special laws only if the latter provides for
the same graduated penalties as those provided under the RPC.
There Are Two Parties In All Crimes:
1. Active subject (the criminal)
Art. 16 enumerates the active subjects of the crime.
2. Passive subject (the injured party) Is the holder of the
injured right: the man, the juristic person, the group, and
the State.
Note: Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime
because of the highly personal nature of the criminal
responsibility.
However, corporation and partnership can be a passive subject of
a crime.
GENERALLY: Corpses and animals cannot be passive subjects
because they have no rights that may be injured.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 253, the crime of defamation may be
committed if the imputation tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.
This article applies only when the offenders are to be judged
by their individual, and not collective, liability.
ART.17.

Principal By Direct Participation

ARTICLE 17. Principals. The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.
PRINCIPALS
THREE TYPES OF PRINCIPALS:
1. Principal by DIRECT PARTICIPATION (par.1)
2. Principal by INDUCTION (par.2)
3. Principal by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (par.3)
Par. 1 Principals by direct participation
Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution (conspiracy);
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part
in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
NOTE: If the second element is missing, those who did not
participate in the commission of the acts of execution cannot
be held criminally liable, unless the crime agreed to be
committed is treason, sedition, coup detat or rebellion
MEANING OF personally took part in its execution:
- That the principal by direct participation must be at
the scene of the commission of the crime, personally
taking part in its execution.
- Under conspiracy, although he was not present in the
scene of the crime, he is equally liable as a principal
by direct participation.

Ex: One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy

is a principal by direct participation
CONSPIRACY there is unity of purpose and intention.
How conspiracy is established:
- It is proven by overt act beyond reasonable doubt.
- Mere knowledge or approval is insufficient
- It is not necessary that there be formal agreement
- Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common
purpose and were united in execution.
- Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the
crime may be shown in the following cases:
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the
crime
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the
crime
3. Contribution by positive acts to the realization of a common
criminal intent
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and
lending moral support thereto.
While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending
the commission of the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy
must be established by positive and conclusive evidence.
NOTES:
Conspirator is not liable for the crimes of the others which
are not the object of the conspiracy nor are logical or
necessary consequences thereof
Regarding multiple rape each rapist is liable for anothers
crime because each cooperated in the commission of the rapes
perpetrated by the others
EXCEPTION: in the crime of murder w/ treachery all the
offenders must at least know that there will be treachery
in executing the crime or cooperate therein.
No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through
negligence. However, special laws may make one a co-principal.
Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-defendant.
Those who are liable:
1. Materially execute the crime
2. Appear at the scene of the crime
3. Perform acts necessary in the commission of the offense
Why one who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable:
1. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and
encouraged;
2. Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specifically
provides a penalty therefor.
3. There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal
participation.
Art.17 Par 2.

Principal By Induction

Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material executor.
INDUCTOR

PROPOSES TO COMMIT A FELONY

Induce others

Same

Liable only when the crime is

executed
Covers any crime

Punishable at once when proposes to

commit rebellion or treason. The person
to whom one proposed should not
commit the crime, otherwise the latter
becomes an inductor
Covers only treason and rebellion

Forms of Inducements
1.
By Price, reward or promise
2.
By irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
*Imprudent advice does not constitute sufficient inducement
*Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of the co-defendant.
One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of
the crime without first being shown that the crime was actually
committed (or attempted) by another.
Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable
cooperation) unless there is a principal by direct participation.
But there can be a principal by direct participation without a
principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation).
Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction:
1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by :

a) Using irresistible force.

b) Causing uncontrollable fear.
In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity
of criminal purpose and intention. Only the one using the
force or causing the fear is criminally liable. The
material executor is not criminally liable because of
Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6 (exempting circumstances)
2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime by
a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise.
The one giving the price or offering the reward or
promise is a principal by inducement while the one
committing the crime in consideration thereof is a
principal by direct participation. There is collective
criminal responsibility.
b) Using words of command The person who used the words of
command is a principal by inducement while the person
who committed the crime because of the words of command
is a principal by direct participation. There is also
collective criminal responsibility.
Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:
1. Commander has the intention of procuring the commission
of the crime
2. Commander has ascendancy or influence
3. Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
4. Command be uttered prior to the commission
5. Executor had no personal reason
NOTE: Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the
nature of the command that had to be obeyed do not
make one an inductor
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so
influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the act would
not have been performed. Mere imprudent advice is not inducement.
If the person who actually committed the crime had reason of his
own to commit the crime, it cannot be said that the inducement was
influential in producing the criminal act.
Effects Of Acquittal Of Principal By Direct Participation
Upon Liability Of Principal By Inducement:
1. Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co- defendant.
2. 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.
But if the one charged as principal by direct participation is acquitted
because he acted without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is
not a ground for the acquittal of the principal by inducement.
REASON FOR THE RULE: In exempting circumstances, such as when
the act is not voluntary because of lack of intent on the part of the
accused, there is a crime committed, only that the accused is not a
criminal.
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.
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.
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.
People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69 (1990),
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 wifes 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 wifes
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.

Art.17 Par. 3

Principal By Indispensable Cooperation

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either
anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
another act, without which it would not have been accomplished.
MEANING OF cooperation in the commission of the offense
- To desire or wish in common a thing. But that common will
or purpose does not necessarily mean previous understanding,
for it can be explained or inferred from the circumstances
of each case.
NOTE: If the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender is
only an accomplice.
Collective Criminal Responsibility:
- This is present when the offenders are criminally liable
in the same manner and to the same extent. The penalty to
be imposed must be the same for all.

and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.

NOTES:
Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by
direct participation.
The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted a
mortal wound. If he inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a
principal by direct participation.
In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be
considered that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal.
When is one regarded as an accomplice:
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:
- If the participation of one is so insignificant
- such that even without his cooperation,
- the crime would be committed just as well,
- then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy,
such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice.
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
In Principal by Cooperation - Cooperation is indispensable in the
commission of the act.
Accomplice - Cooperation is not indispensable in the commission
of the act.

Principals by direct participation have collective criminal

responsibility. Principals by induction, (except those who directly
forced another to commit a crime) and principals by direct
participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by
indispensable cooperation have collective criminal responsibilities
with the principals by direct participation.
Individual Criminal Responsibility:
- In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of
criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime, or community of criminal design,
the criminal responsibility arising from different acts
directed against one and the same person is considered as
individual and not collective, and each of the participants
is liable only for the act committed by him.
- QUASI-COLLECTIVE criminal responsibility: Some of the
offenders in the crime are principals and the others are
accomplices.
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.
- If the crime could hardly be committed without such
cooperation, then such cooperation would bring
about a principal.
- 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.

ART.18

Accomplices

ARTICLE 18. Accomplices. Accomplices are those persons who, not being
included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts.
ACCOMPLICES - Persons who do not act as principals but cooperate
in the execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous acts,
which are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. They
act as mere instruments that perform acts not essential to the
perpetration of the offense.
Requisites: (the following must concur)
1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with
the latter his purpose;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material
or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious
way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal

ART.19

Accessories

ARTICLE 19. Accessories. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of

the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the
crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
guilty of some other crime.
Accessories are those who:
1. having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
2. without having participated therein either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any
of the following acts:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit
by the effects of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
c. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent
its discovery.
In profiting by the effects of the crime, the accessory must
receive the property from the principal. He should not take it
without the consent of the principal. If he took it without the
consent of the principal, he is not an accessory but a principal
in the crime of theft.
EXAMPLE:
PAR. 1 - person received and used property from another, knowing
it was stolen
PAR. 2 - placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was

unlawfully killed to plant evidence, or burying the

deceased who was killed by the principals
PAR. 3 - a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in
the escape of the principal of any crime (not light
felony) with abuse of his public functions
b) private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in
the escape of the author of the crime guilty of
treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against
the life of the President, or who is known to be
habitually guilty of some crime.
GENERAL RULE: If the Principal is acquitted the Accessory is
also acquitted. The responsibility of the accessory is
subordinate to that of the principal in a crime
Exception: When the crime was in fact committed by the
principal, but the principal is covered by exempting
circumstances (Art 12) and as a result he is not held liable.
However, it is possible that the accessory may still be held
liable even if the principal was acquitted by an
exempting circumstance.
Trial of accessory may proceed without awaiting the result
of the separate charge against the principal because the
criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other.
Two classes of accessories contemplated in par. 3 of art. 19
1. PUBLIC officers, who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape
of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse
of his public functions.
Requisites:
1. The accessory is a public officer.
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the
principal.
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions.
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime,
provided it is not a light felony.
2. PRIVATE persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape
of the author of the crime who is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or attempts against the life of the President, or
who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Requisites:
1. The accessory is a private person.
2. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the
author of the crime.
3. The crime committed by the principal is either:
a. Treason,
b. Parricide,
c. Murder,
d. An attempt against the life of the President, or
e. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime.
Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law requires that
the principal be convicted before one may be punished as
an accessory. As long as the corpus delicti is proved and
the accessorys participation as such is shown, he can be
held criminally responsible and meted out the corresponding
penalty (Inovero vs. Coronel, CA, 65 O.G.3160).
The prescribed acts of the accessory under par.2 must have
been intended to prevent the discovery of the crime, hence,
mere silence does not make one an accessory. If, however,
the crime involved is a conspiracy to commit treason, his
silence may hold him liable for misprision of treason
(Art. 116) but as a principal thereof.
Where the accused misleads the authorities by giving them
false information, such act is equivalent to concealment
and he should be held as an accessory.
Principal Distinguished from Accessory
1. Principal - Takes direct part or cooperates in, or induces
the commission of the crime.
Accessory - Does NOT take direct part or cooperates in, or
induces the commission of the crime.
2. Principal - cooperates in the commission of the offense by
acts either prior thereto or simultaneous therewith.
Accessory - does not take part in the commission of the
offense.
3. Principal - Participates during commission of the crime.
Accessory - Participation of the accessory in all cases
always SUBSEQUENT to the commission of the crime.

Accessories Who Are Exempt From Criminal

Liability
ART.20

ARTICLE 20. Accessories Who are Exempt from Criminal Liability. The
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
BASIS:
The exemption provided for in this article is based on the ties
of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of ones name,
which compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so
near as those mentioned in this article.
AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN
THE PRINCIPAL IS HIS :
1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by
affinity within the same degree.
Accessory Is Not Exempt From Criminal Liability Even If The
Principal Is Related To Him, If Such Accessory
1. profited by the effects of the crime, or
2. assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by affection but
by a detestable greed.
NOTES:
Nephew and Niece not included
Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of Art. 19 is exempt by
reason of relationship to the principal, even if such public
officer acted with abuse of his official functions.
REASON: Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more
powerful incentive than the call of duty.
P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or
willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases.
The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829.
PD 1829 - The law penalizing obstruction of justice.