CRIMINAL LAW

I. FUNDAMENTAL
CRIMINAL LAW

PRINCIPLES

OF

1. PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES

Utilitarian
theory
or
protective
theory
The primary purpose: Protection of society
from actual or potential wrongdoers

a.

The first section is a review on certain

definitions,
principles
and
concepts
underlying Criminal Law as a branch of
study.

b.

Best remembered by the maxim An eye

for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. [Note: If you
want to impress the examiner, use the latin
version- Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.]
The primary purpose: Retribution.
c.
Positivist or realistic philosophy

There are FOUR MAJOR LESSONS in this

section:
A. DEFINITION
AND
PURPOSE
OF
CRIMINAL LAW
B. RATIONALE
BEHIND
STATE
AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME
C. REVIEWING BASIC PRINCIPLES
D. MEMORIZING
RELEVANT
LATIN
MAXIMS

The primary purpose: Reformation.

There is great respect for the human
element because the offender is regarded as
socially sick who needs treatment, not
punishment.
d.
Eclectic or mixed philosophy

A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of
municipal law which

This combines both positivist and classical

thinking. Crimes that are economic and social
by nature should be dealt with in a positivist
manner;
thus,
the
law
is
more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be
dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital
punishment.
The Revised Penal Code today follows the
mixed or eclectic philosophy.
For example:
intoxication of the offender is considered
to mitigate his criminal liability, unless
it is intentional or habitual;
the age of the offender is considered;
the woman who killed her child to conceal
her dishonor has in her favor a
mitigating circumstance.

defines crimes,
treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.

It is that branch of public substantive law

which defines offenses and prescribes their
penalties.
It is substantive because it defines the
states right to inflict punishment
and the liability of the offenders.
It is public law because it deals with the
relation of the individual with the
state.

2. LIMITATIONS

B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME

1987 Constitution Article II, Section 5
Declaration of Principles and State
Policies. The maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty and property, and
the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of
the blessings of democracy.

a. Must be general in application.

b. Must not partake of the nature of an ex
post facto law. (1987 Const. Art III,
Sec.22)
c. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of
attainder. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec 22)
d. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines. (1987
Const. Art III, Sec 19)

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)
and its amendments
2. Special penal laws passed by the
Philippine
Commission,
Philippine
Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Assembly,
the
Congress
of
the
Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during
Martial Law.

IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER:

The states authority is grounded on what
is called the penological objectives.
However, such power is also subject to
certain limitations.

C. REVIEWING BASIC PRINCIPLES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

UP

BAROPS

Generality (WHO)
Territoriality (WHERE)
Prospectivity (WHEN)
Legality
Strict Construction of
against the State

penal

laws

1. GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

100% UP LAW

Classical or juristic philosophy

2008

MEANS THAT THE

Criminal law of the country governs
all persons within the country regardless
of their race, belief, sex or creed.
Generality has no reference to territory.
It refers to persons that may be governed
by the penal law
However, it is subject to certain exceptions
Page 1 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Art. 2, RPC, Except as provided in the

treatise
or
laws
of
preferential
application

Art. 14, Civil Code, subject to the

principles of public international law and
to treaty stipulations.
o

An example of a treaty or treat

stipulation is the Bases Agreement
entered into by the Philippines and
the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired
on Sept. 16, 1991.

The territory of the country is not limited to

the land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior
waters as well as its atmosphere.

Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction

exercised over land.

Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction

exercised over maritime and interior
waters.

Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction

exercised over the atmosphere.

Excepted
under
the
territoriality
characteristic of penal laws are the cases
provided for by Art. 2 of the Revised
Penal Code. The Code therefore has
territorial and extraterritorial applications.

Another example would be the VFA1

signed on Feb. 10, 1998

Also excepted under the law of generality

are Members of the Congress who are not
liable for libel or slander with any speech
in Congress or congressional committee.
(Sec 11, Art VI 1987 Constitution)
Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other
diplomatic officials are immune from the
application of penal laws when they are
in the country where they are assigned2.
o EXCEPTIONS
TO
THE
EXCEPTION
(1) Note that consuls are not
diplomatic officers.
(2) This
includes
consul-general,
vice-consul or and consul in a
foreign
country,
who
are
therefore, not immune to the
operation or application of the
penal law of the country where
they are assigned.

*^*
2. TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

b. Scope Of Application Of The Provisions

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

a. General rule
b. Scope of the RPC
a.

Important Things to Remember:

General Rule

Territoriality-MEANS THAT THE

Penal laws of the country have

force and effect only within its territory.

It cannot penalize crimes committed outside

the same.
1

Take note of the Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V,

which defines Criminal Jurisdiction over United States
military and civilian personnel temporarily in the
Philippines in connection with activities approved by
the Philippine Government

The provisions in Article 2 embraces two scopes

of applications:
Intraterritorial application
1. Intraterritorial refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code within the Philippine
territory (land, air and water).
2. As far as jurisdiction or application of the
Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on
maritime zones or interior waters, the
Archipelagic Rule shall be observed.
3. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has
been modified by the rule.

R.A. No. 75 which penalizes acts which would impair the

proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the
Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the
Philippines

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 2 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Extraterritorial application
1. Extraterritoria3l refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code outside the Philippines
territory:
Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels
1)

The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels4 if the

crime is committed while the ship is treading:
a) Philippine
waters
(intraterritorial
application), or
b) The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial
application)

2)

Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes

committed aboard merchant vessels while in
the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a
foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR
Philippine vessels treading waters under the
jurisdiction of another state):
a) FRENCH RULE: It is the FLAG/Nationality of
the vessel which determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime violates the peace and
order of the host country.
b) ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of the
crime determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime
merely
relates
to
internal
management of the vessel. NOTE:
Philippines adhere to ENGLISH RULE.

Illustration:
If two petty officers aboard a Russian
ship docked in Manila North Harbor got into a
fistfight which resulted in serious physical
injuries, it is Russian Law which will apply.
However, if the cause of the fight is a dispute
over the ownership of several hundred grams of
cocaine stashed somewhere in the ship, then
Philippine Law must apply because importation of
illegal substance is a violation of public peace
and order.

4. Three International
Jurisdiction

RA9327 (The Human Security Act) contains

provisions for extraterritorial application

The country of registry determines the nationality of

the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned
vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Aerial

ii. Under this theory, if the crime is

committed in an aircraft, no matter
how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the
Philippine
atmosphere,
Philippine
5
criminal law will govern.
Par. 2 & 3:
Forging/Counterfeiting and
Introducing Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines
1. The forgery is committed abroad
2. And it refers to Philippine coin, currency
note, obligation and security
Par. 4: When public officers or employees
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions
1) The most common subject of bar problems in
Article 2 is paragraph 4.
2) As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code
governs only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public
officials functions:
a) Those having to do with the discharge of
their duties in a foreign country.
b) The functions contemplated are those,
which are, under the law:
i) to be performed by the public officer
ii) in the Foreign Service of the
Philippine government
iii) in a foreign country.

NOTE: These rules are NOT applicable if the

vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed, in these cases, the laws of the
nationality of the ship will always apply.

On

a. Free Zone Theory

The atmosphere over the country is free and
not subject to the jurisdiction of the
subjacent state, except for the protection of
its national security and public order.
b. Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over
the atmosphere only to the extent that it can
effectively exercise control thereof.
c. Absolute Theory
i. The subjacent state has complete
jurisdiction over the atmosphere above
it subject only to the innocent passage
by aircraft of a foreign country. NOTE:
The Philippines adopts this theory.

NOTE: This illustration works for both rules

because the general rule in one is the exception
of the other.

3. When the crime is committed in a war vessel

of a foreign country, the NATIONALITY of the
vessel will ALWAYS determine jurisdiction
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose navel
force they belong.

Theories

NOTE: The Revised Penal Code governs if the

crime (whether or not in relation to the
exercise of public functions) was committed
within the Philippine Embassy or within the
embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is
because embassy grounds are considered an
extension of sovereignty. Thus the crime is
deemed to have been committed in Philippine
soil.
Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly
married here in the Philippines and who marries
again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted
5

See Anti-hijacking Law, pg___

2008

Page 3 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
here for bigamy because this is a crime not
connected with his official duties. However, if the
second marriage was celebrated within the
Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here,
since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in
the Philippines.
Par. 5: Commit any of The Crimes Against
National Security and the Law Of Nations,
Defined In Title One Of Book Two Of This
Code.

*^*
3. PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW
MEANS THAT

Acts or omissions will only be subject to

a penal law if they are committed AFTER a
penal law had already taken effect.
Vice versa, this act or omission which has
been committed before the effectivity of a
penal law could not be penalized by such
penal law because penal laws operate only
prospectively.
This is also called irretrospectivity.
General Rule:
prohibited.

Ex

post

facto

law

is

Ex post facto law is one that is

specifically made to retroact to cover
acts before it became effective to the
prejudice of the accused;
or to make a certain crime graver or
prescribe a heavier penalty for it.

Exception:

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal

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

1. Rebellion is not included.

2. Any crime against public order is under the
jurisdiction of the host country.

This is consistent with the general principle

that criminal laws, being a limitation on the
rights of the people, should be construed
strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused.

If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in

the new law,

the new law shall be applied,

except when the offender is a

habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial

decisions6,
administrative
rulings
and
circulars.

1. Co vs. CA (1993),
In this case, Circular No. 4 of the Ministry of
Justice, dated December, 15, 1981, provides that
where the check is issued as part of an
arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment
of an obligation, whether pre-existing or not, the
drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or
violation of BP 22.
Subsequently, the administrative interpretation
was reversed in Circular No. 12, issued on August
8, 1984, such that the claim that the check was
issued as a guarantee or part of an arrangement
to secure an obligation or to facilitate collection,
is no longer a valid defense for the prosecution of
BP 22.
Hence, it was ruled in Que vs. People that
under the new Circular, a check issued merely to
guarantee the performance of an obligation is
covered by BP 22.
However, consistent with the principle of
prospectivity, the new doctrine should not
apply to parties who had relied on the old
Circular and acted on the faith thereof. No
retrospective effect.
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the
punishability of an act must be reasonably for the
guidance of society.
4. LEGALITY (NULLUM
POENA SINE LEGE)

CRIMEN

NULLA

Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed.

No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same.

This is true to civil law countries, but not

to common law countries.

Limitation:

Not any law punishing an act or omission

may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null
and void.

5. STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

AGAINST STATE: THE DOCTRINE OF
PRO REO

Different effects of repeal of penal law.

If the new law imposes a heavier penalty,

the law in force at the time of the

commission of the offense shall
be applied.
If the new law totally repeals the existing
law so that the act which was penalized
under the old law is no longer punishable,

the crime is obliterated.

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or

applied and the law admits of two
interpretations - one lenient to the offender
and one strict to the offender-

Art. 8, Civil Code

2008

Page 4 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

that interpretation which is lenient or

favorable to the offender will be
adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental

rule that all doubts shall be construed in
favor of the accused .
Consistent with the presumption of
innocence of the accused.

1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 14(2)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.
This is peculiar only to criminal law.
EQUIPOISE RULE:

When the evidence of the prosecution

and the defense are equally balanced, the
scale should be tilted in favor of the
accused in obedience to the constitutional
presumption of innocence.7
D. BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
1. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT
REA
The act cannot be criminal where the mind
is not criminal. This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony
resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to
culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence.
2. ACTUS ME INVITO
MEUS ACTUS

FACTUS

NON

II. FELONIES
This section discusses how and why an act is
subject to criminal liability, the different stages of
committing an as well as the classification of
punishable conduct.
There are
section:

MAJOR

LESSONS

in

this

A. DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,

MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
B. FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED
C. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

D. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY

SPECIAL LAWS

A. DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,

MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
1. FELONY

The term felony is limited only to

violations of the Revised Penal Code.
When the crime is punishable under a special
law you do not refer to this as a felony.

IMPORTANCE:

There are certain provisions in the

Revised Penal Code where the term
felony is used, which means that the
provision is not extended to crimes under
special laws.

A specific instance is found in Article

160- Quasi-Recidivism, which reads:
A person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve
sentence or while serving the same,
shall
be
punished
under
the
maximum period of the penalty.
Note that the word felony is
used.

EST

An act done by me against my will is not

my act. This is related to the preceding maxim
and is manifested in People v. Ah Chong.
3. EL QUE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA
DEL MAL CAUSADO
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused. This is the rationale in par. 1 of
Article 4 which enunciates the doctrine of
proximate cause. He who commits an intentional
felony is responsible for all the consequences
which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

FIVE

2. OFFENSE

A crime punished under a special law is

called a statutory offense.

3. MISDEMEANOR

A minor infraction of the law, such as a

violation of an ordinance.

4. CRIME

Whether the wrongdoing is punished under

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

Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 5 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
MENS REA/MENTAL ELEMENT

B. FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED

Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed
not only be means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when
the act is performed with deliberate intent and
there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

a. There must be an act or omission

b. That the act or omission must be
punishable by the RPC
c. That the act is performed or the
commission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT

1. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

mens rea, is defined as "a guilty mind, a

guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal
intent"11,
It sometimes referred to in common parlance
as the gravamen of the offense (bullseye
of the crime).
This term is used synonymously with
criminal or deliberate intent
It does not mean that if an act or omission is
punished under the Revised Penal Code, a
felony is already committed.
For an act to be punishable, THERE MUST BE
A CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE ACT AND
THE INTENT.

To be considered as a felony, there must be

an act or omission;
An act refers to any kind of body movement
that produces change in the outside world.
A mere imagination no matter how wrong
does not amount to a felony.

Illustration:
If A, a passenger of a jeepney seated in front
of a lady, started putting out his tongue
suggesting lewdness that is already an act in
contemplation of criminal law8. He cannot claim
that there was no crime committed.
If A scratches something, this is already an act
which annoys the lady he may be accused of
unjust vexation, not malicious mischief.

ACT v. STATUS

An act must produce some kind of

change with a physical manifestation,
status, on the other hand is a concept
which lies between an action and the
imagination; it is defined as

Omission is

the failure to perform a duty

required by law.

It is important that there is a law

requiring the performance of an act, if
there is no positive duty, there is no
liability.

Examples of such are failure to render

assistance9, failure to issue receipt or non
disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government10.

1. DOLO (DELIBERATE INTENT)

a. Elements
b.
Categories of Intent
c.
Distinction between Intent and
i. Discernment
ii. Motive
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is
deceit.
This is no longer true. At the time the
Revised Penal Code was codified, the term
nearest to dolo was deceit.
However, deceit means fraud, and this is not
the meaning of dolo.

Dolo is DELIBERATE INTENT otherwise

referred to as criminal intent, and must be
coupled with freedom of action and
intelligence on the part of the offender as to
the act done by him.

Presumption Criminal Intent

Intent is a mental state,

the existence of which is shown by the

overt act of a person,

so criminal intent is presumed to exist

only if the act is unlawful. It does not
apply if the act is not criminal.

The presumption of criminal intent may

arise from proof of the criminal act
and it is for the accused to rebut this
presumption.

However, in some crimes intent cannot

be presumed being an integral element
thereof; so it has to be proven (i.e. in
frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill
is not presumed but must be proven,
otherwise it is merely physical injuries).

Liability Even in the Absence of Criminal

Intent

There
are
2
exceptions
to
the
requirement of Criminal Intent:

FELONIES COMMITTED by CULPA

(infra)

OFFENSE MALA PROHIBITA (infra)

Unjust vexations under Art. 287. Light coercions.

Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim
10
Art. 116. Misprision of treason.
9

100% UP LAW

UP

11

BAROPS

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889

2008

Page 6 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
a. Elements of DOLO
i. Criminal intent;
This is shown by overt acts
It presupposes the existence of the
two subsequent elements
ii. Freedom of action; and
The lack of freedom makes one
merely a tool
iii. Intelligence
The lack of intelligence makes one
unable to determine
The morality of his acts
The effect of his actions

Ernie can overturn the presumption of general

criminal intent by proving that he was justified
(infra), entitled to any exempting circumstances
(due to lack of discernment) or there was a
mistake of fact (infra). If he is successful, then
the presumption that he intended to do
something wrong is obliterated along with the
need to determine specific intent.
However, the result of Ernies act will now
determine his liability. Was his act justified that
he incurs no liability? Is he entitled to any
exemption? Or is his liability only mitigated?

The
presence
CIRCUMSTANCES
FREEDOM

Some of the EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

exculpate
those
who
LACK
THE
INTELLIGENCE to determine the nature and
consequences of their actions.

The lack of CRIMINAL INTENT can be a

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE or the
accused can be merely held liable for
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

If any of the elements is absent, there is no

dolo.

Establishing the specific intent is the way to

hit the bullseye of the crime:

E.g. If the prosecution wants to hold

Ernie liable for homicide/murder, then
they have to establish Ernies intent to
kill, which is the bullseye of the crimes
mentioned.

In theft, the gravamen of the offense

would be the taking with intent to gain as
distinguished from estafa where the
essence is deceit.

Attempted
rape
and
acts
of
lasciviousness have similar elements
separated only by the offenders intent to
have sexual intercourse with the victim.

If there is no dolo, there could be no

intentional felony.12

c. Distinctions Between Intent,

Discernment and Motive

of
JUSTIFYING
indicates
LACK
OF

whether he planned to kill Burt or merely to

inflict a whole lot of pain.

b. Categories of Intent
In criminal law, intent is categorized
into two types:
General Criminal
Intent
The intention to do
something wrong
Presumed from the
mere doing of a
wrong act
The burden is upon
the wrong doer to
prove that he acted
without such criminal
intent.

Specific Criminal
Intent
The
intention
to
commit a definite
act
Existence
is
not
presumed

Determination
to
do
a
certain thing,
an
aim
or
purpose
of
the mind.

Establish the
nature
and
extent
of
culpability

Since the specific

intent is an element
of the crime, the
burden is upon the
prosecution
to
establish
its
existence.

However, Ernie can be liable for more than

one crime; thus, prosecution must establish
Ernies SPECIFIC INTENT in order to determine
Visbal vs. Buban, 2003

It
is
the
moving
power
which
impels one
to do an act
(ex.
vengeance).
Important
only
in
certain
cases (see
below)

BAROPS

in

Illustration:
Ernie came home and found his wife in a
pleasant conversation with Burt, former suitor.
Thereupon, he went to the kitchen, opened a
drawer and pulled out a knife. He then stabbed
Burt.
The moving force is jealousy.

14

UP

Integral
to
the element
of
intelligence
NOT intent.

MOTIVE

1) When the act brings about variant crimes

e.g. kidnapping v. robbery13
2) The identity of the accused is doubtful
3) The evidence on the commission of the
crime is purely circumstantial.
4) Also, lack of motive can aid in showing
the innocence of the accused.14

13

100% UP LAW

DISCERNMEN
T
the
mental
capacity
to
tell right from
wrong

When
Motive
becomes
Material
determining Criminal Liability:

Illustration
Ernie, without any provocation, stabbed
Burt.
The very act of stabbing is the quantum of
proof needed to establish the fact that Ernie
intended to do something wrong. This is the
GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT.

12

INTENT

People v. Puno (1993)

People vs Hassan, 1988

2008

Page 7 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
The intent is the resort to the knife,
so that means he desires to kill the Burt, the
former suitor.
Ernies
deliberate
choice
of
something as lethal as the knife shows the
presence of intelligence because it is his very
awareness of the danger which prompted his
choice. This only means that he knew what is
right from wrong and deliberately chose to do
what is wrong.
NOTE: Discernment does not indicate the
presence of intent, merely intelligence.15 Thus,
discernment is necessary whether the crime is
dolo or culpa.

Stabbing the victim whom the accused

believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of
fact on his part which led him to take the facts as
they appear to him and was pressed to take
immediate action.

2. CULPA (CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT)

a. Elements
b. Doctrines Concerning Culpable Crimes

IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:

d. Mistake of Fact
(ignorantia facti excusat)

When
an
offender
acted out of
a
misapprehension of fact,

it cannot be said that he acted with

criminal intent.

When the offender acted out of a mistake

of fact, criminal intent is negated, so
do not presume that the act was done
with criminal intent.

This is absolutory if the crime involved

dolo.
The Requisites

16

Illustration:
People v. Ah Chong (1910)
A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the
dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area,
and after crying out sufficient warnings and
believing himself to be under attack, cannot be
held criminally liable for homicide.
1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the
facts were really what the houseboy
believed?
a. Yes. If it was really the robber and
not the roommate then the
houseboy was justified.
2) Was the houseboys intention lawful?
a. Yes. He was acting out of selfpreservation.
3) Was the houseboy without fault or
negligence?
a. Yes. His deliberate intent to
defend himself with the knife can
be determined by the fact that he
cried out sufficient warnings prior
to the act.

16

AS A MODE

of Mistake of Fact are:

i. That the act done would have been lawful

had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
ii. That the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful;
iii. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
When the accused is negligent, mistake
of fact is not a defense.

15

People v. Cordova 1993

BAROPS

OR

Act of Culpa

FELONY

People vs. Faller (1939),

It was stated indirectly that criminal
negligence or culpa is just a mode of
incurring criminal liability.
In this case, the accused was charged with
malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an
intentional negligence under Article 327 of
the Revised Penal Code You do not have
malicious mischief through simple negligence
or reckless imprudence because it requires
deliberateness.
Faller was charged with malicious mischief,
but was convicted of damage to property
through reckless imprudence.
The Supreme Court pointed out that
although the allegation in the information
charged the accused with an intentional
felony, yet the words feloniously and
unlawfully, which are standard languages in
an information, covers not only dolo but
also culpa because culpa is just a mode
of committing a felony.

AS A CRIME

UP

Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is

just a modality by which a felony may be
committed.
A felony may be committed or incurred
through dolo or culpa.
Culpa is just a means by which a felony may
result.

Act of Dolo

People vs Oanis, 1988

100% UP LAW

Although there is no intentional felony, there

could be culpable felony.
The element of criminal intent is replaced by
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
Is culpa merely a mode of committing a
crime or a crime in itself?

2008

In Article 365, you have criminal negligence

as an omission which the article definitely or
specifically penalized.
The concept of criminal negligence is the
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
Page 8 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

the person performing or failing to perform

an act.
Because Article 365, creates a distinction
between imprudence and negligence; simple
or reckless, one might think that criminal
negligence is the one being punished.
That is why a question is created that
criminal negligence is the crime in itself.

Act of Dolo

Act of Culpa

OR

INTENTIONAL

CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE
(ART 365)

Held: The second case must be dismissed.

Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for the same act. For the
essence of the quasi-offense under Art. 365 of
the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent act
which would be punishable as a felony. The law
penalizes the negligent act and not the
result. The gravity of the consequences is only
taken into account to determine the penalty. It
does not qualify the substance of the
offense.

b. Doctrines Concerning Culpable Crimes

Emergency Rule

A person who is confronted with a

sudden emergency

may be left no time for thought.

so must make speedy decision based

largely upon impulse or instinct,

and cannot be held to the same

conduct as one who has had an
opportunity to reflect,

even though it later appears that he

made the wrong decision.

Culpa Requires the Concurrence of Three

Requisites:

Doctrine Of Last Clear Chance

The contributory negligence of the party

injured

will not defeat the action

if it be shown that the accused might, by

the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence,

have avoided the consequences of the

negligence of the injured party.

The applicability of this doctrine in

criminal cases is somewhat dubious:

Criminal negligence on the part of the

offender,

that is, the crime was the result of

negligence,
reckless
imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill;
Freedom of action on the part of the
offender, that is, he was not acting under
duress;

Negligence presupposes the ability to be

vigilant; and vigilance depends on
whether the person chose to be or not.
Intelligence on the part of the offender in
the performance of the negligent act.

The absence of intelligence means that

the person is unable to assess the danger
of a situation.

He cannot be charged for lack of foresight

and/or prudence because the person
cannot
discern
and
predict
the
consequence of his course of action.

Anuran v. Buno (1966)

The principle about the "last clear

chance" would call for application in a
suit between the owners and drivers
of the two colliding vehicles.

It does not arise where a passenger

demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual
obligation

Last Clear Chance is a defense by the

defendant in a damage suit against
liability by transferring it to the plaintiff.

This dynamics cannot be replicated in a

criminal case because

the liability is penal in nature and

thus cannot be transferred within the
same case

It is not a case between two parties

involved in an incident but rather
between an individual and the State.

FELONIES

Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace (1995),

Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented and claimed

that criminal negligence is a quasioffense, and the correct designation should
not
be
homicide
through
reckless
imprudence, but reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide.
The view of Justice Reyes is sound, but the
problem is Article 3, which states that culpa
is just a mode by which a felony may result.

a. Elements of CULPA

People v. Buan (1968)

Facts: The accused was driving a passenger bus.
Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus
collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the
latter. A case was filed against the accused for
slight
physical
injuries
through
reckless
imprudence for which he was tried and acquitted.
Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence was filed. Accused claimed that he
was placed in twice in jeopardy.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Rule Of Negative Ingredient

This is related to the doctrine of

proximate cause and applicable when
certain causes leading to the result are
not identifiable.

2008

This rule states that

the
prosecution
must
first
identify what the accused failed
to do.

Once this is done, the burden of

evidence shifts to the accused.

Page 9 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

The accused must show that the

failure did not set in motion the chain
of events leading to the injury.17

E. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

This question
examination:

was

asked

in

the

bar

But even certain crimes which are punished

under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of
these stages.
A more detailed discussion can be found
LIABILITY
FOR
INCOMPLETE
under
ELEMENTS (pg___)
Related to this classification of felonies as to:
1. Formal Crimes

How do you classify felonies and how are

felonies classified?

a. Formal crimes are crimes, which are

consummated in one instance.

b. Illegal exaction under Article 213 is

TIP:
What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6
and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies
under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

a crime committed when a public

officer who is authorized to collect
taxes, licenses or impose for the
government, shall demand an amount
bigger than or different from what the
law authorizes him to collect.

Under sub-paragraph (a) of Article

213 on illegal exaction, the law
uses the word demanding.

Mere demanding of an amount

different from what the law
authorizes him to collect will
already consummate a crime,
whether the taxpayer pays the
amount being demanded or not.

Payment of the amount being

demanded is not essential to the
consummation of the crime.

The question does not require the candidate

to classify but also to define.
Therefore, the examiner was after the
classifications under Articles 3, 6 and 9.
The purpose of classifying penalties is to
bring about a proportionate penalty and
equitable punishment.
The penalties are graduated according to
their degree of severity.

The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all

kinds of felonies.

There are felonies which do not admit of

division.

FELONIES ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

2. Material Felonies

1. According
to
the
manner
of
their
commission
2. According to the stages of their execution
3. According to their gravity

a. Those

that have various stages of

execution
b. Ex. Homicide
3. Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED

OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS

STAGE

4. As to count
5. As to nature

a. The essence of the crime is the act

itself;
b. Hence in rape, the slightest penetration

already consummates the crime; the

same is true for arson where the
slightest burning already renders the
crime complete.

1. ACCORDING TO THE MANNER OF THEIR

COMMISSION

Under Article 3, they are classified as:

3. ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAVITY
a. intentional felonies or those committed
with deliberate intent; and
b. culpable felonies or those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.

Under Article 9, felonies are classified as:

a.

2. ACCORDING TO THE STAGES OF THEIR

EXECUTION
a.

Under Article 6, felonies are classified as:

a. attempted felony
b. frustrated felony
c. consummated felony

17

a.

The classification of stages of a felony in

Article 6 are true only to crimes under the
Revised Penal Code.
This does not apply to crimes punished under
special laws.
Carillo vs People, 1994

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Grave felonies or those to which

attaches

the capital punishment or

penalties which in any of their periods

are afflictive;
Less grave felonies or

those to which the law punishes with

penalties which in their maximum
period is correctional;
Light felonies or those infractions of law
for the commission of which

the penalty is arresto menor.

Why is it necessary to determine whether the

crime is grave, less grave or light?

To determine

whether these felonies can be

complexed or not;

the prescription of the crime and

the prescription of the penalty.

2008

Page 10 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

In other words, these are felonies

classified according to their gravity,
stages and the penalty attached to them.

Take note that when the Revised Penal Code

speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the
definition makes a reference specifically
to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
Do not omit the phrase In accordance with
Article 25 because there is also a
classification of penalties under Article 26
that was not applied.
This classification of felony according to
gravity is important with respect to the
question of prescription of crimes.

Ex. If the penalty is a fine and exactly

P200.00, it is only considered a light
felony under Article 9. If the fine is
imposed as an alternative penalty or as a
single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is
considered a correctional penalty under
Article 26.

If the penalty is exactly P200.00,

apply Article 26. It is considered as a
correctional penalty and it prescribes in
10 years. If the offender is apprehended
at any time within ten years, he can be
made to suffer the fine.

4. AS TO COUNT

MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA

Mala in se
an act, by its very nature, is inherently
and morally wrong;
it should be done with criminal intent
Malum prohibitum
An act is wrong only because there is a
law punishing it.
It is enough that the prohibited act was
voluntarily committed and need not be
committed with malice or criminal intent
to be punishable.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)
Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law.
One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is
a malum prohibitum or malum in se.
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires
proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisely
because the constitutive crimes are mala in se
the element of mens rea must be proven in a
prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the
amended information alleges that the crime of
plunder was committed willfully, unlawfully and
criminally. It thus alleges guilt knowledge on the
part of the petitioner.

Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:

a) Compound Crime,
b) Complex crime; and
c) Composite crime.
5. AS TO NATURE
a) Mala in se
b) Mala prohibita

C. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY

SPECIAL LAWS

1. TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OF

SPECIAL LAW IS MALUM PROHIBITUM OR
MALUM IN SE
2. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS:
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
3. DISTINCTION
BETWEEN
CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
SPECIAL LAWS

IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER :

Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the
provisions of this Code. Offenses which are
or in the future may be punishable under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this
Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such
laws, unless the latter should specially provide
the contrary.

100% UP LAW

UP

Dolo is not required in crimes punished by

special laws because these crimes are mala
prohibita.
In those crimes punished by special laws, the
act alone irrespective of its motives,
constitutes the offense.
Good faith and absence of criminal
intent are not valid defenses in crimes
punished by special laws

BAROPS

While intentional felonies are always mala in

se, it does not follow that prohibited acts
done in violation of special laws are
always mala prohibita.
Even if the crime is punished under a special
law, if the act punished is one which is
inherently wrong, the same is malum in
se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is
the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
Likewise when the special laws require that
the punished act be committed knowingly
and willfully, criminal intent is required
to be proved before criminal liability may
arise.

1. TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OF

SPECIAL LAW IS MALUM PROHIBITUM OR
MALUM IN SE
1) Analyze the violation:
Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting
it or punishing it as such?
If you remove the law, will the act still be
wrong?
2) If the working of the law punishing the
crime uses the word willfully, then
malice must be proven.

2008

Page 11 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Where malice is a factor, good faith is a
defense.

2. People vs. Rodriguez (1960),

It was held that a violation of a special law
can never absorb a crime punishable
under the Revised Penal Code, because
violations of the Revised Penal Code are more
serious than a violation of a special law.
But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can
absorb a crime punishable by a special
law if it is a necessary ingredient of the
crime in the Code.

3) In violation of special law, the act

constituting the crime is a prohibited
act.
Therefore, culpa is not a basis of liability,
unless the special law punishes an omission.
TIP:
When given a problem, take note if the crime is a
violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special
law.

2. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS:

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC

Offenses punishable under special laws are

not subject to the provisions of the RPC.

The RPC shall be supplementary to special

laws, unless the latter should specially
provide the contrary (Art. 10, RPC)

Article 10 is the consequence of the legal

requirement that one must distinguish
those punished under special laws and those
under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to
Article 10, observe the distinction.

When Applied?

As a supplement to the special law, or

simply correlate the violated special law,
if needed to avoid an injustice.

But do not think that when a crime is

punished outside of the Revised Penal Code,
it is already a special law.

3. People vs. Martinada.

The crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala
prohibitum but a modification of the
crime of theft of large cattle.
So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing
cattle-rustling, is not a special law.
It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the
course of cattle rustling, murder was
committed,
the
offender
cannot
be
prosecuted for murder.

Murder
would
be
a
qualifying
circumstance in the crime of qualified
cattle rustling18.

3. DISTINCTION
BETWEEN
CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
SPECIAL LAWS
a. As To Moral Trait Of The Offender

If no justice would result, do not give

suppletory application of the Revised Penal
Code to that of the special law.

MALA IN SE
o The moral trait of the
offender
is
considered.
o This is why liability
would only arise when
there is dolo or culpa
in the commission of
the punishable act.

1. Ladonga vs. People, 451 SCRA 673

The second clause (of Art. 10) contains the

soul of the article.
The main idea and purpose of the article is
embodied in the provision that the "code
shall be supplementary" to special laws,
unless the latter should specifically provide
the contrary.

b. As To Use Of Good Faith As Defense

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code,

For Example:

A special law punishes a certain act as a

crime.

The special law is silent as to the civil

liability of one who violates the same.

May the court pronounce that a

person is civilly liable to the offended
party, considering that the special
law is silent on this point?

Yes. Article 100 states that every

person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.

That
article
shall
be
applied
suppletorily to avoid an injustice that
would be caused to the private
offended party, if he would not be
indemnified for the damages or
injuries sustained by him.

MALA IN SE
o Good faith or lack
of criminal intent
is a valid defense;
unless the crime
is the result of
culpa.

UP

BAROPS

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

c. As To Degree Of Accomplishment Of
The Crime
MALA IN SE
o the
degree
18

100% UP LAW

MALUM
PROHIBITUM
o The moral trait of
the offender is
not considered;
o it is enough that
the prohibited act
was
voluntarily
done.

of

MALUM PROHIBITUM
o the act gives rise to

Sec. 8, PD no. 533

2008

Page 12 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
accomplishment of
the crime is taken
into
account
in
punishing
the
offender;
o thus, there
attempted,
frustrated
consummated
stages
in
commission of
crime.

are
and
the
the

a crime only when

it is consummated;

o there
are
no
attempted
or
frustrated
stages,
unless the special
law
expressly
penalizes a mere
attempt
or
frustration of the
crime.

d. As To Mitigating
Circumstances
MALA IN SE
o Mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances are
taken
into
account since the
moral trait of the
offender is

2. Taer v. CA (1990)

And

The offense for which Taer is accused is

covered by-Articles 308, 309, and 310, as
amended by "The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law
of 1974." The penalty imposed on the
principal for the crime of cattle rustling is:
xxxxxxxxx
Inasmuch as Taer's culpability is only that
of an accessory after the fact, under Art.
53 of the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the consummated
felony shall be imposed.

Aggravating

MALUM PROHIBITUM
o Mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances are
not taken into
account
in
imposing
the
penalty.

The amendments of Presidential Decree

No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) by Republic Act NO. 7659:

Adopted the scale of penalties in the

Revised Penal Code,

Mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances
can
now
be
considered in imposing penalties.

Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not

expressly
prohibit
the
suppletory
application of the Revised Penal Code.

The stages of the commission of

felonies
will
also
apply
since
suppletory
application
is
now
allowed.
1. People v. Simon (1994)
For cases of Illegal possession of firearms,

although Presidential Decree No. 1866 is

a special law,

the penalties therein were taken from the

Revised Penal Code,

hence the rules in said Code for

graduating
by
degrees
or
determining the proper period should
be applied.

e. As To Degree Of Participation
MALA IN SE
o When there is more
than one offender,
o the
degree
of
participation of each
in the commission of
the crime is taken
into
account
in
imposing
the
penalty;
o thus, offenders are
classified
as
principal, accomplice
and accessory.

100% UP LAW

MALUM
PROHIBITUM
o The degree of
participation
of
the offenders is
not considered.
o All
who
perpetrated
the
prohibited act are
penalized to the
same extent.
o There
is
no
principal
or
accessory
to
consider.

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 13 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
III.

Fundamental
Principles
Criminal Liability

Of

This section will dissect each instance

where criminal liability may be incurred,
mainly through:

A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
B. OMISSION
C. TRANSFERRED INTENT
D. LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS
AND INCOMPLETE CRIMES

2. THERE IS NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW

PUNISHING IT
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with
acts which should be repressed but which
are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which
is not punishable by law, it shall render the
proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe
that said act should be made the subject of
legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.

E. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY

F. LIABILITY FOR PLURAL CRIMES

IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:

1. HOW IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY INCURRED?

Since in Art. 3, a felony is an act or omission

punishable by law, particularly the Revised
Penal Code,

it follows that whoever commits a

felony incurs criminal liability

it is important to note that if the

criminal liability arises from an
omission

such as misprision of treason or

abandonment of helpless persons,

there must be a law requiring the

performance of such act.
In par.1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word
felony, that whoever commits a felony
incurs criminal liability.

A felony may arise not only when it is

intended, but also when it is the product
of criminal negligence.
What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4
confusing is the addition of the qualifier
although the wrongful act be different from
what
he
intended.
This
is
called
transferred intent.
The 2nd par. of Art. 4 makes a person liable
even if the accomplishment of his crime is
inherently impossible.

Art. 6 also provides liability

incomplete elements of a crime.

There are certain crimes which provide

specific liability for conspiring to and
proposing the commission of certain acts,
the principle behind this can be found in Art.
8.

Plural crimes on the

discussed under Art. 48.

100% UP LAW

other

for

hand

the

are

Article 5 covers two situations:

1. The court cannot convict the accused because

the acts do not constitute a crime.

a.
The proper judgment is acquittal.
b.
The court is mandated to report to the
Chief Executive that said act be made
subject of penal legislation and why.
2. Where
the
court
finds
the
penalty
prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime,
a.
the judge should impose the law.
b.
The most that he could do is recommend
to the Chief Executive to grant executive
clemency.

A. PROXIMATE CAUSE

Illustration:
A and B are supposed to meet in As home but
when B arrived A was not home. B received an
SMS from A telling the former to get the house
key from under the doormat. B lets himself in
and saw an IPOD on the table. B took the IPOD.
What is Bs criminal liability?
B is liable only for theft because the act and the
intent occurred only in the act of taking, there
was no malicious intent in the act of letting
himself in.

UP

BAROPS

For most felonies, criminal liability exists

from the concurrence of the mens rea and
the actus reus.

2008

Criminal liability for some felonies, arises only

upon a specific resulting harm

In homicide and its qualified forms, if the

victim does not die the accused may be
liable only for physical injuries.

Page 14 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Another example is the crime of estafa

wherein the victim, for criminal liability to
arise, must incur damage.

It was discussed in the previous section that

CRIMINAL
INTENT
and
CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE are elements for criminal
liability.
Article
4,
paragraph
1
deals
with
CAUSATION as the third means of
determining criminal liability.

Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957)

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

As a general rule, the offender is

criminally liable for all the consequences
of his felonious act,

although not intended,

if the felonious act is the proximate

cause of the felony or resulting
felony.

Proximate v. Immediate v. Remote

Illustrations:
#1
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles
along Ortigas Ave. As car was ahead, followed by
those of B, C, D, and E. When As car reached the
intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, the
traffic light turned red so A immediately stepped
on his break, followed by B, C, and D. However,
E was not aware that the traffic light had turned
to red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the
car of C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B
hit the car of A.
In this case, the immediate cause of the
damage to the car of A is the car of B, but that is
not the proximate cause.
The proximate cause is the car of E
because it was the care of E which sets into
motion the cars to bump into each other.
#2
In one case, A and B, who are brothers-in-law,
had a quarrel. At the height of their quarrel, A
shot B with an airgun. B was hit at the stomach,
which bled profusely. When A saw this, he put B
on the bed and told him not to leave because he
will call a doctor.
While A was away, B rose from the bed, went
into the kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut
his throat. The doctor arrived and said that the
wound in the stomach is only superficial; only
that it is a bleeder, but the doctor could no
longer save him because Bs throat was already
cut. Eventually, B died. A was prosecuted for
manslaughter.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

The Supreme Court rationalized that what

made B cut his throat, in the absence of evidence
that he wanted to commit suicide, is the belief
that sooner or later, he would die out of the
wound inflicted by A. Because of that belief, he
decided to shorten the agony by cutting his
throat.
That belief would not be engendered in his
mind were it not because of the profuse bleeding
from his wound.
Now, that profusely bleeding wound would not
have been there, were it not for the wound
inflicted by A.
As a result, A was convicted for manslaughter.
1. US vs. Valdez (1921),
Facts: The deceased is a member of the crew of a
vessel. Accused is in charge of the crewmembers
engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel.
Because the offended party was slow in his
work, the accused shouted at him. The offended
party replied that they would be better if he
would not insult them. The accused resented this,
and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim,
with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him.
The victim believing himself to be in
immediate peril threw himself into the
water. The victim died of drowning.
The accused was prosecuted for homicide.
His contention that his liability should be only for
grave threats since he did not even stab the
victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this
can be considered as a supervening cause.
Held: The deceased, in throwing himself into the
river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of
self-preservation, and was in no sense legally
responsible for his own death. As to him, it was
but the exercise of a choice between two
evils, and any reasonable person under the
same circumstance might have done the same.
The accused must, therefore, be considered the
author of the death of the victim.
This case illustrates that proximate cause
does not require that the offender needs to
actually touch the body of the offended party.
It is enough that the offender generated
in the mind of the offended party the
belief that made him risk himself.

2. Urbano vs. IAC (1988)

Facts: A and B had a quarrel and started hacking
each other. B was wounded at the back.
Cooler heads intervened and they were
separated. Somehow, their differences were
patched up. A agreed to shoulder all the
expenses for the treatment of the wound of B,
and to pay him also whatever loss of income B
may have suffered. B, on the other hand, signed
forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition,
he withdrew the complaint that he filed against
A.
After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic,
the doctor pronounced that the wound was
already healed.
Thereafter, B went back to his farm. Two
months later, B came home and was chilling.
Before midnight, he died out of tetanus
poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of
homicide against A.

2008

Page 15 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Held: The Supreme Court held that A is not
liable. It took into account the incubation period
of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence were presented
that tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks.
That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus
poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he
would not have lasted two months.
What brought about the tetanus to infect
his body was his work in the farm using his
bare hands.
Because of this, the Supreme Court said that
the act of B working in his farm where the soil is
filthy, using is own hands, is an efficient
supervening cause which relieves A of any
liability for the death of B. A, if at all, is only
liable for the physical injuries inflicted upon B.
3. People v. Enguito (2000)
Facts: A was mauled by B. The latter took off by
riding a motorela which contained other
passengers. A followed behind in another vehicle
with the intent of reporting the incident to the
police. A forced his vehicle to bump the motorela
a few times , which prompted B to jump. The
force of the jump caused the motorela to lose
balance thereby flipping to its left side and
injuring the other passengers.
A contends that he could not be guilty of any
physical injuries suffered by the other passengers
because the direct cause of the motorela turning
on its left side was the act of the driver in guiding
the vehicle while the proximate cause is the
thrust which resulted when B suddenly jumped
out of the motorela.
Held: The argument is devoid of merit. A
disregarded the basic rule in criminal law that a
person
is
responsible
for
all
the
consequences of his unlawful or wrongful
act although such consequences were
different from those which he originally
intended.
Even if it be assumed that the real intention
of accused-appellant was to surrender the victim
to the police for mauling him, his act of
pursuing the victim, who was a passenger of
the motorela, resulted in the injuries of the
driver and the other passenger of the
motorela.
Upon seeing that B was trying to jump out of
the motorela, A should have known that by
closely following, pushing and bumping the
motorela, he could injure the passengers, which
is what happened in this case. Instead, he
persisted resulting in the motorela turning on its
side and in the opposite direction
The act of accused-appellant in relentlessly
pursuing the motorela is a manifestation of his
intention to perpetrate the crime.

the appellant and the injuries sustained by the

victim.
It
does
not
constitute
intervening cause.

efficient

The proximate cause of the death of the

deceased is the shooting by the appellant.
It is settled that anyone inflicting injuries
is responsible for all the consequences of
his criminal act such as death that
supervenes in consequence of the injuries.
The fact that the injured did not receive
proper medical attendance would not affect
appellant's criminal responsibility.
The rule is founded on the practical policy of
closing to the wrongdoer a convenient avenue of
escape from the just consequences of his
wrongful act. If the rule were otherwise, many
criminals could avoid just accounting for their
acts by merely establishing a doubt as to the
immediate cause of death.

B. OMISSION
Omission is the inaction, the failure to
perform a positive duty which he is bound to
do. There must be a law requiring the doing or
performing of an act.
C. TRANSFERRED INTENT

Aberration Ictus
Error in Personae
Praeter Intentionem

Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be

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

4. People v. Acuram (2000)

Appellant blames the death of the victim on
the lack of prompt and proper medical attention
given.
He insists that the delay in giving proper
medical attendance to the victim constitutes an
efficient intervening cause which exempts him
from criminal responsibility.
Held: The attending doctors are not liable for the
death of the victim.
The perceived delay in giving medical
treatment to the victim does not break at all the
causal connection between the wrongful act of
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 16 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from
that intended.
In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the
following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the
offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed
by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for
the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

KIND
1. Aberratio Ictus
In aberratio ictus, the
intended victim as well as
the actual victim are both
at the scene of the crime.

DEFINITION

ILLUSTRATION

LEGAL EFFECT

Person directed the blow

at an intended victim, but
because of poor aim, that
blow landed on someone
else.

A shot at B.
However, because of
poor aim, it was not
B who was hit but C.
There is only one
single actthe act of
firing at B.

You have a complex crime,

unless
the
resulting
consequence is not a grave or
less grave felony. You have a
single act as against the
intended victim and also
giving rise to another felony
as against the actual victim.,
there is no intent to kill.

Distinguish
this
from
error in personae, where
the
victim
actually
received the blow, but he
was mistaken for another
who was not at the scene
of the crime.
The
distinction
is
important because the
legal effects are not
the same.

4. Error In Personae

A mistake in identity.
It was the actual
victim upon whom the
blow was directed, but
he was not really the
intended victim.

100% UP LAW

UP

In so far as B is
concerned, the crime
at least is attempted
homicide or
attempted murder.
As far as the third
party C is concerned,
if C were killed, the
crime is homicide. If
C was only wounded,
the crime is only
physical injuries. You
cannot have
attempted or
frustrated homicide
or murder as far as C
is concerned,
because as far as he
is concerned, there is
no intent to kill.
serious or slight.

A thought of killing
B. He positioned
himself
at
one
corner where B
usually
passes.
When
a
figure
resembling B was
approaching, A hid
and
when
that
figure was near
him, he suddenly
hit him with a
piece of wood on
the nape, killing
him. But it turned
out that it was his
own father.
The
crime
committed
is
parricide, although
what was intended
was homicide.
Article
49,
therefore,
will
apply because out
of a mistake in
identity, a crime

BAROPS

2008

In other words, aberratio

ictus, generally gives rise to
a complex crime. This being
so, the penalty for the more
serious crime is imposed in the
maximum period. This is the
legal effect.
The only time when aberratio
ictus may not result in a
complex crime is when one of
the resulting felonies is a light
felony.

Article 49 applies only in a

case of error in personae
and not in a case of
aberratio ictus.
When the crime intended is
more serious than the crime
actually committed or vice
versa:
o whichever crime
carries the lesser
penalty, that penalty will
be the one imposed,
whatever the crime the
offender is prosecuted
under.
o But it will be imposed in
the maximum period.
o In
any
event,
the
offender is prosecuted
for
the
crime
committed not for the
crime intended.

Page 17 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
was
committed
different from that
which
was
intended.
A
will
be
prosecuted
for
parricide but his
penalty will be for
homicide
in
its
maximum period.

5. Praeter
Intentionem

The result is greater

than
what
was
intended
In Ramos-Andan v.
People (2006) the
court said that the
mitigating
circumstance of lack of
intention to commit so
grave a wrong may
not be availed of when
fraud is employed.

100% UP LAW

UP

In
another
instance,
A
thought of killing
B. Instead of B, C
passed. A thought
that he was B, so
he hit C on the
neck, killing the
latter.
Just the same the
crime intended to
be committed is
homicide and what
was committed is
actually homicide.
Article 49 does not
apply. Here, error
in personae is of
no effect.
The
accused
entered the store
of
a
Chinese
couple, to commit
robbery.
They
hogtied
the
Chinaman and his
wife. Because the
wife
was
so
talkative, one of
the offenders got a
pan de sal and
placed it in her
mouth.
But
because
the
woman was trying
to wiggle from the
bondage, the pan
de
sal
slipped
through
her
throat. She died
because
of
suffocation.
The
offenders
were
convicted
for
robbery
with
homicide because
there
was
a
resulting
death,
although
their
intention was only
to rob. However,
There was really
no intention to
bring about the
killing, because it
was the pan de sal
that they put into
the mouth. Had it
been a piece of
rag, it would be
different. The SC
gave the offenders

BAROPS

2008

Error
in
personae
is
mitigating
if
the
crime
committed is:
o Different and
o Less serious
from
that
which
was
intended.

Praeter
intentionem
is
mitigating,
particularly
covered by paragraph 3 of
Article 13. In order however,
that
the
situation
may
qualify
as
praeter
intentionem, there must be a
notable disparity between
the means employed and the
resulting felony. If there is
no disparity between the
means employed by the
offender and the resulting
felony, this circumstance
cannot be availed of.
It cannot be a case of
praeter intentionem because
the intention of a person is
determined by the means
resorted to by him in
committing the crime.
If the resulting felony can be
foreseen or anticipated from
the means employed, the
circumstance
of
praeter
intentionem does not apply.

Page 18 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
the
benefit
of
praeter
intentionem as a
mitigating
circumstance. The
means employed
is not capable of
producing death
if
only
the
woman chewed
the pan de sal.
A man raped a
young girl. The
young
girl
was
shouting so the
man placed his
hand
on
the
mouth and nose of
the
victim.
He
found out later
that the victim
was already dead;
she
died
of
suffocation.
The
offender
begged
that he had no
intention of killing
the girl and that
his only intention
was to prevent her
from
shouting.
The
Supreme
Court
rejected
the plea saying
that a person
who
is
suffocated may
eventually
die.
The offender was
prosecuted for the
serious crime of
rape with homicide
and was not given
the
benefit
of
paragraph 3 of
Article 13.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 19 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
C. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Under par. 2, Article 4
An impossible crime is an act which would be
an offense only against person or
property

were
it
not
for
the
inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or
on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Liability under this paragraph is incurred only

if:

apply when the wrongful act, which would

have constituted a crime against persons or
property, could not and did not constitute
another felony.
Otherwise, if such act constituted any other
felony although different from what the
offender intended, the criminal liability
should be for such other felony and not
for an impossible crime.
The attitude was so because Article 4 of
the Code provides two situations where
criminal liability shall be incurred.

Because criminal liability for impossible crime

presupposes that no felony resulted form the
wrongful act done, the penalty is fixed at
arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to
P500.00, depending on the social
danger and degree of criminality shown
by the offender(Article 59), regardless of
whether the wrongful act was an impossible
crime against persons or against property.

In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the

culprits caused destruction to the house of
the intended victim; this felonious act
negates the idea of an impossible crime.

But whether we agree or not, the

Supreme Court has spoken, we have to
respect its ruling.

the offender has actually performed the

act against the person or property of the
intended victim and
such act does not constitute another
felony.

Example:
The dead victim was shot to make it appear that
he was trying to escape, the accused is not a
principal to an impossible crime but an accessory
to the killing committed by the principal.
Modified Concept of impossible crime
Intod vs. CA, et. al., 285 SCRA 52.
In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms
and with intent to kill, went to the intended
victims house and after having pinpointed the
latters bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the
said room with bullets, thinking that the intended
victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in
the evening. It so happened that the intended
victim did not come home on that evening and so
was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually
the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the
trial court for attempted murder. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme
Court modified the same and held the petitioner
liable only for the so-called impossible crime. As
a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
imprisonment of only six months of arresto
mayor for the felonious act he committed with
intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to
the intended victims house.

Somehow, the decision depreciated the

seriousness of the act committed,
considering the lawlessness by which the
culprits carried out the intended crime.
Some asked questions:

Was it really the impossibility of

accomplishing the killing that brought
about its non-accomplishment?

Was it not purely accidental that the

intended victim did not come home that
evening and, thus, unknown to the
culprits, she was not in her bedroom at
the time it was shot and riddled with
bullets?

Suppose, instead of using firearms, the

culprits set fire on the intended victims
house, believing that she was there when
in fact she was not, would the criminal
liability be for an impossible crime?
Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude
was that the provision of the Revised Penal
Code on impossible crime would only

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

D. LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS

1.
2.
3.
4.

CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 6

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
ATTEMPT AND FRUSTRATION
FACTORS DETERMINING STAGES OF
EXECUTION

1. CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 6

Art. 6. Consummated felonies, as well as
those which are frustrated and attempted, are
punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the
elements
necessary
for
its
execution
and
accomplishment are present;
and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.

A. Consummated Felony

When all the elements necessary for its

execution are present.
The felony is produced

B. Frustrated Felony

2008

Page 20 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

When the offender performs all the acts of

execution;
All the acts performed would produce
the felony as a consequence;
The felony is not produced;
By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.

Example: If Ernie stabbed Burt from

behind, the nature of his act indicated the
intent to kill because of the treachery
employedhe is liable for any of the
stages of murder depending on the actual
result:
a.If Burt dies, the crime is
consummated;
b.If Burt was stabbed in a critical
body part but managed to
survive due to timely medical
assistance,
the
crime
is
frustrated;
c. If Ernie lunged at Burt from
behind but was only able to
graze Burts arm because of the
latters reflex, the crime is an
attempt.

C. Attempted Felony

When
the
offender
commences
the
commission of a felony directly by overt
acts;
He does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony;
By reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance;

2. DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME

Overt act
Are external acts which if allowed to
continue its natural course would definitely
result into a felony.
It is the start of criminal liability
because the offender has commenced the
commission of an offense with overt acts.

3. ATTEMPT AND FRUSTRATION

whether the offender has performed

all the acts of execution
for the accomplishment of a felony.

Development of a crime
1. Internal acts intent and plans; usually
not punishable
Example: Ernie plans to kill Burt

The difference between the attempted stage

and the frustrated stage lies on

Attempted
ACTS PERFORMED:

Frustrated
ACTS PERFORMED:

Overt
acts
of
execution are started

All acts of execution

are finished

BUT

BUT

2. External acts
a.

Preparatory Acts
o acts tending toward the crime
o ordinarily not punished except
when considered by law as
independent crimes (Art. 304
possession of picklocks)
o these
acts
do
not
yet
constitute even the first stage
of the acts of execution
o intent not yet disclosed

Example: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get

a

Not
all
execution
present

acts

of
are

Crime sought to be
committed
is
not
achieved

WHY:

WHY:

Due to reasons other

than
the
spontaneous
desistance of the
perpetrator

Due to intervening
causes independent of
the
will
of
the
perpetrator

POSITION IN THE
TIMELINE:

POSITION IN
TIMELINE:

Offender
still
in
subjective
phase
because he still has
control of his acts

Offender is already in
the objective phase
because all acts of
execution are already
present and the cause
of
its
nonaccomplishment
is
other
than
the
offenders will

knife
b.

Acts of Execution
o acts directly connected to the
crime
o Punishable under the RPC
o usually overt acts with a
logical relation to a particular
concrete offense

Example: Ernie stabs Burt

Indeterminate offense
It is one where the purpose of the
offender in performing an act is not
certain. Its nature in relation to its
objective is ambiguous.
The intention of the accused must be
viewed from

the nature of the acts executed by

him, and

not from his admission.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

THE

Attempted Stage
Elements:
1.The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
2.He does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony;
3.The offenders act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance;
2008

Page 21 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
4.The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.

Marks the commencement of the subjective

phase

Subjective phase that portion of the

acts constituting a crime,

starting from the point where the

offender begins the commission of
the crime

to that point where he still has

control over his acts including
their (acts) natural course
If between those two points

the offender is stopped

by reason of any cause outside of his own

voluntary desistance,

the subjective phase has not

been passed and it is an attempt.
If he is not stopped but continues until he
performs the
last
act,
it
is either
consummated or frustrated.

Example: The subjective phase for Ernie was

from the moment he swung his arm to stab Burt
up until he finished his stroke. This is the interim
where he still has control of his actions

Desistance

It is the act which will negate criminal

liability
when
made
during
the
attempted stage.

Desistance is true only in the

attempted stage of the felony. If
under the definition of the felony, the act
done is already in the frustrated stage,
no amount of desistance will negate
criminal liability.

The spontaneous desistance of the

offender negates only the attempted
stage

but not necessarily all criminal

liability.

Even though there was desistance on the

part of the offender, if the desistance
was made when acts done by him
already resulted to a felony,

that offender will still be criminally

liable for the felony brought about his
act.

What is negated is only the

attempted stage, but there may be
other felonies constituting his act.

Example: Supposing Ernie (because he thought

killing Burt was too easy a revenge) desisted
mid-stroke. However, Burt felt the movement
and turned. He was so shocked that he suddenly
backed away and tripped over his own feet. As
Burt went down, his left eye caught the sharp
corner of a table causing a puncture on his
eyeball rendering him completely blind on the left
side.
a. Ernie would not be liable for
attempted murder because of his
desistance (regardless of his reason
for doing so)
b.His liability would now be for serious
physical injuries because his act of
raising the knife was the proximate
cause for Burt losing an eye.
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

In the attempted stage, the definition uses

the word directly.

This is significant.
In the attempted stage,

the acts so far performed may already be

a crime or

it may just be an ingredient of another

crime.

The word directly emphasizes the

requirement that the attempted felony
is that which is

directly linked to the overt act

performed by the offender,

not the felony he has in his mind.

In criminal law, you are not allowed to
speculate, not to imagine what crime is
intended, but apply the provisions of the law
to the facts given.

People v. Lamahang (1935)

The accused was arrested while he was detaching
some of the wood panels of a store. He was
already able to detach two panels. To a
layman, the only conclusion that will come to
your mind is that this fellow started to enter the
store to steal something. He would not be there
just to sleep there. But in criminal law, since
the act of removing the panel indicates only at
most the intention to enter, he can only be
prosecuted for trespass. The removal of the
paneling is just an attempt to trespass, not an
attempt to rob. Although Lamahang was
prosecuted for attempted robbery, the Supreme
Court held it is only attempted trespass because
that is the crime that can be directly linked to his
act of removing the wood panel.

There
are
some
acts
which
are
ingredients of a certain crime, but which
are, by themselves, already criminal
offenses.

People v. Campuhan (2000)

Facts: The mother of the 4-year-old victim
caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of
almost raping her daughter. The hymen of the
victim was still intact but since in previous Orita
ruling, entry into labia is considered rape even
without rupture of hymen and full penetration is
not necessary, question arises whether what
transpired was attempted or consummated rape.
Held:
Attempted
rape only.
Mere
touching of external genitalia by the penis is
already rape. However, touching should be
understood as inherently part of entry of penis
into labia and not mere touching of the
pudendum. There must be clear and convincing
proof that the penis indeed touched the labia and
slid into the female organ and NOT MERELY
STROKED THE EXTERNAL SURFACE. Some
degree of penetration beneath the surface must
be achieved and the labia major must be
entered. Prosecution did not prove that the
Campuhans penis was able to penetrate victims
vagina because the kneeling position of the
accused obstructed the mothers view of the
alleged sexual contact. The testimony of the
victim herself claimed that penis grazed but did
not penetrate her organ.
There was only a shelling of the castle but
no bombardment of the drawbridge ye (I
2008

Page 22 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
suppose, this, if nothing else, will make you
remember this case).
Frustrated Stage
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.

The end of the subjective phase and the

beginning of the objective phase

Objective phase the result of the acts

of execution, that is, the accomplishment
of the crime
If the subjective and objective phases are
present, there is a consummated felony.

CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF A

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

RAPE
ARSON
BRIBERY
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
ADULTERY
PHYSICAL INJURIES
THEFT

1. RAPE
The essence of the crime is carnal
knowledge.
No matter what the offender may do to
accomplish a penetration,

if there was no penetration yet, it cannot

be said that the offender has performed
all the acts of execution.

We can only say that the offender in rape

has performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration.
Once there is penetration already,

no matter how slight, the offense is

consummated.

For this reason, rape admits only of

the attempted and consummated
stages, no frustrated stage. This was
the ruling in the case of People vs.
Orita (see the previously cited case
of People v. Campuhan for the most
recent doctrine on penetration).
2. ARSON
One cannot say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed all the
acts of execution which could produce the
destruction of the premises through the use
of fire,

unless a part of the premises has

begun to burn.

If it has not begun to burn, that means

that the offender has yet to perform all
the acts of execution. On the other hand,
the moment it begins to burn, the crime
is consummated.
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

There is no middle stage between being

not burned and burned.

3. BRIBERY
The manner of committing the crime requires

the meeting of the minds between

the giver and the receiver.

If there is a meeting of the minds, there

is consummated bribery or consummated
corruption.

If there is none, it is only attempted.

This leaves out the frustrated stage

because of the manner of committing the
crime.
4. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Same with bribery.
5. ADULTERY
This requires the sexual contact two
participants.

If that link is there, the crime is

consummated;

if such link is absent, there is only an

attempted adultery.
6. PHYSICAL INJURIES
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
physical injuries is penalized on the basis of
the gravity of the injuries. Actually, there is
no simple crime of physical injuries. You have
to categorize because there are specific
articles that apply whether the physical
injuries are serious, less serious or slight.
If you merely say physical injuries, you would
not know which article to apply.
This being so, you could not punish the
attempted or frustrated stage because

you do not know what crime of physical

injuries was committed.

Physical injuries are punished by the

result.
Example: When Burt lost his left eye, Ernies
liability was automatically for serious physical
injuries. He would have no liability if the eye was
intact. If the eye suffered damage due to the
impact, the crime would not be frustrated nor
attempted physical injuries because the RPC still
considers this as a consummated physical injury,
its gravity depending on the duration that it took
for the damage to heal.
7. THEFT
There is no crime of frustrated theft.
Once there is unlawful taking, theft is
consummated.

Either the thing was taken or not.

Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC19.

4. FACTORS IN DETERMINING THE STAGE

OF
EXECUTION OF A FELONY
1. The manner of committing the crime;
2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.

1919

2008

Valenzuela v. People

Page 23 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
capable of producing a felony as a
consequence.

Hence, the general rule is that there

must be a fatal injury inflicted,
because it is only then that death will
follow.

TIP: M.E.N.

These three factors are helpful in trying to

pinpoint whether the crime is still in its
attempted, frustrated or consummated stage.

1. The Manner of Committing the Crime

Under the RPC, some crimes take two to

commit the crime like adultery.

In bribery, the manner of committing the

crime requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
When the giver delivers the money to the
supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act done
by the giver is an attempt.

There are instances where an intended

felony could already result from the acts
of execution already done.

Because of this, the offender is

deemed to have performed all the
acts of execution ONLY by the
existence of the result.
Without the resulting felony, there is no way
of determining whether the offender has
already performed all the acts of execution or
not like rape and arson.
Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
pivotal in determining the end of the
subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
performs the act in the manner provided
for in the law, HE HAS ALREADY DEEMED
TO HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR
ITS EXECUTION.

2. The Elements of the Crime

Along with the manner of execution, there

are crimes wherein the existence of certain
elements becomes the factor in determining
its consummation.

In the crime of estafa, the element of

damage is essential before the crime
could be consummated. If there is no
damage, even if the offender succeeded
in carting away the personal property
involved, estafa cannot be considered as
consummated.

On the other hand, if it were a crime of

theft, damage or intent to cause damage
is not an element of theft. What is
necessary only is intent to gain, not
even gain is important.

In the crime of abduction, the crucial

element is the taking away of the
woman with lewd designs.

3. The Nature of the Crime Itself

In crimes involving the taking of human

lifeparricide, homicide, and murder

in the definition of the frustrated stage,

it is indispensable that the victim

be mortally wounded.
Under the definition of the frustrated
stage, to consider the offender as having
performed all the acts of execution, the acts
already done by him must produce or be

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 24 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
E. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL

Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony

are two different acts or felonies.

GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to

commit a felony are not punishable
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefore.

TWO
CONCEPTS
OF
CONSPIRACY
AS A CRIME

STAGE

PREPARATORY
ACTS

HOW
INCURRED

Mere
agreement

PROPOSAL:
Proposal is true only up to the point where the
party to whom the proposal was made has NOT
yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal
was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is
unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two
parties.
RATIONALE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit
a crime are only preparatory acts and the law
regards them as innocent or at least permissible
except in rare and exceptional cases.

LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS

The RPC must specifically

punish the act of conspiring
(and proposing)
Treason, rebellion, sedition
and coup d etat are the only
crimes where the conspiracy
and proposal to commit them
are punishable
The act MUST NOT BE
ACCOMPLISHED, else the
conspiracy is obliterated and
the ACT ITSELF IS PUNISHED.
QUANTUM OF PROOF:
Conspiracy as a crime must be
established beyond reasonable
doubt

AS A
BASIS FOR
LIABILITY

EXECUTORY
ACTS

Commission
of overt act

The participants acted in

concert or simultaneously or
IN ANY WAY which is
indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common
criminal goal or criminal
objective.
The act of meeting together is
not necessary as long as a
common objective can be
discerned from the overt acts.
THE ACT MUST BE
ACCOMPLISHED, if there is
only conspiracy or proposal,
THERE IS NO CRIME TO BE
PUNISHED.
QUANTUM OF PROOF:
Reasonably inferred from the
acts of the offenders when
such acts disclose or show a
common
pursuit
of
the
criminal objective. This was
the ruling in People vs.
Pinto.

ILLUSTRATION

A, B, C and D came to an
agreement
to
commit
rebellion. Their agreement
was to bring about the
rebellion on a certain date.
Even if none of them has
performed
the
act
of
rebellion, there is already
criminal
liability
arising
from the conspiracy to
commit the rebellion. But if
anyone
of
them
has
committed the overt act of
rebellion, the crime of all is
no longer conspiracy but
rebellion
itself.
This
subsists even though the
other co-conspirator does
not know that one of them
had already done the act of
rebellion.
Three persons plan to rob a
bank.
For
as
long as
the
conspirators
merely
entered the bank there is
no crime yet.
But when one of them
draws
a
gun
and
disarms
the
security
guard, all of them shall be
held liable, unless a
co-conspirator was absent
from the scene of the
crime or
he showed up, but he
tried to prevent the
commission
of
the
crime.

1) People vs. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489,

It must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or
speculations.
2) People v. Bulan, 2005
The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the
same quantum of evidence as the felony charged
itself although, proof of previous agreement
among the malefactors to commit the crime is
not essential to prove conspiracy. It is not
necessary to show that all the conspirators
actually hit and killed the victim; what is
primordial is that all the participants performed
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 25 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
specific acts with such closeness and coordination
as to indicate a common purpose or design to
bring out the victims death.
3) People v. Pangilinan,
Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy need not be direct but may be
inferred from the conduct of the parties, their
joint purpose, community of interest and in the
mode and manner of commission of the offense.
The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
a. Not all those present at the crime scene will
be considered conspirators;
b. Only those who participated in the criminal
acts during the commission of the crime will
be considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
4) Taer vs. CA, 186 SCRA 5980,
Mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or
approval of the act, without cooperation at
least, agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute a conspiracy. There
must be an intentional participation in the crime
with a view to further the common felonious
objective.
5) A conspiracy is possible even when
participants are not known to each other.
When several persons who do not know each
other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of
one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of
injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be
liable for the consequences. Do not think that
participants are always known to each other.
6) The Supreme Court has ruled that one
who desisted is not criminally liable. As
pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the
attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only
a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the
preparatory stage..
Illustrations:
A thought of having her husband killed because
the latter was maltreating her. She hired some
persons to kill him and pointed at her husband.
The goons got hold of her husband and started
mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted
for them to stop but the goons continued.
The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for
parricide. But the Supreme Court said that
there was desistance so she is not criminally
liable.

A, B and C have been courting the same lady for

several years. On several occasions, they even
visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of
this, A, B and C became hostile with one another.
One day, D invited the young lady and she
accepted the invitation. Eventually, the young
lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned
about this, they all stood up to leave the house of
the young lady feeling disappointed. When A
looked back at the young lady with D, he saw D
laughing menacingly. At that instance, A stabbed
D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that
conspiracy was present
8) People vs. Nierra
If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in
the
commission
of
the
crime
with
insignificant or minimal acts, such coconspirator should be punished as an
accomplice only.
The common notion is that when there is
conspiracy
involved,
the
participants
are
punished as principals. This notion is no longer
absolute. The reason given is that penal laws
always favor a milder form of responsibility upon
and offender.
Illustration:
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver
was present during the planning. The taxi
driver agreed for the use of his cab but said,
I will bring you there, and after committing
the robbery I will return later. The taxi
driver brought the conspirators where the
robbery would be committed. After the robbery
was finished, he took the conspirators back to his
taxi and brought them away. It was held that
the taxi driver was liable only as an
accomplice. His cooperation was not really
indispensable. The robbers could have engaged
another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay
during the commission of the robbery. At most,
what he only extended was his cooperation.
9) Siton vs. CA,
The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible
with the idea of a free for all. There is no
definite opponent or definite intent as when a
basketball crowd beats a referee to death.
E. PLURAL CRIMES
1) PLURALITY OF CRIMES
2) KINDS OF PLURAL CRIMES
a. COMPLEX CRIMES
b. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
c. CONTINUED AND
CONTINUING CRIMES

1) PLURALITY OF CRIMES
7) Do not search for an agreement among
the participants. If they acted simultaneously
to bring about their common intention,
conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do
not consider the degree of participation of each
conspiracy because the act of one is the act of
all. As a general rule, they have equal
responsibility.
Illustration:

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Consists in the successive execution

by the same individual
of different criminal acts
upon any of which no conviction has yet
been declared.

Philosophy behind plural crimes:

The treatment of plural crimes as one is

to be lenient to the offender, who,

2008

Page 26 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

committed.
CRIMES)

instead of being made to suffer

distinct penalties for every resulting
crime
is made to suffer one penalty only,
although

it is the penalty for the most

serious one and

is in the maximum period.

(SPECIAL

COMPLEX

c. When the offender commits continued

crimes.
(CONTINUING
AND
CONTINUED CRIMES)
Complex Crimes

If by complexing the crime, the penalty

would turn out to be higher, do not
complex anymore.

a. NATURE OF COMPLEX CRIMES

b. TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
c. GENERAL RULES IN COMPLEXING

Example:
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
Crimes:
Murder and theft (killed with treachery, and
then stole the wallet).
Penalty:
If complex:
Reclusion temporal maximum to death.
If treated individually:
Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua

Complex-crime is not just a matter of

penalty, but of substance under the
Revised Penal Code.

PLURALITY OF
CRIMES
There is no conviction
of any of the crimes
committed.

When a single act constitutes two or more

grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other,
the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum
period.

RECIDIVISM
There
must
be
conviction by final
judgment of the first
or prior offense.

a. NATURE OF COMPLEX CRIMES:

2) KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES

Real or Material Plurality

There are different crimes in law as well

as in the conscience of the offender.
In such cases, the offender shall be
punished for each and every offense
that he committed.

Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2

crimes.
But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE
felonies must be

the result of a SINGLE ACT, or

an offense must be a NECESSARY MEANS

FOR COMMITTING the other.

although two or more crimes are actually

committed,
they constitute only one crime

in the eyes of the law as well

as in the conscience of the offender.

Even in the case where an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other,
the evil intent of the offender is only
one.

b. TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES

Example:
1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act
results in two or more grave or less grave
felonies
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an
offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.

A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C. There are

two crimes committed.

Formal or Ideal Plurality

Single Act
Throwing a hand
grenade

Several Acts
Submachine gun
because of the number
of bullets released
A single bullet killing
Firing of the revolver
two person
twice in succession
There is but one criminal liability in this
kind of plurality.

1. COMPOUND CRIME
REQUISITES:
1. That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by
the offender

Divided into 3 groups:

2. That the single acts produces
a.When the offender commits any of the
complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of the
Code. (COMPLEX CRIMES)

(a) 2 or more grave felonies, or

(b) 1 or more grave and 1 or more
less
grave felonies, or
(c) 2 or more less grave felonies

b.When the law specifically fixes a single

penalty
for
2
or
more
offenses

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 27 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Light felonies produced by the same act

should be treated and punished as separate
offenses or may be absorbed by the grave
felony.

Example:
When the crime is committed by force or
violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.

The basis in compounding the crime is the

act.
So that when an offender

performed more than one act,

although similar,

if they result in separate crimes,

there is no complex crime at all,

instead, the offender shall be prosecuted

for as many crimes as are committed
under separate information.

Example of a compound crime:

#1
The victim was killed while discharging his duty
as barangay captain to protect life and property
and enforce law and order in his barrio.
The crime is a complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority.
#2
When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without
evidence how many each killed, there is only a
single offense, there being a single criminal
impulse.
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
REQUISITES:

1. Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible

abduction with rape, are separate acts of
rape.
2. Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling
is a direct means to commit a grave offense.
3. No complex crime, when one offense is
committed to conceal the other.
4. When the offender had in his possession the
funds
which
he
misappropriated,
the
falsification of a public or official document
involving said offense is a separate offense.
5. No complex crime where one of the offense is
penalized by a special law.
6. There is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder, arson, robbery, or other common
crimes
(re:
rebellion,
Ortega
thinks
otherwise).
c. GENERAL RULES IN COMPLEXING CRIMES
1. When two crimes produced by a single act
are
respectively
within
the
exclusive
jurisdiction of two courts of different
jurisdiction,
the
court
of
higher
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
2. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty
for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
3. When two felonies constituting a complex
crime are punishable by imprisonment and
fine, respectively, only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed.

1. That at least two offenses are committed

2. That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other

4. Art. 48 applies only to cases where the

Code does not provide a definite specific
penalty for a complex crime.

3. That both or all the offenses must be

punished under the same statute.

5. One information should be filed when a

complex crime is committed.

The phrase necessary means does not

mean indispensable means

In complex crime, when the offender

executes various acts, he must have a single
purpose.

6. When a complex crime is charged and one

offense is not proven, the accused can
be convicted of the other.
7. Article 48 also applies in cases when out
a single act of negligence or imprudence,
two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted, but only the first part thereof
(compound crime). The second part of
Article 48 does not apply, referring to the
complex crime proper because this applies or
refers only to a deliberate commission of one
offense to commit another offense.

When there are several acts performed,

the assumption is that each act is
impelled by a distinct criminal
impulse, hence each will have a separate
penalty.

However, it may happen that

the offender is impelled only by a

single criminal impulse

in committing a series of acts that

brought about more than one crime

In
this
case,
the
BASIS
for
COMPLEXING is not the singleness of
the act but the singleness of the
impulse that is considered.

8. Art. 48 does not apply when the law

provides one single penalty for special
complex crimes.

Special Complex/Composite Crimes

in the eyes of the law is only a single

NO COMPLEX CRIME PROPER:

100% UP LAW

The substance is made up of more than one

crime but which

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 28 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
indivisible offense.
all those acts done in pursuance of the
crime agreed upon are acts which
constitute a single crime.

Special Complex Crimes

Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))

Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))

Kidnapping with serious physical injuries

(Art. 267 (3))

Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)

The liability for special complex crimes is

linked with that of conspiracy.

A, B, and C agreed to kill D. When they saw the

opportunity, A, B, and C killed D and after that, A
and B ran into different directions.
C inspected the pocket of the victim and found
that the victim was wearing a ringa diamond
ringand he took it.
The crimes committed are homicide and theft.
As far as the homicide is concerned, A, B,
and C are liable because that was agreed upon
and theft was not an integral part of homicide.
This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply
because it was not the crime agreed upon.
Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned, C
will be the only one liable. So C will be liable for
homicide and theft.

As a general rule,

When there is conspiracy, the rule is that

the act of one is the act of all.

This principle applies only to the crime

agreed upon.
The exception is

if any of the co-conspirator would

commit a crime not agreed upon.

This happens when the crime agreed

upon and the crime committed by one
of the co-conspirators are distinct
crimes.
Exception to the exception:

In
acts
constituting
a
single
indivisible offense,
o even though the co-conspirator
performed different acts bringing
about the composite crime,

all will be liable for such

crime.
o They
can
only
evade
responsibility for any other crime
outside of that agreed upon if it is
proved
that
the
particular
conspirator had tried to prevent
the commission of such other act.

Continued and Continuing Crimes

Example:
A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates
for his personal use several amounts collected by
him from different persons.
One
crime
only
because
the
different
appropriations are but the different moments
during which once criminal resolution arises and
a single defraudation develops.

A continuing crime is not a complex crime.

A continued crime is different from a

TRANSITORY CRIME which is also called a
MOVING/CONTINUING CRIME.

Illustration:
A, B, and C decided to commit robbery in the
house of D. Pursuant to their agreement, A would
ransack the second floor, B was to wait outside,
and C would stay on the first floor.

CONTINUING CRIME

The term used in criminal procedure to

denote that

a certain crime may be prosecuted and

tried not only before the court of the
place
where
it
was
originally
committed or began,

but also before the court of the place

where the crime was continued.

The term is used in criminal procedure when

any of the material ingredients of the

crime was committed in different
places.

Unknown to B and C, A raped a girl upstairs.

All of them will be liable for robbery with rape.
The crime committed is robbery with rape,
which is not a complex crime, but an indivisible
felony under the Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Even if B and C did not know that rape was
being committed and they agreed only and
conspired to rob, yet rape was part of
robbery. Rape cannot be separated from
robbery.

The rule would be different if the crime

committed was not a composite crime.

CONTINUED CRIME
.
A continuous, unlawful act or series of acts
set on foot by a single impulse and
operated by an unintermittent force,
however long a time it may occupy.

1) People v. de Leon (1926)

The accused took
five roosters
from one and the same chicken coop,
the roosters were owned by different persons,

Illustration:

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 29 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
It was held that there is only one crime of
theft committed because the accused acted
out of a single criminal impulse only.
Illustration:
A band of robbers came across a compound
where a sugar mill is located.
The workers of said mill have their quarters
within the compound.

There is a complex crime not only when there is

a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that
when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime
is considered as one and prosecuted under one
information.
Although in this case, the
offenders did not only kills one person but
killed different persons, the Supreme Court
considered this as complex.
Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that
the criminal should be punished only once,
because they acted in conspiracy or under
the same criminal impulse,

it is necessary to embody these crimes

under one single information.

It is necessary to consider them as

complex crimes even if the essence of
the crime does not fit the definition
of Art 48, because there is no other
provision in the RPC.

The band of robbers ransacked the different

quarters therein.
It was held that there is only one crime
committed multiple robbery,
--not because
of Article 48 but
because this is a continued crime.
When the robbers entered the compound, they
were moved by a single criminal intent
which is why it does not matter that there were
several quarters robbed. This was a complex
crime.

The definition in Article 48 is not honored

because the accused PERFORMED MORE
THAN ONE ACT.

The confusion lies in this:

3) People v. Jose,
There were four participants here.
They
abducted the woman, after which, the four took
turns in abusing her. It was held that each one
of the four became liable not only for his own
rape but also for those committed by the
others. One of the four rapes committed by one
of them was complexed with the crime of
abduction. Each of the four offenders was
convicted of four rapes.
The consecutive
abuse cannot be considered as continued
crimes because there is a different intent for
each act of rape. Hence, there was no single
purpose for the rapes. Each must be considered
as a separate act.

While Article 48 speaks of a complex

crime where a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave offenses,
those cases involving a series of acts
resulting to two or more grave and
less grave felonies,

were considered by the Supreme

Court as a complex crime

when it is shown that the act is the

product of one single criminal
impulse.

4) People v. Bulaong (1981), the Supreme

Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice
Aquino in People v. Pabasa, that when several
persons abducted a woman and abused her,
regardless of the number of rapes committed,
there should only be one complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape.
The rapes
committed were in the nature of a continued
crime characterized by the same lewd design
which is an essential element in the crime of
forcible abduction. The abuse amounting to
rape is complexed with forcible abduction
because
the
abduction
was
already
consummated when the victim was raped. The
forcible
abduction
must
be
complexed
therewith. But the multiple rapes should be
considered only as one because they are in the
nature of a continued crime.

TIP:
If confronted with a problem, the Supreme
Court has extended this class of complex crime
to those cases when the offender performed
not a single act but a series of acts as long as
it is the product of a single criminal
impulse.

2. People v. Garcia (1980),

The accused were convicts who were members of
a certain gang and they conspired to kill the
other gang.
Some of the accused killed their victims in one
place within the same penitentiary, some killed
the others in another place within the same
penitentiary.

NOTE: This is a dangerous view because the

abductors will commit as much rape as they
can, after all, only one complex crime of
rape would arise.

The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should

be punished under one information because
they acted in conspiracy. The act of one is the
act of all.

(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two

different persons committed by the
accused at the same place and period
of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil.
320);
(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to
two different owners from the same

Because there were several victims killed and

some were mortally wounded, the accused
should be held for the complex crime of
multiple homicide with multiple frustrated
homicide.
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Applying the concept of the continued

crime, the following cases have been
treated as constituting one crime only:

2008

Page 30 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
coop and at the same period of time
(People v. Jaranilla);
(3) The illegal charging of fees for service
rendered by a lawyer every time he
collected veterans benefits on behalf of
a client who agreed that attorneys fees
shall be paid out of such benefits
(People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156).
The collections of legal fees were
impelled by the same motive, that of
collecting fees for services rendered,
and all acts of collection were made
under the same criminal impulse.

The Supreme Court declined to apply the

concept in the following cases:
(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was
committed during the period from
January 19 to December, 1955 and the
other from January 1956 to July 1956
(People v. Dichupa, 13 Phil 306).
Said acts were committed on two
different occasions;
(2) Several malversations committed in
May, June and July 1936 and
falsifications to conceal said offenses
committed in August and October,
1936.
The
malversations
and
falsifications were not the result of one
resolution to embezzle and falsity
(People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351);
(3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by
the conversion by the agents of
collections from the customers of the
employers made on different dates.
In the theft cases,

the trend is to follow the single

larceny doctrine,

that is taking of several things,

whether belonging to the same or

different owners,

at the same time and place,

constitutes one larceny only.

Abandoned is the doctrine that the
government has the discretion to
prosecute the accused

for one offense or

for as many distinct offenses as there are

victims

5) Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, (1993)

Here, the accused was charged with performing a
single act that of approving the legalization
of aliens not qualified under the law. The
prosecution manifested that they would only file
one information. Subsequently, 32 amended
informations were filed.

IV. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

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

This classification is true only under the

Revised Penal Code and is not applied
under special laws, because the penalties
under the latter are never graduated.
Do not use the term principal when the
crime committed is a violation of special law
(use
the
term
offender/s,
culprit/s,
accused).

As to the liability of the participants in a

grave, less grave or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less
grave, all participants are criminally
liable.
2. But where the felony is only light,
only the principal and the accomplice
are liable. The accessory is not.
a. Therefore, it is only when the
light felony is against persons
or property that criminal
liability
attaches
to
the
principal or accomplice, even
though the felony is only
attempted or frustrated, but
accessories are not liable for
light felonies.

A.
1.
2.
3.

PRINCIPALS
BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
BY INDUCTION
BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

1. BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Those
a.
b.
c.

Why one who does not appear at the scene

of the crime is not liable:
a. His
non-appearance
is
deemed
desistance which is favored and
encouraged;
b. Conspiracy is generally not a
crime unless the law specifically
provides a penalty therefor.
c. There is no basis for criminal
liability because there is no criminal
participation.

The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to

consolidate the cases into one offense because
(1) they were in violation of the same law
Executive Order No. 324;
(2) caused injury to one party only the
government; and
(3) they were done in the same day.
The concept of delito continuado has been
applied to crimes under special laws since in
Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall be
supplementary to special laws, unless the
latter provides the contrary.
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

PRINCIPAL;
ACCOMPLICE; OR
ACCESSORY.

2008

who are liable:

materially execute the crime
appear at the scene of the crime
perform acts necessary in the
commission of the offense

Page 31 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
2. BY INDUCTION

Inducement must be strong enough that

the person induced could not resist.

This is tantamount to an irresistible

force compelling the person induced
to carry out the crime.

Ill-advised
language
is
not
enough unless he who made such
remark or advice is a co-conspirator
in the crime committed.

When does a principal by induction become

liable:

The principal by induction becomes

liable only when the principal by
direct participation committed the
act induced.

What are the effects of acquittal of principal

by direct participation upon the liability of
principal by inducement:
a. Conspiracy is negated by the
acquittal of co-defendant.
b. One cannot be held guilty of
having instigated the commission of a
crime without first being shown that
the
crime
has
been
actually
committed by another.

the son was mauled. The family was not in good

terms with their neighbors. The father challenged
everybody and when the neighbors approached,
he went home to get a rifle. The shouts of his
wife here comes another, shoot him
cannot make the wife a principal by
inducement. It is not the determining cause
of the crime in the absence of proof that the
words had great influence over the
husband. Neither is the wifes act of beaming
the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the
killing. She assisted her husband in taking good
aim, but such assistance merely facilitated the
felonious act of shooting. Considering that it was
not so dark and the husband could have
accomplished the deed without his wifes help,
and considering further that doubts must be
resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of
the wife is only that of an accomplice.
3. BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

Examples:

While in the course of a quarrel, a person

shouted to A, Kill him! Kill him! A killed
the other person. Is the person who
shouted
criminally
liable?
Is
that
inducement? No. The shouting must be
an irresistible force for the one
shouting to be liable.

There was a quarrel between two

families. One of the sons of family A
came out with a shotgun. His mother
then shouted, Shoot! He shot and killed
someone. Is the mother liable? No.

What is the essence of being a principal by

indispensable cooperation:

The focus is not just on participation but on

the importance of participation in
committing the crime.

B. ACCOMPLICES

1) People v. Balderrama 226 SCRA 537

(1993), Ernesto shouted to his younger brother
Oscar, Birahin mo na, birahin mo na! Oscar
stabbed the victim. It was held that there was
no conspiracy. Joint or simultaneous action
per se is not indicia of conspiracy without
showing of common design. Oscar has no
rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter.
Considering that Ernesto had great moral
ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being
much older (35 years old), than the latter, who
was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who
provided his allowance, clothing, as well as food
and shelter, Ernesto is principal by inducement.
2) People v. Agapinay, 188 SCRA 812
(1990),
The one who uttered kill him, we will bury him.
while the felonious aggression was taking place
cannot be held liable as principal by inducement.
Utterance was said in the excitement of the
hour, not a command to be obeyed.

UP

BAROPS

When is one regarded as an accomplice:

1. Determine if there is a conspiracy.

If there is, as a general rule, the

criminal liability of all will be the
same, because the act of one is
the act of all.

Exception:
o
If the participation of one is
so insignificant
o such that even without his
cooperation,
o the
crime
would
be
committed just as well,
o then
notwithstanding
the
existence of a conspiracy,
such offender will be
regarded
only
as
an
accomplice.

What are the other traits of an accomplice

3) People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69 (1990),

100% UP LAW

The basis is the importance of the

cooperation to the consummation of the
crime.
o If the crime could hardly be
committed
without
such
cooperation, then such cooperation
would bring about a principal.
o If the cooperation merely facilitated
or hastened the consummation of
the crime, this would make the
cooperator merely an accomplice.
In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or
liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.

2008

does not have a previous agreement

or understanding; or
is not in conspiracy with the principal
by direct participation
Page 32 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

CONSPIRATOR
ACCOMPLICE
They know and agree with the criminal design.
Conspirators know the Accomplices come to
criminal intention
know about it after
because they
the principals have
themselves have
reached the decision
decided upon such
and only then do they
course of action.
agree to cooperate in
its execution.
Conspirators decide
Accomplices merely
that a crime should be assent to the plan and
committed.
cooperate in it
accomplishment
Conspirators are the
Accomplices are
authors of a crime
merely instruments
who perform acts not
essential to the
perpetration of the
offense.

REQUISITES:

100% UP LAW

Other instances
accessory:

BAROPS

when

one

becomes

an

Accessory as a fence

Acquiring the effects of piracy or

brigandage

Destroying the corpus delicti

Harboring or concealing an offender

Whether the accomplice and the

accessory may be tried and convicted
even before the principal is found
guilty

1. ACCESSORY AS A FENCE

Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing

Law).

One who knowingly profits or assists the

principal to profit by the effects of robbery or
theft (i.e. a fence) is not just an accessory to
the crime, but principally liable for fencing

The penalty is higher than that of a mere

accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.

Mere possession of any article of value

which has been the subject of robbery or
theft brings about the presumption of
fencing.

Presidential Decree No. 1612 has,

therefore, modified Article 19 of the
Revised Penal Code.

He does not know of the commission

of the crime
He participated in the crime

UP

When is an accessory exempt from criminal

liability:

ACCOMPLICE

When can one not be an accessory:

an

When is an accessory NOT exempt from

criminal liability even if the principal is
related to him:

if such accessory
(1) profited by the effects of the
crime, or
(2) assisted the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime

3. That there be a relation between the acts

done
by
the
principal
and
those
attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.

1. When the felony committed is a light

felony
2. When the accessory is related to the
principal as
a. spouse, or
b. an ascendant, or descendant, or
c. brother or sister whether legitimate,
natural or adopted or
d. where the accessory is a relative by
affinity within the same degree,
unless the accessory himself
profited from the effects or
proceeds of the crime or assisted
the offender to profit therefrom.

or

i. by previous or simultaneous acts, with

the intention of supplying material or
moral aid in the execution of the crime in
an efficacious way; and

C. ACCESSORIES
When are accessories not criminally liable:

principal

NOTE: Even if only two of the principals

guilty of murder are the brothers of the
accessory and the others are not related to
him, such accessory is exempt from criminal
liability.

2. That he cooperates in the execution of

the offense

Cooperation is not
indispensable in the
commission of the
act.

when the principal is his:

1. spouse,
2. ascendant,
3. descendant,
4. legitimate, natural or adopted
brother, sister or relative by affinity
within the same degree.

1. That there be community of design;

i. that is, knowing the criminal design of
the principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose;

PRINCIPAL by
COOPERATION
Cooperation is
indispensable in the
commission of the
act.

He is already
accomplice

2008

Page 33 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
2. ACQUIRING THE EFFECTS OF PIRACY OR
BRIGANDAGE

If the crime was piracy or brigandage under

PD 532,
o said act constitutes the crime of
abetting
piracy
or
abetting
brigandage as the case may be,
o although the penalty is that for an
accomplice, not just an accessory, to
the piracy or brigandage.
Section 4 of PD 532
o provides that any person

who knowingly and in any

manner

acquires or receives property

taken by such pirates or
brigands or in any manner
derives benefit therefrom

shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal
offenders in accordance with
the Rules prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code.
o It shall be presumed that any
person who does any acts provided in
this Section has performed them
knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven.
Although Republic Act 7659,
Article 122 of the Revised
incorporated therein the crime
Philippine
territorial
waters
correspondingly superseding PD
o

in amending
Penal Code,
of piracy in
and
thus
532

section 4 of said Decree, which

punishes said acts as a crime of
abetting piracy or brigandage, still
stands as it has not been repealed
nor modified, and is not inconsistent
with any provision of RA 7659.

OR

CONCEALING

AN

In the fourth form or manner of becoming an

accessory,
take
note
that
the
law
distinguishes between:
o a public officer harboring, concealing,
or assisting the principal to escape,
and
o a private citizen or civilian harboring,
concealing, or assisting the principal
to escape.

Presidential Decree 532 (Anti-piracy and

Anti-Hghway Robbery Law of 1974)

4. HARBORING
OFFENDER

PUBLIC OFFICER
The nature of the
crime is immaterial.

CIVILIAN
The nature of the
crime is material.

What is material is
that he used his
public
function
is
assisting the escape.

For him to become

an
accessory,
the
principal must have
committed the crime of
treason,
parricide,
murder or attempt
on the life of the
Chief Executive.

Illustration:
Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom.
Principal was being chased by soldiers. His aunt
hid him in the ceiling of her house and she told
the soldiers that her nephew had never visited
her. When the soldiers left, the aunt even gave
money to her nephew for the latter to go to the
province.
Is the aunt criminally liable? No. Article 20 does
not include an aunt. However, this is not the
reason. The principal must have committed either
treason, parricide, murder, or attempt on the life
of the Chief Executive, or that the principal is
known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime, for a person who is not a public officer and
who assists an offender to escape or otherwise
harbors, or conceals such offender, to be
criminally liable. In this case, the crime
committed was kidnapping.

Criminal liability of accessory

3. DESTROYING THE CORPUS DELICTI
Revised Penal Code

When the crime is robbery or theft, with

respect to the third involvement of an
accessory, do not overlook the purpose
which must be to prevent discovery of the
crime.
The corpus delicti is not the body of the
person who is killed.
o

100% UP LAW

Even if the corpse is not

recovered, as long as that killing is
established beyond reasonable doubt,
criminal liability will arise.
If there is someone who destroys
the corpus delicti to prevent
discovery, he becomes an accessory.
UP

BAROPS

Specifies
the
crimes that should be
committed in case a
civilian aids in the
escape

The offender is
the principal or must
be convicted of the
crime charged
The
one
who
harbored or concealed
2008

PD 1829
(Also Known as the
law penalizing
Obstruction of
Justice)
There
is
no
specification of the
crime
to
be
committed
by
the
offender in order that
criminal liability be
incurred
The offender need
not even be the
principal or need not
be convicted of the
crime charged
An offender of any
crime is no longer an
Page 34 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
an offender is still an
accessory

In the preceding illustration, the aunt is not

criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code
because the crime is kidnapping, but under PD
1829.
5. WHETHER THE ACCOMPLICE AND THE
ACCESSORY
MAY
BE
TRIED
AND
CONVICTED
EVEN
BEFORE
THE
PRINCIPAL IS FOUND GUILTY

There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that

the accessory and accomplice must be
charged together with the principal

if the latter is acquitted, the accomplice

and accessory shall also not be criminally
liable, unless the acquittal is based on a
defense which is personal only to the
principal.

If there is no crime, then there is no

criminal
liability,
whether
principal,
accomplice, or accessory.

1) Taer v. CA (1990),
Facts: Accused received from his co-accused two
stolen male carabaos. Conspiracy was not
proven. Taer was held liable as an accessory in
the crime of cattle-rustling under PD 533.

Taer should have been liable for violation

of the Anti-Fencing Law since castlerustling is a form of theft or robbery of
large cattle, except that he was not
charged with fencing.
2) Enrile v. Amin 189 SCRA 573 (1990),
A person charged with rebellion should not be
separately charged under PD 1829. The theory of
absorption must not confine itself to common
crimes but also to offenses punished under
special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance
of the political offense.

It is not always true that the

accomplice and accessory cannot be
criminally liable without the principal
being first convicted.

Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure, it is required that

all those involved in the commission of

the crime

must be included in the information that

may be filed.

The liability of the accused will depend on

the quantum of evidence adduced by the
prosecution against the particular accused.

then the supposed accomplice and

accessory should also be acquitted.

This is not true in all cases.

accessory
but
is
simply an offender
without regard to the
crime of the person
assisted to escape

But the prosecution must initiate the

proceedings against the principal.

Even if the principal is convicted,

if the evidence presented against a

supposed accomplice or accessory

does not meet the required proof beyond

reasonable doubt,

then said accused will be acquitted.

So the criminal liability of an accomplice or

accessory does not depend on the
criminal liability of the principal but
depends on the quantum of evidence.

But if the evidence shows that

the act done does not constitute a crime

and

the principal is acquitted,

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 35 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
VI. PENALTIES
Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by
the State for the transgression of a law.

Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed.

No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.

Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:

1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING,
without affecting the integrity of the human
personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE with the offense
different crimes must be punished with
different penalties.
3. Must be PERSONAL no one should be
punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be LEGAL it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
5. Must be CERTAIN no one may escape its
effects.
6. Must be EQUAL for all.
7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.

This article prohibits the Government from

punishing any person for any felony with any
penalty which has not been prescribed by the
law.
It has no application to any of the provisions
of the RPC for the reason that for every
felony defined in the Code, a penalty has
been prescribed.
REASON: An act or omission cannot be
punished by the State if at the time it was
committed there was no law prohibiting it,
because a law cannot be rationally obeyed
unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be
expected to obey an order that has not been
given.

A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
Theories justifying penalty:

PROHIBITIONS

1. PREVENTION to suppress danger to the

State
2. SELF-DEFENSE to protect the society from
the threat and wrong inflicted by the
criminal.
3. REFORMATION to correct and reform the
offender.
4. EXEMPLARITY to serve as an example to
deter others from committing crimes.
5. JUSTICE for retributive justice, a
vindication of absolute right and moral law
violated by the criminal.
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
1. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the
offense.
2. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as shown
by the rules which regulate the execution of
the penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty.
3. SOCIAL DEFENSE shown by its inflexible
severity
to
recidivist
and
habitual
delinquents.

1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 18. (1) No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his political beliefs
and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not
be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty
be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Section 20. No person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill
of attainder shall be enacted.

II. B. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED

Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed.

This Section discusses the following:

The penalties which may be imposed according to

this Code, and their different classes, are those
included in the following:

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
C. ACCESSORY PENALTIES

A. Scale OF PRINCIPAL PENALTIES

D. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED

Capital punishment:

Death.

Afflictive penalties:

Reclusion perpetua,

Reclusion temporal,

Perpetual or temporary absolute

disqualification,

Perpetual or temporary special

disqualification,

Prision mayor.

Correctional penalties:

Prision correccional,

Arresto mayor,

E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY

F. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES
G. SPECIAL RULES
H. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
I.

EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES

I.

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 36 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Suspension,
Destierro.

Light penalties:

Arresto menor,

Public censure.

Penalties common to the three

preceding
classes:

Fine, and

Bond to keep the peace.

NOTE:
Public censure is a penalty,

thus, it is not proper in acquittal.

However, the Court in acquitting the

accused may criticize his acts or conduct.

B. SCALE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Perpetual or temporary absolute

disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right
to vote and be voted for, the profession
or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments
and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.

C. MaJOR CLASSIFICATION
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES those expressly
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the principal
penalties.

III. C. SPECIFIC PRINCIPAL AND

ACCESSORY PENALTIES

A. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
1. Death penalty

RA 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the

Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines

expressly repealed RA 8177 or Act

Designating Death by Lethal Injection
and RA 7659 or Death Penalty Law.

RA 9346 repealed all the other laws imposing

death penalty.

Section 2 states that: In lieu of the

death penalty, the following shall be
imposed:

D. Other classifications of penalties:

According to their divisibility:

Divisible

those that have fixed duration and

are

divisible into three periods.

Indivisible

those which have no fixed duration.

Death

Reclusion perpetua

Perpetual
absolute
or
special
disqualification

Public censure

According to subject-matter

Corporal

(death)

Deprivation of freedom

(reclusion, prision, arresto)

Restriction of freedom

(destierro)

Deprivation of rights

(disqualification and suspension)

Pecuniary

(fine)

According to their gravity

Capital

Afflictive

Correctional

Light

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Penalties that are either principal or

accessory:

Perpetual
or
temporary
absolute
disqualification,

perpetual
or
temporary
special
disqualification, and

suspension

may be principal or accessory

penalties, because they formed in
the 2 general classes.

a.

b.

the penalty of reclusion perpetua,

when the law violated makes use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of
the Revised Penal Code; or
the penalty of life imprisonment,
when the law violated does not make
use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
B. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES

Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. Any person

sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall
be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for
thirty years, unless such person by reason of his
conduct or some other serious cause shall be
considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of
pardon.
Reclusion temporal. The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be from twelve years and one day
to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification.
The duration of the penalties of prision mayor
and temporary disqualification shall be from six
years and one day to twelve years, except when
the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall
be that of the principal penalty.

2008

Page 37 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
The following table also contains DISQUALIFICATION as an afflictive penalty, because its
different forms can also be imposed as a principal although it is primarily categorized as an
accessory penalty.
Penalty
Death
(REPEALED)
Death, when not
executed due to pardon
or commutation
(REPEALED)

Reclusion perpetua

Duration

Effects

Indivisible

20 years & 1 day

to 40 years
(Indivisible)

Perpetual absolute
disqualification (PAD)

For life

Perpetual special
disqualification (PSD)

For life

Reclusion temporal

12 years & 1 day

to 20 years

Prision mayor

6 years & 1 day

to 12 years

6 years & 1 day

to 12 years

Temporary special
disqualification
(TSD)

6 years & 1 day

to 12 years

Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory

penalties. The penalty of prision mayor, shall
carry with it that of temporary absolute
disqualification and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage which
the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to
the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.

UP

PAD
Civil
interdiction for
duration of
sentence
TAD
PSD of
suffrage

Deprivation of public office,

even if by election
Deprivation of right to vote &
be voted for during sentence
Disqualification from public
office held during sentence
Loss of retirement rights
Deprivation of office,
1) RECLUSION
PERPETUA
employment,
profession,
or
calling affected
Disqualification from similar
offices or employments

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion

temporal; Their accessory penalties. The
penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal shall carry with them that of civil
interdiction for life or during the period of the
sentence as the case may be, and that of
perpetual absolute disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to
the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.

100% UP LAW

PAD
Civil
interdiction 30
yrs from
sentence
PAD
Civil
interdiction for
life

Deprivation of public office,

even if by election
Deprivation of right to vote &
be voted for
Disqualification from public
office held
Loss of retirement
rights
Deprivation of office,
employment, profession, or
calling affected
Disqualification from similar
offices or employments

Temporary absolute
disqualification
(TAD)

Accessories

BAROPS

Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years

Accessory Penalties:
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence as the case may
be.
b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which
the offender shall suffer even though
pardoned as to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.

1) People v. Gatward (1997)

Facts: The accused was convicted of violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act for unlawfully importing
into the Philippines heroin. The trial court
sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for 35 years of reclusion perpetua
there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance shown to have attended in the
commission of the crime.

2008

Page 38 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Held: As amended by RA 7659, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is now accorded a defined
duration ranging from 20 years and 1 day to 40
years. The Court held that in spite of the
amendment putting the duration of RP, it should
remain as an indivisible penalty since there was
never intent on the part of Congress to reclassify
it into a divisible penalty. The maximum duration
of reclusion perpetua is not and has never been
30 years which is merely the number of ears
which the convict must serve in order to be
eligible for pardon or for the application of the 3fold rule.
2) People v. Ramirez (2001)
The SC disagrees with the trial court in
sentencing appellant "to suffer imprisonment of
forty (40) years reclusion perpetua." There was
no justification or need for the trial court to
specify the length of imprisonment, because
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. The
significance of this fundamental principle was laid
down by the Court in People v. Diquit. "Since
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has
no minimum, medium or maximum periods. It is
imposed in its entirety regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the crime. (Art.
63, Revised Penal Code) Reclusion Perpetua is
imprisonment for life but the person sentenced to
suffer it shall be pardoned after undergoing the
penalty for thirty (30) years, unless by reason of
his conduct or some other serious cause, he shall
be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy
of pardon (Art. 27, Revised Penal Code)."

Distinguished from Life Imprisonment

3) People v. Ballabare (1996)

The trial court erred in imposing the penalty of
life imprisonment for violation of PD 1866. The
crime of illegal possession of firearm in its
aggravated form is punished by the penalty of
death. Since the offense was committed on Sep.
16, 1990, at a time when the imposition of the
death penalty was prohibited, the penalty next
lower in degree which is reclusion perpetua
should be imposed. This is not equivalent to
life imprisonment. While life imprisonment may
appear to be the English translation of reclusion
perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that.
LIFE
IMPRISONMENT
Imposed for serious
offenses penalized by
special laws
Does not carry with it
accessory penalties
Does not appear to
have
any
definite
extent or duration

a.

b.

Civil interdiction for life or during the

period of the sentence as the case may
be.
Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which
the offender shall suffer even though
pardoned as to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.

3) PRISION MAYOR

Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years

Accessory Penalties:
a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from
the right to suffrage which the offender
shall suffer although pardoned as to the
principal penalty unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the
pardon.

B. C. CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES
Art. 27 (4). Prision correccional, suspension,
and destierro.
The duration of the penalties of prision
correccional, suspension and destierro shall be
from six months and one day to six years, except
when suspension is imposed as an accessory
penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that
of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. The duration of the penalty of
arresto mayor shall be from one month and one
day to six months.

RECLUSION
PERPETUA
Prescribed under the
RPC
Carries
with
it
accessory penalties
Entails imprisonment
for at least 30 years
after
which
the
convict
becomes
eligible for pardon
although
the
maximum period shall
in no case exceed 40
years

2) RECLUSION TEMPORAL

Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years

Accessory Penalties:

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 39 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine
mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary
personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed
six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall
be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but
such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding
rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty
consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency
shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As
amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).

Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of prision correccional
shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or
calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of
said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification
provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Penalty

Duration

Effects

Accessories
Accessories

Prision correccional

6 months & 1 day

to 6 years

Suspension

6 months & 1 day

to 6 years

Destierro

6 months & 1 day

to 6 years

Arresto mayor

1 month & 1 day

to 6 months

Public office
Profession or calling
Suffrage
Prohibition to enter
w/in 25-250 km
radius from the
designated place

1) PRISION CORRECCIONAL

Suspension of right to
hold office and
right of suffrage

2) ARRESTO MAYOR

Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6

years

Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension from public office
b. Suspension from the right to follow a
profession or calling
c. Perpetual Special Disqualification fro
the right of suffrage, if the duration
of the imprisonment shall exceed 18
months

100% UP LAW

Suspension from public

office
Suspension from
profession or calling PSD
of suffrage, if penalty
exceeds 18 mos.

UP

BAROPS

Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6

months

C. LIGHT PENALTIES
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.

2008

Page 40 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Art. 27 (6). Arresto menor. The duration of

the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one
day to thirty days.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. SUPRA

Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. The

penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of
suspension of the right too hold office and the
right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
1) ARRESTO MENOR

Duration: 1 day to 30 days

Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during
the term of the sentence.

2) PUBLIC CENSURE

Censure, being a penalty is not proper in

acquittal.

D. PENALTIES COMMON TO AFFLICTIVE,

Fines are
portions.

not

divided

into

equal

2) BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE

Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace.
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to
give bond to keep the peace, to present two
sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such
person will not commit the offense sought to be
prevented, and that in case such offense be
committed they will pay the amount determined
by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to
deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of
the court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its
discretion, the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond
as required he shall be detained for a period
which shall in no case exceed six months, is he
shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if
for a light felony.

CORRECCIONAL AND LIGHT

PENALTIES

1. 2 WAYS OF GIVING BOND

1) FINE
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or
light penalty.
A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an
alternative penalty, shall be considered an
afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000
pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light
penalty if it less than 200 pesos.

This article merely classifies fine and has

nothing to do with the definition of light
felony.

Fine is:
1. Afflictive over P6,000
2. Correctional P200 to P6,000
3. Light Penalty less than P200

2) The offender must

deposit such amount with the clerk of

court to guarantee said undertaking;

The court can fix any amount of the fine

within the limits established by law.

The court must consider:

The
mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances; and

More particularly, the wealth or means of

the culprit.

When the law does not fix the minimum

of the fine,

the determination of the amount of the

fine to be imposed upon the culprit
UP

1) The offender must present

2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake

that

the offender will not commit the

offense sought to be prevented,

and that in case such offense be

committed

they
will
pay
the
amount
determined by the court;

Art. 66. Imposition of fines. In imposing

fines the courts may fix any amount within the
limits established by law; in fixing the amount in
each case attention shall be given, not only to
the mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
but more particularly to the wealth or means of
the culprit.

100% UP LAW

is left to the sound discretion of the

court,
provided it shall not exceed the
maximum authorized by law.

BAROPS

2008

The court shall determine the period of

duration of the bond.
The offender may be detained, if he
cannot give the bond,

for a period not to exceed 6 months if

prosecuted for grave or less grave felony,
or

for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for

a light felony.
Bond to keep the peace is different from
bail bond which is posted for the provisional
release of a person arrested for or accused of
a crime.

Page 41 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Penalty
Arresto menor

Duration

Effects

Accessories
Suspension of right to
hold office and right
of suffrage

1 day to 30 days

Public censure
Penalty (Common to All
Three Types)
Fine

Effects:

IV. D. ACCESSORY PENALTIES

a. Deprivation of any public office or

employment f offender

1) Perpetual or temporary absolute

disqualification,

b. Deprivation of the right to vote in

any election or to be voted upon

2) Perpetual or temporary special

disqualification,
3) Suspension from public office, the right
to vote and be voted for, the profession
or calling.

c.

4) Civil interdiction,

5) Indemnification/ Forfeiture or
confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense,
6) Payment of costs.

1) PERPETUAL
OR
TEMPORARY
ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual
or temporary absolute disqualification.
The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification for public office shall produce the
following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and
employments which the offender may have held
even if conferred by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular office or to be elected to
such office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of any of the
rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification,
such
disqualification as is comprised in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall
last
during the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held.

Loss of rights to retirement pay or

pension

All these effects

last during the lifetime of the convict and

even after the service of the sentence

except as regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
above in connection with temporary absolute
disqualification.

Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual

or temporary special disqualification for the
exercise of the right of suffrage. The
perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive
the offender perpetually or during the term of the
sentence, according to the nature of said penalty,
of the right to vote in any popular election for
any public office or to be elected to such office.
Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to
hold any public office during the period of his
disqualification.
Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of
suspension
from
any
public
office,
profession or calling, or the right of
suffrage. The suspension from public office,
profession or calling, and the exercise of the right
of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from
holding such office or exercising such profession
or calling or right of suffrage during the term of
the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office
shall not hold another having similar functions
during the period of his suspension.
Art. 34. Civil interdiction. Civil interdiction
shall deprive the offender during the time of his
sentence of the rights of parental authority, or
guardianship, either as to the person or property
of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to
manage his property and of the right to dispose
of such property by any act or any conveyance
inter vivos.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the
proceeds or instruments of the crime.
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a
felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 42 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
proceeds of the crime and the instruments or
tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be property of a third
person not liable for the offense, but those
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce
shall be destroyed.

2) PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL

DISQUALIFICATION
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual
or temporary special disqualification.
The penalties of perpetual or temporal special
disqualification for public office, profession or
calling shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices
or employments either perpetually or during the
term of the sentence according to the extent of
such disqualification.
Effects:
For public office, profession or calling:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected;
b.

Disqualification for holding similar

offices or employments during the
period of disqualification;

For the exercise of right to suffrage:

a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be
elected in an office;
b. Cannot hold any public office during
the period of disqualification

The penalty for disqualification if imposed as

an accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION
and NOT for the withholding of a privilege.
Temporary disqualification or suspension if
imposed as an accessory penalty, the duration is
the same as that of the principal penalty.
SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE
RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE
RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR
CALLING
Effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office
or the exercise of such profession or right
of suffrage during the term of the
sentence;
b. Cannot hold another office having similar
functions during the period of suspension.
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Effects:
Deprivation of the following rights:
1) Parental authority
2) Guardianship over the ward
3) Marital authority
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

4) Right to manage property and to dispose

of the same by acts inter vivos
Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to the
following principal penalties:
a) Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
b) Reclusion perpetua
c) Reclusion temporal
INDEMNIFICATION OR CONFISCATION OF
INSTRUMENTS ORPROCEES OF THEOFFENSE
This is included in every penalty for the
commission of the crime.
The confiscation is in favor of the government.
Property of a third person not liable for the
offense is not subject to confiscation.
If the trial court did not order any confiscation
of the procees of the crime, the government
cannot appeal from the confiscation as that would
increase the penalty already imposed.
PAYMENT OF COSTS
Includes:
a. Fees, and
b. Indemnities, in
proceedings.

the

course

of

Costs may be fixed amounts

determined by law or regulations or
subject to a schedule.
If the accused is convicted; costs
charged against him. If he is acquitted,
de officio, meaning each party bears
expense.

judicial

already
amounts
may be
costs are
his own

E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY

RPC, Art. 24. Measures of prevention
or safety which are nor considered
penalties. The following shall not be
considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their detention by
reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of
the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for
the purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of
public office during the trial or in order to
institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures
which, in the exercise of their administrative
disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose
upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the
reparations which the civil laws may establish in
penal form.
They are not penalties because they are not
imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. Those
mentioned in par. 3 and 4 are merely preventive
measures before conviction of offenders.
The commitment of a minor mentioned in par.
2 is not a penalty because it is not imposed by
the court in a judgment of conviction. The
imposition of the sentence in such case is
suspended.
The succeeding provisions are some examples
of deprivation of rights established in penal form:

2008

Page 43 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Family Code, Art. 228. Parental
authority terminates permanently:
(1) Upon the death of the parents;
(2) Upon the death of the child; or
(3) Upon emancipation of the child.
(327a)
Family
Code,
Art.
229.
Unless
subsequently revived by a final judgment,
parental authority also terminates:
(1) Upon adoption of the child;
(2) Upon appointment of a general
guardian;
(3)
Upon
judicial
declaration
of
abandonment of the child in a case filed for the
purpose;
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent
court divesting the party concerned of parental
authority; or
(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence
or incapacity of the person exercising parental
authority. (327a)
F. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES
Art. 28. Computation of penalties.
If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the
duration of the temporary penalties shall be
computed from the day on which the judgment of
conviction shall have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term
of the duration of the penalty consisting of
deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the
day that the offender is placed at the disposal of
the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall
be computed only from the day on which the
defendant commences to serve his sentence.
Rules for the computation of penalties:
1. WHEN THE OFFENDER IS IN PRISON the
duration of temporary penalties is from the
day on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final.
2. WHEN THE OFFENDER IS NOT IN PRISON
the duration of penalty consisting in
deprivation of liberty, is from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of judicial
authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty.
3. THE DURATION OF OTHER PENALTIES the
duration is from the day on which the
offender commences to serve his sentence
Examples of temporary penalties:
1. Temporary absolute disqualification
2. Temporary special disqualification
3. Suspension

If the offender is undergoing preventive

imprisonment, Rule No. 3 applies but the
offender is entitled to a deduction of full time or
4/5 of the time of his detention.
Art.
29.
Period
of
preventive
imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment.

Offenders
who
have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full
time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, if the detention
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been
convicted previously twice or more times of any
crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the
execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree
to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in
the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the
time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act
6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
more than the possible maximum imprisonment
of the offense charged to which he may be
sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he
shall be released immediately without prejudice
to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. In case the maximum penalty to which
the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O.
No. 214, July 10, 1988).

The
accused
undergoes
preventive
imprisonment when the offense charged is
nonbailable, or even if bailable, he cannot furnish
the required bail.
The convict is to be released immediately if the
penalty imposed after trial is less than the full
time or four-fifths of the time of the preventive
imprisonment.
The accused shall be released immediately
whenever
he
has
undergone
preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment for the
offense charged.

in

Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon

principals in general. The penalty prescribed
by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in the commission of
such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty
for a felony is general terms, it shall be
understood as applicable to the consummated
felony.

When the offender is not in prison, Rule No. 2

applies.

GENERAL RULE:
The penalty prescribed by law in general terms
shall be imposed:
a. Upon the principals
b. For consummated felony

If offender is under detention, as when he is

undergoing preventive imprisonment, Rule No. 1
applies.
If not under detention, because the offender
has been released on bail, Rule No. 3 applies.
Examples
of
penalties
deprivation of liberty:
1. Imprisonment
2. Destierro

100% UP LAW

consisting

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 44 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
EXCEPTION:
The exception is when the penalty to be
imposed upon the principal in frustrated or
attempted felony is fixed by law.
Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower
by one or two degrees corresponding to said acts
of execution is not in proportion to the wrong
done, the law fixes a distinct penalty for the
principal in frustrated or attempted felony.
The graduation of penalties by degrees refers
to STAGES OF EXECUTION (consummated,
frustrated or attempted) and to the DEGREE OF
THE
CRIMINAL
PARTICIPATION
OF
THE
OFFENDER (whether as principal, accomplice or
accessory)
The division of a divisible penalty into three
periods, as maximum, medium and minimum,
refers to the proper period of the penalty which
should be imposed when aggravating or
mitigating circumstances attend the commission
of the crime.
People v. Formigones (1950)
Facts: The accused without a previous
quarrel or provocation took his bolo and stabbed
his wife in the back resulting to the latters death.
The accused was sentenced to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Held: The penalty applicable for parricide
under Art. 246 of the RPC is composed only of 2
indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death.
Although the commission of the act is attended
by some mitigating circumstance without any
aggravating circumstance to offset them, Art. 63
of the RPC should be applied. The said article
provides that when the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstance and
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND
ACCESSORIES IN CONSUMMATED,
FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon
principals in general. The penalty prescribed
by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in the commission of
such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a
felony is general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony.
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon
principals of a frustrated crime. The
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of
attempted crimes. A penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon
accomplices in consummated crime. The
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for the consummated shall be imposed
upon the accomplices in the commission of a
consummated felony.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon

accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony. The penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
accessories to the commission of a consummated
felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon
accomplices in a frustrated crime. The
penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by
law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed
upon the accomplices in the commission of a
frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon
accessories of a frustrated crime. The
penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall
be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon
accomplices in an attempted crime. The
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be
imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to
commit the felony.
Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon
accessories of an attempted crime. The
penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall
be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt
to commit a felony.

PRINCI
PALS
ACCOM
PLICES
ACCESS
ORIES

CONSU
MMATE
D
0

FRUSTRA
TED

ATTEMPT
ED

DIAGRAM OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTS.

50-57:
0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in
defining a crime, which is to be imposed n the
PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 46. The
other figures represent the degrees to which the
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different
situation anticipated by law.
EXCEPTIONS: Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to
cases where the law expressly prescribes the
penalty for frustrated or attempted felony, or to
be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
BASES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE
EXTENT OF PENALTY:
1. The stage reached by the crime in its
development
(either
attempted,
frustrated or consummated)
2. The participation therein of the person
liable.
3. The
aggravating
or
mitigating
circumstances
which
attended
the
commission of the crime.

2008

Page 45 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
A DEGREE is one entire penalty, one whole
penalty or one unit of the penalties enumerated
in the graduated scales provided for in Art. 71.
Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua,
reclusion
temporal,
prision
mayor,
etc.,
enumerated in the graduated scales of Art. 71 is
a degree.
When there is a mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the penalty is lowered or increased
by PERIOD only, except when the penalty is
divisible and there are two or more mitigating
and without aggravating circumstances, in which
case the penalty is lowered by degree.
A PERIOD is one of the three equal
portions called the minimum, medium and
maximum of a divisible penalty.
Art. 60. Exception to the rules
established in Articles 50 to 57. The
provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to
cases in which the law expressly prescribes the
penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories.
Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases where
the law expressly prescribes the penalty for
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed
upon accomplices or accessories.
GENERAL RULE: An accomplice is punished by a
penalty one degree lower than the penalty
imposed upon the principal.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. The
ascendants,
guardians,
curators,
teachers and any person who by abuse of
authority or confidential relationship, shall
cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of
rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction,
corruption of minors, white slate trade or
abduction. (Art. 346)
b. One who furnished the place for the
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal
detention. (Art. 268)
GENERAL RULE: An accessory is punished by a
penalty two degrees lower than the penalty
imposed upon the principal.
EXCEPTION: When accessory is punished as
principal knowingly concealing certain evil
practices is ordinarily an act of the accessory, but
in Art. 142, such act is punished as the act of the
principal.
When accessories are punished with a
penalty one degree lower:
a. Knowingly using counterfeited seal or
forged signature or stamp of the
President (Art. 162).
b. Illegal possession and use of a false
treasury or bank note (Art. 168).
c. Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3 )
d. Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
Art.
61.
Rules
for
graduating
penalties. For the purpose of graduating the
penalties which, according to the provisions of
Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to
be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of
any frustrated or attempted felony, or as
accomplices or accessories, the following rules
shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the
felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

lower in degrees shall be that immediately

following that indivisible penalty in the respective
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this
Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or
of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to
their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that immediately following the lesser of
the penalties prescribed in the respective
graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of one or two indivisible
penalties and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be composed of the medium and
minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty
and the maximum periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that
immediately
following
in
said
respective
graduated scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the
crime
is
composed
of
several
periods,
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be composed
of the period immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following, which
shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if
possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately
following in the above mentioned respective
graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for
a crime in some manner not especially provided
for in the four preceding rules, the courts,
proceeding
by
analogy,
shall
impose
corresponding penalties upon those guilty as
principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt
to commit the same, and upon accomplices and
accessories.
This article provides for the rules to be
observed in lowering the penalty by one or two
degrees.
a. For the principal in frustrated felony one
degree lower;
b. For the principal in attempted felony two
degrees lower;
c. For the accomplice in consummated felony
one degree lower; and
d. For the accessory in consummated felony
two degrees lower.
The rules provided for in Art. 61 should also
apply in determining the MINIMUM of the
indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate
Sentence
Law.
The
MINIMUM
of
the
indeterminate penalty is within the range of the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by the
RPC for the offense.
Those rules also apply in lowering the penalty
by one or two degrees by reason of the presence
of privileged mitigating circumstance (Arts. 68
and 69), or when the penalty is divisible and
there are two or more mitigating circumstances
(generic) and no aggravating circumstance (Art.
64).
The lower penalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in Art. 71.
The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. death
b. reclusion perpetua
c. public censure
The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. reclusion temporal
2008

Page 46 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
b. prision mayor
c. prision correccional
d. arresto mayor
e. destierro
f. arresto menor
* the divisible penalties are divided into three
periods: MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND THE MAXIMUM
RULES:
FIRST RULE:
When the penalty is single and indivisible.
Ex. reclusion perpetua
The penalty immediately following it is
reclusion temporal. Thus, reclusion temporal is
the penalty next lower in degree.
SECOND RULE:
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
penalties
Ex. reclusion perpetua to death

The
penalty
immediately
following the lesser of the penalties,
which is reclusion perpetua, is reclusion
temporal.
When the penalty is composed of one or more
divisible penalties to be imposed to their full
extent
Ex. prision correccional to prision mayor

The
penalty
immediately
following the lesser of the penalties of
prision correccional to prision mayor is
arresto mayor.
THIRD RULE:
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
penalties and the maximum period of a divisible
penalty
Ex. reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM
period to death
Death
Reclusio
n
Perpetu
a
Reclusio
n
Tempor
al
Prision
Mayor

Penalty for the

principal in
consummated murder
Maximum
Medium
Minimum

Penalty for
accomplice; or for
principal in frustrated
murder

Maximum
Medium
Minimum

When the penalty is composed of one indivisible

penalty and the maximum period of a divisible
penalty
Ex. Reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM
period to Reclusion perpetua
The same rule shall be observed in
lowering the penalty by one or two degrees.
FOURTH RULE:
When the penalty is composed of several periods
- This rule contemplates a penalty
composed of at least 3 periods. The several
periods must correspond to different divisible
penalties.
Ex. Prision Mayor in its MEDIUM period to
Reclusion temporal in its MINIMUM
period.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Reclusion
temporal
Prision
Mayor
Prision
Correccional

Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium

Penalty for the

principal in the
consummated felony
Penalty for the
accomplice; or
principal in frustrated
felony

Minimum
FIFTH RULE:
When the penalty has two periods
Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM
and MEDIUM periods
Prision
correccional

Arresto
Mayor

Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum

The penalty prescribed

for the felony
The penalty next lower

When the penalty has one period

- If the penalty is any one of the three
periods of a divisible penalty, the penalty next
lower in degree shall be that period next
following the given penalty.
Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM period
The penalty immediately inferior is
prision mayor in its MEDIUM period.
SIMPLIFIED RULES:
The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of
Art. 61 may be simplified as follows:
1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists
in 3 periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in
degree is the penalty consisting in the 3
periods down in the scale.
2. If the penalty prescribed b the Code consists
in 2 periods, the penalty next lower in degree
is the penalty consisting in 2 periods down in
the scale.
3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists
in only 1 period, the penalty next lower in
degree is the next period down in the scale.
EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances
and of habitual delinquency. Mitigating or
aggravating
circumstances
and
habitual
delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty
in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in
themselves
constitute
a
crime
specially
punishable by law or which are included by the
law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor shall not be taken into account
for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to
any aggravating circumstance inherent in the
crime to such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
which arise from the moral attributes of the
offender, or from his private relations with the
offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate
2008

Page 47 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
the liability of the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the
material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the
time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the
following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be found guilty and to
the additional penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the
culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided
for the last crime of which he be found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article,
the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon
the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no
case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall
be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a
period of ten years from the date of his release
or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener.
What are the effects of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances?
a.
Aggravating circumstances which are not
considered for the purpose of increasing
the penalty:
1. Those which in themselves constitute
a crime especially punishable by law.
2. Those included by law in defining the
crime.
3. Those inherent in the crime but of
necessity
they
accompany
the
commission thereof.
b.
Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of the offender to whom such are
attendant. Those arising from:
1. Moral attributes of the offender
2. His
private
relations
with
the
offended party
3. Any other personal cause
c.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

that affect the offenders only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. Those which consist:
1. In the material execution of the act
- will not affect all the offenders but
only those to whom such act are
attendant
2. Means to accomplish the crime
- will affect only those offenders who
have knowledge of the same at the

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

time of the act of execution or their

cooperation therein
What are the legal effects of habitual
delinquency?
1) Third conviction
- the culprit is sentenced to the penalty
for the crime committed and to the
additional penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum period.
2) Fourth conviction
- the penalty is that provided by law for
the last crime and the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods.
3) Fifth or additional conviction
- the penalty is that provided by law for
the last crime and the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
Note:

In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties

imposed upon the offender exceed 30
years.

The law does not apply to crimes described

in Art. 155

The imposition of the additional penalty on

habitual delinquents are CONSTITUTIONAL
because such law is neither an EX POST
FACTO LAW nor an additional punishment
for future crimes. It is simply a punishment
on future crimes on account of the criminal
propensities of the accused.

The imposition of such additional penalties

is mandatory and is not discretionary.

Habitual delinquency applies at any stage

of the execution because subjectively, the
offender reveals the same degree of
depravity or perversity as the one who
commits a consummated crime.

It applies to all participants because it

reveals persistence in them of the
inclination to wrongdoing and of the
perversity of character that led them to
commit the previous crime.
Cases where attending aggravating or
mitigating circumstances are not considered
in the imposition of penalties
- Penalty that is single and indivisible
- Felonies through negligence
- When the penalty is a fine
- When the penalty is prescribed by a special
law.
Art. 63. Rules for the application of
indivisible penalties. In all cases in which
the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there
is present only one aggravating circumstance,
the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.
2008

Page 48 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
3. When the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstances and
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the
act, the court shall reasonably allow them to
offset one another in consideration of their
number and importance, for the purpose of
applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
Rules for
penalties:

the

application

of

aggravating and mitigating circumstances and

the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime.
Rules for the
PENALTIES

1. Penalty is single and indivisible

- The penalty shall be applied regardless
of the presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. Ex. reclusion perpetua or
death

Art. 64. Rules for the application of

penalties which contain three periods. In
cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single
divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and
77, the court shall observe for the application of
the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall impose the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable, according to
th7e number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature
of the aggravating circumstances, the courts
shall not impose a greater penalty than that
prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court
shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

of

DIVISIBLE

a. No aggravating and No mitigating

- MEDIUM PERIOD
b. One mitigating
- MINIMUM PERIOD
c. One aggravating (any number cannot
exceed the penalty provided by law in its
maximum period)
- MAXIMUM PERIOD
d. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
present
- to offset each other according to
relative weight
e. 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating
- one degree lower (has the effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance)

indivisible

2. Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible

penalties:
a. One aggravating circumstance present
- HIGHER penalty
b. No mitigating circumstances present
- LESSER penalty
c. Some mitigating circumstances present
and no aggravating
- LESSER penalty
d.
Mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances offset each other
- Basis of penalty: number and
importance.

application

NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:

- indivisible penalties
- penalties prescribed by special laws
- fines
- crimes committed by negligence
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not
all the requisites of exemption of the fourth
circumstance of Article 12 are present.
When all the conditions required in circumstances
Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt
from criminal liability are not present, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been
guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave
felony.
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of
accident (Art. 12 par 4) are not all present:
b. GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor maximum period to
prision correccional minimum period
c. LESS GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor minimum period and
medium period
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the
crime committed is not wholly excusable.
A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is
not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of
some of the conditions required to justify the
same or to exempt from criminal liability in the
several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12,
provided that the majority of such conditions be
present. The courts shall impose the penalty in
the period which may be deemed proper, in view
of the number and nature of the conditions of
exemption present or lacking.
Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable
- One or two degrees lower if the majority of the
conditions for justification or exemption in the
cases provided in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.

2008

Page 49 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
People v. Lacanilao (1988)
Facts: The CFI found the accused, a
policeman, guilty of homicide. On appeal before
the CA, the CA found that the accused acted in
the performance of a duty but that the shooting
of the victim was not the necessary consequence
of the due performance thereof, therefore
crediting to him the mitigating circumstance
consisting
of
the
incomplete
justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of duty. The CA
lowered the penalty merely by one period
applying Art. 64 (2) appreciating incomplete
fulfillment of duty as a mere generic mitigating
circumstance lowering the penalty to minimum
period.
Held: CA erred because incomplete
fulfillment of duty is a privileged mitigating
circumstance which not only cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstances but also reduces the
penalty by one or two degrees than that
prescribed b law. The governing provision is Art.
69 of the RPC.
G. SPECIAL RULES
COMPLEX CRIMES
CRIME DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED

PD No. 603. ART. 192. Suspension of

Sentence and Commitment of Youthful
Offender.
If after hearing the evidence in the
proper proceedings, the court should find that the
youthful offender has committed the acts
charged against him the court shall determine
the imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him. However, instead of
pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court
shall suspend all further proceedings and shall
commit such minor to the custody or care of the
Department of Social Welfare, or to any training
institution operated by the government, or duly
licensed agencies or any other responsible
person, until he shall have reached twenty-one
years of age or, for a shorter period as the court
may deem proper, after considering the reports
and recommendations of the Department of
Social Welfare or the agency or responsible
individual under whose care he has been
committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to
visitation and supervision by a representative of
the Department of Social Welfare or any duly
licensed agency or such other officer as the court
may designate subject to such conditions as it
may prescribe.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
PLURAL CRIMES
ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN
ACCESSORIES
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be
imposed upon certain accessories. Those
accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs
3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with
abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the
additional
penalty
of
absolute
perpetual
disqualification if the principal offender shall be
guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute
temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of
a less grave felony.
Absolute perpetual disqualification if the
principal offender is guilty of a grave felony.
Absolute temporary disqualification if the
principal offender is guilt of less grave felony.
WHERE THE OFFENDER IS BELOW 18 YEARS
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon
a person under eighteen years of age.
When the offender is a minor under eighteen
years and his case is one coming under the
provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall
be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over
nine years of age, who is not exempted from
liability by reason of the court having declared
that he acted with discernment, a discretionary
penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by
two degrees at least than that prescribed by law
for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under
eighteen years of age the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
always in the proper period.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application

for suspension of sentence is disapproved or if
while in the reformatory institution he becomes
incorrigible in which case he shall be returned to
the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least 2
degrees lower.
15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
If the act is attended by two or more mitigating
and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty
being divisible, a minor over 15 but under 18
years old may still get a penalty two degrees
lower.
THE THREE-FOLD RULE
Art.
70.
Successive
service
of
sentence. When the culprit has to serve two
or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be
observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the
order of their respective severity shall be
followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible,
should a pardon have been granted as to the
penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they
have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph the
respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following
scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
2008

Page 50 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule

next preceding, the maximum duration of the
convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case
exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the
duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua)
shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).

The three-fold rule applies only when the

convict has to serve at least four sentences.
All the penalties, even if by different courts at
different times, cannot exceed three-fold the
most severe.
- The Rules of Court specifically provide
that any information must not charge more than
one offense. Necessarily, the various offense
punished with different penalties must be
charged under different informations which may
be filed in the same court or in different courts,
at the same time or at different times.
Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the
penalty.
Indemnity is a penalty.
Court must impose all the penalties for all the
crimes of which the accused is found guilty, but
in the service of the same, they shall not exceed
three times the most severe and shall not exceed
40 years.

Outline of the provisions of this Article:

1. When the culprit has to serve 2 or more
penalties,
he
shall
serve
them
simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit.
2. Otherwise, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed.
3. The respective severity of the penalties is
as follows:
a.Death
b.Reclusion perpetua
c. Reclusion temporal
d.Prision mayor
e.Prision correccional
f. Arresto mayor
g.Arresto menor
h.Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
k.Suspension from public office, the right to
vote, and be voted for, the right to
follow profession or calling, and
l. Public censure

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987)

Facts: The petitioner was convicted of
violating Section 3(E) of RA No. 3019 aka the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. One of the
issues raised by the petitioner concerns the
penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which
totals 56 years and 8 days of imprisonment. He
impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule
and insists that the duration of the aggregate
penalties should not exceed 40 years.
Held: Petitioner is mistaken in his
application of the 3-fold rule as set forth in Art.
70 of the RPC. This article is to be taken into
account not in the imposition of the penalty but
in connection with the service of the sentence
imposed. Art. 70 speaks of service of sentence,
duration of penalty and penalty to be
inflicted. Nowhere in the article is anything
mentioned about the imposition of penalty. It
merely provides that the prisoner cannot be
made to serve more than three times the most
severe of these penalties the maximum which is
40 years.

The penalties which can be simultaneously

served are:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public Censure
8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace
9. Civil interdiction
10. Confiscation and payment of costs

WHERE THE PENALTY IS NOT

COMPOSED OF 3 PERIODS

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the
right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow
a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure

The above penalties, except destierro,

can be served simultaneously with
imprisonment.
Penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty cannot be served simultaneously
by reason of the nature of such penalties.

Three-fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convicts
sentence shall not be more than three times the
length of time corresponding to the most severe
of the penalties imposed upon him.
The phrase the most severe of the penalties
includes equal penalties.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the

penalty is not composed of three periods.
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is
not composed of three periods, the courts shall
apply the rules contained in the foregoing
articles, dividing into three equal portions of time
included in the penalty prescribed, and forming
one period of each of the three portions.
MEANING OF THE RULE
1. Compute and determine first the 3
periods of the entire penalty.
2. The time included in the penalty
prescribed should be divided into 3 equal
portions,
after
subtracting
the
minimum
(eliminate the 1 day) from the maximum of the
penalty.
3. The minimum of the minimum period
should be the minimum of the given penalty
(including the 1 day)
4. The quotient should be added to the
minimum prescribed (eliminate the 1 day) and
the total will represent the maximum of the
minimum period. Take the maximum of the
minimum period, add 1 day and make it the
2008

Page 51 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
minimum of the medium period; then add the
quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of
the medium period and the total will represent
the maximum of the medium period. Take the
maximum of the medium period, add 1 day and
make it the minimum of the maximum period;
then add the quotient to the minimum (eliminate
the 1 day) of the maximum period and the total
will represent the maximum of the maximum
period.
H. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

The indeterminate sentence is composed of:

1. a MAXIMUM taken from the penalty
imposable under the penal code
2. a MINIMUM taken from the penalty
next lower to that fixed in the code.

The law does not apply to certain offenders:

1. Persons convicted of offense punished
with death penalty or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence.
7. Those who violated the terms of
conditional pardon granted to them by
the Chief Executive.
8. Those
whose
maximum
term
of
imprisonment does not exceed one year.
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law,
had been sentenced by final judgment.
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of
destierro or suspension.
Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem
valuable
human
material
and
prevent
unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty
and economic usefulness
- It is necessary to consider the criminal
first as an individual, and second as a member of
the society.
- The law is intended to favor the
defendant, particularly to shorten his term of
imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and
his physical, mental and moral record as a
prisoner, to be determined by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence.
The settled practice is to give the accused the
benefit of the law even in crimes punishable with
death or life imprisonment provided the resulting
penalty,
after
considering
the
attending
circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less.
ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is
expressly granted to those who are sentenced to
imprisonment exceeding 1 year.
PROCEDURE
FOR
DETERMING
THE
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SENTENCE
Is consists of a maximum and a minimum
instead of a single fixed penalty.
Prisoner must serve the minimum before he is
eligible for parole.
The period between the minimum and
maximum is indeterminate in the sense that the
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

prisoner may be exempted from serving said

indeterminate period in whole or in part.
The maximum is determined in any case
punishable under the RPC in accordance with the
rules and provisions of said code exactly as if the
ISL had never been enacted.
Apply first the effect of privileged mitigating
circumstances then consider the effects of
aggravating
and
ordinary
mitigating
circumstances.
The minimum depends upon the courts
discretion with the limitation that it must be
within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense committed.
NOTE: A minor who escaped from confinement in
the reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the
ISL because his confinement is not considered
imprisonment.

Art. 64. Rules for the application of

penalties which contain three periods. In
cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single
divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and
77, the court shall observe for the application of
the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating
nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose
the penalty prescribed by law in its medium
period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is
present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall impose the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable, according to
the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and
nature of the aggravating circumstances, the
courts shall not impose a greater penalty than
that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the
court shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime.
De la Cruz v. CA (1996)
In as much as the amount of P715k is
P693k
more
than
the
abovementioned
benchmark of P22k, then adding one year for
each additional P10k, the maximum period of 6
years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision
mayor minimum would be increased by 69 years,
as computed by the trial court. But the law
categorically declares that the maximum penalty
then shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion
2008

Page 52 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
temporal. Under the ISL, the minimum term of
the indeterminate penalt should be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed b the Code for the offense committed,
which is prision correccional.
People v. Campuhan (supra)
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2)
degrees lower than the imposable penalty of
death for the offense charged, which is statutory
rape of a minor below seven (7) years. Two (2)
degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the range of
which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, and in the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused shall be taken from the medium period
of reclusion temporal, the range of which is
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and (1)
day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, while the minimum shall be taken from
the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision
mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of
its periods.
People v. Saley (supra)
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum term of the penalty shall be "that
which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed" under the Revised
Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within
the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed" for the offense. The penalty next
lower should be based on the penalty prescribed
by the Code for the offense, without first
considering
any
modifying
circumstance
attendant to the commission of the crime. The
determination of the minimum penalty is left by
law to the sound discretion of the court and it can
be anywhere within the range of the penalty next
lower without any reference to the periods into
which it might be subdivided. The modifying
circumstances are considered only in the
imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
The fact that the amounts involved in the
instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be
considered in the initial determination of the
indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter
should be so taken as analogous to modifying
circumstances in the imposition of the maximum
term of the full indeterminate sentence. This
interpretation of the law accords with the rule
that penal laws should be construed in favor of
the accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law
for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is
prision correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum, the penalty next lower would then be
prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus,
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence
should be anywhere within six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months
.
I. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Execution of Penalties
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is
to be executed. No penalty shall be executed
except by virtue of a final judgment.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

A penalty shall not be executed in any other form

than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly
authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the
special regulations prescribed for the government
of the institutions in which the penalties are to be
suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time
of its performance, and other incidents connected
therewith, the relations of the convicts among
themselves and other persons, the relief which
they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the
separation of the sexes in different institutions,
or at least into different departments and also for
the correction and reform of the convicts.
The judgment must be final before it can be
executed, because the accused may still appeal
within 15 days from its promulgation. But if the
defendant has expressly waived in writing his
right to appeal, the judgment becomes final and
executory.
See Rules and regulations to implement RA No.
8177 under Capital Punishment.
Art.
86.
Reclusion
perpetua,
reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision
correccional and arresto mayor. The
penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and
arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in
the places and penal establishments provided by
the Administrative Code in force or which may be
provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro. Any person
sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to
enter the place or places designated in the
sentence, nor within the radius therein specified,
which shall be not more than 250 and not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
Convict shall not be permitted to enter the
place designated in the sentence nor within the
radius specified, which shall not more than 250
and not less than 25 km from the place
designated.
If the convict enters the prohibited area, he
commits evasion of sentence.
Destierro is imposed:
a. When the death or serious physical
injuries is caused or are inflicted under
exceptional circumstances (art. 247)
b. When a person fails to give bond for good
behavior (art. 284)
c. As a penalty for the concubine in the
crime of concubinage (Art. 334)
d. When after lowering the penalty by
degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
Art. 88. Arresto menor. The penalty
of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal
jail, or in the house of the defendant himself
under the surveillance of an officer of the law,
when the court so provides in its decision, taking
into consideration the health of the offender and
other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
Service of the penalty of arresto menor:
a. In the municipal jail
2008

Page 53 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
b.

In the house of the offender, but

under the surveillance of an officer of
the law, whenever the court so
provides in the decision due to the
health of the offender.

In the Matter of the petition for Habeas

Corpus of Pete Lagran (2001)
Facts: The accused was convicted of 3
counts of violating BP22 and was sentenced to
imprisonment of 1 year for each count. He was
detained on Feb. 24, 1999. On Mar. 19, 2001, he
filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming he
completed the service of his sentence. Citing Art.
70, RPC, he claimed that he shall serve the
penalties simultaneously. Thus, there is no more
legal basis for his detention.
Held: Art. 70 allows simultaneous service
of two or more penalties only if the nature of the
penalties so permit. In the case at bar, the
petitioner was sentenced to suffer one year
imprisonment for every count of the offense
committed. The nature of the sentence does not
allow petitioner to serve all the terms
simultaneously. The rule of successive service of
sentence must be applied.
Effects of the Probation Law
THE PROBATION LAW
Taken from the DOJ website
Section 3(a) of Presidential Decrees 968, as
amended, defines probation as a disposition
under which an accused, after conviction and
sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer. It is a privilege granted by the
court; it cannot be availed of as a matter of right
by a person convicted of a crime. To be able to
enjoy the benefits of probation, it must first be
shown that an applicant has none of the
disqualifications imposed by law.
Disqualified Offenders
Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is
intended for offenders who are 18 years of age
and above, and who are not otherwise
disqualified
by
law.
Offenders
who
are
disqualified are those: (1) sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years; (2) convicted of subversion or any offense
against the security of the State, or the Public
Order; (3) who have previously been convicted
by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not more than Two
Hundred Pesos; (4) who have been once on
probation under the provisions of this Decree;
Post-Sentence Investigation
The Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and the
submission of the Post-Sentence Investigation
Report (PSIR) are pre-requisites to the court
disposition on the application for probation.
Period of Probation
The period of probation is in essence a timebound condition. It is a condition in point of time
which may be shortened and lengthened within
the statutory limits and the achievements by the
probationer of the reasonable degrees of social
stability and responsibility from the measured
observation of the supervising officer and the
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

exercise discretion by the court in decisive order.

Probation Conditions
The grant of probation is accompanied by
conditions imposed by the court:
The mandatory conditions require that
the probationer shall (a) present himself
to the probation officer designated to
undertake his supervision at each place
as may be specified in the order within
72 hours from receipt of said order, and
(b) report to the probation officer at least
once a month at such time and place as
specified by said officer.
Special or discretionary conditions are
those additional conditions imposed on
the probationer which are geared towards
his correction and rehabilitation outside
of prison and right in the community to
which he belongs.
A violation of any of the conditions may lead
either to a more restrictive modification of the
same or the revocation of the grant of probation.
Consequent to the revocation, the probationer
will have to serve the sentence originally
imposed.
Modification of Conditions of Probation
During the period of probation, the court may,
upon application of either the probationers or the
probation officer, revise or modify the conditions
or period of probation. The court shall notify
either the probationer or the probation officer of
the filing of such an application so as to give both
parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.
Transfer of Residence
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in
a place under the jurisdiction of another court,
control over him shall be transferred to the
executive judge of the "Court of First Instance" of
that place, and in such case, a copy of the
Probation Order, the investigation report and
other pertinent records shall be furnished to said
executive judge. Thereafter, the executive judge
to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is
transferred shall have the power with respect to
him that was previously possessed by the court
which granted the probation.
Revocation of Probation
At any time during probation, the court may
issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for
any serious violation of the conditions of
probation. The probationer, once arrested and
detained, shall immediately be brought before
the court for a hearing of the violation charged.
The defendant may be admitted to bail pending
such hearing. In such case, the provisions
regarding release on bail of persons charged with
crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested
under this provision. An order revoking the grant
of probation or modifying the terms and
conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Termination of Probation
After the period of probation and upon
consideration of the report and recommendation
of the probation officer, the court may order the
final discharge of the probationer upon finding
that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of
his probation and thereupon the case is deemed
terminated.

2008

Page 54 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Programs and Services
Post-Sentence Investigation. After conviction
and sentence, a convicted offender or his counsel
files a petition for probation with the trail court,
who in turn orders the Probation Officer to
conduct
a
post-sentence
investigation
to
determine whether a convicted offender may be
placed on probation or not. The role of the
probation officer in this phase is to conduct the
post-sentence investigation and to submit his
report to the court within the period not later
than 60 days from receipt of the order of the
Court to conduct the said investigation.
Pre-Parole Investigation. The PAROLE AND
PROBATION ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) conducts
pre-parole
investigation
of
all
sentenced
prisoners confined in prisons and jails within their
jurisdiction. The purpose is to determine whether
offenders confined in prisons/jails are qualified
for parole or any form of executive clemency and
to discuss with them their plans after release.
Probation officers submit their pre-parole
assessment reports to the Board of Pardons and
Parole.
The
Agency
Supervision
of
Offenders.
supervises two types of offenders under
conditional release: (1) probationers, or persons
placed under probation by the courts; (2)
parolees and pardonees, or prisoners released on
parole or conditional pardon and referred by the
Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) to PAROLE
AND PROBATION ADMINISTRATION - (PPA)
(PPA). The objectives of supervision are to carry
out
the
conditions
set
forth
in
the
probation/parole order, to ascertain whether the
probationer/parolee/pardonee is complying with
the said conditions, and to bring about the
rehabilitation of the client and his re-integration
into the community.
The
treatment
Rehabilitation
Programs.
process employed by the field officers focused on
particular needs of probationers, parolees and
pardonees. Assistance is provided to the clientele
in the form of job placement, skills training,
spiritual/moral upliftment, counseling, etc.
Community Linkages
Probation/Parole,
as
a
community-based
treatment program, depends on available
resources in the community for the rehabilitation
of offenders. Thus, the Agency, recognizing the
important role of the community as a
rehabilitation agent, involves the community in
probation work through the use of volunteer
workers and welfare agencies.
Presidential Decree No. 968 permits the
utilization of the services of Volunteer Probation
Aides to assist the Probation and Parole Officers
in the supervision of probationers, parolees and
pardonees particularly in the areas where the
caseload is heavy and the office is understaff or
where the residence of the clientele is very far
from the Parole and Probation Office. As defined,
a Volunteer Probation Aide is a volunteer who is a
citizen of good moral character and good
standing in the community, who has been
carefully selected and trained to do volunteer
probation work. He is appointed by the
Administrator after successful completion of the
100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

Introductory Training Course for probation

volunteers. His term of office is one year but can
be renewed thereafter or terminated earlier
depending upon his performance and willingness
to serve.
the
PAROLE
AND
PROBATION
Further,
ADMINISTRATION
(PPA),
through
its
Community Services Division, Regional and Field
Offices
nationwide,
has
been
tapping
government/non-government
organizations/individuals for various rehabilitation
programs and activities for probationers, parolees
and pardonees.
Llamado v. CA (1989)
In its present form, Section 4 of the
Probation Law establishes a much narrower
period during which an application for probation
ma be filed with the trial curt: after the trial curt
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant
and within the period for perfecting an appeal.
The provision expressly prohibits the grant of an
application for probation if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
Petitioners right to apply for probation
was lost when he perfected his appeal from the
judgment of the trial court. The trial court lost
jurisdiction already over the case.
Bala v. Martinez (1990)
PD 1990 which amends Sec. 4 of PD 968
is not applicable to the case at bar. It went into
effect on Jan. 15, 1985 and cannot be given
retroactive effect because it would be prejudicial
to the accused. Bala was placed on probation on
Aug. 11, 1982.
Expiration of probation period alone does
not automatically terminate probation; a final
order of discharge from the court is required.
Probation is revocable before the final discharge
by the court. Probationer failed to reunite with
responsible society. He violated the conditions of
his probation. Thus, the revocation of his
probation is compelling.
Salgado v. CA (1990)
There is no question that the decision
convicting Salgado of the crime of serious
physical injuries had become final and executory
because the filing by respondent of an application
for probation is deemed a waiver of his right to
appeal.
The grant of probation does not
extinguish the civil liability of the offender. The
order of probation with one of the conditions
providing for the manner of payment of the civil
liability during the period of probation, did not
increase or decrease the civil liability adjudged.
The conditions listed under Sec. 10 of the
Probation law are not exclusive. Courts are
allowed to impose practically any term it
chooses, the only limitation being that it does not
jeopardize the constitutional rights of the
accused.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado
(1996)
Facts: The respondent is a deputy sheriff
who was charged of violating the Dangerous
Drugs Act and is now claiming he is in probation.
The OCA filed an administrative case against him
and he was suspended from office.
2008

Page 55 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Held: While indeed the purpose of the
Probation Law is to save valuable human
material, it must not be forgotten that unlike
pardon probation does not obliterate the crime of
which the person under probation has been
convicted. The image of the judiciary is tarnished
by conduct involving moral turpitude. The reform
and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot
justify his retention in the government service.

VII. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL

LIABILITY
This section enumerates and explains the ways in
which criminal liability is extinguished, one of
which is prescription (of both the crime and the
penalty) which will be discussed in detail.

Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority

Art. 79. Suspension of the execution
and service of the penalties in case of
insanity. When a convict shall become insane
or an imbecile after final sentence has been
pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall
be suspended only with regard to the personal
penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph
of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being
observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover
his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless
the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section
shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility
occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
Only execution of personal penalty is
suspended: civil liability may be executed even in
case of insanity of convict.
An accused may become insane:
a. at the time of commission of the
crime
exempt from criminal liability
b. at the time of the trial
- court shall suspend hearings and
order his confinement in a hospital
until he recovers his reason
c. at the time of final judgment or while
serving sentence
execution suspended with regard to
the personal penalty only
see Exempting Circumstance of Minority for PD
No. 603 and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with
Law.

Two kinds of extinguishment of criminal

liability:

Total Extinguishment

Partial Extinguishment

Kinds of Total Extinguishment:

By the death of the convict

By Service of sentence

By Amnesty

By Absolute Pardon

By prescription of crime

By prescription of penalty

By the marriage of the offended

woman and the offender in the
crimes of rape, abduction, seduction
and acts of lasciviousness.

(Art.

344)

Kinds of Partial Extinguishment:

By Conditional Pardon

By Commutation of sentence

For good conduct, allowances which

the culprit may earn while he is
serving sentence

By Parole

By Probation

Important: The Supreme Court ruled that reelection to public office is not one of the grounds
by which criminal liability is extinguished. This is
only true in administrative cases but not in
criminal cases.

Total Extinguishment
A. BY THE DEATH OF THE CONVICT

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Extinguishes criminal liability as to

personal penalties;
As to pecuniary penalties, liability
is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final
judgment.
EXCEPTION: Art. 33 (based on
contracts). Even if the accused
dies pending appeal, the right to
file a separate civil action is not
lost.

Page 56 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Illustration:

offense.

1. People v. Bayotas (1991)

Where the offender dies before final judgment,
his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil
liabilities. So while a case is on appeal, the
offender dies, the case on appeal will be
dismissed.
The offended party may file a
separate civil action under the Civil Code if any
other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as
provided under Art 1157 Civil Code.

offense, but rights not

restored unless
explicitly provided by
the terms of the
pardon
Both do not extinguish civil liability
Public act which the
Private act of the
court shall take
President and must be
judicial notice of
pleaded and proved by
the person pardoned
Valid
only
when Valid if given either
there
is
final before or after final
judgment
judgment

2. People v. Abungan (2000)

The death of appellant extinguished his criminal
liability. Moreover, because he died during the
pendency of the appeal and before the finality of
the judgment against him, his civil liability arising
from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto)
was also extinguished. It must be added, though,
that his civil liability may be based on sources of
obligation other than delict. For this reason, the
victims may file a separate civil action against his
estate, as may be warranted by law and
procedural rules.
B. BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE

An act of the sovereign power

granting oblivion or general pardon
for a past offense.
Rarely exercised in favor of a single
individual; usually extended in behalf
of certain classes of persons who
are subject trial but have not yet
been convicted.
Erases not only the conviction but
also the crime itself.

D. BY ABSOLUTE PARDON

Answer: No. Because the amnesty granted to

him erased not only the conviction but also the
effects of the conviction itself.
Question: Suppose what was given him was not
amnesty but pardon?
Answer: Yes. Pardon, although absolute does
not erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only
excuses the convict from serving the sentence.

C. BY AMNESTY

Question: An offender was convicted of

rebellion, but he was given amnesty. Years later,
he was convicted again of rebellion. Is he a
recidivist?

An act of grace, proceeding from

the power entrusted with the
execution of the laws
Exempts the individual from the
penalty of the crime he has
committed.

Monsanto V. Factoran, Jr. (1989)

Question: A person convicted of rebellion has

already served the sentence; yet, despite of this,
he was still given absolute pardon. Years later,
he was again convicted of rebellion. Is he a
recidivist?
Answer: No. When the convict has already
served the sentence such that there is no more
service of sentence to be executed then the
pardon shall be understood as intended to erase
the effects of the conviction.
Question: What if the pardon was given to him
while he was serving his sentence?
Answer: The pardon will not wipe out the effects
of the crime, unless the language of the pardon
specifically relieves him of the effects of the
crime.
E. BY PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME (Art. 90)

Absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the

convict to reinstatement to the public office
forfeited by reason of his conviction. Although
pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to
that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for
the new appointment.

Difference between Amnesty

and Absolute Pardon
Amnesty
Blanket pardon to
classes of persons,
guilty of political
offenses
May still be exercised
even before trial or
investigation
Looks backward it is
as if he has
committed no
100% UP LAW

Absolute pardon
Includes any crime
and is exercised
individually
The person is already
convicted

Definition: The forfeiture or loss of

the right of the State to prosecute
the offender, after the loss of a
certain time.
General Rule: Prescription of the
crime begins on the day the crime
was committed.

Exception: The crime was

concealed, not public, in
which case, the prescription
thereof would only
commence from the time
the offended party or the
government learns of the
commission of the crime.

Looks forward he is
relieved from the
consequences of the
UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 57 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Difference between Prescription of Crime
and Prescription of the Penalty
Prescription of crime
Forfeiture of the State
to prosecute after a
lapse of a certain time

Prescription of the
penalty
Forfeiture to execute
the final sentence after
the lapse of a certain
time

Question: What happens when the last day of

the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal
holiday?

Note: Termination must be

FINAL as to amount to a
jeopardy that would bar a
subsequent prosecution.
The term of prescription shall not
run when the offender is absent from
the Philippine archipelago.
For continuing crimes, prescriptive
period cannot begin to run because
the crime does not end.

F. BY PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES (Art. 92)

Definition: The loss or forfeiture of
the right of the government to
execute the final sentence after the
lapse of a certain time.

Answer: The information can no longer be filed

on the next day as the crime has already
prescribed.
Prescriptive Periods of Crimes

Prescriptive Periods of Penalties

Crimes punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or reclusion
temporal
Afflictive penalties
Correctional penalties
Note: Those punishable by
arresto mayor

Note: When the penalty fixed

law is a compound one

Libel
Oral defamation and slander by
deed
Simple slander
Grave slander
Light offenses
Crimes punishable by fines
Fine is afflictive
Fine is correctional
Fine is light

20 years
Death and reclusion perpetua
Other afflictive penalties
Correctional penalties
Note: If arresto mayor
Light penalties

15 years
10 years
5 years
The
highest
penalty
shall be
made a
basis
1 year
6 months

Computation of the Prescription of Penalties

(Art. 93)
Elements:
1.
2.

3.

15 years
10 years
2 months

4.

Note: When fine is an

alternative penalty
higher than the other
penalty which is by
imprisonment,
prescription of the crime
is based on the fine.
Computation of Prescription of Offenses
(Art. 91)

100% UP LAW

Penalty is imposed by final judgment

Convict evaded service of sentence by
escaping during the term of his
sentence
The convict who has escaped from
prison has not given himself up, or
been captured, or gone to a foreign
country with which we have no
extradition
treaty,
or
committed
another crime
The penalty has prescribed because of
the lapse of time from the date of the
evasion of service of the sentence by
the convict.

2 months
6 months
2 months

Note: Subsidiary penalty

for nonpayment not
considered in
determining the period

20 years
15 years
10 years
5 years
1 year

Commences to run from the day on

which the crime is discovered by
the offended party, the authorities or
their agents.
Interrupted
by
the
filing
of
complaint or information

It shall commence to run

again when such proceedings
terminate
without
the
accused being convicted or
acquitted, or unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.
UP

BAROPS

Period commences to run from the

date when he culprit evaded20 the
service of sentence
When interrupted:

Convict gives himself up

Is captured

Goes to a foreign country

with which we have no
extradition treaty

Commits any crime before

the expiration of the period of
prescription

Question: What happens in cases where our

government has extradition treaty with another
country but the crime is not included in the
treaty?
Answer: It would interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period.

20

"Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and

157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his
custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to
have escaped therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002).

2008

Page 58 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
Question: What is the effect of the acceptance
of the convict of a conditional pardon?

Question: What happens if the convict fails to

observe the condition of the parole?

Answer: It would interrupt the acceptance of the

prescriptive period.

Answer: The Board of Pardons and Parole is

authorized to:
1. Direct his arrest and return to
custody
2. To carry out his sentence
without deduction of the time
that has elapsed between the
date of the parole and the
subsequent arrest.

Question: What happens if the culprit is

captured but he evades again the service of his
sentence?
Answer: The period of prescription that ran
during the evasion is not forfeited. The period of
prescription that has run in his favor should be
taken into account.
G. BY MARRIAGE OF THE FFENDED WOMAN
WITH THE OFFENDER

This applies only to the following

crimes:

Rape

Seduction

Abduction

Acts of lasciviousness
The marriage under Art. 344 must be
contracted in good faith
Partial Extinguishment

A.

A. BY CONDTIONAL PARDON
If delivered and accepted, it is a
contract between the executive
and the convict that the former will
release the latter upon compliance
with the condition.
Example of a condition:
Not to violate any of the penal
laws of the country again.

Difference between Conditional Pardon

and Parole
Conditional Pardon
May be give at any
time after final
judgment; is granted
by he Chief
Executive under the
provisions of the
Administrative Code

In case of violation,
the convict may be
prosecuted
under
Art. 159 of the RPC.

Parole
May be given after
the prisoner has
served the
minimum penalty;
is granted by the
Board of Pardons
and Parole under the
provisions of the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law
In case of violation,
the convict may not
be prosecuted under
Art. 159 of the RPC.

E. BY PROBATION
Note: Please see Probation Law on page
117.

B.
B. BY COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
C. FOR GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES

The convict may earn these while he

is serving his sentence.
Example: Article 158. A convict who
escapes the place of confinement on
the occasion of disorder resulting
from a conflagration, earthquake or
similar catastrophe, or during a
mutiny in which he has not
participated; but who returns within
48 hours after the proclamation that
the calamity had passed shall be
given credit of 1/5 deduction of the
original sentence.

Note: Not an automatic right for it has to

be granted by the Director of Prisons (Art.
99). Also, he must be serving his sentence.
Thus, if released because of conditional
pardon, this provision is not applicable.
D. BY PAROLE

100% UP LAW

Definition: The suspension of the

sentence of the convict after serving
the
minimum
term
of
the
intermediate penalty, without being
granted a pardon, prescribing the
terms upon which the sentence shall
be suspended.

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 59 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
VIII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
A FELONY

Exemption from criminal liability does

not include exemption from civil
liability.

A. IN GENERAL

Exceptions:
1.There is no civil liability in
paragraph 4 of Art. 12 which
provides for injury caused by mere
accident.
2.There is no civil liability in par. 7
of Art. 12 which provides for failure
to perform an act required by law
when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.

B. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES

C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
D. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY

A. IN GENERAL
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of
felony. Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.

Civil liability arises from the commission of

the felony.

It is determined in the criminal action except

if:
a.
b.
c.

the offended party waives his right to

file a civil action
the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
the offended party institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.

Effect of ACQUITTAL:

As a rule, if the offender is acquitted,

the civil liability is extinguished,
except:
a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt
b) the acquittal was due to an exempting
circumstance like insanity and
c) when the court finds that there is only
civil liability.

1) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED

BY AN INSANE OR IMBECILE OR MINOR
UNDER 9 OR OVER 9 AND LESS THAN 15
WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT

A minor

over 15 years of age

who acts with discernment

is not exempt from criminal liability.

Parents
are
subsidiarily
liable
according to Art 2180 of the Civil
Code.
The final release of a child based on good
conduct does not obliterate his civil
liability for damages.

2) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED

BY PERSONS ACTING UNDER IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABE FEAR

The persons using violence or causing the

fear are primarily liable.
If there be no such persons, those doing the
act shall be liable secondarily.

3) CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING

UNDER JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
There is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances except in par. 4 of Art. 11
4) CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND
SIMILAR PERSONS

B. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES

1) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED
BY AN INSANE OR IMBECILE OR MINOR
UNDER 9 OR OVER 9 AND LESS THAN 15
WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT

ELEMENTS OF At 102 PAR. 1:

1.

2) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED

BY PERSONS ACTING UNDER
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR
UNCONTROLLABE FEAR

That the INNKEEPER, TAVERNKEEPER OR

PROPRIETOR of establishment or his
employee committed a violation of
municipal ordinance or some general
or special police regulation.

2.

That a crime is committed in such

inn, tavern or establishment.

3) CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING

UNDER JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

3.

That the person criminally liable is

insolvent.

4) CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND

SIMILAR PERSONS

ELEMENTS OF PAR 2.
1. The guests notified in advance the
innkeeper or the person representing
him of the deposit of their goods
within the inn or house.

5) SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER

PERSONS

2. The guest followed the directions of the

innkeeper or his representative with

CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXEMPT FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 60 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW
respect to the care of the vigilance over
such goods.

1. RESTITUTION OR RESTORATION

3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein

were taken by robbery with force
upon things or theft committed within
the inn or house.
No liability shall attach in case of
robbery
with
violence
against
or
intimidation of persons,

unless committed by the innkeepers

employees.

It is not necessary that the effects of the

guest be actually delivered to the
innkeeper,

it is enough that they were within the

inn.

Presupposes that

the offended party was divested

property,

and such property must be returned.

of

If the property is in the hands of a third

party,

the same shall be restored to the

offended party

even if third party may be a holder for

value and a buyer in good faith of the
property

Except when such third party buys the

property from a public sale where the law
protects the buyer.

ILLUSTRATION:
5) SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER
PERSONS
Art 103 ELEMENTS:
1. The employer, teacher, person or
corporation is engaged in any kind of
industry.

If a third party bought a property in a public

auction conducted by the sheriff, the buyer of the
property at such execution sale is protected by
law.
The offended party may only resort to
reparation of the damage done from the
offender.

2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,

apprentices or employees commits a
felony while in the discharge of his
duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has
not satisfied his civil liability.

No defense of diligence of a good father

of a family.
Supreme Court ruled that even though the
guest did not obey the rules and
regulations, the guests will only be
regarded as contributory negligence, but
it wont absolve the management from
civil liability (Esguerra notes)
Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the
following:
1. In case of a felony committed under the
compulsion of an irresistible force. The
person who employed the irresistible
force is subsidiarily liable;
2. In case of a felony committed under an
impulse of an equal or greater injury. The
person who generated such an
impulse is subsidiarily liable.

Regardless of the crime committed,

if the property is illegally taken from the

offended party during the commission of
the crime,

the court may direct the offender to

restore or restitute such property to the
offended party.

ILLUSTRATION:
Where the offender committed rape, during the
rape, the offender took the earrings of the victim.
The offender was prosecuted for rape and theft.
The offender reasoned that he took the earrings
of the victim to have a souvenir of the sexual
intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime
committed is not theft and rape but rape and
unjust vexation for the taking of the earning.
The latter crime is not a crime against property
but a crime against personal security and liberty
under Title IX of Book II of the RPC.
If there is violation of Anti-Fencing Law
the fence

incurs criminal liability

aside from being required to restitute the

personal property
If RESTITUTION cannot
REPARATION should be made

be

made

then

Civil liability of the offender falls under

three categories:

IF OFFENDER DIES provided he died after

judgment became final:

The heirs of offender

shall assume the civil liability,

but only to the extent that they inherit

property from the deceased

1. Restitution or Restoration

C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

2. Reparation of the damage caused

3. Indemnification
damages

100% UP LAW

of

IF OFFENDED PARTY DIES:

the heirs of the offended party step into

the shoes of the latter to demand civil
liability from the offender.

consequential
2. REPARATION OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 61 of 62

CRIMINAL LAW

Reparation is made by requiring the

offender to pay the value of damages.

The court determines the amount of damages

by considering:

a) the price of the thing and

b) Its special sentimental
offended party by.

value

to

the

If property is brand new, then there will be

an allowance for depreciation

The damages are limited to those caused by

the crime.

3. INDEMNIFICATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES

Indemnification of consequential damages

refers to the loss of earnings, loss of
profits.
Where DEATH results:
1. INDEMNITY: P50,000
2. Lost of Earning Capacity
3. Support to a non-heir
4. Moral damages for mental anguish
5. Exemplary damages if attended by 1 or
more aggravating circumstances

Anyone of them may be required to pay

the civil liability pertaining to such
offender
without prejudice to recovery from those
whose share have been paid by another.

If all the principals are insolvent, the

obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s)
or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have
the right of covering the share of the obligation
from those who did not pay but are civilly liable.

To relate with Article 38,

when there is an order or preference of

pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,
restitution is not included here.

There is no subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of civil liability.

2) People vs. Tupal, 2003,

Exemplary damages were awarded when the
offense was committed with at least 1
aggravating circumstance.

D. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY

Indemnification for consequential damages

includes:
1) those caused the injured party

Extinguished in the same manner as other

obligations in accordance with the provisions of
the Civil Code.

2) those suffered by the family, or

Loss of the thing due

does not extinguish civil liability

because if the offender cannot make

restitution, he is obliged to make
reparation.

Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists

even if the offender has served

sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty or other rights or has served the
same,
due
to
amnesty,
pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other
reason.

3) those suffered by 3rd person by reason of

the crime
ILLUSTRATION:
The offender carnapped a bridal car while the
newly-weds were inside the church. Since the
car was only rented, consequential damage not
only to the newly-weds but also to the entity
which rented the car to them.
1) Espaa v. People (2005)
The award for civil indemnity ex delicto is
mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the
victim without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime.
In the crime of rape, the damages awarded
to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00
for the damage to her honor.

The present procedural law

does not allow a blanket recovery of

damages.

Each kind of damages must be specified

and the amount duly proven.

When there are several offenders,

the court shall determine what shall be

the share of each offender

depending
upon
the
degree
of
participation as principal, accomplice or
accessory.

If there are more than one principal or

more than one accomplice or accessory,

the liability in each class of offender shall

be subsidiary.

100% UP LAW

UP

BAROPS

2008

Page 62 of 62