1

CRIMINAL
LAW
RodulphCarilllo)

(Teacher:

Fiscal

--- FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY ---SOURCES

-

Revised Penal Code (Book I)

Jurisprudence

Tips in answering Fiscal Carillos Exam:

PRINCIPLES(s), APPLICATION OF THE LAW
REQUIREMENTS: 3 Major Examinations, Oral
Examinations/Quiz
Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He
left her and joined the Mormons. He became a
dedicated missionary spreading the gospel of
Brigham Young. One day he arrived in a town
to do missionary work and met Clara. They fell
in love with each other. Timothy honestly
believed that his conversion to the Mormon
religion allowed him to have more than one
wife. Without his first marriage to Maria
dissolved, Timothy married Clara. Timothy was
charged with bigamy.
Timothy is: Criminally liable because his
mistake in the interpretation of the law does
not excuse him from its effects.
Criminally because his misapprehension of the
facts caused an injury that would result in
criminal liability
Criminally liable because
resulted in a culpable felony

his

imprudence

Criminally liable because good faith is not a

defense in the case of felonies
ANSWER:
PRINCIPLE OF LAW: One who commits an
intentional felony is liable for all the natural
and logical consequences that may result
therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or not.
APPLICATION:
How does one incur criminal liability? Give an
example.
What if you want to kill your classmate
because he would not allow you to copy his
answers in an exam? You see this classmate
walking with his girlfriend. You say: This is my
chance. I will shoot my classmate. You shoot
your classmate but you missed in shooting
him. Instead, you shot his girlfriend. Are you

[Type here]

liable? Will you be liable for an intentional or

culpable felony? If the act is an intentional
felony, why? It was not the girlfriend whom you
wanted to kill. It was her boyfriend. In this
case, your classmate. Would that not amount
to a culpable felony?
In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF
BATANGAS, what did De Joya asked from
the Supreme Court?
PP vs. GONZALES?
QUESTION: If I bought a gun with the intent of
killing a person without actually killing him, will
I be liable for an attempted murder?
WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?
-Defines crimes
-Treats of their nature
-Provides for penalties
Primary Purpose
Prevent harm to society by:
a. Declaring what conduct is criminal
b. Describing the punishment to be imposed for
such conduct
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
-Revised Penal Code
-Special Laws passed by the Legislature
-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
There are no common law crimes.
No law = no crime.
Are court decisions and circulars sources
of criminal law?
SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal
law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code is not applicable. This is just a
clarification of our decision. (NORMA DE JOYA
vs. THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR
Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003)
States
crimes.

power

to

define

and

punish

A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of

all the subdivision of which its great powers will
admit, and of all the means by which they may

2
be carried into execution, would partake of a
prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be
embraced by the human mind. It would
probably never be understood by the public.
A state must be able to define and punish
crimes. If you place the penalties for crimes in
the
Constitution,
it
will
tarnish
its
characteristic. It will not be brief, broad and
definite anymore. If you do that, that will be
making our Constitution a broad one.
Limits (1987 Constitution)
-Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)

(1) General (refers to the subject of criminal

law; ANYONE WHO LIVES OR SOJOURN IN THE
PHILIPPINE TERRITORY WILL BE SUBJECT TO
PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW

JURISDICTION

-Right to bail

-Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over

military personnel with Courts martial even in
times of war as long as the civil courts are still
functioning

-Presumption of innocence
-Self-incrimination
-Double jeopardy
The power of the state to define and punish
crimes has a limitation. These are more or less
included in our laws. We can find some of these
in the Revised Rules of Court.
LIMITS (Statutory)
-Presumption of innocence
nature

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

(3) Prospective

-Speedy disposition of cases

the

WHEN
DOES
A
COURT
ATTAIN
JURISDICTION?When the offender surrenders
himself; during arraignment; the person
surrendering must do it personally, you cannot
send a messenger

(2) Territorial

-Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])

-Informed of
accusation

Person committing the crime

and

cause

of

-To be present and defend in person

-To testify in his own behalf
-Self-incrimination
-To confront / cross-examine
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

GONZALES vs. ABAYA, GR No. 164007,

August 10, 2006
RA #7055
GENERAL RULE AFP, persons subject to
military law, who commit crimes or offenses
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other
special penal laws, or local ordinances civil
court.
EXCEPTION Service-connected offenses
military court
EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION President,
interest of justice civil court
EXCEPTIONS (These are for purposes of
international comity)
-

Jurisdiction power to hear and decide a

controversy.
In criminal cases:
Place / Venue
Nature of the crime if penalty is 6 years
and 1 day above (RTC); if drug related case,
the RTC specially designated as drug court; if
the case consists of a minor?

[Type here]

Treaties
Laws of preferential application;
Sovereigns,
Chiefs
of
State,
Ambassadors,
Ministers
plenipotentiary, ministers residents and
charges daffaires.
Consuls
being
commercial
representatives
have
no
such
immunity. They do not enjoy the same
immunity enjoyed by the abovementioned political agencies

2. TERRITORIAL

3
Criminal law is applicable only with respect to
acts committed within Philippine territory.

this was already repealed so their cases were

DISMISSED

Philippine Territory Archipelagic doctrine

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

EXCEPTIONS

Against the Government and in favor of the

accused.

Article 2 of the RPC:

1. Philippine ship / airship

Spanish
PENAL)

2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes,

obligations
or
securities
(maskipagnaakagawassaPilipinas,
liable
gihaponka!)

As in all rules of statutory construction, these

rules are applicable only when there is some
ambiguity in the interpretation of the criminal
statute

3. Introduction
Philippines

PP vs. GONZALES What was the crime

involved in this case? What particular principle
in law would you use if you were the justice in
this case? So what if you can establish that the
accused did not commit a felonious act
punishable by Article 4 of the RPC? Would it be
correct to say that a felony cannot be punished
merely because it is not proven that such
felony existed?

of

items

no.

into

the

4. Public officers or employees / in the exercise

of their functions
5. Crimes against national security / law of
nations (EVEN IF YOU COMMIT REBELLION
OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES, TENDING TO
INDUCE FOREIGNERS TO COMMIT SUCH CRIME,
YOU WILL STILL BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ; Piracy)

text

is

controlling

(OLD

CODIGO

ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION

3. PROSPECTIVE

(REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship

-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in

a manner in.

Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes,

obligations or securities;

EXCEPTION

Introduction
Philippines;

When the new law is favourable to the accused

NOT APPLICABLE
exception):

(Exception

to

the

Express prohibition;
Habitual criminal
REPEAL

of

items

in

no.

into

the

Public officers or employees / in the exercise of

their functions;
National security / law of nations
FISCAL CARILLO: Airplane sir, walailabot?
Walailabotnohkywala man dha? Yes or no? (The
term AIRSHIP is found in the OLD CODIGO
PENAL so the answer is YES, LABOT)

If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new

law shall be applied. (Exception, retroactive,
favourable)

WHEN COMMITTED ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP

OR AIRSHIP.

If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the

old law shall be applied. (General law, no
retroactive effect, not favorable)

A person who commits an offense on board a

Philippine ship or airship while the same is
outside Philippine territory can be tried by our
courts.

If the new law totally repeals the existing law,

the
crime
is
obliterated.
(Exception,
retroactive, favourable) ; THOSE WHO ARE
SERVING SENTENCE, YOU RELEASE THEM ;
Anti-Subversion Act was totally repealed; Just
becoming a member of an organization that is
subversive, you can be prosecuted, however,

[Type here]

Ship or airship must be in international waters.

FORGES OR COUNTERFEITS ANY COIN OR
CURRENCY NOTE, OBLIGATIONS AND
SECURITIES
Making false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163)

4
A PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEE, OFFENSE
IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTIONS.
-

Direct bribery (Art. 210)

Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
Frauds against the public treasure (Art.
213)
Malversation (Art. 217)
Falsification (Art. 171)
Possession of prohibited interest (Art.
216)

CRIMES
AGAINST
THE
NATIONAL
SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
-

Possession of opium.
If FMV is in transit NOT TRIABLE
If Philippines is destination TRIABLE
SMOKING OPIUM triable regardless
OPIUM IS LANDED ON PHILIPPINE SOILtriable regardless
(See PP vs. WONG CHENG, PP vs. LOOK CHAW
& PP vs. AH SING)
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED TODAY.
WHAT IS CONTROLLING AT PRESENT IS R.A.
9165

Treason (Art. 114)

Espionage (Art. 117)
Piracy (Art. 122)

ART. 3. FELONIES

FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIPS

An extension of the territory of the country to
which it belongs.
In the case of US vs. BULL, a continuing crime
on board a foreign merchant ship sailing to the
Philippines
istriable by our courts. The
condition was still existing when the ship was
within territorial waters.

FELONY is the technical term for violations of

the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
Act or omission;
Punishable by the RPC;
There is dolo or culpa
ACT OR OMISSION

WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD

A FOREIGN MERCHANT SHP
International Waters NOT triable in our courts,
an extension of the territory of the country to
which the ship belongs.
Territorial Waters TRIABLE in our courts unless
merely affect things (1) within the vessel or
they refer to the (2) internal management
thereof. (ENGLISH RULE)
ENGLISH RULE vs. FRENCH RULE
Crimes committed
territorial waters.

on

board

FMV

within

FRENCH RULE NOT triable unless it affects

peace and security of the territory
ENGLISH RULE TRIABLE unless they merely
affect things within vessel or refer to internal
management thereof. (Take note: THE MOMENT
WE GET AN INFORMATION THAT A FOREIGN
MERCHANT VESSEL / AIRSHIP POSSESSES A
PROHIBITED ARTICLE, THE PHILIPPINE COURTS
WILL HAVE JURISDICTION)
EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH RULE

[Type here]

Act pertains to any bodily movement

tending to produce some effect in the
external world. (PP vs. GONZALES)

ACTS
OVERT done openly, external (not internal),
must have a direct connection with the felony
committed.
Is the act of buying a gun a crime? You bought
a gun because you are going to commit a
crime. You bought it for the purpose of selfdefense. You bought it because you want to
join a shooting competition. Even when you
draw pistol (loaded) or you just want to
threaten a person, IT IS STILL AN EQUIVOCAL
ACT.
OMISSION
Omission refers to inaction or the failure to
perform a positive duty. There must be a law
punishing such inaction or failure.
Mere passive presence at the scene of
anothers crime, mere silence and failure to
give the alarm, without evidence of agreement

5
or
conspiracy,
do
not
constitute
the
cooperation The only evidence of the state
was that SILVESTRE was with her husband and
failure on the part of SILVESTRE to give an
alarm. (PP vs. SILVESTRE)
You see somebody in a remote area in danger
of dying. Nadasmagansiyaug truck and you
failed to give assistance, you will be LIABLE
under the above rule. (OMISSION)
FELONIES
DOLO deceit / malice; deliberate intent
CULPA fault; no deliberate intent but there is:
Imprudence lack of skill, or
Negligence lack of foresight
*WHETHER
IT
BE
IMPRUDENCE
NEGLIGENCE, IT MUST BE VOLUNTARY.

OR

Recall the illustrative case given by Fiscal

Carillo (HOUSEBOY & HOUSEMAID / Ti-uniko,
ti-uniko, Sir)
Houseboy was only used as an instrument
Why was AH CHONG brought to court? Was he
relieved from criminal liability merely because
of his belief that he was under attack? Is there
any principle involved in the case of AH CHONG
that the Supreme Court used in acquitting him?
Was it not an intentional act on the part of AH
CHONG in killing his victim? So, can you say
that GOOD FAITH is a defense for the crime
of homicide?
OANIS Case
PP vs. VILLACORTA
DIEGO vs. CASTILLO
REQUISITES OF DOLO
-

FREEDOM No freedom = not

voluntary
INTELLIGENCE discern morality of act
(your ability to know what is right from
wrong; a clinically insane person
cannot be held liable for a criminal act
as this is an exempting circumstance;
you may not know what is right and
wrong but you may know who is
handsome or not)
INTENT to commit the felony

INTENT

[Type here]

Being in a state of mind, intent is hard to

prove.
Criminal intent is PRESUMED from the
commission of an unlawful act. The decision to
adopt a means to arrive at a result is INTENT.
You must look at all the circumstances.
The act of stabbing is an intentional act but
there is no criminal intent because the person
thought he was defending himself. (AH CHONG
Case)
Because we do not have psychics, we look at
all the factors; the circumstances before,
during and after the act. So in another case,
you dont look at the results only. A small
scratch on the forehead does not mean that
there is an attempted murder on the person.
Look at the weapon used; the part of the body
to which the blow was directed and the
circumstances attendant to the felonious act.
WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS READILY
OBSERVABLE.
Spouses, brothers and sisters, there is no theft.
BECAUSE THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP.
GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT
Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent.
Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and
robbery, intent to kill in homicide and murder.
MISTAKE OF FACT
Misapprehension of facts by the person who
causes injury to another.
No criminal liability on the part of the actor
because there is no criminal intent.
Whenever there is good faith, it SUPPLANTS the
criminal act. You cannot deny your basic
instincts.
MISTAKE OF FACT; Requisites
Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be.
INTENTION of accused is lawful.
NO fault or carelessness.
Good faith happens when mistake of fact is
present.
US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No.
5272

6
In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact,
if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient
to negative a particular intent which under the
law is a necessary ingredient of the offense
charged (e.g., in larceny, animus furendi; in
murder, malice; in crimes and misdemeanors
generally some degree of criminal intent)
cancel the presumption of intent, and works
an acquittal except in those cases where the
circumstances demand a conviction under the
penal provisions touching criminal negligence.

CULPA no intent to cause injury

The circumstances will indicate the intention of

the person.

Shooting a person in a running mode is

UNLAWFUL. It is wrong for a law enforcer to
shoot a running suspect TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER HE MUST BE ARRESTED OR NOT.

PP vs. OANIS, July 27, 1943, GR No. 47722

In the instant case, appellants, unlike the
accused in the instances cited, found no
circumstances whatsoever which would press
them to immediate action. The person in the
room being then asleep, appellants had ample
time and opportunity to ascertain his identity
without hazard to themselves, and could even
effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable
effort to that end had been made, as the victim
was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea.
And a peace officer cannot claim exemption
from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary
force or violence in making an arrest.
The accused were given
mitigating circumstances

the

benefit

of

MISTAKE OF FACT vs. MISTAKE OF LAW

This Court, in People vs. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which
could be a basis for the defense of good faith in
a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which
does not excuse a person, even a lay person,
from liability. Bitdu held that even if the
accused, who had obtained a divorce under the
Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that
in contracting her second marriage, she was
not omitting any violation of the law, and that
she had no criminal intent, the same does not
justify her act. (DIEGO vs. CASTILLO, A.M. No.
RTJ-02-1673, August 11, 2004)
GOOD FAITH IS A GOOD DEFENSE.

Freedom;
Intelligence;
Imprudence,
Negligence,
foresight or Lack of skill.

If the offender intended to cause injury but the

result is different from that intended, he is
liable for an intentional felony under Article 4.
(INTENTIONAL
FELONY
=
mangligisniCarillotungodkycgesiyaugpamusil)

If the person is an ESCAPE PRISONER, killing

him MAY be justified.
CRIMES OR OFFENSES
SPECIAL LAWS

BY

Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is

sufficient if the accused had intent to
perpetrate the act.
It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done
freely or voluntarily.
IF IT IS WRONG BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT IS
MALA IN SE (Good Faith). IF IT IS WRONG
BECAUSE THE ACT COMMITTED IS PROHIBITED
BY LAW, IT IS MALA PROHIBITA (Special Penal
Laws; Good faith is NOT a defense). As long as
you possess the prohibited articles, you are
liable.
MALA PROHIBITA there must be knowledge
that the article in possession is prohibited by
law
MOTIVE and INTENT
-

Motive is the moving power that

impels one to action for a definite
result
Intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to effect such result.

MOTIVE IS NOT A REQUISITE

EXCEPT:
Lack

of

[Type here]

PUNISHED

Motive is not an essential element of a crime

and is, therefore, not necessary for the
conviction of the accused.

REQUISITES OF CULPA
-

The offender in culpable felonies must perform

an act without intention to cause injury to
another.

There is doubt as to the identity of the

accused
There are 2 antagonistic versions

7
DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
A punches B and B falls to the ground with an
improvised stove sustaining an injury. 12 days
later, B died. Is A liable?
I have a swiss-knife and then somebody grabs
it and then I injure your hand because I was
trying to get back my swiss-knife. Am I liable?
Does this not fall within the principle that I
should be liable for the consequences of my
own actions?
You are a member of the 13 Judas gang. Your
mortal enemies are the 14 Banal gang. The
latter ganged up on you. You are an expert of
MMA. So you defend yourself against their
blades. You hurt your own finger. Back to your
house, you were hiding. When you looked at it,
that finger was already hanging. 4 days after,
the finger starts to blacken. So you go to court
and file a case against the 14-Banal. The
contention of the counsel for the 14-Banal was
that the victim DID NOT IMMEDIATELY SEEK
FOR MEDICAL ATTENDANCE. Hence, because of
his decision not to seek for medical assistance,
the accused-defendants should not be liable. Is
the counsel for the 14-Banal correct?

COMMITTING
A
criminal intent)

FELONY

(Acts

with

If the person is not committing a felony, the

article is not applicable.
BINDOY Case trying to retain a bolo that was
taken from the owner.
VILLANUEVA Case snatching a bolo because
of curiosity.
Although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.
MISTAKE
personae

IN

THE

IDENTITY

error

in

MISTAKE IN THE BLOW aberratio ictus

INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER
THAT INTENDED praeterintentionem

THAN

In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for

all the natural and logical consequence that
may result from the unlawful act, whether
foreseen or not.
MISTAKE IN INDENTITY error in personae

When does an action result to criminal liability

and when does an action not result to criminal
liability?

A intended to kill B;

ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A shoots C, killing him.

Criminal liability is incurred:

A is liable for the death of C, since Cs death is

the direct, natural and logical consequence of
his felonious act (shooting).

Committing a felony although the wrongful act

done is different from what he intended;

A mistakes C for B (darkness);

MISTAKE IN THE BLOW aberratio ictus

Impossible crime (KILLING AN ALREADY DEAD

PERSON)

X intends to kill Y;

RULE ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY

X shoots at Y;

A person who commits an intentional felony is

responsible for all the consequences that may
naturally and logically result therefrom,
whether foreseen or intended or not.

X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.

INTENTIONAL FELONY

X is liable for the death of Z, since Zs death is

the direct, natural and logical consequence of
his felonious act (shooting Z) X is also liable for
the attempt on Y.

For this article to apply, the offender must be

committing an intentional felony (dolo)

INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN

THAT INTENDED Praeterintentionem

different from that which he intended.

A punches B once (no intent to kill);

If the offender was committing a culpable

felony this article does NOT apply

B falls to the ground hitting his head on the

pavement;
B dies as a result of the injuries to his head.

[Type here]

8
A is liable for the death of B, since Bs falling to
the ground and hitting his head on the
pavement is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of his felonious act (punching).
PP vs. CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October 6,
1933
There is nothing to indicate that it was due to
some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct
consequence of defendants felonious act, and
the fact that the defendant did not intend to
cause so great an injury does not relieve him
from the consequence of his unlawful act, but
is merely a mitigating circumstance.
Direct, natural and logical
A person who threatens or pursues another
with a knife and causes the latter to jump to
the river in order to avoid him and drowns as
he did not know how to swim, is liable for the
intentional death of that person. (US vs.
VALDEZ , 41 Phil. 497)
If the victim had a delicate constitution as he
was suffering from tuberculosis and died as a
result from the fist-blows, the person who
delivered the said blows is liable for the death.
(PP vs. ILLUSTRE, 54 Phil 594)
If the death was accelerated by fist blows
delivered because the victim was suffering
from some internal condition, the person who
delivered the blows is liable for the death. (PP
vs. RODRIGUEZ)
SEGURITAN vs. PP
REFUSAL OF
TREATMENT

OR

UNSKLLFUL

MEDICAL

Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical

operation, the person who caused the injuries
is still liable as a person is not obliged to
submit to a surgical operation to relieve the
accused from the natural or ordinary results of
his crime. (US vs. MARASIGAN)
REFUSAL
that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved
of responsibility if the wound inflicted is
dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or
endanger life, even though the immediate
cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful
medical or surgical treatment (PP vs.
MOLDES, GR No. 42122, December 1, 1934)
PROXIMATE CAUSE

[Type here]

that cause, which, in natural and continuous

sequence,
unbroken
by
any
efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have
occurred. The remote cause is not necessarily
the proximate cause. It was the negligence of
the bus company that was the proximate
cause. (VDA.DE BATACLAN vs. MEDINA, GR No.
L-10126, October 22, 1957)
A person is NOT liable for all the possible
consequences of his act.
And
there
is
authority
that
if
the
consequences resulted from a distinct act or
fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act,
the offender is not responsible for such
consequences. (PP vs. MARCO, GR Nos. L28324-5)
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
Active force that intervenes between the felony
and the resulting injury;
The active force must be a distinct act; or
A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act;
The resulting injury is due to the intentional act
of the victim
FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE VICTIM
Malicious act or omission of the victim (That
particular act now becomes the efficient
intervening cause)
PP vs. VILLACORTA
September 7, 2011)

(GR

No.

186412,

The rule is that the death of the victim must be

the direct, natural, and logical consequence of
the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused.
X XX The medical findings, however, lead us to
a distinct possibility that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time Javier was
wounded to the time of his death. The infection
was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the
crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
The felony intended by the offender is not
achieved due to:
Inherent impossibility

9
Employment
means

ineffectual

crime. Shooting a space where the intended

victim is not present is an impossible crime.

IS THIS PUNISHABLE? Yes. Because you are

intending to commit a crime. There is a
criminal propensity on the part of offender.

There is no need to distinguish factual from

physical impossibility because Philippine law is
clear, INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE.

REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:

PP vs. ENOJA

of

inadequate

or

Persons / Property
Evil Intent
Inherently
impossible
/
means
employed is inadequate or ineffectual.

Should not constitute another violation of the

RPC (The act of pseudomizing a person is a
crime of acts of lasciviousness; Any person can
be a victim of rape as long as you insert penis
or an object into the mouth)
What is the difference between a finger and a
canister? The moral depravity and the criminal
intent is the SAME.
AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY

Murder, homicide,
rape, etc.

physical

injuries,

Crimes against property:

-

Robbery, Theft, Estafa, etc.

Kidnapping / serious illegal detention is a crime

against liberty
Q: Kidnapping a dead body?
A: No criminal liability.
EVIL INTENT
There must be intent to injure another.
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
Our laws do not distinguish between legal and
physical impossibility.
FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY = opening a safe
without money inside
INTOD vs. PP
Furthermore,
the
phrase
inherent
impossibility that is found in Article 4(2) of the
RPC makes no distinction between factual or
physical impossibility and legal impossibility.
The case of INTOD vs. PP was an impossible

[Type here]

ART. 5 DUTY OF JUDGE WHEN SITUATION

NOT COVERED BY LAW.
Act is not punished by law must render a
decision according to the law.
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES must not suspend the
execution of sentence
*report
to
the
President
Department of Justice (DOJ)

Crimes against persons:

-

In another case where the accused who

claimed that since they shot the victim after
the first shooter had already shot the victim,
they were in effect shooting a person already
dead, the Supreme Court called their argument
merely speculative.

through

the

ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES NOT ALLOWED

[s]entences should not be in the alternative.
There is nothing in the law which permits
courts to impose sentences in the alternative.
While a judge has the discretion of imposing
one or another penalty, he cannot impose both
in the alternative. He must fix positively and
with
certainty
the
particular
penalty.
(ABELLANA vs. PP, GR No. 174654, August 17,
2011)
ART. 6 STAGES OF EXECUTION
-

Consummated
Frustrated
Attempted

CONSUMMATED
All elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
MURDER.It is necessary that you kill the
victim for there to become a consummated
felony.
THEFT. It is necessary that you take
possession of the objects you intend to gain.
FACTORS:
-

The nature of the offense.

10
-

The elements constituting the felony.

The manner of committing the same.

a.) Preparatory Acts generally not punishable;

b.) Acts of Execution punishable

ARSON
ATTEMPTED STAGE, Elements
If any part of
(CONSUMMATED)

the

structure

is

burned
Commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts.

If the fire is started but no part of the structure

is burned (FRUSTRATED)

Does not perform all the acts of execution

which should produce the felony.

If no fire has been even started (ATTEMPTED)

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous

desistance

THEFT gaining possession of the item

consummates the felony.

Due to a cause of accident other than his own

spontaneous desistance.

There is no frustrated theft. (VALENZUELA vs.

PP, GR No. 1160188, June 21, 2007; Rule of
VALENZUELA case is similar to the ruling of
ADIAO case)

OVERT ACTS

MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

FORMAL
testimony

CRIMES

slander

and

false

MERE ATTEMPT OR PROPOSAL flight to

enemys country (ATTEMPT) and corruption of
minor (PROPOSAL)
MATERIAL
murder

CRIMES

rape,

homicide

or

In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the

accused intended to kill his victim, as shown by
his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he
inflicted, but the victim did not die because of
timely medical assistance, the crime is
frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the
victims wounds are not fatal, the crime is only
attempted murder or attempted homicide.
(COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748, December
13, 2011)
FRUSTRATED
- Offender performs all the acts of execution
that would produce the felony but does not
produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
ATTEMPTED
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
1st Internal Acts not punishable
2nd External Acts:

[Type here]

External Acts;
Direct connection with the crime intended to
be committed.
The overt acts must have an immediate and
necessary relation to the offense. VIADA
EQUIVOCAL vs. UNEQUIVOCAL
-drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal
acts.
-drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the
victim and, with intent to kill, discharge the
firearm at the victim can we say that the acts
are not overt acts of homicide/murder.
PP vs. LAMAHANG
Directly by overt acts
This element requires that the offender
personally execute the commission of the
crime.
Inducing another to commit a crime, when the
person induced does not accede will not result
in criminal liability for the inducer as the
general rule is mere proposal to commit a
crime is not punishable.
PP vs. LIZADA
An overt or external act is defined as some
physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more
than a mere planning or preparation, which if
carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the

11
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
DOES NOT
EXECUTION

PERFORM

ALL

ACTS

OF

If the offender has performed all acts of

execution consummated stage or frustrated
stage
If there is still something else to be done
attempted stage
By reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
Does not perform all acts of execution due to
his own spontaneous desistance NO
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
It is a reward for those having one foot on the
verge of crime, heed the call of their
conscience and return to the path of
righteousness.
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
Absolves one from the crime he intended to
commit NOT from the crime actually committed
before the desistance.
PERFORMS ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
Nothing is left to be done by the offense
because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime.
In attempted crime, offender never passes the
subjective phase.
BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER
this Court has held that is not necessary
that the accused actually commit all the acts of
execution necessary to produce the death of
his victim, but that it is sufficient that he
believes that he has committed all said acts. PP
vs. SY PIO
US vs. EDUAVE GR No. 12155, February
02, 1917
A crime cannot be held to be attempted
unless the offender, after beginning the
commission of the crime by overt acts, is
prevented, against his will, by some outside
cause from performing all of the acts which
should produce the crime.

[Type here]

DESISTANCE
ACTS

AFTER

PERFORMING

ALL

If he has performed all of the acts which

should result in the consummation of the crime
and voluntarily desists from proceeding further,
it
cannot
be
an
attempt.
(Ai.Kaluooyniyaoi.Molakawnalangko.)
PP vs. DAGMAN, GR No. 23133
The murder should be regarded as frustrated
because the offenders performed all of the acts
of execution which should precede the felony
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did
not produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrators; in this instance,
the playing possum by Magbual.

BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF

THE WILL OF THE PERPETRATOR
Felony NOT produced causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
PP vs. LIZADA
An overt or external act is defined as some
physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more
than a mere planning or preparation, which if
carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a crime.
A woman filed a case against a man charging
the man with rape. While the complaint was
under investigation, they meet each other in a
dark alley just the 2 of them and the man
immediately draws his bolo and says to the
girl: I will kill you, SALAMAMETS. Then starts
hacking at the woman. Woman tries to go away
but was still slashed at her back. Woman falls
down and the man says: I have killed the
worst enemy. The man throws the woman to
the garbage. Thereafter, the man goes home
and announced it publicly that he killed
someone. Not knowing, the woman was able to
crawl from the place of incident to the hospital.
Woman files a case against the man. The man
contends as a defense that he was liable only
for attempted murder. What is the liability of
the man? Will he be liable for attempted
murder or frustrated murder?

12
Lets say you and two of your friends are
having a drinking session. One of them
suddenly says that I am not satisfied with the
government and then you say let us overthrow
P-Noy and replace him. The two agree. Is there
any criminal liability in this particular situation?
Yes or no? If their plan was to rob? Is there
conspiracy? Punishable?Mere conspiracy to
commit robbery? Is this punishable? So you
have now decided that you are going to
commit rebellion and the 3 of you go to
Malacanang. You parked your car and alighted
and said: ATTACK. When you reached the
gate,
didtorakanakibawngaimongmgakauban
bag-o
ranahuwasan.Waclanikuyognimo.
Nagpabilinraclasa auto. What is the criminal
liability of the three? Ikawunsaimong liability?
How about the two who remained in the car?
What if the 2nd person who went with you did
not shoot his gun but just kept on giving you
bullets. So the one who remained in the car?
Must conspiracy be coupled with an external
act? What if that person who is left at the car
gets out of the car and starts saying: Go. Go.
Go. Go. Attack.?
PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, August
31, 2011
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in
every detail of the execution; he need not even
take part in every act or need not even know
the exact part to be performed by the others in
the execution of the conspiracy.
Lets say you are a member of band of robbers.
Five of you decide to rob a bank. The first says:
I am the only one who has a driver license. The
other one says I have a gun and walkie-talkie.
That leaves 3, including you to get inside the
bank and to get the money from the bank. As
the plan was made out, the 2 of you played
your roles. You are told by your 2 companions
to watch the employees and the 2 of them will
go inside the vault. You noticed that the teller
is
beautiful
and
you
say:
Lugosonnalangninako. You took with you the
teller and bought her inside an office of the
bank. You raped her. After, you left. Then, 5 of
you
got
arrested.
Nahibongang
4
nimongakaubanngaang title sa case ky
ROBBERY WITH RAPE. Tutokclanimo.
What is the liability of the other four? Lets say,
they all saw you drag the girl into the office.
Ingonmonga:
Mao
bitawnaang
tripping
gyudniya. Walapaman sad nacyakasuway.
Pasagdaaannanato, padayon ta driugkawat.

[Type here]

The other four did not participate in the rape.

Will they still be liable?
ART. 7 LIGHT FELONIES
Punishable only when consummated.
EXCEPT: crimes against persons (SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURY, MALTREATMENT) or property
ART. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
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
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
are punishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
(ART. 8, Par. 1, RPC)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup detat,
rebellion or insurrection.
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (this
is not so much of overthrowing the
government. This is more of a tumultuous
uprising; mere civil disobedience)
CRIME
vs.
LIABILITY

MANNER

OF

INCURRING

Treason, coup detat, sedition is actually

committed conspiracy is NOT a crime but a
manner of incurring criminal liability.
PD No. 1866 vs. PD No. 8294
CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of
action and purpose. Its elements, like the
physical acts constituting the crime itself, must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When
there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all. (QUIDET vs. PP, GR No. 179289, April 8,
2010)
REQUISITES?

13
INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY
When two or more persons aim their acts
towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
acts, though apparently independent, were in
fact connected and cooperative indicating
closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy may be
inferred. And where there is conspiracy, the act
of one is deemed the act of all. (PP vs. ALETA,
GR No. 179708, April 16, 2009)
*ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE
DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found;
circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in
order to prove its existence. (PP vs. AMODIA,
GR No. 173791, April 7, 2009)
PP vs. LAGAT
Direct proof that the two accused conspired is
not essential as it may be inferred from their
conduct before, during, and after the
commission of the crime that they acted with a
common purpose and design.
AMODIA Case
An accused participates as a conspirator if he
or she has performed some overt act as a
direct or indirect contribution in the execution
of the crime planned to be committed.
-

Active participation
Moral assistance by being present
Exercising moral ascendancy

(PP vs. MULIT, GR No. 181043, October 8,

2008)
Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention
in the commission of a crime. Where a
conspiracy is established, the precise modality
or extent of participation of each individual
conspirator becomes secondary since the act
of one is the act of all. The degree of actual
participation in the commission of the crime is
immaterial.
even if not all the parties committed the same
act,
A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties
committed the same act, but the participants
performed specific acts that indicated unity of

[Type here]

purpose in accomplishing a criminal design.

Moreover, direct proof
of previous agreement to commit an offense is
not necessary to prove conspiracy conspiracy
may be proven by circumstantial evidence. (PP
vs. MALIBIRAN, GR No. 178301, April 24, 2009)
PP vs. REYES
PP vs. EVANGELIO
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in
every detail of the execution; he need not even
take part in every act or need not even know
the exact part to be performed by the others in
the execution of the conspiracy.
NO CONSPIRACY separate and individual
responsibility
In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the
defendants are separate and individual, each is
liable for his own acts, the damage caused
thereby, and the consequences thereof. While
the evidence shows that the appellant boxed
the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the
extent of the injuries, in which case, the
appellant should be held liable only for slight
physical injuries.
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose
that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had already
killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their
moves were not coordinated because while
Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his
pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the
pawnshop. (PP vs. BOKINGCO)
THE CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED
If the crime is actually committed, proposal
becomes a manner of incurring liability, i.e.,
principal by inducement.
Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.
ART. 9 GRAVITY OF FELONIES
-

Grave
Less Grave
Light

GRAVE FELONIES
-

Capital Punishment (death)

Penalties which in any of its period is
afflictive.

14
AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)
-

Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Permanent
/
Temporary
Disqualification
Permanent
/
Temporary
Disqualification
Prision Mayor

Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.

Absolute
Special

Mitigating / Aggravating circumstances cannot

be considered, no graduation of penalties.
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL
LIABILITY

LESS GRAVE FELONIES

-

Punishment which in their maximum is

correctional.

CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)

-

PrisionCorrecional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro (maximum
kilometers)

Justifying (Art. 11)

Exempting (Art. 12)
Mitigating (Art. 13)
Aggravating (Art. 14)
Alternative (Art. 15)
Absolutory causes (Minority, Art. 280
last par., violent insanity, Art. 332, Art.
344)

IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY

radius

of

25

LIGHT FELONIES
-

No formula for graduation of penalties.

RESPONSIBILITY obligation of suffering the

consequences of crime.

ArrestoMenor
Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both

While an act may be imputable to a person, it

may not necessarily mean that he would be
responsible for the same.

FELONY Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.

*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty.
(Fine is a light penalty if it is less than P200.00)

ART. 11 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

In accordance with the law.

ART. 10.
1st Clause. The RPC is not
supersede special penal laws

IMPUTABILITY quality by which an act may

be ascribed to a person as the author.

intended

to

2nd Clause. The RPC is supplementary to

special laws, unless the special law provides
otherwise.

The actor is not considered to have violated

the law.
No criminal OR civil liability
No crime committed (Just like in the case of AH
CHONG. There was no crime committed.)

(GO TAN vs. SPS. TAN, GR No. 168852,

September 30, 2008)

COLINARES vs. PP,

December 13, 2011

Hence, legal principles developed from the

Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary
capacity to crimes punished under special
laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the
special law is silent on a particular matter.

When the accused invokes self-defense, he

bears the burden of showing that he was
legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting
injury to him. The accused must establish the
elements of self-defense by clear and
convincing evidence. When successful, the
otherwise felonious deed would be excused,
mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent
of the accused.

Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not

applicable
Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code SCALE
OF PENALTIES
-

Special laws.
Punishes only consummated acts.
No
definition
of
accessories
accomplices.

[Type here]

or

GR

No.

182748,

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
-

Self-defense
Defense of relatives
Defense of strangers
Avoidance of a greater evil or injury

15
-

Fulfillment of duty / lawful exercise of

right or office
Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose

SELF-DEFENSE
-

In defense of his person or rights.

DEFENSE OF PERSON OR RIGHTS

Person includes danger to ones:
-

Life
Limb

RIGHTS INCLUDES:
-

Right to property

SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites
-

Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);

Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
-

This is a condition sine qua non. An

essential and indispensable requisite.
No unlawful aggression, no self-defense
whether complete or incomplete.
The aggression must be unlawful and
actual.

PP vs. CONCILLADO
COLINARES vs. PP
PP vs. GAYRAMA, GR No. 39270, 39271,
October 30, 1934
It cannot be said that there was a previous
unlawful aggression
.taking into consideration the fact that the
purpose of the deceased in so doing was to
succeed in capturing and arresting the
appellant
PP vs. MERCED, GR No. 14170, November
23, 1918
that assault was natural and lawful, for the
reason that it was made by a deceived and
offended husband in order to defend his honor
and rights by punishing the offender of his
honor, and if he had killed his wife and the

[Type here]

other defendant, he would have exercised a

lawful right,
Lets say, 2 persons. Lets call them Mr. X and
Mr. Y. They are playing cards. X is angry
because Y is cheating. That is why Y is winning.
So, after the game, X goes home, gets his knife
and then he goes on looking for Y. He sees Y
spending his winnings buying an adobo. Aso2
pa ang adobo ron! Nagkurog2 pa angtambok! X
attacks. He swoops down with a knife but
nasangit man at the back of the chair so si Y,
hinanaw man ug sine, also gets out a knife.
Turns out that Y is better in using the knife so
he starts slashing X. But si X ingoncya: Murag,
alkansikoani da. So he runs away. So si Y
niingon, Kani.Hinaymodagan. X falls down. Y
kills X. Y is charged. Y says self-defense. If you
were the judge, can self-defense be invoked?
Who is the aggressor?
AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL
An actual assault, or
Threat of an assault of an:
-immediate and imminent;
-offensive and positively strong showing the
wrongful intent to cause an injury.
ACTUAL AGGRESSION
Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual,
sudden and unexpected attack on the life and
limb of a person or an imminent danger
thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. The attack must be real,
or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of
an impending attack would not be sufficient.
(BAXINELA vs. PP, GR No. 149652, March 24,
2006)
ACTUAL OR IMMINENT
ACTUAL assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL)
IMMINENT rocking a boat coupled with
threats of capsizing the same. (PP vs.
CABUNGCAL)
PP vs. MACASO
US vs. FERRER, GR No. 60, November 8,
1901
The unlawful aggression and the defense must
be simultaneous / without appreciable interval
of time.

16
If any time intervened between the supposed
attack of the deceased and the firing of the
revolver by the defendant, the latters actions
would cease to have the true character of a
real defense, which, in order to be legally
sufficient, requires primarily and as an
essential condition that the attack be
immediately present.

a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one

from whom he flees.

THE NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION AND

EXTENT OF WOUND / INJURIES.

PP vs. ACOSTA

Wounds / injuries on the victim would usually

indicate whether self-defense is credible or not.
Wound / injuries on the accused are not as
determinative as the injuries on the victim.
CANO vs. PP, GR No. 155258, October 7,
2003
the superficiality of the nature of the
wounds inflicted on the accused does not, per
se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove selfdefense, the actual wounding of the person
defending himself is not necessary.
AGE
AND
CONDITION
AGGRESSOR

OF

Accused was 24
sexagenarian (Diaz)

victim

while

ALLEGED

was

The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured,

lost his right hand (Ardiza)

it is because this Court considered that the

requisites of self-defense had ceased to exist,
principal and indispensable among these being
the unlawful aggression of the opponent. (PP
vs. ALCONGA, April 30, 1947, GR No. L-162)

PP vs. ALETA
If a person is attacked with bare hands, how
should that person defend himself? What is the
rule as far as reasonable means is concerned?
If he uses a knife or a samurai? If that person
has a knife, can you use a gun? What if that
person is super black-belt ninja who can kill
with his bare hands? Still, you defense yourself
with bare hands?
If you defend yourself by way of shooting the
aggressor in his chest? Would that be
reasonable? Why? Shoot him three times?
BUNGYAO BUNGYAOBUNGYAO! Or shoot him
just once, BUNGYAO? What if the bolo used by
the aggressor is dull and rusty, would you be
still justified in killing the person? What is the
rule on reasonable necessity? What does the
law require? What is the rule? If it is not
mathematical equality or perfect equality, what
is sufficient?

Failure to interpose self-defense after:

The moment the aggressor ceases, the

person defending himself is not anymore
justified in killing the said aggressor. There is
no more unlawful aggression. *Refer to PP vs.
ALCONGA (78 Phil. 366)

Surrendering Manansala

PP vs. JUARIGUE

Confession De la Cruz

If angpaasalalakihikaponsababae? This cannot

be. Crimes against chastity is limited only to
women.

BEHAVIOR
INCIDENT

IMMEDIATELY

AFTER

THE

PHYSICAL FINDINGS
Accused claims that when he stabbed the
victim they were facing each other. The factual
findings establish that the wounds were in the
back of the victim.
The victim still had his gun tucked inside the
waistband of the pants and received 13
gunshot wounds. (Perez)
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST EXIST AT
THE TIME OF THE ACT CONSTITUTING
SELF-DEFENSE.

[Type here]

She could not have expected that the

aggressor would have actually raped her.
Kutobragyudcguro to anglalakiughikap-hikap.
There was here a lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of accused Juarigue.
Provocation must come from an unjust
conduct. Only reasonable necessity was lacking
in this case. The Supreme Court gave JUARIGUE
a privileged mitigating circumstance.
PP vs. DE LA CRUZ (GR No. 411487, May
2, 1935)

17
In order that legitimate self-defense may be
taken into account and sustained as a defense,
it is necessary, above all, that the aggression
be real, or at least, imminent, and not merely
imaginary.
US vs. GUY-SAYCO
REASONABLE NECESSITY
ELEMENTS:
-

There must be reasonable necessity in

both:
Course of action taken by the person
defending;
Means used;

to say that a second or third blow was

unnecessary under all the circumstances of the
case, it appearing that the accused instantly
and without hesitation inflicted all the wounds
at or about the same time. (BLOWS MUST BE
DELIVERED RAPIDLY.)
REASONABLE NECESSITY IN THE MEANS
USED.
-

Rational necessity to employ

means used.
Perfect equality is not required.

RATIONAL
required.

EQUIVALENCE

is

what

the

is

Determined by:
-

Existence of unlawful aggression and

The nature and extent of the
aggression

If you are attacked with a weapon,

circumstances dictate that you find a weapon,
whatever said weapon may be.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF AGGRESSION
Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe
causing death mauled with fist blows by
several men. (Ocana)
Shooting a person who was playing a practical
joke place was dark and uninhabited, Lie
down and give me your money.
PP vs. LARA (GR No. 24014, October 16,
1925)
It should be borne in mind that in emergencies
of this kind human nature does not act upon
processes of formal reason but in obedience to
the instinct of self-preservation and when it is
apparent as in this case, that a person has
reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the
duty of the courts to sanction the act and to
hold the actor irresponsible in law for the
consequences.

PP vs. MACASAET
Having concluded, however, that under all the
circumstances the accused was justified in
making use of his knife to repel the unprovoked
assault as best he could, it would be impossible

[Type here]

US vs. APEGO
since there was no real need of wounding
with the said weapon him who had merely
caught her arm.
there was no just nor reasonable cause for
striking a blow therewith in the center of the
body, whether the principal vital organs are
seated, of the man who had not performed any
act which might be considered as an actual
attempt against her honor.
PP vs. MONTALBO,
December 31, 1931

GR

No.

34750,

RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
-

Nature and quality of the weapon used

Physical condition, character and size
Other circumstances of both aggressor
and person defending himself
Place and occasion of assault

RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, RATIONALE.

Because this justifying circumstance is born by
necessity and is resorted only in extreme
situations
or
emergencies,
the
person
defending himself is not expected to think
coolly and clearly. The person defending is,
therefore, not expected to control his blow or
draw a distinction as to the injury that would
result after he delivers his blow.
PP vs. ONAS
US vs. MENDOZA
US vs. MACK (GR No. L-3515, October 3,
1907)

18
court not reasonably be expected to take
the chance that mere ordinary force would be
used in striking, or that the blow would be
given upon some protected part of his body, or
that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen
enough to give him his death blow.

Challenging one to come out of the house to

fight.
(US vs. McCRAY, 2 Phil 5454, PP vs. VALENCIA,
L-58426, October 31, 1984)

The reasonable and natural thing for him to do

under the circumstances was to fire at the
body of his opponent, and thus make sure of
his own life.

Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of

vulgar language. (PP vs. SOTELO, 55 Phil 403)
But a petty question of pride does not justify
wounding or killing an opponent. (Why are you
calling me? PP vs. DOLFO)

PHYSICAL CONDITION, CHARACTER AND

SIZE OF THE OPPOSING PARTIES.

Forcibly trying to kiss

deceased. (GETIDA, CA)

One is not required, when hard pressed, to

draw fine distinction as to the extent of the
injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant
might probably inflict upon him (PP vs.
IGNACIO, GR NO. 40140, November 27, 1933)

ADMITS TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED

WHEN
ATTACKED
ASSAILANT/S

BY

AN

UNARMED

there may be other circumstances, such as

the very violence of the attack or a great
disparity in the age or physical ability of the
parties, which give deceased (accused)
reasonable ground to apprehend danger of
death or great bodily harm and justify him in
employing a deadly weapon in self-defense.
(Ignacio)
CANO vs. PEOPLE GR No. 155258, October
7, 2003
PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

vs.

LAW

PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL prevent or repel

aggression.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER overcome his
opponent.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
The person defending must not have by his
unjust conduct provoked the aggression sought
to be repelled or prevented.
THERE ARE 4 SITUATIONS WHERE THE 3rd
REQUISITE IS CONSIDERED PRESENT:
-

No provocation
Provocation was not sufficient
Was not given by the person defending
himself
Was not immediate or proximate

NEED NOT BE AN ACT OF VIOLENCE

[Type here]

the

sister

of

the

*Read the case of (PP vs. NUGAS)

PP vs. GENOSA (GR No. 135981, January
15, 2004)
First, each of the phases of the cycle of
violence must be proven to have characterized
at least two battering episodes between the
appellant and her intimate partner.
Second, the final acute battering episode
preceding the killing of the batterer must have
produced in the battered persons mind an
actual fear of an imminent harm from her
batterer and an honest belief that she needed
to use force in order to save her life.
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer
must have posed probable not necessarily
immediate and actual grave harm to the
accused, based on the history of violence
perpetrated by the former against the latter.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
In 27 March 2004 of R.A. 9262 took effect.
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a
defense.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
-

Spouse
Ascendant
Descendant
Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother
or sister

- Relatives by affinity in the same degrees

-parents-in-law
-son / daughter-in-law

19
-brother / sister-in-law
Relatives by consanguinity within 4th
degree (2nd degree nga cousin)
The same in self-defense:
-

Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity

In case there is sufficient provocation, the

person defending himself had no part therein
(US vs. ESMEDIA GR No. L-5749, October
21, 1910)
inasmuch as it has been shown that they
inflicted these wounds upon him in defense of
their father who was fatally wounded at the
time. They honestly believed, and had good
ground upon which to found their belief, that
Santiago would continue his attack upon their
father.

it cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking

Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure
compassion or beneficence of the lawful desire
to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his
cousin.
(GR

Nos.

129961-62,

Considering the nature, location and number of

the wounds sustained by the victims, the
appellants plea of self-defense and defense of
a relative will not hold.
BALUNUECO vs. CA
The injuries on the deceased as well as the
relatives of the accused belie his testimony
The accused failed to present himself to the
authorities
Accused recollection of events
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
-

Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity

The person defending be not induced by

revenge,
resentment
or
other
evil
motive.CABUSLAY vs. PP
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF SANITY.

[Type here]

Article 11, Paragraph 4: Avoidance of

Greater Evil or injury
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.

The evil sought to be avoided actually

exists.
The injury feared is greater than that
done to avoid it.
There is no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.

Cannot be invoked (Avoidance of Greater

Evil or injury)
-

PP vs. TORING

PP vs. CAABAY
August 25, 2003)

that when a defendant in a criminal case

interposes the defense of mental incapacity,
the burden of establishing that fact rests upon
him, has been adopted in a series of decisions
by this court. (PEOPLE vs. BASCOS)

Negligence,
No evil to be avoided, or
Violation of law by the actor.

No criminal liability but there is civil

liability
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in
certain cases.Second: in cases falling within subdivision 4 of
Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the
harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable
in proportion to the benefit in which they may
have received.
Pp vs. Ricohermoso, GR Nos. L-30527-28,
March 29, 1974
was designed to insure the killing of
Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his
assailants.
Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when
he sought to disable Marianito.
Tan vs. Standard Vacuum, GR No. L-4160,
July 29, 1952
the damage caused to the plaintiff was
brought about mainly because of the desire of
driver JulitoSto. Domingo to avoid greater evil
or harm
It cannot be denied that this company is one
of those for whose benefit a greater harm has
been prevented, and as such it comes within
the purview of said penal provision.

20
Ty vsPp, GR No. 149275, Sept. 27, 2004
the evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be
avoided is merely expected or anticipated or
may happen in the future, this defense is not
applicable.
Art. 11, Paragraph 5: Fulfillment of Duty
or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
Requisites:
1. The
accused
acted
in
the
performance of a duty or lawful
exercise of a right or office.
2. That the injury caused or the offense
committed
be
the
necessary
consequence of the due performance
of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
Fulfillment of duty
The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of
policemen and guards who shoot prisoners who
attempt to escape (Delima, Valcorza, Lagata,
Magno).
Self-defense vs. Fulfillment of duty
Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on
different principles. Self-defense is based on
the principle of self-preservation from mortal
harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on
the due performance of duty. Cabanlig vs.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148431, July 28,
2005.

Illegal orders, the subordinate is liableEXCEPT

when:
-

Pp vs. Beronilla, GR No. L-4445, February

29, 1955
It appearing that the charge is the heinous
crime of murder, and that the accusedappellants acted upon orders, of superior
officers that they, as military subordinates,
could not question, and obeyed in good faith,
without being aware of their illegality, without
any fault or negligence on their part, we cannot
say that criminal intent has been established.
Art. 12. Exempting Circumstances
In exempting circumstances the act does not
result in criminal liability because the act is not
voluntary or negligent.
There is absence of:
-

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

A policeman in the performance of duty is

justified in using such force as is reasonably
necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,
recapture him if he escapes, and protect
himself from bodily harm.

6.

Requisites:
1.
2.
3.

An order has been issued by a

superior.
The order must be for some lawful
purpose
The means used to carry out the order
must be lawful.

Intelligence,
Freedom of action,
Intent, or
Negligence

Exempting Circumstances

Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan

Article 11, Paragraph 6: Obedience to an

order issued for some lawful purpose

He is not aware that the order is illegal;

He is not negligent.

7.

Insanity or imbecility
Minority (15 yrs. of age or under, RA
9344)
Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting
without discernment)
Performance of a lawful act with due
care (accident)
Compulsion of an irresistible force
(physical force)
Uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury (moral or psychological
compulsion)
Failure to perform an act due to some
lawful or insuperable cause

Article 12, Paragraph 1: An imbecile or an

insane person
1. An imbecile or an insane person
An imbecile is a person marked by mental
deficiency while an insane person is one who
has an unsound mind or suffers from a mental
disorder (pp vs. ambal, oct. 17, 1980)
An insane person may have lucid interval while
imbecile does not have.
Rule on imbeciles and insane persons

[Type here]

21
Imbecile he must be deprived completely
of reason or discernment and freedom of the
will at the time of committing the crime
Insanity there must be complete
deprivation of intelligence or that there be a
total deprivation of the freedom of the will.
Crazy vs. Insane
there is a vast difference between an insane
person and one who has worked himself up
into such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use
reason or good judgment in what he does.
The fact that a person acts crazy is not
conclusive that he is insane. The popular
meaning of the word crazy is not
synonymous with the legal term insane,
(Ambal)

Quantum of evidence
Insanity as a defense is a confession and
avoidance and as such must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. When the commission of a
crime is established, and the defense of
insanity is not made out beyond a reasonable
doubt, conviction follows (pp vs. bonoan)
BONOAN CASE
a.
b.
c.

d.
e.

Presumption is in favor of sanity.

The law presumes that every person is of
sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary xxx the law always presumes all
acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume
that acts were executed unconsciously.
(Ambal)
Burden of evidence
In the instant case, the alleged insanity of
AMbal was not substantiated by any sufficient
evidence. The presumption of sanity was not
overthrown. He was not completely bereft of
reason or discernment and freedom of will
when he mortally wound his wife.

Commission vs. Trial

Insanity at the time of the commission of the
offense is different from insanity at the time of
the trial. In the first instance, it is an exempting
circumstance, in the second the accused is not
exempt but the proceedings are suspended
until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Pp vs. Legaspi
Mere prior confinement does not prove that
accused-appellant was deprived of reason at
the time of the incident.

Presumption in favor of sanity.

that when a defendant in a criminal case

interposes the defense of mental incapacity,
the burden of establishing that fact rests upon
him, has been adopted in a series of decisions
by this court. (PEOPLE VS. BASCOS, gr no.
19605, December 19, 1922)

BASCOS CASE
Circumstantial evidence:
a.
b.

c.

Witnesses say that the accused has

been insane for many years,
The doctor who examined the accused
testified that the accused was a violent
maniac and that he may have been
insane when he killed the victim, and
Lack of motive on the part of the
accused to kill the victim.

[Type here]

Accused confined at of San Lazaro

Hospital twice (1922, 1926);
Dementia praecox is an exempting
circumstance (authorities);
Insomnia for 4 days before the crime,
symptom of or leads to dementia
praecox;
A day after his arrest he was sent to
the Psychopathic hospital.
Alienist reported that the accused had
a form of psychosis Manic depressive
psychosis.

No evidence that he was adjudged

insane.
Discharge is proof of being cured.

Caught with his pants down

Mental depravity which results not from any
disease of the mind, but from a perverted
condition of the moral system, where the
person is mentally sane, does not exempt one
from responsibility for crimes committed under
its influence. (Legaspi)
PP vs. Madarang
The courts have established a more stringent
criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is
required that there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the
act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he
acted without the least discernment because

22
there is a complete absence of the power to
discern
Establishing insanity is a question of fact
and may be established by:
a.
b.

c.

A witness who is intimately acquainted

with the accused,
A witness who has rational basis to
conclude that the accused was
instance based on personal witness
Expert testimony

Madarang case
the testimony or proof of the accuseds
insanity must relate to the time preceding or
coetaneous with the commission of the offense
with which he is charged.
proof of abnormal behavior immediately
before or during the commission of the crime
PP vs. Opuran
A mans act is presumed voluntary. It is
improper to assume thecontrary, i.e. that acts
were done unconsciously, for the moral and
legal presumptions..

Age of criminal responsibility

A child of fifteen (15) years of age and under at
the time of the commission of the offense is
exempt from criminal liability. (Sec. 6)
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention
refers to a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the
child to commit an offense.
Section 3(1), RA 9344
Intervention refers to a series of activities
which are deisgned to address issues that
caused the child to commit an offense. It may
take the form of an individualized treatment
program which may include counseling skills
training, education and other activites that will
enhance the capcacity of the child.
Child 15 or below, initial contact with
child must:
-

Stringent standard
The stringent standard requires that there
be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act.
Facts in Opuran
-

Such unusual behavior may be

considered as mere abnormality of the
mental faculties, which will not exclude
imputability;
Medicine was not shown to be for any
mental illness;
Was never confined in a mental
institution;
Dr. Veronas findings were not based on
incomplete and insufficient facts
Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest
opportunity;

Article 12, Paragraph 2: Minority

RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May
20, 2006)
New concepts:
1.
2.
3.

Age of criminal responsibility

Effects
Presumptions

[Type here]

Release parents, guardian or nearest

relative.
Notify
LSWDO,
determine
the
appropriate programs.
O/W:
-NGO;
-Barangay;
-Local SWD off or DSWD;

Above 15 but below 18

Without discernment child is exempt but
subject to intervention.
With discernment subject to appropriate
proceedings, i.e., diversion.
No exemption from civil liability.
Discernment
Discernment is the mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and
wrong.
It may be shown by:
-

Manner of committing a crime

Conduct of offender
Appearance of the minor;
Attitude;
Comportment;
Behavior, before, during and after the
trial.

Determination of age

23
-

Birth certificate; (best document to

determine age)
Baptismal certificate;
Other pertinent document;

In the absence of the documents

mentioned (these are the instances
where minority will be considered):
-

Testimony of the child or other persons

Physical appearance
Other relevant evidence

CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec.

7)
Imposable Penalty
Not more than 6 years
-

Mediation, family conferencing and

conciliation if appropriate (where there
is a private offended party).
In victimless crimes, diversion or
rehabilitation.

Sec.
58.Offenses
children.
-

Kinds
Level
-

Restitution
Reparation
Indemnification
Written or oral apology
Care, guidance and supervision orders
Counseling
Trainings, seminars and lectures
-anger management
-problem solving
-values formation
-other skills to aid the child
-participation in community
based programs
-participation
in
education,
vocation and life skills programs
of

Diversion,

Law

Enforcement

appropriate

counseling

and

Arpon case

Decision appealed from 8 counts of

rape
Supreme Court 3 counts
1st count exempt, accused 13 years
old;
2nd& 3rd accused 17 years old,
discernment, Reclusion Perpetua, one
degree lower (death)
Suspension of sentence no longer an
option, accused 29 years old;
Case remanded to trial court for
compliance with Sec. 51, Agricultural
camp or other facility.

Article 12, Paragraph 4: Accident

Elements:
-

Performance of a lawful act;

With due care;
Injury is caused to another by mere
accident;
There is no fault or intention of
causing the injury.

Definition
All the programs at the barangay level
Confiscation and forfeiture of the
proceeds

Kinds of Diversion, Court

-

to

Although the acts of rape in this case were

committed before RA No. 9344 took effect on
May 20, 2006, the said law is still applicable
xxx with more reason, the Act should apply to
a case wherein the conviction by the lower
court is still under review.

Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay

Level.
-

applicable

Pp vs. Arpon

Diversion by the court.

not

Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202,

RPC);
Mendicancy (PD 1563);
Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)

Shall undergo
treatment.

More than 6 years

Payment of the cost of proceedings

Institutional care and custody

Court
All programs at barangay and law
enforcement
Written or oral reprimand
Fine

[Type here]

An accident is something that happens outside

the sway of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, lies beyond
the
bounds
of
humanly
foreseeable
consequences. (Pp vs. Agliday)
Pp vs. Genita, GR NO. 126171, March 11,
2004.

24
He must show with clear and convincing
proofs that: 1.) he was performing a lawful act
with due care, 2.) injury caused was by a mere
accident, and 3.) he had no fault or intention of
causing the injury.
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime
is committed by any person who, while
performing a lawful act with due care, causes
an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
Performance of a lawful act
For an accident to become an exempting
circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act
of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful
act. (Agliday)
Intent is a mental state
It connotes the absence of criminal intent.
Intent is a mental state, the existence of which
is shown by a persons overt acts. (Agliday)
Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A
shotgun has to be cocked first before it could
discharged.
Dual standard
Thus, in determining whether an accident
attended the incident, courts must take into
account the dual standards of lack of intent to
kill and absence of fault or negligence.(Pomoy
vs. Pp, GR No. 150647, September 29,
2004)

because he does not act with freedom.

reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not
only without will but against his will
must be present, imminent and impending
and of such a nature as to induce a wellgrounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act is not done.
A threat of future injury is not enough.
The compulsion must be of such a character
as to leave no opportunity to the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat. (Pp
vs. Loreno, GR NO. L-54414, July 09, 1984)
PP vs. Loreno
A person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with freedom. The
force must be irresistible to reduce him to a
mere instrument who acts not only without will
but against his will A threat of future injury is
not enough. The compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
Article 12, Paragraph 6: Impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
Elements:
-

Accident inconsistent with self-defense

Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting
circumstance of accident, in which there is no
intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense
necessarily contemplates a premeditated
intent to kill in order to defend oneself from
imminent danger. (Pomoy)
Article 12, Paragraph 5: Compulsion of an
irresistible force
Elements:
-

Compulsion is by physical force;

The physical force is irresistible;
The physical force must come from a
third person.

Exempted from criminal liability

[Type here]

The threat which causes the fear is of

an evil greater injury

Opportunity to escape
at that the time Narciso Saldana, Elmer
Esguerra and Romeo Bautista were waiting for
both appellants from a distance of about one
(1) kilometer. By not availing of this chance to
escape, appellants allegation of fear or duress
becomes untenable.
Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force
Article 12, Paragraph 7: Prevented by
Insuperable Cause
Elements:
-

An act i

25
Insuperable cause
Distance and available means of transportation
(Vicentillo)
Severe
dizziness
(Bandian)

and

extreme

debility

Absolutory causes
Instances where the act committed is a crime
but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
Absolutory cause in the RPC:
-

Art 6 (spontaneous desistance);

Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt);
Art. 124 (violent insanity)
Art. 247 (death under exceptional
circumstances)
Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to
trespass to dwelling)
Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling
and malicious mischief)
Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the
offender and the offended party in
SARA (Seduction, Abduction, Rape,
Acts of Lasciviousness)

Instigation is an absolutory cause.

Human nature is frail enough at best, and
requires no encouragement in wrongdoing. If
we cannot assist another, and prevent him
from committing crime, we should at least
abstain from any active efforts in the way of
leading him into temptation. (Saunders vs.
Pp, Mich. 218, 222)
Pp vs. Valencia, GR No. 143032, October
14, 2002.
Instigation or inducement, wherein the
police or its agent lures the accused into
committing the offense in order to prosecute
him.
Instigation is deemed contrary to public
policy and considered an absolutory cause.
Degree of inducement in instigation
In instigation, the crime would not have been
committed if it were not for the inducements of
the instigator.

Applicable only to public officers and their

agents
In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator
is a public officer or one who is performing
public functions.
If the instigator is private individual, both the
instigator and the person helping are held to be
criminally liable.
Entrapment vs. Instigation
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a
legitimate method of apprehending criminals.
Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers
in the execution of their criminal plan.
Instigation, on the other hand, involves the
inducement of the would-be accused into the
commission of the offense. (Pp vs. Legaspi,
GR No. 173485, November 23, 2011)
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to
for the purpose of trapping or capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan. The means of committing the crime
originates from the mind of the criminal.
Buy-bust operation
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
which in recent years has been accepted as a
valid means of arresting violators of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly
employed by police officers as an effective way
of apprehending law offenders in the act of
committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation,
the idea to commit a crime originates from the
offender, without anybody inducing or prodding
him to commit the offense. (Valencia)
Entrapment has to
material allegation

be

proved

as

The prosecution has to prove all the material

elements of the alleged sale of shabu and the
resulting buy-bust operation. Where the
testimony of the informer is indispensable, it
should be disclosed. (Pp vs. Ong, GR No.
137348, June 21, 2004)
Instigation vs. Entrapment
Instigation

Such inducement must be of such a nature the

instigator himself becomes a co-principal.

[Type here]

Induces accused into commission of

crime
The accused must be acquitted

26
-

It is the law enforcer who conceives the

commission of the crime and suggests
to the accused

Entrapment
-

Ways and means are resorted to trap

and
capture
lawbreaker
in
the
execution of the offense
Is not a bar to prosecution
The means originate from the mind of
the criminal.

Mitigating circumstances
Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do
not entirely free the actor from criminal liability.
Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or
ordinary only serve to reduce the penalty but
does not change the nature of the crime.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.
Circumstances that, if attendant serve to
increase the penalty w/o exceeding the
maximum of the panlty provided by law.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
Generic is generally applicable to all kinds of
crime, e.g., dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.

Sec. 8. Designation of the offense The

complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute,
aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be
made to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it.
PP vs. Elona
In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra,
we have ruled that qualifying and aggravating
circumstances, although proved during the
trial, cannot be appreciated when not alleged
in the information. Although the crimes in the
cases at bar were committed in 1999, before
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took
effect on Dec 1, 2000, the Court shall give its
effect
1. Advantage
be
taken
by
the
offender of his public position.
What is important is that the offender is a
public officer and he takes advantage of his
public position to commit the crime.
using
the
influence,
prestige
or
ascendancy which his office gives him as
the means by w/c he realizes his purpose.
(US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150)

Specific applicable to particular crimes, e.g.,

ignominy in crimes against chastity and
Treachery in crimes against persons.

Pp vs. Villamor

Qualifying changes the nature of the crime,

e.g., treachery qualifies killing to Murder.

To appreciate this aggravating circumstance,

the public officer must use the influence

Inherent must of necessity accompany the

commission of the crime. They cannot be taken
into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty. (Art. 62, par. 2)

US vsTorrida

Generic
-

Increases penalty to be imposed w/o

exceeding the maximum.
Can be offset by a mitigating
circumstance

Pablo vs. Pp

Qualifying
-

Place the offender in no other situation

as to deserve any other penalty
Cannot be offset by a mitigating
circumstance

Rule 110, Sec. 8,

Criminal Procedure

[Type here]

The fact that the appellant was councilman at

the time placed him in a position to commit
these crimes. If he had not been councilman he
could not have induced the injured parties to
pay these alleged fines. It was on account of
his being councilman that the parties believed
that he had the right to collect fines and it was
for this reason that they made the payments.

Revised

Rules

of

The mere fact that the three (3) accused were

all police officers at the time of the robbery
palced them in a position to perpetrate the
offense. If they were not police officers they
could not have terrified the Montecillos into
boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them
to hand over their money. Precisely it was on
account of their authority that Montecillos

27
believed that Mario had in fact committed a
crime and would be brought to the police
station for investigation unless they gave them
determined.
Pp vs. Magayac
That accused-appellant was a member of the
dreaded CAFGU and used his government
issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not
necessarily prove that he took advantage of his
public position to commit the crime.
Pp vs. Fallo
Dwelling of Offended Party
Dwelling means a building or structure
exclusively used for rest and comfort. It
may refer to the entire structure or a portion
thereof.
Privacy and sanctity of home
It is considered an aggravating circumstance
primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
that the law accords to the human abode. He
who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do
him wrong is more guilty than he who offends
him elsewhere (pp vs. evangelio)
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988
As to whether the crime must be held to have
been committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, we take it that although the accused
were found with the deceased at the foot of the
staircase of the house, that place must be
regarded as an integral part of the dwelling
of that family. The porch of a house, not
common to different neighbors, is a part of the
dwelling.
Sufficient provocation by owner of the
dwelling
When there is sufficient provocation by the
owner of the dwelling, this circumstance
cannot be appreciated.
There must be a close relation between
provocation and commission of crime in the
dwelling of the person from whom the
provocation came.
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling
Filomena vile names, started the trouble. This
vile language was not directed at the accused,

[Type here]

but to her daughter. This was, however, a

sufficient provocation to cause the accused to
demand an explanation why her daughter was
so grossly insulted. So under these facts, it was
error to hold that the aggravating circumstance
of morada existed.
Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040
The provocation was not given immediately
prior to the commission of the crime and had
no particular relation to the house of the
deceased. If the defendant had entered the
house of the deceased and surprised the
deceased and the wife of the defendant in the
act of adultery, the aggravating circumstance
of morada would not exist.
When provocation negates dwelling.
1.
2.

Provocation must be immediately prior

to the commission of the crime, and
There must be a close relation between
the
provocation
and
the
crime
committed.

Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983

Dwelling is considered as an aggravating
circumstance primarily because of the sanctity
of privacy the law accords to the human abode.
However, in the present case, Rosalyn was not
raped therein. Although she was abducted
therefrom, accused-appellant was not charged
with forcible abduction with rape but only with
rape. Considering that she was not raped
in
her
home,
dwelling
cannot
be
appreciated.
Pp vs. Caliso
in the commission of the crime the
aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of
confidence was present since the appellant
was the domestic servant of the family and
was sometimes the deceased childs amah.
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his
presence, public authorities are engaged
in the discharged of duties or in a place
dedicated to public worship.
Palace of the Chief executive and place
dedicated to public worship official or
religious functions need not be held.
Where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties there must be some
performance of public functions.

28
Intent to commit the crime
There must be evidence that the accused had
the intention to commit a crime when he
entered the place.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.
it has been held that if the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited place
or band concur in the commission of the crime,
all
will
constitute
one
aggravating
circumstance only as a general rule although
they can be considered separately if their
elements are distinctly perceived and can
subsist independently, revealing a greater
degree of perversity. Pp vs. Librando
PP vs. Silva
it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is
especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is
taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates
the commission of the crime by ensuring the
offenders immunity from capture.
The fact that they brought with them a
flashlight clearly shows that they intended to
commit the crime in darkness.
Darkness or obscurity
The essence of this aggravating circumstance
is the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely
the chronological onset of, nighttime.
Although the offense was committed at night,
nocturnity does not become a modifying factor
when the place is adequately lighted and, thus,
could no longer insure the offenders immunity
from identification or capture. Pp vs. Carino
Uninhabited place
That there was a reasonable possibility for the
victim to receive some help in the place of the
commission of the crime.

Pp vs. Rubia
The aggravating circumstance of the crime
having been committed in an uninhabited
place must be considered, the incident having
taken place at sea where it was difficult for the
offended party to receive help, while the

[Type here]

assailants
could
punishment

easily

have

escaped

Pp vs. Lumandong
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place under Article 14 (6) was
correctly appreciated against the appellant.
Band
This circumstance is present when more than
three armed men acted together in the
commission of the offense.
In other words the four armed men must
directly participate in the execution of the act
constituting the crime.
Pp vs. Magdamit
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when
more than three armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission thereof. In
the present case, there were seven armed
conspirators involved in the commission of the
composite crime.
Pp vs. Lozano
The Code does not define or require any
particular arms or weapons; any weapon which
by reason of its intrinsic nature or the purpose
for which it was made or used by the accused,
is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries
upon the victim of the crime may be
considered as arms for purposes of the law on
cuadrilla.
Guns and Knives.
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
the
commission of a crime by a band. In the crime
of robbery with rape, band is considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
7. On the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
The rule in here is that the offender must take
advantage of the calamity or misfortune in the
commission of the crime.
8. Aid of armed men or persons who
insure or afford impunity.

29
The armed men must not participate in the
execution of the felony otherwise they are coprincipals.
Must be accomplices
Aid of armed men or persons affording
immunity requires that the armed men are
accomplices who take part in minor capacity,
directly or indirectly. We note that all four
accused were charges as principals. The
remaining suspects were never identified and
charged. Neither was proof adduced as to the
nature of their participation. (Lozano)
9. Recidivism.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Recidivism, requisites.
1.
2.
3.

4.

That the offender is on trial for an

offense;
That he was previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime;
That both the first and second offense
are embraced in the same title of
the RPC;
That the offender is convicted of the
second offense.

Criminal propensity
10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial.
2. He previously served sentence for
another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater
penalty, or for two or more crimes
to which it attaches a lighter
penalty than that for the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new
offense.
Recidivism
-

Offender is convicted by final judgment

The offenses are included in the same
title of the RPC
The offenses are embraced in the same
title of the RPC, penalty is immaterial

Habituality

11. In consideration of a price, reward or

promise.
The price, reward or promise must be the
primary consideration of the offender in
committing the crime.
Includes
reward.

the

person

who

gives

the

In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not

considered primarily because there was no
conclusive evidence and the circumstance was
not alleged in the information.
Pp vs. Alicanstre
The talledo case is not authority on this
question.
Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish
jurisprudence is to the effect that the
aggravating circumstance of the price.
Greater moral depravity
In fact, under certain conditions such as those
obtaining in the case at bar the circumstance
under consideration may evince even greater
moral depravity in the offeror than in the
acceptor. (Alincastre)
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision,
explosion,
stranding
of
vessel
or
intentional damage thereto, derailment of
locomotive, or any other artifice involving
great waste or ruin.
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph
must be used by the offender to accomplish
the crime, hence the phrase by means of
Pp vs. Comadre
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery
and bymeans of explosives, the latter shall be
considered as a qualifying circumstance.
13. Evident premeditation.
Requisites:
1.
2.

[Type here]

Offender serves out his sentence in the

previous sentence
two or more crimes:
light penalty

the time when the offender determined

to commit the crime;
an act manifestly indicating the
culprits

30
16. Treachery
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
There is treachery when the following essential
elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself; and (b) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods or forms of attack
employed by him. (VELASCO v. PP)
Not in a position to defend himself.
In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was
attacked from behind and at close range. The
assailant further hid behind the window to
mask his presence and identity. (Pp. v. Dela
Pena)
Means must be consciously adopted.
The suddenness and unexpectedness of the
appellants attack rendered Inspector Barte
defenseless and without knowing such act.
Baluyot and Canete
If the aggression is continuous treachery must
be present at the beginning of the assault.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is
sufficient that treachery be present at the
moment the fatal blow was delivered. It is this
interruption that gives the accused the time to
consciously and deliberately adopt the means
and method of execution.
with treachery

Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the

moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy
to the material injury caused by the crime.
Means are employed or circumstances
surround the act that tend to make the crime
more humiliating.
US v. De Leon
There is present also the twelfth generic
circumstance of Article 10, proved by the fact
that the deceased, a land owner, was forced to
kneel in front of his four servants drawn up in
line before him.
Pp v. Acaya
The fact that the crime was committed in a
public place and in the presence of many
persons did not necessarily tend to make the
effects of the crime more humiliating or put the
offended party to shame.
Pp v. Siao
It has been held that where the accused in
committing the rape used not only the
missionary position, i.e. male superior, female
inferior but also the dog position as dogs do,
i.e. entry from behind, as was proven like the
crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.
18. Unlawful entry.
When an entrance is effected by a way not
intended for the purpose.

That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was

apparently the intended victim is not
incompatible with the existence of treachery.
Treachery may be taken into account even if
the victim of the attack was not the person
whom the accused intended to kill. (PP v.
Trinidad)

Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)

Frontal assault.

What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is

that in the latter the window or point of ingress
need not be broken.

Hence, it no longer matters that the assault

was
frontal
since
its
swiftness
and
unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance
to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of
his person. (Pp v. Agacer)
17. Ignominy.

[Type here]

19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or

window.
The breaking must be resorted as a means to
the commission of the crime.

20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means

of motor vehicle, airships or other similar
means.
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be
deliberately used in the commission of the
crime.

31
Besides, it has been established during the trial
that the accused used the motor vehicle in
going to the place of the crime in carrying
away the effects thereof, and in facilitating
their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)

Generally relationship is
-

21. Cruelty.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as
compared to Ignominy which refers to moral
suffering, i.e. disgrace or shame.
Test in appreciating cruelty
whether the accused deliberately and
sadistically augmented the wrong by causing
another
wrong
not
necessary
for
its
commission, or inhumanly increased the
victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his
person or corpse.. the culprit enjoys and
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him moral and physical pain
which is unnecessary for the consummation of
the criminal act which he intended to commit.
(Pp v. Sitchon)
Art. 15. Alternative circumstances
Alternative circumstances may be considered
either
as
aggravating
or
mitigating
circumstances according to the (1) nature and
effects of the crime and (2) other conditions
attending to its commission.
-

Relationship,
Intoxication,
Degree of instruction and education.

Relationship
-

Spouse
Ascendant
Descendant
Brother or sister
Relative by affinity

Other relatives by analogy.

-

Stepfather or stepmother and stepson

or stepdaughter.
Adopted parent and adopted child.

Not included
-

Uncle and niece.

Cousins.
Relationship
between
a
stepgrandniece and her step-grandfather is
not one of the relatives specifically
enumerated therein.

[Type here]

Mitigating crimes against property

Aggravating crimes against persons
where offended party is of a higher
degree than offender or of the same
level.

Exceptions
-

In serious physical injuries relationship

is aggravating no matter the degree of
relationship.
In homicide or murder relationship is
aggravating.
In crimes against chastity it is always
aggravating.

Pp v. Orillosa
The alternative circumstance of relationship
under Art. 15 of the RPC should be appreciated
against the appellant.
Pp v. Glodo
The information alleges that Maricel was only
15 yrs old at the time of the crime was
committed and that she is the daughter of
appellant. However, the prosecution merely
presented the oral testimony and sworn
statement of Maricel. It failed to present
independent evidence proving the age of the
victim and her relationship with appellant so as
to warrant the imposition of death penalty.
Relationship as element of the offense.
Parricide victim is father, mother, child,
ascendant, descendant or spouse
Adultery wife
Concubinage husband
In these cases relationship is neither mitigating
nor aggravating.
Intoxication
Mitigating
(1) not habitual or
(2) unintentional/accidental/not
subsequent to the plan to commit the
felony.
Aggravating
(1) habitual or

32
(2) intentional/subsequent to the plan to
commit the felony.
Mere
proof
that
offender
imbibed
intoxicating liquor is not sufficient.
Although there is no hard and fast rule on the
amount of liquor that the accused imbibed on
that occasion, but the test is that it must have
sufficed to affect his mental faculties, to the
extent of blurring his reason and depriving him
of self-control.
Absent clear and convincing proof as to
appellants state of intoxication, we are unable
to agree that the alternative circumstance of
intoxication was present to aggravate the
offense. (pp v. inggo)
Presumption

Principals
Accomplices
Accessories

Light felonies:
-

Principals
Accomplices

Subjects in a crime.
1.
2.

Active subject (criminal)

Passive subject (injured party: private
individual or the State)

Only natural persons.

-

When the accused is established to be drunk,

the presumption is that it was not habitual but
accidental and, therefore, mitigating.

RPC requires that a person act with

malice or with negligence.
Juridical persons cannot be deprived of
liberty.
Most penalties can be executed by
natural persons.

Article 17. Principals

Degree of instruction or education

Mitigatingwhen there is lack of instruction or
education. There must be lack of sufficient
intelligence.
Exceptions:
-

Grave and less grave felonies:

crimes against property

crimes against chastity
murder

Aggravating when there is high degree of

instruction or education when taken advantage
of by offender.

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.
Principal by direct participation.
Requisites:
1.

Pp v. Mangsant
2.
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who
has studied in the first grade in a public school,
but only to him who really has not received any
instruction.

That they participate in the criminal

resolution;
They carried out their plan and
personally took part in its execution by
acts which directly tended to the same
end.

Conspiracy
Persons Criminally liable
The general rule is that an offender
criminally liable for his own actions.

is

When there is only one felony, he alone is

criminally liable.
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability
depends on the degree and nature of
participation in the criminal act.

Participating in
conspiracy.

[Type here]

criminal

resolution

is

DEFINITION: Two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of
incurring criminal liability.
Pp v. Reyes

Article 16.Who are criminally liable

the

33
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and
unity in the execution of the unlawful objective
among the accused. When the accused by their
acts aimed at the same object, one performing
one part and the other performing another part
as to complete the crime, with a view to the
attainment of the same object, conspiracy
exists.

Not
the
object
of
the
conspiracy/necessary
or
logical
consequence of the crime intended.
-

Conspiracy may be express or implied.

Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there
be proof of the previous agreement and
decision to commit the crime; it is sufficient
that the malefactors acted in concert
pursuant to the same objective.
Manner of commission of crime
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode
and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
accused which show a joint or common
purpose and design, a concerted action and a
community of interest among the accused. (pp
v. Sicad)
Indicators of conspiracy
-

Spontaneous agreement
Active cooperation by all the offenders
in the perpetration of the crime
Contributing positive acts to the
realization of a common criminal intent
Presence during the commission of the
crime by a band and lending moral
support
Knowing the plan and accepting the
role assigned and actually performing
that role.

Where there is no conspiracy.

Mere silence does not make one a conspirator
(Pp v. Gensola)
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (pp v.
padrones)
When there is no conspiracy, each is
liable for his own act.
Pp v. enriquez
if a number of persons agree to commit, and
enter upon the commission of a crime which
will probably endanger human life such as
robbery, all of them are responsible for the
death of a person that ensues as a
consequence

[Type here]

In Umali case (96 Phil 185) robbery is

not included/necessary or logical
consequence of sedition;
Where the conspiracy specifically
targeted one and only one person, the
killing of others would not affect the
conspirators. (De laCerna)

Some rules in conspiracy.

Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal
liability (Timbol)
Participation in the criminal resolution must
either be before or simultaneous with the
criminal act.
Applicable only in crimes committed by means
of dolo.
2nd requisite.They carried out their plan and
personally took part in its execution by acts
which directly tended to the same end.
He must be at the scene of the crime
personally taking part in its execution.
It is sufficient that the act performed directly
tends to accomplish the intended crime.
Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape;
acting as a lookout/guard.
Those who directly force or induce others
to commit it.
1. Directly forcing another to commit
a crime;
Using irresistible force;
Causing uncontrollable fear.
2. Directly
inducing
another
to
commit a crime.
Giving price or reward
Using words of command.
Requisites of a principal by inducement:
1.
2.

Inducement with the intention of

procuring the commission of the crime.
Inducement is the determining cause
of the commission of the crime.

1st Requisite.Intention.
Clear intention to procure the commission
of the crime.

34
In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain
(money and carabaos) and supplying the gun
to use in the commission of the crime.

Ex. Dragging a girl to a place where

she is to be raped; certifying a check to
facilitate estafa.

In Alcontin, the promise of living together once

the husband of the inducer is killed.

Three types of principals.

-

Does not include

-

Thoughtless expressions;
Imprudent advice;

2nd Requisite.Determining cause.

Must be of such a nature that without it the
crime would not have been committed.
It must:
1.
2.

Precede the act induced, and

Influential.

Requisites: Words of Command

1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

Intention to procure commission of

crime.
Inducer must have ascendancy or
influence.
Words must be direct, so efficacious, so
powerful as to amount to physical
coercion.
Uttered prior to the commission of the
crime.
Material executor has no personal
reason to commit the crime.

Those who cooperate in the commission

of the offense by another act without
which
it
would
not
have
been
accomplished.

Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable

as a principal one must fall under any
of the three concepts in Art. 17.
In such case, we apply our ruling inpp
v. ubina where we held that when an
accused does not fall under any of the
three concepts defined in Article 17 of
the RPC, he may only be considered
guilty as an accomplice. (PP v.
Carriaga)

Article 18. Accomplices

1.
2.
3.

Cooperates
by
simultaneous acts
Not a principal
No conspiracy

previous

or

Conspirator v. Accomplice
Conspirators and accomplices know and agree
in the criminal design.
Conspirators participate in the criminal
resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal
design.
Requisites
1.
2.
3.

Community of design
Cooperation
by
previous
or
simultaneous acts.
Relation between acts of principal and
accomplice.

Principal by cooperation.

1st requisite.Community of design.

Requisites:

Community of design requires knowledge and

concurrence of the criminal design.

1.
2.

Participation in criminal resolution.

Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act, w/o
w/c
it
would
not
have
been
accomplished.

Cooperation
-

Cooperation implies that there is a

desire or wish in common.
Another act the act must be
different from the acts of the principal
by direct participation. The act must
not involve the material execution of
the offense.

[Type here]

Prior to the commission of the act.

Knowledge of a crime different from that
actually committed. As long as it is a natural
consequence of the crime intended, an
accomplice is liable.
2nd requisite.Cooperation by previous or
simultaneous acts.
-

The acts of the accomplice must not be

indispensable.

3rd requisite.Relation between

principal and accomplice.

acts

of

35
Liable for different crimes.

2.

A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrive

and take part in killing B.

3.

A Principal in Murder.

4.

C and D Accomplices in Homicide.

*No conspiracy, no knowledge as
manner A attacked B.

to the

Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not

being
principals
or
accomplices,
take
subsequent part in its commission by:
1.
2.

3.

Profiting or assisting the accused

profit;
Concealing or destroying the body
the crime or its effects/instruments
prevent its discovery.
Harboring, concealing or assisting
the escape.

to
of
to

2.

Public officer who abuses his public

function (any crime)
Private person (treason, parricide,
murder attempt against the life of the
president, habitually guilty of some
other crime.)

PENALTIES
Article
laws.

22.Retroactive

effect

of

penal

The general rule is that penal laws have

prospective effect.
They can only be given retroactive effect if:
1.
2.

It is favorable to the accused , and

The accused is not a habitual criminal.

Prospective effect of penal laws

Applicable to all penal laws.
This rule is applicable even for those serving
sentence by final judgment.
Habitual criminal is one who
1.

Within a period of 10 years;

[Type here]

It is the law at the time of the

institution
of
the
action
that
determines the jurisdiction of courts
Jurisdiction of the courts is determined
by the allegations in the complaint or
information.

Art. 23. Pardon by the offended party.

-

in

Harboring, concealing or assisting in the

escape of the principal.
1.

Jurisdiction of the courts

-

Article 19.Accessories.

From the date of the last conviction or

release;
Of the crimes of serious and less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa or falsification;
Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3 rd
time or oftener. (art. 62, par. 5)

Pardon by the offended party does not

affect the criminal action. Civil liability
may be expressly waived by the
offended party.
The exception under art. 344 of the
RPC must be made before the
institution of the criminal action.

Article
25.Penalties
imposed.
-

which

may

be

Art. 25 is a classification of penalties as

to principal or accessory penalties.
This is also a list of the penalties that
may be imposed in the RPC.

*RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death

penalty. The penalty of reclusion perpetua
should be imposed in lieu of death.
Art. 26. Fine when afflictive, correctional
or light penalty
Afflictive exceeds P6, 000.00
Correctional does not exceed P6,000.00 but
is not less than 200.00.
Light less than 200.00.
*This classification should not be confused with
Art. 9, which classifies felonies.
Article 27.Duration of penalties.
The amendment giving a duration to reclusion
perpetua (20y and 1d to 40y) did not mean
that it has reclassified as a divisible penalty. It
remains an indivisible penalty. (Pp v. Lucas)
Article 28.Computation of penalties.

36
-

If theoffender is in prison, the

temporary penalty judgment of
conviction becomes final.
If the offender is not in prison, the
penalty consisting of deprivation of
liberty offender is placed at the
disposal of the judicial authorities.
Duration of other penalties from the
day on w/c the defendant commences
to serve his sentence.

- Extinguishes criminal liability

- Cannot include civil liability
- Given after conviction
By offended party
-

Article 29.Preventive detention.

Period of preventive suspension credited fully
in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty if the detention prisoner
agrees in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed on convicted
prisoners.
Exceptions
-

Recidivists and those convicted

previously 2 or 3 items of any crime,
and
Those who fail to surrender voluntarily
when summoned from execution.

Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities order of

payment
1.
2.

3.
4.

Reparation
of
damage
caused;restitution
Indemnification
of
consequential
damages;use commonly on crimes
against persons
Fine;
Cost of proceedings.

*This article is applicable only when the

property of the convict is not sufficient to pay
all the pecuniary liabilities.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty.

Rules
-

Does not extinguish criminal liability

Offended party can waive civil liability
Given before institution of criminal
prosecution (Except: Rape)

If the detention prisoner does not abide

by the rules imposed on convicts, he
will be credited in the service of his
sentence with 4/5 of the period of
preventive detention.
If the detention prisoner has been in
detention for a period equal to or more
than
the
possible
maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced and his
case is not terminated, he shall be
released immediately.
In case, the possible penalty is
destierro, he shall be released after 30
days of preventive imprisonment.

Under the RPC, subsidiary imprisonment is an

additional penalty consisting of imprisonment
for a convict who has no property to pay the
fine at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage
rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of judgment of
conviction by the trial court (RA. 10159)
Rules under the RPC
-

Article 36.Pardon.
Pardon remits the principal penalty but not
the accessory penalty, unless the pardon
expressly provides otherwise.
Exception: when pardon is granted after the
principal penalty has been fully executed.

Rules in special laws

It is the Chief Executive who pardons.

Pardon

By Chief Executive

[Type here]

If prison correccional or arresto and

fine subsidiary imprisonment shall
not exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence
and in no case exceed 1 year.
If penalty is only fine subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed 6
months if prosecuted for grave or less
grave;and not to exceed 15 days if for
a light felony.
If penalty imposed is higher than
prison correccional, no subsidiary
imprisonment.

If court imposes a fine shall not

exceed 6 months
If both imprisonment and fine shall
not exceed 1/3 of the term

37
Art. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the
proceeds of the crime and instruments
and tools in the commission of the crime.
-

Every penalty presupposes that this

is an accessory penalty.
The confiscation or forfeiture is in favor
of the government.
If a third person owns the property and
is not liable for the offense, the
property cannot be confiscated or
forfeited in favor of the government.
If the property is not subject of lawful
commerce, it shall be destroyed
regardless of whether it belongs to the
accused or a third person.

Rules
-

There must be a criminal case

otherwise no penalty can be imposed.
If the property belongs to a person not
included in the charge, the court
cannot order the confiscation/forfeiture
of the property.
If the property was not submitted to
the court in evidence, said property
cannot be confiscated.

Except:
-

Pp v. Mateo
If only to ensure utmost circumspection before
the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed, the Court now
deems it wise and compelling to provide in
these cases a review by the Court of Appeals
before the case is elevated to the Supreme
Court.
Art. 48 Complex crimes.
In complex crimes at least two crimes are
committed but they constitute only one crime,
as only one penalty is imposed upon the
offender. This is intended to benefit the
offender who is, in the eyes of the law, less
criminally perverse than one who commits two
or more separate and independent crimes.
Two kinds of complex crimes:
-

PDEA v. Brodett
Art. 45 of the RPC bars the confiscation and
forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the
commission of the crime if such be the
property of a third person not liablefor the
offense.

Release of property
Property seized must be returned to the person
from whom it was taken or to person who is
entitled to itspossession:

Below 18 years of age;

More than 70 years of age;
Required majority in SC is not obtained.

Compound crime a single act

constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies. Ex; throwing a hand
grenade at a group of people causing
death or injuries to several in the
group.
Complex crime proper one offense
is a necessary means for committing
the other. Ex; falsifying cedulas so as to
collect the fees from persons to whom
they are issued.

Compound crime.
Requisites:

No criminal prosecution
Unreasonable prosecution

Art. 46. Penalties to

principals in general.

be

imposed

1.
2.
on

One single act.

The single act produces two or more
grave or less grave felonies.

One single act.

-

The penalties provided for in the RPC

are the penalties imposed on principals
for the consummated felony.
There are, however, certain provisions
where a penalty is provided for a
frustrated stage or attempted stage of
a felony.

Art. 47. When death penalty imposed.

Must be imposed in all cases under existing
laws.

[Type here]

Throwing a hand grenade into a group

of people is a single act.
Placing a bomb in an airplane is a
single act.
Firing a gun once is a single act.

Two or more grave or less grave felonies.

In case the single act produces light felonies
they are either treated as:

38
-

Separate offenses; or
Absorbed. The rule that light felonies
are absorbed should only be applied
when there is only one victim.

Pp v. de los Santos
The slight physical injuries caused by glenn
to the ten other victims through reckless
imprudence, would, had they been intentional,
have constituted light felonies. Being light
felonies, which are not covered by Article 48,
they should be treated and punished as
separate offenses. Separate information
should have, therefore, been filed.
Several offenders and several victims
Where there are several offenders and it
cannot be ascertained who among them killed
the several deceased, there is only one crime
committed. This ruling should only be
applied when it cannot be ascertained
who among the offenders killed the
victims (Sanidad, April 30, 2003; Lawas, June
30, 1955; Abella, Aug 31, 1979)
Complex crime proper.
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.

At least two offenses;

One or some must be a necessary
means to commit the other;
Both offenses must be punished under
the same statute.

Homicide, Robbery with Homicide, Rape with

Homicide.
Forcible Abduction with Rape.
The abduction is a necessary means to commit
rape. This should only be applied to the first
rape. If subsequent rapes are committed, they
are separate felonies, since the abduction was
no longer necessary for their commission.
Penalty for complex crime
The penalty is for the most serious crime
committed to be applied in its maximum
period.
Continued crime.
A continued, continuing or continuous crime is
not specifically provided for in the RPC. The
principles on continued crime is based on a
single criminal impulse and should result in one
criminal liability.
The difference in Dela Cruz and Enguerocase,is
that in Dela Cruz there was evidence that there
was a general plan to commit robbery in the
vicinity of the eight households. InEnguerono
such evidence was presented.
Art. 49. Penalty when crime different from
that intended.
-

At least two offenses.

-

Falsification as a means to commit

malversation (barbas)
Usurpation of official functions as a
means to commit simple seduction.

Necessary means
Necessary does not mean indispensable
otherwise the offense would be considered as
an element of the offense and the result would
be one felony committed.
The other crime must be a means to commit
not to conceal. If the other crime is used to
conceal the other, they are separate offenses.

Rules
-

Applicability of Art. 48.

Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does
not provide a specific penalty for a Special
Complex Crime. Ex: Kidnapping with Murder or

[Type here]

This article is only applicable in error

in personae.
In Aberratio ictus, two crimes are
committed, therefore, Art. 48 (complex
crimes) is applicable;
In Praeterintentionem, the offender
is liable for the crime actually
committed.

Rule 1
Penalty for felony committed is higher
than penalty for felony intended:
Penalty for felony with lower penalty
imposed in maximum.
Rule 2
Penalty for felony committed is lower
than penalty for felony intended:
Penalty for felony with lower penalty
imposed in maximum.

Art. 50-57
-

Rules in determining the imposable

penalties
for
accomplices
and

39

accessories
of
frustrated
and
attempted felonies.
Degree is one entire penalty.
Period is one of the three equal
portions of a divisible penalty.
A period when prescribed by the RPC
as a penalty for a felony is considered
a degree.

Reclusion Temporal
2nd rule.One or more divisible penalties to
be imposed to their full extent.
One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full
extent.
Reclusion Perpetua

Art. 60. Exceptions.

-

The rules in Art. 50-57 are not

applicable where the law specifically
provides for a penalty for a frustrated
or attempted stage of a felony or
specifically provides for the penalty of
an accomplices or accessory.

Reclusion Temporal

- penalty

Prision Mayor
degree

- penalty next lower in

Art. 61.Rules for graduating penalties

Basis for graduation of penalties is the scale in
Art. 71.
-

Two divisible penalties to be imposed to their

full extent.

Death
Rec Perp
Rec Temp
Pr Mayor
PrCorr
Arr mayor
Destierro
ArrMenor
Public Censure
Fine

Prision Mayor

------ penalty

1st Rule. Single and indivisible

The penalty next lower in degree shall be that
immediately following.
Death
Reclusion Perpetua penalty
Reclusion Temporal penalty next lower in
degree

PrisionCorreccional

Arresto Mayor
degree

- penalty next lower in

3rd Rule. One or two indivisible penalties

and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty
The penalty next lower in degree shall be
composed of the medium and minimum
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the
maximum period of that immediately following.
Death

2nd Rule.Two indivisible penalties or one

or more divisible penalties to be imposed
to their full extent.

Reclusion Perpetua

Reclusion Temporal (max)

The penalty next lower in degree shall be that

immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed.

Reclusion Temporal (med)

Reclusion Temporal (min)

Two indivisible:

Prision Mayor

Death

Prision Mayor (med)

---------

Prision Minor (min)

4th Rule. Penalty is composed of several

periods (at least 3).

Parricide
Reclusion Perpetua

[Type here]

(max)

40
The penalty next lower in degree shall be
composed of the period immediately following
the minimum prescribed and of the two next
following either from the penalty prescribed or
the penalty immediately following.
Rec Temp

PrCorr

2.

3.

- Max
-Med
- Min

5th Rule. Not specially provided for in

Rules 1-4.
Proceed by analogy.

1.

- Med
- Min

Art. 62. Par. 3. Circumstances relating to

the persons participating in the crime.

Max
- Med
- Min
-Max

Pr May

Evident premeditation in robbery and theft.

If the penalty consists of two periods,

the penalty next lower in degree is the
penalty consisting of two periods
immediately down the scale.
If the penalty consists only of one
period, the penalty next lower in
degree is the next period immediately
down the scale.

Art.
62.
Application
of
mitigating,
aggravating circumstances and habitual
delinquency.
1st Rule.Aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute the crime or are
included by law in defining the crime No
effect.
By means of fire not taken into consideration
in arson.
Dwelling in robbery with force upon things.

In these three instances the aggravating or

mitigating circumstance shall affect only
those to whom such circumstance is
present.
Art. 62. Par. 4. Circumstances consisting
in the material execution of the crime.
Material execution treachery
Means employed poison, fire, etc.
Affects only those who had knowledge of
them at the time of the execution of the
act or their cooperation therein.
Art. 62. Par. 5. Habitual Delinquency
Rules on Habitual delinquency
-

Abuse of confidence in qualified theft.

Taking advantage of public position and
committed by a syndicate Maximum
regardless of mitigating circumstances.
Syndicate two or more persons.
Art. 62. Par. 2. Inherent.
When the aggravating circumstance is inherent
in the crime No effect.

[Type here]

Moral attributes of the offender.

Ex:
Evident
premeditation
(aggravating)
Passion
or
obfuscation
(mitigating)
Private relations of offender and
offended party
Ex:
relationships, e.g., father and
son
Any other personal cause
Ex:
minority
Insanity
recidivism

Refers only to certain crimes: serious

and less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa and falsification.
It results in an additional penalty not
merely an increase in the penalty.
The additional penalty is imposed upon
a third conviction.
The 10 years shall always be computed
from the last conviction or release.
The subsequent crimes must be
committed after conviction.

Art. 63. Indivisible penalties

Single indivisible imposed regardless of the
presence of circumstances
Two indivisible penalties
-

One aggravating greater penalty

No mitigating no aggravating lesser
penalty

41
-

Some mitigating no aggravating

lesser penalty
Both offset according to number and
importance.

Art 64. Penalties which contain three

periods.
Rule 1. No aggravating and no mitigating
medium period

Step 6. Add 1 day to the maximum of

medium and you have the minimum of
maximum period of the penalty. Add
quotient to the minimum (without including
one day) and you have the maximum of
maximum period of the penalty.

the
the
the
the
the

Prisioncorreccional medium and maximum

Rule 2. Only a mitigating minimum

Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty

in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and
maximum.

Rule 3. Only an aggravating maximum

2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years

Rule 4. When there are both aggravating and

mitigating circumstances the court shall offset
those of one class against the other.

Step 2. Determine the time included in the

penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum
from the maximum. The minimum subtracted
from must not include the 1 day.

Two
or
more
aggravating

mitigating

and

no

Rule 5.Two or more mitigating and no

aggravating circumstance penalty next
lower in degree intheperiod
applicable
according to the number and nature of
circumstance.This is called a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
The mitigating circumstance that constitutes
the privilege mitigating circumstance can no
longer be considered in determining the
imposable period.
Art. 65. Dividing penalties (divisible) into
three equal portions.

6 years
months
-

Or
2 years 4 months
months

1 year 2 months 20 days

3 years 6 months

[Type here]

years

Step 3. The difference should be divided into

three euql portions.

Step 2. Determine the time included in the

penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum
from the maximum. The minimum subtracted
from must not include the 1 day.

Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the

minimum period and you have the minimum of
the medium period. Add the quotient to the
minimum (without including the one day) and
you have the maximum of the medium period
of the penalty.

months

_____________________

Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day)is

the minimum of the minimum period. Add the
quotient to the minimum and you have the
maximum of your minimum period.

years

12

___________________ _______________

Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty

in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and
maximum.

Step 3. The difference should be divided into

three equal portions.

years

3 ) 3 years 8 months

____
Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day) is
the minimum of the minimum period. Add the
quotient to the minimum and you have the
maximum of your minimum period.
2 years 4 months
+
1 year 2 months 20 days
3 years 6 months 20 days
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the
minimum period and you have the minimum of
the medium period. Add the quotient to the

42
maximum and you have the maximum of your
maximum
period.

Art. 66. Imposition of fines.

A convicts sentence shall not exceed more

than three times the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed on him.
Shall not exceed 40 years.

Wealth or means of the culprit is the primary

consideration.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall
also be considered.
Art. 67. Penalty when accident is present.
Accident is an exempting circumstance under
art. 12, paragraph 4. If not all elements are
present then the offender is punished in the
same manner as a person liable for reckless
imprudence under art. 365.

Does not preclude the imposition of subsidiary

imprisonment.
Art. 71. Graduation of penalties
Under art. 9346 death has been effectively
eliminated from the list of imposable penalties
under Art. 71.
This affects not only the consummated stage
and the principals but also for the frustrated
and attempted stage as well with respect

Art. 68. Penalty upon a person under 18.

Art. 72-74

RA 9344

Art 72. Satisfaction of civil liability is based on

the chronological order that they are imposed.

15 years and under no criminal liability

(intervention)
Above 15 below 18 exempt unless acting with
discernment (diversion)
Art. 69. Crime not wholly excusable.
Some of the elemets of a justifying
exempting circumstance are present.

or

Art 73. Accessory penalties under Arts 40-45

are deemed imposed.
Art 75. Increasing or decreasing fine by
one or more degrees.
Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth
(1/4) of the maximum.

Majority.

There must be a minimum and a maximum for

this article to be applicable.

One or two degrees lower. Privileged mitigating

circumstance.

Only the maximum is increased or decreased,

the minimum is never changed.

Art. 70. Service of sentence.

Increasing or decreasing the fine.

Simultaneous if the nature of the penalties

allow otherwise the penalties must be served
successively.

Fine of P200-P2,000

Disqualification, suspension, destierro, censure,

civil interdiction, confiscation, and costs are
penalties that may be served simultaneously.

One degree lower would be a fine of P200P1,500

of P2,000 = P500

Penalty of imprisonment

Two degrees
P200,P1,000

Multiple penalties consisting of imprisonment

have to be served successively.

Art. 76.
penalties

The order of severity in Art. 71 must be

observed. The most severe must be served
first.

The intention of the law is to give the three

periods of a penalty equal or uniform duration
due to the ff:

Three-fold rule

[Type here]

lower

Legal

would

periods

be

of

Equal and uniform durations.

fine

of

divisible

43
-

Does not require that they be used

even when the periods of a prescribed
penalty correspond to different divisible
penalties.
Will result in the periods not being of
equal and uniform duration.

Arresto Mayor does not follow the general

rule.
Minimum 1mo 1 day to 2months
Medium- 2mos 1 day to 4 mos
Maximum 4 mos 1 day to 6 mos
Indeterminate Sentence Law
A penalty with a minimum and a maximum
instead of a straight penalty.
Authorizes the release of a convict after having
served the minimum of his sentence.
Temp Pr. May Medium Pr. Corr Maximum Arr. May ISL does not apply
1.
2.

Convicted; death or life imprisonment

Convicted; of treason, conspraicy or
proposal to commit treason
3. Convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition, or espionage
4. Convicted of piracy
5. Habitual delinquents
6. Escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence
7. Violated the terms of the conditional
pardon
8. Imprisonment; maximum does not
exceed 1 year
9. Those already sentenced by final
judgment at the time of the approval of
the law
10. Destierro or suspension.

RPC
-

Minimum shall be within the range of

the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense.
Maximum that, in view of the
attending circ, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the RPC.

Steps
1. Ascertain the penalty prescribed for the
offense
without
considering
the
attending circumstances
2. Use the said penalty as the basis for
determining the minimum, which is the
penalty next lower in degree. This is
the minimum of the indeterminate
sentence.
3. Fix the maximum by imposing the
penalty prescribed by the law taking
into
consideration
the
attending
circumstances.
Homicide, no mitigating no aggravating.
1. Homicide is punished by Reclusion
Temporal.
2. Penlaty next lower in degree to Rec
Temp is Prision Mayor. Prision Mayor is
the minimum of your indeterminate
sentence.
3. Maximum is Rec Temp in its medium
period since there is no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.
4. The indeterminate sentence, therefore,
is Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temp
Medium.
Frustrated Homicide with Direct Assault
1. Frustrated Homicide Pr May; Direct
Assault PrCOrr Med- Max. Penalty for
complex crime is for the graver offense
which is Pr May.
2. Penalty next lower to Pr Mayor is Pr
Corr. PrCorr is the minimum.
3. Max is Pr Mayor in its maximum
(complex crime)
4. Indeterminate sentence is, therefore,
PrisionCorreccional
to
Prision
Mayor Maximum.

RPC and Special Laws

Privileged Mitigating Circumstnace

Special law.

General rule is: find the penalty next lower in

degree to the penalty prescribed by law
without
first
considering the
attending
circumstance.

Minimum not be less than the

minimum prescribed by law.
Maximum not exceed the maximum
fixed by law.

[Type here]

44
Exception is: a privileged mitigating circ (two
or
more
mitigating
circ
without
any
aggravating circ, Art. 64 para. 5). In this case
the privileged mitigating circ is first applied to
determine the basis for the minimum.
Estafa thru falsification by a public officer
with two mit and no agg (privileged
mitigating circ).
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Penalty for the more serious offense

(falsification) is prision mayor.
Apply the attending circ (privileged
mitigating circ) first. One degree lower
than Pr Mayor is Pr Corr. (exception to
the general rule)
One degree lower than PrCorr is Arr
Mayor. Arr May is the minimum.
Maximum is PrisionCorr in its max,
because it is a complex crime.
Indeterminate sentence is Arrestor
Mayor to PrCorr Maximum.

Probation
Probation is a disposition where a convict is
released subject to conditions imposed by the
court and to the supervision of a probation
officer.
In a probation, a convicts sentence consisting
of imprisonment is not executed, rather the
convict is released subject to the conditions of
the probation. When the convict violates the
terms, he may be required to serve the
sentence.

In a real sense, the courts finding that Arnel

was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only
of attempted homicide, is an original conviction
that for the first time imposes on him a
probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him
right from the start, it would have found him
guilty of the correct offense and imposed on
him the right penalty of two years and four
months maximum. This would have afforded
Arnel the right to apply for probation.
Disqualified from probation
-sentenced
to
a
maximum
imprisonment of more than 6 yrs;

term

of

- Convicted of subversion, crimes against

national security or public order;
- Previously convicted by final judgment by:
-

Imprisonment of not less than one

month, and/or
Fine not less than 200.00

-Have been once on probation;

- Those already serving sentence at the time
the provisions of the probation law became
applicable.
Periods of probation
-

When to apply for probation

If the term of imprisonment is not more

than 1 year probation shall not exceed
two years.
If sentenced to more than 1 year
probation shall not exceed 6 years.

The application for probation must be filed

within the period for perfecting an appeal (15
days from promulgation).

Completion of the period of probation

anddischargeof the probationer shall operate
to restore him to all civil rights.

When a convict has perfected an appeal, an

application for probation cannot be granted.

Art. 89.
liability.

Sable v. Pp
The Probation Law is patently clear that no
application for probation shall be entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Total

extinction

of

criminal

Death
Service of sentence
Amnesty
Absolute pardon
Prescription of the crime
Prescription of the penalty
Marriage (art. 344)

Consequently, probation should be availed of

at the first opportunity by convicts who are
willing to be reformed and rehabilitated; who
manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.

Death

Except in the case of Colinares v. Pp

Pecuniary penalties are extinguished when

death occurs before final judgment. Fines and

[Type here]

Personal penalties extinguished whether

death occurs before or after conviction.

45
costs shall subsist if death occurs after final
judgment.
Death before final judgment.
When death occurs before final judgment, e.g.,
pending appeal, the criminal liability of the
accused is extinguished as well as his civil
liability if it is based solely on the offense
committed.
If the civil liability can be predicated on
some other source of obligation other
than delict (crime), e.g., law, contract or
quasi-delict, the claim for civil liability survives.
Pp v. Bayotas (READ! MU GAWAS NIS
EXAM)
1.

2.

Death of the accused pending appeal

of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil
liability based solely thereon. As opined
by Justice Regalado, in this regard, the
death of the accused prior to final
judgment terminates his criminal
liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely
on the offense committed
Corollariliy, the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Civil Code enumerates these other
sources of obligation from which the
civil liability may arise as a result of the
same act or omission

Amnesty and pardon

-

Amnesty completely extinguishes the

offense, the penalty and the effets
thereof. However, amnesty does not
extinguish civil liability.
Pardon merely exempts the convict
from the punishment the law inflicts for
a crime committed.

Prescription of the crime/penalty

The state loses the right to prosecute an
offender due to the lapse of time.
The state loses the right to execute final
sentence after the lapse of time.
Marriage of the offended woman (art
344); must be in good faith.
The manner in which the appellant dealt with
the girl after the marriage, as well as before,
shows that he had no bona fide intention of
making her his wife, and the ceremony cannot
be considered binding on her because of
duress. The marriage was therefore void for
lack of essential consent, and it supplies no
impediment to the prosecution of the
wrongdoer. (Pp v. Santiago)
Art. 90. Prescription of crimes
The state loses the right to prosecute an
offender.
-

Punished by:
-

Pardon
-

Individual

[Type here]

Death, Rec Perp, Rec Temp 20 years

Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Except by arresto mayor 5 years
Libel and other similar offenses 1
year
Oral defamation and slander by deed
6 months
Light offenses 2 months

Prescriptive periods of crimes punished

by special laws (act no. 3763)

Amnesty
Group/class
Before or after conviction
Looks backward
Affects recidivism
Civil liability remains
Public act of president

After conviction
Looks forward
Recidivism stays
Civil liability remains
Private act of President

Fine/imprisonment (not more than 1

month) 1 year
Imprisonment more than 1 month, less
than 2 years 4 years
Imprisonment more than 2 years, less
than 6 years 8 years
Imprisonment of 6 years or more 12
years
Internal revenue Law 5 years
Municipal ordinances 2 months
Public service Commission 2 months

Rules in Special Laws

46
-

Period of prescription begins from the

date of commission or date of
discovery up to the institution of
judicial proceedings.
Period is interrupted when proceedings
are instituted against guilty person and
begins to run again if proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not constituting
double jeopardy.
Accused cannot be convicted of a
lesser offense than that charged if the
lesser offense has already prescribed
at the time the information was filed.

Art. 91. Computation of period (RPC)

-

Commences to run on the day the

crime is discovered by the offended
party, authorities, or their agents.
It is interrupted by the filing of
complaint or information.
Commences to run again when the
proceedings terminate w/o the accused
being convicted or acquitted or
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.

Art. 92. Prescription of penalties.

The state loses the right to execute final
sentence after the lapse of time.
Prescriptive period:
-

Death and Rec Perp 20 years

Prescription

Evasion of service of sentence is essential for

the rules on prescription on apply.

Art. 94. Partial Extinction

-

Art. 97. Good Conduct Allowance.

Good conduct of a prisoner during his
imprisonment will result in a deduction of his
sentence:
-

- Prescription of penalties penalty imposed.

Art. 93. Computation of period.
Commences to run when culprit evades service
of sentence.
Interrupted when convict:
-

Gives himself up.

Captured
Goes to a foreign country with which
the Govt has no extradition treaty, or
Commits another crime before the
expiration of the period.

[Type here]

1st two years 5 days/ month of good

behavior.
3rd to 5th year 8 days/month of good
behavior.
6th to 10th year 10 days/month of
good behavior.
11th and successive years 15
days/month of good behavior.

Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty.

-

-Prescription of penalties sentence must be

final.
- Prescription of crimes penalty prescribed by
law

Conditional pardon. Condition usually

takes the form of an undertaking that
the convict shall not violate any penal
law.
Commutation. Commutation reduces
the degree of the penalty or reduces
the length of imprisonment.
Good conduct allowances. Art. 97.

1/5 of the period of the sentence;

Evade
service
during
disorders,
conflagrations, earthquakes, or other
calamities;
Gives himself up within 48 hours
following the proclamation announcing
the passing away of the calamity or
catastrophe.
An essential element of this article is
that the convict must leave the penal
institution.

Art. 100. Civil liability.

A person who is criminally liable is also
civilly liable.
This principle is based on the dual character of
a crime. A crime is (1) an offense against the
State because it disturbs the social order and
(2) it injures a private individual unless there is
no private injury that is inflicted.
Acquittal
Acquittal in the criminal case does not
carry with it extinction of the civil
liability.

47
Exception:when there is a finding in the final
judgment that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise does not exist, the
civil liability is deemed extinguished.
Abellana v. Pp.

Instances when the extinction of the

criminal liability does not extinguish civil
liability.

Reasonable doubt. When the acquittal

is based that proof beyond reasonable
doubt has not been presented.
Non-imputability. Incases of insanity,
imbecility or minority.
In actions for negligence. Civil liability
may be based on quasi-delict.
Independent civil actions. Articles 31,
32, 33 and 34 of the NCC.

Under the
Procedure.

Rules

Applicability of the rules.

of

Court;

The claimant in the civil action is the offended

party in the criminal action and both cases
arise from the same offense or transaction.
Separate civil action.
-

Criminal

Offended party waives the civil action;

Offended party reserves the right to
institute it separately;
Offended party institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.

Separate civil action.

-

The filing of a criminal action is not

necessary to the filing of and
prosecution of a civil action, thus the
term separate civil action.
However, once a criminal action has
been filed, there are two scenarios that
may arise.

Separate civil action.

1.

If the criminal action is filed ahead of

the separate civil action the separate
civil action arising therefrom cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been
rendered in the criminal action.

[Type here]

If the offended party has reserved the

right to file a separate civil action, he
loses the right to intervene in the
prosecution of the criminal case.
(KUWANG)

Prejudicial question.

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil

action for recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless:
-

If the civil action is filed ahead of the

separate civil action the criminal
action is suspended.(KUWANG)

Identity of parties and subject matter.

Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by

reason of his own act or omission, done
intentionally or negligently, causes damage to
another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly liable
to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the
acts he committed had caused damage to the
spouses.

2.

Generally, a criminal case should be

decided first before the civil action
arising from the crime. An exception to
the rule is a prejudicial question.
A prejudicial question is a civil case
that must be decided first before the
criminal action. It requires (1) a
previously instituted civil action whose
issues are similar or intimately related
ot the issues raised in a subsequent
criminal action, and (2) the resolution
of such issue determines whether the
criminal action may proceed or not.
(Sec. 6, Rule 111 RRC)

Prejudicial question
-

A civil action where the genuineness of

a document is put in issue is prejudicial
to the criminal case for falsification of
the same document.
A petition for the annulment of a
subsequent marriage on grounds of
duress is a prejudicial question to a
criminal case for bigamy.

Pp v. Jadap
As to damages, when death occurs due to a
crime, the following may be awarded: (1) civil
indemnity ex delicto for the death of the
victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages;
(3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages;
(5) temperate damages
Without need of further proof.
Civil indemnity is mandaotyr and granted to
the heirs of the victim without need of proof

48
other than the commission of the crime. In
cases of murder and homicide, moral damages
maybe awarded without need of allegation and
proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs,
other than the death of the victim, since the
emotional wounds from the vicious killing of
the victim cannot be dnied. (jadap)
Exemplary damages.
Article 2230 of the CC states that exemplary
damages may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances.
Pp v. Rante
Being
corrective
in
nature,
exemplary
damages, therefore, can be awrded, not only in
the presence of an aggravating circ, but also
where the circ of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
accused.
Simple Rape
As to the amount of damages, the Court finds
as correct the awrd of P50, 000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50, 000.00 as moral damages
in line with prevailing jurisprudence. (Pp v.
Dalisay)

victim was earning an annual income of P14,

000.00 from the harvest of pineapples.
Actual damages; receipts.
It is error for the trial court and the appellate
court to award actual damages of P30, 000.00
for the expenses incurred for the death of the
victim. We perused the records and did not find
evidence to support the plea for actual
damages. (seguritan)
Temperate damages
When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be
proven with certainty, temperate damages
may be recovered (P25, 000.00). (Seguritan)
In Pp v. Villanueva, we held that when actual
damages proven by receipts during the trial
amount to less than P25k, the award of
temperate damages for P25k is justified in lieu
of actual damages for a lesser amount. (Quidet
v. Pp)
Art. 101. The following shall be civilly
liable.
-

*Exemplary damages in theamount of P30,

000.00 was also awarded.
Qualified Rape
Civil indemnity P75k

Moral damages P75k

Exemplary P30k
Awarded without need of further proof other
than the commission of the crime. (Pp v.
Garcia)
Homicide; civil indemnity
Civil indemnity without need of proof other
than the fact that a crime was committed
resulting in the death of thevictim and that
petitioner was responsible therefor P50,
000.00 (Seguritan v. Pp)
Loss of earning capacity
The award of P135, 331.00 for the loss of
earning capacity was also in order. The
prosecution satisfactorily proved that the

[Type here]

Insanity, imbecility and minority. The

person having legal authority or
control. If the said person can prove
that there was no fault or negligence
on his part, the insane, imbecile or
minor shall answer with his own
property.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury, the
person whose benefit the harm has
been prevented in proportion to the
benefit which he may have received.

Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability.

Innkeepers, tavernkeepers, any other person
where a crime is committed in their
establishment.
A violation of municipal ordinance or a general
or special police action is committed by them
or their employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other
persons.
1.
2.
3.

Employers
Teachers
Persons or corporations engaged in any
kind of industry

49
-

Felony committed by servants, pupils,

workmen,
apprentices,
employees
while in the discharge of duties.
Must be involved in any kind of
industry.
The felon is insolvent.

obtain its return without reimbursing the price

paid therefore.
Art. 106. Reparation.
Reparation will be order by the court if
restitution is not possible.

Decision convicting the employee

Binding on the employer. The decision need not
expressly state the liability of the employer.
The decision regarding the civil liability is
binding on the employer not only with the fact
of the liability but also with respect to the
amount.
What must be proved.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Employer of the convicted employee.

Engaged in industry
Crime committed in the discharge of
duty
Execution is unsatisfied; employee is
insolvent.

Need not be in a separate civil action; hearing

in the criminal action with notice to the
employer.
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability.
1.
2.
3.

Restitution
Reparation of the damage caused;
Indemnification
for
consequential
damages

Restitution return of the thing stolen incases

of theft.
Reparation in theft if the thing stolen cannot
be returned, its value.In physical injuries, the
expenses for the treatment of the injuries.
Indemnification loss of earning capacity.
Art. 105. Restitution.
Restitution refers to the very same thing
taken/stolen.

Reparation includes any damage cause by the

felonious act.
It includes the items special sentimental value
to the injured party.
Art. 107. Indemnification.
Indemnification crimes against persons.
Reparation crimes against property.
Examples of indemnification
-

Expenses for hospitalization of injured

parties

Loss of earning capacity.

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to
consider that under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code,
the accused are also jointly and severally liable
for the loss of the earning capacity of Biag and
such indemnity should be paid to his heirs. (Pp
v. Lagat)
Factors to be considered
The amount of damages recoverable for the
loss of earning capacity of the deceased
isbased on two factors: (1) the number of years
on the basis of which the damages shall be
computed (2) the rate at which the losses
Art.
110.
Liability
of
accomplices and accessories.

principals,

Those within a particular class (principal,

accomplice, accessory) shall be liable solidarily.
They are subsidiarily liable for those in another
class.

To give something similar in kind, amount,

species or quality is not restitution.

Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability.

Restitution

Same causes for the extinguishment of civil

obligations.

Generally, the owner of a thing illegally taken

may recover it even form a third person who
has acquired it by lawful means.
When the third person acquires the item in
good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot

[Type here]

Payment or performance
Loss of the thing due
Condonation or remission
Confusion or merger
Compensation
Novation

50

THE END -

See you next semester?

[Type here]