Introduction To Criminal Law: June 17, 2011

CRIMINAL LAW Page 1 of 149
Lecture & Recitation Notes Atty. Maximo Amurao
CRIMINAL LAW 1
June 17, 2011
Introduction to Criminal Law

Q: What is criminal law?
CRIMINAL LAW branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature
and provides for their punishment
Q: Suppose Congress enacted a piece of legislation, and any violation of that law,
penalty will be payment of damages, is that criminal law?
Q: Suppose the form of penalty will be confiscation of license, is that criminal law?
Q: How will you define a crime?

*what particular act constitutes the crime
*what are the elements of the acts
Q: What is criminal procedure?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE body of rules that enforces or regulates criminal law,
provides for the steps in the prosecution and/or conviction of an accused.
Q: Is there any difference between criminal law and criminal procedure?

Yes.
Q: What are the differences?

CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
*substantive *procedural/remedial
*GENERALLY prospective, *prospective, BUT CAN BE applied
RETROACTIVE
unless favorable to the accused,
provided accused is not a habitual
delinquent
*only comes from the legislative *can be promulgated by the judiciary
or law-making body; never from
the executive or judiciary
*in favor of the ends of substantial justice
Q: who is a habitual delinquent?

A person who within a period of 10 years from the date of his last release or
conviction of the crimes of 1) serious or less serious physical injuries, 2) robo,
3)hurto 4)estafa or 5) falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a
third time or oftener (Art 62, rpc)
NOTES BY:
Josh Villena (2007)| Tin Dabu (2010) | Xina Acosta (2010) |
year 2011: Em Quinto * Hanz Santos * Janna Tecson*Bevs Quintos*Norly
Villanueva*Ayla Salendab
Q: Suppose accused is a HD, will there be prospective or retroactive application of

criminal law?
Q: Is criminal law the same as the RPC?

Yes
Q: What is a crime?
Generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either in RPC or under a
special law
Q: Who has the power to enact laws?
Congress (Legislative)
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?

No. There are limitations. It should not violate the constitution
Q: We call our penal code, the REVISED PENAL CODE, why, which penal code was
revised?
The Spanish Penal Code
Q: How was it revised?

*A committee was formed pursuant to Administrative Order No. 94 by the
Department of Justice.
*The committee was formed on Oct 18, 1827
*The committee was composed of Anacleto Diaz (head); Quintin Paredes; Alex
Reyes and Mariano De Joya
Q: How did the revision come about?

*the RPC contains provisions of the Spanish penal code, US Penal Code and
SC decisions of the Philippines before the creation of the RPC
Q: What are the sources of criminal law?

*Revised Penal Code
*Special Penal Laws enacted or passed by the Philippine Commission,
Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly,
Batasang Pambansa, Congress of the Philippines
*Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law (only because the
President at that time had legislative power, but generally, the Executive
branch cannot issue EO or PP that are penal in nature)
*Spanish Penal Code
*US Penal Code (we copied the ff crimes from the US Penal Code: estafa,
malversation, etc)
Q: Who has the power to define crimes?

The State
Q: Why does the State has the power to define crimes?
NOTES BY:
Because of its police power. The right to prosecute and punish crimes is
vested in the sovereign power, which is the Filipino people.
Q: When did the RPC took effect?

Jan 1, 1932
Q: Why is there a long lapse of time in the effectivity and approval of the RPC?
So that PH will be familiarized with the new provisions of the RPC
Q: Who approved the RPC?

US President
Q: What are the theories in criminal law?

Classical, Positivist, Mixed
CLASSICAL
-the objective is retribution
- the emphasis is on the crime
-consistent with the saying an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
- man has free will to do or not to do
- the criminal liability arises from knowledge and freedom
-man is a rational being
-example: RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)
POSITIVIST
-the objective is reformation
-the emphasis is on the criminal
-believes that crime is a social phenomenon
-sees man as a moral/human being
-man by nature is good
-man is exposed to environment where man is compelled to do a crime
-example: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
Probation Law of 1976
Indeterminate Sentence Law
MIXED
-combines the classical and the positivist
-applied classical theory for heinous crimes
-applies the positivist for economic and social crimes
Q: What do we apply in the Philippines?

Mixed. Our system is a little bit of classical and a little bit of positivist. The
RPC is classical and recent laws enacted by the legislature are positivist in
nature.
Q: What is the degree of proof needed to convict an accused of a criminal charge?

Proof beyond reasonable doubt
NOTES BY:
Q: Is this absolute?
No.
In the crime of treason, PBRD is not the only requirement. There is a
requirement of the 2 witness rule
Q: May a person be convicted by reason of the spirit of the law?

No. Only by the language of the law. It should be clear and in case of doubt, it
should be favorable to the accused.
June 21, 2011
Q: What are the kinds of repeals?

1. Absolute or Express
-the effect is decriminalization
-the obliteration of a crime
-for pending cases, the case shall be dismissed
-for those serving sentence, they shall be released because there is no
more reason for the accused to serve sentence
2. Partial or Implied
-the crime is still punishable, but modified (in terms of penalty)
-example: the case of Robin Padilla, PD 1866 was partially repealed by RA
8294, which reduced the sentence for illegal possession of firearms, thus
qualifying Robin Padilla for parole
3. Self-repealing
-deemed repealed upon the expiration of the date specified by the law
-the law dies a natural death
-example: RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law) and Rent Control Law
Q: What is the general characteristic of criminal law?

Criminal Law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory, regardless of race, nationality, political affiliation.
Q: Is this rule absolute?

No. The exceptions are: 1. Treaties
2. Laws of preferential application
Q: What is the territorial characteristic of criminal law?

Only crimes committed within the Philippine territory may be prosecuted
before Ph court
Q: What is the rationale behind this?

A crime is an offense against the dignity, authority and sovereignty of the Ph
territory; and only the state in which the dignity, authority and sovereignty
has been offended has the right to punish the offender.
NOTES BY:
Q: Is the territoriality absolute?

No. The exceptions are: 1. Treaties
2. Laws of preferential application
Q: Other characteristic of criminal law?

Prospective (non retroactivity)
Exception: favorable to the accused
Exception to the exception: accused is a habitual delinquent
Q: Can you give an example of a treaty that is an exception to the generality &
territoriality principles of criminal law?
VFA
Q: Why is VFA an exception?

Generality because even if the accused sojourn in the Philippines, the
accused will not be prosecuted in ph courts
Territoriality because even if the accused committed the crime in the
Philippines, the accused will not be prosecuted in ph courts
Q: Who are the parties to VFA?

US and PH
Q: who are covered by the VFA?

US military personnel
US civilian personnel connected to the US military operations in the
Philippines
Q: Who is a US military personnel?

military members of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force,
and Coast Guard
Q: Is the American Red Cross personnel covered by the VFA?

Yes. Is he is part of the US personnel
Q: What are the types of jurisdiction in VFA?

Exclusive and Concurrent
Q: What do you mean by exclusive & concurrent jurisdiction?

Exclusive exclusive of other courts; vests jurisdiction on one court
Concurrent both countries have jurisdiction
Q: When is it exclusive?
PH have exclusive jurisdiction crimes punishable under PH laws but not
punishable under US laws.
US have exclusive jurisdiction - crimes punishable under US laws but not
punishable under PH laws.
NOTES BY:
Q: When is it concurrent?
Crimes punishable both under PH and US laws.
Q: But, even if jurisdiction is concurrent, when will PH have primary jurisdiction?

*Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction
over all offenses
*Especially, when it is a threat to the security of the Philippines,
a) treason b)espionage c)sabotage
EXCEPT:
*crime committed by a US personnel against the property and security of the
US Ph has no jurisdiction, these includes:
1. against the property of the US
2. against the security of the US
3. against the property of another military personnel
4. against the security of another military personnel
5. committed in the performance of official duties
Q: Suppose US military personnel was driving at Roxas Blvd to deliver a confidential

letter to the US embassy, while driving, he run over a pedestrian, which court has
jurisdiction?
US. Committed in the performance of official duties.
Q: Suppose one night US military personnel went to the bar, after drinking and
being so tipsy, raped a woman, which court has jurisdiction?
PH. Not in the performance of official duties
Q: Suppose 2 Filipino citizens working as US military personnel in the PH had a

quarrel. Filipino 1 shoots Filipino 2. Who has jurisdiction?
US. Citizenship is immaterial. What is important is attachment to the US
military
Q: Suppose the one who was injured filed a civil case for damages, will it prosper?
No. VFA covers only criminal aspect
Q: 1 US marine stole the wallet of another US marine, who has jurisdiction?

US. Property of another military personnel
Q: Suppose you are a judge, the US wrote a letter for you to waive jurisdiction, what
will you do?
Generally, the PH has to waive jurisdiction upon request of US. The request
for waiver cannot be rejected.
Q: Is this rule absolute?

No. The request for waiver may be rejected if the crime is of particular
importance
NOTES BY:
RA 9659 (heinous crime)

RA 7610 (child abuse cases)
RA 9165 (dangerous drugs)
Q: Suppose US military personnel committed kidnapping, who has jurisdiction?

PH courts. This is a crime against personal security
Q: Give an example of Laws of Preferential Application that is local in nature?

Constitution
*immunity suit of president
*absolute immunity of Congress for privilege speeches
*Congress immune from libel
NOTE: Art 6, Sec 11, 1987 Consti is not an exception. BECAUSE Congress is
only immune from arrest not from prosecution
Q: What else?
RA 75 Public International Law
Diplomatic immunity and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of
the country where they are officially assigned:
Ambassadors
Sovereign or other chief of State
Ministers plenipotentiary or minister residents
Charge daffairs
Domestic Servants of persons mentioned
NOTE: Consuls and other consular officials are not exempt from criminal
liability because they represent the business, commercial mercantile of their
country; while, ambassadors, chiefs of State, etc. represent the political
interests of their country of origin.
WARSHIP RULE
-warship of another country, even though docked in the PH is considered an
extension of the territory of that country
Q: suppose the warship of US is docked at Subic, one day, you went to Subic with
your gf, brought her to the ship, and then raped her. Will you be prosecuted?
No. Warship is an extension US territory
Q: suppose after raping her, you brought your gf to her parents, will you be
prosecuted?
No. Warship rule
Embassy Rule same as warship rule
NOTES BY:
Q: Suppose one day, you shut a person at Roxas Blvd, when the police officers were
running after you, you jumped over the fence of US embassy. May the officers arrest
you, while you are inside the US embassy?
No.
Q: What is then the remedy of the officers (Ph government)?

Extradition
Q: suppose a Filipina legally married had sexual intercourse with an American at the
Ph embassy. Is there any crime committed?
Yes. The crime of adultery, but she cannot be prosecuted under Ph courts
because of the embassy rule.
Q: who else is exempt/immune from criminal prosecution?

Executive directors of WHO
Members of the Constitutional Commission
Justices of Supreme Court
Q: How about consular officials?

They are not covered. They are not exempt from criminal liability because
they represent the business, commercial mercantile interests of their country
of origin.
Q: Suppose Ambassador of Japan to the US committed a crime in the Philippines,

may he be prosecuted?
Yes, because he is not a recognized diplomatic representative of his country
to the Philippines.
Article 2
^par 1-5 of Art 2 is not an exemption to the territoriality principle, it is
EXTRATERRITORIALITY!
Q: The first instance in Art 2?

Should commit an offense while on Ph ship or airship
Q: What is Ph ship or airship?

Ship registered with MARINA
Airship registered with Civil Aeronautics Board
Q: What are the requirements in order a ship/airship be a Ph ship?

It must be registered in accordance with Ph laws
Q: Why not register in Bureau of Customs?

The law requiring registration in Bureau of Customs had been repealed. Now
its Marina and CAB
NOTES BY:
Q: Does PH include warship?

No. Warship has different rule
Q: Suppose a cargo ship in Quezon going to Malaysia, within Ph territory, 1 crew

committed homicide against another crew, who has jurisdiction?
PH. The crime is committed in PH territory
It is not important whether cargo ship is registered or not, because crime
committed in Ph territory. (Territoriality principle)
Q: Suppose that cargo ship traversed through international waters then reached the
waters of Malaysia, 1 crew member committed homicide against another. Which
court?
Malaysia. Because the crime is committed in Malaysian waters
Ârt 2, par 1 ceases to apply if the ship is in the territory of foreign country
Ârt 2, par 1 applies only if the ship is in international waters
Q: Suppose you live in a coastal town, then you hired an unregistered motorboat,
then you went to intl waters, then you shoot your gf because you are so depressed
because of recitations in criminal law review, will you be liable?
No. unregistered motorboat
Q: suppose in the same motorboat, a married man with his new gf went on high
seas, and there got married. Is the man liable for any crime?
Yes. He is liable for bigamy. (because he contracted a second marriage)
BUT he cannot be prosecuted because of the territoriality principle. The crime
was committed outside Ph territory.
Q: suppose after the wedding ceremony, you went to a resort, where there is a big
reception. In that resort, you had your honeymoon; will you (married man) be liable
for any crime?
No. Not concubinage because mere sexual intercourse not punishable, it
must be under scandalous manner
Q: suppose after your honeymoon, you live together in a condo in Manila, will you
be liable?
Yes. Concubinage
Cohabitation; living in a separate home as husband and wife
Q: What are the 2 rules?

English Rule vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed
in that area are triable in that other country, unless the crimes committed
involve purely internal matters within the vessel; the emphasis is on the
territoriality of the vessel; where the vessel is found
NOTES BY:
French Rule vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed

in that area are not triable in that country, unless the crimes committed have
endangered the peace and security of that country; the emphasis is on the
nationality of the vessel; jurisdiction lies where the merchant vessel is
registered.
^The PH adheres to the English rule
Q: Cargo ship, registered in Panama while in Manila, 1 crew member shoot the other
crew member, who has jurisdiction?
Ph courts. Crime committed in manila
Q: Cargo ship, registered in Panama, carried shabu, which court has jurisdiction?
Ph courts.
Q: Second instance in Art 2?

Art 2 par 2.
Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine
Islands
Q: what may be the subject of forgery?

Any coin, Currency Note, obligations and securities issued by the Government
of the Philippine Islands
Q: Suppose you have a printing press in Taiwan, and you printed Bagong Lipunan
notes (martial law), liable?
No. Because Bagong Lipunan notes are not legal tender
Q: Suppose coins withdrawn from circulation, liable?

Yes. The law does not distinguish. It says ANY COIN
Q: Suppose in you tampered a lotto ticket, liable?

Yes. Lotto ticket is obligations and securities issued by the GPI
Q: give examples of obligations and securities of GPI

Treasury bills, lotto tickets, bonds of the BSP
Ôbligations and Securities of GSIS, SSS, Landbank are not of the GPI
because they have their own charter
Q: any other instance?

Art 2, par 3
Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number
^those who introduced the counterfeited items are criminally liable, even if
they were not the ones who counterfeited the obligations & securities
NOTES BY:
ôn the other hand, those who counterfeited the items are criminally liable
even if they did not introduce the counterfeit items
Q: any other instance?

Art 2, par. 4
While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions
Q: who is a public officer? (see Art 203)

*taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or
performing in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
*that his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to

perform public duties must be
a. by direct provision of the law, or
b. by popular election, or
c. by appointment by competent authority
Q: Suppose PH ambassador to Germany was given USD 200,000 as a fund to

renovate the PH embassy building in Germany. He used only USD 50,000 for the
renovation, and gave the USG 150,000 to his number 2 in Germany. Is he
(ambassador) liable?
Yes. He is liable for malversation of public funds. He may be prosecuted in Ph
courts.
He was in custody of the money by reason of his official functions
Q: Suppose our AFP high officials were tasked to scout for firearms abroad, and
while they are negotiating with foreign companies abroad, these companies
inserted USD1000 in the proposal folder in anticipation that their company will be
chosen by AFP to be the supplier of our firearms. May these AFP officials be liable?
Yes. They are liable for bribery.
Q: (follow-up) Even if the act of accepting the bribe was committed abroad, will they
still be liable?
Yes, because the act was committed in relation or while the AFP are in
discharge of their official functions.
Q: Suppose Chairman Abalos (comelec) while playing golf in Shanghai, China

received USD50,000 in relation to the ZTE? Is there a crime committed? May he be
liable?
Crime anti graft & corrupt practices act
BUT, he cannot be liable/prosecuted before Ph courts because Abalos has
nothing to do with ZTE (paki alamera lang siya). Therefore, he received the
money not in connection with his official function.
Q: Suppose the PH ambassador to Australia is legally married. Can he be prosecuted

for concubinage?
NOTES BY:
No. Crime was committed outside PH

Crime was not in relation to official functions
Elements of concubinage:
1. That the man must be married.
2. That he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with
a woman who is not his wife.
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
3. That as regards the woman she must know him to be married
Q: Can the PH ambassador use immunity from suit as a defense against PH courts?
No
Q: PH ambassador, married, had sexual intercourse with her American boyfriend in

the comfort room of PH embassy. May he be prosecuted?
Yes. Ph embassy is an extension of Ph territory
For what crime adultery
Q: may the American citizen bf be liable for any crime?

Yes. Adultery
Elements:
*That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared
void)
*That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.
*That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourses, he
must know her to be married.
Q: Last instance?
Art 2, par 5
Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Q: Give example of crimes against national security?

Treason, espionage, conspiracy to commit treason
Q: How about rebellion?

No. rebellion is crimes against public order
Q: crimes committed by the MILF?

No. Crime against public order
Q: example of violation of the law of nations?

Anti terror law
Crimes against humanity
Genocide
NOTES BY:
Q: what are the 2 kinds of piracy?

Piracy under the RPC
Piracy under PD 532
Q: what does Art 2 covers?

Piracy under RPC only. Because piracy under PD532 is committed within PH
waters
Article 3
Q: What are felonies?
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Q: What do you mean by punishable by law

Punishable by the RPC
Q: how felonies are committed?

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means
of fault (culpa).
Q: What is dolo? What is culpa?

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
^Violations of RPC felony

^Violations of special penal law offenses
^violations of ordinance misdemeanor (minor infraction of the law)
Q: What are the requisites of felony?

1. Act or omission
2. RPC
3. Voluntary
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. Intent
ÂLL MUST BE PRESENT IN ORDER TO INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Q: Is illegal possession of bladed weapon a felony?

No. It is not under the Revised Penal Code
Atty. Amurao Lecture Highlights:

*To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere
imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony.
NOTES BY:
*An act refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the
outside world. For example, if you have in your mind that you will rape this
beautiful lady, but you did not rape her, you will not be liable.
*Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (an act of a criminal should be
coupled by a criminal mind)
*It does not mean that if an act or omission is punished under the Revised
Penal Code, a felony is already committed. To be considered a felony, it must
also be done with dolo or culpa.
*If you do not have freedom, the act is not voluntary; the act is not a felony
*These are amplified in the some provisions of the RPC, like

Intelligence art 12 insanity, imbecility, minority
Freedom art 12 under compulsion of some irresistible force; fear of
greater injury
Intent art 12 by mere accident w/out fault or intent to cause harm
*Mistake of fact is a valid defense
Q: What are the differences between MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

*intent is essential *intent is not essential
*good faith is a valid *good faith is not a valid
defense defense
*honest mistake of fact is *honest mistake of fact is
a defense not a defense
*punishable under RPC *punishable under
special laws
*condemned by society *injurious to public
welfare
*act done must be *it is sufficient that the
criminal intent prohibited act was done
Q: give examples of Mala In se?

RPC homicide, murder, parricide, arson and so on
Q: give examples of Mala prohibita

Anti Fencing Law
Bouncing Check Law
Illegal Possession of Firearms
Anti Human Trafficking Law
Anti Hijacking Lack
NOTES BY:
Q: Suppose your bf is a police officer, 1 day while you were having your date in
Luneta Park, your bf had to answer the call of nature, so he handed to you his pistol,
while you were holding it, the officers arrested you, may you be liable for illegal
possession of firearms?
No. Transient Possession not liable
Although I was in possession, although I have no license to posses, Still not
liable because I have no intent, and this is an exception to mala prohibita
Q: Suppose the police officers are running after a man, then the man throw his .45
caliber, you were around the corner and you extended your arms, then the firearm
fell on your hands, may you be liable for illegal possession?
No. Transient possession
Q: Suppose I (atty. Amurao) mortaged my firearm to you for 30 days, and on the 20 th
day, there was a raid in your house, may you be liable for illegal possession?
Yes. There is animus possendi
an act or omission
Act any physical movement of the body (Amurao); any bodily

movement tending to produce some effect in the external world
(Reyes)
Omission means inaction; the failure to perform a positive

duty which one is bound to do; there must be a law requiring the
performance of an act and punishing the omission; eg. arbitrary
detention; misprision of treason
punishable by the Revised Penal Code

^When there is a conflict between special penal laws and
the Revised Penal Code, in terms of the application of
penalties, what to follow?
^What is important is the definition and the classification of

the act (whether it is an offense or a felony)
Special Penal Laws = penalties are stated in terms of years,

months, days
Revised Penal Code = penalties are stated in terms of degrees,

with death as the highest penalty; classified as indivisible or
divisible
a. indivisible = death and public censure

b. divisible (has 3 periods; what period to apply is
dependent on the aggravating and mitigating
NOTES BY:
circumstances present in the case)
Penalties under the RPC (in descending order in terms of

degree)
Death or Capital Punishment - indivisible
Reclusion Perpetua (20yrs & 1day 40yrs)
Reclusion Temporal (12yrs & 1day 20yrs)
Prision Mayor (6yrs & 1day 12yrs)
Prision Correccional divisible
or Destierro (6mos&1day 6yrs)
Arresto Mayor (1mo & 1day 6mos)
Arresto Menor (1day 30days)
Fine
Public Censure indivisible
the acts done should be voluntary (Amurao)
voluntary - the concurrence of intelligence, freedom, intent

(Ortega)
âll should be present in order to incur criminal liability
(a) intelligence no intelligence, no criminal liability; eg.

children 15 yrs old & below are exempt from criminal
liability (RA 9344)
(b) freedom no freedom, act is not voluntary, no criminal
liability
(c) intent essential to a felony; prosecution has to prove
intent; good faith is a defense
Article 12 of the RPC (Exempting Circumstances) is amplified by

the importance of the element of voluntariness:
(a) intelligence insanity/imbecility [Art.12(1)]; minority

[Art.12(2&3)]
(b) freedom under the compulsion of some irresistible force

[Art.12(5)]; fear of greater injury [Art.12(6)]; failure to perform
an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause [Art.12(7)]
(c) intent by mere accident w/o fault or intent to cause harm

[Art.12(4)]
Alibi used in defense saying that the act or omission was not
done at all; intends to disprove the existence of an act or omission;
weakest defense; can easily be fabricated; eg. Vizconde case
Webbs alibi = he argued that he was in the US when the crime
NOTES BY:
happened, therefore, he could not have killed the victims, claiming that
he is innocent
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea an act of a criminal should be
coupled by a criminal mind
the defense of honest mistake of fact

- the act done by the accused would have constituted:
(a) a justifying circumstance (Art.11, RPC)
- in all instances = no criminal liability; no civil liability
(b) an absolutory cause [Art.247(2)]
(c) an involuntary act
Requisites for honest mistake of fact as a defense:

1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be
2. that the intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful
3. that the mistake must be without fault or
negligence/carelessness on the part of the accused
Cases on honest mistake of fact:

1. US v. Ah Chong (landmark case)
- Ah Chong killed friend Pascual thinking he was a thief/ladron
- there was sufficient warning on the part of accused; accused
was acquitted
2. US v. Apego
- accused killed her brother-in-law in fear of being raped; guilty
of homicide
3. People v. Oanis
- policemen killed the wrong person w/o warning; guilty of
murder
4. People v. Bayambao
- accused killed his brother-in-law thinking he was an outlaw
- brother-in-law acted as if he going to attack; accused was
acquitted
Motive
- special reasons that impel the accused to act (Amurao)
- the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (Reyes)
- not an essential element of a felony
- evidence of motive is necessary only in case of: (1) doubt in the identity of
the accused (Amurao), (2) two conflicting versions of the crime
- motive is established by the testimony of the witness
- lack of motive may be an aid in showing innocence
NOTES BY:
Discernment ability of the accused to determine right from wrong
Exceptions to the general rule on malum prohibitum crimes (PLEASE

REFER TO REYES BOOK)
1. Cuenca v. People
- Cuenca was acquitted by the SC from the crime of illegal possession of an
unlicensed firearm; it is said that the SC erred in its decision (Amurao)
2. People v. Landicho
- convicted by the trial court; decision reversed by the Court of Appeals
- the CA held that convicting the accused would be sacrificing substantial justice for
mere technicality
3. People v. Mallare
- case was about the delay of the issuance of the license
- the accused convicted by the trial court; decision reversed by the CA
- the CA held that the blame should be put on the government not on the applicant
of the license
4. mere transient possession of unlicensed firearm
- not criminally liable
- in the crime of illegal possession of unlicensed firearm, for an accused to be
criminally liable, there should be animus posidendi or intent to possess
Article 4
Concept of proximate cause injury inflicted
Q: What is proximate cause?

Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and
which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony without
which such felony could not have resulted
As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of
his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate
cause of the felony or resulting felony.
A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a

cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion
other causes which resulted in
the felony.
NOTES BY:
Immediate cause infection
Q: What is efficient intervening cause?

Efficient Intervening Cause interrupted the natural flow of events leading to
ones death
*Victim is under no obligation to submit to medical treatment to reduce or mitigate

the liability of the accused.
Q: A, B, C hold up a bus, a passenger ran away, hit by the car, passenger died. Who
is liable?
ABC
Q: Hold up in a nearby grocery store, old man suddenly collapsed seeing the
commotion, old man eventually died, who is liable?
Robbers
Immediate cause heart failure
Q: Suppose Atty Amurao during recit, you collapsed, hit the table and massive
bleeding, dead on arrival, is amurao liable?
No. Recit is not a crime
Q: suppose because of your wrong answers, amurao shouted defamatory words,

liable?
Yes. Amurao committed slander
Q: Is it wrong to love a married person?

No. As long as it does not go beyond that point
Q: Sexual intercourse with a married woman, while doing the act, the woman had
heart attack, will you be liable?
Yes. You committed adultery
Q: Man married, had a sexual intercourse with a single woman, the woman had
heart attack, died. Will you be liable?
No. Concubinage is not committed
Q: If under a tree in Luneta?

Yes. Liable for concubinage, under a scandalous manner
Q: both single, man is a teacher, woman is a student, liable?

No. There is no crime
Q: If the student is under 18 years old, will your answer be the same?
NOTES BY:
No. This time there is a crime. Qualified seduction or rape by grave abuse of
authority
Q: What is an impossible crime?
Q: Give the case of Intod
Q: Give the elements of impossible crime vis--vis facts of Intod
Q: Give the case of PP v Jacinto?
Q: do you agree with the decision?
Q: How is theft committed?
Q: Is it an element that the accused should make or actually profit?

No
Q: May a person be liable if he did not commit a crime?

Yes. Impossible crime. Technically no crime, subjectively there is a crime
Q: What is the penalty?

Arresto Mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500
Ûrbano case
Q: what is the negligence committed by Javier?
Causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender
intended, as contemplated in Art. 4 (1)
1. there is a mistake in the identity of the victim

- also known as error in personae; or napagkamalan
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
2. there is a mistake in the blow
- also known as aberration ictus
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
3. the injurious result is greater than that intended
- also known as praeter intentionem
Article 4(1) contemplates that there should be a felony being committed

- emphasis is not on the mere wrongful act; it should constitute a felony
- eg. the act of committing suicide results to others being injured = punishable
under Art.4(1) because although not intended, the injury was caused by means of
culpa, which can constitute a felony
NOTES BY:
Article 4(1) does not apply if the act committed constitutes a crime punishable by
special law
Concubinage - instances
- a husband bringing home a woman, that is not his wife, to the conjugal dwelling
- having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances
- cohabitation; living in a separate home as husband and wife
Proximate Cause
- there is a chain of causes from an original act that results to an injury
- if the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the original act
can be held liable
Efficient Intervening Cause interrupted the natural flow of events leading to

ones death
Q: What is impossible crime? What is the reason for punishing?

Suppress criminal propensity
Q: Suppose son forged signature of his father in a check, the deposited the check,
but was dishonored, is this impossible crime?
No. Falsification of commercial document. Forgery is a crime against public
interest
Give the elements of forgery
Q: Your room mate kukunin yung jewelry na nasa cabinet na naka-lock, tapos wala
pala yung jewelry dun sa cabinet, impossible crime?
No. Theft of key ung tamang sagot
^woman lang ang pwede for forcible abduction
Instances when there is a proximate cause and when there is none
When there is an intervening disease and the disease is:
(a) closely related to the wound(s) = accused is criminally liable
(b) unrelated to the wound(s) = accused is not criminally liable,

because the disease not associated with the
wound(s), eg. brain tumor
(c) a combined force with the wound(s) = accused is criminally liable,

because the mortal wound is a
contributing factor to the victims death
NOTES BY:
A mortal wound is a contributing factor when:
i. the wound(s) is/are sufficient to cause victims death along with

the disease
ii. the mortal wound was caused by actions committed by the

accused
2. When the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the
unskilled medical treatment from the doctors:
(a) if the wound is mortal = accused is criminally liable, because the

unskilled treatment + infection are not
efficient intervening causes
mortal wound + unskilled medical treatment only = accused is

criminally liable because the mortal wound naturally led to the death of
the victim
(b) if the wound is slight = accused is not criminally liable, because

the unskilled treatment + infection are efficient intervening causes
*In Urbano v. IAC, the wound caused by accused Urbano was already treated and
was in the normal process of healing which is in approximately 4weeks; but because
deceased Javier did not wait for the wound to heal and still worked by fishing, his
wound got infected with tetanus which caused his death. The actions of the
deceased when he still worked without waiting for his wound to heal was an
efficient intervening cause, thus the accused is not liable for his death anymore.
Q: What is the purpose for punishing an impossible crime?

The purpose of punishing an impossible crime is to prevent or suppress the
criminal tendency of the accused
Persons found guilty of impossible crimes are sentenced to arrestor mayor

(1mo.1day to 6mos.) pursuant to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code
Objectively, there is no crime

Subjectively, the crime is present
Should there be a crime committed, in order to be held liable for an impossible

crime? YES; the act(s) should constitute a crime against persons or
property
Requisites for an impossible crime under Article 4(2)

1. that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
NOTES BY:
2. that the act was done with evil intent

3. that its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
4. that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code
Rape used to be a crime against chastity; but because of RA 8353, rape was
reclassified as a crime against persons, therefore, one can now be held liable
for the impossible crime of rape
In People v. Intod, the Court erred in its decision of considering the acts of the
accused as an impossible crime under Art.4(2) of the RPC because the 4th
element/requisite was not satisfied. The acts of the accused of shooting at the
house and damaging the same, can constitute as malicious mischief, which is a
crime against property. Therefore, the accused should have been charged with the
latter instead of finding them guilty only of the impossible crime of murder.
July 4, 2011
Q: Who incurs criminal liability?
Q: What is a proximate cause?
Q: if there is a crime intended and a crime committed is different, what is the extent
of criminal liability?
The lesser penalty will be imposed.
If the crime intended has a lesser penalty, then that will be charged
If the crime committed has a lesser penalty, then that will be charged
Q: Suppose you will rob a jeepney, because of fear, the passenger jumped of and
died, will be liable?
Yes. Because I am committing a felony, and I am liable for its effects.
Q: Suppose Amurao during your recit, pointed a gun at you because of your wrong
answers, then you collapsed and died. is amurao liable?
Yes. There is grave threat
Q: Suppose the gun was a toy gun, liable?

Yes, still liable. There is still threat
Q: Suppose because of your low grade in criminal law review, you break up with
your boyfriend being so sad, your bf collapsed and died, liable?
No. Breaking up is not a felony
Q: Suppose while you and your boyfriend is doing the act itself (do I need to
elaboratealam mo na yan), your bf collapsed and died, will you be liable?
No. The act of having sex is not a felony.
NOTES BY:
Q: even if you are not married to each other?

Yes sir
Q: suppose your bf is married, are you liable?

Yes. Concubinage
Q: Suppose man had sexual intercourse with married woman, but the woman
consented, crime?
Adultery
Article 5
Article 5(1) Requirements:

1. the act committed by the accused appears to be not punishable by law
2. but the court deems it proper to repress such act
3. in that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the
case and acquitting the accused
4. the judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive through the
Secretary of Justice stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the
said act should be made the subject of penal legislation
Basis for Article 5(1):

Nullem crimen, nulla poena sine lege.- There is no crime if there is no law that
punishes the act
Why dismiss? In the absence of a law that will punish the accused, the judge
cannot impose a penalty because the duty of the judge is only to interpret or
apply the law; the judge cannot reprimand or curse the accused because it would
equate to public censure; the reprimand would be inconsistent with the acquittal
Article 5(2) Excessive Penalties
Q: What are the requirements?
1. the court after trial finds the accused guilty

2. the penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime
committed appears to be clearly excessive because:
(a) the accused acted with lesser degree of malice and/or
(b) there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
NOTES BY:
3. the court should not suspend the execution of the sentence

4. the judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the
Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency
The President has the power to grant executive clemency, through pardon, parole,
commutation (reduction of sentence), reprieve or amnesty
Article 5(2) may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita
because said article only applies to acts mala in se because the ruling is based
on the phrase in the provision, takes into consideration the degree of malice
Article 6
Q: What are the stages in the commission of a felony?
Consummated a felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
Frustrated - it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts for
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator
Attempted there is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the
acts for execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
NOTE: Available only in RPC.
Q: Give example of each (consummated, frustrated, attempted)
Q: What are the phases?

Subjective phase from the time the offender commences the commission
up to the performance of the last act where he still has control; an
attempted felony is committed within the subjective phase and does not go
beyond this phase
Objective phase frustrated and consummated felonies are within the

objective phase
(a) frustrated the felony is complete but still is still not produced as far
as the offender is concerned
(b) consummated when all the elements under the Revised Penal Code
are present
REMEMBER: in Arson
NOTES BY:
(a) consummated = so long as a part of the building is burned, no matter

how small
(b) frustrated = if only the contents of the building (eg. chairs and tables)
are burned
(c) attempted = contents havent been burned
Întent is always established. Kahit pa apprehended at the time ot in the act

of bringing/getting gasoline attempted pa din
Îndeterminate stage intent is not yet established
Q: Suppose built in cabinets, burned the clothes in the cabinet, including the
cabinet?
Consummated arson, deemed part of the bldg
Q: Supposing, the accused brought gasoline into a building, with the intent to
burn the building, but was apprehended by the security guard; did the crime of
arson commence?
YES, thus the accused is liable for attempted arson, because the bringing
of gasoline was already an overt act while the apprehension was the reason
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Q: Supposing, using the same set of facts above, but without the intent to burn
the building, is there criminal liability?
NO, in fact there is no crime, because the acts were only in an
indeterminate stage.
Q: Suppose the white board was burned?

White board not an integral part
Q: when is the crime in the attempted stage?
Indeterminate Stage we do not know what crime is in the mind of the

offender; the crime has not yet been determined; there are still two possibilities
when the accused was caught
According to Prof. Amurao, when a person is accused of committing a felony, we

have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to establish the
commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise, the situation when
he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage, wherein the crime that the
accused intended to do could not be determined
Theft/Robbery
NOTES BY:
- both these crimes are committed by taking the personal property of

another and, with the intent to gain
- the difference is that in robbery, there is the use of force or violence
- so long as the act stated in the RPC is done, the crime is consummated
- it does not matter how long the property was in the possession of the
accused; it does not matter whether the property was disposed or not; what
matters is whether or not there was asportacion = unlawful taking
- momentary possession consummates the crime of theft or robbery
- returning the item to the owner is immaterial; has no effect to the

crime
- upon consummation of the crime, criminal liability automatically

attaches
Q: you are walking in recto, cellphone was snatched, but it was return to you. What
stage?
Consummated
Q: suppose in a private subdivision, with intent to commit robbery, you are tinkering
with the lock of a gate, the security guard apprehended you. Liable?
Yes. Attempted robbery
Q: suppose you intent to commit robbery, then you place a ladder at the wall of the
house, when you place the ladder, you were apprehended. Liable?
Yes. Attempted robbery
Q: if no intent?
Not liable
Q: accused trying to open your car, problem is silent with the intent, may you be
liable for attempted theft?
No.
Opening the door of the car only indeterminate stage
Q: Supposing, the accused was tinkering with the lock of the gate of a neighbors
house, without the intent to commit a felony; is he liable for anything?
NO, because the situation was in an indeterminate stage wherein it could
not be determined what the accused intended to do
NOTES BY:
Q: Supposing, the accused jumped over the fence into another persons house
without the intent to commit robbery, is he liable for attempted robbery?
NO, but he is liable for the crime of trespassing
^Same with arson, when a person is accused of committing a felony, we

have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to establish
the commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise, the
situation when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage, wherein
the crime that the accused intended to do could not be determined
In People v. Lamahang, the accused was able to open one board of the door to
private respondent Tan Yus store, when the police caught him. The SC ruled that
the accused is not liable for attempted robbery because the intent to rob Tan Yus
store was not established, thus when accused was caught, it was in an
indeterminate stage. But the Court held him liable for attempted trespass to
dwelling
In People v. Salvilla, the accused were held liable for the crime of robbery with
serious illegal detention and serious physical injuries, and not frustrated robbery,
even without physical taking or possession of the money they demanded because
the money was within the dominion, which the accused had control over and it
was where the crime was being committed. During whole time when negotiations
went on between the accused and the police, the crime of robbery was deemed
consummated
Q: suppose hold up in a grocery store, hold uppers asked the cashier to place the
money inside a bag, no one hold the money. Is the crime consummated?
Yes. There is constructive control
July 5, 2011
Crimes involving the taking of human life/ Crimes against persons

- these crimes are committed by killing a person (MHPI):
i. Murder killing a person with attending or aggravating circumstances
ii. Homicide killing a person without attending circumstances
iii. Parricide killing a relative, i.e. spouse, parent, child, sibling, etc.
iv. Infanticide killing a child less than three (3) days old
- even without intent, the moment the victim dies, intent is presumed by
operation of law and the crime is consummated
- if the victim doesnt die but the wound inflicted is mortal, it is frustrated
NOTES BY:
- if the there is no intent to kill, but the wound inflicted is mortal or fatal, the
crime is not either MHPI but serious physical injuries
Mortal when the wound inflicted can cause the death of the victim;
when death will follow
- for frustrated & attempted cases, it is important to determine intent to
kill
Q: Supposing, in a car accident, the accused hits a person causing mortal

wounds, but the victim does not die, is the driver-accused liable for frustrated
homicide?
NO, he is only liable for serious physical injuries
Rules on crimes against persons (MHPI) and the stages of execution
1. victim dies, with or without the intention to kill, intent is conclusively

presumed by operation of law, the crime is consummated MHPI
2. victim does not die, with the intent to kill, mortal wounds were inflicted,
the crime is frustrated MHPI
3. victim does not die, with the intent to kill, non-mortal wounds were
inflicted, the crime is attempted MHPI
4. victim does not die because there was only an overt act and no wound was
inflicted, but there was intent to kill, the crime is attempted MHPI
5. victim does not die, without the intent to kill, mortal wounds were inflicted,
the crime is serious physical injuries
6. victim does not die, without the intent to kill, non-mortal wounds were
inflicted, the crime is less serious or slight physical injuries
Illustration:
Death Intent Gravity of the wound Crime
(1) YES presumed of course mortal! Consummated MHPI
(2) NO YES mortal wounds Frustrated MHPI
(3) NO YES non-mortal wounds Attempted

MHPI
(4) NO YES overt act only, no wound Attempted MHPI
NOTES BY:
(5) NO NO mortal wounds Serious physical injuries
(6) NO NO non-mortal wounds Less serious/Slight physical

injuries
In People v. Trinidad, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of two
counts of murder (for killing Soriano and Laroa) and frustrated murder (for shooting
at Tan). The SC modified the decision by ruling that the accused was liable for two
counts of murder and attempted murder, not frustrated, because the wound
inflicted on Tan was not mortal or fatal
In People v. Lim San, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of
attempted murder for stabbing Keng Kin in the left eye. The SC modified the
decision by ruling that the accused should be liable of frustrated murder because
not only was it established that there was intent to kill, but also the wound inflicted
was mortal. It just so happened that the victim did not die because of the prompt
and efficient medical assistance given to the victim. The treatment was the cause
independent of the will of the accused.
In Mondragon v. People, the SC held that the accused was only guilty of less
serious physical injuries because when the accused and the victim were hacking
each other with their bolos, there was no intent to kill on neither party; and also
because the victim did not die since the wounds were not mortal
RAPE
- the crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ, no
matter how slight
Q: Supposing, the penetration was only 2 millimeters deep, consummated?

YES, no matter how slight the penetration is, it is still consummated
Q: Supposing, the rape was consummated because there was penetration, but
according to the medical examination, the victim was still a virgin, can the accused
still be held liable for consummated rape?
YES, as long as there is penetration, the rape is consummated.
In People v. Orita, the medical examiner testified that the victim was still a virgin
therefore the rape may not have been consummated. But the SC ruled that the
testimony of the victim herself should be given greater weight because she herself
can feel whether or not there was penetration.
Instances of attempted rape:

- when the skirt of the victim has been lifted, no matter what position
- when the accused mounted on the body of the victim
NOTES BY:
- when there is epidermal touching of the genital organs of the accused and the
victim
The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is that with
the former, there is carnal knowledge or the intent to have sexual intercourse
is established
There is no such thing as frustrated rape; the only exception was when the SC
ruled in People v. Eria that the accused was guilty of frustrated rape. Thereafter, no
one has since been held guilty of frustrated rape.
ESTAFA
- the elements for the crime of estafa are (1) deceit, and (2) damage
- without one of the two elements, estafa would not be consummated
In US v. Dominguez, the SC ruled that the accused was guilty of frustrated estafa
because before accused could cause damage by disposing of the money that he
deceitfully took, he was apprehended by their stores supervisor, which was the
cause independent of the will of the accused.
OTHER INSTANCES FOR HOMICIDE AND OTHER CRIMES

Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused pulls out a gun then points it
at someone, what crime is the accused liable for?
Attempted homicide
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone but
misses, what crime is the accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Q: Supposing, using the same set of facts, but without the intent to kill, what
crime is the accused liable for?
- for pulling out the gun and pointing it = grave threat
- for firing the gun = illegal discharge of firearm (obsolete; must be
deleted)
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then
accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The accused did not know
that he missed because the victim played dead. What crime is the accused liable
for? Attempted homicide, attempted because there was no wound, but there was
still intent to kill. What is important is that there was no wound
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then
accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The victim is hit but it is
not fatal or mortal. What crime is the accused liable for? Still Attempted
homicide, because what is important is the extent or gravity of the wound.
(People v. Orinaga)
NOTES BY:
Q: suppose a sales lady in the department store, place the jewelry inside her bag,
but the jewelry was recovered by the security guard, crime?
Consummated qualified theft
Q: will recovery affect the stage of the commission?

No
Q: Suppose the sales lady, voluntarily returned, crime?

Still qualified theft.
Taking consummates the crime
Q: suppose the sales lady, sold the jewelry and used the money, crime?
Estafa
Q: suppose the sales lady, sold the jewelry and returned the money at 6pm?
Frustrated Estafa
Q: suppose 2 crew members discovered the presence of a stow away and they want
to eliminate the stow away, so they decided throw the stow away in the sea, where
there is sharp object, but after you leave, a fishing vessel was there to help the stow
away, there was no wound, crime?
Frustrated murder
INTENT TO KILL
Q: 3 armarlite shots neighbor but did not hit?

Attempted
Q: distinguish from illegal discharge of firearm

No intent to kill
Q: distinguish from grave threat?

There is intent to kill
Q: suppose there are 99 wounds, but none was mortal?

Attempted
Q: what is an overt act?

Something you see, feel, touch (do not relate to criminal offense at first)
Article 7
Q: What are light felonies?
Light felonies are infractions of law which have the punishment of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos
NOTES BY:
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated
Reason: involves insignificant moral and material injuries; if not consummated,
the wrong done is so slight that a penalty is unnecessary
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property are punishable

even if in the attempted or frustrated stage
Reason: presupposes moral depravity
For light felonies, the only ones who can be held liable are the principals and
accomplices.
For grave or less grave felonies, those who can be held liable are principals,
accomplices and even accessories, because the degree of the penalty to be
imposed depends on 3 factors:
(1) stages of execution
(2) the degree of participation
(3) the presence of attending circumstances
Q: When punishable?
Only when consummated
Q: Is this absolute?
No. If against persons or property
Q: Reason.
Q: Who shall be criminally liable?

Principals
Accomplices
NOT ACCESSORIES
^Penalty for accomplices -- one degree lower (censure)

^Penalty for accessories two degrees lower (WALA NANG LOWE PA. KAYA
NGA HINDI LIABLE ANG ACCESSORIES)
Q: Who is a principal? An Accomplices? An Accessories?
Article 8
Q: what is conspiracy?
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
NOTES BY:
- Proposal exists when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable
Reason: because they are mere preparatory acts (Reyes)
Exception: Conspiracy and proposal are punishable only in the cases in

which the law specially provides a penalty thereof
Q: give an example of conspiracy & proposal
Q: the effects of conspiracy

There will be collective responsibility
Q: effect of non-establishment of conspiracy?

Accused will be liable only to the extent of participation
Q: if established?
Collective responsibility act of one, act of all
Q: degree of evidence needed to prove conspiracy?

NOT beyond reasonable doubt
Sufficient that the act is closely related to the crime/felony intended to commit
Q: is it necessary that each participate?

No. They must have common criminal design
Q: what do you mean by common criminal design?
Q: what is implied conspiracy?
Q: from what factors may you imply conspiracy?

Acts and words before and after the commission of the felony
Q: is it enough that there is an agreement to commit felony?
No. they must execute the overt act
Q: how would you know if community of purpose exists?

From the acts and remarks of the accused
There must be unity of criminal though
BEFORE, DURING, AFTER -- acts of each of the accused may be separate,

independent of each other but must show close personal association; closely
related to each other, there is coordination.
Q: A B C D E (robbers) agreed and decided to commit bank robbery. A stayed in the

getaway car 100 meters from the bank; B look-out C disarm the security guard D &
E commit robbery. E shot to death the bank manager. Will A be liable for the death?
NOTES BY:
YES. There is conspiracy. Act of 1, act of all
Q: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 met in safe house discussed, agreed and decided to commit robbery.

When they were about to rob the bank, they saw the police around the bank. Liable?
No. Mere conspiracy not punishable
Q: 5 members of army decided to commit coup d etat, met in safe house to discuss
plan, liable?
Yes. Conspiracy to commit coup d etat is punishable
Q: distinguish conspiracy as a felony and as manner of incurring criminal liability.

FELONY RPC punishes mere conspiracy
LIABILITY There must be over act
Q: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, agreed to commit a felony when about to meet the next morning. 5

did not arrive for emergency purposes. 1, 2, 3, 4 commit the felony and was caught.
Is number 5 liable?
No. He is not a conspirator.
A conspirator must agree, decide and execute the over act
5 was not present
Q: suppose 5 drove for 1, 2, 3, 4 but went home early. Liable?

Yes. Driving already an overt act
Q: suppose 5 was not the driver, but he was sittig in front of the van, then after
alighting went home, liable?
No. There is no overt act (pasahero lang siya sa van)
^General Rule if not present in the scene of the crime NO liability

Êxceptions presence is to provide for moral support or to ensure commission
of the felony
Cases of conspiracy punishable by law

(i) Article 115 of the RPC Conspiracy to commit treason
(ii) Article 136 Conspiracy to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection
(iii) Article 141 Conspiracy to commit sedition
(iv) Article 186 Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
(v) Conspiracy to commit terrorism - under the Human Security Act (RA9372)
(vi) Conspiracy to commit crimes under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act (RA 9165)
Cases of proposal punishable by law
NOTES BY:
(i) Proposal to commit treason
(ii) Proposal to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection
- there is no crime of proposal to commit sedition
Q: What is the legal effect of the presence of conspiracy?

- the act of one is the act of all, meaning everyone who participated is
equally liable; there is collective responsibility
For conspiracy, take note of the word agreement

Agreement may be oral or written, express or implied
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the existence of conspiracy through
circumstantial evidence unless there is a confession or written agreement, which
is seldom because criminals will usually deny their participation or the commission
of the crime
Q: What is Implied Conspiracy?

- Implied conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the
perpetrators/accused before, during or after the commission of the crime
Q: How about the use of words, remarks or language of the perpetrators, can
conspiracy still be ascertained or established? YES
Q: May there be conspiracy when the perpetrators perform separate, distinct

and independent acts in the commission of a crime? YES
Q:May there be conspiracy even if other conspirators do not know who the
other conspirators are? YES
*In People v. Manlolo, it was held that there was implied conspiracy on the part
of the accused because they were acting in concert, one performing an act, the
other doing another act, all aimed at the same object
Rule on determining whether there is conspiracy

- based on the (1) acts done before, during or after the commission of the
crime, or, based on the (2) words, remarks or language used before,
during or after the commission of the crime, it is necessary to determine
after these acts were done whether the conspirators had the following:
1. concerted action 3. community of purpose
2. common criminal design 4. joint criminal objective
- all of which are geared towards the attainment of the felony or crime
Suggested cases for conspiracy on this rule

- People v. Salcedo; People v. Briones; Medija, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
NOTES BY:
Q: Supposing, only minor acts were done, will the actor still be liable? YES
Q: Supposing, there was no conspiracy, what will happen? The perpetrators of the
crime will be individually liable depending the extent of the degree of each
ones participation
In People v. Agapinay, the SC ruled that there was no conspiracy in commission of

the murder because the incident was only a spur of the moment or in this case, a
chance stabbing, which cannot be considered conspiracy, thus they were held
individually liable, some as principals and some as accomplices only
Q: Supposing, there was only mere presence of a person when the crime was
being committed, will he be liable?
NO, that person not participating shall not be liable because he did not
perform any overt act; there should be an overt act to establish the
participation and liability of a person
Q: Supposing, the persons presence when the crime was being committed was to
provide was to provide moral support, or to persuade the participants from
performing the acts constituting the crime, will he be liable?
YES, in both cases the person shall be held criminally liable
In order to hold someone criminally liable, in addition to mere presence, there

should be overt acts that are closely-related and coordinated to establish the
presence of common criminal design and community of purpose in the commission
of the crime.
In People v. Taaca, the SC ruled to acquit Regalado because there was no

evidence to prove that Regalado assisted his brother Herminio in the killing of
Alfredo Gabuat; there was no proof to show that Regalados presence was
accompanied by overt acts for the commission of the crime and that there was no
proof of conspiracy between the Taaca brothers.
In People v. De La Cruz, the SC also ruled that the mere presence of the Galaw-
eys were not enough to prove that they conspired to the commission of the crime
despite the fact Galaw-ey had a grudge against one of the victims; his participation
in a conspiracy cannot be assumed especially when no acts by the Galaw-eys
proved to be connected with the crime.
In People v. Manero, however, the SC ruled that even though the accused-
appellants were not present in the actual commission of the crimes, it was
established that they met in an eatery and conspired to liquidate communist
sympathizers; therefore they were still held criminally liable.
NOTES BY:
Q: Supposing, one person desisted from participating in the actual crime and
instead decided to stay inside the get-away car to wait for the others, is he
liable?
YES, he is still liable despite desistance to participate in the actual crime
because he can still assist the others with the escape using the get-away car
Q: Supposing, while committing the crime of robbery, an additional crime was

committed that was not part of the original plan, eg. homicide; can all the
participants be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, even though some
of them performed very minor acts (i.e. look-outs or drivers, etc)?
YES, they can all be held liable for that same crime, because it is not
required that all the participants perform each and every detail in
the commission of the crime; as long as the acts performed are closely
coordinated and that they have the same criminal purpose.
Q: mere presence will one be a co-conspirator?

No
Q: presence to give moral support?

Liable
Acts before separate and distinct concerted action
Implied conspiracy during closeness association, common criminal

design
Coordination, personal
words, after association with each other community
of crimes
remarks
joint criminal objective
Article 9
Q: How do you classify felonies?
According to Penalty
1. Grave Felonies those that the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties that are afflictive based on Article 25 of the RPC
2. Less Grave Felonies those that the law punishes with penalties whose
maximum periods are correctional
3. Light felonies infractions of law that are punishable by arresto menor or

fines
NOTES BY:
Illustration:
Death
Grave felonies Reclusion Perpetua afflictive penalties
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Less grave felonies Arresto Mayor correctional penalties
Suspension
Destierro
Arresto Menor
Light felonies Fines light penalties
Public Censure
The classification in Article 25 of the RPC assumes significance on Article 91 of the

RPC on Prescription:
(i) Prescription of a crime refers to the expiration of a certain period, after

which a person cannot be prosecuted for the crime anymore; contemplates that
there has been no judgment of conviction yet
(ii) Prescription of penalty refers to the expiration of a period of time after

which the penalty imposed by the courts cannot be enforced anymore;
contemplates that there has been a final judgment by the courts
Q: Does classification applies to special laws?

No
Article 10
- provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applied with of violations
of special laws, but if a special law is silent in terms of a penalty for example,
the absence shall be provided by the Revised Penal Code.
But generally:
- for violations of the RPC = what law governs? the Revised Penal Code
- for violations of special law = what law governs? Special penal laws
NOTES BY:
Examples of provisions in the RPC that have suppletory application

pursuant to Article 10 of the RPC
1. Article 100 Civil Liability; there are two sides of crime, the criminal liability and
the civil liability, the former imposes the penalty prescribed for the crime, the
latter is for the payment of damages
2. Article 22 Retroactive Application; the law becomes favorable to the accused

as long as he is not a habitual criminal and is convicted by final judgment
3. Article 17 Principals; are classified into three: (1) by direct participation, (2) by
inducement, (3) by indispensable cooperation
4. Article 45 Forfeiture of instruments or tools used in the commission of the

crime
5. Article 39 Subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay fines
6. Article 8 Conspiracy; in violation of the Human Security Act(RA9372),

Dangerous Drugs Act, sec 26 only (RA9165), Bouncing Checks Law (BP22)
*If the Death Penalty was not abolished, it will also be given suppletory
application
allowed.
Q: Circumstances affecting criminal liability?

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:
(1) Justifying circumstances;
(2) Exempting circumstances;
(3) Mitigating circumstances;
(4) Aggravating circumstances; and
(5) Alternative circumstances.
There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of
the Revised
Penal Code:
(1) Absolutory cause; and
(2) Extenuating circumstances.
In justifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. When an

accused invokes them, he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to
avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability.
What is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.
Article 11
Q: What is a justifying circumstances?
NOTES BY:
Justifying Circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be

in accordance with law so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from criminal and civil liability
Q: Is there civil liability?

Generally no, except in Article 11 (4)
Q: What element of voluntariness is lacking?

Intent; without intent, there is no voluntariness; without voluntariness, there
is no felony; without a felony, there is no criminal liability because there is no
crime
Article 11, par 1 Self-Defense
Q: What are the Elements of Self-defense?

1. Unlawful Aggression on the part of the offended party
2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed by the person
defending
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending
Q: What may be the subject of self-defense?

Person, right, property, honor or home
(i) defense of person there is danger to the life or limb of the person
(ii) defense of rights
(iii) defense of property should be coupled with danger to the person
(iv) defense of honor
Q: Burden of proof in self-defense?

burden lies with the defense
Q: How is self-defense established?

through clear and convincing evidence
Q: Is the accused required to admit having killed the victim?

YES; the accused has to admit having killed the victim before self-defense
can be invoked by the accused
* It is the obligation of the accused to prove self-defense through clear

and convincing evidence; if the evidence is not clear, there will be a
conviction
When all the elements of self-defense are present = the person defending
himself is free from criminal liability and civil liability
When only a majority of the elements are present = privileged mitigating

circumstance, provided there is unlawful aggression
NOTES BY:
When only a majority of the elements are present, there is an incomplete self-
defense, but it is still necessary to have the element of unlawful aggression,
because it is the most important element
Unlawful Aggression
- an indispensable element
- a sudden unprovoked unlawful attack that exposes a persons life or
limb to actual, real, imminent danger; mere threatening, imagined or
speculative danger is not enough
When there is no unlawful aggression, there is no need to defend oneself; when

there is no need to defend oneself, there is no need for a reasonable defensive
act; when there is no need for a reasonable defensive act, there is no need for
reasonable means to prevent or repel something; therefore, without unlawful
aggression, everything else will be erased
Because unlawful aggression produced a danger, there comes a need to eliminate

that danger; that need is a response impelled by self-preservation; the means
used to eliminate the danger should be reasonable and the means needed to be
employed can be determined based on the extent of the unlawful aggression
Q: Supposing, you wrested the knife from a robber. If he is still trying to get back
the knife, there is unlawful aggression, because unlawful aggression is continuing if
the attacker is trying to regain control over the situation
^The first principle in all criminal cases is that: the accused will always be
presumed innocent
In the constitutional provision on presumption of innocence, it can easily be

overthrown by contrary evidence, but it is different in criminal cases
The presumption of innocence principle, of all disputable presumptions, is the

strongest because to overthrow it, the Court requires that the law proves the
guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt
The burden or duty to prove guilt lies with the prosecution or the
government and they should introduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt; the
prosecution should rely on the strength of its own evidence and should not
depend on the evidence of the defense; these principles, however, will change
when the defense invokes, self-defense, defense of a relative, or defense of a
stranger, because the accused must always admit first the fact of killing the
victim, thus the burden is lifted from the prosecution and shifts to the defense
If the evidence for both sides is weak, the accused will be acquitted
NOTES BY:
The prosecutions weakness is cured when the defense invokes, self-defense,

defense of a relative, or defense of a stranger because there is an admission of
the killing
If the evidence of the defense is not clear and convincing, conviction will be
sure, as sure the sun rises at the East
The admission involved is only an admission of facts, backed up by clear and

convincing evidence; it not an admission of guilt, because if so, the Court can stop
the prosecution and render judgment
The Court should put itself in the shoes of the accused during the time when the
accused allegedly defended himself
Q: Supposing, after you wrested the knife from the robber (who is the obvious
aggressor in this case), the robber/aggressor runs away, is there still unlawful
aggression?
NO, when the aggressor flees unlawful aggression no longer exists; and if
you still kill the aggressor in this situation, self-defense cannot be invoked
anymore
Q: Supposing, using the same facts mentioned earlier, but the retreat of the
aggressor was with the purpose to take a more advantageous position or to get a
more effective weapon, to insure the success of his attack, is there still unlawful
aggression?
YES, when the purpose of retreating is to take a more advantageous position
or to do something to insure the success of his attack, unlawful aggression
is continuing, therefore the danger is still continuing; in this case, the
accused or the person defending himself, does not have to wait for the
aggressor to get another weapon
Q: Supposing, there is an agreement to fight or a challenge to fight was accepted, is

there unlawful aggression on one of the parties?
NO, there is no unlawful aggression in agreements to fight because
self-defense cannot invoked since both parties are assailant and assaulted
Q: Supposing, using the same facts above, there is agreement, but one of the
parties attacks the other even before the agreed time arrives, is there unlawful
aggression?
YES, when the attack is made ahead of the time agreed upon, there is
unlawful aggression
Q: Supposing, the aggressor used a toy gun and the person defending himself killed
the aggressor, believing that the gun was real, is he still criminally liable?
NOTES BY:
NO, assuming clear and convincing evidence is provided, and that the
accused believed the weapon/gun to be real, then honest mistake of fact
while in self-defense can be invoke
Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed

- there is a continuing necessity to eliminate the danger
- involves two elements:
1. necessity for the course of action, necessity to eliminate danger
2. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that danger
Both should be reasonable
It is not necessary to have material equality or material commensurability
between the danger and the means employed to prevent or repel that danger
In determining reasonable means, the some facts and circumstances can

be considered as factors, such as:
1. emergency to which the person defending himself has been exposed to
2. presence of imminent danger
3. impelled by the instinct of self-preservation
4. nature of the weapon used by the accused compared to the weapon of the
aggressor
5. size and/or physical character of the aggressor compared to the accused
and other circumstances that can be considered showing disparity between
aggressor and accused
Factors: age, size, location, other circumstances, character or nature of weapon,
physical character, reputation
Q: What is Lack of Sufficient Provocation?

- sufficient provocation should come from the person defending
himself/accused
- sufficient provocation should immediately precede the aggression
- Insulting another or committing oral defamation is considered sufficient
provocation
- a challenge to fight is considered sufficient provocation
Q: When is provocation sufficient?

-proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to
its commission
Q: Who has the duty to prove elements of self-defense?

Accused
Q: What is the effect of claim of self-defenses on burden of the prosecution?

Shifting the burden of proof
Prosecution is relieved of its duty to prove guilt of accused
NOTES BY:
Q: May accused be convicted even if evidence of prosecution is weak?

Yes, if the self-defense not established by clear and convincing evidence
Q: does admission of guilt amounts to confession of guilt?

No. Only an admission of fact
Accused must establish the element which is missing to prove that he is not
guilty
Q: What are the legal effects

Confession of guilt no necessity for trial, except to prove mitigating &
aggravating circumstances
Admission of fact necessity for trial
Q: May there be self defense even without unlawful aggression?

No. UA is the foundation
Q: how about in incomplete self-defense?

No. UA is always an indispensable element of self-defense, whether complete
or incomplete
Through reasonable means
Reasonable (needs to eliminate the danger)

Under instinct of self-preservation
(Life & Limb) There is danger (actual, real, imminent )

not merely imaginary, fanciful, false
Unlawful Aggression,- sudden, unprovoked, illegal attack
Defending Property
Defense of property should be coupled with danger to the person defending

oneself; if there is no danger to the person or the person's life or limb, defense of
property cannot be invoked.
Q: In defending property, when is killing the aggressor justified?

*Necessity of unlawful aggression (upon the person defending his property)
*Must be coupled with an attack on your own person
*Such a case, you are not defending your own property, but your own
person?
Defense of OWN property not OF property
NOTES BY:
Q: Suppose hitting only the lower portion of the body, not killing the aggressor,
defense of property, may be claimed?
YES. As long as not to the extent of killing
^pag napatay mo, dapat may assault on your own person, right to life is
superior to right to property
Q: Supposing, using a knife, someone slashed your bag to get its contents, after
which you were able to wrest the knife from him, and you stabbed him, causing him
to die, can you invoke defense of property?
NO, because there was no imminent danger to your life or limb since you
already have control of the knife
Q: Supposing, you caught some people inside your house in the act of stealing your
household items, assuming you have a gun, can you use the gun and shoot at them
or even kill them?
YES (according to Prof. Amurao, you can even stage the crime scene to your
favor) because if you do not shoot them, they will surely use their weapons
against you and even try to kill you anyway. Its better to hit them first.
(Defense of home, check Reyes)
Q: Supposing, a prostitute disagrees to have sexual intercourse with someone, but

the latter still forces his way with the prostitute with carnal knowledge, tries to rape
her, then the prostitute takes out a knife in her bag and stabs the guy, can she
invoke defense of honor despite being a prostitute?
YES, a prostitute is still entitled to the right of defense of honor and the knife
was a reasonable means used.
Defense of home
Without assault of person, justified? NO.
Q: In defending your car being stolen, fired at the tires, which hit a by-stander,
liable?
No. Justified for all consequences of the act relate to art 4 (par1) not
committing a felony
Q: example of unlawful aggression against honor

-slap on the face
-repelled by revolver, reasonable means? No (no rational equivalence)
*Use of the bolo against an unarmed aggressor?

Depends on the circumstances
Such as the size of the aggressor, built, reputation or accessibility of other
means
Factor of time interval

Must be simultaneous with the attack or with appreciable interval of time
NOTES BY:
Q: what is continuing danger?
Q: what is continuing aggression?
Q: example of defense of honor?
Q: example of agreement to fight?
Q: libel against libel, justified?

Yes.
Q: A and B are long standing enemies. Because of their continuous quarrel over the
boundaries of their adjoining properties, when A saw B one afternoon, he
approached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. When he was
about five feet away from B, B pulled out a revolver and shot A on the chest,killing
him. Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed, if any?
The act of A is nothing but a provocation. It cannot be characterized as an

unlawful aggression because in criminal law, an unlawful aggression is an attack or
a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life and limb of the
one resorting to self-defense. In the facts of the problem given above, what was said
was that A was holding a bolo. That bolo does not produce any real or imminent
danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. As long as that arm of A was down
holding the bolo, there is no imminent danger to the life or limb of B. Therefore, the
act of B in shooting A is no justified.
Article 11(2) Defense of Relatives
Q: Who are the relatives contemplated?(in the following order)

- spouse
- ascendants
- descendants
- brothers or sisters (legitimate, natural or adopted)
- relatives by affinity in the same degrees (mentioned above)
- relatives by consanguinity within the fourth (4 th) civil degree
applies the same concept of unlawful aggression and reasonable

necessity of means employed, as contemplated in Art. 11(1) on self-
defense

Spouse should be the legitimate husband or wife
common law marriages are not included; the common law spouse is considered
a stranger
NOTES BY:
Who can determine being legitimate? the Court; the validity, legality, illegality of
the parties cannot be determined by themselves
Q: Supposing a husband defends a common law wife by killing an attacker, can he

invoke defense of relative?
NO, but he may invoke defense of a stranger
Q: Supposing a husband defends a second wife by killing an attacker; considering

that the marriage between him and his first wife is not null and void, thus making
his second marriage bigamous, can he still invoke defense of relative?
YES, the presumption is that all marriages are legal and valid. Even in the
absence of a judicial declaration of nullity (JDN) of the first marriage, the
second marriage is considered valid, thus defense of relative can be invoked.
Q: Supposing the husband and his first wife are on legal separation, then he defends
her from an attacker, can he invoke defense of relative?
YES, because there is no JDN to say that their marriage is null and void.
Q: Supposing, husband and wife successfully annuls their marriage and they have
secured a JDN on the grounds of psychological incapacity, then incidentally, he
defends her from an attacker, can he invoke defense of relative?
NO, because there is no marriage anymore between them; the JDN, once it is
approved by the RTC and is final and executory, it will have an effect wherein
as if no marriage existed between the defender and the one defended;
therefore, what can be invoked is defense of a stranger.
Q: Supposing husband and wife has a pending case for annulment due to
psychological incapacity of one of the parties, then incidentally, he defends her
from an attacker, can he invoke defense of relative?
YES, because there is no JDN that has nullified the marriage
Ascendants includes parents, grandparents, great grandparents, even great(4x)

grandparents
Descendants includes children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, even
great(4x) grandchildren
What do ascendants and descendants have in common? They are blood
relatives
Q: Supposing, a great, great, great, great grandfather is attacked and is defended

by his illegitimate grandchild, can the grandchild invoke defense of relative?
YES, because the no distinction in the Revised Penal Code whether the
descendant should be legitimate or illegitimate; when the law does not
distinguish, the courts cannot distinguish
Q: Supposing, a father defends his adopted daughter from an attacker, can he

invoke defense of relative?
NOTES BY:
NO, defense of relative cannot be invoked because the law does not
contemplate adopted children as descendants and also does not contemplate
adoptive parents as ascendants, to qualify as relatives contemplated under
Art. 11(2) RPC
Brothers and Sisters or siblings

1. legitimate siblings of the same parents who are married
2. natural siblings, who at the time of their conception with the same
parents, the parents are not married but are not disqualified by any legal
impediment to marry each other; if parents are disqualified to marry by any
impediment, the child is illegitimate
3. adopted there should be a judicial proceeding in court validating the
adoption in order to be considered under defense of relative as
contemplated; an extrajudicial proceeding on the adoption is not enough
Relatives by affinity in same degrees - relatives by marriage

In same degrees applicable to ascendants, descendants, siblings, even
grandparents of ones spouse, i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law,
sister-in-law, etc.
Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth (4th) civil degree
- relatives by blood
Each generation is one degree

Ones parents are in the first (1st) degree
Ones grandparents are in the second(2nd) degree
Ones uncles and aunts are in the third (3rd) degree
Ones first cousins are in the fourth (4th) degree
Illustration:
parent (2nd degree)
(1st degree) (3rd degree)
daughter-in-law-----son daughter-----son-in-law
child child (4th degree)
NOTES BY:
(starting point, eg. this is you)
Requisites for Defense of Relatives

- aside from (1) unlawful aggression and
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the aggression, there is
3rd requisite: if there was provocation arose from the relative being
defended, the person defending should have had no part in that
provocation
Q: Supposing, your brother provoked someone and started a fight, when you came
to his aid, you did not know that it was your brother who started the fight, but when
you saw him, his enemy was on the verge of stabbing your brother, so you shot his
enemy, can you effectively and validly invoke defense of a relative?
YES, because at that very moment the life and limb of your brother was in
actual, imminent and real danger; there was no time for you to investigate
what really happened. The person defending has the right to act on mere
appearance (Amurao)
Q: Suppose man and woman living together without benefit of marriage, can claim
self-defense?
No.
Common law spouse not contemplated
They are entitled to claim defense of stranger
Q: Husband and wife, Ph citizens married in hongkong. After marriage, discovered

they were 1st cousins, solemnizing officer in hongkong not authorized, can they
claim defense of relative?
Yes. Absent a judicial declaration, marriage presumed existing
Q: Suppose the action for judicial declaration is pending, can they claim defense of
relative?
Yes. There is no judicial declaration yet.
Q: suppose the lower court issued a decision?

Not anymore. As if no marriage. Can claim defense of stranger
Q: suppose what was filed was legal separation, and there is a decree of legal
separation, can claim defense of relative?
Yes. Legal separation doe not terminate marriage.
Q: who are the descendants covered?
Q: A killed a person to defend the honor of B, and illegitimate, defense of relative?

Yes. The law does not distinguish
NOTES BY:
Q: Who are the other relatives covered?
Q: half blood brothers and sisters?

Yes
Q: Adoptive father defended the adopted daughter?

No. (not contemplated by law)
Q: stepbrother killed accused to defend life and honor of a stepsister?
Yes. Relationship by affinity (brother or sister by reason of marriage)
Q: relative by consanguinity, up to what extent?

4th degree
Q: last element in defense of relative?
Defense of stranger
What are the elements?
Give an example
Who are strangers?

- Anyone not enumerated and those not contemplated under Article 11(2)
Requisites:
- same concept of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the aggression; aside from those two there is a 3rd
requisite: the person defending should not be induced by revenge, resentment,
or other evil motive
Article 11(4) Avoidance of greater evil or injury
- Requisites:
1. the evil actually exists
2. the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. there be no other practical and less harmful means of prevention
The damage to another contemplated are: (Reyes)
-injury to persons
- damage to property
Ones own life is more important than anyone else (Amurao)
The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of
the person who committed the offense
Q: criminal liability? No
Q: Civil liability? Yes, should be borne by the persons benefited

Example : Sinking ship -- jettison
NOTES BY:
Article 11(5) Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right or Office

- Requisites:
1. that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the 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 lawful exercise of such right
or office
The fulfillment of duty must be done carefully, with due performance; no

carelessness, no negligence/imprudence, no abuse
The exercise of public office was committed with negligence and abuse of
authority = are not applicable, the exercise must be lawful!
Q: Supposing, a raiding team tasked to confiscate drugs broke the class cabinets in
search of the drugs, was there abuse of authority? YES, because due performance
of duty should have been employed
Q: Can this be invoked if there was negligence?

No.
Q: if there is abuse of authority?

No
Q: Prison guards escorting prisoners on the way to the court, one prisoner escaped,
despite warning shots, prisoner still ran away, guard shot the prisoner at the back
who died, liable?
No
Q: warrant of arrest, NBI to arrest criminal and bring before the RTC of Manila. When
the officers are at the house of the accused, the accused refuse to open the door,
NBI forcibly open and destroyed the doors, liable?
No.
Q: proceeded directly without announcing their authority, liable?

Yes. There is abuse, exceeding authority, did not follow procedure
Q: example of lawful exercise of a right

Doctrine of self help
Article 11(6) Obedience to a lawful order by a superior officer

-Requisites
1. that an order has been issued by a superior
2. that such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. that the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
NOTES BY:
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is
criminally liable
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior if he is
not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)

- refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse (Republic Act 9262: Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children Act)
Battery refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon a woman or child

resulting to the physical, psychological or emotional distress (RA 9262)
Q: Who can verify or confirm whether a woman suffers from Battered Woman
Syndrome?
Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can prove the existence of
Battered Woman Syndrome in a woman
Q: What is the legal effect of the proof of existence of BWS in a woman?

Those found by the courts to be suffering from BWS do not incur criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code (Section
26, Republic Act 9262)
The legal effect of BWS is of the same level with the justifying circumstances in
Art.11 of the RPC, except par. 4.
Even without unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased husband or male
partner, the act of the woman shall still not incur criminal and civil liability
Q: Who are the women who can invoke Battered Woman Syndrome?
- wife - any woman having a sexual relationship with a man
- girlfriend - including dating women, if relationship is intimate
- former wife - common law wife
- former wife whose marriage with her has been annulled by a judicial
declaration of nullity (JDN)
-children
It not necessary that the woman suffering from BWS is still in a relationship with
the man that she killed or harmed.
NOTES BY:
Doctrine of Stand your ground when in the right

- The law does not expect you to run away
- When in the right, defend your right or position, defend yourself
- A total opposite of the old doctrine of retreating to the wall, where the
law expects you to run away and avoid defending yourself
Q: What is the legal effect of BWS?

No criminal liability
No civil liability
Q: May a battered husband claim it as a defense?

No. The law says only woman
Q: What is a dating relationship?
Q: You break up with your gf, she was emotionally & psychologically wrecked, is this
battery?
Yes. (hayden kho case)
Q: Protection Order under RA 9262?

-prevented from living in same community or house with the battered woman
-it must be issued by court or baranggay
Q: Can you file violation of RA 9262 together with parricide or physical injuries?
Yes. RA 9262 without prejudice to the filing of any other civil or criminal
action
Q: woman suffering from BWS, killed husband, liable for parricide?

No. it is not necessary that UA exist
Q: how will court determine BWS?

Certified psychiatrist or psychologist
Article 12
Q: What is an exempting circumstance?
- a circumstance if present during the commission of the crime will free the
accused from criminal liability
- there is a crime, but there is no criminal

- burden of proof to prove the existence of an exempting circumstance: lies
with the defense
NOTES BY:
Q: Distinguish justifying from exempting
Justifying Exempting
- there is neither a crime - there is a crime but there is
nor a criminal no criminal
- the act is justified and the - the act is not justified but the
actor is not criminally liable actor is not criminally liable
- there is no civil liability - there is civil liability except in
except in paragraph 4 paragraphs 4 and 7
Article 12(1) Imbecility and Insanity

- an imbecile or an insane is entitled to be exempted, unless the latter acted
during a lucid interval
Imbecile one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom

of will when committing a crime; exempted in all cases; mentality is comparable to
a child 2-7 years old
Insanity not so exempt because during a lucid interval, the person can act with
intelligence
Q: what is permanent sickness?

Imbecility
Q: Which is not permanent?

Insanity
Q: Insanity before the commission of the crime, legal effect?

Not exempt
During exempt
After not exempt, but proceeding will be suspended
*insanity must be at the time of the commission of the offense unless is
proven to subsist until commission
Q: What is the test for the degree of insanity for it to count as an exempting
circumstance?
The tests of the degree of insanity are the existence of:
1. complete deprivation of intelligence
2. total deprivation of freedom of will
NOTES BY:
Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities are not enough
Q: Supposing, a man suddenly just stabs another person, he then began to run
away because he knew he committed a crime, then as the authorities tried to catch
him, as they got closer to him, he ran even faster, can he invoke insanity as an
exempting circumstance?
NO, the fact that he was running away was an indication that he was not
deprived of intelligence because he knew he did, and by running faster to
avoid the authorities was an indication of not being totally deprived of his
freedom of will because of his intention to escape
Q: Who has the Burden to prove insanity:

lies with the defense, (According to Reyes, through circumstantial evidence
if clear and convincing)
Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act or
at the very moment of execution
Q: Supposing, the offender becomes insane only after the commission of the crime
or during trial, can he still invoke the exempting circumstance of insanity?
NO, because what is counted and considered in determining whether there
was insanity, is the time preceding the act or the moment of execution
Feeblemindedness not exempting because s/he can still distinguish right from
wrong; not equivalent to insanity
Somnambulism or sleepwalking must be clearly proven to be considered an
exempting circumstance under this Article; acts of the sleepwalker should not be
voluntary
Malignant malaria can cause insanity, therefore, can be considered as an
exempting circumstance under this Article
Basis for exemption complete absence of intelligence
Temporary Insanity yes, exempting
Article 12(2 & 3) Minority (repealed by Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act)
RA 9344, Section 6 a child 15 years of age or below at the time of the

commission of the crime shall be exempt from criminal liability but will undergo
an intervention program; a child above 15 years of age or below 18 years of
age shall be exempt and be subjected to an intervention program unless s/he
acted with discernment in which case such child will be subject to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act
NOTES BY:
Children falling under this Act are referred to as a child in conflict with the law;
normally minor offenders are referred to as the accused, juvenile delinquent,
prisoner, respondent, etc. but it is contemplated that these terms refer to persons
who have committed crimes; RA 9344 prohibits the use of these terms to refer to
minor offenders, only the abovementioned term can be used
For a child in conflict with the law there is a presumption of the absence or
lack of intelligence
Offenders are free from criminal liability but are still civilly liable
The legal effect of the exemption: the child shall be given to the custody of the
parent or guardian; in their absence, the custody is given to the following,
according to their order of availability:
(a) registered non-governmental organization
(b) registered religious organization
(c) member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC)
(d) local office of the Dept. of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
(e) national office of the Dept. of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
Another effect is that the minor is subjected to an intervention or

diversion program which involves: seminars and classes on family and
mediation, skills improvement, emotional management, etc.; other diversion
programs are for reformation and rehabilitation, in which the public prosecutor
usually initiates the recommendation for the minor to be subjected under the
program
Q: What is a child at risk?
General Rule for minors above 15 or below 18 years of age: exempted, because
the presumption is that they acted without intelligence
Exception: the minor acted with discernment
How is discernment determined? (Reyes)

(1) manner of committing the crime
(2) conduct of the offender
Discernment can also be determined by the words uttered by the minor

attendant to the commission of the act, eg. the words, Buti nga sayo!, which
indicates an expression of accomplishment, victory or satisfaction
When the case has been decided by the court
If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall immediately take effect without
suspension, and the decision shall be promulgated and pronounced
NOTES BY:
What is the significance of promulgation?

- it is full of significance; the decision is read in open court
- immediately after the reading the judgment of acquittal becomes immediately

final and executory, which cannot be subject for any motion of reconsideration,
hence the decision cannot be either reversed or modified
If the judgment is conviction, the promulgation of the decision and the sentence
shall be suspended by the court; the minor shall be ordered to undergo
intervention, which shall have the following effects:
(a) If after the intervention, there is reform on the part of the minor, the minor
shall be returned to the court to dismiss the criminal case and dismiss the
charges against the minor
(b) If after the intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be returned to
the court for the promulgation of the decision against the minor; then, the court
shall either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention
Only when there is refusal to be subjected to reformation or when there is failure

to reform can the child be subjected to criminal prosecution and the judicial
system
Other effects of Republic Act 9344

(i) decriminalizes the sniffing of rugby by a minor
(ii) decriminalizes the violation of a minor of the Anti-Mendicancy Law, which

prohibits begging or beggars
(iii) decriminalizes vagrancy and prostitution, punished under the RPC, when
committed by a minor 15 years old or below; the minor will not be criminally
liable
(iv) criminal records of minors above 15 or below 18 years of age are kept
confidential in order to protect the honor and reputation of the minor
(v) exempts minors from the offense of refusing to acknowledge the fact that s/he
had been involved or convicted in a criminal case before
(vi) minors can deny under oath their criminal involvement or conviction; cannot
be charged with perjury or falsification or misrepresentation, for concealing the
criminal involvement or conviction; purpose: to give the minor a new lease in
life and to prevent the stigma of conviction which extends in a long-term basis,
i.e. in looking for job or protecting the families reputation
NOTES BY:
(vii) retroactive application of RA 9344 on persons who were convicted and are
currently serving time for crimes they committed when they were minors above
9 or below 15 years of age when they committed the offense, because minors
who acted with discernment under this age bracket, were not exempted from
criminal liability before under the RPC, but has already been repealed by RA
9344; their criminal liability is erased therefore they shall be released
Q: Supposing, a 10-year old, who is apparently very intelligent, commits a crime,

will he be exempted from criminal liability considering the high level of intelligence
of the child?
YES, he is still exempted; what is important is the age of the child at the time
of the commission of the crime; it doesnt matter whether the child was
extremely intelligent
Status Offenses (under RA 9344) refers to offenses which discriminate only

against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for committing similar
acts; these shall include curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience and the
like
Status offenses when committed by a minor are punishable, but are not
punishable anymore under RA 9344
Status offenses when committed by an adult are not punishable
The Dangers of Republic Act 9344 (Amurao)

- can be abused or taken advantage of by crime syndicates that use minors
as instruments for the commission of crimes
- The effect of the liberal exemptions of RA 9344 what will happen to the
victims if the offenders, who are minors, will be exempted all the time?
Victims will take the Filipino way = taking the law into their own hands
With reference to RA 9344, the Philippines is not yet ready for that kind of law.
(Amurao)
Basis for the exemption of a minor: absence or lack of intelligence
Article 12(4) - Accident

- Elements:
1. a person is performing a lawful act
2. the act is done with due care
3. causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. injury was done without fault or intention of causing it
Q: What is an Accident?
Q: What are the Requisites?
NOTES BY:
Q: What are the Legal Effects of Accident?

No civil liability
No criminal liability
Examples of exceptions
Q: Driver with an expired license? NOT exempt
Q:Not registered 1 year delinquent? NOT exempt- not lawful act
With defective breaks, w/n Speed limits proper lane?

Not exempt-fault or negligence
Tires of car already worn out? Not exempt

In tiptop condition, brand new tires? Not exempt
Of 7 passengers in the car- overloading
Right lane empty, overtook the car? Not exempt

Left lane is for overtaking
Overtaking on the left lane, hit a child who suddenly crossed the road? Yes, exempt.
Absolutory cause (Art.247)

Par.1 not exempt from criminal liability. There is a penalty-destierro. It is still an
unlawful act.
If all the elements are present, the legal effect is that the accused shall incur
no criminal liability and no civil liability
If not all the elements are present, Article 67 of the RPC will apply and the
penalty prescribed is arresto mayor to prision mayor for grave felonies
There is negligence when = the accused tried to overtake another vehicle on the
right side of the road because this is a violation of traffic laws
Speeding along the road is an example of an act done without due care
Basis for exemption absence of intent
Article 12(5) Compulsion of Irresistible Force

-Elements:
1. compulsion to commit the crime is by means of physical force or violence
2. physical force or violence is irresistible
3. the physical force or violence must come from a 3 rd person
Presupposes that a person is compelled by means of force or violence
NOTES BY:
Irresistible Force degree of force which is external or physical force which

reduces the person to a mere instrument and the acts produced are done without
his will and against his will (Amurao)
Basis for exemption absence of freedom
Article 12(6) Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear

- Requisites: (Reyes)
1. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least
equal to that which he is required to commit
2. that it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
man would have succumbed to it
Presupposes intimidation or threat, not force or violence
- Elements:
1. the existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. the fear must real and imminent
3. the fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed
All the elements must concur
Basis for exemption - absence of freedom
Q: What element of voluntariness is absent?

Intent, Freedom
Q; Par.6 Distinguish 6 and 5.

Nature of threat greater or equal?
Difference between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear:

Irresistible Force involves the use of violence or physical force to compel
Uncontrollable Fear involves the use of threat or intimidation to compel
Article 12(7) Failure to Perform a Lawful Act Due to Lawful or

Insuperable Cause
- Elements:
1. an act is required by law to be done
2. that a person fails to perform such act
3. that the failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable
cause
Failure to deliver arrested persons to the proper authorities due to problems
regarding distance and transportation is a lawful or insuperable cause
A typhoon causes the failure to perform the lawful act is an insuperable cause
NOTES BY:
Basis for exemption absence of intent
Absolutory Causes those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed
Instigation is an illegal act because the public officer plants the seed of
criminality in the mind of the person or offender (Amurao); the public officer
induces an innocent person to commit the crime which the public officer
conceived (Reyes)
Entrapment is a legal act because the purpose is to capture or trap the
lawbreaker
Buy-bust operations are forms of entrapment, hence they are legal
Arbitrary Detention with warrant

Art. 125 (Warrantless arrest)
Instigation vs. Entrapment- e.g. buy bust operation

Give examples
Private individual both
Effects of criminal liability of:
Instigator-liable as principal by inducement
Instigated- principal by direct participation
Put absolutory as to direct participation
Article 13
Q: what is mitigating circumstance?
- those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free
the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty
Q: What are the Kinds?

Ordinary
Privileged
Par.1 of Art. 13 becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance because of Art.69

(Amurao)
Art.69 makes par.1 of Art.13 a priv. mit. Circumstance.
Classification:
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
NOTES BY:
- offset by a generic aggravating - cannot be offset by a generic
circumstance aggravating circumstance
- penalty lowered to minimum - penalty lowered by degree
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not applied to special penal laws
because the penalties in special penal laws cannot be divided into three periods
Article 13(1) Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances

- is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance, provided, majority of the
elements required to justify or exempt are present
- for the justifying circumstances of self-defense, defense of relative and defense of

stranger = the element of unlawful aggression should always be present
*All elements of JC or EC present exempt or justified

*IE elements but not majority ordinary mit. Circ.
*Majority of the elements are present- priv. mit. Circ.
Provided that in self defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger,
Unlawful aggression is present.
Q: Give an example.
Example of mitigating circumstance of incomplete accident

(see page 259 of book) There was fault.
Q: Woman sleeping in her room. Janitor happened to enter the room to clean. He
accidentally touched the hand of the woman. Believing her honor was in danger,
shot the janitor using a gun under her pillow? (US vs. Apego)
Mit. Circ.- Mistake of fact of the woman.
Priv. Mit. Circ. Of self-defense

(N.B. Unlawful Agression + either of requisites 2 or 3)
Q: 50 meters away- privileged?

No, considering the distance UA not present
Article 13(2) Minority

- covers minors above 15 years but below 18 years of age (16-17 years old),
who acted with discernment
- shall be entitled to the benefits of a privileged mitigating circumstance
Basis for mitigation: diminution of intelligence
NOTES BY:
Bet. 15 or 18 with discernment- mit (reduced by one degree)

Without discernment- exempting
RA 9344 did not amend Art. 68

Refuse to submit Diversion program
Violation of conditions
Not for best interest
Diversion program- commencement of criminal action- if eventually
sentenced to conviction Art. 68 will apply.
Article 13(3) Praeter Intentionem

- offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong
- disproportion of the means employed to execute the crime and the consequences
produced; there should have been an intent at the moment
Basis for mitigation: lack or diminution of intent
Factor to determine existence of praeter intentionem, intent being a state of mind.

1) weapon used
2) nature of injury; number of injury
3) part of the body injured (location of injury)
4) manner of inflicting injury
Treachery - External
Yes. Qualifying aggravating if external in nature can co-exist with praeter
intentionem which is internal. CLEAR?
Q: A intend to injure AMurao hit in the right shoulder Did not submit to medical
treatment. Amurao died.
1st question: Is A liable? Yes, par. 1 Art.4

Was there treachery? Yeshence murder (qualified by treachery)
Because Amurao died, intent to kill is by law conclusive.
Q: People v. Enriquez (Abuse of superior strength)

Intent to threaten only
How would you classify? Ordinary.
Legal effect? Minimum
Except- if cancelled by generic aggaravating circ.
NOTES BY:
Q: Claim par. 3 in violation of special penal laws?

No, intent is immaterial in offenses.
Q: True or false: All mitigating circ. Can be appreciated in special penal laws?
No, penalties not graduated and divisible into min, med, max periods, In
general)
Except: Age
Article 13(4) Presence of Sufficient Provocation or Threat
Q: What are the requisites?

1. provocation must be sufficient
2. must originate from the offended party
3. that the provocation must be immediate to the act or crime committed by
the person who is provoked
Q: What is provocation?
Provocation any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party
capable of exciting, inciting or initiating anyone
Q: When is provocation Sufficient

adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be
proportionate to its gravity
- depends on:
(1) the act constituting the provocation
(2) the social standing of the person provoked
(3) the place and time when the provocation was made
Threats should immediately precede the act
Basis of the mitigation: diminution of intelligence and intent
Q: Elements: (SOI)
Q: Test to determine whether provocation can be considered mitigating. What kind

of provocation?
Sufficient.
Q: When is provocation sufficient?

P. 273
Q: How soon must the crime be committed?

No time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control
-meaning of immediately is not with reference to the lapse of time per se
NOTES BY:
*Relate to RATIO OF THE LAW

But lapse of time to regain self-control
-personal to you (the provocation)
Q: What is the determining factor?

Influence or effect of the provocation
(w/c means that lapse or interval of time is allowed depending on gravity of
offense)
Q: Acts of lasciviousness committed against you (2pm); Borrowed knife (230 pm)
Mitigating under par. 4?
Yes.
Q: Under par. 6?
Yes.
Q: May you consider both together?
No, alternatively arising from the same facts.
Q: Is acts lasciviousness a grave offense?

Yes.
Article 13(5) Immediate Vindication of Relatives/Himself

- Requisites:
1. that a grave offense has been done on the one committing the felony or on his
relatives
2. felony committed in vindication of such grave offense; a lapse of time is
allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense
Difference between PROVOCATION and VINDICATION

Provocation Vindication
- it is made directly only to the person - the grave offense may be
committing the felony committed also against the
offenders relatives
- the cause that brought about the - offended party must have done
provocation need not be a grave a grave offense to offender or
offense his relatives
- it is necessary that the provocation or - vindication of the grave offense
threat immediately precedes the act may be proximate which allows an
without interval of time interval of time
Reason for the difference: vindication concerns the honor of a person
NOTES BY:
To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the ff. are considered:
- social standing of the person
- time when the insult was made
- place where the insult was made
- sometimes, even the age may be considered
Basis for the mitigation: diminution of the conditions of voluntariness
Q: There are 3 mit. Circ. Present. Will you be entitled to the benefits of these MC?
No. Arose only out of 1 fact/ set of facts.
Q: 9:30 mother informed you that your sister was raped. You searched for him with
a revolver. Did not find him. Found him after 3 days.
Passion or obfuscation? No.
Provocation? No.
Vindication? Yes.
Q: What is required in vindication?

Lapse of time
Q: What if after one week, vindication?
Law says immediate
Q: Difference of meaning of immediate in par. 4 and 5?

Yes.
8 months, vindicating?
Q: Chinaman eloped with sweetheart. Parent of sweetheart considered it an offense

against family. Father looked ofr daughter. Found her in the house of the chinaman.
Then father knocked, Chinaman ran and refused to talk with father. Father enraged
shot chinaman.
1) How many mit. Circ.?
Vindication of grave offense
Passion or obfuscation
2) Must grave offense constitute a crime?
No.
Q: Supposing you have a first cousin, girl, so close to you, who was raped by
neighbor. You looked for neighbour and shot him dead.
What mit. Circ? Vindication?
NOTES BY:
No, first cousin not contemplated under vindication (relatives)
Q: Requirements of passion or obfuscation?
Q: Common law husband ask common law wife to return home. Wife refused.
Husband was humiliated by reason of which he stabbed common law wife.
May claim passion or obfuscation? No.
Vindication of grave offense? No, not enumerated by law.
Q: Humiliation, slandered in public, is it a crime?

Yes.
Q: It is a grave offense against you?
Q: What is the crime committed? Slander,
Q: May be committed by a common law wife against a common law husband? Yes.
Q: Presence of P&O, V, and SP- Yes

Q: Can you consider all of these in your favour?
P&O- No, not lawful sentiment; not lawful legitimate relation
SP- Yes
V- Yes
Q: Old man has his own family already but not contented with wife went out every
night . Met an attractive woman in a prostitution house, he convinced woman to
leave the prostitution house and they lived together as husband and wife. Wife left.
After several days, she was found in another prostitution house, convinced
her to to go back. Woman adamant in her refusal. Woman said Ayoko na
sayo, Matanda ka na. Mahina na tuhod mo. Old man was enraged, stabbed
her.
Q: May old man claim P&O?

No. People v. Bello is an exception (p. 290-291)
4,5,6 are interrelated because they can exist in a single act but not necessarily
appreciated separately.
Article 13(6) Passion or Obfuscation

- Elements:
1. the accused acted upon impulse
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or
obfuscation in the accused
NOTES BY:
Reason: these are causes naturally producing in a person powerful

excitement that he loses reason and self-control thereby diminishing
the exercise of willpower
Rule: the passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful
sentiments in order to be mitigating
- Requisites:
1. that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of
mind
2. that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his natural equanimity
Difference between PASSION or OBFUSCATION and IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Passion or Obfuscation Irresistible Force
- a mitigating circumstance - an exempting circumstance
- cannot give rise to irresistible force - requires physical force
because passion or obfuscation has no
physical force
- the passion or obfuscation is in the - must come from a third person
offender himself
- must arise from lawful sentiments - is unlawful
Difference between PASSION or OBFUSCATION and PROVOCATION

Passion or Obfuscation Provocation
- produced by an impulse which may - must come from the injured party
be caused by provocation
- the offense which engenders - must immediately precede the
perturbation of mind need not be commission of the crime
immediate; it is only required that the
influence thereof lasts until the
moment the crime is committed
- the effect is loss of reason and - the effect is also loss of reason
self-control on the part of the and self-control on the part of the
offender offender
Article 13(7) Voluntary Surrender/Voluntary Confession of Guilt
Voluntary Surrender
- Requisites:
1. that the offender had not been actually arrested
2. that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters
agent
3. that the surrender was voluntary
NOTES BY:
Voluntary to be appreciated, voluntary surrender must be spontaneous in

such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because (1) he acknowledged his guilt or
(2) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred
in his search and capture
Intention to surrender without actually surrendering is NOT mitigating
Voluntary Confession of Guilt

- Requisites:
1. that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
2. that the confession of guilt was made in open court that is before the
competent court that is to try the case
3. that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution
Even after arraignment, voluntary confession can still be mitigating, when with the
consent of the public prosecutor, there is an amendment in the information = still
voluntary confession (as was held in the midterms)
Voluntary confession is usually done during arraignment
What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence; judgment can already
be rendered but both sides can still present evidence to prove aggravating or
mitigating circumstances
Arraignment charges are being read to the accused in open court in a language
known to him; if the charges are read in a language not known to him, the
arraignment or plea is void.
It is the duty of courts to read charges in a language known to him
Promulgation physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused

- can be limited to just the dispositive portion (the wherefore clause)
- if there is an acquittal, the decision is final and executory and not appeallable
because of the risk of double jeopardy
- if there is a conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail of legal remedies, if not
availed after, the conviction becomes final and executory
Basis for mitigation: lesser perversity of the offender
Q: How many MC? two

1) Voluntary surrender- Ordinary (not generic)
2) Voluntary confession of guilt
Paragraphs 3 to 10 are all ordinary mitigating
NOTES BY:
Reason for considering voluntary surrender mitigating?

1. Act of repentance and
2 respect for law, and
3. saves time, resources and energy for his search and capture
To whom must VS be done?

Person-in-authority, Define (p.305)
Agent
e.g. of P-I-A
Brgy. Chairman
City Mayor
Judge, Governor
Prosecutor, Congressman
President, Professors, Teachers
Agents
Police officers
Members of AFP
Brgy. Tanods
NBI agents
Sheriffs
Killd neighbor, surrender to Amurao, voluntary surrender? Yes.
Board members of GSIS? Yes.

Of Landbank? Yes.
DBP? Yes.
SSS? Yes.
PAGCOR? Yes.
Q: Supposing accused after killing neighbour just stayed in his house. When police
officers arrived, went with them voluntarily- mit? No.
Voluntary surrender not synonymous with non-flight.
Direct, positive, unequivocal act showing an intention to submit himself voluntarily

either save the govt from the time and expenses or as a sign of acknowledgment of
guilt or repentance (Amurao)
NOTES BY:
Offender on radio that he was #1 suspect in slaying of politician, he came to the

police to clear his name, he has a pending case for rape. Voluntary surrender? No.
Will surrender only if

1) He is given special treatment
2) ref
3) aircon
Voluntary surrender? No.
After committing crime, accused went into hiding. He was found after several
months. Hiding place surrounded by authorities.
He came out saying I surrender. VS?

No ( Internal) Meaning of spontaneous.
Voluntary Confession Par. 10 of Art.14.
A case for homicide filed against accused in Batanes. Upon learning, the accused
hiding in Tawi-tawi surrendered to Brgy. Chairman of Tawi-tawi?
Yes. Place of surrender not significant. It need not be the place where the
case is filed.
Q: Phil. Ambassador to Australia, if accused is in Australia upon learning of the case

filed? Yes.
Q: If surrendered to Australian Prime Minister? No, not a P-I-A or agent under the Phil
laws
Q: On the way to the police precinct, was apprehended? Yes.
Q: Did not offer resistance? No.
Q: Issued warrant, surrendered to Brgy. Tanod? Yes.

Even if warrant is already issued? Yes, as long as not served.
10 months after issuance, surrendered? No. No longer spontaneous.
Surrender to mother-in-law? No.
Q: Requisites of VCG:
NOTES BY:
Competent court- meaning?

Court trying the case
Open court- meaning? Even if doors are closed?
Yes.
Reason behind VCG? Act of repentance, Acknowledgment of guilt
Accused willing to plead guilty with condition

Ref, aircon, computer set? No.
When to plead? Arraignment.
Pre-trial? (There is presentation of witnesses, documents, and gist of testimony)

After inspection of evidence and conclusion, the evidence against him is strong.
Stages
Arraignment
Pre-trial
Trial
ONLY SUBMISSION, NOT PRESENTATION
Prosec presented 1st eyewitness, clear & convicning testimony

After 1st witness, concluding that he would be convicted , withdrew guilty plea.
Mitigating? No.
N.B. NOT prior to termination

Witness only sworn-in, no testimony yet mitigating? Yes.
Amend info to a lesser offense w/o protest willing to plea guilty, mitigating? Yes.
Article 13(8) Deafness and Dumbness

- must restrict the means of action, defense or communication with others
Basis for mitigation: offender does not have complete freedom of action;
diminution of freedom and voluntariness
Bald? No.
Blind? Yes.
Partial blindness? Yes.
Deaf by one ear? Yes.
NOTES BY:
Crippled? Yes.
Toothless? Yes!
When must the physical defect be present? At the time of the commission of the
crime.
ORDINARY MIT.
Legal effects.
Article 13(9) Illness

- the offender has diminished exercise of willpower; loss of willpower may even be
exempting
- deprivation of consciousness
Basis for mitigation: diminution of intelligence and intent
Accused prosecuted for simple theft (shoplifting in a mall)

During trial, it was proved that he was a kleptomaniac. Mitigating? Yes.
If prosecuted for frustrated homicide?

No, not related to the offense committed.
Accused prosecuted for rape. During trial proved to be sex maniac,

Mitigating? Yes.
NO CONTROL OF THEIR OWN WILL AS FAR AS THE OFFENSE IS CONCERNED
Same fact-sex maniac. Prosecuted for Robbery? No.
Article 13(10) Other Analogous Circumstances

Example?
Blind, 60 years old-70 years of age
Restitution- voluntary surrender.
Creditor, debtor.
Running away and refuses to pay.
Victim brought to the hospital for treatment- voluntary surrender.
Giving victim a certain amount for- voluntary confession.
Jealousy. You saw your girlfriend walking hand-in-hand with another man, you
inflicted physical injuries? Passion or obfuscation.
NOTES BY:
Other mit. Circ. In the RPC?

Infanticide or abortion to conceal disgrace or dishonor.
Adultery- there is abandonment by the offended party. (Unjustified)
Article 14
Q: What are aggravating circumstances?
- those if present, are not automatically offset by mitigating circumstances
- may increase the penalty provided by the law without exceeding the maximum
penalty or it changes the nature of the crime
- Classification:
1. Generic those that generally apply to all crimes, eg. Recidivism, Aid of Minors,
Advantage taken by Public Position, etc
2. Specific those that apply to particular crimes, eg. Ignominy, Treachery
3. Qualifying Those that change the nature of the crime, eg. Treachery, Evident
Premeditation, Cruelty, etc.
4. Inherent necessity accompanies the commission of the crime, eg. sex is

inherent in crimes against chastity
Difference between Generic and Qualifying

GENERIC QUALIFYING
- can be offset by an ordinary - cannot be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
- the legal effect is to increase - it changes the nature of the crime
the penalty to the maximum - give the crime its proper and exclusive
without exceeding the limit name
Both qualifying and generic circumstances must be alleged in the information;

the prosecution cant prove an aggravating circumstance during trial (p.326 #3 in
the comparison part in the Reyes book is wrong)
Article 14(1) Advantage Taken of Public Position

- a generic aggravating circumstance
NOTES BY:
- based on Republic Act 7659, in crimes committed by a public officer, the penalty
prescribed by law is always at the maximum, regardless of the mitigating
circumstances presented and regardless of the nature of these mitigating
circumstances
Public Officer for advantage taken to be appreciated, s/he must use the
influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by
which s/he realizes his purpose.
There should be a deliberate intent to use the influence, prestige or ascendancy
Is it enough that the offender is a public officer? NO, he has to use the influence,
prestige or ascendancy given to him by his office
Supposing, a police officer enters the house then ties up the residents and robs
them, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, a traffic enforcer take over the car of a driver and speeds away, he is
convicted of robbery, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of
public position be appreciated? YES
Supposing some members of the barangay council asked for financial sponsorship
for the education of the community, then the project turned out to be false, can
the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, if these crimes were attendant of negligence, passion or obfuscation,
vindication, or sufficient provocation, can the aggravating circumstance of
advantage taken of public position be appreciated? NO, because these
circumstances are incompatible with advantage taken of public position since
deliberate intent is absent in these instances.
Supposing, a police investigator asked a rape victim to enter a room where he
committed acts of lasciviousness on the rape victim, can the aggravating
circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated? YES
The aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position is NOT

appreciated when the public position is an integral element or inherent in the
offense; In the ff crimes, public position is inherent:
- bribery - malversation of public funds
- indirect bribery - falsification of public documents
- RA 3019 - other crimes against public officers under the RPC
Basis for the aggravation: the greater perversity of (1) personal

circumstances of the offender, and (2) means used to secure commission
of the crime
NOTES BY:
Article 14(2) Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities

- Requisites:
1. the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his official functions
2. the public authority is not the victim of the crime
3. offender knows him to be a public authority
4. his presence has not prevented the offender from committing the crime
Supposing, one Sunday, the mayor just finished mass, he saw two people fighting,
he mediated upon introducing himself, can the aggravating circumstance of
contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated? YES, because regardless
of the day, even if Sunday is not a working day, the official function of the mayor,
in this case to maintain peace and order, does not stop as long as he is within his
jurisdiction
Supposing, using the same facts above, the two people attacked the mayor, can
the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be
appreciated? NO, because the public authority should not be the offended party
Supposing, using the same facts, but the mayor attended the mass in another
town, can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities
be appreciated? NO, because mediating would not be part of his official functions
in that other town.
Supposing, using the same facts above, but the two people did not know that the
one mediating was in fact the mayor, can the aggravating circumstance of
contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated? NO, the offenders have to
know that he is the mayor or a public authority
Q: Supposing mayor of town X attending wedding in town Y. A crime was committed.

Aggravating?
No. Must be within his jurisdiction. Not engaged in official duties.
Article 14(3) Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of the Offended

Party
- there are FOUR circumstances in this paragraph
- rank, age, sex have a common denominator = respect due to offended party
Disregard of rank of the offended party

- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance
- not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness
NOTES BY:
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication or those

with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent
- this can be done to a person in authority or his agent
- there should be deliberate intent to disregard or insult = accompanied with

the difference in rank, and manifested by deliberate acts
- inherent in the crime of direct assault
Supposing, a sergeant was driving a jeep in a careless manner, then he hit a

general, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be appreciated?
NO, there was no deliberate intent to disregard the rank of the general
Supposing, physical injuries were made against Prof. Amurao by his student, can
the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be appreciated? YES, because
Prof. Amurao is a person in authority and ranks higher than the student.
Supposing, a sergeant sees his wife embracing a general, then he ran over them,
can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be appreciated? NO,
because this circumstance was attendant of passion or obfuscation
Disregard of age of the offended party

circumstance

- for this circumstance to be appreciated, the disparity of age between offender and
victim can be determined if the victim can be the father of the accused; a disparity
of 15 years or more
- tender age = for children; old age = for old people
Supposing, the offender was 90 years old when he stabbed the 105-year old
victim, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age be appreciated?
YES, even if the offender was also very old, the disparity of their ages still
matters
Disregard of sex of the offended party

circumstance
NOTES BY:

- the victim contemplated in this paragraph should be a woman
- the offender should act with deliberate intent to disrespect the woman
- disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery
- dwelling may mean temporary dwelling
Dwelling
- a place or structure that satisfies the requirements of domestic life of a person

circumstance
- there no provocation on the part of the offended party
- all the ingredients of the crime should be done in the dwelling
- if the offender and offended are both occupants of the same house, dwelling
cannot be appreciated
Supposing, the crime was committed in the garage of the house, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the garage is
part of the dwelling
Supposing the crime was done in the roof? YES
Supposing, a child was kidnapped while at the stairs of the dwelling, there
was no ransom but the child was killed in Cavite, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the stairs is still part of
the dwelling
Supposing, a husband kills his wife in their conjugal dwelling, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the housemaid killed the employers child, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the accused was on the road when he shot the victim who was at
the stairs, can dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, if the victim was in the yard going to the direction of the stairs,
can the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the victim was about to step on the stairs? can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the employer raped their maid, can the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling be appreciated? NO
NOTES BY:
Supposing, the houseboy killed the housemaid, can the aggravating

circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the wife killed her husband in the conjugal house, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing the wife commits adultery, can the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the owner of the house and the dwelling of the victim, where the
victim was a tenant, can the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be
appreciated? YES, because dwelling may mean temporary dwelling
Supposing, the owner was killed in the toilet, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the toilet is part of the
dwelling
Supposing, the owner of the house was killed 500 meters from the toilet
which was situated outside the house, can the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling be appreciated? NO, because if you destroy the toilet, the house remains
intact
Basis of the aggravation: Place of the commission of the crime; the sanctity of
privacy that the law provides the human abode
Q: How many ACs? 4
1.) Rank
2.) Sex
3.) Age
4.) Dwelling
Q: Rank and abuse of public functions can co-exist?

Yes
w/ SP? No, incompatible
w/ P/O? No
Q: Is it enough that the offended oarty be of higher rank?

No. Deliberate intent and with disregard
- Same with age
- Same with sex (not enough that offended party is a woman)
Q: Disregard of rank. Felony committed with negligence?

No. Deliberate intent and negligence are incompatible
- With P/O? No.
- Provocation? No
- Vindication? Yes
NOTES BY:
Q: General has illicit relations with a wife of a Sergeant. Sergeant saw them in tight
embrace, shoots the General. Aggravating?
No. with passion and obfuscation (p/o)
Vindication of grave offense with disregard of rank? Yes they are not
inconsistent.
Age
Q: Accidental meeting between offender and offended?

No. must have deliberate intent
Q: Spur of the moment?
No. same reason. Applies also to Rank
By accident? No.
Rank is a generic
Q: what is the Legal effect?

Not offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. Raises the penalty to the
maximum
- Can be offset by mit circumstance
Q: When there are 2 or more generic agg, not offset by ordinary mit, can the
penalty go beyond the max prescribed by law? No.
When there are 10? No.
Must not exceed the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
What is the required age difference? 15 years at least (could be the father)
Legal effect? Not offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. Raises the
penalty to the maximum
- Can be offset by mit circumstance
When there are 2 or more generic agg, not offset by ordinary mit, can the penalty
go beyond the max prescribed by law? No.
When there are 10? No.
Must not exceed the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
What is the required age difference? 15 years at least (could be the father)
Age is generic
NOTES BY:
95- offended; 90- offender age aggravating? No.
Old man humiliated you in public. You stabbed him. Aggravating? No. Sufficient
provocation is incompatible.
You attacked a 60 yo man who filed a criminal case against you. Aggravating? Yes.
No passion or obfuscationg.
-Passion or obfuscation must arise from unlawful action.
You stabbed an old man who aimed a revolver at you. Not aggravating. No sufficient
provocation.
Age is generic
95- offended; 90- offender age aggravating? No.
Old man humiliated you in public. You stabbed him. Aggravating? No. Sufficient
provocation is incompatible.
You attacked a 60 yo man who filed a criminal case against you. Aggravating? Yes.
No passion or obfuscationg.
-Passion or obfuscation must arise from unlawful action.
You stabbed an old man who aimed a revolver at you. Not aggravating. No sufficient
provocation.
Sex
Q: Considered in rape as aggravating?

No. inherent
Generic
Can be appreciated in crimes against person? Yes but not in rape (inherent)
Accused intended to kill husband.Saw husband and wife walking. Fired at the
husband but hit the wife. Not aggravating. No deliberate intent.
Why is sex aggravating? Wemen belong to the weaker sex.
If the woman is a black belter? No longer aggravating. Reason for law dont exist
anymore.
Rank, Age, Sex and Dwelling common element? RESPECT (deliberate disregard of
the respect)
NOTES BY:
Dwelling
What is dwelling? (*Lloyd used the definition in the book. MALI)
Generic
Comfor room a dwelling? No.
Dwelling a place of structure which satisfies the requirements of domestic life of a

person
Is it enough that the crime be committed in the dwelling? No. deliberate disregard
of the respect due to the offended party in the dwelling.
- Incomapatible with negligence

- Incompatible with p/o
- Incompatible with sufficient provocation
-Vindication can co-exist with dwelling? Yes. They are not incompatible.
Accused shot the victim while on the roof. Dwelling is aggravating
Accused was in the middle of the road. Victim was brushing his teeth by the window
of the house. Dwelling is aggravating, regardless of the location of the offender
Accused under the house of victim. Victim on the upper portion. Aggravating? Yes.
- Carport? Yes
- Comfort room of house? Yes
- If the CR is 500 meters from the house? No. no longer an integral part of the
house.
Victim inside car. Car is in carport? Yes.
Son of owner of house, raped housemaid. Not aggravating. Must not be living in the
same house.
-Maid only reports from 6 am to 9 pm. Then goes home to family. No.
Family driver reports from 6am to 8pm. Employer was out, driver raped thestay-in
housemaid. This is aggravating.
Siblings brother killed brother? No.
Husband killed paramour in conjugal room. Aggravating against the husband? No
NOTES BY:
Wife had sex with a stranger in the conjugal room. Aggravating against wife? Yes.
See page 354. Exception to the rule that dwelling is not aggravating if both is living
inside.
If the owner is the offender? No, as a general rule
- Exception: lease temporary dwelling
Article 14(4) Abuse of Confidence/Obvious Ungratefulness

- this paragraph contemplates TWO aggravating circumstances
Abuse of Confidence exists only when the offended party has trusted the
offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime. The abuse of
confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime. The
culprit taking advantage of the offended partys belief that the former would not
abuse said confidence
circumstance; can be raised to the maximum
There are instances where abuse of confidence is qualifying:

- qualified theft - qualified rape
- qualified seduction
Requisites:
1. offender had trusted the offended
2. offender abused such trust with the commission of the crime
3. abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
There should be direct relationship and trust

Confidence must be immediate and personal
Abuse of Confidence is inherent in the ff:
- malversation - qualified theft
- estafa - qualified seduction
Supposing, lovers broke off 1 week before their encounter, can the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence be appreciated? NO
Supposing, a nanny killed 2 yr.old child under her care, can the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence be appreciated? NO, because there is no
direct relationship and trust between the nanny and child
Supposing, the nanny killed the mother of that child under her care, can the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence be appreciated? YES, because
NOTES BY:
there is direct relationship and trust between the nanny and the parents of the
child
Ungratefulness must be obvious, manifest and clear

circumstance; can be raised to the maximum
- applicable to domestic servants, katiwalas, security guards
- not applicable to if offender and offended both live in the same house
Basis for aggravation: greater perversity of the ways and means employed
Abuse of confidence in estafa? Inherent.
Obvious ungratefulness
Employer attempted against the honor of housemaid. After several day, employer
invited housemaid to farm. Raped housemaid. No.
Abuse of confidence? Confidence broken.
Article 14(5) Palace and Places of Commission of Offense

- this paragraph contemplates FOUR aggravating circumstances
- offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he entered the place
- all the four circumstances are not applicable to cases attendant of passion or
obfuscation, immediate vindication or those with sufficient provocation = because
of the lack of intent
- not applicable to cases involving spurs of the moment or chance meetings
Wisdom behind this circumstance: Why aggravate? Whats with the place?
Because the place deserves respect (applies to all the places mentioned under
this paragraph)
Crime committed in the Palace of the Chief Executive
circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
- Is it necessary that the Chief Executive be there? NO
- the palace contemplated here is the Malacanang Palace
NOTES BY:
Supposing, the chef of the Chief Executive killed a janitor, can the
aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be appreciated? YES,
the Chief Executive need not be there
Supposing, a guest shot to death FG Mike Arroyo, can the aggravating
circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be appreciated? YES
Supposing, using the same facts above, the crime was committed in the lawn,
can the aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be
appreciated? NO, because the lawn is not part of the palace
Supposing, using the same facts above, the crime was committed in the
presidential mansion, can the aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief
Executive be appreciated? NO, because the mansion is not the palace
Crime committed in the Presence of the Chief Executive

- requires the personal presence of the Chief Executive
- Is it necessary that the crime be committed in the Presidential palace? NO
Supposing, the president personally saw the crime, can the aggravating
circumstance of in the presence of the Chief Executive be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the president, while watching television, saw the crime? can the
aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be appreciated? NO
Supposing, on-board a helicopter, the Chief Executive saw the crime from
a distance, can the aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, the offender had no knowledge that the Chief Executive was
present or near the place of the commission of the crime, can the aggravating
circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be appreciated? NO
Crime committed in the Place where Public Authorities are in the

Discharge of their Duties
- emphasizes the place of the commission of the crime
- the public authority must be in the exercise or performance of ones official
function
Crime committed in a Place Dedicated for Religious Worship

- emphasizes the respect that should be afforded to the place
NOTES BY:
Supposing, there was no ceremony in the church when the crime was
committed, can the aggravating circumstance of place dedicated for religious
worship be appreciated? YES
Supposing, there was no priest in the church, can the aggravating
circumstance of place dedicated for religious worship be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the crime was committed in a chapel inside a cemetery (the
chapel is used only when there are masses to be held for purposes of
funeral services), can the aggravating circumstance of place dedicated for
religious worship be appreciated? NO, the place of religious worship should hold
religious ceremonies there regularly
Basis for aggravation: greater perversity shown by the place of the commission
of the crime, which must be respected
Generic
Emphasis of par 5? PLACE of the commission of the crime. (respect due to the
place)
Pres Noynoy in Times St. Crime committed in Malacanang grounds. (garden). No,
must be in palace itself, not garden.
If the convoy was caught in heavy traffic. Accused knew it was the presidents
convoy. Committed holdup in the streets. Aggravating? Yes
Incompatible with negligence, p/o and sp.
President noynoy in helicopter hovering over the projects. Two workers had a fight.
One stabbed another to death within view of president noynoy. Aggravating? Yes.
Place devoted for religious worship.
Generic.
Is it enough that the crime be committed in a place decoted to religious worship?

No. deliberate intent.
Accused rape victim while praying in San Beda Abbey? Yes
If in a private chapel in your house? No. 1.) regular worship. Regular religious
worship. 2.) must be open to the public.
Chapels in cemeteries? No.
NOTES BY:
Public authorities are engaged in the performance generice
Not necessary that the PA must be engaged in the performance of functions. Why?
Emphasis is in the place. Reason is the respect due to the place.
Chief justice asleep in his house. The Office of Chief Justice was robbed.
Aggravating? Yes
Office of Senate Pres while SP was sleeping in his house in the middle of the night?
Yes
BOOK IS WRONG. It will collide with par 2 if it will be required that the PA should be
in the exercise of his functions.
Article 14(6) Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or Band

- this paragraph contemplates THREE aggravating circumstances
- all the three circumstances are not applicable to cases attendant of passion or
obfuscation or those with sufficient provocation
Applicable in cases where:

1. the circumstance facilitated the commission of the crime
2. the circumstance was especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
- to commit the crime with more ease
- contemplates a planned attack; not a mere encounter
3. the offender took advantage of the circumstance for the purpose of
impunity
- to prevent being recognized or to secure himself against detection
Nighttime
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- nighttime means: beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn
- it is not enough that it was nighttime
- what is especially sought for by the offender is the darkness of the night
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental
meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment
Supposing, the crime was committed inside a dark movie house at around
4pm, can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be appreciated? NO,
because was should be especially sought for is the darkness of night, not the
darkness of the movie house when the lights were only off because it was only 4
in the afternoon
NOTES BY:
Supposing, the crime was committed inside a movie house when the lights
were still open and the time then was 9pm, can the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime be appreciated? NO, because even though it was
nighttime, the place of the commission was well-lighted when it was committed
Supposing, the crime was committed in a place where it was well-lighted by
a Meralco lightpost, can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be
appreciated? NO
Uninhabited Place
- there should be intent
Spur of the moment Not applicable
What is considered is the reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some
help; the degree of difficulty of giving assistance or help
Solitude (must be sought for to better attain criminal purpose)
- for an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal design
- to insure concealment of the offense; security against detection and punishment
Band
- more than three malefactors
- shall have acted together
What do you mean by armed? only guns? NO, knives are considered; anything
that can kill a person
Aggravating in crimes against property and crimes against persons; NOT
applicable in crimes against chastity
Basis for aggravation: time & place of the commission & means employed
How many AC? 3
Nighttime generic (with jurisprudence)

Nighttime as absorbed in treachery qualifies homicide to murder
What is nighttime? P. 365
8pm. Met in the classroom. Stabbed amurao. Aggravating? No. classroom is well
lighted.
Incompatible with: accidental meeting, negligence, p/o, s/p, spur of the moment.
Started the crime at 5pm (sunset) finishes at 11 pm aggravating? No. unset not
dark yet.
Started at 3 am 530 pm sunrise? No.
NOTES BY:
Deliberate intent.
If the crime was finished only at nighttime not aggravating
Moviehouse. Lights off? No.
Announcement of total eclipse causing total darkness from 3pm to 5 pm. You plan to
kill your neighbor when the eclipse set in. not aggravating
\killed during full moon.no clouds covered the moon. NO
- Nighttime to be aggravating, the accused must have sought the darkness of
the night.
In crimes against person may be an indicia of treachery.
Uninhabited place
Generic
Legal effect?
Why aggravating? No possibility of receiving help (TEST)
Deliberate intent
Incompatible with negligence, sp, p/o, chance encounter, spur of the moment,
Can treachery absorb this ac? Yes.
By Band
Generic
Absorbed by treachery? Yes
Synonymous with syndicate? No
- 2 or more
- Not necessarily armed
5 persons commirtted robbery, only 3 armed. Bya band? No. at least 4 armed.
Article 14(7) On occasion of calamity or misfortune

- that the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune

- there should be deliberate intent to take advantage

- this circumstance is not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or

carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with sufficient

provocation
NOTES BY:
Reason: in the midst of great calamity, instead lending aid to the afflicted, the
offender adds to the victims suffering by taking advantage of their advantage of
their misfortune to despoil
The offender must seek for the calamity as an opportunity to take advantage
or to commit the crime
Supposing, the offender saw his mortal enemy in a flood, then he killed his mortal
enemy, can the aggravating circumstance of be appreciated? NO
Basis for aggravation: time of the commission of the crime
PARAGRAPH 7
- Qualifying
- Legal effect
- Deliberate intent must take advantage of the calamity
Incompatible with negligence
Conflagration
Retrieving your property. Accidentally met your mortal enemy. Stabbed him. Not
aggravating
Incompatible with: p/o, spur of the moment, sp
Conflagration - A stranger took your properties, what is the crime. Qualified theft.
Article 14(8) Aid or Armed Men, etc.

- that the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men or, (2) persons who
insure or afford impunity
Armed Men
- at least two (2) men; the law says men; four (4) men = band already

Rule: Casual presence of armed men is NOT aggravating

The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in the crime
The offender must avail of the aid
Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is sufficient
Actual aid is NOT necessary
Persons who insure or afford impunity
NOTES BY:

- these persons should have or be in a position to afford impunity
Is a judge a person who can afford impunity? YES

Is an employee a person who can afford impunity? NO
Is a secretary a person who can afford impunity? NO
Is a mistress a person who can afford impunity? NO
Basis for aggravation: means and ways of committing the crime
PARAGRAPH 8
How many? 2
1.) Aid of armed men

2.) Aid of persons who afford impunity
Classification> qualifying
Legal effect?
Requirements:
1.) Took part

2.) Availed or relied
Armed men distinguished from band:
2 4
Direct or indirect directly took part
What kind of aid is contemplated?
Moral or psychological will suffice; material
A and 4 friends decided to kill Amurao. 4 friends all armed outside the gate. A
armed with licensed revolver. 4 friends will only help upon signal. Aggravating? Yes.
Casual presence of armed men already aggravating? No
Police major celebrating bday. Invited subordinates with service firearms. A guest
stabbed another guest No
Impunity
NOTES BY:
Qualifying
Legal effect?
e.g. first gentleman approchaed to protect you after killing somebody Yes
Chieftain of ABB-NPA (notorious). Aggravating? Yes. Impunity for Criminal

Prosecution. Assurance that there will be no complainant and witnesses Yes. not
required to be legal source.
Mistress of mayor to afford impunity yes
Article 14(9) Recidivism

Recidivist one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of the RPC
Requisites:
1. that the offender is on trial for an offense
2. that he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. that both the first and the second offense are embraced in the same title of the
RPC
4. that the offender is convicted of the new offense
Supposing, the first offense was acts of lasciviousness in 1980, then the second
offense in 2006 was attempted rape, can the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism be appreciated? NO, because acts of lasciviousness and attempted
rape are not embraced in the same title of the RPC; acts of lasciviousness-crimes
against chastity; attempted rape-crimes against persons
Supposing the first offense in 1980 was attempted rape, then the second offense
in 2006 was acts of lasciviousness, can the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism be appreciated? YES because attempted rape then in 1980 was
embraced under crimes against chastity, hence both crimes are embraced in the
same title of the RPC
Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist
The time or period between the two offenses is immaterial
Basis for aggravation: inclination to crimes
- Qualifying
- Legal effect
NOTES BY:
- Deliberate intent must take advantage of the calamity

Incompatible with negligence
Conflagration
Retrieving your property. Accidentally met your mortal enemy. Stabbed him. Not
aggravating
Incompatible with: p/o, spur of the moment, sp
Conflagration - A stranger took your properties, what is the crime. Qualified theft.
Recidivist define
Violation of special penal laws - No, must be in the RPC
Simple theft convict pending appeal
Violation of anti fencing law No
Qualified theft pending appeal
Accomplice in attempted robbery no, final judgment
Before 8353 attempted rape served sentence
Slight physical injuries NO- not embraced
Public interest in the same title of RPC
Falsification of commercial documents
Estafa
- Poperty
1970-2010: not embraced in the same title.
Article 14(10) Reiteracion or Habituality

- that the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty

Requisites:
1. that the accused is on trial for an offense
NOTES BY:
2. that he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty than that for the new offense
3. that he is convicted of the new offense
Difference between Recidivism and Reiteracion
RECIDIVISM REITERACION
- its enough that a final judgment - its necessary that the offender shall
has been rendered for the 1st offense have served out his sentence for
the 1st offense
- requires that both offenses be - 1st and 2nd offense must not be
embraced in the same title of the RPC embraced in same title of the RPC
- always taken into consideration in - not always an aggravating
terms of the penalty to be imposed circumstance
- previous crimes must be of equal
or greater in penalty (at least one)
or at least two lighter penalties
If the 2nd crime is an offense or crime punishable under a special law, it

cannot be considered under reiteracion because Articles 13, 14, 15 of the RPC
are not applicable to special law crimes, applicable only to crimes defined under
the Revised Penal Code.
Supposing, the 1st offense is illegal possession of firearms (a special law crime),
punishable by reclusion temporal, while the 2 nd offense is less serious physical
injuries, can the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion be appreciated? YES, if
the offender was previously punished for a special law crime or an offense, the
nature of the crime is immaterial; the emphasis is on the punishment or penalty
Four Forms of Repetition

1. Recidivism 3. Habitual Delinquency/Multi-recidivism
2. Reiteracion or Habituality 4. Quasi-recidivism
NOTES BY:
Habitual Delinquency when a person within a period of 10 years from the date
of release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, found guilty for a 3 rd time or oftener.
A habitual delinquent shall suffer an additional penalty
Quasi-recidivism any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law for the new penalty.
Basis for aggravation: inclination to crimes
Reiteraciion and recidivism distinguish
Murder pardon. Aggravating? Yes. Pardon does not obliterate.
Attempted homicide 6 years probation
Frustrated murder No.
Serious physical injuries 4 years, pobation
Less serious no
Classification generic
Legal effect?
Attempted homicide not alleged but proved during trial appreciate habituality?
Yes, generic if without objection
- Distinguish from habitual delinquency nature of offense 10 years required

- Habituality generic
- Both must be alleged in the information
Article 14(11) Price, Reward or Promise

The price, reward or promise must be the sole motivating factor for committing
the crime; must be for the purpose of inducing another to perform a deed
NOTES BY:
There should be two or more offenders: the one who offers, the one who accepts
it
Criminal Participation: the one who offers is a principal by inducement, the
one who accepts is a principal by direct participation
It is not necessary that the principal by direct participation receive the reward or
promise; what is important is that the reward or promise was the sole motivating
factor otherwise the crime would not have been committed
Supposing, the one who commits the crime knows of the reward or promise
already, can the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise be
appreciated? NO, because there was no motivation already
Basis for aggravation: greater perversity by the motivating power itself
Price, reward or promise
- At least 2 or more offenders

- Must be the sole mitigating power without which there would be no crime
- Qualifyinf legal effects
Giving reward principal by inducement
Acceptor direct participation
Necessary that accused actually received? NO
You approached a gun-for-hire. Paid 50k to kill Amurao. Gun for hire was his former
student willing to kill Amurao without price. Aggravating? No.
Article 14(12) By means of inundation, fire, etc.

- that the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding, of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or
by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin

There are instances when these circumstances are inherent in the crime, thus
cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances:
1. by means of fire- inherent in arson
2. by means of derailment of locomotive inherent in damage to means of

communication
3. by means of explosion- without intent to kill, inherent in destruction to property
NOTES BY:
Difference of Par.7 and Par.12

Par.7 = on occasion of calamity or misfortune; not within offenders control
Par.12 = the acts of great waste and ruin are used by the offender as means
Basis for aggravation: means and ways employed
Article 14(13) Evident Premeditation



carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with

sufficient provocation
Evident Premeditation the essence of such is that the execution of the

criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution
to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment
Requisites:
1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination;
through an overt act
3. the date & time when the crime was committed (to compute lapse of time)
4. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to

allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience
to overcome the resolution of his will
Is the aggravating circumstance of Evident Premeditation compatible with the

mitigating circumstance Immediate Vindication of a Relative for a Grave Offense?
YES, the mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance can be
appreciated.
Can evident premeditation be present in error in personae? NO
NOTES BY:
Can evident premeditation be present in aberratio ictus? NO

Supposing, you intended to kill Prof. Amurao, thinking it was him, you shot at the
person, who turned out to be Dean Jara, can the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation be appreciated? NO, because there should be deliberate
intent to kill Dean Jara
General rule: In aberratio ictus, evident premeditation is NOT applicable
Exception: if there was a general plan to kill anyone; if offenders intended to kill
anyone
Basis for aggravation: reference to the ways of committing the crime because
evident premeditation implies deliberate planning of the act before executing it
Elements: 4
Classification qualifying
Legal effects?
Incompatible with negligence, spur of the moment, accidental meeting, p/o, sp
Vindication of grave offense? Yes
Error in personae
-general rule: No
Except: if there is a general plan
Accused has a specific victim but willing to kill a person who interfered. Yes
Abberatio ictus: No
Article 14(14) Craft, Fraud, Disguise

- that (1) craft, (2) fraud, (3) disguise be employed
- this paragraph contemplates THREE aggravating circumstances

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of accused

Supposing, the accused pretended to be a customer, then he robbed the
place, can the aggravating circumstance of craft be appreciated? YES
Supposing the accused pretended to be a person in authority, for example
posing as Meralco officials, then they commit a crime, can the aggravating
circumstance of craft be appreciated? YES
NOTES BY:
Fraud insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim

Fraudulent machinations and grave abuse of authority will be absorbed in the
crime of rape
Fraud is inherent in the crime of estafa
Disguise resorting to any device to conceal identity

Examples:
- wearing a mask - use of an assumed name
- wearing a uniform of a police officer
Q: Craft definition
It is Qualifying-legal effects
Example: A, B, C in order to kill D, told the latter they are going on camping, killed D
in the forest
Fraud
Qualifying- legal effects
Estafa-legal effect of fraud
It is inherent in the commission of estafa inherent in Art. 213
Disguise
When is there disguise?
Qualifying-legal effect
Example: Several members of Bonnet Gang committed robbery in the highway

Basis of aggravation: means employed
Article 14(15) Abuse of Superior Strength/Means to Weaken Defense

- that (1) advantage be taken of superior strength or (2) means be employed to
weaken the defense

- there should be deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength
Abuse of Superior Strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the
parties; it is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously
NOTES BY:
advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in

the commission of the crime
If the victim was alternately attacked, there is NO abuse of superior strength
Means to Weaken the Defense
Supposing, the offender intoxicated the victim to materially weaken her,
can the aggravating circumstance of means to weaken defense be appreciated?
YES
Article 14(16) Treachery (Alevosia)
- a specific aggravating circumstance: only applicable to crimes against

persons; can treachery be appreciated in rape? YES


meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment, or on-the-spot decisions to
commit the crime

carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with

sufficient provocation
Treachery
When is there treachery
Qualifying and specific- crimes against person
Qualifying-change the nature of the crime
Incompatible with negligence, sufficient provocation, passion or obfuscation
Can co-exist with voluntary confession of guilt? Yes. With voluntary surrender? Yes.
They are not inconsistent with
BUT IS IT STILL ACCURATE THAT THIS QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

CANNOT BE OFFSET BY ANY MITIGATING CIRC? Yes. Different functions. One is to
change the nature of the felony. (AGG) Other is to reduce penalty by one period
after the offense is qualified (MIT)
Does a privileged mit. Circ. Offset a qualifying aggravating? NO.
NOTES BY:
-Function of qualifying agg. Circ. Is to change the nature of the offense for which the
accused stands to be prosecuted.
-Role of privilege mitigating circ. Is to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees as
the case may be from the proper penalty imposed on the offense as qualified.
Can co-exist with vindication for a grave offense? Yes.
Kill neighbor
W/o treachery- Homicide (reclusion temporal)
w/ treachery- Murder (reclusion perpetua to death)

with 1 mit circ. (RP in medium, RP in minimum)
with 1 priv. mit circ. RT (one degree lower from RT)
Treachery can be appreciated in RAPE? Yes, crime against persons.

In a prosecution for rape, by treachery and abuse of superior strength or craft,
fraud, disguise- absorbed in treachery
In prosecution for MURDER qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. Can

EP be appreciated so as to increase penalty in maximum? NO. absorbed in
treachery.
Same with inundation, fire, poison, explosion, price, reward or promise.

Aid of armed men, persons who afford impunity, nighttime, calamities or
misfortune.
ALL QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRC. Enumerated in People vs. Palaganas can be

absorbed by treachery.
Supposing you killed your neighbor with evident premeditation and employed
means to weaken defense and used disguise and took advantage of deep flood.
How many qualifying? 4
Assuming there was treachery, how many? 5
Is it necessary for the court to consider all 5 to change the nature of the felony? No.
Treachery will suffice.
Now, what will happen to the other 4 aggravating circ? Deemed absorbed in
treachery. They can no longer be appreciated to impose penalty in the maximum.
TESTS in TREACHERY.
1. Is the attack sudden and unexpected?
NOTES BY:
2. Was the victim given an opportunity for defense?

3. Was the means employed deliberate and consciously adopted? (3 rd test is the
most important.)
Incompatible with casual encounter- even if 1 and 2 were present, if 3 is lacking,

there is no treachery.
Incompatible with accidental meeting- spur of the moment.
Incompatibel if killing was preceded by a heated argument. (place the victim on
guard to be prepared for any attack)
Entering carpark, vacant lot

Another vehicle hurrying towards the slot. You got in first. There was a heated
argument. He warned you, Babalikan kita. After two minutes shot you. Was there
treachery? None.
If killing was preceded by threat, treachery? No.

Lacking question no. 2.
When attack consists of 2 or more stages

Aggression is interrupted- fatal blow-there was treachery
Continuing-treachery must be present at the inception
Example of #1 (see green notebook)
A saw his enemy B

w/o any warning from behind, inflicted stab wounds.
B was able to avoid. Open fight followed, B fled.
A immediatelt behind, stabbed B. B died. Was there treachery? None. Treachery was
not consciously adopted at the inception and the aggression being continuing.
Example of #2. People v. Canete, US vs. Baluyot
A sa B in a bar. A challenged his enemy B in a fight. They fought inside the bar. A hit
B in the back by pipe, B died. What crime? Homicide only. Chance encounter, not
treachery.
Accused found to be intoxicated under influence of drugs? MURDER. Influence of

illegal drugs qualifies crime from homicide to murder. (RA 9165 Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
NOTES BY:
Supposing victim warned not to enter a certain area while walking along the road,
somebody stabbed him from behind, treachery? YES. General warning is not enough
to remove treachery.
Is the aggravating circumstance of Treachery compatible with the mitigating

circumstance Immediate Vindication of a Relative for a Grave Offense? YES,
because there was intent to take revenge
Rules regarding Treachery

1. applicable only to crimes against persons
2. means, methods, or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime; only to

insure execution
3. the mode of attack must be consciously adopted
Requisites
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or

form of attack employed by him
What is important to determine are the following:

- the victims ability to defend himself
- the mode of attack was consciously adopted
Important questions to answer:

1. Was the attack sudden and unexpected?
2. Did the offended have any opportunity to defend himself?
3. Was the mode the attack deliberately or consciously adopted by the accused to
insure execution without risk to the offender?
If the answer to all these questions is YES; then treachery is present
Summary of the rules:

1. When the aggression is a single and continuous act, it must be present right
at the inception or present in the beginning of the assault
NOTES BY:
2. When the assault is not continuous, or the attack is divisible into two or
more stages, or interrupted, it is sufficient that treachery was present at
the time of the mortal blow was inflicted.
Supposing, there was a heated argument between the offender and the
offended before they attacked each other, can the aggravating circumstance of
treachery be appreciated? NO, either or both parties should have been prepared
Supposing, there was a warning from the offender, then after a few minutes
he attacked the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? NO, because there was a chance to defend himself and pose a
risk to the offender
Supposing, your enemy was sleeping, you tapped him, then you shot him as
soon as he awakened, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, the victims hands and feet were tied, then mortal wounds
were inflicted on the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, the offender buried half of the victims body, then he hacked the
victim to death, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated?
YES
Supposing, the accused shot the victim who was tied to a coconut tree, can the
aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated? YES
Supposing, there was a dispute over a parking space, then the accused shot
the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the victim suffered frontal mortal wounds, immediately, can the
aggravating circumstance of treachery not be appreciated? NO, because having
frontal wounds is NOT conclusive that there was no treachery
Supposing, the victim suffered mortal wounds at the back, immediately, can
the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated? NO
Note: The location of the wounds does not give rise to the presumption of the
presence of treachery
Supposing, the victim hid behind a drum where he could not be seen by the
offender, the offender, knowing that the victim was hiding behind the drum shot
at the drum; the bullet penetrated the drum and hit the victim which
caused his death, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? YES, because the victim was not in a position to defend
himself
Supposing, there was an agreement to fight
NOTES BY:
Treachery cannot be presumed; must be proved by clear and convincing

evidence
In treachery, it is not necessary that the person intended to be killed was not
the one actually killed
According to Prof. Amurao, treachery is a politician and a buwaya, because it
takes everything; because treachery absorbs all other aggravating
circumstances
Additional notes from Prof. Amurao:

- If the offender was under the influence of drugs in the crime of murder or
homicide, this can be considered a qualifying aggravating circumstance, even in
the absence of treachery (pursuant to RA 9165)
- the use of an unlicensed firearm = a special aggravating circumstance for the

crime of murder or homicide; before it was separately prosecuted, but now
unlawful possession is only a special aggravating circumstance that can increase
the penalty to the maximum; no separate prosecution
Article 14(17) Ignominy

- that means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act

Ignominy a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and
obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave
coercion and murder
Effect of ignominy: the crime becomes more humiliating or to put the offended
party to shame
Supposing, a woman was raped in the presence of her husband and

children, can the aggravating circumstance of ignominy be appreciated? YES
Supposing, a woman was raped while cogon grass was wrapped around the
penis of the offender, can the aggravating circumstance of ignominy be
appreciated? Prof. Amurao thinks that this scenario falls under the aggravating
circumstance of cruelty
NOTES BY:
Basis for aggravation: means employed
IGNOMINY
Art, 18 and 19- PD 532, accomplices in PD 532
Art. 19 accessories- Anti-fencing law PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice)
Art. 29 Preventive Imp and crediting
Victim all wounds frontal

Treachery cannot be appreciated? No. Mere presence of frontal wound is not
conclusive that no treachery was employed neither will presence of back wounds be
conclusive that treachery was present.
Absent any proof as to how wound was inflicted.
Victim has just awaken, still drowsy when attacked. Treachery? Yes.
Question Hour: Amurao Speaking.
When there are 2 qualifying, one will suffice to change the nature of the crime.
What will happen to the other qualifying? The other will be considered as generic
aggravating circumstance- penalty to the maximum. (Except treachery, because
treachery will absorb them)
N.B. Other qualifying circ. Not in art 248 (murder) e.g. craft, fraud, or disguise. They
are means of treachery, absorbed in treachery in Art. 248.)
Article 14(18) Unlawful Entry

- that the crime be committed after an unlawful entry

Unlawful Entry an entrance is effected by a way not intended for

Purpose to effect entrance not for escape
Supposing, the window was used to gain entry into the house, can the
aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the owners of the house commonly use the window as their
ordinary means to enter the house, then the accused entered the door, can
the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry be appreciated? YES
NOTES BY:
Unlawful entry is inherent (thus cannot be appreciated as an aggravating

circumstance) in the following crimes:
- robbery with force upon things
- violation of domicile (committed by public persons)
- trespass to dwelling (committed by private individuals)
Article 14(19) Breaking Wall

- that as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door or window
be broken

To effect entrance only

Should be as a means to commit to crime
Supposing, the accused intended to kill his next-door neighbor by breaking

the wall separating them, then he shot the neighbor, can the aggravating
circumstance of breaking wall be appreciated? YES
Breaking wall is inherent in robbery with force upon things
Article 14(20) Aid of Minor or by Means of Motor Vehicles

- that the crimes be committed (1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age or
(2) by means of motor vehicles, airships or other similar means
Aid of Minor
circumstance
- involves the taking advantage of the childs immaturity or innocence
Use of Motor Vehicles

NOTES BY:
- the offender should deliberately seek for the use of the vehicle
- the use of the motor vehicle must be the means used to commit the crime
- should facilitate the commission of the crime
Supposing, the accused robbed a house then found a car in front of the
house which he used for his escape, can the aggravating circumstance of use of
motor vehicle be appreciated? NO, because the crime was already accomplished
Supposing, the accused robbed the passengers in a bus, can the aggravating
circumstance of use of motor vehicle be appreciated? YES, even if it is a public
vehicle, the circumstance can be appreciated
Supposing, a taxicab was hired, then an argument ensued inside where
the accused killed the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of use of
motor vehicle be appreciated? NO, because the motor vehicle was just incidental
to the crime
Are motorized bikes considered? YES
What if it is a motorized bike but the motor is not used? YES
Are road-rollers or pison considered? NO, because it is not motorized as
contemplated by the LTO
Use of motor vehicles is inherent in the crime of carnapping
Article 14(21) Cruelty

- that the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission

Cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly
and gradually, causing the victim unnecessary physical pain in the consummation
of the criminal act
Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing another wrong
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the
offender
Is there cruelty when it is done against a dead body? NO, because it did not
prolong pain since the person was already dead
Is there cruelty when it is done against an unconscious person? YES
NOTES BY:
Supposing, a dead person was found with 125 stab wounds, can the
aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle be appreciated? NO, because
the number of wounds is immaterial with cruelty
Ignominy moral suffering

Cruelty physical suffering prolonged
Cruelty cannot be presumed
Basis for aggravation: ways employed
Article 15
- those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending
its commission
The following are alternative circumstances:

1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of Instruction and Education of the Offender
Article 15(1) Relationship

- considered when the offended party is the:
a. spouse
b. ascendant
c. descendant
d. legitimate, natural, adopted sibling
e. relative by affinity
Q: Supposing, a stepdaughter was raped by her stepfather, can the alternative

circumstance of relationship be appreciated? YES
Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property (RUFA):

1. robbery 3. fraudulent insolvency
2. usurpation 4. arson
Relationship is exempting in crimes of theft, swindling, or malicious

mischief if the offender and offended live together
NOTES BY:
Relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons when the offended is

a relative of higher degree than the offender or when the offender and
offended are parties of the same level
If the offended is a relative of lower degree, in the crime of less serious and
slight physical injuries, relationship is mitigating
If the offended is a relative of higher degree, in the same crimes, relationship
is aggravating
When the crime is homicide or murder, which resulted to the death of the
victim, relationship is aggravating, regardless of degree.
In crimes against chastity, relationship is ALWAYS aggravating
Article 15(2) - Intoxication

a. mitigating when:
- the drinking is not habitual; or accidental
- if the intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a crime
Reason for mitigation: exercise of will power is impaired

b. aggravating when:
- if habitual
- if intoxication is intentional (fully knowing its effects as a stimulant) or

subsequent to the plan to commit the crime
Reason for aggravation: bolstered courage to commit the crime (intentional);

lessens resistance to evil thoughts (habitual)
Article 15(3) Instruction or Education

- what is measured is the degree of intelligence not the formal education
Low degree of instruction/Lack of education mitigating

High degree of instruction; offender avails of intelligence - aggravating
Supposing, the crime was done not in a civilized society, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance YES, it is a
mitigating circumstance
Supposing, the accused killed a person, can the alternative circumstance of low
degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be appreciated? NO, because
killing is inherently wrong
Supposing, the accused committed the crime of treason, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
NOTES BY:
appreciated? NO, because love for country is a natural feeling that requires no
degree of instruction
Supposing, accused committed crimes against chastity, can the alternative
appreciated? NO
Supposing, accused committed crimes against chastity, can the alternative
appreciated? NO
Supposing, accused committed the crime of murder, can the alternative
appreciated? NO
Supposing, a lawyer committed the crime of estafa, can the alternative

circumstance of high degree of instruction as an aggravating circumstance be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, a doctor prepared a special poison to kill the victim, can the
alternative circumstance of high degree of instruction as an aggravating
circumstance be appreciated? YES
Article 16
ARTICLE 16 WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
-the following are criminally liable for grave and less grave offenses:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories
- the following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals 2. Accomplices
Accessories are not liable for light felonies because the social wrong is so
small
Rules on light felonies
1. punishable only when consummated
2. when committed against persons or property and punishable in the attempted or
frustrated
3. only principals and accomplices are liable
4. accessories are not liable even in crimes against persons or property
Only natural persons can be active subjects of a crime contemplated under

Article 16 of the RPC
Reasons:
NOTES BY:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, persons act with personal malice or negligence;
artificial/judicial persons cant act with malice or negligence
2. A juridical person like a corporation cant commit a crime that requires willful
purpose or malicious intent
3. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty for pecuniary penalties in insolvency

cases
4. Other penalties like destierro and imprisonment = executed on individuals only
Article 17
ARTICLE 17 PRINCIPALS
- the following are considered principals:
1. those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
(By Direct Participation)
2. those who directly force or induce others to commit it (By Inducement)
3. those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished
(By Indispensable Cooperation)
Article 17(1) Principals by Direct Participation (PDP)

- Requisites:
1. they participated in the criminal resolution
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end
In multiple rape, all the rapists are equally liable, regardless of degree of
participation
Without the 2nd requisite, there is only conspiracy = thus there is no criminal
liability
Article 17(2) Principals by Inducement (PI)

Principals by Inducement are ONLY liable when the Principal by Direct
Participation committed the act induced
Two ways of becoming principal by induction
1. by directly forcing another to commit a crime
2. by directly inducing another to commit a crime
NOTES BY:
By directly forcing another to commit a crime (no conspiracy involved)

1. by using irresistible force
2. by causing uncontrollable fear
By directly inducing another to commit a crime
1. by giving price or offering reward or promise = collective criminal responsibility
2. by using words of command
Requisites for the Principal by Inducement

1. that the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime
2. that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the
crime
Inducement may be by acts of command, advice, or through influence or
agreement for consideration; the words of advice or influence must actually move
the hands of the principal by direct participation
The inducement must be the determining cause for the commission of the
crime by the principal by direct participation, that is without such inducement the
crime would not have been committed
The inducement must precede the act and must be so influential
If there is a price or reward involved, w/o prior promise = no inducement
By using words of command
- the words must be the moving cause of the offense
1. that the one uttering the words of command must have the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime
2. that the one who made the command must have an ascendancy or influence
over the person who acted
3. that the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount
to physical or moral coercion
Efficacious it would seem or it was furnished that the material executor or

principal by direct participation had reason to believe or was made to believe that
the deceased did something wrong
4. the words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime;
when the words were uttered after the commencement of the crime = no
inducement
5. the material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime
Difference bet. Principal by Inducement & Offender by Proposal

PRIN. BY INDUCEMENT OFFENDER BY PROPOSAL
- inducement to commit the crime - inducement to commit the crime
NOTES BY:
- liable only when crime is committed - mere proposal to commit is

by the principal by direct participation punishable in treason & rebellion;
person proposed to shouldnt
commit the crime
- inducement involves any crime - applies in treason & rebellion only
Article 17(3) - Principal by Indispensable Cooperation (PIC)

- those who cooperate in the commission of the crime by another act without which
it would not have been accomplished
Cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing, but that common will or
purpose does not necessarily mean previous understanding for it can be explained
or inferred from the circumstances of each case
Requisites:
1. participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy
or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of
the crime charged
2. cooperation in the commission of the crime by performing another act, without

which it would not have been accomplished
First requisite
- requires participation in the criminal resolution
- there must be conspiracy
- concurrence is sufficient
- cooperation indispensable
Second requisite
- cooperation MUST be indispensable
- if dispensable, accused is only an accomplice
Collective Criminal Responsibility (CCR) when the offenders are criminally

liable in the same manner and to the same extent; penalty is the same for all:
a. Principals by Direct Participation CCR
b. Principals by Inducement CCR with Principals by Direct Participation,

except those who directly forced another to commit a crime
c. Principals by Indispensable Cooperation CCR with Principals by Direct

Participation
Individual Criminal Responsibility (ICR) in the absence of previous

conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
NOTES BY:
commission of the crime or community of criminal design, the criminal

responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person
is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for the
act committed by him
Article 18
ARTICLE 18 - ACCOMPLICES
- Accomplices are persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts
Quasi-Collective Criminal Responsibility some of the offenders in the crime

are principals; others are accomplices
Participation-proved by positive &competent evidence; cant be presumed
Accomplices have - no previous agreement

- no understanding with the Principal by
- not in conspiracy Direct Participation
Difference between an Accomplice and a Conspirator

ACCOMPLICES CONSPIRATORS
- they know & agree with the - they know & agree with the
criminal design criminal design
- they come to know about the - they know the criminal intention
criminal design after the conspirators because they have decided upon
have decided on it the course of action
- only concurs to the commission of - they decide to commit the crime
the crime; they do not decide; they
merely assent to it and cooperate
NOTES BY:
- mere instruments performing acts - they are the authors of the crime
NOT essential to the perpetration of
the crime
Requisites for an accomplice:

1. that there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose
2. that he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous

acts with the intention of supplying the material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way
3. that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice
Rules on Accomplices:
1. the one who had the original criminal design is the person who committed the
resulting crime (there should be a principal by direct participation)
2. an accomplice cooperates only with previous or simultaneous acts
3. an accomplice does not inflict more or most serious wounds
Moral aid may be through advice, encouragement or agreement

Examples of previous acts
- lending of a weapon, knowing of the purpose
- furnishing a drug or sleeping drug, knowing the purpose is for rape
Examples of simultaneous acts
- disarming the victim while the principal is attacking
- preventing the victims from receiving help
- acted as a look-out, without conspiracy
- supplying material or moral aid
- distracting the victim
Article 19
ARTICLE 19 - ACCESSORIES
- Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
NOTES BY:
1. by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the

crime
2. by concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments

thereof, in order to prevent its discovery
3. by harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime,

provided the accessory acts with of his public functions or whenever the author of
the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of
the Chief Executive or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime
Accessories do not participate; they do not cooperate

Accessories must have knowledge of the commission of the crime, then takes part
subsequent to the commission, eg. fencing
Knowledge may be acquired after the acquisition of stolen property
Examples of by profiting themselves by the effects of the crime

- received stolen property and used it
- shared in the reward for murder
Examples of assisting the offender by the effects of the crime

- sells the stolen property for the offenders benefit
- runners or couriers for picking-up or getting the ransom money
Examples of by concealing or destroying the body of the crime (or the corpus
delicti)
- assisted in the burial to prevent discovery
- concealing or hiding weapons used in the commission of the crime
- furnishes the means to stage the crime scene
Requisites for Article 19(3):

a. accessory is a public officer b. - accessory is a private person
- harbors, conceals, assists in the - harbors, conceals, assists in the
escape - escape
NOTES BY:
- acts with abuse of his public - crime of principal is treason,
functions parricide, murder, attempt
- crime of principal is any crime against the life of the President,
not a light felony a known habitual criminal
If the principal is acquitted by exemption, accessory may still be convicted

Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not necessary for the accessory
to be held criminally liable
If the principal is at-large or not yet apprehended, the accessory may be
prosecuted and convicted
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Presidential Decree No.1612)

Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or
shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft
Fence includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing
Article 20
ARTICLE 20 ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- those who are exempt are the following:
a. spouses c. descendants e. relatives by affinity w/in same degrees
b. ascendants d. legitimate, natural, adopted siblings
- except those that fall under Article 19(1)
Ground for exemption ties of blood; preservation of the cleanliness of ones

name
Nephew or niece not included
Accessories not exempt if they: - profited by the effects of the crime
- assisted the offender to profit
PENALTIES
Penalty the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law
NOTES BY:
Different juridical conditions of penalty

- productive of suffering - certain
- commensurate with the offense - equal for all
- personal - correctional
- legal
Purpose of punishment: To secure justice

Theories justifying penalty
1. Prevention prevent or suppress the danger to the State
2. Self-defense right to punish; protect society from the threat or wrong
3. Reformation correct and reform the offender
4. Exemplarity punishment for deterrence
5. Justice punishment as an act of retributive justice
Social defense & exemplarity: justifies the imposition of the death penalty
The penalties under the RPC have a 3-fold purpose
1. Retribution or expiation penalty commensurate with the gravity of the crime
2. Correction or reformation shown by rules that regulate execution of penalties

consisting in deprivation of liberty
3. Social defense shown by its inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual

delinquents
Article 21-29
ARTICLE 21 PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED
- No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission
ARTICLE 22 RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS

- Penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony
and is not a habitual criminal
General Rule prospective effect
NOTES BY:
Exception favorable to the accused

Reason for the exception former laws repealed or amended are unjust
Article 22 does not apply to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code; but applies
to (1) penal laws enacted before the RPC, and (2) penal laws enacted subsequent
to the RPC, which are more favorable to the accused
Criminal Liability of repealed laws still subsist when:
1. there is a reenactment of the law
2. when the repeal is by implication
3. when there is a saving clause
ARTICLE 23 PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY

- does not extinguish criminal action except in Article 344 of the RPC; but an
express waiver can extinguish the civil liability for the injured party
A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action, because a
crime committed is a felony or offense committed against the State, eg. estafa -
even the offender pays damages to the injured party, the offender can still be
prosecuted
Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability
Under Article 344, in the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, there shall be no criminal prosecution if the offender is expressly
pardoned by the parents or grandparents or guardian of the offended party. In
the crime of adultery or concubinage, both offenders (the offending spouse and
paramour) must be pardoned by the offended party
Pardon under Article 344 must be made before the institution of criminal
prosecution, unless after the institution of the criminal action, the offender and the
offended decide to get married; This pardon is only a bar to criminal prosecution
ARTICLE 24 MEASURES OF PREVENTION AND SAFETY THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS
PENALTIES
1. Arrest and Temporary Detention 5. Deprivation of Rights with
2. Commitment of a Minor Reparations
3. Suspension from Employment
4. Fines & Other Corrective Measures, administrative or disciplinary in nature
ARTICLE 25 CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES

Principal Penalties
Capital punishment Light penalties
Death Arresto Menor
Fines
NOTES BY:
Afflictive penalties Public Censure
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification Penalties common to the
Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification three preceding classes
Prision Mayor Fine
Bond to keep the peace
Correctional penalties
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro
Accessory Penalties
- Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification
- Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification
- Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or
calling
- Civil interdiction
- Indemnification
- Forfeiture of confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense
- Payment of cost
Classification of penalties according to subject matter

1. Corporal (death)
2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto)
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro)
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension)
NOTES BY:
5. Pecuniary (fine)
ARTICLE 26 FINES (AFFLICTIVE, CORRECTIONAL, LIGHT)

Fines and Bond to keep the Peace are:
1. Afflictive over P6,000.00
2. Correctional P200.00 P6,000.00
3. Light Penalty less than P200.00
ARTICLE 27 DURATION OF PENALTIES

1. Reclusion perpetua 20 yrs. and 1 day to 40 yrs.
2. Reclusion temporal 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs
3. Prision mayor 6 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.
4. Prision correctional, suspension, destierro 6 months and 1 day to 6 yrs.
5. Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
6. Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days
7. Bond to keep the peace the period during which the bond shall be effective is
discretionary on the court
ARTICLE 28 COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES

(reading matter)
ARTICLE 29 PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT

Preventive imprisonment an accused undergoes this when the crime charged
is non-bailable, or even if bailable, he cannot furnish the required bail
The full-time or four-fifths of the time during which offenders have undergone
preventive imprisonment shall be deducted from the penalty imposed
Article 30-35
ARTICLES 30-35 EFFECTS OF PENALTIES

(reading matter)
Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of
the rights parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property
of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property, and of the
right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance
NOTES BY:
Article 36
ARTICLE 36 PARDON; ITS EFFECTS
- shall not restore the right to hold office and the right of suffrage, unless expressly
restored by the terms of the pardon
- shall not exempt the culprit from civil liability
Difference bet. Pardon by the President & Pardon by the Offended

PARDON BY PRESIDENT PARDON BY OFFENDED
- extinguishes criminal liability - does not extinguish criminal
liability, except in Article 344
- cannot include extinction of civil - offended party can waive right
liability to claim civil liability
- should be given only after conviction - should be given before the
institution of the criminal action
- may be extended to any of the - must be extended to both offenders
offenders
Article 37
ARTICLE 37 COSTS
1. Fees
2. Indemnities, in the course of judicial proceedings
Article 38
ARTICLE 38 PECUNIARY LIABILITIES; ORDER OF PAYMENT

1. The reparation of the damage caused
2. Indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine
4. Costs of proceedings
The order of payment is as stated
NOTES BY:
Article 39
ARTICLE 39 SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Subsidiary Penalty a subsidiary personal penalty to be suffered by the convict
who has no property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of one day for each
eight (P8) pesos, subject to the rules provided for in Article 39
Subsidiary penalties should be expressly specified in the conviction because
without it, the accused cannot be compelled to comply with it
Article 40-44
ARTICLES 40-44 ACCESSORY PENALTIES OF ARRESTO
(reading matter)
- Accessory penalties do not have to be specified expressly in the judgment of

conviction
- usually, the specific accessory penalties are not specified, they are said generally
Article 45-47
ARTICLE 45 CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE
- the proceeds of the crime must first be submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts,
and also the tools used; if not submitted, the courts cannot adjudicate on the
proceeds and tools whether they would be disposed in favor of the state
ARTICLE 46 PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON PRINCIPALS IN GENERAL

- the penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed
upon the principals
- the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony
Penalty in general terms shall be imposed:

1. upon the principals
2. for the consummated felony
Exception when the law fixes a penalty for frustrated or attempted felony
ARTICLE 47 WHEN DEATH PENALTY NOT TO BE IMPOSED

1. minors under 18 at the commission of the crime (repealed by RA 9344)
2. persons over 70 years old
NOTES BY:
The Death Penalty should be imposed on cases where the law specifies it
The Death Penalty as of now is deemed to be irrelevant
Article 48
ARTICLE 48 COMPLEX CRIMES
1. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
(compound crimes)
2. When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
(complex crime proper)
There must be at least two crimes

Complex crime = ONLY one crime
Complex crimes are more favorable to the accused because instead of being
convicted of two separate counts of the same crime, it is considered as only one
Compound Crime
- Requisites:
1. that only a single act is performed by the offender
2. that the single act produces (i) 2 or more grave felonies, (ii) one or more grave &
one or more less grave felonies, (iii) 2 or more less grave felonies
The single act should produce a grave felony or a less grave felony or a
combination of both
Light felonies produced by the same single act should be treated and punished as
separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony
Supposing, you shot your neighbor then the bullet hit two children; the
result was your neighbor died, two children slightly injured, the result was 1
grave and 2 light felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate,
because the single act should produce a grave or less grave felony only
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 grave felony and 10 light
felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 less grave felony and several
light felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced a crime punishable by the RPC and
a crime punishable by special law, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate, considered as separate violations
NOTES BY:
Supposing, Prof. Amurao throws a grenade in class, 5 students died, is the crime
complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, using the same facts above, in addition 3 light felonies were
produced, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to automatic and shot
at the students with one single act of pressing the trigger, producing
several injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Separate, because the what is
considered is the no. of bullets discharged (People v. Desierto)
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to not automatic and
fired one bullet aimed at someone but hit 3 others producing serious
physical injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, the act of firing a machine gun produces the crimes of
attempted murder and physical injuries, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate, as held by the Court of Appeals
Supposing, two shots were fired directed against two different persons, is
the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, in a notorious village, a commander ordered all his soldiers to
shoot at the residents, is the crime complex or separate? Complex, the SC
held in People v. Lawas that it was a complex crime because there was a single
offense since there was a single criminal impulse/intent/purpose
Supposing, a person stole the fighting cocks of his neighbor alternately
with three separate, independent acts, is the crime complex or separate?
Complex, as held by the SC in People v. De Leon, the criminal act was done
on the same occasion and the offender was motivated by one criminal
impulse
Supposing, a libelous article was published defaming 5 congressmen
specifically identified by their names, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate, because there are as many crimes of libel as there are persons libeled,
provided that the persons are expressly specified; because each of the 5
congressmen may file for libel
Supposing, using the same facts above except that the congressmen were
not identified, is the crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, in a local publication, news writers wrote that the Herrera
doctors are inefficient, is the crime complex or separate? Complex, because
the identification was in general terms, not specifically identified
Complex Crime Proper

- Requisites:
1. that at least two offenses are committed
2. that one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
3. that both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute
Necessary means not equivalent to indispensable means
NOTES BY:
Supposing, the accused kidnapped a girl with intent to kill, brought the
victim somewhere then killed her, is the crime complex? NO, the crime is only
murder, because the kidnapping was only a means to commit the crime of murder
Supposing, law students made a falsified solicitation letter and collected
money, is the crime complex? YES, the falsification of the private document was
necessary for the crime of estafa
Supposing, a public official committed malversation through falsification
of public documents, is the crime complex? YES, because the falsification was
necessary to commit malversation
Supposing, the accused killed his victim in a building, then committed
arson to conceal the murder, is the crime complex? NO
In the crimes of estafa and falsification, you look at the crime first committed if
it was necessary for the commission of the other; the common element in estafa
and falsification is the intent to cause damage
Supposing, a city treasurer malversed P5million pesos out of taxes then

falsified documents to conceal the malversation, is the crime complex? NO,
the crimes are separate
Supposing, in the crime of rebellion, an NPA commander burned villages
and killed the villagers in furtherance of his acts of rebellion, is the crime
complex? NO, because the acts he committed were absorbed in the crime
of rebellion
Supposing, in the crime of rebellion, the NPA commander killed someone
for personal reasons, is the crime complex? NO, the crimes are separate
In the crimes of treason or rebellion, when common crimes are committed, (1)
in furtherance of or is related to treason or rebellion, the crimes are absorbed,
but (2) for personal reasons or for a private purpose, the crimes are separate
There is no complex crime of rebellion with common crimes
Special Complex Crimes

- Rape with Homicide - Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries
- Robbery with Homicide - Kidnapping with Murder or Homicide
Express provisions in the Revised Penal Code that cannot be complex

- Article 129: search warrant obtained maliciously
- Article 235: maltreatment of prisoners
- Direct Bribery = cannot be complexed
Article 48 is intended to favor the culprit or accused
NOTES BY:
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime,
the same to be applied in its maximum period
Two felonies in a complex crime punishable by imprisonment and fine = only the
imprisonment is imposed
Article 49
ARTICLE 49 PENALTY FOR PRINCIPALS OF CRIME COMMITTED WAS DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT WAS INTENDED
applicable only to mistake in identity
Steps
1. identify lesser penalty
2. whichever penalty is prescribed by law,
3. the lesser penalty is always applied or imposed
Article 50-57
ARTICLES 50-57 DEGREES TO WHICH PENALTIES SHOULD BE LOWERED (reading
matter)
Participants liability lowered by degrees
consumma frustrate attempte

ted d d
Principals 0 1 2
Accomplice 1 2 3
s
Accessorie 2 3 4
s
Article 50 Principals in a frustrated felony

Article 51 Principals in an attempted felony
Article 52 Accomplices in a consummated felony
Article 53 Accessories in a consummated felony
Article 54 Accomplices in a frustrated felony
Article 55 Accessories in a frustrated felony
Article 56 Accomplices in an attempted felony
Article 57 Accessories in an attempted felony
NOTES BY:
Basis for the determination

- under the RPC, penalties can be reduced by degrees
1. stage reached by the crime in its development (consummated, frustrated,

attempted)
2. participation of persons liable (principals, accomplices, accessories)
3. privileged mitigating circumstances
All penalties for each crime in the RPC = generally, shall always be imposed unless
the law itself expressly provides, except Article 60
Degree one whole penalty; one entire penalty or one unit of penalties
enumerated in the graduated scales
Period one of the 3 equal portions (minimum, medium, maximum)
Article 58-60
ARTICLE 58 ADDITIONAL PENALTY UPON ACCESSORIES OF ART.19(3)
- Absolute perpetual disqualification if guilty of a grave felony
- Absolute temporary disqualification if guilty of a less grave felony
Article 19(3) public officers who help the author of the crime by misusing their
office and duties shall suffer the additional penalties
ARTICLE 59 PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
- Arresto mayor, with fine of P200-P500
Basis for imposition:

- social danger
- degree of criminality
ARTICLE 60 EXCEPTIONS TO ARTICLE 50-57

- shall not be applicable to cases in which the law prescribes a penalty for frustrated
and attempted stages or to be imposed on accomplices or accessories
Article 61
ARTICLE 61 RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
NOTES BY:
Divisible Penalties divided into three, so effects of ordinary mitigating

circumstances and generic aggravating circumstances can be applied
Indivisible Penalties eg. reclusion perpetua, public censure, fine
First Rule and Second Rule
Penalty only consists of a degree
The penalty next lower by one degree = penalty immediately following the penalty
prescribed by the law
- single and indivisible = Reclusion perpetua
- penalty next lower in degree = Reclusion temporal
Supposing, accused shot the victim qualified by treachery, but the victim
survived, thus accused was convicted of frustrated murder, the penalty for
murder is reclusion perpetua, but since it was frustrated, the penalty next lower in
degree applies, which is reclusion temporal
Fourth and Fifth Rule

Penalty prescribed by law is 1, 2, or 3, several periods
- If one period lower, go down one period in the graduated scale
- If two periods lower, go down two periods in the graduated scale
- If three periods lower, go down three periods in the graduated scale
Example: Prision Mayor

- Supposing the penalty prescribed by law is prision mayor medium period: is in
itself a degree; RPC all divisible penalties are divided into 3 periods; prision
mayor medium can be divided into maximum, medium, minimum
- Prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years)
12 6 = 6 / 3 = 2
2 = common multiple (add 2 to the periods starting from the minimum)
Minimum 6 years and 1 day to (6+2) 8 years
Medium 8 years and 1 day to (8+2) 10 years Prision mayor
Maximum 10 years and 1 day (10+2) 12 years medium
- Prision mayor medium (8 years and 1 day to 10 years)
10 8 = 2 years / 3 = 8 months
8 months = common multiple (add 8 months)
NOTES BY:
Minimum 8yrs. & 1 day to 8yrs. & 8 months
Medium 8yrs. & 8 months to 9yrs. & 4 months
Maximum 9yrs. & 4 years to 10 years
With the 3 periods of prision mayor medium now determined, the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances attendant can now be applied
Third Rule
- when three penalties are imposed in one (eg. Reclusion temporal Death)
- since Death is not imposed, three periods lowered immediately following
Article 62
ARTICLE 62 - EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
First rule: Aggravating circumstances:

1. should not themselves constitute a crime, eg. by means of fire = arson; by
means derailment of a locomotive = destruction of property
- Is unlawful entry a crime in itself? YES
2. should not be included in defining the crime, eg. by means of poison in the crime
of murder
3. The maximum period shall be imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances if

the offender is a public officer who took advantage by public position
4. The maximum period shall be imposed for members of an organized or

syndicated crime group
Organized or Syndicated Crime Group group of two or more persons

collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain
in the commission of any crime
Second rule
- Aggravating circumstances are not applicable if inherent in the crime, eg. evident
premeditation in robbery or theft; advantage taken by public position in
malversation; sex in crimes against chastity; breaking wall in malicious mischief
Third rule: Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances arising from:
NOTES BY:
1. Moral attributes
Supposing, the victim gave sufficient provocation, which irritated the

accused who called his brother for assistance, then they both killed the
victim, can the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation be appreciated
for both of them? NO, only to the one who was the target of the provocation (the
accused) and not his brother
2. Private relations
Supposing, your neighbor slapped your mom, then you asked your friend
to accompany you to kill your neighbor, can the aggravating circumstance of
immediate vindication of a relative for a grave offense be appreciated for the both
you? NO, only to you because it was your mom who was offended first and not
your friend
3. Personal cause
Supposing, you and your friend entered your neighbors house, not
knowing that your friend is afflicted with kleptomania, can the mitigating
circumstance of illness be appreciated for the both of you? NO, illness can be
appreciated only to your friend
Fourth rule: Aggravating or mitigating circumstances apply in the:

- material execution of the act and in the means employed to accomplish it;
only to those who had knowledge at the time of the execution
1. Material execution
Supposing, Prof. Amurao asked his student to simply kill his classmate,
but the student applied cruelty when he killed his classmate, can the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty be appreciated with Prof. Amurao? NO,
because he had no knowledge of the material execution used.
Supposing, using the same facts above, but Prof. Amurao told his student
to kill his classmate at all costs, can the aggravating circumstance of cruelty
be appreciated with Prof. Amurao? YES
2. Means employed to accomplish
- Principal by direct participation uses poison to commit murder without the

knowledge of the Principal by inducement
Habitual Delinquency
NOTES BY:
Habitual Delinquent a person who, within a period of 10 years from the date of
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, found guilty for a 3 rd time or oftener. A
habitual delinquent shall suffer an additional penalty
Difference between Habitual Delinquent/Recidivist/Reiteracion
Habitual Delinquent Recidivism Reiteracion
Crimes - specified crimes - 2 crimes embraced in - 2 crimes not
the same title of the RPC embraced in the same
title of the RPC
Period - within 10 years - time bet. 2 offenses - has served sentence
is immaterial for the 1st offense
No. of
Crimes - 3rd time or oftener - 2nd time is sufficient - 2nd time is sufficient
Effects - additional penalty - a generic aggravating - not always an
is imposed circumstance; can be aggravating
offset by an ordinary circumstance
mitigating circumstance
Difference bet. Habitual Delinquency & Subsidiary Imprisonment

Habitual Delinquent Subsidiary Imprisonment
- needs to be alleged in the - does not need to be alleged
information
- should be alleged in the - comes only after the sentence of
beginning conviction
- imposes an additional penalty - imposed only when unable to pay fine
- cannot be considered with a - general allegation will suffice
general allegation, must be
NOTES BY:
specifically alleged
Requisites for a Habitual Delinquent:

1. offender has been convicted of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa, or falsification
2. after conviction or after serving sentence again committed within 10 years from
his release or date of first conviction, he was convicted of any of said crimes for
the 2nd time
3. after conviction or after serving sentence for the 2 nd offense again commits and
within 10 years of conviction or release for the 2 nd offense, commits a 3rd time or
oftener
Additional Penalties
1. For the 3rd time = the penalty for the last crime + Prision correctional medium to
maximum
2. For the 4th time = the penalty for the last crime + Prision mayor minimum to
medium
3. For the 5th time or more = the penalty for the last crime + Prision mayor
maximum to Reclusion temporal minimum
Total of last penalty and additional penalty = should not exceed 30 yrs.
If the court overlooked the imposition of an additional penalty for habitual
delinquency = the offender cannot be compelled to suffer the additional
penalty
In the commission of several crimes occurring on or about the same date shall be
considered only as one for purposes of habitual delinquency
In the conviction for those crimes occurring on or about the same date shall also
be considered as one
Article 63
ARTICLE 63 RULES ON INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
1. For single indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua) shall be applied regardless
of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, eg. the crime of rape with homicide,
with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, voluntary confession of
guilt, and illness, the penalty shall still be reclusion perpetua because
circumstances are disregarded
NOTES BY:
2. For two indivisible penalties (sub-paragraphs 1-4 are inapplicable, because there
is no death penalty, therefore theres only one indivisible penalty)
Exception to disregarding circumstances: if it is a privileged mitigating

circumstance (Articles 68 & 69), or if the accused is a minor who acted with
discernment = can be entitled to a penalty next lower in degree
Article 64
ARTICLE 64 RULES FOR PENALTIES WITH 3 PERIODS
- In accordance w/ Articles 76-77 whether there are attending circumstances
First rule
- if neither a mitigating or aggravating circumstance is present = medium
period is imposed
Second rule
- if there is a mitigating circumstance = minimum period is imposed
Third rule
- if there is an aggravating circumstance = maximum period is imposed
Fourth rule
- if there is both a mitigating and aggravating circumstance = courts shall
offset the circumstances according to relative weight
Fifth rule
- if there are 2 or more mitigating circumstances and absolutely no aggravating
circumstances = the penalty next lower in degree is imposed
Sixth rule
- whatever the number or nature of aggravating circumstances = courts cannot
impose a greater penalty than prescribed by law in maximum
Seventh rule
- Courts can determine extent of penalty within the limits of each period
Mitigating circumstance must be ordinary = not privileged

Aggravating circumstance must be generic = not qualified or inherent
Article 65-67
ARTICLE 65 RULES FOR PENALTIES NOT IN THREE PERIODS
NOTES BY:
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 66 IMPOSITION OF FINES

(reading matter)
- of the maximum fine is either added (for aggravating circumstances) or

deducted (for mitigating circumstances) from the maximum fine
- courts must consider:
1. mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. wealth or means of the culprit
ARTICLE 67 PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ACCIDENT

- Arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum (grave felonies)
- Arresto mayor minimum to Arresto mayor medium (for less grave felonies)
Light felonies through negligence = no penalty
Article 68
ARTICLE 68 PENALTY FOR MINORS UNDER 18
(repealed by RA 9344)
Minor under 18 who acted with discernment = penalty two degrees lower
Article 69
ARTICLE 69 PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

- lowered by 1 or 2 degrees
Majority of such conditions must be present

In self-defense, defense of a relative, defense of a stranger
- Unlawful Aggression is indispensable
Article 70
ARTICLE 70 SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
NOTES BY:
Simultaneous Service if the nature of the penalties will so permit, i.e.

Reclusion temporal and Perpetual Absolute Disqualification (refer to Reyes book
for a complete list of penalties that ca be served simultaneously)
Successive Service if cannot be served simultaneously (such as two jail
sentences) shall follow the scale provided by Article 70 based in the order
according to severity
3-fold rule the maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more
than 3-fold the length of the time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed
only applies when the convict has to serve at least 4 sentences
In no case shall the sum total of penalties exceed 40 years
In the scale, Arresto menor comes before destierro because complete
deprivation of liberty or imprisonment in arresto menor is more severe than
destierro
Supposing, you are a judge, can you impose the sentence of 500 counts of
malversation, which is each punishable by 15 yrs. of imprisonment,
without violating Article 70? YES, because the 3-fold rule does not refer to the
imposition of sentence but refers to the service to the penalty; the courts can
sentence no matter what and no matter how much
The 3-fold rule is the concern of the Director of Prisons, NOT of the courts
If the sum total of all the penalties does not exceed the most severe
multiplied by 3, the 3-fold rule does not apply
Duration of convicts sentence refers to several penalties for different offenses
not yet served out = has to serve continuous imprisonment
Article 71-77
ARTICLE 71 GRADUATED SCALES
Penalties are classified between personal penalties (imprisonment) and political
rights (suspension, fine, etc)
Arresto mayor is followed by destierro
ARTICLES 72-77 (reading matter)

Article 73 Accessory penalties are deemed imposed
Subsidiary imprisonment is NOT an accessory penalty
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT 4103 AMENDED BY ACT 4225)

- mandatory in nature; whether the courts like it or not, they have to apply the
same except for those mentioned in Sec. 2 who are disqualified
NOTES BY:
Purpose/Objectives of the ISLAW

1. to uplift and redeem valuable human materials
2. promote economic usefulness
3. prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty
The ISLAW was enacted to benefit the accused by allowing the convict not to serve
the full sentence
These objectives are attained with the application of the ISLAW
Court fixes a Maximum term and a Minimum term

After serving the Minimum term, the convict shall be entitled to parole upon
evaluation of the Board of Pardons and Parole
The release shall be evaluated by the Court whether the convict is:
- fitted by training for release
- reasonable probability not to commit another crime or violate the law
- compatible with the welfare of society
(take note of this; this was given by Prof. Amurao)
As applied in special penal laws

- the Maximum term should not be more than what is prescribed
- the Minimum term should not be less than what is prescribed
Example: 5 yrs and 1 day to 15 yrs
- the Minimum may be anywhere from 5 yrs to 14 yrs, but not less than 5 yrs
- the Maximum may be anywhere from 6 - 15 yrs. but not more than 15yrs.
As applied in the Revised Penal Code
- the Maximum term should be imposed under the rules of the RPC; penalty
prescribed by law after applying the legal effects of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances; only the maximum is affected by the attending circumstances
- the Minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the RPC; the penalty prescribed by law, lower it immediately
by one degree, ignore all the mitigating or aggravating circumstances
Example:
Supposing, accidentally you met your neighbor along the road, he challenged you
to a fight and you accepted the challenge, there was a physical fight, then you
inflicted a mortal wound that caused his death in the hospital, you were charged
with homicide, because there were no qualifying circumstances, and since there
was no mitigating and aggravating you should be sentenced to a medium
period of reclusion temporal (for homicide)
- To get Minimum term, immediately get the penalty next to Reclusion temporal,
lower by 1 degree = Prision mayor anywhere within Prision mayor, the court can
decide what period, regardless of attending circumstances
- The Maximum term, considering the absence of attending circumstances, is
Reclusion Temporal medium period
- The sentence now using the ISLAW is Prision mayor in any period as the Minimum
term, up to Reclusion temporal medium period as the Maximum term
NOTES BY:
If the convict reaches the Minimum term, he shall eligible for parole; terms
and conditions can be imposed by the BPP
Note from Prof. Amurao: It pays to be in good terms with the judge and his wife or
his number 2 so you can get a low Minimum term if not the lowest
Surveillance Period during Parole (SP)

1. If there is no violation during the during the special period, the court will issue an
order for final discharge
2. Legal effect of a violation of law or rules:
- release may be revoked
- prosecuted anew
- prolonged change in the terms and conditions of the parole
- made to serve out the remaining unexpired portion of the sentence
During parole, the convict is as free as any normal person except for the terms
and condition that have to be observed
ISLAW is inapplicable with the following:

1. persons convicted of death or life imprisonment
- in terms of death, this refers to the penalty actually imposed in the conviction by
the courts, not the penalty prescribed by the law
- in terms of life imprisonment, what if Reclusion perpetua is imposed, can the
ISLAW still be applied? The SC says NO, its not applicable
2. those convicted of treason, proposal or conspiracy to commit treason
3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage
4. convicted of piracy
5. habitual delinquents
6. those who escaped from confinement
7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon by the President
8. maximum term of imprisonment less than a year
9. those convicted by destierro or suspension
- destierro is a conviction imposed by courts
PROBATION LAW (PD 968)

Probation a disposition under which a defendant after conviction and sentence,
is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision
of the probation officer
Objectives/Purpose
1. Promote correction and rehabilitation
2. Opportunity for reformation
3. Prevent commission of offenses
NOTES BY:
Criteria for granting

- character - environment - institution/community
- antecedents - mental and physical condition
Criteria for denying; if the convict:

1. needs correctional treatment
2. has undue risk of committing another crime
3. probation will depreciate seriousness of offense
Inapplicability of the Probation Law

1. a convict sentenced to more than 6 years
2. convicted of subversion other crimes of national security or public order
3. a recidivist
4. previously probationed
5. already serving sentence
There is first, a judgment of conviction imposed by the court
Duration
- not exceeding 6 years and not disqualified
- the accused may file an application for probation with the court
- the court will order an investigation through the probation officer, all the aspects
of the life of the convict
- probation officer submits findings and recommendation
- after submission, court may deny or approve recommendation and admit the
accused to probation
- Court may impose duration based on: - rehabilitation
- reformation
- reintegration
NOTES BY:
Duration of the Probation Period

1. sentence not more than 1 year = probation is less than 2 years
2. sentence more than 1 year = probation is less than 6 years
3. sentence is fine with subsidiary imprisonment = probation is twice the days of

subsidiary imprisonment
After the Probation Period

- the court can issue, upon recommendation by the probation officer, a certificate of
final discharge; its effects are:
1. restored to ones original position
2. liability for the fine is deemed extinguished
When to apply for probation

- 15 days from promulgation, during the reglamentary period
- the convict can either appeal or apply for probation
Supposing, convict filed a notice of appeal, later changed his mind, withdrew his
appeal then filed an application for probation, can he do that? NO, once you file
for an appeal, you waive your right to file for an application for probation, and
vice-versa if you first file for an application then later on decide to withdraw it.
Supposing, a judgment of conviction was made, thus not entitled to probation, so
accused filed an appeal in the CA where his sentence was lowered, qualifying him
for probation, can he apply for probation now? CA says YES, there cant be any
waiver of right because he was not
entitled to file an application for probation = theres nothing to
waive
SC says NO, because he already appealed, though with strong dissenting
opinions about it (The SC is supreme, but it is not always right)
Beyond the 15-day reglamentary period, you cant file an application for
probation, except in RA 9344, a child in conflict with the law can file an application
for probation anytime
ARTICLES 78-80 (reading matters)

- Article 79 Suspension of Execution
NOTES BY:
- Article 80 (repealed by RA 9344) involves the diversion and intervention

programs for children in conflict with the law
ARTICLES 81-85 PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EXECUTION OF DEATH

PENALTY (reading matter)
ARTICLE 86 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER ON PENITENTIARIES
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 87 DESTIERRO
- prohibition in a certain place or places designated in the conviction
- not permitted to enter the place or places nor within the radius specified not more
than 250, but not less than 25 kilometers from the place
ARTICLE 88 ARRESTO MENOR

- shall be served in municipal jails
- or for health reasons, can be allowed to stay home (house arrest)
ARTICLE 89 TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Death of a convict = extinguishes personal penalties but not pecuniary
if death comes before final judgment, even pecuniary liabilities are extinguished
2. Service of sentence
- crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a consequence; after service of the

sentence, the debt is paid
3. Amnesty
- extinguishes the penalty and its effects; as if the crime was not committed
4. Absolute Pardon
- an act of grace by the Chief Executive; exempts the person from punishment only
5. Prescription of crime
- forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute
6. Prescription of penalty
- loss or forfeiture of right of the government to execute the final sentence
7. Marriage of offended woman (Article 344)
NOTES BY:
- private crimes (abduction, seduction, lascivious acts adultery, concubinage)

cannot be prosecuted de officio
- public crimes (rape) can be prosecuted de officio (meaning initiated in Court by

filing a complaint
Marriage can extinguish either crimes

ARTICLE 90 AND 91 PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES AND COMPUTATION
1. Death, Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal = 20 years
2. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties = 15 years
3. Crimes punishable by correctional penalties = 10 years
4. Arresto mayor = 5 years
5. Crimes of libel, or other similar offenses = 1 year
6. Oral defamation/ Slander by deed = 6 months
7. Light felonies = 2 months
The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the discovery of the
crime and shall be interrupted only by filing a complaint or information in
court
Commences to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted
The prescriptive period shall not run when the offender is absent from the
Philippines
Supposing, in 1980 the accused commits a crime, then goes into hiding, he
resurfaces 20 years later, then the government finds a witness, can they institute
a case? NO, but if the accused left for the US, YES he can be prosecuted still
The mere filing of a complaint with the following does not interrupt the
prescriptive period:
- Chief of Police - Office of the NBI
- Office of the Provincial Director of the PNP
because these do not constitute the court; they are not part of the judiciary, not
part of the courts of justice
But filing with: Office of the Public Prosecutor or Office of the Ombudsman, may
interrupt the prescriptive period
NOTES BY:
ARTICLE 92 AND 93 PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES AND COMPUTATION

1. Death, Reclusion perpetua = 20 years
2. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties = 15 years
3. Crimes punishable by correctional penalties = 10 years
4. Arresto mayor = 5 years
5. Light felonies = 1 year
The prescriptive period shall commence upon evasion of the service of

sentence of the convict and shall be interrupted by the following:
1. if offender gives himself up
2. if he is captured
3. goes to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty
4. commits another crime before expiration of the period of prescription
Difference between Prescription of crimes & Prescription of penalties

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
- loss or forfeiture of the State to - loss or forfeiture of the State to
prosecute enforce judgment after a lapse of
time
- period: includes libel, oral - light felonies for 1 year
defamation; difference in time for
light felonies
- starts counting upon discovery of the - starts counting upon the escape or
commission of the crime evasion of service of the sentence
- mere absence from the Philippines - absence from the Philippines
interrupts interrupted only when he goes to a
foreign country without an
NOTES BY:
extradition treaty with us
- commission of another crime before - commission of another crime
the expiration of the period does not before expiration of the period
interrupt interrupts the prescription
ARTICLE 94 PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Conditional pardon
- must be delivered and accepted; contract bet. President and the convict
2. By commutation of the sentence
3. For good conduct allowances which culprit may earn
4. Full credit of service of preventive imprisonment
5. Release on Parole
6. Release under Probation
ARTICLE 95 OBLIGATIONS OF THOSE GRANTED CONDITIONAL PARDON

(reading matter)
ARTICLE 96 EFFECT OF COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

(reading matter)
ARTICLE 97 ALLOWANCES FOR GOOD CONDUCT

1. first 2 years = deduction of 5 days for each month of good behavior
2. 3 - 5 years = deduction of 8 days for each month of good behavior
3. 6-10 years = deduction of 10 days for each month of good behavior
4. 11 & so on years = deduction of 15 days for each month of good behavior
NOTES BY:
ARTICLE 98 SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCES

- it is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of the entire sentence: having evaded service
during calamity or catastrophe (Art.158) gives himself up to the authorities within
48 hours; otherwise, if captured 1/5 of the remaining sentence will added
Supposing, there is a calamity, but you did not escape, will you be awarded the
1/5 deduction? NO, the law says you have to first escape
ARTICLE 99 WHO GRANTS TIME ALLOWANCES (reading matter)

- The Director of Prisons
Article 100 Civil Liability

In every felony, arises two things:
(i) criminal liability, which can be extinguished by:
- imprisonment - fine
- prescription of liberty
Interested parties are: the government/State/President against the accused who is

the only one liable because penalties are personal
(ii) civil liability, which can be extinguished by:
- restitution - indemnification
- reparation
Interested parties are: the offended party and heirs against the accused and heirs
Civil liability can be extinguished similar to that of contracts
Upon filing of the criminal action, civil action is deemed instituted

If the criminal case was filed first, it shall take precedence
If the civil case was filed first, it will be suspended when the criminal case is filed
Reservation of right loses right to intervene in criminal case, but allows for the
institution of an independent civil action (ICA)
NOTES BY:
Independent Civil Action (for cases of or claims for damages, defamation,

physical injuries) may proceed simultaneously with the criminal case, but if there
is prejudicial question, it shall be decided first
Prejudicial Question is one which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue involved in the said case, and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal
Extinction of criminal liability (acquittal) shall not carry the civil action with it
unless it is the basis for the decision
ARTICLE 101 RULES ON CIVIL LIABILITY

- Article 12 pars. 1, 2, 3,5,6 and Article 11(4) are not exempt from civil liability
First rule:
- Article 12 (1, 2, 3) = civil liability devolves to those who have parental or legal
authority of them
Second rule:
- Article 11(4) = those who benefited from the harm prevented are civilly liable
Third rule:
- Article 12 (5 & 6) = the persons causing the fear or using violence are primarily
liable; in their absence, those who acted are secondarily liable
ARTICLES 102-103 SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS

(reading matter)
ARTICLES 104-109 &111 FORMS OF CIVIL LIABILITY & OBLIGATIONS

(reading matter)
ARTICLE 110 SEVERAL LIABILITIES OF PARTICIPANTS IN A CRIME

The principals, accomplices, accessories shall have several liability; thus, the
offended party can ask payment from any of them
In case of insolvency of the principal, the accomplice is next in line, and so on, if
the latter is also insolvent
3rd person gratuitous requires participation knowledge; requires knowledge on
his part of the commission of the crime
ARTICLE 112 & 113 EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY

- same as extinguishment of contracts
NOTES BY:
1. by payment or performance
2. by the loss of the thing due
3. by condonation or remission of the debt
4. by the confusion or merger of the rights of the creditor and debtor
5. by compensation
6. by novation
NOTES BY:

Introduction To Criminal Law: June 17, 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Criminal Law: June 17, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW Page 1 of 149

Lecture & Recitation Notes Atty. Maximo Amurao

June 17, 2011

Introduction to Criminal Law

Q: How will you define a crime?

Q: What is criminal procedure?

Q: Is there any difference between criminal law and criminal procedure?

Q: What are the differences?

Q: who is a habitual delinquent?

Q: Suppose accused is a HD, will there be prospective or retroactive application of

Q: Is criminal law the same as the RPC?

Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?

Q: How was it revised?

Q: How did the revision come about?

Q: What are the sources of criminal law?

Q: Who has the power to define crimes?

Q: Why does the State has the power to define crimes?

Q: When did the RPC took effect?

Q: Who approved the RPC?

Q: What are the theories in criminal law?

Q: What do we apply in the Philippines?

Q: What is the degree of proof needed to convict an accused of a criminal charge?

Q: May a person be convicted by reason of the spirit of the law?

June 21, 2011

Q: What are the kinds of repeals?

Q: What is the general characteristic of criminal law?

Q: Is this rule absolute?

Q: What is the territorial characteristic of criminal law?

Q: What is the rationale behind this?

Q: Is the territoriality absolute?

Q: Other characteristic of criminal law?

Q: Why is VFA an exception?

Q: Who are the parties to VFA?

Q: who are covered by the VFA?

Q: Who is a US military personnel?

Q: Is the American Red Cross personnel covered by the VFA?

Q: What are the types of jurisdiction in VFA?

Q: What do you mean by exclusive & concurrent jurisdiction?

Q: But, even if jurisdiction is concurrent, when will PH have primary jurisdiction?

Q: Suppose US military personnel was driving at Roxas Blvd to deliver a confidential

Q: Suppose 2 Filipino citizens working as US military personnel in the PH had a

Q: 1 US marine stole the wallet of another US marine, who has jurisdiction?

Q: Is this rule absolute?

RA 9659 (heinous crime)

Q: Suppose US military personnel committed kidnapping, who has jurisdiction?

Q: Give an example of Laws of Preferential Application that is local in nature?

Embassy Rule same as warship rule

Q: What is then the remedy of the officers (Ph government)?

Q: who else is exempt/immune from criminal prosecution?

Q: How about consular officials?

Q: Suppose Ambassador of Japan to the US committed a crime in the Philippines,

Q: The first instance in Art 2?

Q: What is Ph ship or airship?

Q: What are the requirements in order a ship/airship be a Ph ship?

Q: Why not register in Bureau of Customs?

Q: Does PH include warship?

Q: Suppose a cargo ship in Quezon going to Malaysia, within Ph territory, 1 crew

Q: What are the 2 rules?

French Rule vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed

^The PH adheres to the English rule

Q: Second instance in Art 2?

Q: what may be the subject of forgery?

Q: Suppose coins withdrawn from circulation, liable?