Bar Examination Questionnaire for Criminal Law

Set A
1. Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing items of jewelry in it. She found,
however, that the jewelry were in a locked chest. Unable to open it, she took the chest out of the shop.
What crime did she commit?
A. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
B. Theft
C. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building.
D. Qualified theft
2. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall NOT be considered between
A. mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.
B. adopted son and legitimate natural daughter.
C. aunt and nephew.
D. stepfather and stepson.
3. Arthur, Ben, and Cesar quarreled with Glen while they were at the latters house. Enraged, Arthur
repeatedly stabbed Glen while Ben and Cesar pinned
his arms. What aggravating circumstance if any attended the killing of Glen?
A. Evident premeditation.
B. None.
C. Abuse of superior strength.
D. Treachery.
4. The presence of a mitigating circumstance in a crime
A. increases the penalty to its maximum period.
B. changes the gravity of the offense.
C. affects the imposable penalty, depending on other modifying circumstances.
D. automatically reduces the penalty.
5. He is an accomplice who
A. agreed to serve as a lookout after his companions decided to murder the victim.
B. watched quietly as the murderer stabbed his victim.
C. helped the murderer find the victim who was hiding to avoid detection.
D. provided no help, when he can, to save the victim from dying.
6. Principles of public international law exempt certain individuals from the Generality characteristic
of criminal law. Who among the following are NOT exempt from the Generality rule?
A. Ministers Resident
B. Commercial Attache of a foreign country
C. Ambassador
D. Chiefs of Mission
7. As a modifying circumstance, insanity
A. is in the nature of confession and avoidance.
B. may be presumed from the offenders previous behaviour
C. may be mitigating if its presence becomes apparent subsequent to the commission of the crime.

D. exempts the offender from criminal liability whatever the circumstances.

8. Zeno and Primo asked Bert to give them a sketch of the location of Andys house since they wanted
to kill him. Bert agreed and drew them the sketch. Zeno and Primo drove to the place and killed Andy.
What crime did Bert commit?
A. Accomplice to murder, since his cooperation was minimal.
B. Accessory to murder, since his map facilitated the escape of the two.
C. None, since he took no step to take part in executing the crime.
D. Principal to murder, since he acted in conspiracy with Zeno and Primo.
9. A police officer surreptitiously placed a marijuana stick in a students pocket and then arrested him
for possession of marijuana cigarette. What crime can the police officer be charged with?
A. None, as it is a case of entrapment
B. Unlawful arrest
C. Incriminating an innocent person
D. Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person with unlawful arrest
10. The police officer in civilian clothes asked X where he can buy shabu. X responded by asking the
officer how much of the drug he needed. When he told him, X left, returned after a few minutes with
the shabu, gave it to the officer, and took his money. X is
A. liable for selling since the police operation was a valid entrapment.
B. not liable for selling since the police operation was an invalid entrapment.
C. liable for selling since the police operation was a valid form of instigation.
D. not liable since the police operation was an invalid instigation.
11. Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y, employing fraud, convinced
him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed a criminal action for libel against X for maliciously imputing fraud
on him. Will the action prosper if it turns out that the civil complaint for damages was baseless?
A. No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged.
B. No, since malice is not evident.
C. Yes, given the fact that the imputation of fraud was baseless.
D. Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.
12. The maxim "Nullum crimen nula poena sine lege" means that
A. the act is criminal at the time of its commission and recognized as such at the time of its commission
but the penalty therefor is prescribed in a subsequently enacted law.
B. the act is criminal and punished under and pursuant to common law.
C. there is a crime for as long as the act is inherently evil.
D. crime is a product of the law.
13. X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid, corrupt, and
having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied on a source from Y's own office who fed him the information.
Did X commit libel?
A. Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith andreasonable care.
B. No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest.
C. No, since Xs article constitutes privileged communication.
D. No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the press.

14. The husband has for a long time physically and mentally tortured his wife. After one episode of
beating, the wife took the husbands gun and shot him dead. Under the circumstances, her act
constitutes
A. mitigating vindication of grave offense.
B. battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.
C. incomplete self-defense.
D. mitigating passion and obfuscation.
15. There is violation of Art. 316, RPC (Other forms of Swindling) where
A. the owner of property sells a property and subsequently rescinds the sale.
B. the real property subject of the sale does not exist.
C. the property was mortgaged for a usurious contract of loan.
D. the owner disposes of his encumbered real property as if it is free from encumbrances.
16. X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a suspected drug pusher, and watched as Y and
Z, police trainees, beat up and tortured W to get his confession. X is liable as
A. as accomplice in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
B. a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
C. a principal in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
D. an accomplice in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
17. Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his Daily Time Record (DTR) from January to
March 2000 and did not get approval of his sick leave application for April because of evidence that he
was actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus, the medical Director caused the withholding of his salary for
the periods in question until he submitted his DTRs in May 2000. Can Dr. Chow prosecute the medical
director for causing him undue injury in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
A. Yes, since the medical Director acted with evident bad faith.
B. No, since the medical director has full discretion in releasing the salary of government doctors.
C. Yes, since his salary was withheld without prior hearing.
D. No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having failed to submit therequired DTRs.
18. When a penal law is absolutely repealed such that the offense is decriminalized, a pending case
charging the accused of the repealed crime is to be
A. prosecuted still since the charge was valid when filed.
B. dismissed without any precondition.
C. dismissed provided the accused is not a habitual delinquent.
D. prosecuted still since the offended party has a vested interest in the repealed law.
19. In malversation of public funds, the offenders return of the amount malversed has the following
effect
A. It is exculpatory.
B. It is inculpatory, an admission of the commission of the crime.
C. The imposable penalty will depend on what was not returned.
D. It is mitigating.
20. The exchanges of highly offensive words between two quarrelling women in the presence of a
crowd of people constitute
A. one count of grave slander against the woman who uttered the more insulting expressions.

B. grave slander against the woman who started it and light slander against the other woman.
C. two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.
D. two separate counts of grave slander, one against each of them.
21. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities
or to its owner is liable for
A. occupation or usurpation of personal property.
B. civil damages only.
C. theft.
D. other deceits.
22. A crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill is called
A. dolo.
B. culpa.
C. tortious crimes.
D. quasi delict.
23. To mitigate his liability for inflicting physical injury to another, an accused with a physical defect
must prove that such defect restricted his freedom of action and understanding. This proof is not
required where the physical defect consists of
A. a severed right hand.
B. complete blindness.
C. being deaf mute and dumb.
D. a severed leg.
24. An extenuating circumstance, which has the same effect as a mitigatingcircumstance, is
exemplified by
A. the mother killing her 2-day old child to conceal her dishonor.
B. the accused committing theft out of extreme poverty.
C. the accused raping his victim in extreme state of passion.
D. the accused surrendering the weapon he used in his crime to the authorities.
25. Three men gave Arnold fist blows and kicks causing him to fall. As they surrounded and
continued hitting him, he grabbed a knife he had in his pocket and stabbed one of the men straight to
the heart. What crime did Arnold commit?
A. Homicide with incomplete self-defense, since he could have run from his aggressors.
B. Homicide, since he knew that stabbing a person in the heart is fatal.
C. Homicide mitigated by incomplete self-defense, since stabbing a person to the heart is excessive.
D. No crime, since he needed to repel the aggression, employing reasonablemeans for doing so.
26. A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the house while C remained
outside as lookout. After getting the cash, A and B decided to set the house on fire to destroy any
evidence of their presence. What crime or crimes did C commit?
A. Robbery and arson since arson took place as an incident of the robbery.
B. Robbery and arson since C took no step to stop the arson.
C. Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.
D. Accomplice to robbery since his role in the crime was minimal.

27. X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court employee, the
act of receiving an expensive gift from one of the parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y accused X
of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the case?
A. No, since malice is self-evident in the letter.
B. Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judgewho has a duty to act on
what it states.
C. No, since malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations.
D. Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.
28. X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife, upon surprising her having sex with another
man in a motel room. What is the criminal liability of X?
A. None since he killed her under exceptional circumstances.
B. None since he acted under a mistake of fact.
C. Parricide.
D. Homicide.
29. X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that he would merely show the check to
his creditor to gain more time to pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the creditor.
Under the circumstances, whocan be prosecuted for estafa based on the dishonored check?
A. Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement
B. X as the drawer of the check
C. Both X and Y based on conspiracy
D. None
30. Ana visited her daughter Belen who worked as Caloys housemaid. Caloy was not at home but
Debbie, a casual visitor in the house, verbally maligned Belen in Anas presence. Irked, Ana assaulted
Debbie. Under the circumstances, dwelling is NOT regarded as aggravating because
A. Dwelling did nothing to provoke Ana into assaulting Debbie.
B. Caloy, the owner of the house, was not present.
C. Debbie is not a dweller of the house.
D. Belen, whom Debbie maligned, also dwells in the house.
31. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that certain individuals will kill others or commit serious
offenses for no reason at all. For this reason,
A. lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the accused's partin it are shown.
B. motive is material only where there is no evidence of criminal intent.
C. lack of motive precludes conviction.
D. the motive of an offender is absolutely immaterial.
32. Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance which operates to reduce the penalty by a degree
where the child is
A. 15 years and below acting without discernment.
B. above 15 years but below 18 acting without discernment.
C. below 18 years acting with discernment.
D. 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime acting with discernment.
33. The crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building is mitigated when the offenders
A. entered the house using false keys.

B. although armed did not fire their weapons.

C. entered through a window without breaking it.
D. although armed took property valued at only P200.
34. A private person who assists the escape of a person who committed robbery shall be liable
A. as a principal to the crime of robbery.
B. as an accessory to the crime of robbery.
C. as a principal to the crime of obstruction of justice.
D. as an accessory to the crime of obstruction of justice.
35. Which among the following circumstances do NOT qualify the crime of kidnapping?
A. The victim is killed as a consequence of the detention.
B. The offender is a public officer.
C. Ransom is demanded.
D. The victim is raped.
36. Removing, concealing or destroying documents to defraud another constitutes the crime of estafa
if committed by
A. any public officer.
B. a public officer officially entrusted with the document.
C. private individuals who executed the same.
D. private individuals.
37. Dagami concealed Bugnas body and the fact that he killed him by setting Bugnas house on fire.
What crime or crimes did Dagami commit?
A. Murder, the arson being absorbed already
B. Separate crimes of murder and arson
C. Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
D. Arson with murder as a compound crime
38. Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves obscene magazines and keeps
these in his desk. Charged with libel, can Sam present proof that Judge Odon indeed loves obscene
magazines and keeps these in his desk?
A. No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
B. No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon.
C. No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon.
D. Yes, since truth can be a valid defense in libel.
39. X, without intent to kill, aimed his gun at Z and fired it, hitting the latter who died as a
consequence. Under the circumstances
A. X cannot plead praetor intentionem since the intent to kill is presumed fromthe killing of the victim.
B. X may plead praetor intentionem since he intended only to scare, not kill Z.
C. X may plead aberratio ictus as he had no intention to hit Z.
D. X may plead commission of only Discharge of Firearm as he had no intent to kill Z when he fired his
gun.
40. Which of the following statements constitute Inciting to Sedition?
A. Utterance of statements irritating or obnoxious to the ears of the police officers.

B. Speeches extolling communism and urging the people to hold a national strikeand paralyze commerce
and trade.
C. Leaders of jeepney and bus associations shouting Bukas tuloy ang welga hanggang sa magkagulo
na!
D. Speeches calling for resignation of high government officials.
41. Culpa can either be a crime by itself or a mode of committing a crime. Culpa is a crime by itself in
A. reckless imprudence resulting in murder.
B. medical malpractice.
C. serious physical Injuries thru reckless imprudence.
D. complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
42. The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be appreciated in
a case where
A. Following the killing of his adopted brother, P went to the place where ithappened and killed S whom
he found there.
B. X kills Y who attempted to rape Xs wife.
C. P severely maltreats S, a septuagenarian, prompting the latter to kill him.
D. M killed R who slandered his wife.
43. To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck abandoned on the road, Jose swerved his car
to the right towards the graveled shoulder, killing two bystanders. Is he entitled to the justifying
circumstance of state of necessity?
A. No, because the bystanders had nothing to do with the abandoned truck on the road.
B. No, because the injury done is greater than the evil to be avoided.
C. Yes, since the instinct of self-preservation takes priority in an emergency.
D. Yes, since the bystanders should have kept off the shoulder of the road.
44. The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver sleeping in the masters bedroom.
Outraged, the accused got his gun and killed both. Can the accused claim that he killed the two under
exceptional circumstances?
A. No, since the accused had time to reflect when he got his gun.
B. No, since the accused did not catch them while having sexual intercourse.
C. Yes, since the wife and their driver desecrated the marital bed.
D. Yes, since the scene shows that they had an intimate relationship.
45. The three accused forcibly took their victim from his car but the latter succeeded in freeing
himself from their grip. What crime did the three accused commit?
A. forcible abduction.
B. frustrated kidnapping.
C. attempted kidnapping.
D. grave coercion.
46. Deeply enraged by his wifes infidelity, the husband shot and killed her lover. The husband
subsequently surrendered to the police. How will the court appreciate the mitigating circumstances of
(i) passion or obfuscation, (ii) vindication of a grave offense, and (iii) voluntary surrender that the
husband invoked and proved?

A. It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender as one mitigating circumstance and
vindication of a grave offense as another.
B. It will appreciate all three mitigating circumstances separately.
C. It will appreciate the three mitigating circumstances only as one.
D. It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense asjust one mitigating
circumstance and voluntary surrender as another.
47. The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is aggravating in murder committed
A. on a banca far out at sea.
B. in a house located in cul de sac.
C. in a dark alley in Tondo.
D. in a partly occupied condominium building.
48. The penalty of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of
suffrage does NOT deprive the offender of the right
A. to be elected to a public office.
B. to vote in any popular election for a public office.
C. to vote in a plebiscite.
D. to hold any public office.
49. Without meaning anything, Z happened to stare into the eye of one of four men hanging out by a
store which he passed. Taking offense, the four mauled and robbed him of his wages. Z went home,
took a knife, and stabbed one of his attackers to death. Charged with murder, Z may raise the mitigating
circumstance of
A. praeter intentionem.
B. incomplete self-defense preceded by undue provocation.
C. passion or obfuscation.
D. complete self-defense.
50. A public officer who immediately returns the bribe money handed over to him commits
A. no crime.
B. attempted bribery.
C. consummated bribery.
D. frustrated bribery.
51. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. From which of the following elements of direct
bribery can moral turpitude be inferred?
A. The offender receives a gift by himself or through another.
B. The offender is a public officer.
C. The offender takes a gift with a view to committing a crime in exchange.
D. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with his official
duties.
52. Insuperable cause is an exempting circumstance which may be applied to
A. robbery.
B. misprision of treason.
C. homicide.
D. rebellion.

53. Which of the following crimes is an exception to the Territoriality Rule in Criminal law?
A. Violation of the Trademark Law committed by an alien in the Philippines.
B. Forgery of US bank notes committed in the Philippines.
C. Crime committed by a Filipino in the disputed Spratly's Island.
D. Plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad by a Philippine publicofficer.
54. X, Y and Z agreed among themselves to attack and kill A, a police officer, but they left their homemade guns in their vehicle before approaching him. What crime have they committed?
A. Conspiracy to commit indirect assault.
B. Attempted direct assault.
C. Conspiracy to commit direct assault.
D. Illegal possession of firearms.
55. On hearing a hospital ward patient on the next bed, shrieking in pain and begging to die, Mona
shut off the oxygen that was sustaining the patient, resulting in his death. What crime if any did Mona
commit?
A. Homicide.
B. Murder if she deliberated on her action.
C. Giving Assistance to Suicide.
D. Euthanasia.
56. When committed outside the Philippine territory, our courts DO NOT have jurisdiction over the
crime of
A. treason.
B. piracy.
C. espionage.
D. rebellion.
57. Motive is generally IMMATERIAL in determining criminal liability EXCEPT when
A. several offenders committed the crime but the court wants to ascertain which of them acted as
leader.
B. the evidence of the crime consists of both direct and circumstantial evidence.
C. ascertaining the degree of penalty that may be imposed on the offender.
D. the evidence of guilt of the accused is circumstantial.
58. Which of the following circumstances of dishonor of a check can be a basis for prosecution under
the bouncing checks law?
A. The check was returned unpaid with stamp stop payment, although the drawers deposit was
sufficient.
B. The check, drawn and issued in the Philippines, was dishonored by thedrawee bank in a foreign
country.
C. The check was presented to the bank for payment 6 months after the date of issue.
D. The drawer of the dishonored check paid its value within 5 days from notice of dishonor.
59. X and his step-father have a long-standing enmity. One day, irked by an argument with his stepfather, X smashed the windshield of his step-fathers brand new Audi sports car. X is liable for
A. malicious mischief.

B. malicious mischief with the alternative mitigating circumstance of relationship.

C. malicious mischief with the alternative aggravating circumstance of relationship.
D. RIGHT ANSWER the civil damage he caused.
60. The classification of felonies into grave, less grave, and light is important in ascertaining
A. if certain crimes committed on the same occasion can be complexed.
B. the correct penalty for crimes committed through reckless imprudence.
C. whether the offender is liable as an accomplice.
D. what stage of the felony has been reached.
61. A child in conflict with the law shall enjoy all the rights of a child until
A. he is found to have acted with discernment.
B. his minority is set off by some aggravating circumstance.
C. he is proved to be 18 years or older.
D. he forfeits such rights by gross misconduct and immorality.
62. Mr. P owns a boarding house where he knowingly allowed children to be videotaped while
simulating explicit sexual activities. What is Mr. P's criminal liability, if any?
A. Corruption of minors under the Penal Code
B. Violation of the Child Pornography Act
C. Violation of the Child Abuse Law
D. None
63. W allowed a man to have sex with her thinking that he was her husband. After realizing that the
man was not her husband, W stabbed him to death. Under the circumstances, the mitigating
circumstance in attendance constitutes
A. defense of honor.
B. immediate vindication of a grave offense.
C. passion or obfuscation.
D. self-defense.
64. The prescriptive period for bigamy is 15 years counted from the date of the
A. discovery of the second marriage by the offended spouse.
B. registration of the second marriage in the Local Civil Registry.
C. celebration or solemnization of the second marriage.
D. discovery of the second marriage by the authorities.
65. After properly waiving his Miranda rights, the offender led the police to where he buried the gun
he used in shooting the victim. How does this affect his liability?
A. This serves as an analogous mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
B. It has no effect at all since the law provides none.
C. He is considered to have confessed to murder.
D. This serves as aggravating circumstance of concealment of weapon.
66. A qualifying aggravating circumstance
A. changes the description and the nature of the offense.
B. increases the penalty to its next degree but absorbs all the other aggravating circumstances.
C. raises the penalty by two periods higher.

D. is one which applies only in conjunction with another aggravating circumstance.

67. X inflicted serious injuries on Y. Because of delay in providing medical treatment to Y, he died. Is
X criminally liable for the death of Y?
A. Yes because the delay did not break the causal connection between X'sfelonious act and the injuries
sustained by Y.
B. Yes because any intervening cause between the infliction of injury and death is immaterial.
C. No because the infliction of injury was not the immediate cause of the death.
D. No because the delay in the administration of the medical treatment was an intervening cause.
68. In an attempted felony, the offenders preparatory act
A. itself constitutes an offense.
B. must seem connected to the intended crime.
C. must not be connected to the intended crime.
D. requires another act to result in a felony.
69. X inflicted violent kicks on vital parts of E's body. E nevertheless was able to flee for fear of his
life. Refusing to undergo treatment for his injuries, E died 3 days later. Is X liable for Es death?
A. No, since kicks on the body cannot cause death.
B. No, since it took too long for death to occur.
C. Yes, since E cannot be compelled to undergo medical treatment.
D. Yes, since it was a natural result of the injuries X inflicted on E.
70. 003-1137-0001
A criminal action for rape is extinguished when the offender is forgiven by
A. RIGHT ANSWER the offenders wife who herself is the rape victim.
B. his wife for having raped another woman.
C. the rape victims husband.
D. the rape victim herself.
71. A battered woman claiming self-defense under the Anti-Violence against Women and Children
must prove that the final acute battering episode was preceded by
A. 3 battering episodes.
B. 4 battering episodes.
C. 5 battering episodes.
D. 2 battering episodes.
72. A special complex crime is a composite crime
A. made up of 2 or more crimes defined in the Penal Code.
B. with its own definition and special penalty provided by the Penal Code.
C. with its own definition and special penalty provided by a special penal law.
D. made up of 2 or more crimes defined in the Penal Code and special penal laws.
73. What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew murders the Filipino captain on board a
vessel of Russian registry while the vessel is anchored outside the breakwaters of the Manila bay?
A. The Indonesian court.
B. The Russian court.
C. The Philippine court.
D. Any court that first asserts jurisdiction over the case.

74. X, intending to kill Y, a store owner, fired at Y from the street, but the shot killed not only Y but
also Z who was in the store. As a case of aberratio ictus, it is punishable as a
A. complex crime proper.
B. special complex crime.
C. continuing crime.
D. compound crime.
75. A proposal to commit a felony is punishable only when the law specifically provides a penalty for it
as in the case of proposal to commit
A. rebellion.
B. sedition.
C. espionage.
D. highway robbery

Essay
II
a) What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)'
b) Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to
reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s. (5%)
v
a) Who is an accomplice? (5%)
b) Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of the criminal design of the
principal, their pa11icipation, the penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for the
principal, and the requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution in order to hold them
criminally responsible for their respective roles in the commission of the crime. (5/o)
VI
a) What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws, including the
Indeterminate Sentence Law? (5%)
b) How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in imposing a sentence? (5/o)
VIII
a) Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%)
b) Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period of time
the crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the
penalty to be imposed on a convict. (5%)
IX
a) Define conspiracy. (5%)
b) Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%)

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
I. MINORITY (Art. 13 [2])
You know that we have the Privilege and the Ordinary. The Privilege mitigating circumstances are only
two. With respect to minority and with respect to incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and
defense of strangers. They should be lumped only into 2. But then in minority, it should still be divided
into 2 with respect to the degree for which it may be lowered. If a minor is over 9 but under 15 and he
acted with discernment, the penalty that should be imposed should be less than 2 degrees or 2 degrees
lower from that which the law imposes. If he is under 18 but over 15 at the time of the commission of
the crime, he is entitled to a penalty which is one degree lower from that which is provided by law.
Except when the crime committed is an offense and the penalty that was imposed is a specific penalty
for special laws only. But if the penalty that was imposed even if it is a special law is a penalty under the
RPC still the accused is entitled to a penalty lower by 1 degree. So, minority.
II. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING (art. 13 [1])
Incomplete self-defense, the penalty should be lowered by one or two degrees depending upon the
discretion of the court; and even defense of relatives and defense of relatives. However, it is actually an
essential element that unlawful aggression in all the 3 instances should be present. If unlawful
aggression is absent, an ordinary mitigating circumstance may only be present such as when there is
sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, that would be only an ordinary mitigating
circumstance and it will not be a privileged one. How about the other justifying or exempting
circumstances? Well, they may be the source of ordinary mitigating circumstance if majority of the
requisites are present. Except incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of strangers.
Minority except for special laws is always a privileged mitigating circumstance.
III. LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (Art. 13 [3])
Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. That is no problem. Is there any problem?
IV. PLEA OF GUILTY / VOLUNTARY SURRENDER(Art. 13 [7])
The problem there is plea of guilty. Because under the rules even under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the plea of guilt must be given or interposed before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
But bec of the New Rules of CrimPro, we now have a problem. It is a fact that pre-trial in criminal cases
is mandatory. But during the pre-trial, there can be a pre-trial agreement. You are familiar with a pretrial agreement? It is a part of pre-trial which usually takes place after the marking of the exhibits for the
prosecution and the defense. It is when the parties agreed to enter into stipulations and admissions
esp., say for example, the first thing that a lawyer would usually do esp. if he is for the prosecution if
there are documentary evidence is to ask the other party whether the other party will stipulate as to the
due execution, existence and authenticity of the contents of the documents marked as exhibits. And if
he does, it should be incorporated in the pre-trial agreement. Now, there may be facts that are not in
writing but then it could be the subject of stipulations, etc. Now, after all these stipulations or
admissions have already been the subject of agreement with the parties, then the court should order
the issuance of the pre-trial agreement which pre-trial agreement must be signed by the parties (private
complainant and accused) duly assisted by their respective counsels and approved by the court. It
should form part, however, of the pre-trial conference bec the pre-trial conference would still go to the
aspect of determining the issues etc., the number of witnesses, the purposes for which exhibits will be
presented etc. the number of persons who would testify, their names, the nature of their testimony, etc.
All these must be taken up during the pre-trial. In other words, in pre-trial of cases, the parties have to
lay their cards on the table. But, well, in my long year in the bench, I have developed also a sort of my
own system of conducting a pre-trial. We cannot avoid sometimes that there are evidence which at the
time of the pre-trial are not available. We cannot avoid also that during the trial a witness will surface

and change his mind. And he may be a credible witness. And he may be a witness who actually is
present at the time when the crime was committed. So, what will you do? What you are to do is reserve
your right to present exhibits that are not available during the pre-trial. But I have developed a rule that
if you reserved your exhibits at least 3 days prior to their presentation you must furnish the opposing
counsel a clear copy thereof. If it is a photograph, a clear copy of the photograph. If it is a document, a
clear copy of the document. So, that the other party will not be surprised and he can verify whether
such document really exists or if it came from a public office, he can verify it there; if it came from a
private office, he can verify it from them. In the reservation of witnesses, it is different, the court must
know the name of the witness and the nature of the testimony that he is about to give. It shall be
contained in a manifestation to be filed with the court at least 7 days prior to the presentation of that
witness, copy furnish the opposing counsel, the name, not necessarily the address and the nature of the
testimony that that witness will give at the course of the trial. Otherwise, I will not allow that witness to
testify, neither would he be allowed to interfere during the proceedings. That is to prevent fake
witnesses from testifying, bias witnesses, a witness who suddenly was plucked out of thin air. Meron
nyan. I have heard of all those things happening. The problem there is if those evidence are already
admitted, is a plea of the accused after the pre-trial but before any witness is presented by the
prosecution to be considered as a mitigating circumstance? And all of you also know that a case may be
submitted for decision after the pre-trial even in criminal cases supposing that the issue is a legal issue,
all facts are admitted, all the events that transpired leading to the alleged commission of the crime are
admitted. But what would be in issue is a legal issue. But supposing that accused said, I will plead guilty
na lang. I know that what I did was wrong. But both parties have already agreed that there will be no
more presentation of evidence by the prosecution and that the court should decide the case based on
the admissions, stipulations etc on the pre-trial agreement, what will you do? Will that be considered as
a plea of guilty to mitigate the liability of the accused? In my opinion, it is still a mitigating circumstance.
The intention of the law in considering that the plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance prior to the
presentation of evidence by the prosecution is that the accused is saving efforts, time, money of the
government in the prosecution of the case. And sometimes, it is a sign of admission really of guilt and
remorse and therefore, he should be entitled to a mitigating circumstance.
Voluntary Surrender. Very easy. Pag-voluntary surrender, all that you have to ask is At the time when
you surrender, are you in fear already of being arrested by the authorities? If his answer is yes, no
voluntary surrender. If his answer is no, it is actually of my own volition. I would like to save the
government of the expense etc. or the police, I would like to save them the efforts of arresting methat
is voluntary surrender. Even if there is already a warrant for the arrest of the accused, voluntary
surrender may still be considered as a mitigating circumstance. We will give you those cases maybe by
Wednesday.
V. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION (Art. 13 [6])
It must actually relate to a passion that arose out of legitimate relationship. If the passion comes from
an illegitimate or immoral relationship then that is already not considered.
VI. DEAF AND DUMB(Art. 13[8])
The other mitigating circumstances are in relation to the physical condition of the accused at that time.
He is deaf and dumb, or he is suffering from certain illnesses that restricts his movement or restricts his
means of defense, that is mitigating. It will be aggravating, however, if he is the victim. That is the
opposite. Deaf and dumb, those who are suffering from certain illnessesthese are mitigating
circumstances that are considered as ordinary and other similar conditions of the offender. Do you have
any questions regarding mitigating circumstances?

~~~end of tape~~~
DATE: JULY 9, 2003
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating circumstances have been classified into being an ordinary aggravating, inherent
aggravating, special aggravating, specific aggravating and the 2 sometimes are being combinedthe
special and specific aggravating circumstances. We have qualified and qualifying circumstances. There is
no issue in regard to ordinary aggravating circumstances bec they actually are circumstances which can
be offset also by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. It affects the imposition of the penalty as in some
other aggravating circumstances only by an increase in period, not by degrees. In Inherent aggravating
circumstances sometimes it is not being considered to be a circumstance that would put the penalty in
its maximum or in increase the penalty to a period or a degree bec this particular circumstance is
inherent in the crime itself that the crime cannot be committed without its presence. Now, we have
specific aggravating circumstances, these are only common to a particular crime or a particular violation
of the law or a felony. In some special laws, there are specific aggravating circumstances that cannot be
found in other special laws or in the RPC particularly in Art. 14. Say for example, in violation of RA 9165,
if the act of sale, distribution, delivery took place within 100 meters from the vicinity of a school, then it
is a specific aggravating circumstance bec. it refers only to violation of RA 9165. It cannot be applied to
any other crime. Now, by law, we have a special aggravating circumstance bec. that is what the law says.
In RA 8294, accdg. to the law, the use of illegally possessed firearm in the commission of homicide or
murder, although said offense is absorbed in said crime or offense, the use of said firearms is considered
as a special aggravating circumstance. What does this mean? If you say specific, it has almost the same
nature as a special aggravating circumstance, it could even be mixed with each other. When an
aggravating circumstance is specific, the presence of mitigating circumstances will not even affect the
penalty that will be imposed in violation of the said offense. Bec. in specific aggravating circumstance, it
is usually applicable only to violation of special laws so, how can you apply the mitigating circumstance.
Can you tell me of any specific aggravating circumstance in any felony under the RPC. There is none bec.
all the aggravating circumstances under the RPC are enumerated in Art. 14, therefore, they can apply to
any of the crimes under the RPC. But then, in the RPC, you will note that there are some crimes wherein
a particular aggravating circumstance may actually be applicable to certain crimes like abuse of public
position. Abuse of public position may be an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder, homicide,
theft but not malversation or sometimes qualified theft. Bec. if one abused his public position, it would
tantamount as grave abuse of confidence and therefore it may be considered as a qualified aggravating
circumstance. And in the event of malversation, it is inherent. You have to abuse your public position in
order that you may be able to commit an act of malversation being an accountable officer.
As I said, in illegal possession of firearms, the special aggravating circumstance that you can find there is
only the use of illegally possessed firearm in the crime of homicide or murder. I have been saying that
the word homicide or murder is being used in their generic sense which could include only parricide
and infanticide. All other killings are not included in the term of homicide or murder. Why? Say for
example, a person was killed during a tumultuous affray, your perception is that in death due to
tumultuous affray, a crime of homicide is committed if a person dies, correct? NO, it is not correct. The
crime there is the death due to tumultuous affray, it is not homicide. Just like death under exceptional
circumstances under Art. 247. The crime there is death under exceptional circumstances and not
homicide. How about giving assistance to suicide which shall be punished by the penalty for homicide?
The crime there is the giving of assistance in the commission of suicide, it is not homicide although
death may have resulted. In abortion etc., well, naturally there is also death but they are not covered.

Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, there is homicide but the crime is not homicide but it is
reckless imprudence so they are not covered. What is the rule then? In those cases that I have
mentioned there could be a separate prosecution of the special law and at the same time a separate
prosecution for violation of the RPC. It is sometimes confusing in regard to the determination of
whether actually a homicide is supposed to be considered as such for purposes of considering illegal
possession as a special aggravating circumstance. There could be an instance where homicide may really
be the result only of reckless imprudence but nevertheless the charge is homicide in itself. There have
been many cases decided by the SC. Naturally, the SC not being a trier of facts which are usually
addressed with the Court of Appeals. But sometimes the SC became trier of facts, not actually one that
decides legal questions only.
QUALIFIED vs. QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
When you say qualified or qualifying, the 2 are different from each other. A qualified aggravating
circumstance is usually one that is an aggravating circumstance that raises penalty either by one or two
degrees higher. Say for example, in theft, the condition of the offender or the condition of the
circumstances at the time that it was committed will affect the imposition of the penalty. And that the
penalty may either be raised to 2 degrees higher and the crime may be elevated to a more serious one.
That is qualified noh. But sometimes it is being mistaken also for qualifying. Let me put it this way. I will
agree if it is qualifying always if it will raise the penalty to one or two degrees higher which is provided
for by law but it will not increase the penalty only by a period. Let us suppose that at the time that the
theft was committed, the person who committed the same is a domestic servant. So, if that is a
situational issues that is actually a state of the offender at the time of the commission of the crimethe
position, the status of the person at the time. Now, it will also be qualified when, say for example, the
property stolen has been specifically designated b y law as one that may only be committed through
qualified theft such as theft of coconuts in a coconut plantation, the theft of fish in a fishpond. These are
considered qualified thefts. The circumstances pertaining to the offenders are considered as qualifying
circumstances. Like murder, from homicide it goes up to murder because of the presence of qualifying
circumstances as enumerated in Art. 248 of the RPC. Qualified circumstances are the new kind of
aggravating circumstance. These are the circumstances which involve only the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death. In RA 8353, there are about 10 qualified aggravating circumstances which
raises the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. Meaning to say, that the penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death but if any of the circumstances therein is present, the penalty SHALL be death. Also,
in the case of kidnapping. Also, in the case of qualified piracy. There are qualified aggravating
circumstances there in qualified piracy if there is when rape, homicide, etc is committed during the
piracy, the penalty of death shall be imposed. In cases of kidnapping, the qualified circumstance there is
when the victim is killed, when the victim dies on occasion or by reason of the kidnapping, when the
victim is raped, when the victim is subjected to inhuman or if not inhuman, dehumanizing acts. So, they
are qualified circumstances, meaning that although the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, it will
become an automatic penalty of death. Like in carnapping under RA 7659, the moment that the driver,
the owner or any passenger or occupant of the vehicle is killed, the penalty of death SHALL be imposed.
In the same manner as in arson, in the event that a person dies in cases of arson, irrespective of whether
the person knew of the presence of the person who died on occasion or during the arson, the penalty of
death SHALL be imposed. The fact of death is the qualified circumstance. So, you see, these are the
classifications of the aggravating circumstances. So, pag nakita mo nang qualified, ah it only involves
whether the penalty that will be imposed is death or not. Pag merong qualified, death natapos. That is
why it is called qualified. But then, as has been said, all these aggravating circumstances whether they
be ordinary, specific or special or qualified or qualifying, esp. qualified ha, must be alleged in the
information. As a matter of fact, there is now a move that these qualified, qualifying and other

circumstances that would increase the penalty either by one degree or if not, the penalty of death shall
be imposed, the acts specifying what would constitute the qualified aggravating circumstance must also
be stated in the information. Not simply stating that where the victim is 7 years old; that the victim is an
ascendant. As you see in the recent cases of rape, the offenders were not sentenced to death bec. the
prosecution failed to allege the exact relationship between the offender and the offended party. All that
was alleged by the prosecutor is that the offender is an ascendant and that the victim is a descendant
who is less than 18 years of age. Is that enoughthat the qualified aggravating circumstance of
ascendancy and relationship be considered as qualified aggravating? The SC said no, hindi pwede. Yes,
there could still be conviction but the penalty of death cannot be imposed.
Wellqualifiedqualifyingyou have to see actually their effects. Qualifiedsa ano lang yan ahtheft,
trespass to dwelling. Why is the latter qualified? When there is an employment of force, violence, etc. in
entering the dwelling of another. What else? Maybe, qualified seduction, bet there is no qualified
abduction ha. But the qualified seduction involves only a woman who is less than 18 years of age, virgin
and the offender is a priest --o, ayan na naman, pari na naman. Hindi, ascendant etc. These are qualified
seduction.
I. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION
I have already passed upon abuse of public position. You see, abuse of public position can either be also
a qualified aggravating circumstance. In cases of rape, it is actually a means of committing a crime of
rape. If there is abuse of public position, it makes the crime as qualified rape. It is one of those which are
a means of committing rape and it will become qualified if there are circumstances that would be
present in a qualified rape. But ordinarily, if there is an abuse of public position, it is inherent in the
crime of rape bec. it was considered already as a means, just like fraudulent machination.
II. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
Then we have contempt or insult to public authorities. When we say contempt or insult to public
authorities, it is not the public authority who is a victim, the crime was committed in their presence to
cause people to lose respect on them or sometimes to humiliate or put them in the bad lightaccording
to the police. Usually, the police would say, to put us in a bad light. What bad light? Is there such a
thing as a bad light? Pwede, yung medyo mainit noh. Eh, masakit nga naman yun. But actually, the crime
is committed in the presence of these authorities to humiliate them, to make people lose respect on
them. Say for example, the mayor is attending a function, eh may isang loko, nandito pala si Mayor.
Akala mo siga yan ha, tignan nga natin. So, what he did was to stab a person right in the presence of
the mayor. Tignan ko nga kung hindi mapahiya yang mayor na yan. That is an aggravating
circumstance. Well, it can be proven by the simple fact that the offender will always admit that he knew
of the presence of the mayor. Eh, who will not know the presence of the mayor in a municipality if you
are from that place. Even if you are not from that place, people will tell youPare, si mayor yan ha.
Ingat ka dyan. O kaya pare, respeto mo, si mayor yan. Eh, usually that is the case. That is contempt or
insult to public authorities
III. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR THAT IT BE COMMITTEED IN THE
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION.
How about disregard of rank, age, sex or dwelling of the offended party. Disregard of rankwell, only
those who have a superior rank may be the offended party. Those who have inferior ranks cannot be a

party to this aggravating circumstance unless the one who has an inferior rank be the offender. So, you
hit your manager or your superior, that is aggravating. In the office there are always aggravating
circumstance because the employee sometimes would even disobey the superior. It is quite aggravating.
How about rank, age and sex. Age, extremes noh. It its because of old age or very young age. You did not
respect the age of an old man. Say for example, the one who assaulted a man who is already 60 years
old is only 20 years old, that is disrespect of age. Aside maybe of abuse of superior strength. The 2 can
go together ha. One may not absorb the other bec the two are different from each other. The disrespect
of a young age is, however, absorbed in treachery. Well, some may have believed that disrespect of old
age is absorbed also in abuse of superior strength. But, you see, what I do believe is that if the old man is
so old already that he was taken advantage of as the old man is defenselessthat is treachery. And the
abuse of superior strength there is only a prelude to the treacherous act employed by the offender and
that the disrespect to age is actually being absorbed sometimes. But in some cases that I have read, the
superior courts said that the two can go together without one absorbing the other because disrespect to
age and abuse of superior strength may be different from each other. Because in abuse of superior
strength, what happens? That is a great disparity of the strength between the offender and the
offended party. Where a man may be an old man but sometimes he may be of equal strength than a
young man. O sabi nila si Eddie Garcia di mo kayang patumbahin. Sa pelikula lang yun. He is how old, 80?
And according to them he is taking about 21 vitamins a day.
Ok, Sex. Well, up to now its only women whose sex are being disregarded, not men. Even if the man
chooses to be taken for a woman, there is no disregard of sex there. There is no abuse. There could be a
mistake of fact but there could be no disregard of sex. But the woman must deserve that she be
respected for her being a woman, for her sex. But because there are women who do not deserve the
respect by reason of their sex. Eh nakita mo, may dala-dalang dalawang .45. Sabihin mo teka muna,
hindi natin maano yan, babae yan eh. Oh, yun binabaril ka naman ehay naku. Hintayin na lang natin na
bitiwan yung baril. So, it depends upon the circumstances. It is not always that when a woman is a
victim, that is a disregard of sex. Eh yung mag-asawa, ginulpi nung asawa yung asawa, is there a
disregard of sex? Wala eh natural yun. Natural yun. (girls of 4B: violent reaction) Mangyayari yun. Sige
na nga kung ayaw nyo e di wag. Sige, tignan natin ten years from today. Kaya nga battered wife
syndrome pero nangyayari yun eh kahit na may battered wife syndrome even if it becomes an act of
self-defense noh. You will always encounter this kind of problem in a family. There will always be
disagreement between the husband and the wifesometimes, it will result to violence. That is 100%.
The more that they are in the upper strata of society, the more that these things are happening.
Sometimes, mabubuti pa yung mga mahihirap coz sometimes these husbands do not raise his voice, in a
small household, it is always the wife who raises her voice. I have seen people like that. If ever that
there is a problem, the husband will not raise his voice but he will just leave the house. And if he
believes that the temper of the wife has already simmered down, he will return.
Okay, disregard of dwelling of the offended party. Sometimes this is inherent. If you stole something
from the house of the offended party, you have to disregard the sanctity of his or her dwelling. Akyatbahay gang, robber gangwould you have any respect of the sanctity of the home of the person. Hindi.
You trespass the dwelling of another- hindi. because the qualified trespass to dwelling is in itself a crime.
There is an aggravating circumstance. What is the aggravating circumstance in qualified trespass to
dwelling? Its only when there is use of force or violence or intimidation in the entry. Or when being
asked to leave etc. that is where force, violence and intimidation is employed. This may be applicable in
crimes against persons which includes rape but not crime against property. There are other crimes that
involve dwelling, that is, violation of domicile. But in violation of domicile, it is actually aggravated only

when the police officer when asked to return the articles that he has taken without any search warrant
refused to return the same, that is when there is an aggravating circumstance, it is the fact of failure to
return.
IV. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
How about abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness. In other crimes, abuse of confidence, if
grave in nature, becomes a qualified aggravating circumstance. Like in qulifed theft, what is one of the
ways of committing qualified theft? Thru grave abuse of confidence but as an ordinary aggravating it is
simply abuse of confidence. Remember ha, qualified theft, if the amount is more than P22,000, the
crime is not bailable because the penalty that may be imposed is reclusion perpetua.
Obvious ungratefulness. Ah, you all know this. In tagalog, walang utang na loob. We always believe in
the goodness of people that whenever we have done something for them that is good, they will
reciprocate in doing something good for us. But there are people who does not have that kind of
attitude. There are times that when you even literally feed a man from your hand he will still bite your
hand. Just like some people, he asks for your hand, you give it to him. After giving your hand, he is not
satisfied, he will still get your arm. And still not satisfied, he will swallow you whole. There are some
people like that, they are never satisfied. So, abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness refers to
the character of the person. Obvious ungratefulnesssay for example, during a rainy day or night, you
saw a man or a woman drenched to the skin. He looks hungry, sick so you told him to come in your
house. And then you called your wife, will you please heat the soup that is in the casserole and get some
dried clothes from our drawers and arrange the bed so that this person can sleep tonight. After clothing
him, feeding him, giving him a bed, when he even told you, Sir, thank you very much. Tomorrow do not
wake up early in the morning. I will be waking up early in the morning. I will clean the premises, sir as a
sign of gratefulness. When you woke up, your place is very clean. (heheheJ) literally, clean. That is what
we call an aggravating circumstance of obvious ungratefulness. Pero yung mga sabing natulungan kita,
nabigyan kita ng trabaho, well, speaking as an ordinary humanthat is obvious ungratefulness but not in
the commission of a crime. Because to be ungrateful is not in itself a crime. You must commit a crime
which is accompanied with obvious ungratefulness, that is when there is an aggravating circumstance.
V. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE PALACE OF THE CHIEEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR
WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES OR IN A PLACE
DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
When the crime is committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in any place where public functions
are being performed it is an aggravating circumstance. In the Phils., we have only one palace and of
course, there are 2 satellites of the palace of the Chief Executive. The 2 satellites are the official
residence of the President in Arlegui street and the vacation house of the President in Baguio City. They
are included among the palaces of the President. But not the palace of the North, the palace of the sky
or whatever. Actually, the palace of the North, what do you call that--palacio de amiana or whateverin
Ilocano. In Pawai, Ilocos Norte, I have seen the place about several times. It is simply a big house, it is
not a palace, consists of only 4 or 5 rooms upstairs. Dun sa ibaba, there are I think 3 and then the sala.
What is beautiful there, I think, is the scenery. When you go to the garden, it is overlooking the Pawai
lake. Then, you can walk through the woods, you can walk through the grasses and there is no pollution.
You can even gather mangoes and everything there if you are the tenant.
If a crime is committed in a place where public functions are being performed. Irrespective of whether
at the time that it is committed, there are no public officers or employees there performing their public

functions, it is still an aggravating circumstance bec. what is being considered as an aggravating

circumstance there is lack of respect to the place where public functions are being performed, not of
respect to the people. Because that would fall under contempt or insult to public authorities. You refer
to contempt or insult to public authorities when the person who has an authority is present and yet to
insult him or to put him to disrepute or just to make him lose respect in the face of the people, there is
what you call contempt to public authorities. But when it is committed in the place, it is actually the
place that is to be considered, not the persons who are performing their duties there. So, even if the
place at the time when it was committed was vacant, as long as it is being used in the performance of
public functions, then it is an aggravating circumstance. Even if, say for example, supposing a crime of
homicide is committed in the courthouse at night. There are no more people there but it is considered
still as an aggravating circumstance because of the nature of the place.
VI. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE NIGHTTIME OR IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR BY A BAND,
WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.
WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED TOGETHER IN THE
COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND.
The next aggravating circumstance is nighttime or uninhabited place or by a band. Nighttime becomes
an aggravating circumstance only if 1.) it was purposefully sought to facilitate the commission of the
crime; or to facilitate the escape of the offender; or in order that the offender may not be identified.
They put a third one. What is the definition anyway of nighttime? It starts at the beginning of dusk and
ends at the beginning of dawn. Hindi 6pm to 6am yan nor sunset to sunrise, that is wrong. It starts at the
beginning of dusk and ends at the beginning of dawn because at the start of the beginning of dusk, there
is already darkness and when there is a start of the beginning of dawn, there is still darkness. That is the
period of nighttime. You have to be resourceful because you know, criminal law sometimes, although it
is only 10%, is a killer subject. Four years ago it is a killer subject, I dont know this year, maybe in your
year, I do not know also. The examiner now, I know the examiner, he will not be giving very difficult
questions. I do not know next year, but supposing I become the examiner. Siguro pahirapan ano. Tignan
natinlets see how things develop. Iba na SC justices ngayon eh.The SC is always subject to barrage of
comments. Even in the academe, but I was talking to Dean Villanueva, I was telling him, Oh, I did not
try to put your 1 set of work of opinion in connection with the appointments. I mean, the Ateneo people
or people from other university, why are we not saying anything, its alright. Two years ago ngawell, if
you know the president cannot always be all knowledgeable. Lahat ng sabihin sa kanya mabubuti,
mabuting tao yan maam, madaming sinulat na libro yandi naman nya nakita kung ano yung sinulat,
magaling yan maam. The only problem is that people perceive that the SC is now being politicize. Yun
ang impression nila. Me, I dont still agree to that bec. people change their minds whenever they are
already in the SC. When he is already there seating in the bench, iba na eh justice na ko, I should act and
behave like one.
Nighttime, uninhabited place. Oh, etong school pag walang tao, considered as uninhabited place yan. Its
not that the place is permanently uninhabited. The place may be at that point in time uninhabited. What
is important is that at the time of the commission of the crime where the possibly of help is remote.
Kung sa bundok, sasabihing uninhabited. Eh bihira naman ang pumupunta sa bundok, sina Ka Roger na
lang. Pero si Ka Roger, wala naman sa bundok yan eh, tignan mo yung sa likod nya, tsaka yung
microphone nya at tsaka yung cellular na ginagamit. Cellular nya mas bago pa kaysa sa akin eh. There
was a time when he was still recruiting young students in the place where I was a judge, talagang wala
sya, nothing, poor.

VII. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OS A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,

EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OT OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
On occasion of calamity or misfortunes. Eto either qualified ito or ordinary. It becomes qualified when it
comes to crimes to property and qualifying when it comes to crimes against persons. Bec. on occasion of
calamity, if you killed a person, that is a qualifying aggravating circumstance under Article 248 of the
RPC. When you stole a property, it qualified your offense to a more serious one and that is qualified
theft. Even during accidents etc. it is also a qualifying aggravating circumstance bec a person stole any of
those cargoes during a vehicular accident, the crime committed is qualified theft.
VIII. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR
AFFORD IMPUNITY
Aid of armed men. The armed men must not have participated. Their presence only embolden the
offender to commit the offense bec of the presence of the armed men. Bec if the armed men have any
participation at all in the commission of the crime, then there is conspiracy. So, there must be no
conspiracy in order that aid of armed men may be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
IX. THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.
A RECIDIVIST IS ONE WHO, AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL FOR ONE CRIME, SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
CONVICTED BYT FINAL JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER CRIME EMBRACED IN THE SAME TITLE OF THIS CODE
Who is a recidivist? Any person who will in 10 years from the date of his last release from prison or last
conviction, he commits any crime embraced in the same title of the code is a recidivist. Kelangan
memoryahin nyo yanhabitual delinquency, recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habituality or reiteracion.
Usually, tignan nyo ha, 3 points up to 4 points yan. Ang laking puntos nyan. So, I really want you to
memorize. I want to, shall we call it, even if you are asleep and you were asked upon waking up, you can
recite. Hopefully, even in your sleep you can recite. That is what I want. I dont want you to just be
listening to me; always relying on my explanations. Sometimes, I am having the intention of misleading
you sometimes so that you will study. Eh, papaano hindi na kayo nag-aaral. Balita ko, wala na kayong
ginagawa diyan eh. Marami akong spy dyan ha. Tamo kahit si Mr. Leagogo, nagkikita kami kahit sa Iloilo.
(heheheJ) Oh, spy ko yan. We even ride in the same plane. Naghiwalay lang kami para hindi mahalata.
Dun siya sa unahan ako dun sa huli. You ask him, he will not admit it. Well, I dont know, but maybe for a
few years more, I could still do all the things that I am doing but there is a time of saturation eh. Youll
feel that you have had enough but lets see when that time comes.
X. THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW
ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A
LIGHTER PENALTY.
Reiteracion, kabisado niyo naman yan eh. Yung mga makukulit. Balik-balik. They are residents of balikbalik.
XI. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE
Alright, the price, reward or promise. These aggravating circumstances are not only applicable to the
principal by direct participation. It is applicable to both the inducer and the principal by direct
participation. Some have the idea that because he was induced and motivated by the price, he is

supposed to be the one to suffer the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promiseNO, that is
not correct. The more that it should apply to the one who offered the price. Eh, di na kaya gawin,
kelangan bayaran pa niya, o yun dapat yun aggravating talaga.
Price, usually in monetary consideration, or material things. Reward, those which are not material but
then to the advantage and of course, not only advantage but to the benefit of the principal of direct
participation. Promise, any promise, as long as that promise is taken as such by the principal by direct
participation. So, there are 2 principals here: principal by inducement and principal by direct
participation. Both deserves the application of the aggravating circumstances. Not only one ha. I dont
know the explanation in your bookno explanation at all? None. Kaya nga hindi mo tuloy alam ngayon
if you are going to allege that both are supposed to be the subject of an allegation of an aggravating
circumstance of price, reward or promise.

XII. 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
USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.
By means of inundation, fire, derailment of locomotive, stranding of a vessel, etc. Inundation involves
liquid or semi-liquid form that is used in order to commit the crime. It is bec of the volume that caused
the commission of the crime. Most of the time, this is an aggravating circumstance not only against
crime against persons cut also crime against property. Para masira yung bahay nung kalaban mo, dun
mo pinadaan yung lahar sa Pampanga. That is inundation, anong matitira dun? Matatabunan yun. But if
you went to call somebody, the same. This in the olden times are being used by those who want to wipe
out a tribe or whatever. They usually use inundation or similar acts in order that they may be able to
achieve their purpose.
Well, fire. You want to kill a person, burn himthat is aggravating. The problem is say for example, you
just dont want to kill the victim but you want him to suffer pain, would cruelty be also considered or is
cruelty absorbed if the killing is with the use of fire and explosion? Absorbed sa cruelty yan. By the very
nature of the means that you used, it involves cruelty. Sinunog mo, syempre masakit yun. But then, it
becomes also a qualified aggravating in the case of arson. IN arson, irrespective or whether you know or
you do not know the existence of a person in the bldg that you have burned bec arson refers always to a
bldg the penalty shall be death if death occurs on occasion or by reason of arson. It used to be that if
death occurs, the only crime is arson that is the old concept. But the new concept now under RA 7659, is
that if death occurs by reason of arson, the penalty shall be death whether you know or you do not
know the existence of the person in the place which you burned. Kaya the best defense is that I want to
kill him, it is my intention to kill him. Why? Bec. you will still have the chance of being sentenced to
reclusion perpetua just voluntarily surrender or plead guilty. As the use of fire or explosion is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance, you will be sentenced only to reclusion perpetua. But if you say, I burned the
bldg bec I only want to see that bldg on fire, I dont like the owner but I did not intend to kill the person
who was there at that time, death ka. So, this law ought to be amendedmali. Di mo nga alam eh,
paano kung may nagnanakaw dun tsaka mo sinunog. Patay yung nagnanakaw, ikaw din patay ka din bec
the law did not distinguish whether the person who was killed at the place which was burned is also
committing a crime or not. The law did not distinguish, that is the problem.

Oh, derailment of locomotive. It is the means that was used. The stranding of a vessel. Pinasadsad mo
yung barko para patayin lang yung tao, walang hiya naman nohsa bagay okay din noh. These are
means of committing acts which are considered as aggravating circumstances.
XIII. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Lets go to evident premeditation. Evident premeditation simply means that a person has already
decided to commit a crime and he has planned to that determination despite the lapse of the period for
him to reflect upon the consequences of the acts he intended to commit and he still committed the act
that he has committed himself to perform. Maybe to kill. But evident premeditation is an inherent
aggravating circumstance in robbery, even in rape, it is inherent. Paplanuhin mo ang rape eh. Ano
aaksidentehin mo lang? (Joanne: What if walang intention? Nakita lang.) You know that is a real issue
bec I would say that the decisions of the SC in some cases wherein it even said that there must be a
lapse of sufficient time to reflect upon the consequences of his acts, if a person saw a woman lying, even
if it took him about 10 mins or 5 mins in deciding to rape her, I believe that that is already evident
premeditation eh. Bec at the onset, he knows that what he is going to do is inherently wrong and he
knows the consequences of what would happen to him if caught and that is death or if not, a long time
of imprisonment, and yet he performed the act. You see in your book, 2 hours or 1 hour maybe but I
think that the SC has not had the occasion of having to decide. (Joanne: Sir, what if may maniac and
naghintay lang siya sa may kanto. He decides to rape the first woman who comes. Is that evident
premeditation?) Maniac? You remember the case of murder that a group of persons in Tondo have
agreed bec that is their way of life there at that time that the 1st man who will pass by them will be
killed so they were just there just watching the flies go by etc. so when a man passed by, one of them
suddenly stabbed the guy dead. The people around them knew about what they have agreed upon. The
SC there considered evident premeditation as one of the qualifying aggravating circumstance. Even if
the victim was not identified prior to the commission of the crime.
(Mane: Sir, can it be argued that the maniac is insane?) No, it depends upon what kind of insanity. The
insanity that is supposed to be an exempting circumstance is one where the person has a total loss of
reason and intelligence. If he is only a maniac from the decisions of the SC, look at the kleptomaniac,
where does the kleptomaniac belong? Does the kleptomaniac belong to an exempting circumstance?
Insuperable cause? They are even debating eh. Some authors say that a kleptomaniac should be placed
under insuperable causes, some says that she knows what she is doing and yet there is that impulse in
which it may be controlled. So, it is actually a matter of proof. But maniacs, sex maniacs, I will not agree.
(Thony: What if a couple is in the sexual act but within that period the girl wanted to stop. But the guy
does not want to. Is that qualified rape?) Ang qualified rape ihoThose that belong to the 10 instances
enumerated under RA 8353. One is when the girl is less than 7. Second is when the offender is an
ascendant and the defendant is an ascendant etc and that the descendant is less than 18 years of age.
Or when the offender is a common-law father of the victim and that the victim is less than 18 or stepfather and the victim is less than 18. When there is actually certain relationships such as uncle. The
other are when the offender is a member of the A.F.P. and he abused his public position or a policeman
etc. When the victim is under custody or detained and she was raped under detention. When the victim
is pregnant and her pregnancy is known to the offender, then the offender rapes her. When the
offender is suffering from HIV or AIDS or other venereal diseases and rapes the victim and transmitted
the virus to the victim. When the victim is a religious and the same is known to the offender and when
at the time of the rape, the religious is in the actual performance of her vocation. When the victim is
suffering from physical disability, psychological incapacity or disability etc. those are the qualified

aggravating circumstances in the crime of rape. What you are asking is whether there is rape. Not
qualified. Well, actually, if there is a complaint there would be an investigation for rape. But if say for
example they have already performed initially the act and then the woman refused and then the man
continued, my opinion is that there is no rape. Why in the 1st place would she consent when it is there
already? You read the decisions of Justice Fernando in rape cases. He always says that the flesh is weak
etc. He has developed a penchant for using better words to what is the feeling of a man in connection
with his relations with a woman. Fernando is good at that ha. Not only in holding an umbrella. He is
good at writing decisions. No offense meant pero pag yung iba lang diyan, ganun lang. Although he
writes very long decisions, you will learn from him. The words that he use are so intertwined with each
other that it would be easy for you to understand yet you have to look sometimes
(Joanne: Is the method employed involved in evident premeditation. For example, I tried to kill someone
by poison pero kulang) Evident premeditation na yun basta poison. (Sir, no, tapos hindi siya namatay.
So, I grabbed the knife and then killed him. Sir, does evident premeditation take into consideration the
means employed) Yung dalawang yun those are the means in order to kill the person. Even if you
initially used one weapon and then turned to another weapon in order to complete what you have
started, the evident premeditation must start from the beginning. It must not actually be what you think
it should be. Let me put it this way. I and my neighbor in the land that we are both tilling had a dispute
over the boundaries. I believed that I am at the losing end. Magaling mandaya eh. Lahi ni Satanas
(heheheJ) So, one day, I called my staff, uy umalis na ba si Sanaty? Umalis na, boss. I already started
sharpening my bolo. From morning until 5pm, I was sharpening my bolo and I know that in the
afternoon he will pass by. So, I said, pagdaan nya mamaya So, when my intended victim passed by, I
suddenly hacked him with the intention of decapitating him pero dumaplis lang kalahati. Ayun,
kumikisay pa so I got a big stone and dropped it on his head. Do you mean to tell me that my dropping
of stone over his head would interrupt the evident premeditation that I have already employed? No, it
will not. That is a simple explanation of how evident premeditation, even if it is interrupted by another
act, but towards achieving the same results, that is still covered. So, any other question about evident
premeditation? Usually, rape there is evident premeditation. But I remember a former Sec. of Justice
who espoused the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to rape. (heheheJ) You went into a outing, you
have your own rooms. Okay, but the men had a drinking spree at the beach. So, they went to their
respective rooms drunk. He entered the wrong room. When he enter, of course, he wanted sex with his
wife but it turned out that the woman there is not his wife. But it was dark. Sabi nya, uy, aayaw ayaw ka
pa ha. (louder heheheJ) SO, that was actually the language used by the speaker at that time. So, he said,
the man do not have any intention to commit voluntary rape but then it turned out that the woman
with whom he had sex at that time by means of force or violence is not his wife. Today, it would not
matter anymore bec there is marital rape. But before, sabi ko, there could be no rape through reckless
imprudence. He should have known already who his wife is. Bakit kahit anong lasing mo kilala mo ang
asawa mo. Wag mo kong lokohin (heheheJ) If I were the judge, I will convict him of voluntary rape.
XIV. THAT CRAFT, FRAUD, OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED
XV. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE
DEFENSE.
XVI. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY. (aleviosa).
THERE IS TREACHERY WHEN THE OFFENDER COMMITS ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST PERSON,
EMPLOYING MEANS, METHODS OR FORMS IN THE EXECUTION THEREOF WHICH TEND DIRECTLY AND

SPECIALLY TO INSURE ITS EXECUTION, WITHOUT RISK TO HIMSELF ARISING FROM THE DEFENSE WHICH
THE OFFENDED PARTY MIGHT MAKE.
XVII. THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO
THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.
XVIII. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY
THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE IS EFFECTED BY A WAY NOT INTENDED FOR THE
PURPOSE.
XIX. THAT AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW
BE BROKEN
XX. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE, OR BY
MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS
XXI. THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY
CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSION
Aside from evident premeditation, naturally we have the employment of craft, fraud, or disguise. Abuse
of superior strength etc. to weaken the defense. Treachery, ignominy and unlawful entry. Breaking the
wall and cruelty and even use of motor vehicle. Ill just lump them into a single discussion.
Treachery there is no problem. That is employment of means or methods in order to assure that the
person will not be able to put up a defense from the assault or attack to be employed by the offender.
And those who are actually are in a state of defenseless condition, there is always treachery. Say for
example, one who is sleeping; one who is under the influence of liquor
~~~end of tape~~~

Date: 14 July 2003

Transcribed by: Ria Berbano
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
The very description of the circumstances would already put you on guard in relation to what kind these
circumstances are. Alternative simply means that it can be considered as either mitigating or
aggravating; and in some instances it can be considered as exempting or qualifying/qualified
circumstance --- qualifying aggravating and qualified aggravating circumstance.
Now, we have for the first alternative circumstance: RELATIONSHIP. We start with exempting
circumstances in relation to relationship. Those who commit theft, swindling, falsification, malicious
mischief to their parents, descendants, ascendants (as the case may be), brothers and sisters as long as
they are living together shall be exempted from criminal liability. So, you put away such particular
relationship under exempting circumstance.
Accessories who concealed or harbored offenders --- except for those that are provided for by law
punishable under special laws in relation to the relationship to the offender such as being the spouse,

ascendant, descendant, relative by affinity within 3rd civil degree or by consanguinity within 4th civil
degree are exempted from criminal liability when it comes to being an accessory under the RPC. But the
same may not be true with respect to special laws such as obstruction of justice like anti-fencing with
respect to par 1 and also as protector of coddlers under R.A. #9165; they cannot be considered as
exempting circumstances.
Now in relation to ascendants, if a parent catches his/her daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with
a man, and their daughter is less than 18 years of age and living with them and the injuries inflicted
upon the daughter is only less serious or slight physical injuries, the parent cannot be held criminally
liable for the injuries because they are presumed to be exempted by law. You will find this true also
under Article 247 under RPC. The relationship between the spouses are considered as an exempting
circumstance under the said article.
There are others that are considered to exempting circumstances. As a matter of fact, I am still
entertaining the idea that infliction of corporal punishment by parents to their children, particularly
under Article 263 of the RPC (serious physical injuries), may exempt them still from criminal liability.
Although we have R.A. #7610 (The Child Abuse Law). There is a conflict between the said law and the
provisions of the RPC. But there is no express repeal or modification in R.A. #7610 of the provision of
Art. 263 and other laws that are existing before the passage of R.A. #7610. So, you have it then.
There are circumstances, however, that may aggravate either as an ordinary or qualified/qualifying
circumstance with respect to relationship may be committed only if the crime is against person or
property. There is now a qualified aggravating circumstance in case of crime against persons which used
to be crimes against chastity --- that is rape. The other private crimes that are seduction, abduction, etc.
they are inherent circumstances. They could not even be aggravating. They are supposed to be
inherent in the commission of a crime because such crime would not be even be committed unless their
relationship are present --- the relationship of a priest and a member of his flock; or the offender is a
priest in qualified seduction of other relatives by affinity or by consanguinity or even ascendants or
descendants.
Now, in infliction of physical injuries or in attempted homicide (but not frustrated murder, attempted
murder), if the offender is of higher degree by blood, then it would me mitigating circumstance. But if
the offender has a lower degree by blood or by affinity, usually, it is an aggravating circumstance.
Now, you have noted from several decisions of the SC, particularly in cases of rape that these
aggravating circumstances must be particularly alleged in the information. In the event that the exact
relationship between the offender and the offended party is not alleged in the information, including
the age of the offended party, the qualified aggravating circumstance of relationship cannot be taken
into consideration, which would merit the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. The usual
penalty that the SC imposes is reclusion perpetua because according to the SC the accused at the time is
being deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. If you
have read the several cases of Echegaray, probably you have come across the findings of the court as
the exact relationship between Echegaray and Baby. It was alleged that Baby was his stepdaughter. But
during the trial, it was established that Baby is his own daughter. But then the SC sentenced him to
death. That was the time when the Courts attention had not been called by a young lawyer from the
PAO that the accused in those kinds of cases are not being informed of the nature and the cause of
accusation against them and therefore they cannot be considered as qualified aggravating circumstance.
Thus the SC laid down a specific rule: All aggravating circumstances whether ordinary or specific,

qualified or qualifying must be alleged in the information. Failure to allege an aggravating circumstance
of any nature in the information, even if proven during the trial cannot be considered as aggravating for
purposes of putting the penalty in its maximum or for offsetting the felony.
The aggravating circumstance of relationship, you will recall, is mitigating is some respects. But
exempting in some respects is inherent. In regard to theft and crimes against property, relationship is
always mitigating if the relative do not belong to those who are exempted. With respect to crimes
against persons, etc., where all of us know, that the moment that the person has a high degree of blood
relationship or affinity, it is aggravating in the event that that person who has a high degree of blood
relationship or affinity is the victim. If he is the offender, there is simply mitigating circumstance; except
for rape which has already become a crime against persons.
There are other instances where relationship may be considered as qualifying aggravating. Relationship
between a master and a servant/domestic servant, that is a relationship not by blood or affinity, but by
work and it becomes a qualifying circumstance which could make the crime of theft a qualified one.
Even in the case of killing of a person, in the event that the person killed is a child of less than 3 days, the
relationship (although it is not a factor), the crime that was committed is infanticide, the penalty that
should be imposed is that of parricide. Parricide is simply the killing of the spouse, an ascendant, or a
descendant. But then, the crime of parricide is akin to murder irrespective of the presence of any of the
aggravating circumstances in Art. 14 or in Art 248 of the RPC. It is the fact of relationship that makes the
crime committed by a spouse, ascendant of descendant to an ascendant or a descendant or a spouse
that aggravates the killing. These particular areas of concerns that we have actually are not very
complicated.
The other alternative circumstance is drunkenness. When drunkenness is habitual or purposely sought
to embolden the offender in the crime he intended to commit, then it is aggravating. When it is simply
accidental or incidental when the crime is committed, it is simply mitigating. However, supposing that
the offender is a habitual drunkard, but he is not looking for trouble/any violation of any law, when
suddenly there is a heated argument aroused out of a habitual drunkard and another person, then the
habitual drunkard, armed with a knife stabbed the other one. Do you think that being a habitual
drunkard or habitual drunkenness should be considered as an aggravating circumstance? Well, you see, I
have an idea about this. A drunkard or habitual drunkenness should only be considered an aggravating
when on occasion of that habitual drunkenness, the person is always committing also a violation of law
or a rule or regulation. But even if he is a habitual drunkard, if he is not violating any law, would you
consider his habitual drunkenness an aggravating circumstance? Supposing in that case, he was the one
challenged, would his being a habitual drunkard be considered an aggravating circumstance? I am
definitely going to disagree. So, my own opinion, aside from being a habitual drunkard, that person at
the time when he is under the control of intoxicating liquor or beverages, he usually commit violations
of the law, rules, or regulation in order that habitual drunkenness be considered an aggravating
circumstance as against him. Unfair eh! Drunkenness sometimes occurs when a person who doesnt
usually engage drinking habitually or regularly or on occasion, but he loses control of himself to the
point that he cannot distinguish right or wrong/he cannot remember what he has done before. Under
the law/jurisprudence, that is considered as habitual drunkenness. There are times when men/women
sometimes drink and sometimes do not remember what happened before, do you mean to tell me that
that person is a habitual drunkard? Supposing he does it only once a month or every two weeks? That is
why the SC abandoned the theory of regularity in drinking. It only adopted the theory that if the person
has been frequently taking intoxicating liquors and that when he took those, he already loss his reason

or control of himself and he cannot anymore remember what he has done at the time when he is under
the influence of liquor etc. then he is a habitual drunkard.
Anyone who purposely sought drunkenness to embolden himself to commit the crime would naturally
be considered as an aggravating circumstance of drunkenness. However, if he does not purposely
sought so, it becomes mitigating circumstance. They say usually in southern tagalong and other places in
the are, Ikaw nga ang malasing. Meaning, you try what you are going to do when you are drunk. Not
only in the southern tagalong, even in the Visayan region and in Mindanao. Usually a person who is
drunk would not do something that is not acceptable to all those who are present. He may create a little
problem or trouble by reason of his being drunk. If it is not habitual, that is when it is considered as a
mitigating circumstance.
Lack of degree of education, etc., it is always aggravating when the person has taken advantage of his
high degree of education; unless also it is inherent in the commission of the crime. Like for example, a
doctor in cases of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide (which is also a case of malpractice), he
must be a doctor in order to commit that crime. Say the operation was successful, but the patient died.
But in certain cases, some people argue that illiteracy is a mitigating circumstance according to the SC.
Not always, because there are some people who are illiterate but really possess a talented mind. There
are some illiterates who are better than those who are able to read and write. They use their common
sense most of the time. Illiteracy by itself is not a mitigating circumstance. It must be coupled with lack
of understanding of what is wrong and what is right. But when it comes to mala in se, lack of degree of
education is not anymore accepted as a mitigating circumstance. You remember the case of the Muslims
or the moros, who claim that they should be given the mitigating circumstance of lack of degree of
education. They never stepped inside the classroom in their elementary days, and it is but natural for
them to kill their enemy so they wont have an enemy later on. It is very common to them to resort to
that kind of argument. But it is mala in se. The problem is it is very wrong to kill without any justifiable
reason. Being an enemy of another tribe, group, etc., is not a justification to kill the other group or
members of the other group.
After Article 15, we go to Article 16: Who are those criminally liable? Those who are criminally liable for
grave felonies are the principals, accomplices and accessories. Those who are criminally liable for light
felonies are only the principals and accomplices. Do you agree? You have to agree because that is the
law. But using your common sense, do you agree? If a light felony is committed by an offender and he is
an accomplice, what penalty should be imposed to him? An accomplice is entitled to a penalty lower by
one degree. So if it is a light penalty, it is supposed to be punished by a light penalty. And what is one
degree lower from a light penalty? For example, slight physical injuries, the penalty is naturally arresto
menor up to imprisonment of 30 days? What is one degree lower than this? Wala rin eh! So, do you
agree with the law? I dont agree with the law! Even in theft, hindi rin eh. Although if you were asked in
the bar exam, for purposes of passing or becoming a top-notcher, you should answer according to the
law. But if you are asked your honest belief, you should use your common sense. It is actually a matter
of concern.
Article 17 is about Principals. There are three kinds of principals. One is a principal by direct
participation, the other is by inducement, and the last is by indispensable cooperation. You are very
familiar by principals by direct participation --- they must be the main actor. They are the ones who
actually did the commission of the crime. For example, in killing, they are the ones who actually killed
the victim. Principal by direct inducement are the people who employ promises, rewards, and prizes to
induce another to commit a crime. Even in the exempting circumstances, there are principals by

inducement. The one who employed uncontrollable fear or irresistible force are not exempted from
criminal liability; they are liable for being principals by inducement. These principals by direct
participation, may only be exempted if there are principals by inducement. There is such a thing as
instigation in the commission of a crime --- that is Entrapment. This is participated by two or more
persons. One is the one entrapping the other, and in instigation, one who is instigating the other. The
one instigating the other is a principal by inducement. The one instigated or entrapped is the person
who may be prosecuted for the crime prosecuted. In crimes where instigation was an act which resulted
in the commission of the crime, the person instigated is exempt from the criminal liability. The instigator
is the principal by inducement. In entrapment, that is a legal method employed by the law enforcers to
catch a person violating the law in the act of committing the same. The distinction between instigation
and entrapment has been asked three or four times in the bar.
One of the difficult thing to interpret is the principal by indispensable participation. Meaning to say,
without his participation in the act of the crime, it would not have been accomplished. Such is a very
generic description of a principal by indispensable cooperation. One case decided by the SC: One man
grabbed and delivered a girl to his friend whom the latter wanted to have sex with. The latter raped the
girl. What is the liability of the man who grabbed the girl? If not for him, the crime of rape would not
have been accomplished; therefore he is a principal by indispensable cooperation. Other example is an
owner of a motor banca in the middle of night who was approached by a group of men to transport
them to their enemy, and the said owner agreed to do so, not necessarily to participate in the killing.
But then, upon arrival at the place where the enemy will be killed, the owner of the banca told them,
shall I wait for you or not? Such is an indication of intention to conspire with the others; such can be
considered an exhibition to an agreement to the commission of the crime. Without him, then the crime
would not have been committed. But, supposing he knew the purpose of the men, brought them there
(as he is the only boat owner at the place and no other transportation may be utilized by the men) and
told them, bahala na kayo! after that. Could he be considered a person who has incurred criminal
liability and as what? That person by prior or simultaneous act has participated in the crime without
necessarily being a principal shall be considered only as an accomplice.
It is important to distinguish a principal by indispensable cooperation and an accomplice.
An accomplice is not a principal whatsoever, but performed simultaneous or prior to the commission of
the crime and such participation is not indispensable.
*Questions of Faye regarding conspiracy cannot be heard very well.
**Answer of Judge Pimentel: Persons who were challenged, even without prior agreement to commit a
crime, but their purpose in committing an act and helping each other in the same purpose, such is
considered conspiracy. Planning prior is not the controlling factor. There is always conspiracy whenever
a person induces another to commit a crime. The moment one agrees with the inducer, there is
conspiracy.
**Between/amongst principals, you do not distinguish WON there is conspiracy, it is already given. You
only distinguish the acts of the principals to know if they are inducers, cooperators, etc.
**The one who is not most guilty is the principal by indispensable cooperation because he only
cooperated and not the one wielded the weapon for killing. The most guilty is the principal by

inducement. If the latter poses more danger to society; if he can always try to get away with his crimes
by paying his way out or give rewards.
**The testimony of the principal by indispensable participation (as a state witness) would convict the
other principals because with the corroboration of other evidence, evidence against the others will be
very strong.
There are three kinds of Accessories: first, the one who profits from the commission of the crime (a
corresponding special law, P.D. 1612: Anti-Fencing Law, punishes so whereby said accessory becomes
the principal).
In the Anti-Fencing Law, relationship is not an exempting circumstance. If the property stolen belongs to
the son of the one who profited from the commission of the crime and he becomes the dealer of the
property stolen from the other son, naturally, the son who stole if from the other son who is living with
him is exemptedwhat happens to the father under the Anti-fencing Law? That is a ticklish issue. My
contention is that he is still liable despite the fact that he is the parent of one of the parties. The fact
that they are related to one another exempts him to criminal liability should not extend to the one who
becomes a fence. (arg, putol yung discussion due to tape reversion)
The other two: 1) harboring, concealing, etc. the offender 2) concealing, destroying the effects of the
crime. These are acts of accessories under Art 19. There are two laws that may be involved. If it is in
connection with drugs, he may become a protector or a coddler under R.A. #9165. If it is in connection
with any other crime, it might fall under the law on obstruction of justice.
There are so many who are exempted from being accessories. I have already enumerated those who are
exempted, particularly those accessories who are exempted from criminal liability under Art. 20 of the
RPC (yun lang #2 and #3; yung #1 is not exempted from criminal liability). But then, if they are charged
under a special law, I believe they can be successfully prosecuted and later on convicted for violation of
the special law because that would not require criminal intent; while as an accessory under Art 19, if
would require criminal intent.
How about penalties that may be imposed? The penalties that may be imposed are only those that are
provided by law. You cannot impose any penalties that is not provided by law. Excessive, unusual, harsh,
and cruel cannot be imposed by the courts.
I remember one time when a police general conducted traffic somewhere at Ayala and EDSA. He caught
several jaywalkers. After catching them, he lined them up and ordered them to give him 20 push-ups.
The Jaywalking Law provides for a penalty of fine of up to P1,000 only. No other penalty can be
imposed!!! You know, he can be administratively charged for what he imposed, he committed a
misconduct! Imposing a penalty that is not provided for by law is grave coercion! (jokes omitted)
Everybody knows Art. 22 of the RPC. The cases involved are the cases of Robin Padilla, Congressman De
Guzman, and Martin Simon. All penal laws shall have prospective effect; it shall only have retroactive
effect if it is favorable to the accused. R.A. #8294 carries a much lower penalty than what is provided in
P.D. #1866. When Robin Padilla, De Guzman, etc. and this law was passed, it is beneficial to them, they
are entitled to a retroactive effect of the penal law.

How about the provision in R.A. #9165, which states that the provision of the RPC shall not have
suppletory effect? Would that include Art. 22 of the RPC? No, it would not. It shall only be confined in
Art. 10 of the RPC.
*Question of Edcel re the Lacson case.(hard to distinguish).
**Judge groans and cracks jokes. In the interpretation/construing penal laws, it shall be strictly be
construed against the State and in favor of the accused. That has been a time-honored principle. It has
never been changed. It is enshrined in the Constitution here and all over the world. If you are going to
ask me whether we should balance the interest of the State or not, I dont think that is a matter to be
balanced! If the SC states that just because an accused is menace to the society, then I disagree. Just
like Alan Paguia, he is becoming a character (laughter). Judge recounts Paguias goodness to him. I will
defend his right to say what he does/believes in is right; but whether he is wrong or not, I cannot defend
him. If not one will do so, where will we go? Pulutin tayo sa kangkungan nyan eh. If it turns out he is
wrong, that is his problem.
*Talk about Fornier being a debater.
*Read the article of Dean Bocobo in the PDI.
*More regarding Paguias actuations and his reliance to God Almighty; other considerations or right
cause.
*Jo-annes comment that Paguia flunked half the class and passed after appeal.
Some people have their own way of doing things; I have my own way of doing things
In Article 22 of the RPC, you just remember the case of People vs. Martin Simon in relation to R.A.
#7659, R.A. #6425, R.A. #8294, P.D. #1866, the cases of Robin Padilla and Congressman De Guzman.
Article 23 of the RPC actually involves pardon by the offended party, not by the State. Pardon by the
offended party may be given in order to be effective in cases of private crimes that cannot be
prosecuted de officio prior to the institution of the criminal action in the proper court. So if the pardon
was given during the preliminary investigation, whether in the MTC or the prosecutors office, that
would constitute a valid ground for pardon. Private Crimes: Acts of lasciviousness, simple seduction,
qualified seduction, etc, etc. But there is a condition put down by the SC in jurisprudence: in the event
that the offended party is a minor, the pardon given by the minor cannot be effective unless it is in
conformity with her parents. But, another case came to mind, before rape became a crime against
persons. In this case, the father rape his daughter. The first rape occurred when the daughter was less
than 18 years of age. At that time, the daughter said, tang, if you are going to do that again, I am going
to file a case against you. I forgive you now. Such forgiveness was without the consent of the mother.
After reaching the age of 18, she was raped again. She filed two cases of rape against her father. This
time it is not qualified anymore. The lower court convicted the father. The SC acquitted the father with
respect to the first rape because although the mother did not conform to the pardon, when the girl
reached the age of 18 and she did not retract the pardon, such becomes an effective grant of pardon
considering that no criminal case yet has been filed against the father in any proper court. But, with the
case of the second rape, convicted. When she filed the case, she was already of age. Her non-withdrawal
of the prior pardon makes so still effective and valid (remember that ha)

*Kathy Los question, was the pardon conditional?

**Judge: conditional nga!!! But she did not retract so when she became 18, thus, it became a reality
before she filed the criminal case. In other words, the withdrawal of the pardon must be immediately
made after she turned 18 years of age. Her pardon was initially invalid, but it became valid after she
became 18 and prior to the institution of the case.
For crimes that can be prosecuted de officio, there are only two instance where pardon is allowed, in no
other case can it occur. One, in cases of marital rape, the forgiveness given by the wife may be given any
time even if the offender is serving sentence.
How about what is really happening in the court, so many are submitting affidavits of desistance. Are
they valid? Such affidavits are not valid to dismiss an information. But some people insist, kami ang
nag-reklamo, mas marunong pa kayo? There ought to be a law that when the private complainant
withdrew by reason of monetary or other considerations (not because there was no crime committed),
they should be penalized. Before, I cite these people to contempt and fined them up to P5,000. Pero
nagdahan-dahan na ko kasi mareklamo dito ang tao sa Maynila. I know I am right because what they do
is contemptuous.
A long story about accounting in a company if the boss executes an affidavit of desistance, I will
dismiss the case. So, it is really a case-to-case basis.
Pardon by the offended party in multiple rape by several persons. If the accused agreed to marry the
victim and the latter agrees as long as she can end off with the good-looking one. The problem here is if
the marriage takes place, would the other accused be benefited by the pardon? No! It used to be the
others would benefit because rape was a private crime before. Now, since rape is a crime against
persons which can be prosecuted de oficio, the other accused cannot be benefited by the marriage.
In cases of rape with multiple homicide, according to the SC, the other rapes cannot be aggravating
circumstance. There is only one rape with homicide and the others are considered independent rapes
because rape is not amongst those aggravating circumstance enumerated in Art 14 of the RPC.
Measures adopted which are not considered as penalties: Preventive imprisonment, confinement in an
asylum or a rehabilitation center.
In preventive imprisonment, the period, in the event of conviction, shall be considered for purposes of
computing the length of service still to be served by the offender, that is the only benefit the felon can
derive. The purpose here is reformation. The other confinements are not considered to be like so.
~~~end of tape~~~
DATE: July 16, 2003
By: Katherine Faye Darvin
FINE
(A fine) is afflictive when the fine is more than P 6,000.00 and it is correccional when it is P 6,000.00 but
more than P 200.00 and it is light when it is P 200 and below.

That is up to P 200 is light fine, more than P 200 but does not exceed P 6000.00 is correccional fine but
more than P 6000.00 is afflictive fine.
(Im not kidding, guys, he just repeated what he said! In the reverse order!)
do not confuse the correccional fines with jurisdictional fines because there is a difference between the
two. Naturally, if the fines are within the jurisdiction of the MTC, it is either light or correccional but a
part of the correccional fine is already within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Why? Because under BP 129, as
amended by several laws and the Rules of Court, rule on the jurisdiction of the RTC and MTC with
respect to fines hasnt been changed. It remains to be that the jurisdiction of the first level courts that is
the MTC, MCTC and MeTC shall be up to a fine of P 4,000.00. so it is when the correccional fine and we
are familiar with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in so many cases that when the penalty is
correccional in nature, it is within the jurisdiction of the MCTC, MTC and MeTC EXCEPT when the penalty
is solely a fine. The exclusive jurisdiction of the MCTC, MTC and MeTC is only up to a fine of P 4,000.00,
beyond that it is already with the RTC. Do not confuse the jurisdictional fine and the fine as a penalty
because the fine as a penalty would start from up to P200.00 light penalty, from P200.00 to P6,000.00
correccional penalty and more than P 6,000.00 is an afflictive. Do not confuse the jurisdictional fine for
purposes of acquisition of jurisdiction by the 1st level courts and the 2nd level courts. (ok?!)
Article 27 speaks of duration and effects of penalties. RA 7659 only amended the duration of life
imprisonment and reclusion perpetua because the duration of the penalty of reclusion perpetua has
been increased from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years from 30 years. Same is true with life imprisonment
although in some cases the Supreme Court has pronounced that there is no maximum duration of the
penalty of life imprisonment but in RA 7659, it specifically provided that the maximum of duration of life
imprisonment of life imprisonment is 40 years (did it not say so?) yes it did.
Now, there was a problem also when a penalty of death is commuted to reclusion perpetua. When the
duration of reclusion perpetua is only up to a maximum of 30 years of imprisonment, if the death
penalty then and up to now is reduced or is commuted to reclusion perpetua, the duration of the
penalty should be up to 40 years, actually that is more on accessory penalties and even civil interdiction
should be up to 40 years. The problem now of course is if you are going to look at the accessory
penalties of reclusion perpetua, the accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua is perpetual in nature. Its
not only up to 40 years but the accused shall suffer a perpetual accessory penalty or perpetual accessory
penalties. This has bee our problem because the law has not yet been amended. It should have been
amended a long time ago and the appropriate durations should have been fixed by RA 7659. But RA
7659 did not fix the durations of accessory penalties. It should have fixed it in order that there should be
no more confusion.
Despite the duration of the penalties of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, etc, they still remain
indivisible and for purposes of indeterminate sentence law and for other purposes, including of that of
parole or commutation of sentence sometimes. But the penalty of reclusion perpetua carries with it all
the accessory penalties that may be found under the RPC. On the other hand, the penalty of life
imprisonment do not carry with it accessory penalties. The reason being that it is a special law and
special laws do not provide for accessory penalties except in one law that I have come across and that is
RA 9165.
So, even the penalty of reclusion temporal, which has a duration of from 12 years and 1 day up to 20
years, its accessory penalties or some of its accessory penalties may reach up to perpetual accessory

penalties, meaning to say that it has a perpetual effect. Say for example, civil interdiction, a person who
may have been convicted of within the range of reclusion temporal shall suffer perpetual absolute
disqualification from any of those enumerations provided for by the law. The penalty of prision mayor,
etc, although prision mayor is, actually an afflictive penalty, the general rule is that the accessory
penalty is only up to the duration of the actual penalty imposed which is within the range of prision
mayor. The same is true in prision correccional and arresto mayor. But, are there accessory penalties on
destierro, suspension and light penalties? Are there? Destierro? There is none. Suspension? There is
none. Arresto mayor? Well, only up to the duration of the penalty imposed by the court. The same is
true with respect to arresto menor. Why? Because the one cannot exercise some of his rights while he is
actually incarcerated in jail. Even if he is serving his sentence in his own residence, still he cannot
exercise certain rights because at that time, he is prevented from doing so because he is serving
sentence.
There are instances where naturally the penalties are to be computed. For purposes of computing the
penalty for those who are already under detention or preventive imprisonment, when do you start
computing the penalty that should be served by the offender? It shall be computed from the day of final
judgment. If he is already under detention or he is already a detention prisoner. If he is not a detention
prisoner, the penalty shall or the duration of the penalty shall be computed from the time that he is
placed at the disposal of the authorities and when does a person convicted of a crime is placed under
the disposal of the authorities? When? Meaning to say that the judgment has become final and
executory and he is already at the disposal of the authorities. The two must concur. He is already at the
disposal of the that the judgment has already been final and executory and that he is at the disposal
of the authorities. Well he is the disposal of the authorities when actually there is already a return of the
warrant of arrest or a return showing that the accused was already arrested and already confined in jail
or when the accused has already voluntarily surrendered to the court. He would then be at the disposal
of the authorities. What are the evidence that would prove that he is already at the disposal of the
authorities? When the court issues a commitment order on final sentence. Usually, what is the term
being used by the prison authorities for that commitment on final sentence? That is called MITTIMUS. If
you are asked a question what is the meaning of mittimus? It is a commitment order issued by the court
for the accused to serve his sentence by virtue of a final judgment.
There are several kinds of commitment orders which are not exactly a mittimus. 1) commitment during
the pendency of the trial. The records of the case must be complete if a person has been arrested, the
duty of the court is to issue a commitment order during the pendency of the case. If the accused has
been sentenced and the judgment has become final and executory, that is already the mittimus or a
commitment by virtue of a final judgment, how about those who appealed and they are still in prison,
they cannot post bail? Or that the court prohibits the posting of bail? That is a commitment during the
pendency of appeal.
Are you familiar now with these several commitments? They are evidence that the accused is already at
the hands of the authorities. The authorities cannot anymore claim: di, wala sa amin yan eh!)
It is important. When you are a private prosecutor, never mind if you are for the accused, do not assert
the issuance of that commitment order. If you are a private prosecutor you must ask a judge to issue a
commitment order during the pendency of the case. Why? Well, you will
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx authorities

How about preventive imprisonments? Preventive imprisonments have some effects especially in
computing the penalties in the event that the accused is convicted. In the event that the accused is
convicted, it has also some effect in the government because if the accused is convicted and upon being
committed to a detention center, he agreed with the jail warded that he is to be treated as a convicted
prisoner, he shall be entitled to a full credit of the period of his detention. Naturally if the detention
prisoner is amenable to being treated as a convicted prisoner, he will be performing duties which are
supposed to be performed only by convicted prisoners.
But those who do not agree to be treated as convicted prisoners can sleep whole day. They wont be
assigned any duties. The only effect, the only advantage of agreeing to be treated as a convicted
prisoner is that in the event that the person is convicted, his period of detention shall be credited to him
in whole. If however he is not amenable to be treated as a convicted prisoner, he shall be entitled only
to 4/5 of the period his preventive imprisonment. Ex. if it is 5 years as a detention prisoner, what would
be credited to him is only a period of 4 years. He will not be given the entire years.
How about all those people who were not convicted but they suffered preventive imprisonment? It
depends upon the reason for their acquittal. If the reason for their acquittal was that they are innocent,
they did not commit any wrong or any crime, they shall be entitled to be paid a sort of disturbance
payment in the form of P 10,000/year of imprisonment.
(here Judge told the story of the 2 innocent people who were sent to jail just because they ran side by
side in the direction where the accused is also running)
(Judge ordered for the two innocent people that were convicted to be paid P 10,000.00/ year for their
10-year incarceration.)
it first should be coursed through the department of justice, etc and that it would depend upon the
availability of funds and that they would have to follow it up with the DBM.
(continuation of story)
but when they were about to leave, farinas transit refused to accommodate them despite the fact that
they already have the passes from the bureau of prisons. So I called them up to accommodate this
people. Otherwise I said, if they complain, at the instance of the court, it will institute a case of indirect
contempt against the manager of the corporation. So they were forced.
Effects of penalties: perpetual, temporary, absolute disqualifications from holding office from being
elected to any office or to vote and be voted upon, suspension from public office or civil interdiction and
bond to keep the peace. What is important here is the perpetual absolute disqualification of suffrage.
Under Book One of the RPC, if a person is sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months, he shall
suffer perpetual absolute disqualification to vote and be voted upon. That is when he served his
sentence. If however, he is accepted for probation, then the moment that the probation is terminated,
he shall also be restored to all his civil rights. That is the benefit of one who will be undergoing
probation. He will be restored to all his civil rights and that includes his political rights. Do you recall a
newspaper article that a mayor is being asked to be disqualified to sit as a mayor on the ground that he
is under probation when he ran for public office? But he won despite the fact that he is under probation.
But the guy said, when he won the election, they terminated my probation before I assumed office. And
therefore I am already restored to all my civil and political rights. The matter is now with the Supreme
Court I believe will determine if that person is eligible to become the mayor of that town or not. It is

actually not really a big issue if the person has been given a pardon by the President. No problem. But
here, what we only know in probation is that when the probation is terminated by the court, the
offender is restored to all his civil rights. But lets see what is the decision of the SC in that case.
In RA 9165, irrespective of the penalty imposed, the offender shall suffer only certain portions of civil
interdiction. He will not have parental authority. He cannot dispose of his property nor manage the
same. But the law did not say that he will suffer the loss of marital authority if he violates any of the
provisions of RA 9156. maybe it was an oversight but maybe it was purposely omitted by the one whoa
authored the law and the researcher. And as I have already said to my students in special proceeding,
when a person is suffering from civil interdiction, xxx (tape screeches then stops)
SIDE B
(I think this is the story of rolito go)
xxxxx
When he was sentenced with finality to serve a penalty of reclusion perpetua, when he failed to appeal
because he choose to jump bail and resort to hiding because he escaped
There could be valid reasons for his escape because if you read the case of Go v. CA, who will not be
afraid? The arrest of Go is illegal. The preliminary investigation is illegal. All struck against him. The pretrial is illegal. The trial, which occurred is illegal and the SC has declared all of it as illegal but the SC said:
Go, you have to undergo preliminary investigation and directed the provincial prosecutor of Rizal to
conduct preliminary investigation but meanwhile the SC said Mr. Go, before you can be released, post a
bail. There is no preliminary investigation yet and yet he is asked to post a bail. What I understand in
criminal procedure is that it should be the accused who should request to post a bail before undergoing
preliminary investigation. Isnt that correct in your crim pro? Not the prosecutor, not the court! That is
again a first in the history of preliminary investigations that the court is the one already ordering the
accused to post bail without the accused asking for it.
Pardon by the President. Naturally, before the President of the Philippines could grant pardon, the
decision convicting the accused must have become final and executory. During the tome of Pres. Ramos
they made a boo-boo when the office of the President granted a pardon to a person whose judgment
has not yet attained finality, I mean, whose conviction has not yet attained finality. And somebody went
to the SC questioning and the SC has to dress-down the chairman of the board of pardons and parole,
etc and all others concerned that they should first determine whether the judgment has become final
and executory before they recommend to the President that a person be granted pardon. So Erap
should be found guilty be first and not appeal and just ask pardon and lets be done with it para tapos
na, wala nang maraming gulo. If he will do that probably he will be disqualified from running for public
office. that is his the end. And also, atty. Paguia will not have a problem anymore.
Important: this is the part where Judge impliedly states that its not his style to fail students:
(Judge is telling the story about the flunking of students , or even of the class we will be
creating a good image.. I said: (Judge said) do you think that you will be creating a good image? That
means that you have accepted poor students, mean, students who dont deserve to be in the college of
law and we have to flunk them? Well I was telling them, your selection of the students who goes to your
school is very poor if we are going to do that. We should teach them, we should not threaten them by
flunking them or by not allowing them to graduate or whatever you see those are things that are not
supposed to be done I dont know if thats alright with them. To me its not alright with me. I have my
own way of doing things. Lets see.. ok)

How about pardons that were extended by the President? Can they be recalled or revoked? How about
if it is absolute pardon? Can the President recall? Hindi na. It is an act of liberality on the part of the
President that has already been extended to another person and therefore the president is bound by his
acts. You can just imagine, if I am the President, no matter what the public will say I already said my
piece, I already gave him my pardon, that is all there is to it. are you going to argue with me? Then argue
with some other people not me. I am nit the right person to argue with. But then during the time of Erap
in the case of Manero, maybe because afraid of bad publicity or afraid of adverse comments, etc. or the
comments already being made by several people, Erap withdraw the pardon to the guy. And now he will
suffer about 22 or 20 years more years of imprisonment. Despite the fact that he has already been in jail
for the last 17 years or more or 23 years to my mind when a President extends pardon, if it is absolute,
no recall even if there is fraud. Because the office of the President has all the means to discover if there
is fraud. Are you going to tell me that those people who screen those people who will be granted
pardon did not do their job? Sila ang wag mong bigyan ng pardon. We should not give them any
privilege at all. That is my idea. Conditional there should be no problem because anytime if the
President is displeased with the acts being committed by the grantee, all that he has to do is revoke
because that is a contract between the President and the person given a conditional pardon. And if one
violates any provisions of that contract, the contract becomes ineffective. And therefore the President
has all the right to revoke it. that is the principle there that has to be understood.
That would include costs. Fees, indemnities, whether fixed or alternative in nature, are considered as
costs. Well it is only in this country that costs are at its minimum. In other countries, the costs are
prohibitive in litigation. As I told you the costs that were Where is OJ Simpson tried? New York? Or
California? California no? They billed OJ, because he was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt and
he was also found liable civilly, they billed OJ in the criminal case I believe of the costs which would
amounts to $25.5 million and whole amount in the civil case of about $3 million. Sa Philippines magkano
lang costs? P2,000.00, P 2,500.00, etc.. and whoever pays costs? Hudas not pay? Most of those
convicted do not pay. Despite the fact that they have the capacity to pay.
We are in cost and now we will go to pecuniary liabilities. Pecuniary liabilities will consist of reparation
of the damage caused, indemnification of damages, indemnification of consequential damages including
costs and others. Alright, now, subsidiary penalties. Do not confuse subsidiary penalties from preventive
imprisonment. Subsidiary penalties are only available when the penalty includes a fine in itself and the
penalty is not beyond prision correccional. But if it is prision correccional, it depends if in computing the
subsidiary penalty it will reach the maximum of prision correccional. In the event that the penalty is
imprisonment and fine and the imprisonment is correccional in nature, what would be the severest
penalty that can be imposed as a correccional penalty which shall include fine? How many months? How
many years? Did the law say so? What did the law says? In such an event, the subsidiary penalty shall
not increase 1/3 of the penalty that was imposed. Say for example, the penalty imposed is up to 3 years,
the subsidiary penalty in case there is a fine paid cannot exceed 1 year because it is within the range of
1/3. Now, in the event that it is solely a fine, what should be the subsidiary penalty? In case it is solely a
fine, the subsidiary penalty irrespective of the amount even if it is a Billion peso or what you see in (RA)
9165 up to 550 million pesos, it shall not exceed 6 months. And you know of course that subsidiary
imprisonment or penalty shall be computed at P8/day of imprisonment. But that was since 1968. if you
look at your book, that particular provision fixing the amount of subsidiary penalty etc or subsidiary
imprisonment was actually an amended to the minimum wage then of P4 which was increased to P8 in
1968. from then on, the law was not anymore amended. The people in Congress forgot amount
subsidiary imprisonment because they could all pay the fine. Kayang-kaya magbayad ng fine eh. From

their own beef barrels, pork barrels, dog barrels or whatever, they can pay. But in no case in the event
that the only penalty is a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment cannot, irrespective of the amount cannot
exceed 6 months.
It is high time now that they amend it. how much is the minimum wage now in Metro Manila? P 250?
Ang laki non from P8. somebody should write your Congressman to amend the law. Ako if I write our
Congresswoman, she might not take it as a good advice. She might not take it as a good advice, she
might take it as a political gimmick of which I am never engaged in such an activity. Dapat everybody
should write their Congressman not just because for the heck of it or you want to tell your Congressman
that you know the law. Its actually for not only practical but for the benefit of those people who may be
imprisoned because of poverty.
Well, the penalties were, the accessory penalties are only inherent to those with respect to death,
reclusion perpetua, death which has been commuted to reclusion perpetua not life imprisonment ha!,
reclusion temporal, prision mayor and prision correccional. Arresto mayor, No. Arresto menor, no. but
then with respect to accessory penalties of civil interdiction, the penalties that carry with it civil
interdiction are only those that have been commuted from death to reclusion perpetua or penalty of
reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal. Other than those penalties, civil interdiction do not attach.
Remember that. You should remember that.
Now, the accessory penalties in cases of prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto, are only
supposed to attach to the penalties during the duration of the actual penalties imposed in the
maximum. So if what was imposed is prision mayor minimum, that is from 6 years and 1 day to 8 years,
the period of the accessory penalty is only up to 8 years only. Not the entire range of prision mayor.
Same is true with prision correccional, same is true with arresto mayor, and never mind arresto menor
because arresto menor is so temporary, just wait for 10 days, 20 days up to 30 days. After getting out, it
is automatic that he is restored to all his civil, political and other rights.
Now, forfeiture and confiscation or confiscation and forfeiture. We are aware that instruments used in
the commission of the crime are subject to forfeitures. Question: If an instrument is used in the
commission of the crime but it belongs to a third person, can it be subject to a forfeiture? No? But then
if the property is only possessed by the owner by reason of a permit or a privilege, can it be forfeited in
favor of the government of the Republic of the Philippines? Such as a gun, a firearm, naturally, the
possession of a firearm is a mere privilege because you are being issued a license. If the firearm is used
in the commission of a crime, is it automatic that it shall be forfeited in favor of the government even if
it belongs to a third person? No. it must be shown that the offender, even if he uses a firearm belonging
to another must actually have used the same with the knowledge of the owner. If the owner knew that
that particular licensed property will be used by the offender in the commission of the crime, then it
shall be forfeited in favor of the government of the Philippines. If it is a contraband, no problem.
Whether it belongs to anyone, it shall be forfeited in favor of the government of the Republic of the
Philippines but it cannot be destroyed if such property can still be the subject of usage of the citizen of
that country if it is still within the commerce of man. But if it is beyond the commerce of man, then it
shall be destroyed. Save for example, even if it could be used but it is beyond the commerce of man, it
could be destroyed. For example, fake CDs. if those fake CDs have been confiscated, can you claim that
you bought it with your own money and you earned that money from a legitimate source. Can your
argument hold? No. it is still to be forfeited even if it can still be the subject of commerce. But then that
word commerce is rather confusing. It must be lawful commerce. Because there is an unlawful
commerce such as the sale of this CDs, VCDs, tapes, whathaveyou.

Even this uka-ukay. I was made to understand from those who know that it came from the Salvation
Army and it is the Salvation Army whos selling them. And the Salvation Army is a non-governmental
institution? Charitable institution? Where are the money going? (this is the ukay-ukay story) so are they
contrabands? Can they be forfeited in favor of the government of the republic? There was a time that it
was prohibited. Now you cant control it anymore.
There are properties that maybe subject to forfeiture which is different from escheat proceedings under
the special proceedings. Escheats, when the deceased left no will, left no heir, the office of the Solicitor
General should file, an escheat proceeding with the proper court so that the property will be privately
owned by the government. Private yon non public. It shall be owned by the government in its private
capacity. And that well, any person who have an interest over the property such as an heir, has a period
of 5 years within which to bring an action to recover that property which was given to the government
within 5 years from the date of its delivery to the government. Remember that. But it is not forfeiture.
What Reversions in spec pro. You have a property in Makati. A Taiwanese went to see you. without
asking for his citizenship, you sold him your property. It turns out that he is actually a Taiwan citizen and
he cannot own any real property in the Philippines. What happens to the property that you sold? It will
also be subject of escheat in the manner of reversion proceedings. The property shall revert back to the
estate. That is reversion. Since the time of Krivenko, a Russian who acquired properties in the
Philippines.
Properties that were used as a greenhouse or property where plant sources of dangerous drugs are
cultured. These shall be forfeited in favor of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. The
proceedings may be impliedly instituted in the criminal case. But if it is not established in the criminal
action, then you can fine a separate action for escheat proceedings against the owner. There are so
many kinds of forfeiture proceedings. As a matter of fact, I now have a problem. Actually two problems
regarding properties belonging to private individuals. A case of violation of RA 8484, the access device
law. A Taiwanese was caught manufacturing fictitious cards or embossing with an embossing machine,
fictitious credit cards. You name it, he has it. what did them in is that they bought several appliances
from several stores almost daily. And they sell those appliances at a very very low price. They were
caught with a 48 inch flat TV. The problem is, after the guy was convicted, the order being final and
executory, we tried to return the TV to the store where they allegedly bought it. but the store refused to
accept it saying that it was not bought in that store. So we asked the manufacturer to determine to
which establishment that TV was delivered but the manufacturer refused. The TV set is there, we cannot
use it, we cannot dispose of it and its occupying a lot of space. Can we forfeit it in favor of the
government? Hindi because it belongs to a private individual who is not in conspiracy with the people in
the use of a falsified or a forged credit card. So it is a dilemma for us. Another dilemma for us is a PNP
police officer who was using his big bike for extortion activities. He has his own lawyers who revealed
the secret of the peace officer.
~~~end of tape~~~
DATE: 21 July 2003
By: Mildred Joy Que
COMPLEX CRIMES
The complex crime proper is actually the commission of a crime which is a necessary means of
committing another and a compound crime is a commission of a single act that results into two or more

grave or less grave felonies. A special complex crime is one that has been specifically designated by law
as such.
You will note that the complex crime proper only says that an act may be or is a necessary means of
committing another such as what falsification etc which is a means to commit estafa thus the crime
committed is estafa through falsification of commercial or private documents. Even sometimes other
crimes can be complex with another as long as it is a necessary means of committing the other unless
that particular act which is also a crime is already absorbed in the commission of the crime.
Such as what? Do you know of any crime or offense that has been already absorbed in another crime
despite the fact that it is actually a separate crime in itself and it is not even sometimes a necessary
means of committing the other.
Well, illegal possession of firearms as we know has been absorbed in the commission of the crime of
murder or homicide. It shall only serve as a special aggravating circumstance. But there are crimes that
are absorbed in several crimes of which their absorption to those crimes do not even affect either
modify or whatever the crime that has been committed such as rebellion, carnapping may be absorbed
in rebellion because these rebels must have to use transportation in order that they can move from one
place to another. Even piracy may be absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
Definitely illegal possession of firearms is absolutely absorbed in the crime of rebellion but that was
since the time of People v. Hernandez, Enrile v. Salazar and such other cases.
Rebellion being a continuous crime it may absorb so many crimes such as theft etc. Now the only crimes
that cannot be absorbed in the crime of rebellion are naturally private crimes or those crimes that
involve chastity which may however been transferred to crime against persons but by the very nature of
the crime itself it cannot be absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
There are other crimes necessary in order to commit other crimes. But, in crimes of treason, naturally
the possession of firearms etc and everything maybe also absorbed in the crime of treason. The reason
being that during actual hostilities or in times of war one must have to possess firearms or other similar
instruments in order that they maybe able to succeed in their purpose but definitely in some crimes you
cannot consider them as absorbed in the crime of treason.
Now, this absorption theory only goes as far as the crime that was committed is a necessary means also
of committing the other. That is as far as it can go. Now in compound crime it is simply a single act
resulting into two or more less grave or grave felonies. Say for example, a person shot another and then
of course it resulted into double homicide, it resulted into homicide and serious physical injuries. That is
actually a compound crime but the problem here is does a complex crime proper follows the principle in
compound crime? Meaning, must the act that is a necessary means, must the crime that is a necessary
means of committing the other crime must also be a less grave or a grave felony? Does it follow?
Because only the compound crime specifically provides that the single act must have resulted into two
or more less grave or grave felonies but in complex crime proper did the law state that the crime that
was committed which is a necessary means of committing another crime must also be a less grave or
grave felony and that the resulting crime must also be a less grave or a grave felony? There is no such
provision. There is no jurisprudence that will explain whether it adopts the principle of compound crime.

However, by simple understanding of the laws on complex crime, it would appear to me that the same
principle will apply in compound crime. Well, in complex crime which is actually a compound crime the
Supreme Court in disposing of a case involving a reckless imprudence which is a single act and it resulted
to so many things- multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries, damage to property, less serious
physical injuries and slight physical injuries because one of the victim was able to jump from the vehicle
while it was about to plunge into a deep ravine. He was able to jump, he suffered only slight physical
injuries. What was the decision of the Supreme Court there? The Supreme Court said that the crime of
reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries cannot be included in the complex crimes of
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide etc up to the serious physical injuries. The Supreme Court
ordered that the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries which resulted out of
that particular compound crime should be instituted separately and prosecuted separately and decided
separately from the rest. The reason being that the single act resulted into shall we call it, one of the
resulting acts or one of the acts that was the result of a single act or one of the crimes that resulted out
of a single act is a light felony. Although it may seem impractical, because the prosecutor will have to
prepare another information or complaint, then, the accused there will have to be arraigned again, the
presentation of evidence in the other case will be the same presentation of evidence in this slight
physical injury case especially the testimonies of witnesses, the testimony of the police officer etc.. My
gosh, the government will be spending so much effort and money in prosecuting only a reckless
imprudence resulting only to a slight physical injury case. And there will be multiplicity of suits. Although
the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy yet it would result to multiplicity of suits which is
being avoided actually by the rules of court yet the Supreme Court said file a slight physical injury case.
So, that is the present situation now in relation to compound crimes.
The third complex crime is the special complex crime. But then, this special complex crime only refers to
specific victims and specific offenders and specific acts. I will give you an example of which probably you
did not realize that it applies only to specific persons. In that it cannot apply to any other persons other
than those mentioned by the law. You all know that under republic act 7659 amending the law on
carnapping that is 6958 or something like that, there could be a carnapping with homicide. A special
complex crime of carnapping with homicide. But then, the law provides only for specific victims, that on
occasion of the carnapping, in order that there could be a special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide, the victim must either be the following: the driver, the owner or any occupant of the vehicle.
If say for example the victim during the carnapping is a person who is a bystander or one who was just
trying the help the victim or even a policeman who was trying to prevent the carnapping, there could be
no carnapping with homicide. The carnapping will be separately prosecuted from the crime of homicide
or murder or homicide with direct assault or murder with direct assault. So you see, that is a particular
complex crime of which the victims have already been predetermined by law. Any other victim that is
not within those enumerated by law cannot be considered to be complex with the crime of carnapping.
In all the other cases, let us say for example, robbery with homicide, in robbery with homicide, what
happens? Any victim whether it is committed as a means to commit the robbery or on occasion thereof ,
or by reason thereof, the crime of robbery with homicide is committed. Now, in the crime of robbery
with rape, the rape is only incidental to the crime of robbery, the main purpose of the offender is to
commit robbery, rape was actually only an after thought during the commission of the robbery unless of
course you will note that if the offender has already determined that aside from the robbery that he is
going to commit, he will commit rape, the two shall be separately prosecuted from each other. The
crime of robbery should be an independent crime to be prosecuted separately and the rape should be
an independent crime to be separately prosecuted and they cannot be complexed with each other
because the offender has already decided prior to the commission of both, that he will commit both
crimes.

There are times when an offender aside from having decided to rob a woman, said Im going to rape
that woman after I have robbed her, now is that a complex crime of robbery with rape? No, that is not a
complex crime of robbery with rape. It is a separate crime of robbery and a separate crime of rape
because there are two criminal intents already present in the mind of the offender. I think this is the first
time that this matter has been brought to your attention. There are other principles that you have to
know in relation to this. But, let us discuss first other kinds of complex crimes. Let us go to arson before I
go to robbery with homicide etc. and of course certain developments in these particular crimes, special
complex crimes.
In arson, it used to be that there is no complex crime of arson with homicide. There was none. If you
burn a building and a person dies, you do not know that that person is present only the crime of arson is
committed. If you burn a building in order to kill a person, then that is murder with the use of fire. But
with the passage of RA 7659, it has changed the complex crime principle in regard to arson because in
the old rule, there is no complex crime in regard to arson. Now, there is one. Even if the offender does
not know the presence of a person but he burned a building resulting to the death of that person, there
is a complex crime of arson with homicide. And the worst part of it is that the penalty is worse than
murder, because the law says that the penalty shall be death, Shall! On the other hand, if your intention
is to kill your victim, you burn his house to kill him, that is murder. The penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death. So, if you are the lawyer of a person accused of arson with homicide, ask him to plea bargain and
enter a plea of guilty to murder. Why, the moment he pleads guilty, he will be already out of being
sentenced to death. The only penalty that can be imposed upon him is reclusion perpetua, you saved his
life. SO this law was passed without actually the congress realizing the gravity of their mistake. But it
was actually a mistake.
The crime of robbery with homicide, has different phases. I mean, the participants in the crime of
robbery with homicide, may depend upon first, the conspiracy and second, it may depend upon the
place where the crime is to committed. Let me put it this way, supposing that three persons agreed to
commit the crime of robbery, it was explained by their leader that the place where the robbery will take
place is the residence of their former employer. I mean the employer of two of them. One is not familiar
with the place. The two are familiar with the place. They were the house painters of the place to be
robbed. They discussed that usually the owner of the house leaves before 8 am to go to his work and
the only person being left behind is the maid. So, what would happen? Naturally if there would be a
conspiracy, there is a possibility that there will be an employment of force or violence which may even
result to the death of the maid or any other person who may be present at the house of the offended
party. Supposing further that in the agreement, one of them who is not familiar with the place was
designated as a lookout and the lookout will only give a signal while he is in a sari-sari store probably
smoking a pack of cigarettes or drinking a bottle of coke or whatever, that if ever a patrol car or a mobile
car or barangay tanods or other law enforcement agents or suspicious looking persons pass by, he will
give the signal to his cohorts or to his friends. But during the entry of the two men after they knock at
the front gate, it was the maid who opened the gate and knowing the two as they were the former
painters of the house, she said, what are you doing here? Well, we left some tools or equipments and
we want to get them. Some of them are on the roof, we forget them on the roof. So the maid believed
them, asked them to enter, allowed them to enter. But after the maid closed the gate, the two armed
with screwdrivers and an ice peak stabbed the maid more than 15 times, she died on the spot. It so
happens that another person was then present in the vicinity, he was a newly hired houseboy. While he
was about to help the girl, the two assaulted him also and stabbed him several times, he died. So, the
robbery went on smoothly etc. the things that they want to get were carted away by them and the one

who was appointed as lookout called a taxi cab and they placed the goods inside the taxi cab of course
they were able to get money, jewelry and appliances. But while on their way to Tondo passing by Del
Pan bridge, the police officers noted that there are wires dangling from the compartment so they
became suspicious, accosted the three and after hearing from the radio that a robbery took place in
Makati, they arrested the three. The two after trial were convicted sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
they did not appeal. Only one appealed, the lookout. He claims, I did not participate in the killing. I
agreed that there be a robbery in a place that is inhabited but I never said that I agreed that they should
kill the maid. All that I know is that there is a maid that is being left behind and therefore, the maid
would probably be tied only or whatever, I did not even agreed to have her killed so I should be
sentenced only for the crime of robbery, nothing more, nothing less. His appeal went to the Supreme
Court but the Supreme Court said, the moment that you agree to commit a robbery on a place where
there is a possibility that you have to or your companions have to employ force, violence or
intimidation, then in the event that death occurs during the robbery by the employment of force or
violence, even if you are only a lookout, you are equally liable with the rest of your companions. So he
was actually also meted out the penalty of reclusion perpetua. But this may change if the circumstances
would be different. Say for example, the house that they robbers agreed to rob is an uninhabited house,
meaning to say an abandoned house, may be the owner has left for the United States or has left for
other places, he left antiques or other valuable goods inside after locking them with the intention of
returning later maybe about a year or two. So, knowing that the owner will not return in a year or two,
three of those persons decided to rob the house, one was designated as a lookout, the two are
designated to rob, the same circumstances however took place. Let us say for example that the robbers
were able to enter, suddenly they saw a scavenger or if not maybe a vagrant who usually inhabits
abandoned buildings or uninhabited buildings and because the two do not want any witness to what
they are going to do or to what they have done, they killed the vagrant. The problem now is naturally all
of them will have to be charged of robbery with homicide. If the lookout can establish that their
agreement is simply that they will rob an uninhabited house and it was established that that person who
was present at the place which was robbed is a vagrant and no one knows that such person is present
thereat, would you impose the same penalty to those who actually killed the vagrant in a case of
robbery with homicide or would you impose only a penalty for the crime of robbery against the one who
is a lookout? The answer is yes because the lookout has agreed only to commit robbery with force upon
things and not with force, violence or intimidation upon persons. So, ladies and gentlemen, in the event
that such a scenario is brought to your attention in a question in the bar examinations, such would be
the answer.
You have to be careful whether the facts actually are very clear enough that you may be able to
understand whether the agreement actually is about robbery with force upon things or robbery with
force, violence or intimidation upon persons because the liabilities of the offenders there who may have
participated differently from each other are also different from each other. Yes, that is the rule even in
complex crimes. You know of course that in complex crimes especially if it is a means of committing
another or it is a compound crime, the penalty shall be for the more serious crime of the two or all of
them. However, in special complex crimes the law fixes already a specific penalty for that special
complex crime.
There are other complex crimes, well we actually have plenty of them such as abduction with rape. But
you see there are instances where after the woman has been abducted, she will be raped several times
by the abductor. The prosecutor sometimes charges only one crime- abduction with multiple rape.
Would that charge be correct? The charge is actually incorrect. The prosecutor did not study his criminal
law as there could only be one abduction with rape. That is the first rape. The succeeding rapes are

different crimes of rape and neither can the other rapes be considered as other aggravating
circumstances or as an aggravating circumstance as held in previous cases. The Supreme Court in its
recent cases, in its recent decisions came to realize that rape is not among the aggravating
circumstances enumerated in article 14. So it did not aggravate the first abduction with rape or the
abduction with rape. The other rapes for every sexual intercourse that the offender had with the victim,
it is a separate and distinct crime of rape.
So you see now the difference. You have to be careful now because you are in your fourth year in trying
to understand criminal law because this is one of the more difficult subjects. Although it is very
interesting, very, very interesting, the only problem is that there could be so many side issues, there
could be so many things that may be asked in criminal law. If the examiner is an imaginative examiner,
he could propound questions that probably even himself may not be able to answer the question. Oh
yeah, we have had that experience. Sometimes we doubt even the answer that we prepared. Yes, even
during the times when we attend the meeting after the bar examinations in order to answer the
questions, most of us do not agree to the question that should be adopted by the examiner. So you
would see that there is a correct answer, there is an alternative answer and there is a second alternative
answer. But usually the alternative answer would have a lesser percentage than the correct answer and
then the second alternative answer will have a lesser also percentage but then you still get some points.
Yes, Mr. Ty?
There are 3 individuals they entered into a conspiracy to rob an inhabited place. They agreed that to
beat up and tie the persons in the house. But then when the robbing incident took place, they saw the
maid and the house boy. First they tied them up but the two decided to kill the maid and the houseboy.
They succeeded in killing the maid which was vehemently opposed by one of the robbers so when they
were about to kill the houseboy, one said that the agreement was only to tie them up so he decided to
let the houseboy escape. So, judge in imposing the penalty should it be the penalty for robbery with
homicide?
Yes, for the first homicide.
Even though he attempted to prevent the killing of the maid but he was not successful?
Well if there is already an attempt on his part and he exerted all efforts in order to prevent the
commission of homicide, nevertheless the crime of homicide was committed by the others, he will only
be held guilty of the crime of robbery because that would be considered as almost akin to spontaneous
desistance which is an absolutory cause under article 12 of RPC.
Sir, in that example can you not say that there was conspiracy on that part between them?
Even if there is conspiracy, if at the time that they are going to execute what has been decided in the
conspiracy but one desisted, then he cannot be held criminally liable for the crime through which he
desisted. Why? Because conspiracy by itself is not punishable by law. You can agree to rape, you can
agree to murder, you can agree to whatever and you can even go to the place where you are going to do
it but then at the last moment you desisted when you are still in the subjective phase wherein you have
still control over your actions and that you desisted at the final moment, then you are exempted from
criminal liability. That is an absolutory cause. Even if you prepared already all the instruments, you
already went there inside etcbut at the last moment, hindi pwede yan, hindi ako papayag but then you
have to resist or if not resist you have to raise your objection in such a manner that it is not a token

objection. It must be a serious objection or a resistance to the commission of the act that you have
conspired to commit otherwise you are still criminally liable.
Lets take a break and then we will go to continuing crimes or delito continuado, the continuous crimes
and then you have the transitory crimes and thereafter we will go to computation of penalties etc just
a simple computation in order that you may be able to have a working knowledge on how to compute
penalties.
When you say continuing crimes you have to differentiate it from continuous crimes because a
continuing crime as held by the Supreme Court in some cases requires only one criminal intent. The first
case that was cited in a law book about a continuing crime or a delito continuado is the case of a thief
who stole five fighting cocks that were tied at the side of the street belonging to different owners and
the thief was charged of five separate crimes of theft. So you see, during those times, those fighting
cocks are not so expensive as the fighting cocks of today but yet it reached the Supreme Court on a legal
issue of whether the accused maybe convicted of five separate thefts or only one theft. One single theft.
The Supreme Court there in deciding the case used the concept of one criminal intent. The Supreme
Court said that although the owners of the fighting cocks are five different people but there being only
one criminal intent in the commission of a felony, then there is only one crime of theft and therefore the
accused should be sentenced only for one single crime of theft. Now the Supreme Court however came
up with another decision in relation to this. In the case of Santiago v. Sandiganbayan or Garchitorena,
you remember that? Former senator Santiago who was then a BID commissioner, granted Filipino
citizenship by way of administrative proceedings to 34 Indians, these Indians, bombays. Ang hirap pa
naman nitong mga Bombay noh, halos isa lang pangalan eh. Do you know that we are being pestered
with the issuance of clearances for several times, I think about 30 to 40 times. The name of all those
who are asking for clearances is the same. Manhitching. (Im not sure of the spelling but it sounds like
that) Recently, I told my branch clerk Tony, will you please enter my chambers, do not issue any
clearance. What you have to do is this, because we are being pestered with clearances, we do not know
whether actually we are giving a clearance to the offender or not, because there had been so many
cases that were filed in our courts and in several courts. One is rape, the other one is homicide, the
others are estafa etc.. And I said, look the better position to take is simple, ask him to get a certification
from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation that he is a legitimate alien who is actually either
residing in the Philippines and given a permanent residency status. Otherwise if he has been only given a
visitors visa, why should we give him a clearance? There is no point eh if you are only a visitor, you will
ask for a clearance, why should we give you a clearance? So, as I was saying, Commissioner Santiago
then was charged of 34 counts of violating section 3e of RA 3019. Before she could be arraigned, she
went to the Supreme Court and challenged the filing of 34 informations against her contending that the
act if ever that she committed is a delito continuado or a continuing crime and there is only one criminal
intent that may be imputed against her in the event that indeed she caused undue injury to the
government. The SC agreed with her and ordered the prosecutor to dismiss all the cases and refile only
one information. Well that is already a decision of the SC. But I was thinking along the line of RA 3019
being a special law. A law that is malum prohibitum. IF a law is mala prohibita, does criminal intent have
any business in the determination of whether you have criminal intent or not? So, if it is mala prohibita,
criminal intent is not suppose to enter into the picture and therefore the filing of 34 informations are
correct. But the Supreme Court said that being only one criminal intent etc..ah only one information
should be filed against her. Now, maybe I have been saying it already but it could happen that it is
debatable sometimes that certain special laws may require criminal intent and some may not. But
basically, all offenses in violation of special laws do not require criminal intent. That is a general rule,
except when the special law uses the word knowingly. Ok? Because if there is a word that the offender

knowingly causes undue injury, then there must be there a criminal intent. But if there is no such word,
simply put it was stated therein that one caused undue injury to another etc. that is different.
Nevertheless, we have to honor whatever decisions that was promulgated by the SC, because there
would be chaos unless we honor their decisions.
Continuous crimes refer to crimes that are even committed only for the first time but then the offender
continues to commit the same unless he has already served the sentence, unless he has already been
given amnesty, pardon or unless he has already renounced his belief for his allegiance to a particular
association or party or whatever. Just like in the case of rebellion. Actually rebellion is not what you call
continuing crime. While it is a continuing crime in a sense that the moment you committed the same,
you continue to commit the same even if you have not actually been in the active participation of the
acts being committed by your friends in the movement. But it is a continuous crime. The moment you
commit it, you still continue to commit it up to the time that you have renounced your belief in such
struggle. You remember the case of Umil v. Ramos and companion cases. Well, these people, Umil and
others are actually NPA regulars. And they have been identified by the army and the police as NPA
regulars but then they decided not to engage anymore in arm struggle somewhere in a certain part of
Luzon. Instead they decided to become engaged in certain activities while employed as laborers or
workers in different establishments such as those who were arrested are working in factories in
Muntinlupa, some are working as laborers in certain construction sites in Las Pinas and other places in
Metro Manila. When they were arrested without a warrant, they claimed that the arrest was illegal. But
then as the SC has stated in that case, it said that you continue to commit the crime that you have
previously committed yourselves to commit until such time as you have renounced your belief in that
particular struggle of yours. So, actually it is a continuous crime which is different from a transitory
crime.
A transitory crime is a crime where any of its elements or any of its ingredients may have been
committed in another place and that you can file the case in any of the places where any of its elements
or any of its ingredients was committed. An example of which is violation of BP22, illegal recruitment in
a large scale, syndicated estafa etc. Look, even in syndicated estafa, there is only one criminal intent
there. So you have a problem with syndicated estafa this time because the people engaged in
syndicated estafa has already covered almost all parts of the country and that their victims are from
different parts of the Philippines. Some of them have never filed cases against this people. Some are
only intending to file their cases in the places where they have been victimized. The problem there is
how to go about trying these cases because if it is a syndicated estafa, there is only a single criminal
intent especially if that person by the use of a corporation collects contributions from the general public
and actually their purpose is defraud the people from whom they collect money or whatever. You have
now several syndicated estafa cases, the problem is there are others who file separate cases against
them. If we are going to have them consolidated, how about the others who did not file but chose to file
later on, what would happen? Under the theory of delito continuado, there is only one criminal intent.
How about the others who were not able to participate, then who decided only to participate later on?
This is the problem. Kagaya nitong mga sina Baladjay, sina ano? They are a problem eh. There are
cases in Manila of syndicated estafa. There are cases in Makati of syndicated estafa. There are even
cases of simple estafa; there are cases in Paranaque etc. I think the Secretary of Justice should take a
hand on this to consolidate all these cases only in one court. Because using the theory of delito
continuado, there is only one crime that was committed and that is syndicated estafa. That is the
problem in delito continuado in relation to one criminal intent. Even if the others may have been
committed in different places, you have to file only one single criminal action in any of the places that
the syndicated estafa was committed. So if you are the defense counsel for, say for example any of

those kinds of accused, you have to move to quash or to dismiss the other cases in order that the same
will be consolidated only in one court. And that there will be no different resolutions from the other
courts, kasi, there is one that is one that is filed in Cebu- syndicated estafa. There is one filed in Makati.
The accused will naturally file a motion or a petition to bail in both courts so that she can enjoy
temporary liberty while she is being tried. There could be two different rulings. Lets say the Cebu court
granted the petition for bail but the court in Makati denied. Pano ka ngayon? There are two. Then it
would result to forum shopping. It would result to an accused being placed in double jeopardy or it is
really a mess. So, we have to study how are these particular continuing crimes or delito continuado may
be resolved because it would greatly affect our citizens in the event that such kinds of crimes are
committed.
Alright transitory crimes, well BP22. Example, a check was issued in Hongkong payable in Singapore. But
the parties went to the Philippines, had a good time. They played golf at Wack-wack. That is where the
check was delivered to the other party. If the check bounced, can .
(CUTNEXT SIDE OF THE TAPE)
Yes, there is already one case decided by the Supreme Court. These are what we call transitory crimes
that well, one element may have taken place in one place, others may have taken place in another place
etc. Here you can file the case in any of those places where any of its essential elements or ingredients
have been committed.
Ok, any questions?
Now, lets go to penalties. Penalties for principals, accomplices, accessories. Penalties for consummated
felony. Penalties for frustrated felony. Penalties for attempted felony. I have adopted a little system and
most of you who were my students in Crim 1 are familiar with this. It is very easy how to do it and I will
repeat so that you will remember the simple rules.
Now you there a principal, the equivalent of the principal is naturally consummated. Now you have
accomplice, you have accessory, you have frustrated, and you have attempted. In the computation of
penalties, naturally if the law says that the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon a
person who shall be found guilty of the crime of homicide. The law speaks of homicide being
consummated and that the person who will be sentenced to reclusion temporal is the principal. That is
given. That is what the law intends or the provision of the law should be interpreted. Now, so let us say
that in the crime of homicide, the principal committed the same so it is consummated, the penalty is
reclusion temporal. No problem. But supposing that the crime committed is a frustrated homicide, what
penalty shall the principal be meted out? Or what is the penalty for the principal in a frustrated
homicide? The penalty shall be one degree lower. One degree. So one degree lower would be prision
mayor. Alright! Supposing that the offender is a principal in an attempted homicide, the penalty shall be
2 degrees lower which is prision correccional. Ok? Very simple because all that you have to do is- if the
crime is frustrated, one degree lower. If it is attempted, two degrees lower. Now, the principal naturally
gets the full penalty. If he is an accomplice, one degree lower. If he is an accessory, 2 degrees lower. Ok?
That is very simple. So, if he is I said the principal and the crime he committed is in the attempted stage,
the penalty that should be imposed upon him is 2 degrees lower from the penalty imposable on the
principal in a consummated felony. In the case of homicide, naturally the penalty is prision correccional,
because it is 2 degrees lower from reclusion temporal. Now let us say that the offender is an accomplice,
he committed the crime of homicide, it is consummated. So the penalty will be one degree lower from

the penalty imposable in the crime of homicide. That is prision mayor. If he is an accomplice but the
homicide is committed in its frustrated stage, the penalty shall be 2 degrees lower from the penalty
imposable by law. So 1 and 1 is naturally 2. 2 degrees lower from reclusion temporal would be prision
correccional. Now, if the accomplice in the crime of attempted homicide is to be punished, the penalty
shall be 3 degrees lower. So, if he is an accomplice to an attempted homicide, the penalty shall be
arresto mayor. Ok? If the accessory committed a consummated felony lets say homicide, how many
degrees lower would be the penalty to the accessory? 2 degrees lower already because he is an
accessory. From reclusion temporal it would be only prision correccional. Supposing that the accessory
committed only frustrated homicide, the penalty shall be 3 degrees lower. And what is 3 degrees lower
from the penalty of reclusion temporal? Arresto mayor. Now supposing he is an accessory to an
attempted felony, the penalty is arresto menor. So a person who might have committed an attempted
homicide but he is only an accessory may be punished only by a penalty from 1-30 days of
imprisonment. He may even be punished by only one day if he pleaded guilty because it is to be the
minimum of arresto menor. In knowing this simple computation of penalties, if you know this
computation it will help you a lot in the event that a client would come and see you. Atty. Ako ho ang
nagtago ng balisong eh atty. Hinuhuli ho ako ng pulis, hindi naman ho ako kasama dun sa patayan eh
kaibigan ko ho yung pumunta sa bahay. Tinago ko nahuli ho ako. Ano ho ba ang kasalanan ko atty? Kung
sakali ho at mapatunayan ako na may kasalanan, anong sentensya ho ang maibibigay sa akin? Naturally,
the man would be worried, he might be thinking ay taon ito, years. Huli ako accessory. Or he may not
even know that he is an accessory. But because you are familiar with the participation of the offenders,
you will just tell him dont worry Ill take care of your case. Are you hiring me? Alright, sign an
agreement that I am your lawyer. How much is the fee sir? Eh, kung mayaman sumingil ka na. Then all
that you have to do is just tell him, ako na ang bahala sayo. You will be sentenced up to only 10 days of
imprisonment, probation ka pa. Sigurado ka ba atty? Just plead guilty. If he is a minor, patay libre.
Because minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance of which he is entitled to a reduction of one
degree lower and there is no one degree lower for arresto menor. Masayang-masaya ngayon yun. Ang
galing ni atty talaga.
The illustration on the board is as follows:

Homicide
Principal
Consummated
Reclusion Temporal
Accomplice
Frustrated
Prision Mayor
Accessory
Attempted
Prision Correccional
So, this simple computation, I know that most of those who are here were my former students in Crim 1,
some I do not know whether there are some who were not my former students. This is the way how to
compute. Its very simple but if you read the law, I dont know if in a weeks time you will be able to
know how to go about computing these penalties. Can you? Within a week? Within 10 to 15 minutes by
this simple explanation you know already what you are going to do even if they ask you in the bar

exams, this is simply the formula and you will never get lost. In any other penalty, you will never get lost.
That is how simple it is. Papahirapan kayo ng iba. Pa-iikutin kayo but eto lang yun eh. Do you have any
questions? No questions? Alright.
Well, of course, we are already in penalties. That is why we have to know what probably could possibly
affect penalties. They are the modifying circumstances. And you know that we have discussed already
aggravating, mitigating circumstances, mitigating privileged and ordinary. Aggravating you have the
qualifying, the qualified, the specific, the special, inherent, the ordinary. You will note that there are
certain crimes of which an aggravating circumstance is in by itself is inherent. Say for example, what is
inherent in certain crimes? Well, naturally in cases of estafa, there is always evident premeditation.
Well, in certain crimes such as rape there is always treachery most of the time. So they are inherent in
the commission of the crime. Even if they are present, they cannot be considered as aggravating. Even in
mitigating circumstances, there are in some cases that we have discovered inherent mitigating
circumstances. But although they are inherent mitigating circumstances, they may not be considered as
modifying circumstances. In the case of rape, the offender is physically or he has a physical defect. A
physical defect by itself is inherent mitigating. But would it be a modifying or mitigating circumstance in
the crime of rape if he is the offender? Naturally it is not. But it will be aggravating if the person who is
raped is suffering from physical defect. It is actually even a qualified aggravating circumstance. So you
see there are instances where the determination of modifying circumstances are very, very important.
That is why the rule now, under the rules of criminal procedures, with respect to aggravating
circumstances is that they must be alleged in the information. Failure to allege that you cannot prove it.
And even if you were able to prove it, it will not be taken as a modifying circumstance to aggravate the
penalty that may be imposed or even to qualify the crime to a more serious one. There are usual
mistakes that are being committed by lawyers, even prosecutors, even some judges. It has been my
experience in the bench say for example in the crime of estafa or in qualified theft, both may be
committed by abused of confidence. But is mere abuse of confidence enough in the crime of qualified
theft? No, it is not. So it becomes an inherent aggravating circumstance in qualified theft if it is grave
abuse of confidence. It even qualifies a mere crime of simple theft to that of qualified theft. There are so
many ah remember that ..qualified theft always grave abuse of confidence. Pag wala kang nakitang
grave sa information sa qualified theft, huwag mo ng turuan yung prosecutor. Do not call the attention
of the prosecutor or even the judge, do not call his attention. Pabayaan mo, let your client be arraigned.
Can the judge convict him of qualified theft? No, because there is no allegation of grave abuse of
confidence. Wala, so he can be only found guilty to a more lesser offense of theft. But then, delikado pa.
So, look ladies and gentlemen, you have to be familiar with all these, because if you are very familiar
with the aggravating circumstances, the qualified circumstances, the qualifying aggravating
circumstances, the ordinary, the inherent aggravating circumstances, that would be a lot of use to you.
Even in the bar exams, we do not know eh what would be in the mind of the examiner, although in my
experience, it is very rare as the rains in May when they are going to ask you to compute penalties. But
there was a time when they asked examinees to compute penalties and the percentage given is 15%.
15! So, if you do not penalties, bye bye baby. Your only chance of getting a passing grade is to know
everything aside from the question regarding penalties. You might probably get about 80, 75 but
definitely the chances are you will be having a difficult time.
Alright by Wednesday, I will discuss further- penalties, etc. and those which I have not discussed which
are still a part of Book 1. Going into penalties, we will discuss the indeterminate sentence law and how
to compute the penalties that should be imposed applying Indeterminate Sentence law. Then we will go
to probation law and then we will go to other special laws that have connections with Book 1 of the RPC.
Remember, that PD603 has already been amended and not only amended but actually overtaken

already by even a new circular of the SC. That is a memorandum circular of the SC regarding juveniles in
conflict with the law. These memorandums actually are in the nature of laws but then, well, the SC will
apply them whether you like it or not.
If I discuss penalties further, it will take me more than 30 minutes so its useless because I want to start
from the very beginning in order that you may be able to understand fully what I am saying especially
those that involve the application of the indeterminate sentence law. Those that I have missed, I am
going to discuss so that you will be well-rounded after we finish book 1 of RPC. Let us then meet on
Wednesday.
~~~end of tape~~~
DATE: JULY 23, 2003
By: Charmane Kanahashi
While MANEs eating a bag of CHEETOS
The FINES may be a part of the penalty either and or a fine which accompanied an imprisonment or that
the fine is the sole penalty that was imposed by the court. The rule is if the penalty of imprisonment is
already afflictive or more than 6 years, and there is also a fine imposed in the same penalty to the
accused, no subsidiary imprisonment if the fine is not paid by the accused, that is the rule.
You will note that there are so many laws which imposed the fine despite the fact that the principal
penalty of imprisonment is already afflictive in nature. When however, the penalty consisting of
imprisonment is correctional in nature or that it is a light penalty, the accused, if every there is an
accompanying fine, must have to serve a subsidiary imprisonment in the event he fails to pay the fine.
In the case where the fine is not made or is not paid, and the penalty is correctional in nature, or even
arresto as the case may be, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not be more than 1/3 of the principal
penalty of imprisonment but it cannot exceed 1 year. Say for example the accused was sentenced to an
imprisonment of up to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional that is the maximum, and a fine of
P6,000, if the accused failed to pay the fine, he will serve subsidiary imprisonment but the latter shall be
1/3 of the penalty imposed in the maximum which if you compute the same, the subsidiary
imprisonment for P6,000 will be more than a year, so the subsidiary imprisonment even if computing
the same to reach up to 1/3 only, the same will still exceed 1 year. Thus, the subsidiary imprisonment to
be imposed upon the accused should only be up to 1 year and it cannot exceed the same even if it is less
than 1/3 of the maximum of the penalty to be imposed.
Alright. In connection with the principal penalty of fine, if the principal penalty of fine is imposed,
according to the law, the maximum subsidiary imprisonment that the accused should serve, cannot
exceed 6 months. So even if the fine is P1M, you will compute probably the subsidiary imprisonment at
P8/day, that would be how many years huh? P1M? P8/day? Patay ka don, ha. But then the law only
says that if the sole penalty if a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment cannot exceed 6 months. 6 months
lang yon?! This is important because although the SC have toned down a little in cases of BP 22, when
the SC issued a circular, even to the judges after deciding 2 or 3 cases, in connection with violation of BP
22, wherein the SC categorically stated that if the offender in BP 22 is a first timer, the penalty that
should be imposed should only be fine equal to the value of the check that bounced. People were
expecting subsidiary imprisonment dyan if they cannot pay the fine, and that it should be at P8/day if
they do not know the rules regarding subsidiary imprisonment, then they will say ah P1M at P8/day,

how many days will P1M be at P8/day? It will be about more than maybe 10,000 or even 40,000 days,
how many days are there in a year? How many? 125,000 days and if you convert that into years,
(background: 342.4 years). HAHAHA! Do you expect him to live that long?! So, well, the law is, shall we
call it, correct in saying that well, if it is simply a fine, it cannot exceed, the subsidiary imprisonment
cannot exceed 6 months. I will repeat. If the penalty is already afflictive, and it involves an imprisonment
even if the offender failed to pay the fine or refused to pay the fine, he cannot suffer for any subsidiary
imprisonment in the event that he refused or fails pay the fine. He cannot because that is the law. OK!
There is actually no problem regarding subsidiary imprisonment as long as the penalty that was imposed
are correctional or light penalties because there is a specific rule. It shall be at least 1/3, cannot exceed
1/3 of the principal penalty of imprisonment but even if it does not exceed 1 year, it still cannot exceed
1/3 if the subsidiary imprisonment consists of 1/3, the 1/3 cannot still exceed 1 year. ALRIGHT!
Then, we discuss the death penalty before we go to the Indeterminate Sentence.
The death penalty law which is covered by RA 7659 amending the provisions of the RPC, is actually only
almost a repetition of the old law. There are only very few, shall we call it, amendments.
The law says that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon a person who at the time of the
commission of the crime is less than 18 years old and to those who at the time of the promulgation of
the sentence is already 70 years old or over. The reason being that a person who less than 18 years of
age has not yet reached physical and mental maturity to make him suffer the supreme penalty of death.
On the other hand, a person who is 70 or over is only a few steps from the grave. So, you can wait for
only about 5 years, 10 years and that will be his the end. And because, you know, this people are
already old. We consider them actually as people who deserve not condemnation but sometimes
compassion. We have had occasions of seeing already old people who still commit certain crimes.
ALRIGHT!
How about suspension of the implementation of death sentence? According to the law, a woman who is
pregnant and w/n a period of 1 year from date of her delivery, she cannot be executed. And the
execution shall be suspended. Another one that was enumerated under the law is that when the
offender has reached the age of 70 or more. The last portion of the article is not only confusing but is
wrong! When you speak of suspension, naturally you speak of, shall we call it, executing the offender in
the future. Because that is suspension eh! There will come a time when you will execute him but if he is
an old man already, you cannot even impose the death penalty to a person who is 70 or over, how much
more execute him? So that provision of the law, I think, has been misunderstood. Not suspension huh?
But, would rather be that, it should be that the person who has reached the age of 70 cannot be
executed. Alright!
There are only 2 instances where the execution of the death sentence can be suspended. The first is
about the woman and the second is when the person becomes insane after the finality of the judgment
huh? And if he became insane after the finality of judgment, you have to wait until he regains his sanity
or when he regains a lucid interval. But if he did not regain his lucid interval eh he stays in the mental
institution. Alright.
According to the law on death penalty, the moment that a lower court, that is the 2nd level court, the
RTC or SB imposes the death penalty, the accused need not appeal because the law provides for an
automatic appeal. Well, for record purposes, the accused files a notice of appeal but even if he does not
file any notice of appeal, the records of the case shall be transmitted and forwarded to the Honorable SC

w/n 20 days from the promulgation of judgment. And that if the records of the case is not complete,
particularly, those that are lacking in TSNs from the date of transmittal to the SC, the steno reporter
should see to it that the transcript of steno notes be completed and submitted to the SC w/n 15 days.
You all know that when the records of the case are already complete in the SC, the SC will issue a
resolution directing the parties to submit their respective memorandum. Well, usually, the government
is represented by the SolGen and the accused will be represented by his counsel on record. If the
memorandum and all other papers are already complete, the period w/ w/c the SC shall render
judgment must be a period w/n 1 year from the completion of the record of the case. But that is already
an impossible task! At the present, it cannot be accomplished. The SC will not be able to decide a case
where the penalty imposed is death w/n a period of 1 year. That is impossible. There are how many
death convicts who are waiting for the final decision of the SC? There are more than 1,000 death
convicts in the death row. So if, say for example, all of them are submitted, considered submitted for
decision, the SC has to decide at least 3 cases everyday including Sundays and holidays. 3 cases a day?!
That would be an impossible task! It is the, those who passed the law did not realize that it will come to
a point where the SC will be deluged of this kind of cases. They should have passed a law that is more
realistic. The SC cannot ask for an extension, can it?? Its the law. So, they can ask an extension to God.
Thats the only thing that they can do probably. But then when the lower courts are the ones who are
supposed to resolve pending incidents, they are very strict. Okay. If the SC finally decides the case and it
has attained finality, it is the duty of the SC, under the law, to forward the records of the case to the
Office of the President w/n 20 days for review purposes in relation to the exercise of the power of the
President to grant pardon or commutation of sentence or you know, conditional pardon or whatever
hmm.. And the Office of the President has also 1 year to decide whether the President shall grant
pardon or not so the accused will have to wait for 2 years. But that is, shall we call it, a long time.
Alright!
If the President does (sic) not decide to grant pardon or any of the clemencies that the President has in
his powers, the Office of the President is required to return the records to the SC and that the SC upon
receipt of the records has also, not only the authority but the obligation to remand the records of the
case to the court of origin, the 2nd level trial court. Why is it that the records of the case has to be
forwarded to the 2nd level courts, to the RTC or SB? Actually, the old law has provided for certain rules
and regulations in connection with the execution of the death convict. Under the old system, it is the
lower court who upon receipt of the records of the case that will fix the date of execution. Now, no
more. I dont know what is happening but what Ive read from the rules and regulations of the Bureau of
Corrections is that the Director of Prisons that schedule the execution of the convict. Although I believe
that it is wrong because it should be the court which should schedule. It should actually determine the
date of the execution of the convict. Now, the convict must be only informed of his execution before
sunrise of the day of his execution and execution shall not take place until 8 hrs. thereafter giving way to
the accused to, shall we call it, call his family, to call the minister of his faith or his priest or whatever,
call his lawyer to assist him in the disposition of his properties, call his physician for him to know
whether he is still healthy or not, he might be insane already or whatever and he actually has the
privilege of even calling for his friends and family those whom he wants to confer. The conference shall
take place in his chambers or in the place where he is confined. And he can actually make use of the 8
hrs. that is allotted to him. It used to be that the Bureau of Corrections has a practice then before the
new law has been passed that prisoners to be executed may ask for their last meal and they have the
choice of their last meal. The usually ask, during those times, Maxxs Fried Chicken, isang buo, Maxxs
noong unang panahon pa yang Maxx, Maxx na yan! Wala naman noong KFC, Kenny Rogers, wala
namang Inasal noon or whatever. So Max parati yan and others will ask for a little caviar here and there
etc. but now, the prisoners, the convicts who are supposed to die by lethal injection are not being given

that privilege anymore. Their last meal shall consist of the same meal that other prisoners are taking.
Sabi nga nung Bureau Director, bakit pa pakakainin ng masarap yan eh papatayin din naman? But it
was then during the time of Pineda, Canal, or that one from Bacolod, they were even asked what food
they want etc. even if they ordered the best in town, they will be given to them. Now, no more.
ALRIGHT!
During the execution of the convict, his relatives may be present his wife etc., those who may want to
watch his execution but then the number of persons who shall witness the execution should be limited
by the Director of Prisons. You know of course that the PRESS are the ones who are most interested in
covering the execution of a death convict. Piyesta nga daw dun pagka may execution eh. Unlike in the
US where it is actually not an event that would be carried all over the radios, TV, etc. Hindi eh. They do it
as a matter of course. Dito, it is a sarswela. And that, well, the usual procedure in connection with the
PRESS is that they cannot all be accommodated during the execution so what they are going to do is
draw lots. Pag nabunot mo ikaw ngayon, ikaw, ikalawa ikaw, alright, yung mga iba, wait na lang kayo.
You have to wait for your turn. OK..
There will be 2 physicians who will attend to the death convict and they shall also be the ones who
should declare him dead. When a death convict has been declared dead, what? His body may be
claimed by his relatives. By his family. If the family claims his body, then it shall be given to them with
instructions from the Director that the body of the death convict cannot be buried with pomp. If no
relative/s claim the body of the death convict, any medical or scientific institution or school may ask the
Director of Prisons that the body of the death convict be given to them for scientific or medical studies
and the body shall stay with them for not more than 1 year. And after such period, the scientific
institution or school shall cause the burial of the death convict in one of the public cemeteries and the
burial shall be that of a paupers burial. In the event that nobody would want the body anymore, no
relatives, no institution etc. is interested in the body of the death convict, then the Bureau Director shall
see to it that the body of the convict which has been executed shall be buried in the public cemetery
inside the Bureau of Corrections in a paupers burial. So, that ends the, shall we call it, the procedure in
connection with the execution of the death convict etc. and the disposition of his body. OK! Do you have
any questions? No questions? Alright, let us proceed to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is actually, an application of the Positivist Theory. You will recall that
the purpose of imposing a penalty under the Positivist Theory is to reform, to rehabilitate or to correct
the errors of the ways of the offender. Yes.. (background question: In the case of lethal injection, what
will happen if the dosage was inadequate to kill the person? Can the procedure be performed again?
Yes. How many times? Until he dies!) There was a case, actually, there was an incident that happened in
the Phils. When the method being used then in executing a death convict is through electrocution. 5,000
volts of electricity was set through the body of the death convict but he did not die! He did not, 5,000
volts ha. They increased the same to 7,500, hindi pa rin. They increased it already to 10,000, ayun
patay. So the same is true in lethal injection. But they will remember or recall the case of Echegaray,
that his lawyer, Atty. Teodoro Te, on a question of law, filed a case for the SC in connection with the
implementation of the mode of execution of Leo Echegaray. It is being argued by Atty. Te at that time,
that when the crime was committed by accused Echegaray, the mode of putting a person to death at
that time is through gas chambers. But during the interregnum, while his appeal is being reviewed by
the SC, the Congress passed another law changing the mode of execution from gas chambers to lethal
injection. According to Atty. Theodore Te, the accused should be executed by the mode of execution at
the time of commission of the crime. So the SC, well, the only why a person is being executed after he
has been sentenced to death is to put him to death. The manner with which a person may be put to

death is not anymore a legal issue. It could be by any other means which the law has permitted. If it is
lethal injection, even if that is not the means of putting to death the convict on the day of the
commission of the crime, it shall still be through lethal injection that he has to die. There is no problem
anymore in connection with the means and methods with which the accused may be put to death. OK!
Any other question? (background: Judge, what does it mean when a person is sentenced with 3 death
penalties?) Actually it is only a, shall we call it, a description of the penalties that the court has to impose
but there can only be one execution because he only has 1 life. The court usually, for purposes of, shall
we call it, informing the world that such person has committed 3 crimes of which the penalties are
death. So they will impose 3 separate penalties of death but he can only be executed once. Some even
have been sentenced to as many as 12 death penalties but the SC said that well, there is only one life
that can be executed and if the same has been executed, that is the end. ALRIGHT! Yes.. (background:
What if the imposable penalty is death penalty, can the government not impose it, for example the case
of extradition of a foreigner to the US, the SC has condition for the extradition, there is a condition that
death penalty will not be imposed?) Actually, that is an interference to the independence of the Phils.
Why?! Why should they impose that condition? I know what youre talking about, sa Atong Ang? The
court in the US has agreed to hear the petition for extradition and then set their conditions which the
Phils. has to follow otherwise, they will not hear the extradition case. They look upon the Phils. as a
subordinate, huh? Na dapat sumunod na lang tayo sa utos nila. I mean if they are encroaching upon the
independence of our country, they should not impose such a condition. Maybe they can, shall we call it,
on the side, just make bulong, sige I will help dito, I will help dito pero you tell your President, you tell
your people there that he should not be sentenced to death. Because Atong Ang has already informed
the authorities of the US that if he is deported to the Phils. or if he is extradited to the Phils., he will be
sentenced to death. He will not get even an inch of favor from the government. I think that is wrong;
that is not supposed to be flaunted by the US that they can dictate upon us on what to do with a certain
person who has been accused of a crime? Di pu-pwede yon. Can we impose that also? If we want a
person to be extradited to their country? Sabihin natin a di pwede, we will only extradite this person to
your country if you will not sentence him to death. Oh, are they not going to cry foul? Are they not
going to howl etc? Sasabihin nila terrorist na tayo so that they can declare war against us. Any other
question? ALRIGHT, lets take a break then I will continue with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Sneeze! (Bless you, Judge!) The SC has come up with a decision lately that all penalties to be imposed by
the Court when the maximum exceeds 1 year, except on one instance, shall have a minimum and a
maximum. In other words, there is no more straight penalty when the maximum of the penalty has
exceeded 1 year, except for one. It used to be a practice of the courts to impose straight penalties if they
do not like the accused. Because, if a straight penalty is imposed, the accused must have to undergo
imprisonment up to the last day of the penalty imposed upon him. But according to the SC, this violates
the right of the accused to enjoy the privileges under the indeterminate sentence as the ISL encourages
good behavior while a person is serving sentence. You will note that even under several provisions of
the RPC, reduction of penalties are allowed when one escaped during or on occasion of calamities, well,
for good behavior, they are being _____ allowances for good behavior up to 15 days a month if they
have already exceeded serving sentence of more than 10 years. So this actually encourages good
behavior to the accused. Now, the ISL does not apply to the following, does NOT apply ha! It does not
apply to those who had been sentenced to indivisible penalties such as death, reclusion perpertua and
life imprisonment. You cannot apply the ISL because there is no, shall we call it, periods that the same
may be lowered to and that although there is a range of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and life
imprisonment, such penalties still remain indivisible. There was one time when the SC considered
reclusion perpetua as a divisible penalty and that was when they decided the case of People vs. Lucas.
The SC then committed an error when the SC declared that reclusion perpetua having a range of from,

20 years and 1 day to 30 years then, is a divisible penalty. But when the OSG asked for a clarification, the
SC, in a one-page resolution, said that reclusion perpetua is NOT a divisible penalty and it shall remain as
such. Now, the provisions of the ISL shall not also apply to penalties which does not involve
imprisonment. These penalties are destierro and suspension. I dont know whether its included in your
book but definitely you cannot apply the ISL the penalties which does not involve imprisonment. It
should always be a straight penalty or a penalty of which the time is fixed. Also, the indeterminate
sentence do not apply to penalties the maximum of which do not exceed 1 year. Aside from that, the ISL
do not apply to crimes of treason and others which are included in crimes against national security. Also,
it does not apply to crimes against humanity or against the law of nations such as piracy, mutiny and
even hijacking. These are the instances where the ISL does not apply. ALRIGHT!
There is a difference when the law says that the BENEFITS of the ISL shall not apply because the benefits
of the ISL for felonies ha, for felonies, hmm, as you will find out hmm, except those which are
enumerated ha, under the law such as treason etc. piracy, the accused shall enjoy a certain benefit if the
crime he committed falls under the category of a felony or even if it does not fall under the category of a
felony if it is a special law but it uses the penalties common to felonies under the RPC. Now, the benefits
of the ISL do not apply to crimes of treason etc. to piracy etc. ha and also to those who are habitual
delinquents. What is the meaning of the same? Well, the benefits of the ISL for crimes considered as
felonies or for those offenses which uses the penalty common only to the penalties provided under the
RPC, would simply mean that the minimum shall be 1 degree lower and the maximum cannot exceed
the maximum fixed by law after considering the modifying circumstances. On the other hand, the ISL if
applied to special laws or those which the benefits of the ISL do not apply, the minimum shall be the
minimum fixed by the law and the maximum cannot exceed the maximum fixed by the law. Although
the sentence is still indeterminate. ALRIGHT!
Let us say for example that a person is charged of a crime which is punishable under the RPC and that let
us supposed that the penalty provided for by the law is prision mayor. Alright..If you are going to the
explanation of the SC in some cases, you will note that the SC says that you should first, determine the
penalty to be imposed upon the accused without and then apply the ISL and after applying the ISL, you
determine the modifying circumstances. That is what the SC has ruled in several cases. But, the most
practical and easiest way of determining the penalty which will arrive in the same, shall we call it,
penalty and which would be more easier for the courts and the students of law to understand is, and I
think the SC will change his mind later, is for the court to determine first what are the modifying
circumstances present, apply the modifying circumstances present, and after applying the modifying
circumstances, then, apply the ISL by getting the minimum of the penalty by, shall we call it, going down
1 degree within the period as provided for under the law. Say for example, the penalty is prision mayor,
naturally prision mayor has 3 periods: minimum, medium and maximum. Let us say there is an
aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, if such be the case and the accused is not a
habitual delinquent, then he is entitled to the benefits of the ISL, the minimum penalty that shall be
imposed upon him should be 1 degree lower from prision mayor maximum because you had already
considered the modifying circumstance. Hence, the minimum thereof, is prision correccional in its
minimum period. So it is easy. Now, you just get the range of prision correccional in its minimum period,
get the range of prision correccional in its maximum period and prision mayor in its maximum period.
The range of prision correccional in its maximum period is an imprisonment of from 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 6 years while prision mayor in its maximum period is an imprisonment of from 10 years and
1 day to 12 years. Now, this is where the discretion of the judge will come in. Actually, it is not
sometimes the discretion eh. Well, I will say it is still the discretion when there are no outside factors
which will affect the decision of the judge in the computation of the sentence. My usual practice

whenever I decide a case is to leave out the computation of the penalty for the morning prior to the
promulgation. The reason being that although, I can trust some of my employees, but kasi some of them
cannot help sometimes but to open their mouths eh. Di ba? Titingnan yung kaso, Uy, hanggang 20
years pala to. Eh kung ma-impormahan yong, if the accused suddenly gets _____ of the fact that the
maximum of the penalty that will be imposed upon himself is 20 years, you cannot expect him to be
present the next day during promulgation! Yes! So what I usually do is, well, I go to the office early in the
morning, very early in the morning. Maybe about 6:30, Im there already. And, I prepare the
computation and of course after finishing the computation if the stenographer who knows how to type
or how to encode the decision in the computer, then she will be the one to finish it. By 8:30, the whole
decision is already complete and that what I have to do is just sign it. Well, as I said, it depends upon the
time when the judge prepared the computation. Eh, supposing the judge is having a bad day that day.
The judge probably woke up on the wrong side of the bed and maybe when he was trying to start his
car, it wouldnt start and well, he has to go to the repair shop to ask his auto mechanic to remedy the
situation. Mainit ang ulo niya. That would be his start of the day. When he arrives in court, the accused
did not even greet him good morning. The accused has been there early but he has 2-3 bodyguards
with him as if he is going to a place where he is going to fight other people. So, that would be etched in
the mind of the judge. Eh, dadala-dala pa ng bodyguard to, ano ba to? ALRIGHT! So let us say for
example that the judge will now compute the penalty, the judge will naturally take that into
consideration. Salbahe yan ah. Di man lang bumati. Mainit ang ulo. ALRIGHT. He will sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence of from 6 years of prision correccional as minimum to 12 years of
prision mayor as maximum. Yun lang, di lang siya binati non. Medyo ayaw lang umistart yung kanyang
kotse. Is his decision correct? Yes, his decision is correct. Its still within the range of the penalty. Oh,
pero dumating si judge, maagang-maaga. Nakita niya yung akusado maayos ang bihis even if his clothes
has seen better days etc. but it is still neat, it is, shall we call it, freshly pressed even if his shoes is almost
a rundown one, it is still clean, you saw his children, they are very, very respectful of elders. You see the
wife, looking very sad. They knew, they knew that the accused will be sentenced, but then, they are
there. The whole family are there. In other words, these people, maybe you know, maybe, have strong
family ties. Which is what is needed. So the judge will consider that, eto naman pala mabuti mag
pamilia. kasama pa mga anak. etc. Siguro napilitan lang ito. Well, we always think of the better way
how to deal with these people. So what would be written by the judge there, computing the penalty.
the accused is here by sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from four years, two months, and one
day of prision correccional
~~~end of tape~~~
MAJAHS NOTES:
Computing the minimum, medium and maximum in ISL
Example:
Penalty is prision mayor in minimum and medium (6 years and 1 day to 10 years)= 10 years difference
1.) convert 4 years into days = 1460
2.) divide into 3
3.) add the 1st 1/3 to 6 years and 1 day, it will be the minimum
4.) add 1 day to the maximum in the result in #3, it will be the medium
5.) add 1 day to the maximum in the medium period until 10 years, it will be the maximum period.
DATE: July 30, 2003 (Azenith Viojan)
THREE-FOLD RULE
--xxx---

DATE: August 4, 2003

By: MajArvin
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Criminal Liability may be extinguished by the death of the offender but when it is the offended party
who dies, the criminal liability of the offender is not extinguished. The death however of the offender
also extinguishes his pecuniary liabilities or personal liabilities. But then, the offended party has still a
recourse in order to recover the civil liability that the offender may have incurred by reason of having
committed a crime. The claim of the offended party may be lodged against the estate of the offender as
long as the offender dies prior to the entry of final judgment of conviction and of course, on the civil
aspect of the case. Now, when the offender dies after the entry of final judgment, the rule is different.
Although the court sometimes issues a writ of execution, that writ of execution cannot be implemented
as against the estate but that writ of execution may still be of some use to the offended party. How?
When delivery to the administrator as a claim against the estate but the same shall not be enforced. It is
one of the preferred credits or it is one of the liabilities which must be paid by the estate in the event
that the administrator or the executor has already gathered and determined all the properties of the
deceased including the debts, expenses in relation to the administration of the properties including of
course some of the preferred expenses such as burial and funeral expenses and sometimes an order
from the court to pay attorneys fees which may be a part of the expenses. Only after all these liabilities
that the estate may be distributed among the heirs, legatees and devisees etc and that would be the
end of the settlement of the estate of the deceased person. But in respect to these contingent claims
wherein there is no judgment yet as to the civil liability of the offender. What happens? Can it be tried in
the intestate proceedings? File a separate action against the estate. Of which the administrator upon
authority of the court may be allowed to defend the interest of the estate as against the claimant. It is
only when there is a finality that the interest of the claimant may become a reality; that when there is a
contingent claim what would be the natural reaction of the administrator or the executor. When there is
a contingent claim, the heirs must be ordered to post a bond when the property is already distributed to
them. Bec the administrator or executor cannot forever hold on to the properties of the heirs as it may
dissipate and later on his bond will answer for those losses that may be incurred by the properties. So,
this will become contingent claims. Then if the heirs are given already their respective shares, they will
be asked to post a bond to answer to any or all contingent claims that may be adjudged against the
estate by virtue of a final judgment. And it is against that bond that that contingent claim may be
enforced. Actually, not against the estate eh. Although theoretically, you sue the estate di ba in a
separate action. You cannot claim that damages in the intestate or estate proceedings of the deceased.
Did you get me? (4B:YES) Kung walang claim there is no problem eh. If there are already final judgment,
you lay a claim against the estate. And all of this will be paid before the residue will be distributed to the
heirs. But if there is a contingent claim still it is the duty of the executor or administrator to see to it that
the all these properties are all ready after the payment of all the liabilities etc. the estate are distributed.
But this is the time when the heirs will be asked to post a bond bec there are contingent claims here
amounting to maybe 10 million. If ever there will be a final judgment against the estate, naturally the
easiest way of being able to recover your claim is against the bond, not anymore against the estate. The
claim must be made within 2 years from when? From the final settlement of the estate? YES, from the
final settlement of the estate of the deceased person.
Well, there are others, pardon, amnesty, marriage by the offended party with the offender and well,
forgiveness by the wife on the offending husband in cases of marital rape. And there are others, say for
example, pardon by the offended party given to the offender in private crimes prior to the institution of
the criminal action. There could be other grounds, say for example, in relation to civil liabilities, the

pardon by the offended party on the offender extinguishes, totally extinguishes the civil liability but the
criminal aspect is not actually a concern in connection with the pardon to be given by the private
offended party or by the heirs in the event that there is already a pending criminal action. And of course,
when there is a complete and absolute repeal of the law wherein in the accused may have been charged
that totally extinguishes. But that repeal shall be subject to the condition that that repeal favors the
accused. If the repeal will not favor the accused, it is useless. The accused will still be tried and accorded
a sentence and he must be able to serve the sentence which the court has imposed upon him. There is
nothing much about extinction of criminal liability and if you want to ask some questions, ask them now
before I proceed to prescription of crimes and prescription of penalties.
CIVIL LIABILITY
RESTITUTION
We can go also to how civil liability is satisfied. You want the way on how civil liability will be satisfied to
be discussed first? Well, civil liability may be satisfied only by restitution of the thing that has been lost,
destroyed or taken if it is already in the hands of a third person. Even if it has been lawfully acquired by
the third person without prejudice on the part of that 3rd person to claim whatever damages he may
have sustained by reason of having bought or received such property from another as against the one
who gave it to him or sold it to him. But that property must be returned to the actual owner. Of course,
this is only subject to the usual wear and tear of any property of that kind bec the wear and tear of a
property would depend on what kind of a property it is and for what it is being used. If that property is
being used, say for example, as a passenger jeepney, naturally the wear and tear would be different
from a passenger jeepney that is not being used for passenger purposes, I mean, when the jeepney is
not a passenger jeepney, it is different from a passenger jeepney.
REPARATION
And you have reparation which includes, of course, the sentimental value that a person attaches to a
thing. Reparation is the payment of the actual value of the property at the time it was lost. Which may
be, of course, subject to an increase in its value by reason of the sentimental value that the owner
attaches to it. A sentimental value may be proven by establishing the reason for that property being in
possession of the owner, the occasion with which that property was given, the efforts that he has
exerted in order to preserve the same and of course, the importance which he attaches to the property
and his life or in the life of the family. Those are the things that you have to consider in sentimental
values. Others do not know how to prove the sentimental value. Just rememberwho gave that to you?
How it was given? When? For what reason? Etc. What were the things that you have to perform in order
that it may be preserved etc. and then of course, the importance that you attaches to that property are
supposed to be established. Remember that when you allege sentimental value you must present
evidence in relation to the sentimental value that you attaches to it. Failure on the part of the offended
party to present evidence in connection with the sentimental value that one attaches to the property,
no sentimental value in any amount can be adjudged in favor of the owner even if there would be an
adjudged reparation of damages.
INDEMNIFICATION FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
Consequential damages, no problem. The only problem there is in regard to moral damages. Previously,
before the new case of 2003 was released, you have to prove even in cases of frustrated homicide,
murder even in rape cases, about moral damages but now in a recent decision of the SC, what we have
to prove is merely the fact of the commission of the crime of frustrated murder and the court may
already adjudge moral damages as against the offender. There is no need of proving what were the

feelings suffered by the offended party in order to prove moral damages. I dont know if you have come
across that decision of the SC. Dati-dati you have to prove. What was not changed however is about
attorneys fees which however should have been changed a long time ago. Accdg to the SC, you have to
prove your entitlement to attorneys fees before the court should award. Look, if you are the private
prosecutor, you have prepared memorandum, everything, you have signed so many pleadings before
the lower court, before the SCare you are still going to prove that you are entitled to attorneys fees?
But then the SC has not yet changed its mind, you have to prove attorneys fees by competent evidence.
What they want now is the billing, about contracts, etc, agreements. Well, anyway, it will not take you 5
mins. if you are the one who is proving it. All that you have to do is to ask the witness
Mr. Witness, you said that you secured the services of a counsel, is that correct? Yes, sir.
Then, who is the lawyer that you hired to assist you in this case? He is the one, sir.
Will you please announce his name. He announced.
All right, in connection, with this hiring of a lawyer, do you have an agreement? Yes, sir.
Was that agreement reduced into writing? Yes, this is it, sir. All right, mark it.
Aside from this, what are your agreements? Okay, sabihin mo na, per appearance, per disappearance
(heheheJ) tapos na. You were able to prove. Because the others, they just assume that is what the SC do
not want, do not assume. But then when it comes to the victims, the SC said that it can be taken judicial
notice of that when a person is stabbed and he nearly died, do you have to prove moral damages? Not
anymore. The court may take judicial notice that indeed that person suffered moral damages. And it is
up to the court, based in the evidence presented, to determine how much bec the person then will
announce what is his profession or what is his occupation. Whether he is a family man, who is he in his
community, etc. etc. So, from there you can already make your own computation of the moral damages
that you are going to award in favor of that person. Maybe even exemplary damages may not even be
the subject of proof bec if moral damages is awarded, naturally, you can expect that exemplary damages
may be awarded. But when you dont award moral damages, you cannot award exemplary damages.
How can you award exemplary damages when there is no moral damages.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES / PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
Okay, prescription of crimes and prescription of penalties. It is very easy. You just try to compare one
from the other and remember the numbers. Oh, prescription of crimes, 20, 15, 10, 5, 1, 6, 2. prescription
of penalties, 20, 15, 10, 5, 1. So, if you know the sequence, ah prescription of crimesyung una tatlo
yun. There are 3. itong prescription of penalties, yung una dalawa lang. Why? In prescription of crimes,
the penalties of reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua and death shall prescribe in 20 years. On the
other hand, in prescription of penalties, only reclusion perpetua and death prescribes in 20 years. The
penalty of reclusion temporal and prision mayor prescribes in 15 years. The same is true with
prescription of crimes, only prision mayor prescribes in 15 years. That is the only afflictive penalty that
prescribes in 15 years. Now, correctional crimes punishable by correctional penalties, except for arresto
mayor, prescribes in 10 years. Arresto mayor prescribes in 5 years. Then you have 1 yearlibel. Then
you have oral defamation6 months and you have light felonies2 months. I remember libel, now we
are having a problem bec of the case of the firm v. Ninas Cacho Olivares. Villaraza & Villaraza charged
Olivares of 19 counts of libel. It was raffled last Friday when I did not go to the office. Napunta sa akin
tatlo. Pagdating nitong umaga, kinukulit na ko ng mga former Ateneans. Judge issue mo naman na yung
warrant. We promise that we will be able to secure a warrant of I have to study whether there is a
valid information, whether there is a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. I should be
satisfied then I should know all the facts that are contained in the records of the case. Otherwise, if
somebody asks me what was your basis, then I will not be able to answer them. I will look
stupidaccording to Jaworski when he said, we will all look stupid here in this hearing. That is the
language of Jaworski whenever he butt in any investigation (heheheJ) napapansin ko yun. Parati sinasabi

niya, we will all look stupid. Jaworski kasi can get away with it eh. And Joker doesnt even say anything.
He will just be arranging his disarranged hair.
So, you will know, that is how easy it is. Just remember, if you can remember the numbers, it is very
easy. If your examiner in the bar examination is prone to giving questions regarding definitions and
enumerations, these are the usual enumerations that they give. Justice Vitug, now is the examiner, is
fond of enumeration or give the meaning of. Look at the, if you are helping in the bar operations,
previous questions last year ha. Let all the bar examinees look at the bar questions last year and see
how the questions were framed bec he was the one who framed them. So, you will know his style. Your
friends that you are going to help will know the style. And then read the answers that were given in the
U.P. Law Center. In that way, I can assure you that would be an added bonus to the examinees if they
will be able to familiarize themselves with the style of Justice Vitug bec he is the one actually handling all
the preparation of the questions. He will of course allow you to prepare your own questions but he will
revise it. Your question will still be your question but the way how it is framed, he will be the one to
frame it. So you tell your examinees. Well, Ill just drop by but Im not the reviewee. Most probably I will
just be lecturing on updates in crim law for 2-4 hours as the case maybe. I wont have the luxury of time
to give instructions but you will be able to help them in that way.
Prescriptions. When are prescription of crimes suspended? Well, let us say before suspension when shall
prescription of the crimes commence? It shall commence upon the discovery of the crime. By whom? By
the offended party or by any person or by the authorities. And it shall be interrupted when? It shall be
interrupted when the person has been brought for preliminary investigations etc and is arrested, the
prescription of the crime will not continue. It shall be suspended until such time as the case has been
filed etc. suspended pa rin yun. Or if he went to a country of which we have extradition treaty, will the
prescription of the crime be suspended? No, it will not. How about if he goes to a country which we do
not have any extradition treaty? The more that it will not be suspended. Hindi rin, Noso, all that the
person has to do is go to a country which the Philippines does not have extradition treaty so that the
prescription of the crime will be suspended NO. Actually, there are some debates regarding that. They
are saying that it will be suspended etc bec he went to a country and well, he should be given the
benefit of having the prescription of crime suspended.
It is different when it is prescription of penalty. If he goes to a country that we have extradition treaty,
will the prescription of the penalty be suspended?Hindi. It will not be suspended. Kasi we can always
get him and serve his sentence. Now, when should the prescription of penalties commence? Ah very
easy, it shall commence only from the time that the offender while not under detention, the judgment
of the court became final and executory. The moment it became final and executory and he has not
been arrested not brought before judicial authorities for proper disposition then the prescription of
penalties will already commence. Eh di magtago ka langmagtago ka ng magtago. The moment that
youre caught, suspended na naman. You escape, you hide, suspended na naman. Once, however, the
suspension for the running of the period for the prescription of penalties has been earned by the
offender, can it be remitted? Meaning to say, will the same be considered as ineffective in the moment
that he has been arrested? No. once he has earned it, it will continue. Then, it will continue if again he
will be able to evade the service of his sentence. To those who are in prison, the penalty shall only
prescribe when you are able to escape from the institution where you are serving you sentence. As a
matter of fact, even if you are serving your sentence in your home, it will take you one year if you
became liable for evasion of sentence before that particular crime of your prescribe. But then, how
about the evasion of service of sentence? Ah, that is you problem again. The crime for which you have
been convicted, the penalty for which you are supposed to serve will prescribe in one year. But how

about the evasion of service of sentence? Kulong ka pa rin. So, no way, ganun yun eh. The only thing
that will actually totally extinguish whatever criminal liability or whatever penalty may be extinguished is
when you are out and not serving your sentence. Bec if you are serving your sentence, the moment you
escape from prison, you commit another crime. So, patong ng patong yan. Its only when you are
outside and you dont commit a crime etc. ayunayos na. But if you commit a crime, be sure that the
crime you committed must be an offense so that you will not become a quasi-recidivist. If you commit a
felony, quasi-recidivist ka.
Okay. How about prescription of penalties in regard to penalties that involves a compound one. An
imprisonment and a fine. Kasi if it is a penalty of imprisonment or a fine, I am sure that you are going to
tell me that the principal penalty is the imprisonment, is that correct? Lets say for example, the penalty
is a correccional one6 yearsso, that would expire in 10 years. But then, there is a tail in the
penaltythe tail is the fine. The word is OR but it is P30,000. From which of the 2 are you going to
base the prescription of the penalty. One is a correctional penalty, that is prision correccional, and the
other is an afflictive penalty bec it is more than P6,000 as a fine. What is the rule given by Reyes? And
will you agree? Even if say for example, it is AND a fine, which will you consider as the principal
penaltyis it the imprisonment or the fine? For purposes of prescription, which will be the basis of
prescription, the imprisonment of the fine? According to Reyes, the fine, when there is a compound
penaltyyou look. My contention however despite that opinion is that the principal penalty shall be the
imprisonment in a compound penalty. Why? If you are going to ask me, why did I say that? Because if it
is purely a fine, what would be the subsidiary imprisonment to be served by the accused? 6 months!
What is 6 months? Correccional. Oh, tapos sasabihin mo what would be the basis is the fine. When the
subsidiary imprisonment for the fine is simply a correccional penalty. I will not agree even if they have a
decision pa in that particular question. Well, if you are asked probably in the bar exams, just follow what
is in the book. (heheheJ) But if you are asked your opinion and the reason why you are disagreeingit is
because all fines, irrespective of the amounts if the same would exceed a subsidiary imprisonment of 6
months, shall be fixed at 6 months. No more no less. It cannot go beyond 6 months. 6 months is a
correccional penalty. Now, in prescription of penalties, when the penalty is simply a finewala tayong
problema. Bec the law specifically provides that the fine should be afflictive if it is more that P6, 000 but
still I would like to disagree with that bec of the subsidiary imprisonment that attaches to a fine. Kasi
hindi mo mapalampas ng 6 months yan ehits a good issue to be resolved bec if he cannot pay the fine,
how long will he stay in jail?6months even if it is P1M even if it is P30M6 months pa rin. You cannot
increase it. We have a P50M fine in RA 9165 ha, still he has to serve subsidiary imprisonment only for 6
months.
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS, TAVERNKEEPERS, AND PROPRIETORS OF ESTABLISHMENTS
Okay. We should go now to subsidiary liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers, etc. There is no problem
regarding that bec if say for example, the principal himselfthe one who committed the theft or the
robbery, he was caught, there is no problem. But the problem is kung walang pambayad. Ayun na. There
are rules that must have to be followed. There is a rule that if, say for example, the owner, the operator
etc violated rules and regulations etc of the city or municipality or the ordinance of the municipality or
the rules and regulations promulgated by the police etcliable yan. IN this connection, may I ask you,
would this affect the rule that you have to declare your valuables in the establishment and that you
abide the rules and regulations before you can recover from them subsidiarily if there is a violation of an
ordinance by the owner of the establishment? Remember that the 2 are separate from each other. So,
even if you did not declare but they violated certain rules and regulations or ordinance, liable sila. It is
only when they did not violate any rules and regulations or ordinance and you did not declareah, that
is when they are not liable. Kagaya ng pumunta kaalam ko madalas kayo, you go to resorts etc wherein

it is a resort and at the same time a restaurantyou attend a reception of weddings or baptismal
parties, whatever. There is even a guard but there is no notice there. Have you seen these resorts if they
have any notice? WALA. IF they have no notice, you did not declare, nawalan ka, but then you lost it bec
they do not have a double lock and there is an ordinance that their doors must have a double lock, can
you go after them? YES, you can go after them and make them liable. It is only when there is a notice
that you should inform them etc and they have not violated any rules and regulations that they are not
subsidiarily liable. When the crime committed is robbery with force, violence or intimidation upon
personsayan, they are not liable EXCEPT when the ones who perpetrated it are their own employees.
Even in theft cases, they are liable.
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS
How about parents, teachers? Who are primarily liable for the damages resulting out of a crime incurred
by their ward or by their children? Parents muna. Itong children, even if they have their own properties,
it is only when the parents cannot pay that their properties may be held liable. Yun ang masakit eh. Your
children are the one committing it bec you cannot discipline them anymore, the teachers cannot
discipline them, the teacher cannot even hit them with a small stick, yet the primary liability is on the
teacher. Those who did a research of RA 7610 or those who sponsored it, you belong to the Human
Rights group or the rights of childrendid you ever look at this provision of the law. Hindi eh. You will
become parents, maybe you will become teachers someday, we do not know. Ano mangyayari diyan?
Only sa minors lang yan hapupils, secondary. Pag medyo college na, hindi na kasali yan. Oh, 1st level
and 2nd level education lang ito. The property of the parents are the 1st that are supposed to answer
for the liability incurred by their children and the teachers incurred by their pupils or by their students.
Its when they do not have any property or the property has been exhausted that they will go after the
property of the pupil or the ward. These are very simple.
EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Well, extinction of civil liabilityah, wala namang problema yan eh. Just read Art. 2170 or 2176 of the
Civil Code? Yan na yunlost of the thing due, payment, etc. then you have of course, others such as
novationthese would extinguish the civil liability or it would be considered as already closed. Do you
have any questions? In Book One? We have already discussed ISL, Probation? Wala
ah(heheheJ)tignan natin. Joanne: Computation of Indeterminate Sentence?
Computation? Napakadali lang naman nun eh. Anong gusto mo, yung more complicated, or the simple
one? Madali lang naman ang Indeterminate Sentence eh. Judge wrote this on the board.
[Facts: Homicide Reclusion Temporal Offender: 17 years old Plea: guilty
Under the ISL, one degree lower for the minimum
Maximum should not exceed the maximum fixed by law ]
This is a simple example of the computation of the benefits of the ISL that an accused may enjoy bec it is
a crime punishable under the RPC known as a felony. Its only when the crime is a felony or when an
offense carries with it a penalty common to violations of the RPC that he shall enjoy the benefits of the
ISL. And that benefit is that the minimum penalty shall be lowered by one degree from the penalty
imposed or imposable? (judge: hahaha J) If you say imposed, that is a different matter when you say
imposable. Let us just clear that up.
If the offender is a 17 year old boy. He committed homicide, he pleaded guilty. What are you going to do
in order to arrive at the penalty which is imposable under the law? Are you now going to lower the

penalty by one degree immediately bec the offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance
of minority? After lowering it to 1 degree, are you going to fix the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused to the minimum because there is present one mitigating circumstanceso that the penalty that
should be imposed upon the accused is prision mayor in its minimum period? OR should you first apply
the ISL by lowering the minimum to one degree lower then you apply already the privileged mitigating
circumstance and then the modifying circumstance of plea of guilty. If you did the 2nd that will be very
confusing. Do it the easier way. The easier way is that considering that homicide is punishable by
reclusion temporal and the offender is only 17, lower the penalty by one degree. Then, go to the
application of the modifying circumstances. So, after applying the modified circumstance of guilty, the
penalty that will be imposed is PRISION MAYORMINIMUM. Then, you apply the ISL. What does the ISL
says? The minimum shall be one degree lower from the penalty to be imposed by the law. To be
IMPOSED. So, one degree lower from the penalty to be imposed by the law is PRISION CORRECCIONAL
MINIMUM. You know the range already, prision mayor in its minimum period which is 6 years and 1 day
to 8 years and prision correccional in its minimum would be 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. So, the judge can impose an IS of from 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum
to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.
[Illustration: MINIMUM= Prision Correccional in its minimum (6 months & 1 day to 2 years & 4 months)
MAXIMUM= Prision Mayor in its minimum (6 years & 1 day to 8 years) ]
Now, I have been telling you that it depends upon the temper of the judge when he arrives at the office
as to the computation of the penalty. The penalty will be announced by judge in open court or it will be
read. The accused is hereby sentenced an Indeterminate Penalty of from 2 years and 4 months of prision
correccionaltignan nyo, dalawang taon agad ang layo to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum. Is he
correct? Yes. Supposing the judge said maginoong bastos naman ito eh. Well, I will sentence you of an
Indeterminate Penalty of from 6 months and 1 day of prision correctional as minimum to 8 years of
prision mayor as maximum. Will the judge be right? Yes, bec it is still within the range. Kaya nga
maginoong bastos eh. Maginoo dun sa minimum, bastos na pagdating dun sa maximum. (heheheJ) Eto
na yung pinakamadali eh. Hindi na yung maghahanap ka ng kung anu-ano pa, uumpisahan mo kaagad
homicide, penalty: reclusion temporal, then 1 degree lower would be prision mayor then tsaka ka pa
lang mag-aaply etcmagulo yun eh. Hahaba ang proceso. The process will be long and tedious and
sometimes it will result toy confusion. Then there will be an error in the computation. Here, there is no
error, its as a simple as that and you will always be right. Even if sometimes the decision of the SC says
that the minimum shall be within the range of prision correccional in any periodnapakalaki ng range
nun eh. E di maguumpisa ng an indeterminate sentence of 6 years of prision correccional as minimum to
6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximumisang araw lang ang diperensya! Ano niloloko mo ang
sarili mo? (heheheJ) So, that would be the result of some of the decisions of the SC if you are going to be
very literal about it. That is why I have adopted this system so that you will always be right. You will
never be wrong. You are on the safe side. Dun tayo sa safe side, mahirap yung makikipagsugal ka pa.
Taking the bar exams is not a gamble, it is actually by a good preparation that you are going to be
successful in the taking of the bar examination. Kaya ngayon pa lang talagang pukpukin na
ninyomagpuyat na kayo. Pag sinabi nyong pagdating na lang ng pre-bar tsaka na ko mag-aaral, wag ka
nang mag-aral (heheheJ) di ka rin lang papasa. Anything else. Well, if you do not have anything more,
then we will end the session, I declare Wednesday as a free cut day. (4B: Yehey! J).