You are on page 1of 22



This is a compilation of all the cases
assigned by Prosecutor Victoria Garcia
You can add additional annotations for
improvement of this material. Sources
include reviewers from various schools and
books, from Boado, Paras etc.



1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity


Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles
public international law and to treaty

Generality of criminal law means that the
criminal law of the country governs all
persons within the country regardless of
their race, belief, sex or creed. However, it is
subject to certain exceptions brought about
by international agreement. Ambassadors,
chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials
are immune from the application of penal
laws when they are in the country where
they are assigned.

Note that consuls are not diplomatic
officers. This includes consul-general, vice-
consul or consul in a foreign country, who
are therefore, not immune to the operation or
application of the penal law of the country
where they are assigned.

Generality has no reference to territory.
Whenever you are asked to explain this, it
does not include territory. It refers to
persons that may be governed by the penal

[Take note of the Visiting Forces
Agreement, Art. V, which defines Criminal
Jurisdiction over United States military and
civilian personnel temporarily in the
Philippines in connection with activities
approved by the Philippine Government (see
attached supplement).]

Art. 2, RPC. Except as provided in the
treaties or
laws of preferential application xxx

a. Treaty Stipulations


Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947
expired on Sept. 16, 1991.

signed on
Feb. 10, 1998.

b. Laws of Preferential Application


Members of Congress are not liable for libel
or slander for any speech in Congress or in
any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)

Any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as
such by the President, or any domestic or
domestic servant of any such ambassador or
minister are exempt from arrest and
imprisonment and whose properties are
exempt from distraint, seizure and
attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)

A warship of another
country, even though docked in the
Philippines, is considered an extension of
the territory of its respective country. This
also applies to embassies.

b. Principles of Public International

Art. 14, NCC. xxx subject to the
principles of
public international law and to treaty

The following persons are exempt from the
provisions of the RPC:
(1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
(2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
minister resident and charges d affaires.
(Article 31, Vienna Convention on
Note: Consuls and consular officers are

exempt from local prosecution. (See Article
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)

Public vessels of a friendly foreign power
are not
subject to local jurisdiction.


GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the
country have
force and effect only within its territory.

outside its
to the
land where its sovereignty resides but
also its maritime and interior waters as well
its atmosphere. (Art. 2, RPC)

Territoriality means that the penal laws of
the country have force and effect only
within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes
committed outside the same. This is subject
to certain exceptions brought about by
international agreements and practice. The
territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior waters
as well as its atmosphere.
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the
jurisdiction exercised over land.

Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over maritime and interior

Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over the atmosphere.

(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the
exercised over land.
(2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
over maritime and interior waters.
(3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
over the atmosphere.

(1) Extraterritorial crimes, which are
even if committed outside the Philippine
territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4 TIMES

Art. 2 embraces two scopes of applications:

General rule - Intraterritorial refers to the
application of the RPC within the Philippine
(land, air and water).

Exception - Extraterritorial refers to the
of the Revised Penal Code outside the

The Archipelagic Rule

All bodies of water comprising the
maritime zone and interior waters
abounding different islands comprising the
Philippine Archipelago are part of the
Philippine territory regardless of their
breadth, depth, width or dimension.

On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently
a departure from the accepted International
Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted
the Archipelagic Rule as stated above.
In the International Law Rule, when a strait
within a country has a width of more than 6
miles, the center lane in excess of the 3
miles on both sides is considered
international waters.

Three international law theories on aerial

1. The atmosphere over the country is
free and not subject to the
jurisdiction of the subjacent state,
except for the protection of its
national security and public order.

Under this theory, if a crime is committed
on board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere
of a country, the law of that country does not
govern unless the crime affects the national
2. Relative Theory- The subjacent state
exercises jurisdiction over the
atmosphere only to the extent that it
can effectively exercise control

Under this theory, if a crime was committed
on an aircraft that is already beyond the
control of the subjacent state, the criminal
law of the state will not govern anymore.
But if the crime is committed in an aircraft

within the atmosphere over a subjacent state
that exercises control, then its criminal law
will govern.
3. Absolute Theory (adopted by the
Philippines) - The subjacent state
has complete jurisdiction over the
atmosphere above it subject only to
the innocent passage by aircraft of a
foreign country.

Under this theory, if the crime is committed
in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as
it can be established that it is within the
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal
law will govern.


This is also called irretrospectivity.

GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will
only be
subject to a penal law if they are committed
a penal law has taken effect.

Conversely, acts or omissions which have
committed before the effectivity of a penal
could not be penalized by such penal law.

Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a
effect, insofar as they favor the person
guilty of a
felony who is not a habitual criminal, as
this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62
of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence
has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same.

Art. 62(5) RPC. xxx For the purpose of this
article, a
person shall be deemed to be a habitual
if within a period of 10 years from the date
of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or
less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery),
hurto(theft), estafa, or falsification, he is
guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener

(1) The new law is expressly made
inapplicable to
pending actions or existing cause of actions;
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal.

Effects of repeal of penal law
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in
new law,
(a) The new law shall be applied,
(b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is made
not applicable to pending action or existing
causes of action.

(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty
(a) Law in force at the time of the
of the offense shall be applied.

(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing
law so
that the act which was penalized under the
law is no longer punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.
(b) Pending cases are dismissed.
(c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.

(4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to
administrative rulings and circulars.

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a
penal law if they are committed after a penal
law had already taken effect. Vice versa, this
act or omission which has been committed
before the effectivity of a penal law could
not be penalized by such penal law because
penal laws operate only prospectively.

In some textbooks, an exemption is said to
exist when the penal law is favorable to the
offender, in which case it would have
retroactive application (RPC Art. 22);
provided that the offender is not a habitual
delinquent and there is no provision in the
law against its retroactive application.

The exception where a penal law may be
given retroactive application is true only
with a repealing law. If it is an original penal
law, that exception can never operate. What
is contemplated by the exception is that
there is an original law and there is a
repealing law repealing the original law. It is
the repealing law that may be given
retroactive application to those who violated
the original law, if the repealing penal law is
more favorable to the offender who violated

the original law. If there is only one penal
law, it can never be given retroactive effect.

Underlying Philosophies
Classical or Juristic Philosophy
Best remembered by the maxim An eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth. [Note: If you
want to impress the examiner, use the latin
version- Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.]
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The
offender is made to suffer for the wrong he
has done. There is scant regard for the
human element of the crime. The law does
not look into why the offender committed
the crime. Capital punishment is a product
of this kind of school of thought. Man is
regarded as a moral creature who
understands right from wrong. So that when
he commits a wrong, he must be prepared to
accept the punishment therefore.

Positivist or Realistic Philosophy

The purpose of penalty is reformation. There
is great respect for the human element
because the offender is regarded as socially
sick who needs treatment, not punishment.
Cages are like asylums, jails like hospitals.
They are to segregate the offenders from the
good members of society.

From this philosophy came the jury system,
where the penalty is imposed on a case to
case basis after examination of the offender
by a panel of social scientists which do not
include lawyers as the panel would not want
the law to influence their consideration.

Crimes are regarded as social phenomena
which constrain a person to do wrong
although not of his own volition. A tendency
towards crime is the product of ones
environment. There is no such thing as a
natural born killer.

This philosophy is criticized as being too

Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This combines both positivist and classical
thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social by nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be
dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital

Since the Revised Penal Code was adopted
from the Spanish Codigo Penal, which in
turn was copied from the French Code of
1810 which is classical in character, it is
said that our Code is also classical. This is
no longer true because with the American
occupation of the Philippines, many
provisions of common law have been
engrafted into our penal laws. The Revised
Penal Code today follows the mixed or
eclectic philosophy. For example,
intoxication of the offender is considered to
mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is
intentional or habitual; the age of the
offender is considered; and the woman who
killed her child to conceal her dishonor has
in her favor a mitigating circumstance.


Violations of the Revised Penal Code are
referred to as malum in se, which literally
means, that the act is inherently evil or bad
or per se wrongful. On the other hand,
violations of special laws are generally
referred to as malumprohibitum.

Note, however, that not all violations of
special laws are mala prohibita. While
intentional felonies are always mala in se, it
does not follow that prohibited acts done in
violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita. Even if the crime is punished
under a special law, if the act punished is
one which is inherently wrong, the same is
malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and
the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense;
unless it is the product of criminal
negligence or culpa.

Likewise when the special laws require that
the punished act be committed knowingly
and willfully, criminal intent is required to
be proved before criminal liability may

For example, Presidential Decree No. 532
punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the
special law punishing brigandage in the
highways. These acts are inherently wrong
and although they are punished under
special laws, the act themselves are mala in
se; thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
is a defense.

Distinction between crimes punished under
the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished
under special laws

1. As to moral trait of the offender

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code, the moral trait of the offender is
considered. This is why liability would only
arise when there is dolo or culpa in the
commission of the punishable act.

In crimes punished under special laws, the
moral trait of the offender is not considered;
it is enough that the prohibited act was
voluntarily done.

2. As to use of good faith as defense
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is
a valid defense; unless the crime is the result
of culpa.

In crimes punished under special laws, good
faith is not a defense.

3. As to degree of accomplishment of
the crime
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code, the degree of accomplishment of the
crime is taken into account in punishing the
offender; thus, there are attempted,
frustrated and consummated stages in the
commission of the crime.

In crimes punished under special laws, the
act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated; there are no attempted or
frustrated stages, unless the special law
expressly penalizes a mere attempt or
frustration of the crime.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account since
the moral trait of the offender is considered.

In crimes punished under special laws,
mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are not taken into account in imposing the

5. As to degree of participation
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code, when there is more than one offender,
the degree of participation of each in the
commission of the crime is taken into
account in imposing the penalty; thus,
offenders are classified as principal,
accomplice and accessory.

In crimes punished under special laws, the
degree of participation of the offenders is
not considered. All who perpetrated the
prohibited act are penalized to the same
extent. There is no principal or accessory to

Doctrine of Pro reo/Lenity Rule
Doctrine of Pro Reo
Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law
admits of two interpretations - one
lenient to the offender and one strict
to the offender- that interpretation
which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted.
This is in consonance with the
fundamental rule that all doubts
shall be construed in favor of the
accused and consistent with the
presumption of innocence of the
accused. This is peculiar only to
criminal law.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts
shall be construed in favor of the accused
and presumption of innocence of the

Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Const. In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is

Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.

Equipoise Rule

When the evidence of the prosecution and
the defense are equally balanced, the scale
should be tilted in favor of the accused in
obedience to the constitutional presumption
of innocence.

Utilitarian Rule
Utilitarian Theory or Protective
The primary purpose of the
punishment under criminal law is
the protection of society from actual
or potential wrongdoers. The courts,
therefore, in exacting retribution for
the wronged society, should direct
the punishment to potential or
actual wrongdoers, since criminal
law is directed against acts and
omissions which the society does
not approve of. Consistent with this
theory, the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense
regardless of malice or criminal
intent, should not be utilized to
apply the full harshness of the
special law.

In Magno vs. CA, decided on June
26, 1992, the Supreme Court
acquitted Magno of violation of
Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he
acted without malice. The
wrongdoer is not Magno but the
lessor who deposited the checks. He
should have returned the checks to
Magno when he pulled out the
equipment. To convict the accused
would defeat the noble objective of
the law and the law would be
tainted with materialism and

A. Territorial and Extra-Territorial
The provisions in Article 2 embraces two
scopes of applications:

1. Intraterritorial- refers to the
application of the Revised Penal
Code within the Philippine territory;

2. Extraterritorial- refers to the
application of the Revised Penal
Code outside the Philippines

Intraterritorial application

In the intraterritorial application of the
Revised Penal Code, Article 2 makes it clear
that it does not refer only to the Philippine
archipelago but it also includes the
atmosphere, interior waters and maritime
zone. So whenever you use the word
territory, do not limit this to land area only.

As far as jurisdiction or application of the
Revised Penal Code over crimes committed
on maritime zones or interior waters, the
Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. So the
three-mile limit on our shoreline has been
modified by the rule. Any crime committed
in the interior waters comprising the
Philippine archipelago shall be subject to
our laws although committed on board a
foreign merchant vessel.

A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only
when it is registered in accordance with
Philippine laws. Under international law, as
long as such vessel is not within the
territorial waters of a foreign country,
Philippine laws shall govern.

Extraterritorial application

Extraterritorial application of the Revised
Penal Code on a crime committed on board
a Philippine ship or airship is not within the
territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign
country. Otherwise, it is the foreign
countrys criminal law that will apply.

However, there are two situations where the
foreign country may not apply its criminal
law even if a crime was committed on board
a vessel within its territorial waters and
these are:
1. When the crime is committed in a
war vessel of a foreign country,
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose
navel force they belong;
2. When the foreign country in whose
territorial waters the crime was
committed adopts the French Rule,
which applies only to merchant
vessels, except when the crime
committed affects the national
security or public order of such
foreign country.

The French Rule

The French Rule provides that the
nationality of the vessel follows the flag
which the vessel flies, unless the crime
committed endangers the national security
of a foreign country where the vessel is
within jurisdiction in which case such
foreign country will never lose
jurisdictionover such vessel.

The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule

This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of
criminal law. The law of the foreign country
where a foreign vessel is within its
jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the
crime affects only the internal management
of the vessel in which case it is subject to the
penal law of the country where it is

Both the rules apply only to a foreign
merchant vessel if a crime was committed
aboard that vessel while it was in the
territorial waters of another country. If that
vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there
is no occasion to apply the two rules. If it is
not within the jurisdiction of any country,
these rules will not apply.

B. Felonies- Definition and Kinds

A crime under the Revised
Penal Code is referred to as a felony.
Do not use this term in reference to
a violation of special law.
The term felony is limited only to
violations of the Revised Penal Code.
When the crime is punishable under
a special law you do not refer to this
as a felony, it is to be understood as
referring to crimes under the
Revised Penal Code.

This is important because
there are certain provisions in the
Revised Penal Code where the term
felony is used, which means that
the provision is not extended to
crimes under special laws. A specific
instance is found in Article 160-
Quasi-Recidivism, which reads:
A person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve
sentence or while serving the same,
shall be punished under the
maximum period of the penalty.

A crime punished under a
special law is called a statutory

A minor infraction of the law,
such as a violation of an ordinance,
is referred to as a misdemeanor.

Whether the wrongdoing is
punished under the Revised Penal
Code or under a special law, the
generic word crime can be used.

C. Proximate cause theory and
Impossible crimes

Proximate cause is that cause which sets
into motion other causes and which
unbroken by any efficient supervening cause
produces a felony and without which such
felony could not have resulted. He who is
the cause of the cause is the evil of the
cause. 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.

An impossible crime is an act which would
be an offense against person or property
were it not for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual

Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To
suppress criminal propensity or criminal
tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not
committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a

(1) That the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property.
(2) That the act was done with evil intent.

against persons or against property, and the
act performed would have been an offense
against persons or property.
t must be shown that the actor performed
the act with the intent to do an injury to
ver, it should not be actually
performed, for otherwise, he would be liable
for that felony.

(3) That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual.

Inherent impossibility: The act intended by
the offender is by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment.

There must be either (1) legal impossibility
or (2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act.

Legal impossibility: The intended acts,
even if completed, would not amount to a
crime. Legal impossibility would apply to
those circumstances where:

a. the motive, desire and expectation is to
perform an act in violation of the law;

b. there is intention to perform the physical

c. there is a performance of the intended
physical act; and

d. the consequence resulting from the
intended act does not amount to a crime.

(Intod v. CA)

Physical or factual impossibility: Extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime.

Note: In the Philippines, impossibility of
accomplishing the criminal intent is not
merely a defense but an act penalized by

(4) That the act performed should not
constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC.

Modified Concept of impossible crime

In a way, the concept of impossible crime
has been modified by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA,
et. al., 285 SCRA 52. In this case, four
culprits, all armed with firearms and with
intent to kill, went to the intended victims
house and after having pinpointed the
latters bedroom, all four fired at and riddled
the said room with bullets, thinking that the
intended victim was already there as it was
about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened
that the intended victim did not come home
on that evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits
were prosecuted and convicted by the trial
court for attempted murder. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment but the
Supreme Court modified the same and held
the petitioner liable only for the so-called
impossible crime. As a result, petitioner-
accused was sentenced to imprisonment of
only six months of arresto mayor for the
felonious act he committed with intent to
kill: this despite the destruction done to the
intended victims house. Somehow, the
decision depreciated the seriousness of the
act committed, considering the lawlessness
by which the culprits carried out the
intended crime, and so some members of the
bench and bar spoke out against the
soundness of the ruling. Some asked
questions, was it really the impossibility of
accomplishing the killing that brought about
its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely
accidental that the intended victim did not
come home that evening and, thus, unknown
to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at
the time it was shot and riddled with bullets?
Suppose, instead of using firearms, the
culprits set fire on the intended victims
house, believing that she was there when in
fact she was not, would the criminal liability
be for an impossible crime?

Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude
was that the provision of the Revised Penal
Code on impossible crime would only apply
when the wrongful act, which would have
constituted a crime against persons or
property, could not and did not constitute
another felony. Otherwise, if such act
constituted any other felony although
different from what theoffender intended, the
criminal liability should be for such other felony and
not for an impossible crime. The attitude was so
because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations
where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit:

Article 4. Criminal liabilityCriminal
liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a
felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.

2. By any person performing an act
which would be an offense
against persons or property, were
it not for the inherent
impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the
wrongful act done constituted a felony
although it may be different from what he
intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation
where the wrongful act done did not
constitute any felony, but because the act
would have given rise to a crime against
persons or against property, the same is
penalized to repress criminal tendencies to
curtail their frequency. Because criminal
liability for impossible crime presupposes
that no felony resulted form the wrongful act
done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or
a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending
on the social danger and degree of
criminality shown by the offender(Article
59), regardless of whether the wrongful act
was an impossible crime against persons or
against property.

There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of
Article 4 to a situation governed by
paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is,
where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a
redundancy or duplicity would be

In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the
culprits caused destruction to the house of
the intended victim; this felonious act
negates the idea of an impossible crime. But

whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court
has spoken, we have to respect its ruling.

D. Stages in the Commission of

Classification Under Art. 6
a. Consummated Felony
When all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present;
the felony is produced.

b. Frustrated Felony
When the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.

c. Attempted Felony
When the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.

a. Overt act
A commission of the felony is deemed
commenced when the following are present:
(1) There are external acts.
(2) Such external acts have a direct
connection with the crime intended to be

Overt act: Some physical activity or deed
(but not necessarily physical, depending on
the nature of the felony) indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more
than a mere planning or preparation, which
if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.

b. Development of a crime

(1) Internal acts
Intent, ideas and plans; generally not

The intention and act must concur.

Illustration: Ernie plans to kill Bert

(2) External acts

(a) Preparatory Acts

unished except when
considered by law as independent crimes
(i.e. Art. 304 possession of picklocks)
spiracy to commit a
felony are not punishable except when the
law provides for their punishment in certain
yet constitute even the
first stage of the acts of execution.

Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get
a knife.

(b) Acts of Execution
s with a logical relation
to a particular concrete offense.

Overt acts of
execution are
Not all acts of
execution are
All acts of
execution are
Crime sought to
be committed is
Due to reasons
other than the
desistance of
Due to intervening
independent of
the will of the
Position in
Offender still in
subjective phase
because he still
has control of
acts, including
their natural
Due to intervening
independent of
the will of the

The difference between the attempted stage
and the frustrated stage lies on whether the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution for the accomplishment of a
felony. Literally, under the article, if the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony
as a consequence but the felony was not
realized, then the crime is already in the
frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet
performed all the acts of executionthere is
something yet to be performedbut he was
not able to perform all the acts of execution
due to some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance, then you have
an attempted felony.

You will notice that the felony begins when
the offender performs an overt act. Not any
act will mark the beginning of a felony, and
therefore, if the act so far being done does

not begin a felony, criminal liability
correspondingly does not begin. In criminal
law, there is such a thing as preparatory act.
These acts do not give rise to criminal

a. Attempted Stage

(1) The offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt
(2) He does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony;
(3) The non-performance of all acts of
execution was due to cause or accident other
than his ownspontaneous desistance.

Marks the commencement of the subjective

Subjective phase - That portion of the acts
constituting a crime, starting from the point
where the offender begins the commission
of the crime to that point where he still has
control over his acts including their (acts)
natural course

If between those two points, the offender is
stopped by reason of any cause outside of
his own voluntary desistance, the subjective
phase has not been passed and it is merely
an attempt.

Illustration: The subjective phase for Ernie
was from the moment he swung his arm to
stab Bert up until he finished his stroke. This
is the interim where he still has control of
his actions.

Desistance is an absolutory cause which
negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from
committing a crime

But, it does not negate all criminal liability,
if the desistance was made when acts done
by him already resulted in a felony,

The offender will still be criminally liable
for the felony brought about by his act.

What is negated is only the attempted stage,
but there may be other felonies arising from
his act.

Note: Desistance is true only in the
attempted stage of the felony.

If the felony is already in its frustrated stage,
desistance will NOT negate criminal

b. Frustrated Stage

(1) The offender performs all the acts of
(2) All the acts performed would produce
the felony as a consequence;
(3) But the felony is not produced;
(4) By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.

The end of the subjective phase and the
beginning of the objective phase.

Objective phase the result of the acts of
execution, that is, the accomplishment of the

If the subjective and objective phases have
been passed there is a consummated felony.

Crimes which do not admit of frustrated

(a) Rape
essence of the crime is carnal
er what the offender may do to
accomplish a penetration, if there was no
penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
offender has performed all the acts of

We can only say that the offender in rape
has performed all the acts of execution when
he has effected a penetration.
is penetration, no matter how
slight it is, the offense is consummated

(b) Arson
say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed all the
acts of execution which could produce the
destruction of the premises through the use
of fire, unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
he crime of arson is therefore
consummated even if only a portion of the
wall or any part of the house is burned. The
consummation of the crime of arson does
not depend upon the extent of the damage
caused. (People v. Hernandez)

(c) Bribery and Corruption of Public
manner of committing the crime
requires the meeting of the minds between
the giver and the receiver.

meeting of the minds, there is
consummated bribery or consummated

(d) Adultery
res the sexual contact between
two participants.
link is present, the crime is

(e) Physical Injuries
vised Penal Code, the crime
of physical injuries is penalized on the basis
of the gravity of the injuries.
is no simple crime of physical
injuries. There is the need to categorize
because there are specific articles that apply
whether the physical injuries are serious,
less serious or slight.
could not punish the attempted
or frustrated stage because one does not
know what degree of physical injury was
committed unless it is consummated.

(f) Theft
e is unlawful taking, theft is

of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC.

Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require
any result do not have a frustrated stage.

Factors in Determining the Stage of
Execution of a Felony
a. The manner of committing the crime;
b. The elements of the crime; and
c. The nature of the crime itself.

These three factors are helpful in trying to
pinpoint whether the crime is still in its
attempted, frustrated or consummated stage.

a. The Manner of Committing the Crime

(1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one
instant, no attempt.
(a) Ex. Slander and false testimony
(b) There can be no attempt, because
between the thought and the deed, there is
no chain of acts that can be severed.

(2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act.
(a) Ex. Flight to enemys country (Art. 121)
and corruption of minors (Art. 340)

(3) Felony by omission
(a) There can be no attempted stage when
the felony is by omission, because the
offender does not execute acts, he omits to
perform an act which the law requires him to

(4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two
persons to commit them are consummated
by mere agreement.
(a) In bribery, the manner of committing the
crime requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
(b) When the giver delivers the money to the
supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of
the minds, the only act done by the giver is
an attempt.

(5) Material Crimes have three stages of
execution Thus, in determining the stage of
some crimes, the manner of execution
becomes pivotal in determining the end of
the subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
performs the act in the manner provided for

b. The Elements of the Crime

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

c. The Nature of the Crime Itself

In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes
involving the taking of human life
(parricide, homicide, and murder), it is
indispensable that the victim be mortally

Hence, the general rule is that there must be
a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only
then that death will follow.

E. Conspiracy- Kinds and Distinctions
Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

1. There is an agreement.
2. The participants acted in concert or
simultaneously which is indicative of
a meeting of the minds towards a
common criminal goal or criminal
objective. When several offenders
act in a synchronized. Coordinated
manner, the fact that their acts
complimented each other is
indicative of the meeting of the
minds. There is an implied

Two kinds of conspiracy:
1. Conspiracy as a crime; and
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability.

When conspiracy itself as a crime, no overt
act is necessary to bring about the criminal
liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime
itself. This is only true when the law
expressly punishes the mere conspiracy;
otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring
about the commission of the crime because
conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere
preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition
and coup d etat are the only crimes where
the conspiracy and proposal to commit them
are punishable.

F. Felonies as To Severity:
Less Grave

G. Circumstances affecting

G.1 Justifying Circumstances
Relate to: R.A. No. 9262, The Anti-Violence
against Women and their Children

Justifying Circumstances 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 both criminal and civil liability.
There is no civil liability except in par. 4,
Art. 11, wherethe civil liability is borne by
the persons benefited by the act.

An affirmative defense, hence, the burden
of evidence rests on the accused who must
prove the circumstance by clear and
convincing evidence.

There is NO crime committed, the act being
justified. Thus, such persons cannot be
considered criminals.

Basis: Lack of criminal intent

G.2. Exempting Circumstances
Relate to: R.A. No. 9344- The Juvenile
Justice &Welfare Act

SIX TYPES of exempting circumstances:
1. Imbecility/Insanity
2. Minority
3. Accident
4. Compulsion of irresistible force
5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
6. Insuperable or lawful cause

The reason for the exemption lies in the
involuntariness or lack of knowledge of the
(1) one or some of the ingredients of
criminal liability such as criminal intent,
intelligence, or freedom of action on the part
of the offender is missing

(2) In case it is a culpable felony, there is
absence of freedom of action or intelligence,
or absence of negligence, imprudence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill.

G.3 Mitigating Circumstances

TWELVE TYPES of mitigating
1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption
2. Under 18 or Over 70 years of age
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Plea to a lower offense
10. Physical defect
11. Illness
12. Analogous Circumstances

Mitigating circumstances or causas
attenuates are 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.

Basis: They are based on the diminution of
either freedom of action, intelligence or
intent or on the lesser perversity of the
offender. However, voluntary surrender and
plea of guilt which, being circumstances that
occur after the commission of the offense,
show the accuseds respect for the law

(voluntary surrender) and remorse and
acceptance of punishment (plea of guilt),
thereby necessitating a lesser penalty to
effect his rehabilitation (based on the
Positivist School)

The circumstances under Article 13 are
generally ordinary mitigating. However,
paragraph 1, is treated as a privileged
mitigating circumstance if majority of the
requisites concurred, otherwise, it will be
treated as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69).

Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and
64. Article 13 is meaningless without
knowing the rules of imposing penalties
under Articles 63 and 64

Ordinary MC Privileged MC
Can be offset by any
Cannot be offset by
If not offset by
the effect of
applying the
penalty provided by
for the crime in its
period in case of
The effect of
imposing upon the
offender the penalty
lower by one or two
degrees than that
provided by law for
the crime.

G.4 Aggravating Circumstances
Relate to: PD 1866 as amended by R.A. No.
8294- Illegal Possession of Firearms,
Ammunitions & Explosives

Those circumstances which raise the penalty
for a crime in its maximum period provided
by law applicable to that crime or change the
nature of the crime.

TWENTY-ONE aggravating circumstances
under Art.
1. Taking Advantage of Public Office
2. In Contempt Of Or With Insult To Public
3. With Insult Or Lack Of Regard Due To
Offended Party By Reason Of Rank, Age Or
4. Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious
5. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The
6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A
7. On Occasion Of A Calamity
8. Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure
9. Recidivism
10. Reiteration or Habituality
11. Price, Reward Or Promise
12. Inundation, Fire, Poison
13. Evident Premeditation
14. Craft, Fraud Or Disguise
15. Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken
16. Treachery
17. Ignominy
18. Unlawful Entry
19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
20. With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By
21. Cruelty

Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE
there are no analogous aggravating

The aggravating circumstances must be
established with moral certainty, with the
same degree of proof required to establish
the crime itself.

According to the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying
aggravating circumstances must be alleged
in the Information in order to be considered
by the Court in imposing the sentence. (Rule
110, Sec. 9)

1. the motivating power behind the act
2. the place where the act was committed
3. the means and ways used
4. the time
5. the personal circumstance of the offender
and/or of the victim

Generic aggravating
The effect of a
AC, not offset by any
circumstance, is to
increase the penalty
which should be
imposed upon the
accused to the
The effect of a
AC is not only to
give the
crime its proper and
exclusive name but
also to place the
author thereof in
such a situation
as to deserve no
other penalty than
that specially

prescribed by law
for said crime.
It is not an ingredient
of the crime. It only
affects the penalty to
be imposed but
thecrime remains the
The circumstance
affects the nature of
the crime itself
such that the
offender shall be
liablefor a more
serious crime.
The circumstance is
actually an
ingredient of
the crime
The circumstance can
be offset by an
ordinary mitigating
Being an ingredient
of the crime, it
cannot be offset
by any mitigating

Aggravating circumstances which do not
have the effect of increasing the penalty:
(1) Aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute a crime especially
punishable by law.
(2) Aggravating circumstances which are
included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be
taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 1).
(3) The same rule shall apply with respect to
any aggravating circumstance inherent in the
crime to such a degree that it must of
necessity accompany the commission
thereof. (Art. 62, par. 2).

Aggravating circumstances which are
personal to
the offenders.
Aggravating circumstances which arise:
(1) from moral attributes of the offender;
(2) from his private relations with the
offended party; or
(3) from any personal cause, shall only serve
to aggravate the liability of the principals,
accomplices, accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62, par.
3).Aggravating circumstances which depend
for their application upon the knowledge of

The circumstances which consist (1) in the
material execution of the act, or (2) in the
means employed to accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at
the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. (Art. 62, par. 4).

G.5 Alternative Circumstances
THREE TYPES of alternative
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of education/instruction

Circumstances which must be taken in
consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the

Absolutory Causes
There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory

Acts not covered by law and in case of
excessive punishment (art. 5)

Absolutory causes are those where the act
committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment there is no
penalty imposed.

From Ortega Notes:
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from
criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It
has the same effect as an exempting circumstance,
but do not call it as such in order not to confuse it
with the circumstances under Article 12.

Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who
are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees with the exception of accessories
who profited themselves by assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.

Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is

Death of the convict as to the personal
penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefore is extinguished is death
occurs before final judgment;
Service of the sentence;
Absolute pardon;
Prescription of the crime;
Prescription of the penalty; and
Marriage of the offended woman as provided in
Article 344.

Under Article 247, a legally married person who
kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her
spouse whom he surprised having sexual
intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in
not criminally liable.


Under Article 219, discovering secrets through
seizure of correspondence of the ward by their
guardian is not penalized.

Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief, there is no criminal
liability but only civil liability, when the offender
and the offended party are related as spouse,
ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law
living together or where in case the widowed spouse
and the property involved is that of the deceased
spouse, before such property had passed on to the
possession of third parties.

Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction,
acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal

Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting
circumstance and they are predicated on lack of
voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is
associated with criminal intent. Do not consider
culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is
culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation,
the crime is committed with dolo. It is confused
with entrapment.

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.
Entrapment does not exempt the offender or
mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation
absolves the offender from criminal liability
because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a
tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting
without criminal intent because without the
instigation, he would not have done the criminal
act which he did upon instigation of the law

H. Persons Criminally liable for felonies
Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories

Relate to: P.D. 1612 The Anti-Fencing

PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice

Under the Revised Penal Code, when more
than one
person participated in the commission of the
the law looks into their participation because
punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code
classifies them as:


This classification is true only under the
RPC and is not applied under special laws,
because the penalties under the latter are
never graduated.

Do not use the term principal when the
crime committed is a violation of special
law (use the term
offender/s, culprit/s, accused)

As to the liability of the participants in the
grave, less grave or light felony:
felony is grave, or less grave,
all participants are criminally liable.
felony is only light, only the
principal and the accomplice are liable. The
accessory is not.
only when the light felony
is against persons or property that criminal
liability attaches to the principal or
accomplice, even though the felony is only
attempted or frustrated, but accessories are
not liable for light felonies.

I. Penalties
1. Definitions/Classifications/Kinds
Relate to RA 9346 Prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty

2. Duration and effect
3. Rules for the application(with
Relate to: Act 4104 The Indeterminate
Sentence Law
PD 968 TheProvation Law as amended

4. Execution and Service

J. Extinction of Criminal Liability(Total
v. Partial)

K. Civil liability of persons guilty of


A. Utilitarian Theory

MAGNO V. CA 210 SCRA 471 June 26,

In Magno vs. CA, decided on June 26, 1992, the
Supreme Court acquitted Magno of violation of
Batas PambansaBlg. 22 when he acted without
malice. The wrongdoer is not Magno but the lessor
who deposited the checks. He should have returned
the checks to Magno when he pulled out the
equipment. To convict the accused would defeat the
noble objective of the law and the law would be
tainted with materialism and opportunism.
Petitioner was in the process of putting up a
car repair shop sometime in April 1983, but
a did not have complete equipment that
could make his venture workable. He also
had another problem, and that while he was
going into this entrepreneurship, he lacked
funds with which to purchase the necessary
equipment to make such business
operational. Thus, petitioner, representing
Ultra Sources International Corporation,
approached Corazon Teng, (private
complainant) Vice President of Mancor
Industries (hereinafter referred to as
Mancor) for his needed car repair service

equipment of which Mancor was a
distributor, (Rollo, pp. 40-41)
Having been approached by petitioner on his
predicament, who fully bared that he had no
sufficient funds to buy the equipment
needed, the former (Corazon Teng) referred
Magno to LS Finance and Management
Corporation (LB Finance for brevity)
advising its Vice-President, Joey Gomez,
that Mancor was willing and able to supply
the pieces of equipment needed if LS
Finance could accommodate petitioner and
provide him credit facilities. (Ibid., P. 41)
The arrangement went through on condition
that petitioner has to put up a warranty
deposit equivalent to thirtyper centum (30%)
of the total value of the pieces of equipment
to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00.
Since petitioner could not come up with
such amount, he requested Joey Gomez on a
personal level to look for a third party who
could lend him the equivalent amount of the
warranty deposit, however, unknown to
petitioner, it was Corazon Teng who
advanced the deposit in question, on
condition that the same would be paid as a
short term loan at 3% interest

Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective
theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the
primary function of punishment is the
protective (sic) of society against actual and
potential wrongdoers." It is not clear
whether petitioner could be considered as
having actually committed the wrong sought
to be punished in the offense charged, but on
the other hand, it can be safely said that the
actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng amount to
that of potential wrongdoers whose
operations should also be clipped at some
point in time in order that the unwary public
will not be failing prey to such a vicious
transaction (Aquino, The Revised Penal
Code, 1987 Edition, Vol. I, P. 11)
Corollary to the above view, is the
application of the theory that "criminal law
is founded upon that moral disapprobation . .
. of actions which are immoral, i.e., which
are detrimental (or dangerous) to those
conditions upon which depend the existence
and progress of human society. This
disappropriation is inevitable to the extent
that morality is generally founded and built
upon a certain concurrence in the moral
opinions of all. . . . That which we call
punishment is only an external means of
emphasizing moral disapprobation the
method of punishment is in reality the
amount of punishment," (Ibid., P.
11, citing People v. RoldanZaballero, CA 54
O.G. 6904, Note also Justice Pablo's view in
People v. Piosca and Peremne, 86 Phil. 31).

xxx the element of "knowing at the time of issue
that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason . . . is inversely
applied in this case. From the very beginning,
petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have the
funds with which to put up the warranty deposit and
as a matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the
vital conduit of the transaction, Joey Gomez, to
whom petitioner was introduced by Mrs. Teng. It
would have been different if this predicament was not
communicated to all the parties he dealt with
regarding the lease agreement the financing of which
was covered by L.S. Finance Management.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is
REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

B. Doctrine of Pro REo/ Equipoise Rule

PP V. PABIONA 433 SCRA 301 June 30,
FACTS: this case involves the death of
Roberto. Witnesses include his cousin
Pagayon, but was not able to clearly
pinpoint who caused the injuries as he
happened to pass by the scene 10 meters
away. He only heard a cry for help but the
identity of the victim was unknown. The he
saw the accused. H two weeks later, he
heard a radio news that Robert died after
falling into a well on the date he witnessed
appellants mauling an unknown victim. He
then narrated what he saw on the night of
Nov. 20, 1996 to his wfe. Two months later,
Pagayon recounted what he witnessed to the
mother of the victim.
RTC and CA: ConvitedPabiona
SC: reversed CA

Equipoise Rule; Where the evidence on an
issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt
on which side the evidence preponderates,
the party having the burden of proof loses.
the court must acquit the accused because
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and therefore is insufficient to
support a judgment of conviction.
In the case at bar, two antithetical
interpretations may be inferred from the
evidence presented. The pieces of
circumstantial evidence do not inexorably
lead to the conclusion that appellants are
guilty of the crime charged.
The circumstances proffered by the
prosecution and relied upon by the trial
court only create suspicion that appellants
probably perpetrated the crime
charged. However, it is not sufficient for a

conviction that the evidence establishes a
strong suspicion or probability of guilt.

The basis of acquittal in this case is
reasonable doubt, the evidence for the
prosecution not being sufficient to sustain
and prove the guilt of appellants with moral
certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant
that which of possibility may arise but it is
that doubt engendered by an investigation of
the whole proof and an inability, after such
an investigation, to let the mind rest easy
upon the certainty of guilt.
An acquittal
based on reasonable doubt will prosper even
though the appellants innocence may be
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on
the strength of the evidence of the
prosecutionand not on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense

October 1, 2004
Equipoise Rule; In the case at bar, the
evidence for the prosecution is concededly
weak. In such cases, even if the evidence for
defense is also weak, the accused must be
duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in
view of the constitutional presumption of
innocence that an accused enjoys. When the
circumstances are capable of two or more
inferences, as in this case, one of which is
consistent with the presumption of
innocence while the other is compatible with
guilt, the presumption of innocence must
prevail and the court must acquit

FACTS: On November 10, 1999, appellant
was charged with Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, in
Criminal Case No. C-58083 (99), is
Josefina M. Dimalanta is ACQUITTED on
grounds of reasonable doubt. The civil
action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to
the filing of a separate action to recover the
civil liability under the transaction.

August 14, 2009
FACTS: Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was
a purok leader of Barangay Western Bicutan, Taguig,
Metro Manila. As apurok leader and barangay tanod,
he was responsible for the maintenance of
cleanliness, peace and order of the community.
At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001,
petitioner heard an explosion. He, together
with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador
and a certain Cabisudo, proceeded
to Sambong Street where the explosion took
place. Thereafter, they saw complainant
Leoselie John Baaga being chased by a
certain Gil Gepulane. Upon learning that
Baaga was the one who threw the
that caused the explosion, petitioner
and his companions also went after him.
On reaching Baagas house, petitioner,
Cabisudo and Amante knocked on the door.
When no one answered, they decided to hide
some distance away. After five minutes,
Baaga came out of the house. At this
juncture, petitioner and his companions
immediately apprehended him. Baaga's
aunt, Marilyn Alimpuyo, followed them to
the barangay hall.
Baaga was later brought to the police
Held:Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who
actually caused the bloodied condition of Baagas
face because she had to first put down the baby she
was then carrying when the melee started.
importantly, Alimpuyo stated that she was told by
Baaga that, while he was allegedly being held by the
neck by petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyo
was obviously testifying not on what she personally
saw but on what Baaga told her.
While we ordinarily do not interfere with the
findings of the lower courts on the
trustworthiness of witnesses, when there
appear in the records facts and
circumstances of real weight which might
have been overlooked or misapprehended,
this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift
fact from fiction.
We apply the pro reo principle and the
equipoise rule in this case. Where the
evidence on an issue of fact is in question
or there is doubt on which side the
evidence weighs, the doubt should be
resolved in favor of the accused.
inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one
consistent with the innocence of the accused
and the other consistent with his guilt, then
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and will not justify a conviction

C. Intent/ Motive

PP V. DELIM 396 SCRA 386 January 28,
It bears stressing that in determining what
crime is charged in an information, the
material inculpatory facts recited therein
describing the crime charged in relation to
the penal law violated are
controlling. Where the specific intent of
the malefactor is determinative of the
crime charged such specific intent must
be alleged in the information and proved
by the prosecution.

If the primary and ultimate purpose of the
accused is to kill the victim, the incidental
deprivation of the victims liberty does not
constitute the felony of kidnapping but is
merely a preparatory act to the killing, and
hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the
killing of the victim.
The crime committed
would either be homicide or murder.
What is primordial then is the specific
intent of the malefactors as disclosed in
the information or criminal complaint
that is determinative of what crime the
accused is charged with--that of murder
or kidnapping.

Specific intent may be proved by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It
may be inferred from the circumstances of
the actions of the accused as established by
the evidence on record.

Specific intent is not synonymous with
motive. Motive generally is referred to as
the reason which prompts the accused to
engage in a particular criminal activity.

In this case, it is evident on the face of the
Information that the specific intent of the
malefactors in barging into the house of
Modesto was to kill him and that he was
seized precisely to kill him with the
attendant modifying circumstances. The act
of the malefactors of abducting Modesto
was merely incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is
no specific allegation in the information
that the primary intent of the malefactors
was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or
liberty and that killing him was merely
incidental to kidnapping.
then, the crime charged in the Information is
Murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code and not Kidnapping under
Article 268 thereof.

MANUEL V. PP 476 461 November 29,
In the present case, the prosecution proved
that the petitioner was married to Gaa in
1975, and such marriage was not judicially
declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is
presumed to subsist.
The prosecution
also proved that the petitioner married the
private complainant in 1996, long after the
effectivity of the Family Code.

The petitioner is presumed to have acted
with malice or evil intent when he married
the private complainant. As a general rule,
mistake of fact or good faith of the accused
is a valid defense in a prosecution for a
felony by dolo; such defense negates malice
or criminal intent. However, ignorance of
the law is not an excuse because everyone is
presumed to know the
law. Ignorantialegisneminemexcusat.

It was the burden of the petitioner to prove
his defense that when he married the private
complainant in 1996, he was of the well-
grounded belief that his first wife was
already dead, as he had not heard from her
for more than 20 years since 1975. He
should have adduced in evidence a decision
of a competent court declaring the
presumptive death of his first wife as
required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family
Code. Such judicial declaration also
constitutes proof that the petitioner acted
in good faith, and would negate
criminal intent on his part
when he married the private complainant
and, as a consequence, he could not be held
guilty of bigamy in such case. The
petitioner, however, failed to discharge his

20, 2003(murder)
the appellants assert that if found guilty,
they should only be made liable for the
crime of homicide and not for murder. They
claim that the prosecution failed to prove the
existence of the qualifying circumstance of
The Court does not agree. The trial court
correctly appreciated treachery as having
qualified the killing of the victim to
murder. Treachery is present when the
shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving
the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to
defend himself. The two conditions for
treachery to be present are (1) that at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself, and (2) the
offender consciously adopted the particular
means, method, or form of attack employed
by him.

In the case at bar, the victim was shot at the
back. Though the Court is not unmindful
that a shot at the back of the victims body is
not conclusive proof that there was
treachery, nonetheless, in this case, the
victim was in a wide open field, plowing his
farm. The attack was a complete surprise

and was unprovoked. There was hardly any
risk at all to the appellants. The victim was
plowing his farmland, completely
impervious that death was at hand. He was
unarmed and was not in a position to defend
himself against the assault of the
appellants. Clearly, he was killed in a
treacherous manner.
The appellants are therefore guilty of
murder, the prescribed penalty for which,
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, isreclusionperpetua to death. There
being neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance that attended the killing, the
lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall
be imposed, i.e., reclusion perpetua,
pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code.

the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to
exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as
clearly and convincingly as the crime
itself. In the absence of direct proof thereof,
as in the present case, it may be deduced
from the mode, method, and manner by
which the offense was perpetrated or
inferred from the acts of the accused
themselves, when such acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action, and
community of interest. Hence, it is
necessary that a conspirator should have
performed some overt act as a direct or
indirect contribution in the execution of the
crime planned to be committed. The overt
act may consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself or it
may consist of moral assistance to his co-
conspirators by being present at the
commission of the crime or by exerting
moral ascendancy over the other co-

In the case at bar, it was established that the
appellants suddenly arrived at the farmland
of the victim, each armed with a gun. Even
as Jose was shot, both the appellants tarried
at the scene, their firearms pointed at the
fallen victim, ready to finish him off. They
left the situscriminis together after Enriqueta
had shouted for help. There is no evidence
that one prevented the other from shooting
the victim. The acts of the appellants
before, during and after the commission of
the crime indicated a joint purpose and
design, concerted action, and community of
interest. If one of the two shot the victim,
the other, armed with a lethal weapon, was
nonetheless present at the scene of the
crime, undoubtedly to lend moral and
material assistance to the actual assassin
another badge of conspiracy. Thus, the
appellants as conspirators are equally liable
as the principals for the crime.

RECUERDO V. PP 493 SCRA 421 June
27, 2006(estafa)
FACTS: Petitioner avers that she acted in good
faith and exerted her utmost efforts to confer with the
private complainant to settle her obligations. She
points out that she made monthly cash payments to
lessen her civil liability and later on, for convenience,
deposited the monthly payments at the private
complainants bank account with the Bank of the
Philippine Islands. She continued to make payments
even during the pendency of the case in the CA, and
continues to make deposits to private complainants
bank account.
Petitioner asserts that her efforts to settle her
civil obligations to the private complainant
indicate that she has no intention of duping
the latter, as well as the absence of deceit on
her part. That she failed to comply with her
obligations by failing to make good the
checks as they fell due does not suggest
deceit, but at best only financial hardship in
fulfilling her civil obligations. Thus, there is
no factual and legal basis to convict her of
estafa. Petitioner insists that criminal intent
in embezzlement is not based on technical
mistakes as to the legal effect of a
transaction honestly entered into, and there
can be no embezzlement if the mind of the
person doing the act is innocent or if there is
no wrongful purpose.
Petitioner further avers that she should be
benefited by the Courts ruling in People v.
considering that the facts therein are
parallel if not almost identical to this case,
the only difference being that, in the Ojeda
case, the accused-appellant was able to fully
settle her civil obligations

Held: In the case of Ojeda, the prosecution failed to
prove deceit. Ojeda never assured Chua the checks
were funded. Chua knew that the checks were issued
to guarantee future payments. Furthermore, Ojeda did
not only make arrangements for payment but she
fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks.
In the instant case, the elements of deceit
and damage were established by convincing
evidence. Petitioner Recuerdo issued the
subject bank checks as payment for the
pieces of jewelry simultaneous to the
transactions, that is, on the very same
occasion when the pieces of jewelry were
bought. The issuance of the check by
Recuerdo was the principal inducement to
private complainant to part with the subject
jewelries (CA Decision, pp. 12-13). In
addition, petitioner only promised to replace
the dishonored checks but she did not settle
her obligations with private complainant.
Assuming that there was an offer to settle
her obligations, this will not overturn the
findings of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals as to the presence of deceit.

The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
The crime of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
has the following basic elements:
Postdating or issuance of a check in
payment of an obligation contracted
simultaneously at the time the check was
The postdating or issuance was done when
the offender had no funds in the bank, or
that his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check;
Damage to the payee thereof (Justice Luis B.
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Thirteenth
Edition 1993, Book Two, p. 693; People v.
Panganiban, 335 SCRA 354).

The existence of the foregoing elements of
the crime was concretely established by the
prosecution through convincing evidence,
warranting petitioners conviction of the
offense of Estafa.

PP V. MAPALOG.R. No. 172608
February 6, 2007

HELD: Homicidal intent must be evidenced by the
acts that, at the time of their execution, are
unmistakably calculated to produce the death of the
victim by adequate means.
We cannot infer intent to
kill from the appellants act of hitting Piamonte in the
head with a lead pipe. In the first place, wounds were
not shown to have been inflicted because of the act.
Secondly, absent proof of circumstances to show the
intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt, this Court
cannot declare that the same was attendant.
When the offender shall ill-treat another by
deed without causing any injury, and
without causing dishonor, the offense is
Maltreatment under Article 266,
par. 3 of
the Revised Penal Code. It was beyond
reasonable doubt that by hitting Piamonte,
appellant ill-treated the latter, without
causing any injury. As we have earlier
stated, no proof of injury was offered.
Maltreatment is necessarily included in
Murder, which is the offense charged in the
Information. Thus:
ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment. The crime of slight physical
injuries shall be punished:
x xxx
3. By arrestomenor in its minimum period or
a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the
offender shall ill-treat another by deed
without causing any injury.
The duration of the penalty of arrestomenor
in its minimum period is 1 day to 10 days.

Appellant Bernard Mapalo is ACQUITTED
of the charge of MURDER for lack of
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He is
found GUILTY of the crime of
MALTREATMENT, as defined and
punished by Article 266, par. 3 of the
Revised Penal Code. He is accordingly
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of arrestomenor of 10 days.
Considering that appellant has been
incarcerated since 2004, which is well-
beyond the period of the penalty herein
imposed, the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons is ordered to cause appellants
IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless appellant
is being lawfully held for another cause, and
to inform this Court, within five (5) days
from receipt of this Decision, of the
compliance therewith.
D. Mistake of fact
US V. AH CHONG 15 Phil. 488
Ah Chong worked as a cook at the
Officers quarters No. 27, Fort McKinley,
Rizal Province. The said place was a
detached house around 40 meters away from
the nearest building. It also served as the
officers mess room. Only Ah Chong and
PascualGualberto, a muchaho slept in that
place. It was not furnished with a permanent
lock. O August 14, 1908, around 10o clock
in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly
awaken because someone had been trying to
open the room. Out of fear, I shouted who
is there but none replied. Instead, the other
person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong
believed that it was a thief, and shouted
again if you enter, I will kill you! Again
none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear
Ah Chong inflicted a wound. When he
realized, that person was Gualberto. He
immediately called his employers and
dressed Pascuals wound.
Whether or not should Ah Chong should
be exempt from criminal liability?
YES. The Supreme Court held that
A careful examination of the facts as
disclosed in the case at bar convinces us
that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal
blow alleged in the information in the firm
belief that the intruder who forced open the
door of his sleeping room was a thief, from
whose assault he was in imminent peril, both
of his life and of his property and of the
property committed to his charge; that in
view of all the circumstances, as they must
have presented themselves to the defendant
at the time, he acted in good faith, without
malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that
he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the
facts been as he believed them to be he
would have been wholly exempt from

criminal liability on account of his act; and
that he can not be said to have been guilty of
negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to
the facts, or in the means adopted by him to
defend himself from the imminent danger
which he believe threatened his person and
his property and the property under his

E. Mala in Se/ Mala Prohibita
LONEY V. PP 482 SCRA 195 February 10.

GARCIA V. CA 484 SCRA 617 March 14,

F. Article 4: Proximate Cause Theory &
Impossible CeimeDocteine
Cinsolidated Cases of Villareal V. PP, G.R.
No. 151258

PP V. CA, G.R. No. 154954

DIZON V. PP G.R. No. 155101

VILLA V. ESCALONA II G.R. no. 178057
& 178080

URBANO V. IAC 157 ACRA 1 January 7,

PP V. VILLACORTA G.R. No. 186412
September 7, 2011

PP V. NOEL SALES G.R. No. 177218
October 3, 2011

GARCIA V. PP 597 ACRA 392 August 28,

INTOD V. CA 215 SCRA 52 October 12,

JACINTO V. PP 592 SCRA 426 July 13,

G. Consummated/Frustrated/ Attempted

PP V. LIZADA 396 SCRA 62 January 24,

BALEROS V. PP 483 SCRA 10 February
22, 2006

RIVERA V. PP 480 SCRA 188 January 25,

14, 2009

MUPAS & MUPAS V. PP 172834 February
5, 2008

VALENZUELA V. PP 160188 June 21,

PP V. QUINANOLA 126148 May 5, 1999

PP V. ORANDE 415 SCRA 699 November
12, 2003

H. Conspiracy



FERNAN et. al. V. PP 145927



PP V. BOKINGCO, 187536

TING Circumstances








TY V. PP 439 SCRA 220


PP V. ANOD 597 SCRA 205

PP V. IGNAS 412 SCRA 311





Instigation v. Entrapment

J. Principals/Accomplices/Accessories
PP V. OCO 412 SCRA 190


K. Extinction of Criminal Liability




A. Articles 114-123: Crimes against
National Security and The Law of
Relate to: PD 532 Anti-Piracy & Anti-
Highway Robbery Act
RA 6235 anti-Hijacking Law
RA 9372 Human Security Act of 2007

B. Articles 124-133: Crimes against the
Fundamental Law of the State

C. Articles 134-159: Crimes Against
Public Order
Relate to: PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294
Illegal Possession of Firearms,
Ammunitions & Explosives