This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Vena V. Verga
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I. History of the Revised Penal Law Codification Movement -- sought to have all laws codified or written in a single body of aw. Spanish Codigo Penal which, without expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty on their commission. Note: Non-payment of taxes is merely a civil liability/indemnity. The tax code as it exists today which carries punishments may be considered penal provisions. People vs. Moran Facts: The accused violated the election code and was sentenced by the lower court. He was asking for reconsideration and filed a special motion alleging that the crime complained of had prescribed under the provision of section 71 of Act 3030, enacted by the Legislature on March 9, 1922. Issue: W/N penal laws provide for not only penalty but also prescription. Decision: Yes. Decision: The court found the crime to have prescribed (in accordance with the new law) and set aside the decision. The Election law contained in the Administrative Code and Act 3030 which amended and modified the former, it is evident that the provision declaring that offenses resulting from the violations of said Act shall prescribe one year after their commission must have retroactive effect, the same being favorable to the accused. An exception- to give them retroactive effect when favorable to accused. The exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of crime: Art 22 applies to a law dealing with prescription of an offense which is intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time for prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense. Penal laws not only provide for penalties but also prescriptions. III. Rationale of Penal Laws US vs. Sotto Facts: Vicente Sotto is the director, editor, publisher and printer of a weekly paper. On May 1915, he edited the paper with the intention of attacking them reputation of Lope K. Santos and two other principals of a labor group. He was found guilty of libel. Issue: W/N Sotto was guilty Decision: Yes. Penalties are used to deter people from doing the same crime. A deterrent effect upon others is one of the purposes of the infliction of a penalty for the violation of the criminal law (Exemplarity). People vs. Carillo and Raquenio
The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directing the execution of the royal decree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands, as well as the Provisional Law of Criminal Procedure which accompanied it. These two laws, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, became effective in July 14, 1876. (US. vs. Tamparong)
Codigo Penal ng Pilipinas – modified the Spanish Penal Code. US Period – they tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas were defectively translated
II. Definition of Penal Law and Criminal Law
A. B. C. D. E. F.
Penal laws – laws which relates to penalties Criminal laws – laws which relates to crimes Felony -- A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. Offense -- A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutory offense. Misdemeanor --A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime -- Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.
Lorenzo vs. Posadas Issue: W/N Art. 3606 of a tax law is a penal law thus can be applied retroactively in conformity with the provisions of Art. 22 of RPC. Decision: A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state. “Penal Statutes” are statutes, which command or prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, and even those,
Page 1 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Facts: Carillo was sentenced with death penalty for the crimes of robbery, attempted rape and homicide. His accomplice was only charged for robbing Emma Abaya and Marcelino Lontok. Issue: W/N the penalty for Carillo was justified. Decision: The accused is a dangerous enemy of the society thus, imposition of the highest penalty if justified. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The latter must protect itself from such enemy by taking his life in retribution for his offense and as an example and warning to others. In these days of rampant criminality it should have a salutary effect upon the criminally minded to know that the courts do not shirk their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty in cases where the law so requires. People vs. Young Facts: Jimmy Young is a hired killer who committed a crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC. He refused to plea guilty because according to him, his guilt is lighter than those who ordered the killing of Alfonso Liongto. He was sentenced with death penalty in accordance with Art 248 in relation to Art 64 of the RPC. However, RA 296, which was approved 17 June 1948, provides that for a penalty of death is imposed, all justices of the Supreme Court must first concur. Said law is procedural thus can be applied to cases pending at the time of its approval. Issue: W/N Young should be charged with the crime of murder. Decision: One of the justices dissented, thus death penalty was not imposed. The killing in question was attended by evident premeditation which qualified the crime as murder: (a) it was committed in consideration of a price reward or promise and (b) with treachery. This case also provides the notion of aggravating circumstances (acts that would provide for higher penalties – art 14) and mitigating circumstances (provides for lighter penalties – art 13). Death penalty was imposed to rationalize the concept of Exemplarity: making a person example to serve as a deterrent) People vs. Revilla Facts: The accused was charged for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoners. Nicasio Junio, the prisoner, was only sentenced to suffer six days of arresto menor only, a penalty that may be served in the house of the offender because of the condition of his health. The municipality also could not feed him Nicasio for lack of appropriation, Revilla then believed that this act in permitting Nicasio to sleep in his own house was not grave in nature, being at most a mere relaxation of the rules prescribed for the care and custody of municipal prisoners. Revilla was charged under Art 223 for his actions.
Vena V. Verga
Issue: W/N the charge against Revilla is proportionate to the act he committed. Decision: No. His action then was due to a mistaken conception of his duty, hence it is obvious that the penalty imposed against him is notoriously excessive to the extent of being cruel for being out of proportion with the crime committed. The penalty was not proportionate to the evil to be curbed. Retribution, the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The penalty imposed upon the accused for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner sentenced to only six days of arresto menor being excessive, such fact should be brought to the attention of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines for him to decide whether or not it would be convenient to recommend to the national assembly the amendment of art 223 of RPC (conniving with or consenting to evasion) so as to make it more in consonance with the amplitude of the matters that a court must consider in meting out punishment to whoever may have the misfortune f infringing the precept regarding infidelity in the custody of prisoners or detained prisoners. People vs. Galano Facts: Galano was accused of falsification of one peso bill, which he used to purchase four eggs. He was found guilty and was sentenced to suffer intermediate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years and 10 months. The Solicitor General believes that the punishment is too harsh. Issue: W/N the penalty if too harsh Decisions: The punishment is too harsh and it may not actually serve the purpose of the legislator. Imprisonment may change an individual but it can also expose the person to hardened criminal. Thus, punishments should be applied with care. A copy of the decision was sent to the president for the exercise of executive clemency. IV. Two theories in Criminal Law
1. 2. 3. 4.
Classical Theory Basis of criminal liability is human free will and purpose of penalty is retribution “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” – Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious act than upon the man. Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty
Page 2 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
5. The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard to the human element.
Vena V. Verga
provisions of a municipal ordinance. The petitioner was criminally convicted by the trial court for not paying the surcharge. Issue: W/N the petitioner can be prosecuted criminally of her non-payment of the rental. Decision: No. The surcharge for non-payment if not a penalty under criminal law but only an amount added to the usual charge. It is more of an administrative penalty, which can be recovered only by civil action. VI. Common Law Crimes
Positivist theory 1. Man is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenal which pushes him to do wrong in spite or contrary to his volition 2. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon, it cannot be created and checked by application of abstract principle of law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of penalties, fixed and determined a priori. 3. Rehabilitation by means of individual measures on case to case basis. Advocates personal and individual investigation, conducted by competent body of psychiatrist and social scientist.
A. B. C.
Crimes Definition 1. Felony 2. Offense 3. Infraction of Ordinance (a) When penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and provide punishment.
definition: body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of the will of the legislature common law crimes are not recognized in the country the codification movement provided for all crimes to be codified, thus, a crime not punishable by law is not a crime at all.
VII.Power to define and punish crimes
People vs. Santiago Facts: Defendant was found guilty of killing a seven-year-old boy. He is now appealing the decision stating that Act 2886 of the Philippine Legislature, which provides that “all prosecution for offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines” is unconstitutional for amending General Order No. 58 which has a character of a constitutional law. Issue: W/N Act 2886 is unconstitutional. Decision: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the constitution but is left in the hands of the legislature so that it falls within the real of public statutory law. The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses. People vs. Taylor Facts: The defendant, being the acting editor and proprietor, manager, printer and publisher of Manila Bulletin was accused of committing libel against a member of the Philippine bar. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of libel.
De Guzman vs. Subido Facts: de Guzman who is a civil service eligible for passing the civil service exam was disqualified from any appointment for having violated the Jaywalking laws and ordinance concerning cocheros, which according to the lower court constitutes a crime. Issue: W/N said acts constitute a crime Decision: No. A penalty imposed for breach of a municipal regulation does not necessarily constitute a criminal offense. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve a least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct, corruption, malice or want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of the public office. A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public laws. Ordinances are not public laws. Criminal acts, in its commission, have some immoral intention. Conde vs. Mamenta Facts: Petitioner refused to pay the new rates of the stall she was holding stating that the increased rate was excessive. The increase is based on the
Page 3 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Decision: In the Philippines, there exist no crimes called “common law crimes” No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so by law. Libel is made a crime here by Act 277 of the US Philippine Commission. However, in order to prove that the defendant is Guilty of the crime, it must be proven that he is the „auditor, editor, or proprietor‟ of the said newspaper. There was no proof of this because evidence shows that he is merely the manager. Petition was dismissed. People vs. Pomar Facts: The manager of La Flor granted a maternity leave to Macaria but refused to pay Php 80.00 to which the employee is entitled as her regular wage as stated in Sec. 13 of Act 3071. Issue: W/N Act 3071 us unlawful exercise of police power. Decision: The police power is the power vested in the legislature of the state to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, which are not repugnant to the constitution as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the state US vs. Pablo Facts: Andres Pablo, a policeman, reported that he saw Rodrigo and Malicsi in the jueteng arena and then testified on the contrary during the trial. He was charged with perjury and convicted under Act. 1697 which was said to have repealed articles 318 and 324 of the penal code. Issue: Can the defendant be punished? Decision: The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community as well as rights of each individual. Imposing punishments should be the last resort: our laws do not merely provide for retribution but it also provides for laws that are in favor of the offender. US vs. Gustillo Facts: Gustillo was already convicted of a crime for illegal possession of firearms. However, another information was filed against him for the same crime but for a different ammunition which he already possessed at the same time and same place the first information was filed against him. Issue: W/N Gustillo may be prosecuted for the second time for the same violation.
Vena V. Verga
Decision: The prosecution violated the Philippines Bill and Act No. 89 which embody the principle that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense because this rule covers as nearly as possible every single criminal act born of a single criminal intent even though more than one crime is committed by said act. People vs. Chong Hong Facts: The defendants were convicted for violation of Ordinance No. 394, which prohibits the playing of jueteng. The court ordered for the dismissal of the case on the ground that said ordinance is null and void for it conflicts with Art 195 of the RPC, which provides for lesser penalties than the ordinance. Issue W/N Ordinance 394 conflicts with the law. Decision: It is admitted that jueteng is already prohibited and penalized in article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. But the fact that an act is already prohibited and penalized by a general law does not preclude the enactment of a municipal ordinance covering the same matter. The rule is well settled that the same act may constitute an offense against both the state and a political subdivision thereof and both jurisdictions may punish the act, without. infringing any constitutional principle. As a general rule, additional regulation to that of the state law does not constitute a conflict therewith. The fact that an ordinance enlarges upon the provisions of a statute by requiring more than the statute requires creates no conflict therewith, unless the statute limits the requirement for all cases to its own prescription. Both the ordinance and RPC prohibit and penalize the same act and the distinction in penalties is necessary because of the peculiar conditions of the locality. Ngo Yao Tit and Chia Eng Cheng vs. Sheriff of Manila Facts: Before the court is an application for the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners were charged of visiting a house where opium was smoked. They now claimed that the court erred in their decision because it does not have jurisdiction over the case. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: It is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial court of its authority to try, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is brought in the name of the city of Manila instead of the United States. That fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action does not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose a valid sentence. Offenses committed in the Philippines are crimes against the people of the Philippines.
Page 4 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
1. (a) VIII. Characteristics of criminal law (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 2. (a) (b)
Vena V. Verga
Persons subject to Military Law (Art. 2 of the Commonwealth Act No. 408, articles of war) are not immune from suit but are covered by the articles of war. Officers, members of nurse corps and soldiers belonging to the regular forces of the Philippine Army All reservist from the date of theor call to active duty and while on such active duty All trainees undergoing military duty All persons lawfully called/drafted Cades. Flying cadets and probationary third lieutenants Retainers to the camp All persons under sentence adjudged by courts martial As provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. Example: Bases agreements between US and Philippines and RP-US Visiting Forces Accord. RA No. 75 – law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic representatives. It extends the diplomatic privilege to the members of the household and domestic servants that were registered with the DFA The constitution is a law of preferential operation By virtue of principles of Pubic international law – these people possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country: Absolute Exemptions (a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state (b) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d‟affaires, ambassadors extraordinary (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Protocol) Relative Exemptions (c) consuls and vice consuls: honorary consuls not exempted.
GENERAL -- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (art 14, New Civil Code).
People vs. Galacgac Facts: Enrique Galacgac was a naturalized US citizen. He arrived in the Philippines to visit his wife and in his possession is a gun, which is gift to the said spouse. Upon reaching his in-law‟s home, he and his wife had a fight, which caused his brother in law to beat him on the head. In retaliation, he fired indiscriminately wounding his wife‟s brothers and sisters. He was accused of attempted parricide but retorted that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over him since he is an American Citizen. Issue: W/N Galagcac enjoys extra-territoriality rights Decision: No. No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of customary law of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. Note: As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused US vs. Sweet Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US Army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military authorities deprived the court if the jurisdiction to try and punish him. Issue: W/N Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try Sweet Decision: An assault committed by a military employee upon a prisoner of war is a violation of the general penal law, and as such it imposes criminal responsibility. Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary. Exemptions to the Principle of Generality 3.
Note: a) Public International Law and treaties are deemed part of the law of the land. b) For a person to be immune, he/she must be able to invoke a provision of public international law/treaty; law of preferential application or customary international law. Schneckenburger vs. Moran Facts: Petitioners is a honorary consul of Uruguay in manila charged with falsification of private documents. He objected on the jurisdiction of the Courts
Page 5 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
of First Instance on the ground that under the Philippine an US constitution, lower courts have no jurisdiction to try him Issue: W/N the lower courts have jurisdiction to try the consul. Decision: It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. Courts of First Instance were vested with original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls. Time Inc. vs. Reyes Facts: Enrile and Villegas filed a suit against Time Inc for an article regarding corruption in Asia where the two were featured. RA 4363 provides that public officials should file their petitions in the place where they are rendering their service. Villegas filed his petition in Rizal and not in Manila. Issue: W/N the case will prosper and W/N corporations may be sued Decision: The rule is that where a statute creates a right and provides a remedy for its enforcement, the remedy is exclusive; and where it confers jurisdiction upon a particular court, that jurisdiction is likewise exclusive, unless otherwise provided. Hence, the venue provisions of Republic Act No. 4363 should be deemed mandatory for the party bringing the action, unless the question of venue should be waived by the defendant which was not the case here. A corporation is immune from suit but it may, by writ of prohibition, seek relief against the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. And a foreign corporation seeking a writ of prohibition against further maintenance of a suit, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is not bound by the ruling of the court in which the suit was brought. WHO vs. Aquino Facts: Respondent judge issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects of the petitioner, an official of the WHO. Despite intervention of the Solicitor General and the DFA that Mr. Verstuyft is covered with diplomatic immunity, the judge refused to withdraw the search warrant. Issue: W/N the action of the judge is a violation of RA 75 and thus an abuse of discretion. Decision: Yes. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by 1. 2. 3. 4.
Vena V. Verga
the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of government as, in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY -- As a rule. Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. If the power to define crimes is the power of the sovereign, it must be followed that such sovereign can only exercise such power within its jurisdiction/territory. Territory Atmosphere Interior Waters Maritime zone
Note: Limits of the territorial sea (by UNCLOS) is only 3 miles from the seashore. What is followed now is the 12-mile rule plus the 12-mile contiguous zone. But for purposes of criminal law, our jurisdiction only extends to the territorial sea. Classification of Vessels: 1. Foreign public vessels – war vessels/war ships (ex. Lawton Ship in US vs. Fowler). War vessels are considered to be an extension of the nationality of the owner of said vessel and cannot be subjected to the laws of the state (a) US vs. Fowler Facts: Theft was committed on board a transport while navigating the high seas. The accused were brought to trial and defendants contends that the Court of First Instance have no jurisdiction over the case because the crime was committed in a foreign public vessel and on high seas. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: No. Courts of First Instance of the Philippines have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of crimes committed on the high seas on board of a transport or other vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong an Foreign Public Vessels
Page 6 of 100
which came from Hong Kong and was bound to Mexico via the ports of Manila. which docked at the port of Cebu. Foreign Merchant Vessels not in transit 5. /vvverga Page 7 of 100 . the vessel is within the territorial waters and thus. we observe the English rule (a) US vs. Jose). This is just a matter of comity. Importation is complete when the ship anchored in the Philippine port. (US vs. Issue: W/N the courts have jurisdiction over a foreign vessel in transit. otherwise. 2. Decision: When a foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port. Bull) Facts: The defendant was charged with unlawful possession and sale of opium. The defense moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the courts have no jurisdiction since the act does not constitute a crime. No. because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. Decision: When a vessel comes within 3 miles from the headland which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay. carabao and other animals from Formosa to Manila. the person in possession of opium on board the vessel is liable. authorities found said substances. But our courts acquire jurisdiction when the tunes of opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine sol. Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country 1. such crimes are triable in that country where they were committed. Note: The state is not obligated to give immunity on crimes done in foreign public vessels. the laws of the Philippines shall apply. The mere possession of opium on such a ship. does not bring about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates on avoiding. Exemptions to the territorial application of criminal law Article 2 of RPC provides that its provisions shall be forced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who: 1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. Issue: W/N the Philippines has jurisdiction over this case. A charge of illegal importation was served against him. French Rule – such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country. a foreign steamer. unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. It is not necessary that the opium be discharged or taken from the ship (US vs.N Bull. (b) Foreign Merchant Vessel In Transit Foreign Merchant Vessels Note: A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs. not the citizenship of its owner. Bull) English Rule –The English only exercise their jurisdiction on issues that involve the internal management of vessel. regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. Note: In the Philippines. Issue: W/N the crime of illegal importation of opium in to the Philippines was proven. (c) US vs. failed to provide suitable means for securing animas while they are in transit.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. Look Chaw Vena V. Such neglect was a violation of Act. without being used in our territory. Verga Foreign merchant vessels – more or less subjected to the territorial laws. It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. Decision: Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in the Philippines. French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against another. considered a warship. A US Army transport is US vs. 275 of the Philippine Commission. who was the master of a vessel transporting cattle. (US vs. Ah Sing Facts: Defendant is a fireman of the steamship Shun Chang. He was on board the steamship Errol. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the Philippine laws. Defendant brought eight cans of opium and upon inspection. Bull contends that the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over his offense. because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. which was of English nationality. Bull Facts: H. A continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters.
(2) aggravates a crime. piracy and mutiny on the high seas. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which lie may be carried. Note: This include. conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. inciting was and giving motives for reprisals. should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. when committed. It is but a logical construction that wherever "Spain" is mentioned in the Penal Code. which took effect two months after the trial. but not to common law countries. 1732 which imposed both the fine and the imprisonment should be applied on this case. Defendants contend that the provisions of the penal code dealing with piracy are no longer in force. nulla poena sine lege -. The judge imposed a sentence with heavier penalty in accordance with a new law. the word should be substituted by the expression. People vs." Piracy is a crime not against any particular State but against all mankind. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. espionage. violation of neutrality. Vena V. Ex post facto laws Rule: No ex post facto laws shall be enacted. Decision: Yes. Verga Note: Counterfeiting or forging Philippine coins or bank notes in a foreign country may be prosecuted before Philippine civil courts. US vs. while being a public officer or employee. subsidiary imprisonment can not be lawfully imposed. /vvverga Page 8 of 100 . PRINCIPLE OF IRRESTROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY – penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was not committed. or makes it greater than it was. 4) When the offender. Issue: W/N Act.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. flight to enemy‟s country. 3) When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction to the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. and punishes such in act. This is true to civil law countries. He was sentenced to pay a fine and was also sentenced to imprisonment in case of insolvency with respect to the fine imposed. By virtue of the Treaty of Paris. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and law of nations. At 366 of RPC provide that crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. to the economical interest of the country. Nullum crimen. or other offense. 1732 did not go into force until after the commission of the offense. Inasmuch as Act No. even in abroad. unless they are favorable to the person accused. C. in the exercise of public functions are: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 5) direct bribery indirect bribery frauds against the public treasury possession of prohibited interest malversation of public funds or property failure of accountable officer to render accounts illegal use of public funds or property failure to make delivery of public funds or property falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position. Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the US. Note: Introducing fake currency in the Philippine is as dangerous as forging or counterfeiting of the same. it should be substituted by the words "United States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 2) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities by the Government. "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands. treason. Issue: W/N the provisions of the penal code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force. Macasaet Facts: The defendant was proven guilty of selling native wine at retail without the license required by law. It is logical for laws to look forward and not backward. Note: This case is an exception to the exception. An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal in act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done. No. Decision: No. Penal statutes cannot be made retroactive with respect to a crime. LOL-LO and SARAW Facts: The defendants were charged of the crime of piracy for pirating two Dutch boats as well as raping two of the women. correspondence with hostile country. Note: crimes that may be committed.
are punished. as amended by R. (4) alters the legal rules of evidence. as long as he is not a habitual delinquent.A. which concern civil matters. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. Issue: W/N Subido be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. or a proclamation of amnesty.000 pesos only. Considering that Art. He is petitioning for habeas corpus. 8 (a) and 18 of RA No. Although section 18 penalizes a violation of any of the provision of RA 1632. lighter penalty. Decision: No. as amended is favorable to the accused. in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. the same should be made applicable to him. to pay a fine of 500 pesos. Sheriff then attached whatever rights. having already served for more than three years is entitled to be discharged under the provisions of Art. 22 of the RPC. willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. he cannot also be required to serve his civil liability to the offended party in form of subsidiary imprisonment because this is no longer required by the aforesaid article. to indemnify the offended party. After 3 years. Even if the accused is serving final judgment.000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Decision: No. and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. he can avail of the amended. (a) Degree of Imposable Penalty is reduced People vs. Mayor Arsenio Lacson in the sum of 10. he has not yet been released. This was denied. Issue: W/N the law is unconstitutional Decision: A bill of attainder is a legislative act. become or remain members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association" after June 20. Subido Facts: CFI of Manila found the accused guilty of libel and is hereby sentenced to 3 months of arresto mayor with accessory penalties of the law. Applying Art. 1700 or the Anti Subversion Act on the ground that is a bill of attainder. even if the same was not stated in the decision of CA. When favorable to the accused Vena V. Verga People vs. The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal matters. 1957. Accused-appellant is favored by the retroactive force of Art. The petitioner. Macasaet Escalante vs. Issue: W/N the petition is justified. The principle of the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as it is favorable to the defendant is sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code. the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetuated prior thereto. (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only. 22 of the penal code. Lower court states that he should suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act expressly states that the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed "After the approval of this Act. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws (When penal law apply retroactively) 1. Ferrer Facts: The defendants assail the constitutionality of RA No. It is so provided in Art. which inflicts punishment without trial. 39 of the RPC. 6132 saying that it is an ex post facto law. and so he filed a third party claim enjoining the sheriff to proceed with the sale. interest of accused in the twostorey building. In re: Kay Villegas Kami. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. Decision: Yes. The CA ordered the accused to pay a fine of 500 pesos and indemnity is reduced to 5. The said law prohibits the petitioner‟s nominee to be nominated in the constitutional convention since he represents a part. /vvverga Page 9 of 100 . Appealed to the Court of Appeals. 39 as amended. Santos Facts: Petitioner was convicted for the crime of estafa and was sentenced to serve for 2 years and 11 months imprisonment to indemnify the offended party. 39." Only those who "knowingly. Facts: The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of Sec. but the same was registered in the name of Agapito Subido. Bill of Attainder as Ex Post Facto Law People vs. not to laws. 5465 which exempts an accused person from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. Issue: W/N the said law is an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional. Inc. Lower court issued a writ of injunction. Appellant said that he could not be required to serve the amount of fine and indemnity in the form of subsidiary imprisonment because said judgment did not expressly provide that.
found guilty. People vs. pleading that there is no sufficient legal ground for continuing his imprisonment any longer. Act No. felonies and misdemeanors. Decision: It is believed that the Revised Penal Code. X. This is true to civil law countries. but as to such causes of action or pending actions existing laws shall remain in full force and effect. Valdez A. But the petitioner herein continued serving his sentence. Section 13 of the new act provides as follows: "All laws and parts of laws now in force. Nicola Lachica married the victim. Clemente Laceste. has been sanctioned in the Revised Penal Code. With Nicolas Lachica. B. 3815. All penal laws have been declared retroactive by the Honorable Supreme Court. B. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY: Nullum crimen. no liability if felonious act is committed without free will Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted No person shall be held to answer for criminal offenses without due process of law – criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. Moran Exceptions to retroactivity of laws (a) Accused is a habitual criminal (Art. Decision: No. IX. which was not affected by the marriage of his coaccused and the offended party. E. and article 448 of the Penal Code then in force. has clearly intended to give retroactive effect to article 22. XI. Magdalena de Ocampo. instead of "without prejudice. all crimes must be so defined and penalized under the law (art. and was accordingly relieved from the criminal prosecution by virtue of section 2. shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission. Act No. prays the court to set him at liberty through the writ of habeas corpus.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Note: Removal of subsidiary imprisonment to pay civil liability (b) Prescribing Grounds for Mitigation or Extinction of Criminal Liability Vena V.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. Verga Facts: The accused was charged with offense of injurias graves under articles of the RPC. Free-will or freedom to choose between right and wrong. committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code. applies to the case of the herein petitioner.Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the Page 10 of 100 . Issue: W/N the new law can apply to the accused. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law A. (c) Later Statute Precludes Application to Existing Actions or Pending Cases Tavera vs. because section 366 provides: "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in article 22 of this Code." The general rule that penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the accused has no application where the later law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. last paragraph. /vvverga Principle of Pro Reo -. nulla poena sine lege -. (c) Providing for Prescription of offenses D." If it was not the intention of the Legislature to make the new Code retroactive. 21) PERSONAL – Penal laws does not allow anyone to assume another‟s criminal liability PRINCIPLE OF CERTAINTY – every act made punishable by law must be so defined as to leave no penumbra of doubt or uncertainty as to its applicability to a given case. are hereby repealed: Provided. Santos Facts: The petitioner. and that he should be discharged from prison. That nothing herein contained shall operate as a repeal of existing laws in so far as they are applicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. so far as the same may be in conflict herewith. And the Legislature." The principle of retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they favor the defendant. 1773. as it was in the Code that preceded it. it would have used the words "notwithstanding" or "in spite of". but not to common law countries. he had been prosecuted. the penalty. which provided that such a marriage extinguished penal liability. article 344. Other fundamental Assumptions of Penal Law A. under section 366 of the New Penal Code. F. 22) (b) Accused Disregards Later law and invokes prior statute under which he was prosecuted. Issue: W/N Laceste should be freed. and sentenced to commitment for the crime of rape. and hence. Laceste vs.
Liberal Construction In Favor of the Offender (a) Reason Note: Ambiguity – occurs when an act falls under more than one law or when the law is susceptible to more than one interpretation People vs. There were also testimonies which were inconsistent to the guilt of the accused. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not made clearly so be a statute. The reason for this is the “tenderness of the law of the rights of individuals. There were two witnesses with contradicting testimonies.a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it. one consistent and another inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Abad Santos). Vena V. Proof of guilt must convince beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. accused pleaded not guilty.Construction of penal laws A. The court agrees with the accused that where facts are susceptible of two interpretations. This rule may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. The accused maintained his innocence saying that tit was the victim who accidentally shot himself while they were battling for the gun. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused (US vs. (a) When the law is clear. Issue: W/N the Alzaga should be charged beyond reasonable doubt. B. 9. Charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of the one who complains of rape should be regarded with utmost caution and that the person charged with the offense should not be convicted unless the complainant's testimony is impeccable and rings true throughout. Where inculpatory facts are susceptible of two interpretations. 9. RTC convicted the defendant but he appealed contending that evidences were not enough to warrant a conviction. The case at bar falls short to the quantum of evidence required to sustain a conviction of rape thereby creating reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt. Actus non facit reum. People vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. The purpose is not to enable the guilty person to escape punishment through technicality but to provide precise definition of forbidden acts. Ng Facts: The defendant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. or those that result from negligence. Where the law is clear and unambiguous. which is the intention or motivation behind it. The informations merely contained the first element – that is. then we have to sustain the interpretation. Purisima Facts: Twenty six petitions for review were filed by the People of the Philippines involving the information filed charging the respective accused with violation of PD No. Decision: No. The task of the court is to apply the /vvverga Page 11 of 100 . blunt or pointed weapon – but it failed to include the second element. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies. The rule is that reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused. there is no room for interpretation. Penal laws should be construed strictly. Alzaga Facts: Roy Alzaga was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of murder. which leads to acquittal. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for moral certainty of guilt . but not a felony resulting from culpa. See: Principle of Pro-reo B. The courts of first instances issued an order quashing the in formations filed alleging that the facts failed to state one essential element of the crime Issue: W/N the informations filed by the people were sufficient in form and substance to constitute an offence of „illegal possession of deadly weapon‟ penalized under PD No. Decision: No. there is no room for the application of this rule (People vs. and the discretion of the court limited. During arraignment. the accused should be acquitted since evidence failed to fulfill the test of moral certainty to support a conviction. nisi mens sit rea -. Verga XII. carrying outside one‟s residence of any bladed. Penal statues must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to which mankind would be safe. This is true to a felony characterized by dolo. Issue: W/N the evidences were enough to warrant a charge of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Gatchalian).The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This kind of construction is very much open to police extortion thus must be avoided. Decision: No.
which she and the respondent had. There are two constructions of these prohibitions: (c) The phrase „at the municipal slaughter house‟ may be taken as limiting and restricting both the word „slaughtered‟ and “killed for food” in section 30 and “killing for food” in section 33. 1 of Act. Gaanan vs. which will harmonize the intention and object. 4200 because a telephone extension device was neither among those devices enumerated in Section 1 of the law nor was it similar to those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein. The phrase is ambiguous and the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. C. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the meaning of private conversation and private communication. Chico Facts: Defendant was charged for violating sec. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the phrase "device(s) or arrangement(s)" Decision: The use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity.A. When the language if a statute is susceptible of more than one construction. 30 and 33 of the act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in sec. The case of Ramirez turns on a different note. the law is applied according to its express terms. 30 and 33 of Act 1147. He contends that he is ignorant of the law and that the prohibition is only against the actual use of identical banners and devices which were used during the Philippine insurrection. that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the legislature. and the statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders” as among the acts punishable. /vvverga Page 12 of 100 . (d) Appellant contends that since in his town. The afore stated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person. When there is ambiguity. Cultural environment by which the legislature is operating can also be a source of the meaning as well as the intention of the law. the preamble may be used. The phrase “ at the municipal slaughterhouse” may bet taken as limiting and restricting the words “killed for food” Ramirez vs. US vs. Issue: W/N the defendant incurred liability. banner or device used during the insurrections in the Philippines. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle from theft. No. and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice. Decision: Yes. and there is doubt as to the subject matter to which the law is to be applied. she presented a transcript of her conversation with the respondent. The contention is nonsense. The intention of the legislature and object aimed at are to control the literal interpretation of a particular language in a statute. Toribio Vena V. entitled An Act to prohibit and penalize wire-tapping and other related violations of private communication. respondent filed a case against her for violation of Republic Act 4200. the latter construction should be adopted. CA) Facts: This case involves an act of overhearing a conversation by use of an extension line." Must be followed. Intermediate Appellate Court (in contrast with Ramirez vs. Garcia for allegedly vexing and humiliating her. Petitioner also alleged that private conversation. because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R. If the law is ambiguous. 30. thus. Verga (b) Facts: Defendant was charged for violation of Art. the task of the court of to know the meaning and intention of the law. In cases like this. and other purposes. not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of any gadget. there are no slaughterhouses. Court of Appeals Facts: Petitioner filed a case against private respondent. 1696 of the Philippine commission which prohibits the display of any flag. the court shall resort to the principle that the spirit of the law controls the letter. branding and slaughtering of large cattle without a license. Will not also apply when strict construction will defeat the intent. Issue: W/N the accused should be held liable for the violation.A. In support of her allegations. is not the same with private communication. Language capable of more than one meaning is to be taken in the sense. US vs. Decision: There is no ambiguity. the prohibitions of Act 1147 does not apply. Decision: Yes.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) law. policy and purpose. Sec. which regulates the registration. Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. As a result of her actions.
as it was the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the Legislature. the offense with which the appellee is charged in the information does not fall under article 303 of the Revised Penal Code but under the second to the last paragraph of article 302 where the offense therein defined is penalized with arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional. which remained in their original form. is incorrect. This came to the knowledge of the real spouse thus she filed a complaint against Corazon for using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio. Note: There are already amendments that use English terms. then "rice' is included under the term 'semilla alimenticia' or cereal seed. Baking vs.” It will be observed that the Spanish equivalent of the word "filed" is not found in the Spanish text. For these amendments. the defendant submits that the doubt should always be resolved in favor of the accused." The allowance for good conduct "for each month of good behavior" then unquestionably refers to good behavior of a prisoner while he is serving his term as a convict and not otherwise. It may be hulled rice (arroz) or it may be rice seeds (palay). This time. there is no need to go back to the Spanish text. Decision: It is in the light of our cultural environment that the law must be construed. rape or acts of lasciviousness. Inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish. Issue: W/N Art 97 of the RP is applicable to detention prisoners or prisoners who are just serving preventive imprisonment. Under the circumstances. People vs. Corazon filed for support for their son.. But for those. Since the first complaint filed was not the complaint of the offended party. and the defendant was never in jeopardy. Verga Legamia vs. shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party…. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC. the Spanish text is controlling. Therefore. Director of prisons Facts: Petitioner has been in detention for 18 years of preventive imprisonment for the crime of rebellion. abduction. used in the Spanish text of article 303 of the Revised Penal Code. the Spanish text governs. Inasmuch as hulled rice (arroz) cannot be considered as seedling (semilla alimenticia). Because it speaks of the buena conducta observada por el penado . Decision: The term "any prisoner" in the English text of Art. There is no doubt that Article 97 does not embrace detention prisoners within its reach. People vs. he contended that the term rice does not only mean hulled rice but also includes palay. Issue: W/N the plea for double jeopardy should be granted. Intermediate Appellate Court Facts: Petitioner has been living with a married man for 20 years and the relationship ended with the death of the man. in the Spanish text. the Spanish text is controlling. the thing stolen was really hulled rice (arroz) but there is nothing in the complaint which shows that fact. /vvverga Page 13 of 100 . Our society is a tolerant one and surely. Issue: W/N the phrase "hulled rice" was within the meaning of "semilla alimenticia" as used in the Spanish text.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the Spanish text should prevail." who is a convict or a person already sentenced by final judgment. Balubar D. which is controlling. The first complaint was made by the chief of police of Dumagete. The accused was tried and convicted. Issue: W/N Corazon violated the Anti-Alias Law. it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. Manaba filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of jeopardy for the same offense. People vs. After the death of husband Emilio. Manaba Facts: Manaba was charged with rape. Decision: The English word "cereal". Decision: The third paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: The offenses of seduction. The victim then filed the same complaint. If the word rice includes the grain in its original state without the hull being taken away. "el penado. In cases of doubt in the interpretation of the Revised Penal Code. He is claiming for allowance for good conduct as provided for by Art 97 of the RPC. 97 regarding good conduct allowance is. because the complaint had not been filed by the offended party.not one under "prison preventiva. Mesias Facts: The defendant was accused of robbing seven sacks of rice and before arraignment. into which was translated the phrase "semilla alimenticia". The judgment of the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. but by the chief of police. The complaint merely alleges that the object stolen was seven sacks of rice. but the judgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter of the action. the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons.
Dancel Vena V. 6389 which took effect on September 10. 503. the new law shall be applied. Almuete Facts: The defendant supposedly violated Sec 39 of he Agricultural Tenancy Law which is premised on the existence of the rice share tenancy system. which was penalized under the old law. Where the repeal is absolute and not a reenactment or repeal by implication. 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. The act of pre-reaping and pre-treshing without notice to the landlord. an Administrative Compilation. the ordinance was repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being prosecuted. "laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse. meaning any other member than an eye. The conflict arose from the ambiguous term “any other members” which is necessary for the charge. The English text contained “loss on any other part of his body” while the Spanish text provided the loss of “any other member” resulting in “disfigurement”. 1971. the law itself also ceases). XIII. Later cases seem to suggest that loss of teeth does not constitute disfigurement because it can easily be replaced. B. The victim lost four of his front teeth. applies to the case at bar. Repeals David vs. Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative /vvverga Page 14 of 100 . The accused is not relieved of liability from the requisite “deforme” even if the victim can lessen the deformity through artificial means. or custom or practice to the contrary. It is significant that section 39 is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform Code whose section 172 repeals "all laws or part of any law inconsistent with" its provisions. The defendant must be acquitted. To prosecute it as an offense when the Code of Agrarian Reforms is already in force would be repugnant to the policy and spirit of that Code and would subvert the manifest legislative intent not to punish anymore pre-reaping sod pre-threshing without notice to the landholder. series of 1934 since under Article 7 of the Civil Code. is no longer punishable. which was an offense under the Agricultural Tenancy. Decision: In this case. the offense ceases to be criminal. The Code instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject to certain conditions indicated in section 4 thereof. The prohibition against pre-threshing has no more raison d'etre because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in section 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code. Such is the case at bar. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty. the legal maxim cessante ratione legis. Spanish text is given more weight. A. Tamayo Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an ordinance. Verga Facts: Petitioner is assailing the promotion of Angel Dancel to Chief of Tax Registration a position to which he claims to be lawfully entitled. which prescribes a minimum efficiency of 85% for promotion. the crime is obliterated. was superceded by the Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules under which his rating of 84% is considered a high degree of efficiency. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other member". While the case was pending appeal. Thus. Issue: W/N the accused is still liable for his actions.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Facts: Balubar was found guilty of the crime of physical injuries by the lower court. the Code of Agrarian Reforms. Decision. as redesignated in Republic Act No. Issue: W/N the absolute repeal obliterated the criminal liability. 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. Decision: The Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in sections 4 and 35 of the Code). He further contends that EO No. Issue: W/N Almuete violated a law. 2) 3) People vs. One who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. or a leg resulting to "Deforme" or "disfigured". cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing. Issue: W/N EO 503 was repealed by Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules. an arm. a hand. a foot. No. Decision: The repeal is absolute. 503. has ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law. or the Code of Agrarian Reforms. The Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules was prepared merely by the Bureau of Civil Service and could not possibly have repealed Executive Order No. 1) Different effects of repeal of penal law If repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law." People vs.
which define and punish grave insults. A penal law. such that the two laws cannot stand together. Perfecto Facts: Gregorio Perfecto. and such statute or law is repealed by implication if the later statute is so repugnant to the earlier one that the two cannot stand together or if the whole subject of the earlier statute is covered by Buscayno vs. 2. one of the two laws must give way. Where the later statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts. 277). (a) (b) Repeal by implication is not favored There is implied repeal if there are irreconcilable inconsistencies. Verga (2) the latter one having the same object. So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not. abuse or insult any minister of the Crown or other person shall be punished. PD No. for the reason that said provisions of the Penal Code had been repealed by the Libel Law (Act No. c. Decision: The Philippine Libel Law. Issue: W/N Art 256 is still in force. If a criminal law deals with the same subject as a prior law and is inconsistent with and repugnant to the prior law. 885 which repealed RA 1700 took effect. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal. the former is thereby repealed. the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. People vs. may be repealed either expressly or by necessary implication. or insult. he could not be punished. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic principles of government. Express or implied repeal – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done. it shall be the one applied to him. 1. and (b) that even though the evidence did show that he had violated the provisions of the Penal Code providing a punishment for injurias graves. People vs. has had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as related to written defamation. expressly provides in its Section 7 that "acts committed in violation" of the former law before the effectivity of the said decree "shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance /vvverga Page 15 of 100 . 277. 885 extinguished the criminal liabilities of persons charged with violation of the older law.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law. Where the latter or revising statute clearly covers the whole subject matter of antecedent acts. when those crimes are expressed publicly in writing. 1. Effects (1) Pending Criminal Action is not dismissed C. 277-the Libel Law. Decision: Provisions of the Penal Code. They were accused of subversion under RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. and which was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule applicable to the subject. Military Commissions No. even if the repealing law is partial or relative. Vena V. Defendant was acquitted. 257 of the Penal Code for attacking the virtue of the members of the Senate. so that if the repeal is more lenient to them. Issue: W/N the penal code provisions were already repealed by the Libel Law. the latter is held to be repealed by necessary implication. and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused. editor of La Nacion was found guilty of violating Art. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. Sometime of 1976. like any other statute. Defendant questions whether this article is still in force or whether the Libel law already repealed it. The appellant contends (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial did not show that he was guilty of the crime of injurias graves as defined under the Penal Code. Art 256 of the Penal Code provides that any person who by writing. Decision: No. 6 and 25 Facts: The petitioners were accused of rebellion for having allegedly participated in public uprising to overthrow the government. 1700. previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary implication. Act No. Castro Facts: The defendant was charged with injuries graves for sending letter to a medical health officer which contained insults and accusations. in repealing or superseding Republic Act No. are repealed by Act No. the crime still remains to be a crime. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment. which is the Revised Anti-Subversion Law. That decree. One of the petitioners contends that her criminal liability was extinguished by the repeal. if the case is still pending in court. Issue: W/N in repealing RA 1700. PD No. shall defame. abuse. An implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law. it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.
No. good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense. Respondent demurred that even id Act No. 3155 was declared unconstitutional. Decision: Yes. The fact that Presidential Decree No. Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment. It is similar to article 366 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the effectivity of the Revised Penal Code shall be punished in accordance with the old Penal Code and the laws in force at the time of their commission. frustrated. so the act or omission will no longer be penalized. Therefore. is itself repealed. which repeals a prior law. the first law repealed shall not be revived unless expressly provided. Verga Facts: Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of Act No. Act no. thus. (2) If the repeal is express. since being void. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. 3. it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. unless the crime is the result of culpa In crimes punished under special laws. the moral trait of the offender is considered. 2. Decision: Section 12 of the administrative code provides that a law. the moral trait of the offender is not considered. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal former laws or parts of laws by implication. thus. 3052 which was repealed by Act. No 3155 will be revived. Soliman Facts: Defendant was accused of perjury under Art 1697. People vs. but by implication. good faith is not a defense 2. it is not inconsistent with such former law. D. /vvverga Page 16 of 100 . The purpose of the party is the decisive factor in determining whether it is a subversive organization. 319 of the penal code.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) with the provisions of the former Art" and that nothing in the said decree "shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of" Republic Act No. Accused contends that his criminal liability should be extinguished because of the repeal. Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws As to moral trait of the offender In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. As to use of good faith as defense In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. 3155 which prohibits the importation of cattle from foreign countries to the Philippines. Act. Act. Issue: W/N Act. No 3155 is constitutional. It is entirely unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the statute attacked because even if it were declared unconstitutional. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. Issue: W/N the criminal liability was extinguished because of the repeal. the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law. is not expressly. 3052. Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied (1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed. (2) But penalty under second law will be applied if favorable to accused. the old rule continues in force where a law. which expressly repealed a prior law. Youngberg Vena V. That saving or transitory clause is reenacted in section 14(i) of the National Security Code. 1697. No. 2657 expressly repealed Act no. is itself repealed. 885 does not mention the CPP does not mean that the party is no longer regarded as a subversive organization. and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. which also defines and penalizes perjury. 1700. the provisions of the penal code is revived. 1697 impliedly repeals Art. In crimes punished under special laws. 1. the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender. there are attempted. 1697 was expressly repealed by a Section in the administrative code. No. While he was serving his sentence. the petitioner would not be entitled to relief because of Act. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. No. the petitioner would still be prohibited from importing because Act. (3) Effects of nullity of repealing laws Cruz vs. XIV.
In other words. is not a defense. XV. Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law. but before the same could be accomplished. The case goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for violation of Republic Act No. that act is wrong. the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. then malice must be proven. good faith is a defense. In crimes punished under special laws. 4. The contention of the mayor that he did not profit anything from the transaction. SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE /vvverga Page 17 of 100 . C. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. Sunico. Verga Judgment affirmed. They compelled the pilot to change destination. There is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. but because with or without a law. unless the special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated. Article 2 Source of RPC (1) Rafael del Pan‟s Correctional Code of 1916 (2) Code of Maruecos (3) Original Draft of German Penal Code of 1913 Where offense punishable under RPC is also punished under military law Piracy is triable anywhere (see Lo-Lol and Saraw) Questions & Answers 1. Consequently. On appeal. In violation of special law. As to degree of participation In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered. arise. offenders are classified as principal. Where malice is a factor. will the act still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. Under special laws. there are no attempted or frustrated stages. he was acquitted. B. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice. it is malum in se. the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty. and that he did not act with intent to gain. accomplice and accessory. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In crimes punished under special laws. Vena V. good faith is a defense. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability. 2. 5. A. The crime involved is malum prohibitum. the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. when there is more than one offender. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. A mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. The losing bidder challenged the validity of the contract. take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law. which such law seeks to prevent. When given a problem. He appeals alleging his defenses raised in the Sandiganbayan that he did not profit from the transaction. the election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. In crimes punished under special laws. In trial. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. the military was alerted. but the trial court sustained its validity. The award was even endorsed by the municipal council as the most advantageous to the municipality. an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter’s register the name of a certain voter. and that he did not act with intent to gain. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalized only when the pernicious effects. What was the crime committed? Grave coercion. In the case of People v. She was also the highest bidder. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). unless the special law punishes an omission. thus. it was held by he Supreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime. Rule.
Question & Answer A vessel is not registered in the Philippines. except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. for our courts to take cognizance of any crime committed on board a vessel during its voyage. The French Rule Vena V. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas. Any crime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel. Then the vessel entered our territory. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule. More than this. because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong. The intention is to do away with that requirement so that as long as the vessel is not registered under the laws of any country. Under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure. it is the foreign country‟s criminal law that will apply. the requirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Philippine laws has been deleted from Section 25. A crime is committed outside Philippine territorial waters. However. Otherwise. Will the Revised Penal Code apply? Yes. (2) /vvverga Page 18 of 100 . there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: (1) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country. As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters. So whenever you use the word territory. So the intention is clear to adopt generally accepted principles of international law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course of its voyage. the vessel must be registered in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws. Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere. unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. such that wherever the pirates may go. The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. our courts can take cognizance of the crime committed in such vessel. A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory. these rules will not apply. do not limit this to land area only. except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. paragraph c of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied. interior waters and maritime zone. Philippine laws shall govern. the revised provision added the phrase “in accordance with generally accepted principles of International Law”.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications: (1) (2) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory. there is no occasion to apply the two rules. Verga The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies. Intraterritorial application In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Extraterritorial application Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Under international law. Under international law rule. which applies only to merchant vessels. as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country. a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general. they can be prosecuted. however.
With the revision. the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official‟s functions. When he agreed to the falsification of the deposition. the taking of the deposition is not the function of the consul.000. Piracy is considered a crime against the law of nations. Falsification. the crime would not have been prosecutable in our court. if the Filipino. The functions contemplated are those. he was doing so as a public officer in the service of the Philippine government. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being public officers or employees. There is. since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines. However. Illustration: When a Filipino who is already married in the Philippines. what crime or crimes have been committed? Yes. which means that the provision is not /vvverga Page 19 of 100 . under the law. those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. the deponent approached the consul‟s daughter and requested that certain parts of the deposition be changed in consideration for $10. However. which are. contracts another marriage abroad. The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to any other crime committed in a foreign country which does not come under any of the exceptions and which is not a crime against national security. if the second marriage was celebrated within the Philippine embassy. he commits the crime of concubinage for which he can be prosecuted. Article 3: Felonies HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE Punishable by the Revised Penal Code Question & Answer A consul was to take a deposition in a hotel in Singapore. Under the Rules of Court. But the Filipino can not be prosecuted when he comes back to the Philippines. it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code . a consul can take depositions or letters rogatory. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country. After the deposition. to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country. Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his official duties. reference should be made to the provision of paragraph c of Section15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code. So whenever you encounter the term felony. This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used. Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. his function being the promotion of trade and commerce with another country.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Prior to the revision. therefore. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony. Verga Normally.” This is a very important part of the exception. Will the crime be subject to the Revised Penal Code? If so. In your answer. he may be prosecuted here. Paragraph 5 of Article 2. [they] should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions:” As a general rule. Vena V. XVI. The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code.00. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. because the bigamy was committed in a foreign country and the crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of Article 2. after the second marriage. a definite provision of the law making it the consul‟s function to take depositions. The daughter persuaded the consul and the latter agreed. however. because Title I of Book 2 does not include rebellion. the crime committed is bigamy. registration is not anymore a requirement and replaced with generally accepted principles of international law. use the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. The crime may be regarded as an act of piracy as long as it is done with “intent to gain”. returns to the Philippines and cohabits here with his second wife.
such act is not a crime. Acts may be omissions or commissions. WITHOUT EVIL INTENTION. one killing his companion. Romana was acquitted. Nullum crimen. Divino was held liable for culpable felony because the acts he committed were out of ignorance with the intent to bring about remedy instead of harm. Mere passive presence at the scene of another‟s crime. undertakes to render medical assistance to another person. Elements: 1. People vs. not being regular practitioner.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) extended to crimes under special laws. although his ignorance may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Culpable Felonies – performed without malice. If there is no law that defines an act as a crime and provides for its penalty. which requires that the damage be inflicted without malice but through a voluntary act. act committed by means of dolo (b) Act is performed with deliberate intent. A specific instance is found in Article 160 – Quasi-Recidivism. the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. Decision: One who. WHEN THERE IS NEITHER MALICE OR FAULT People vs. mere silence and failure to give alarm. Verga PERSON CAUSING INJURY. Catangay was tasked to negotiate the distance. Classification of Felonies Intentional Felonies (a) Act or omission of offender is malicious. Vena V. victim's death having been purely accidental and wholly involuntary on the part of the accused. Note that the word "felony" is used. B. /vvverga Page 20 of 100 . his action lacks the element essential for holding that it was performed with reckless negligence. The discharge of a firearm that caused the. On the night of the crime. nulla poena sine lege. and the fact that he acted in good faith and according to the best of his ability does not relieve him from responsibility. he accidentally stumbled onan embankment and two shots were discharged. The embankment cannot also be anticipated. from such treatment. 3. Note: The phrase “punishable by law” is not only constrained to those acts that are punishable by the RPC. The case of Romana was appealed because there is no strong evidence that can prove that she was an accomplice of Martin. there was no intent because Catangay had a very good relationship with the victim. Issue: W/N Divino committed a crime considering he acted on good faith. 2. Crimes can also be punishable by special laws. Note: Reckless Negligence means voluntary act without malice. is liable for any injuries resulting. which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment. only external acts are punished Omission is synonymous to inaction. He asked his two companions to watch over their prey while he looks for A. Ramirez Facts: Pedro Ramirez went on hunting together with two other companions. Catangay Facts: Catangay was found guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. Issue: W/N Romana‟s act of omission is punishable. MAY BE LIABLE FOR CULBABLE FELONY US vs. act committed by means of culpa (a) Negligence – lack of foresight (b) Imprudence – lack of skill 1. There must be a low requiring the performance of such act. US vs. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. In this case. There was no negligence either because opening the latch while approaching the quarry is very usual for hunters. Issue: W/N Catangay was guilty of reckless negligence Decision: No. Unfortunately. Decision: No. Definition: Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the law. 2. before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same. Alfonsa became more injured and deformed after the treatment. Silvestre and Atienza Facts: Martin and Romana were both convicted of the crime of arson by the Court of First Instance. Divino Facts: Divino was charged for the crime of lesiones graves for burning the feet Alfonsa believing in good faith that applying petroleum on her sores and ulcers would cure her wounds. shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty. But as he was nearing the quarry.
Crimes punished under special laws. proof of the fact of the sale of prohibited drugs and food products is sufficient to sustain a conviction of a violation of the statute. 2. and those of his fellow beings. Issue: W/N defendant Siy Cong Being should be held liable for the actions of his store manager. or reckless negligence. thus. without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration or criminal intent in the making of the sale. Go Chico) Act alone constitutes the offense US vs. then through fear of incurring punishment. except through culpable abandon. there exists another. and prudent. this is especially so as to statutory offenses. The fact that the defendant offered to the mother of the deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity indicates that the defendant admitted the commission of the crime although he performed that act without criminal intent and only through imprudence. Siy Cong Bien Facts: Defendants Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong were convicted of a violation of Section 7 of Act. and another committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally. REASON WHY CULPABLE FELONIES ARE PUNISHED People vs. he knew he had two companions. Defendants maintained that falsification does not constitute the crime complained of. vs. It is a mistaken notion that positive. No. rights and property. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). 3. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts. willful intent and purpose. Issue: W/N reckless negligence is considered a crime. 1655 of the Philippine Commission known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act. Intent governs. Otherwise his own person. Mala Prohibita and Mala in Se Mala in Se Acts that are wrong from their nature. he should have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable accident. if not from instinct. Decision: Yes. /vvverga Page 21 of 100 . Benito Siy Cong Bieng appealed for: (a) He did not have any knowledge of the acts done by his agent which was the sale of adulterated coffee. and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done. no dolo is required (US. the law implies conclusively the guilty intent. (b) Co Kong was in charge of the store. Decision: Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) another. he shot one of his companions. though in a lesser degree and with an equal material result. performed without malice. Adlaon signed that he received the money when in fact the money was never for the construction of municipal building but was to be given to Bastes who loaned a sum of money to the municipal president and treasurer. and it is done by some person. When the language is plain and positive. an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as negligence. To his surprise. But nonetheless. Special penal laws Intent to perpetuate a crime Definition Intent Violates Minimum required for a person to incur criminal liability C. After walking for about 50 meters. he seemed to have seen an eye of a deer and shot it. nothing is left to interpretation. Maleza Facts: Maleza and Adlaon were charged with crimes of falsification of public documents by reason of reckless negligence. to violate the criminal law. is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense. willful intent. Intent is not important. He performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun. which no one would have performed. Moreover. Vena V. and the offense is not made to depend upon the positive. Maleza and Adlaon). Maleza is the municipal treasurer and he certified an account showing payments for the construction of the municipal building. but at the same time punishable. The accused is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. 1. although the resulting homicide was without malice. Issue: W/N there is reckless imprudence on this case. RPC Criminal Intent Mala Prohibita Acts that are wrong merely because it is prohibited by a statute. as distinguished from a mere intent. Verga Rule: There is no need for the pattern analysis for acts that involve public policy (statutory law). (People vs. Decision: Under the Philippine Pure Food and Drugs Act. Note: Reason for punishing acts of negligence: A man must use common sense. would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury. although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he violates. and exercise due reflection in all his acts. because he did not have the intention of killing the deceased. careful. the eyes of a man is not luminous in the dark thus it would be impossible to mistake it to that of a deer. it is his duty to be cautious.
Good Faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws (Mala Prohibita) sufficient to sustain a conviction. 6. Orquijo and Ongsod Facts: Orquijo and Ongsod were guilty of the crime of robbery. Where the accused had a pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm. People vs. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Mallari Facts: Mallari was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty. Decision: The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighborhood. People vs. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will. 2. Good faith can be invoked as defense for violation of the RPC (Mala in Se) Vena V. Petitioner. petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion. Verga Timoner vs. Despite his plea that he already applied for the renewal of his license. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. it is enough that the statue has been violated and that it is not necessary to inquire whether there was intent to violate it. 1. The owners of the stalls charged the petitioner with the offense of grave coercion. from possessing any firearm. Decision: The accused was absolved. which expired some 3 months before he was arrested. 5. Decision: No. he was still sentence by the lower court. he should be exempted from the law prohibiting illegal possession of firearm. Revised Administrative Code. petitioner incurred no criminal liability. shall by means of violence. in addition. and good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. as mayor of the town. However. Issue: W/N the absence of criminal intent and good faith are valid defenses in crimes punishable by special laws. The mere unlicensed possession of firearm. without authority of law. enough to call for a conviction. Pattern of analysis in determining criminal liability Was there criminal intent (dolo)? Or was the act done by means of culpa (imprudence/negligence)? Delito Deloso and Delito Culposa E. Appellant is not also exempted from the requirement of license. 4. a fact corroborated by an office of the constabulary. Issue: W/N the lower court was correct in their decision. /vvverga Page 22 of 100 . The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. regardless of the intent of the holder is D. In statutory offenses. Since the offense is malum prohibitum punished by special law. People Facts: The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. It does not matter for the conviction of Ongsod that he is the owner or borrower of the gun because this fact has no bearing on his guilt. merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Exceptions to the good faith rule in crimes of Mala Prohibita. Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct the complainants were public nuisance. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who. as amended by Republic Act No. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance as well as nuisance per se. Ongsod contends that it was Orquijo who owned the gun and it was merely in his possession when the Philippine constabulary seized it. he barricaded some establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying with certain health and sanitation requirement." The third element being absent in the case at bar.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 4. Mapa Facts: The accused is a secret agent contending that being such. The spirit of the law regarding possession of firearms is to punish those who possess the same without knowledge of the authorities concerned. Ongsod was also found guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. The testimony of the witnesses were credible and accurate. either it be right or wrong. Intent to perpetuate the act is required. any doubt as to his claim should be resolved in his favor. Issue: W/N Mapa should be exempted from complying with the law. People vs. for the court can adopt a more liberal view. Decision: As secret agent is not included in the enumeration in Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code of persons who are not prohibited in Section 878. and without even bothering themselves to legalize such possession. and such possession was not unknown to an agent of the law who advised the former to keep it in the meantime. He further stated that he has every intention of surrendering the gun.
Decision: The two terms should not be confused. proof of crime US vs. 11 years old. 30 was about to be put out. which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. Note: Circumstantial Evidences defined: indirect evidence. fire also broke out in House no. 26. W/N the term "discernment". The three were said to have killed the accused because he insisted on filing a criminal complaint against Romualdo for the killing of his nephew. Hon. which was just across the passageway from House No. However. namely. and negligence. an aid to the prosecution. witnesses testified that the fire in House no. (b) (1) (2) (c) Kinds of Intent general notion of intent – motive is not essential in establishing this notion of criminal intent specific notion of intent – there is no great difference between specific criminal intent ad motive.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Elements Delito Deloso (dolo) Freedom Intelligence Intent (a) Delito culposa (culpa) Freedom Intelligence Negligence/Imprudence Vena V. intent is wanting in such felonies. intelligence remains as an essential element. as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent. which ordered the Fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence. who commits an act prohibited by law. Proof of motive is not essential for conviction. The petitioner was in position that "discernment" connotes "intent". Issue: 1. Disclosure of motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime. they found a hole. 26. The victim's parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice. freedom of action. they heard something moving. Obviously. Indeed. intelligence. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa. Ignacio Almodovar Facts: Petitioner John Philip Guevarra. 2. Dorico Facts: Romualdo Dorico. However. it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. was playing with his best friend. The Solicitor General insists that discernment and intent are two different concepts." WHEN MOTIVE IS RELEVANT People vs. After some time. Distinguished from Motive Intent Defined distinguished from discernment Guevarra vs. which supported the fact that someone. Verga nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense under Article 365. While the firefighters were trying to break into the storeroom. When they got inside. 30. For him to be criminally liable. The accused had dry goods store in house no. While both are products of the mental processes within a person. Go Foo Suy Facts: Fire broke out in house no. It is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his death. They were target-shooting a bottle cap placed with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. three (3) elements are indispensable. he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. In the course of their game. 26. is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. This not a situation which falls under „who had done it‟ since DIONISIO BALLONICO was positively identified by credible witnesses as one of the assailants of the victim. Discernment constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine. Dionisio said that he was merely a bystander and did not participate in the crime Issue: W/N motive is relevant to establish guilt Decision: It is true that no motive has been shown why he would kill Gervacio Dapulag. a minor over /vvverga Page 23 of 100 . fact that was seen in the vicinity of the crime. W/N an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence. set fire on house no. Dionisio Ballonico and Fernando Dorico were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murdering Gervacio Dapulag and was sentenced each with death penalty. the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. hence. 26 broke out when the fire in House no. 30. Fiscal exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. but this Court has repeatedly held that motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act. There was no reason shown why the witnesses for the prosecution would foist a crime on DIONISIO BALLONICO if he did not really commit it.
he was stopped by his wife and his mother. motive need not be established HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED. Note: When assailant is positively identified. he was able to tell his wife who his attackers were. and the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is completely inconsequential. furnishes a powerful motive for the commission of the crime (circumstantial evidence). for having acted in a dream. he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. that it was insured for three times its value. Where. and upon meeting with his wife who tried to stop him. Decision: No. he had no criminal intent. he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet. Their dispute was regarding boundaries of the adjoining lands they own. Maximo and Cesaria Diva conspired to attack the victim. and that their business operations over a period approximately eighteen months just prior to the fire had resulted in a considerable loss. he went to bed and slept. Motive is not important to have a conviction. by reason of which he got up. An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime with a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. the accused had a fight with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla. Maximo also contended that the trial court erred in saying that the motive of the killing was a land case because he has no interest therein since it was his father who was the plaintiff in the said case. PROOF OF MOTIVE CONVICTION People vs. his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction and the failure of the State to establish his motive is of no moment. Julio won over Mariano for the office of representative of Ilocos Norte. attack and kill Ananias.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of arson. Maximo claims that he should not be convicted of the crime. Even if there is such motive. WHEN MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT When assailant is positively identified People vs. But motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit or where the offender had admitted the deed. Diva Vena V. Ramirez It must be noted that there could be no motive in this case because Ramirez and the victim were good friends. The appellants had been conducting their business at a loss for nearly 18 months. Taneo Facts: Potenciano Taneo was accused of parricide for killing his wife. Issue: W/N the motive is needed to convict the defendants. Julio‟s men were said ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT /vvverga Page 24 of 100 . as in this case. The success of their crime meant that they would receive about twice the value of their stock of goods and thus converting a losing investment into a profitable one. he apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none. bidden away and inaccessible to our observation. Mariano‟s archrival. Verga Facts: Maximo Diva and his wife were accused of murdering Ananias Bano. but that simply they are not known to us. Marcos Facts: Mariano Marcos. it was noted that the defendant was not feeling well. MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT PROOF OF CRIME US vs. the identity of the appellant as the author of the killing is not disputed as he admitted having killed the deceased. Maximo and Cesaria contended that it was Ananias who first attacked them and that Maximo merely defended himself. The defendant states that when he fell asleep. During the victory parade. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of the crime of parricide. his son Ferdinand Marcos and brother in law. who invited him to come down and fight. A person who suddenly hot up in his sleep left the room with a bolo in his hand. It appears from the evidence that that the day before the commission of the crime. Since the prosecution was not able to establish the motive. During the 1935 elections. and wounding his father in law and two of their guests. On the day of the commission of the crime. for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where they may be found. wounded her abdomen and attacked other. The fact that the defendants owned a stock of goods. thus. On the day the crime was committed. it is not a sufficient ground for him to ambush. Decision: No. Quirino Lizardo were accused for the murder of Julio Nalundasan. The act could not have been done deliberately. Or. and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down. The defendant was not held liable for the crime. The question of what motive is sufficient to impel one to commit a particular act is always relative and no fixed norm of conduct can be said to be decisive of every imaginable case. Before the victim‟s life expired. and when he was about to go down. Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused People vs. Decision: The accused were found guilty of the crime.
He carried two hand grenades in Plaza Miranda and hurled it on the stage where the president was making a speech. In the words of Viada. Julio was found dead. much less of the guilt of the defendants-appellants. it injured Simeon Varela and four other men. Later on. L-1477 January 18. might have irritated the herein defendants. Mabug-at Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. the victim died after a few moments. although it was not that of killing. The following night. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. because he did have the intention to do some evil unlawfully (maltreating the deceased). Decision: Yes. When the grenade exploded. Simeon died because of the injuries he sustained. though perhaps an important consideration. One day. all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail. It is neither necessary nor profitable to examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. the crime committed by him cannot be that of homicide through reckless imprudence. Where the principal and basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails. In throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. 1950 Facts: Julio Guillen was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder. Issues: W/N the accused is guilty of frustrated murder. 1922 Facts: Nanquil was investigating a certain Severino Ramiscal for the theft of Juan Rosas‟s carabao. kicked it away from the platform. the accused invited Juana to take a walk with him. According to the accused. he was determined to assassinate the president. but the latter refused on account of the accused having frequently visited the house of a certain Carmen. criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended to do. /vvverga Page 25 of 100 . he was extremely disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem his promises made by him during the presidential election. acts are voluntary (People vs. In criminal negligence. Issue: W/N the accused should be charged with a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. the appellant acted with malice. where such intention exists. General Castaneda. the accused followed the girl and her niece on their way home. the accused went to a house where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion. Issue: W/N the parade was a sufficient motive to warrant a sentence. Hence. thus it shall be discredited. the accused threatened that if Juana refuses to see him. or became aware of it. Nanquil GR No. Decision: Yes. for in accordance with article 4 of the People vs. Decision: No. Issue: W/N Julio Guillen is guilty of the crime charge considering that it was the president which he intended to kill and not Simeon Varela. the court found the testimony of Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. is not proof of the commission of a crime. By and large. even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced”. People vs. (f) (g) (h) in both. get the gild and kill anyone who would stop him. Thereafter.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) to have passed over Mariano‟s house to humiliate the defeated candidate. the injury caused to another should be unintentional. When they were about to go up their house. the accused fired a shot intended for Juana but which wounded Perfecta instead. the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced. is inconsistent with reckless imprudence. the existence of a motive alone. upon seeing the grenade. 17933 March 23. Ramirez) Acts that are negligently executed are voluntary Intent is shown by overt acts FELONIES COMMITED BY MEANS OF CULPA See: US vs. During the investigation. Verga Revised Penal Code. As a consequence. “in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene. The primary witness of the prosecution was Lizardo‟s bodyguard who said that he was there when the crime was committed and the motive was said to be the victory parade before Julio‟s death. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. Nanquil struck Severino with his gun. Guillen GR No. The Marcoses and Lizardo became the suspects. After the devotion. Divino OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AS MALA PROHIBITA (e) Intentional and Culpable Felonies Distinguished People vs. he will enter the house. and this intention. (d) When crimes may be committed without criminal intent Vena V. The accused having had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which resulted. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. While the defeat of Marcos followed by such insulting parade.
who turned out to be his roommate. the defendants deposited Php 16. and in cases where. mistake of fact is not a defense. Fernando) Good faith has many sources (a) Mistake of fact (b) Act is lawful The point is: when good faith is established. so far as appears form the record. In mistake of fact. As required by law. because the intention was to kill another. at most a pure mistake of judgment. provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. the crime is not simply "discharge of firearm. a justice of peace. struck and fatally wounded the intruder. Believing that he was being attacked.00 and a bond of Php 50. Good faith negates intent. a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. each one for damages resulting from a breach of contract. and called out twice. 2. Bautista) When the accused is negligent. was not unlawful. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. was charged of malversation of public funds. he was being attacked. ignorance or mistake of fact relieves tha accused from criminal liability (ignoratia facti excusat) MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE People vs. does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility (People vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: Yes. There is no crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact (US vs. yet when the surrounding circumstances of the act are such that they leave no room for doubt that the intention was to kill the person fired upon. Note: It is a prima facie evidence in Malversation that such missing funds or property have been put to personal use or used for personal ends by such Lack of intent to kill the deceased. One night. The act committed. Everything he did was in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. after the defendant had gone to bed. He rendered decisions in certain cases. if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negate a particular intent which. Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of the said crime considering that his actions were not contrary to law. 217. Catolico GR No. there is no crime. under the law. under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code. No criminal intent. It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent and that the defendants did not present new bonds within the time fixed by the accused as justice of peace." but homicide or murder as the case may be. Mistake of fact – while ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis non excusat). Would the facts been as he though them to be. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. there is no crime. A crime is not committed if the mind if the person performing the act complained of be innocent (actus non facit reum. there is no criminal liability. he seized a kitchen knife. Gona). Mistake of fact indicates good faith. Issue: W/N Ah Chong should be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Verga person. In this case. is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal. there would have been no crime. 3. except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence. regardless of the circumstances outside him. Decision: That act of the accused. a felony under Art. Decision: Under such circumstances. in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in the satisfaction of the judgment rendered by him. Note: 1. When there is no intent. (i) Criminal Intent Presumed from Commission of the crime Vena V. no crime. or become aware of it. he was awakened by some one trying to open the door. and both were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room. /vvverga Page 26 of 100 . from which the defendants appealed. it was not proven that the accused justice of peace used the money for personal use. US vs. Good faith negates intent. it negates criminal intent. The circumstances proved that in Ah Chong‟s mind. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. (People vs. Ah Chong Facts: Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a house boy. Good faith is a defense and in this case. In other words. an error of the mind operating upon a state of facts. 4. Although the mere act of firing at a person is not proof per se of intent to kill. nisi mes sit rea). Without intent. the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. The accused was prosecuted for malversation. the accused dismissed the appeals and ordered said sums attached and delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. Upon petition of the plaintiffs.00 for each case. there is good faith. 6486 02 March 1911 Facts: The defendant.
Ah Chong). The person. Good faith negates intent. The Court is in disagreement with this notion. 1. The women believed that she was born in 1879. In effect it suffices to remember the first article. since the act is malum prohibitum – against a law/statute. Penalosa GR No 424 January 27. In the same instance. he was called by the daughter of a certain Delgado to inform him that three unknown persons were prowling around their house. People vs. a policeman. While doing rounds in the barrio. It is not criminal negligence for a husband to rely upon his wife's statement of her age nor for the wife to rely upon that of her father. which states that where there is no intent there is no crime. The residents of the barrio were alarmed of the news. Conching and the others sincerely believed that booklets 4100 to 4120 were sample ballots because three ballots from the booklet were detached and two ballots were used to cover the openings of the boxes that was given to them before the election. After some time. did not answer thus. 1902 Facts: A minor married without parental consent. according to the court. Note: Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case. the defendant claimed that he answered “No” to the question whether he had been accused of a violation of any law. One cannot be convicted under Art. Note: There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. intention is immaterial. The defendant was not liable for the crime because he had no intent to commit the crime. nor of ignorance of the law. 12089-CR Facts: Formaran was accused of a crime of perjury for having sworn to a Civil Service Form No. The defendants are in honest belief that the series of unused ballots were not official but sample ballots. because he relied on the opinion of the provincial fiscal that unjust vexation does not involve moral turpitude and he thought it was not necessary to mention it in Civil Service Form No. Oanis. the act would have been lawful. When he testified in his defense. When there is no intention. Accused called out to the person to identify himself. Formaran No. The act. Good faith is transferable (in this case. Decision: No. As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one /vvverga Page 27 of 100 . in violation of Art 475 of he old Penal Code which punished any minor who shall contract marriage without the consent of his or her parents. Upholding the maxim ignorantia facti excusat as established in People vs. and she did not ask them concerning her age. was informed that three convicts had escaped. In order to assert without fear of mistake that in our Code the substance of a crime does not exist if there is not a deed. de Fernando fired a shot in the air. that so her parents gave her to understand ever since she was young. The lower court was in agreement that the defendants did not intend to perpetuate the act. 1 before a notary public that he was never accused of a violation of any law before any court or tribunal. Thus. Mistake of fact establishes good faith because have the facts been as she thought them to be. The courts should judge the accused not by the facts as they later turned out to be but what they believed to be as facts at the time of the offense and the conditions obtaining them (US vs. Oanis People vs. when the truth and in fact he had been charged with the offense of unjust vexation in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court. being an act mala prohibita has no bearing on the case because this is not a case of willful or conscious violation of a penal statue. Verga of facts there does not exist the intention to commit the crime. they did not include in the counting booklets 4100 to 4120. Defendants were acquitted. 475 when by reason of a mistake Vena V. They have no way of checking since the receipt copy signed by Coching when he received the ballots were not given to them.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) People vs. it was held that in view of the factual background of the case. an act that falls within the sphere of ethics if there is not a moral wrong. Decision: No. to the husband). It appeared that he was previously prosecuted twice for perjury for answering „NO‟ to the same question but he was acquitted on the first case and the second case was dismissed. Issue: W/N Coching and the others are guilty of the crime charges. the husband relied on the statement of his wife that she is of age when they got married. de Fernando GR No 24978 27 March 1926 Facts: The accused. they saw a person going up the stairs dressed in dark clothes and carrying a bolo. MISTAKE OF FACT NOT A DEFENSE See: People vs. But according to them. Issue: W/N the husband and the wife violated the said provision of the Penal code Decision: A minor who marries without parental consent in the false belief that she is of age is not criminally responsible. People vs. Issue: W/N Formaran was unjustly prosecuted on the case at bar. The case at bar is a case of ignorance of the fact. the act of the defendant in answering “no” to the question can be considered only as an error of judgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the crime of perjury. Coching Facts: Coching and several others were accused of falsification of public document and violation of the election code. there is no crime.
If a person against whom. Defendant contends that the victim would have survived if he did not remove the drainage placed to isolate the infection. acted with reckless negligence in failing to exercise the ordinary diligence that. Committing a felony even if the consequences are unintended Elements: (a) Felony is committed PEOPLE vs.G. Issue: W/N Bindoy should be charged for killing Emigdio Decision: The appellant should be acquitted since there is no evidence. logical consequence of felony committed XVII. prowling around the vicinity. before shooting him. Issue: W/N Crisanto should be liable for the death of the baby Decision: No. The defendant took hold of a firebrand and applied it to the abdomen of the man who pestered him. But in view of the evidence. He however. The accepted rule is that an offender is always liable for the consequence of his criminal action even though the result be different from what he intended. of course. natural. a deranged person who constantly asked for food from the former. it cannot be held that the accused was committing a crime and it cannot be said that the death of the child was a direct result of a crime. (1) When act is lawful /vvverga Page 28 of 100 . which ensued between the defendant and a certain Pacas. Neither was there any indication that the accused was aware of the victim‟s presence. VALDEZ Facts: The accused was not satisfied with the slow raising of the anchor which caused him to abuse his men with offensive language. the accused fired directly at the man who turned our to be the nephew of the house. threw himself in water and never resurface. The crew‟s death was a consequence of the defendant‟s action. there could have been no crime committed. 3186 Facts: Crisanto Salinas was charged for the death of Jaime Tibule. Article 4: Criminal Liability A. One of the crew remonstrated that they would be able to work better if the accused stops insulting them.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) of the escaped convicts. he would. SALINAS 62 O. a d in order to escape jumps into water. he should have exercised by inquiring of the occupants of the house whether the stranger was known to them. was convicted of a crime of homicide for the death of Andres Aribuabo. (b) US vs. 162 Facts: The defendant. Crisanto was holding the victim‟s grandfather in order to prevent him from fighting with the defendant‟s father. who might be escaped prisoners from a nearby penitentiary. Issue: W/N the defendant should be liable for his crew‟s death Decision: Yes. shoots and kills him. is not guilty of murder or homicide. and later in the evening sees a person with a bolo in hand approaching the house in the -attitude of going up the stairs. The act being lawful. to whom notice had been given of the presence of suspicious looking persons. the injury was accidental and the defendant should be acquitted. Issue: W/N de Fernando was guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. which shows that Emigdio took part in the fight. impelled by the instincts of self-preservation. 1. as he seemed to have called somebody in the house. BINDOY Facts: The accused was charged of the crime of homicide for wounding with his bolo Emigdio who was merely a spectator of the fight. the assailant us responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning. the accused moved towards the victim with big knife threatening to stab him. An agent of the law. PEOPLE vs. which makes said officer guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. Victim was treated in the hospital but died. and who enters a house to keep watch. and the said agent of the law considering that the said stranger has not been recognized by any person in the household. The defendant was acquitted. and continues his advance notwithstanding that the latter had fired a shot into the air. who does not answer the challenge of the officer of the law. have had to answer for his criminal act. Vena V. Had the defendant tried to wound his adversary and instead had bit the bystander. Jaime died after falling from his mother‟s hold while the mother was freeing his father from Crisanto‟s hold. believing that he is going to be killed. Issue: W/N Quianson should be held liable for the death of the victim Wrong done is direct. and thinking him to be an evil-doer. Decision: Yes. Under the circumstances. or was really what be thought him to be. a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm. The victim. QUIANSON 62 PHIL. under the circumstances. Verga PEOPLE vs. Infuriated.
Decision: Yes. DE BATACLAN. was the cause. the gasoline leaked soaking the soil underneath thus. it is a well settled that such is not the law. It is possible that the victim may have been inflicted with a mild tetanus but since Javier died only two or three days from the onset. The girl died from shock as a result of the wound inflicted by the defendant. A fight ensued between the two when Urbano learned that Javier opened the floodgates thereby causing his palay to be flooded. produces injury. when the rescuers came with torches came near the bus. which determined his death. Issue: W/N the appellant should be acquitted considering the fact that the wound was only a slight one Decision: No. ILLUSTRE 54 PHIL. vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the victim continued working. It was also natural that the rescuers would innocently approach the bus to extend aid. Proximate cause it the case. 544 Facts: The defendant. The reason that when the vehicle turned. who was in charged in making sure that the roasted pig will not be consumed before the end of the parade gave a blow to Juan Magsino who tried getting a piece of the pig. Juan died of internal hemorrhage and contusion on the liver. The hacking incident could not have been the cause of the victim‟s death since the tetanus appeared only on the 22nd day after the hacking incident. which in natural and continuous sequence. the appellant dragged the deceased towards the streets and stabbed her in the chest with the fan knife. Before the explosion. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the actor of responsibility. the proof that the accused caused the victim‟s death must /vvverga Page 29 of 100 . Appellant‟s assault being the proximate cause of the death. which was the cause of the death. death could reasonable be anticipated. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the victim. Due to overturning of the bus. (1) PEOPLE vs. the bus was set on fire. Decision: Yes. It was the defendant‟s blow in the right hypocondrium. Issue: W/N the hacking incident can be considered a proximate cause of Marcelo‟s death. the efficient cause of the death remains the same. The accused is presumed to have intended the natural consequences of the wrongful act. 341 Facts: The appellant and victim were having an illicit relationship. As the wound. There was no intent but this does not extinguish the crime. even of the weakened condition made the blow more fatal. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT 157 SCRA 1 Facts: Urbano was charged for the crime of homicide for the death of Marcelo Javier. he should be responsible. The victim was said to have died from shock. MEDINA 102 PHIL. Decision: No. It is a rule that in criminal conviction. When the victim tried to end their affair. 181 Facts: The victim. the result would not have occurred. it is logical to assume that there may be other causes other than the hacking incident. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Blow was efficient cause of death There is intention in the commission of the crime because when a person who stabs another with a lethal weapon. he died from tetanus. ET AL. the vehicle zig-zagged into a canal. causing said bus to overturn. Marcelo was only hit in the palm and while the wound was healing. Verga Decision: One who inflicts an injury on another is deemed by law to be guilty of homicide if the injury contributes mediately or immediately to the death of the victim. That the victim had a delicate condition and suffered from incipient tuberculosis does not affect criminal liability of the defendant who gave him a severe blow. which bruised the liver and produced internal hemorrhage. (2) Blow was proximate cause of death PEOPLE vs. the burning of the bus was a natural cause and should be attributed to the negligence of the driver and the conductor. and without which. After 22 days. In this jurisdiction. died from the explosion of the bus of which he was a passenger. Thus. (ii) Definition URBANO vs. the leaking of the gasoline was the natural consequence. A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act even of the deceased have been shown to be suffering from a deceased heart (which was not shown). (i) How proximate cause is determined VDA. husband of the petitioner. REYES 61 PHIL. Issue: W/N the overturning of the bus was the proximate cause of the death. it is evident that the act in question should be qualified as homicide. which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased.
the defendant cannot be held liable for said death. (c) When there is an intervening cause US vs. the accused should be acquitted. Embate was acquitted. It appears that the examination of the body was incomplete and the conclusion of the doctor have been much more than mere guesses. which is distinct and absolutely foreign to felonious act of accused (i) Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim (ii) Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality Vena V. not because of carelessness or a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant. Appellant therefore should be acquitted.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. Since the cause of the death was unknown. examination to exercise the utmost care and not draw unwarranted conclusions from external appearances susceptible of different interpretations. it was proven that fever was prevalent among the children in the locality thus. the child was brought home sick by his father. SUPRA (ii) Nervousness or temperament of victim PEOPLE vs. Two days later. defendant struck him on the thighs with a slipper. No autopsy of the body was made and the physician admitted that his conclusions were partly based upon the statements of the members of the family of the deceased. Since there may be other efficient causes of the death. One day. yet if a blow with the fist or foot accelerated death. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. It was found that Magno provoked the defendant. (iii) Cause of death not proved US vs. The child did not obey thus. the child died. (iv) Death attributable to tetanus URBANO vs. Held: That the testimony of the physician was not conclusive and that the ecchymosis described by him might have been nothing. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. PALALON The defendant was convicted of homicide largely on the testimony of a young physician who stated. it is the duty of the physician performing the post mortem. The doctor testified it was the blow which was the cause of the death. Even though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause any external wound it may easily produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death. wherefore the latter fell to the ground and had hardly risen and started to walk when he again fell down dead. PEOPLE vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4) Blow accelerated death Decision: When the fact is well established that the accused struck the victim twice with his fist. ALMONTE When a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders. REYES. and even though the victim may have been previously affected by some internal malady. ILLUSTRE. Verga PEOPLE vs. he who caused such acceleration is responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and unlawfully inflicted. The accused is then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical consequences. there is reasonable doubt as to the true cause of the death. but because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant. That same afternoon. EMBATE Facts: The child has been seriously ill for three weeks. /vvverga Page 30 of 100 . Furthermore. In case of death under suspicious circumstances. PALALON 49 PHIL. in substance. SUPRA PEOPLE vs. but suggillations or "death spots" formed after the death. as the child lain on a damp floor. 177 Facts: Appellant was found guilty of the crime of homicide for the death of a child whom he slapped after answering insolently. (1) Instances not constituting efficient intervening cause: (i) Weak or diseased physical condition of victim PEOPLE vs. simply because the doctor was of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days. Decision: No. defendant ordered said child to transfer. the crime is homicide and not merely slight physical injuries. Decision: No. One-half days later. The child fell but continued to work. that he examined the body of the deceased on the day after the commission of the crime and found ecchymosis on the body from which he concluded that hard blows had been inflicted on the deceased and that as a result thereof. QUIANSON PEOPLE vs. (iii) When felony committed not proximate cause: (3) Intervening active force. in the abdomen and in the back. the child died. the crime committed is rightly classified as homicide and the accused is responsible therefore. RODRIGUEZ Facts: The defendant was charged with having dealt with Manciano Magno with two blows which knocked the victim down. there was a congestion of the right lung which was the principal cause of the death.
the victim was mentally deranged. 242). II. because he is responsible for all the consequences of the personal injury which was produced by the act that he had willfully performed in violation of a prohibitive law. The determined resolution to do the victim wrong was evident when. Verga This contention is contrary to earlier decisions of this court. beyond the time that it should have taken. impelled by the instinct of self preservation. A person injured in an assault is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the person who assaulted him from the results of his crime. MABUG-AT (3) Prater intentionem: injurious result is greater than that intended PEOPLE vs. he should have been found guilty of homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code and not of the graver crime of intentional homicide. Cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused US vs. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in appellant's favor. he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide. cannot lessen the assailant's responsibility. and because his responsibility cannot be lessened on account of the bad state of health and the weakened constitution of the victim. as this should be attributed to his pathological condition and to his state of nervousness and restlessness on account of the physical pain caused by the peritonitis from which he was suffering. PEOPLE vs. That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another. when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully. he cruelly asked "are you already dead?" Appellant's bid for acquittal in his sixth assignment of error. even after the victim had disappeared beneath the surface of the sea.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Where it does not appear that the victim. if opportunity were given. SUPRA (iv) Neglect of victim or third person: (1) Victim refused medical attendance or surgical operation Vena V. BAYUTAS The fact that the victim was addicted to the habit of drinking tuba. or both. (2) Victim did no know how to swim US vs. (iii) Causes inherent in victim: (1) Addiction to tuba drinking US vs. If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner. that the finger. in view of the mortal wound which he inflicted upon the latter. the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning Appellant should likewise be chargeable with Homicide. (1) Error in personae: mistake in identity of victim PEOPLE vs. such act of the victim does not have the effect of altering the natural juridical consequences of the punishable act of the accused all the more because. could be restored to substantially its normal condition by a surgical operation. act performed is against property 2. 2. and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery. even that. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual /vvverga Page 31 of 100 . he is guilty of murder because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. That the act was done with evil intent 3. cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. in no way could be considered as a relief from his criminal act. GONA There can be no doubt that the defendant killed Mapudul and that he is guilty of the crime charged. on account of which it is admitted that his constitution and physical condition retarded the healing of his wounds." (2) Aberratio ictus: mistake in the blow PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ. GARDON If a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES Requisites: 1. MARASIGAN Where it appears from the evidence in the case that the appellant inflicted a wound upon the complaining witness which destroyed the use of one of the fingers of the left hand. although he did not intend to kill the deceased. although useless at present. in removing the drainage from his wound. OANIS PEOPLE vs. (d) Even if unintended. therefore. as the defense itself claims. according to the opinion of the physician who attended him. but his attorney argues that in view of the fact that said defendant had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake. the court said: "Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto. Mendieta (34 Phil. In the case of United States vs. CAGOCO Keywords: Fell backwards Decision: Under the circumstances of this case the defendant is liable for the killing of the deceased because his death was the direct consequence of defendants felonious act of striking him on the head.. deserves no consideration. had acted voluntarily and with the knowledge that he was performing an act prejudicial to his health. Neither do we believe that the fact that he "And any such person who shall make a false or fraudulent return shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. a motion for a new trial will be denied when based upon the allegation that appellant would be able to prove.
Verga committed. It is. when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge. when it was already closed. where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape. and gave him fist blows. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. against persons and those against property under Title X. all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. Finally. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. because the act would have been a crime against chastity. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment x x x. if this was done against the will of the passenger. Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. important to know what are the crimes under Title VIII. but an act penalized by itself. A suddenly swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger. Question & Answer 1. Before. therefore. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. It is customary for the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. Furthermore. A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. 3.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The act performed should not constitute a violation f another provision of the RPC INTOD vs. but the safe was empty. assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos distinguiere debemos. there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. the crime could not have materialized. Impossible crime An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. When he reached a motel. And under Article 4. Vena V. 2. this means that under any and all circumstances. 4. Under Article 4. Note. 1. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness. that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code – desecrating the dead. the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. will render useless the provision in Article 4. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes. placed himself on top of her and abused her. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. CA In our jurisdiction. it is now possible that an impossible crime was /vvverga Page 32 of 100 . A entered a department store at about midnight. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. with the new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons. not only the money inside the vault or safe. To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actor's will. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment." In that case. however. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. the victim may be a man or a woman. Because this person was exquisitely dressed. the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen. meaning to say. Even if the victim is a man. Is an impossible crime committed? Yes. what crime is possibly committed? This is not an impossible crime. A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense. impossible crimes are recognized. employing the same mean or the same act. However. Under Article 336. it would be an attempted felony. which makes a person criminally liable for an act "which would be an offense against persons or property. is there any crime committed at all? It cannot be an impossible crime. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man. it is not an impossible crime. paragraph 2. he climbed into the ceiling. where there is plenty to steal. When we say inherent impossibility. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room. But in a department store. There are other things that he could take. and so he pushed him out of the car. went inside the room of his master. He succeeded in opening the safe. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape.
A and B are neighbors. If the question is “Is an impossible crime is committed?”. it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provisions in the Revised Penal Code. Is A liable for an impossible crime? No. because under any and all circumstances. he will not be liable for an impossible crime. A and B were lovers. Scott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house. he is a criminal. he placed a little dose of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. The idea was that. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily. That is a Vena V. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”. 7. the poison would have taken effect.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 4. an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. be careful about the question asked. so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast has no effect to her. Although objectively. then that will be the proper way. But to play safe. A and B are enemies. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. but subjectively. But if let us say. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. 5. nothing happened to him. add another paragraph: However. none of them discharged. if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code. it would have fired. he did not realize that the firearm was empty. the answer is yes. got the revolver of his father. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime. he would be electrocuted. Scott is working in an electronic shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. an unloaded firearm will never fire. Unknown to Charles. If they were new. They are jealous of each other‟s social status. It would be a case of physical injuries. it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. and every morning. Everyday. when Scott comes home to open the door knob. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime. yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. If you want to play safe. no crime is committed. but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old. There is an impossible crime. and therefore. an impossible crime is committed. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other hand to the door knob. because on the basis of the facts stated. then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. A. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC. he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door knob and plugged the other end to an electric outlet. Is there an impossible crime? No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. If it were a case of poisoning . A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. she developed a physical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to any kind of poisoning. shot B. when he started squeezing the trigger. When Scott opened the doorknob. If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”. There was no bullet at all. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. But if due to the quantity of vetsin or sugar or soda. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. One day. this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition. Hence. Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage. 6. an attempted homicide. A thought of killing his wife. In other words. then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed. just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Under any and all circumstances. The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. Charles resented this. Was an impossible crime committed? No. this is a catching question. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Because it /vvverga Page 33 of 100 . He prepared her breakfast every morning. not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed. upon seeing B. you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted. then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. Whether an impossible crime was committed or not? It is not an impossible crime. the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized. if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. the crime could not have been realized. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The crime committed is frustrated parricide. Verga cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender.
NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT When a person is charged in court. depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender” (Article 59). a redundancy and duplicity would be perpetrated. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred. There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article. petitioneraccused 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 victim‟s house. if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended. and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. the culprits set fire on the intended victim‟s house. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort. could not and did not constitute another felony. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted from the wrongful act done. the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. and the court finds that there is no law applicable. all armed with firearms and with intent to kill.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200. all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets. Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be 2. believing she was there when in fact she was not. Article 5 covers two situations: (1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime? Until the Intod case. Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime. the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. four culprits. which would have constituted a crime against persons or property. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime. but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why. thus. the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Otherwise. the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod v. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. As a result. that is. The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency. 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. STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY /vvverga Page 34 of 100 . to wit: Art 4. she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose. In the Intod case. instead of using firearms. incurred: 1. Modified concept of impossible crime: In a way.00 to P500.00. the judge should impose the law. Verga By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property.. Vena V. we have to respect its ruling. But whether we agree or not. (2) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended. the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act. 215 SCRA 52. 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. unknown to the culprits. Somehow. the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim. regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property. went to the intended victim‟s house and after having pinpointed the latter‟s bedroom. Otherwise. this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. where a felony resulted. et al. The proper judgment is acquittal. CA. the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. In this case. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony. the Supreme Court has spoken.
but he is already married. For example. The policemen asked A if he was planning to poison B and A said yes. he /vvverga Page 35 of 100 . but which are. it is always in the consummated stage. This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. there is such a thing as preparatory act. the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be committed. shall demand an amount bigger than or different from what the law authorizes him to collect. Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime. if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized. So. there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation. A met C who was willing to marry him. There are felonies which do not admit of division. he met D. then you have an attempted felony. then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. the law uses the word “demanding”. You only Question & Answer A and B are husband and wife. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages. After that. You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. but apply the provisions of the law of the facts given.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. Although. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. and therefore. So also. On the way out. criminal liability correspondingly does not begin. in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized to collect taxes. But in criminal law. A thought of eliminating B and to poison her. not to imagine what crime is intended. whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. So the policemen went to A‟s house and found A still unwrapping the arsenic poison. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with the food his wife is going to take. your desire may lead to acts of lasciviousness. that act is already trespassing. licenses or impose for the government. An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony. Before this. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability. already criminal offenses. D asked him who was sick in the family. Verga went to the drugstore and bought arsenic poison. A confided to D that he bought the poison to poison his wife in order to marry C. the definition uses the word “directly”. But the act of entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony. In law. if the act so far being done does not begin a felony. 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. He would not be there just to sleep there. she may already be the victim of lascivious acts. in oral defamation. In criminal law. you are not allowed to speculate. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. In US v. Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery. In the attempted stage. the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store. Is the charge correct? No. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution – there is yet something to be performed – but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The word "directly‟" emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender. since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter. In the attempted stage. The crime is not attempted abduction but acts of lasciviousness. The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. In abduction. This is significant. When a person starts entering the dwelling of another. Police arrested him and charged him with attempted parricide. Literally. In so far the woman being carried is concerned. Namaja. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime. the only conclusion that will come to your mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. D went directly to the police and reported that A is going to kill his wife. not the felony he has in his mind. Formal crimes Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. there is no attempted stage yet. In criminal law. they parted ways. He can only be prosecuted for trespass. not an attempt to rob. Vena V. by themselves. The removal of the panelling is just an attempt to trespass. To a layman. He was already able to detach two wood panels. under the article. Under sub-paragraph a of Article 213 on Illegal exaction. There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime.
He. Other than that. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not /vvverga Page 36 of 100 . What A then did was to approach B. however. (Incidentally. “Now you are dead. found out that B was nude. after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep. that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act. bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. What is negated is only the attempted stage. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling. Manner of committing a crime For example. there are three criteria involved: (1) (2) (3) The manner of committing the crime. Can a be accused of attempted rape? No. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes. and (2) illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official. Hence. but the latter screamed. Beside the man was a bag containing picklocks and similar tools. he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. I will kill you.) The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit -.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left. if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony. Vena V. but actually. not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other. for what crime are you going to prosecute him? The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something. There was force applied in order to enter.the giver and the receiver. which prevented the crime from being consummated. he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption. because there was desistance. In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated. let us take the crime of bribery. The elements of the crime. it is only possible in the attempted stage. Actually. Verga Question & Answer A awakened one morning with a man sleeping in his sofa. illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. because there was an intention to kill. Do not go far and imagine what you should do. however. But B's wound was not mortal. but there may be other felony constituting his act. Desistance Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution. Illustrations: A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. it is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. In another instance. When A entered the house through the window. and The nature of the crime itself. you cannot have a consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. only corruption. If you have a corruption only. He found out that the man entered his sala by cutting the screen on his window. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony. It does not mean. if only one side of the crime is present. Thus. that there is no more felony committed. so far as could be reasonably linked to the overt act done by him. he can be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) qualified trespass to dwelling. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) hold him liable for an attempt. If under the definition of the felony. which is not intended for entrance. and A went out of the window again. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender. under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. they cannot arise without the other. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit B. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. it is possible only in the attempted stage. A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. and told B. The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first. If you have bribery only. If you were to prosecute this fellow. so he lost interest and left. the act done is already in the frustrated stage. One evening. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman. or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof.
the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these inside the room. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. The public officer received the money but just the same. there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. but he had reported the matter to higher authorities. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime. In rape. there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not. no matter how slight. the only act done by the giver is an attempt. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place. As far as the stage is concerned. rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages. it is only attempted bribery. unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) to prosecute him. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration. Similarly. Slightest penetration or slightest connection. or the stages of execution of the felony. when it takes two to commit the crime. On the subjective phase. do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire. This was the ruling in the case of People v. the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. An example of this is the crime of rape. when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty. But indirect bribery is always consummated. In arson. In US v. the crime is already frustrated bribery. If it has not begun to burn. the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. If the felony did not result. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money. This is because. But even then. there is only an attempted stage. It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished. Verga consummated. No penetration at all. the analysis in the case of US v. the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. On the other hand. the corruptor turns down the demand. Garcia. the crime of adultery. frustrated. he ran away. he has already performed all the acts of execution. that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. but there is no meeting of the minds. the receiver has no intention of being corrupted. There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. Valdez. For instance. The occupants of the room put out the fire. the crime is consummated. 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. On the other hand. The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. For this reason. no frustrated stage. Valdez is correct. the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. the crime is consummated. This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People v. Without the resulting felony. if such link is absent. there is only an attempted adultery. Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People v. therefore. In short. Because of this. if there was no penetration yet. in determining whether the felony is attempted. Because of that. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender. the offense is Vena V. consummated. Orita. the Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the arson as a consequence. it is beyond the attempted stage. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson. the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. If that link is there. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony. there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage. If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give. Garcia was handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. there could hardly be a frustrated stage. it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of /vvverga Page 37 of 100 . It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson. in the crime of arson. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. the moment it begins to burn. This is also true in the crime of arson. There is no frustrated adultery. unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn. If the public officer was arrested. This is because it requires the link of two participants. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration. arrested him. the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened. Only attempted or consummated. frustrated or consummated. Once there is penetration already. and as soon as the jute sacks began to burn. and. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. Actually. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent. He lighted these. there is no bribery. there is no meeting of the minds.
But in the case of People v. the situation is different. a deformity can be said to exist. if a person who was about to give a fist blow to another raises his arms. there is no simple crime of physical injuries. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson. the commentator‟s opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there. Questions & Answers 1. frustrated or consummated? The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. /vvverga Page 38 of 100 . the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender. Valdez is still correct. In that case. When there is deformity. This was applied in the case of US v. After the surgery. Garcia. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. Here. but before he could throw the blow. That act demonstrated that in his mind. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity. as a consequence. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. If the felony follows as a consequence. you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime. the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened. Actually. But the torch burned out. On the other hand. The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. One of the known commentators in criminal law Vena V. You cannot classify the physical injuries. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery. no matter how small. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence. somebody holds that arm. 2. Valdez. therefore. in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase. has begun to burn. three factors must concur: (1) (2) The injury should bring about the ugliness. On the other hand. The trouble is that. it is no longer attempted. there would be attempted physical injuries. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence. arson is consummated. you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed. This being so. the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. but also his belief. otherwise. you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow. In order that in law. If the felony does not follow as a consequence. so he ran away. lighted the same. in law. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries? If there is no result. The ugliness must be visible. it is consummated. the crime has already passed the subjective phase and. There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage. having already put kerosene on the jute sacks. less serious or slight. B became more handsome. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious. the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. you do not know. where the offender. The explanation is academic. the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime. he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. it is already frustrated. Therefore. the house being a nipa hut. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6. the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. The ruling in the case of US v. Verga has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. like physical injuries. It is enough that any part of the premises. unless a part of the premises has started to burn. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the commission of the crime already. If you say physical injuries. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries. it is either already frustrated or consummated. What crime is committed? Is it attempted. he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread. Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. you do not know which article to apply. the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed.
The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. Diño compared with People v. He can exercise his will over the wallet already. not estafa. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft. Elements of the crime In the crime of estafa. if it were a crime of theft. It is not a matter of carrying away. While taking the table out of the room. But as long as the wallet remains on the table. if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. the recipient may be committing theft. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. In our concept of theft. A stranger comes inside the room. gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. attempted. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. simply means exercising control over the thing. If there is no damage. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved. He took the valuables. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under. he does not take it. theft is consummated. Without that carrying away. Adio and People v. and the wallet is there. so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. the theft is not yet consummated. this is only theft or none at all. the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room. the larceny cannot be consummated. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. Illustration: I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. Along this concept of deformity in law. the offender receives the property. do not talk about intent to gain. Verga (3) The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. it is the confines of this room that is the container. the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. That cannot be estafa. Diño. If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room. Under American common law. If instead of the wallet. “Taking” in the concept of theft. the offender need not move an inch from where he was. If the offender did not receive the personal property. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well. he can drop this on the floor. When you are discussing estafa. or from the perimeter of the compound. even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern. If he has started lifting the wallet. The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. The crime is not yet consummated. but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter‟s consent. If the personal property was received by the offender. etc. estafa cannot be considered as consummated. He opened it found some valuables inside. it is frustrated. frustrated or consummated. In this case. the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. there must be misappropriation already done. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. In law. there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. he was apprehended. then there is no problem. damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. not even gain is important. the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. In US v. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest. there is frustrated theft. But in receiving the property. what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. they were checked at the /vvverga Page 39 of 100 . What is necessary only is intent to gain. the crime is only frustrated. In determining whether a felony is attempted. the taking is not complete. put them in his pocket and was arrested. as long as the object has not been brought out of that room. do not talk of damage. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa. It is consummated. In estafa. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. If there is no damage yet. not the table. There is no real hard and fast rule. On the other hand. For the crime of estafa to be consummated. I apprehended him. such that he could exercise his own control on the thing. and before he could leave the room. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. Espiritu. you have to consider the manner of committing the felony. the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room.
and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage. the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. is that. and Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability When conspiracy itself is a crime. it was consummated.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) checkpoint. This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar. Nature of the crime itself In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide. If the crime is one of theft. These were taken from a warehouse. It was held that Vena V. But why is it that in one. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide. in lieu of theft. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control. the crime is only attempted. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take. and the offender broke the same. When the receptacle is locked or sealed. A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. the offender. what were taken were hospital linens. Hence. it is frustrated and in the other. homicide or murder as a result. the taking is not complete. because it is only then that death will follow. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft. after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it. what was committed was frustrated Theft. it is consummated? In the case of US v. in both cases. Diño. On the other hand. no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. the moment he brought it out. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide. in the case of People v. the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. There is an implied agreement. that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. Two kinds of conspiracy: (1) (2) Conspiracy as a crime. the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. it is clear that his will completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop. which was erroneously laid in some commentaries. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law. When several offenders act in a synchronized. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound. Verga In People v. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. Espiritu. Espiritu. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned. it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted. coordinated manner. even though no mortal wound was inflicted. the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft. However. If the wound is not mortal. This is only true /vvverga Page 40 of 100 . the control is complete. it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. the return of the owner‟s property is not desistance anymore. the offenders were not able to pass the checkpoint. As far as the crime committed is concerned. Illustration: A and B are neighbors. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. One evening. the crime was already consummated. the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. the crime is robbery with force upon things. and being consummated. the act is already in the frustrated stage. to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. The crime is consummated theft. so they were not able to leave the compound. murder or homicide as a consequence. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things. An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMITE A FELONY Two ways for conspiracy to exist: (1) (2) There is an agreement. The emphasis. homicide. Under the definition of the frustrated stage. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned.
However. the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. B. 1. but as long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent design. Verga A. Proposals punished in the code (a) proposal to commit treason (Art 115) (b) Proposal to commit rebellion (Art 136) 4. III. The crime of conspiracy as known to the common law does not exist under the system embodied in the Spanish Penal Code. a member of said board. PERALTA Facts: The accused were OXO members and were charged for multiple murder for killing three members/sympathizers of the Sigue-Sigue gang during a prison riot. Treason. rebellion. when in resolute execution of a common scheme. The prison riot was an offshoot of the long standing clashes between the warring groups. Vena V. the existence of conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of liability of the perpetrators. conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides for a penalty therefore as in treason. a felony is committed by two or more malefactors. Article 4 of the Penal code says that there is a conspiracy when two or more persons act together for the commission of a crime. Reyes manipulated the books as to make them show an apparent credit when in fact Lim Buanco was owing the bank a large sum of money. and offered and promised to give him the sum of 200 pesos if he would "lend his aid and support to the said protest. and that under the provisions of article 4 such proposals can only be PEOPLE vs. MERE CONSPIRACY AS CONSTITUTING COMMISSION OF CRIME Combinations in restrain of Trade (Art 186) Brigandage (Art 306) Certain violations of the dangerous drugs act MERE PROPOSAL AS OVERT ACT PUNISHED BY LAW: BRIBR NOT ACCEPTED (Art. and coup d‟etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. Generally. and decide to commit it. The crime of conspiracy known to the common law is not an indictable offense in the Philippines. Decision: Under the common law. GLORIA Facts: Gloria was an unsuccessful candidate for election as president of his town.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy. Decision: It is urged that the said offer was a mere proposal to commit a crime. conspiracies punished by special laws (a) commonwealth act no 616 sec. RPC) A. which defines certain specific acts as conspiracies. or a lawful act by unlawful means. he approached the treasurer of said treasurer of said province. C. and does not attempt to charge them with the crime of conspiracy (a) But of pivotal importance perpetuators of crime in determining liability of Decision: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. conspiracy existed between the defendants for the withdrawal of funds from the bank regardless of whether Lim Baunco had funds in the bank to his credit or not. 5 (b) RA 1700 II. to the prejudice of an individual or public is a distinct offense. a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act by lawful means. Sigue-sigue‟s members are predominantly Tagalogs while OXO‟s members came from Visayas and Mindanao: Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in this case /vvverga Page 41 of 100 . An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the viewpoint of morality. otherwise. and provides that a conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically makes them so. US vs. Issue: W/N the defendants should be charged with conspiracy or estafa. The Penal code defines certain acts as conspiracies and makes them punishable. LIM BUANCO Facts: Defendants are being accused of estafa for defrauding El Banco EspanolFilipino. sedition. Exception: As provided by Law 2. However. 212. Upon filing a protest. The information in this case charges the defendants with the crime of estafa. Lim Buanco had an account with the said bank and drew large sums of money therefrom by means of checks that were signed by him and endorsed by Reyes. General Rule: conspiracies and proposals to commit a felony are not punishable Not indictable in the Philippines US vs. rebellion and sedition. conspiracies punished by RPC (a) conspiracy to commit treason (Art 115) (b) conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art 136) (c) conspiracy to commit sedition (Art 141) 3. Defendant was charged with “attempt" to commit the crime of bribery” Issue: W/N the act is punishable by the RPC. the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed.
for 'concurrence of wills' or unity of action and purpose. for the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together at all stages of the conspiracy. conspiracy may be inferred although no actual meeting between them to conspire is proved. Decision: There is no conspiracy in this case. there is a conspiracy Vena V. wherein it is said that "there is an attempt when the guilty person makes a beginning in the commission of a crime by direct. or that one should know the exact part to be performed by the other conspirator in the execution of the conspiracy. IV. VII. Conspirators need not all join in the agreement at the same time Collective criminal responsibility: Act of one. It is not essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act. ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY V. A conflict arose between the victim and one of the defendants when the former accused the latter of land-grabbing lands owned by the former‟s grandfather. Pudpud : "A conspiracy 'exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. as the offer of money is an overt act in a crime of this nature.‟ 'Thus a conspiracy need not be proved be direct evidence. Thus the defendant. 'The objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission punishable by law. Malilay and People v. Alonzo) Solidary indemnity for victim‟s indemnity /vvverga Page 42 of 100 . can not be said to have made a mere proposition. Figueras) They decide to commit it. C. Guido died from traumatic injuries in the head. B. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. That must be their intent. CABILING Facts: The victim was a driver of a truck that was to deliver a truckload of rice to Manila. The conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. OGAPAY Facts: The defendants was said to have conspired to kill Ogapay. indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS DISTINGUISHED CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT TO CRIME FROM Note: When conspiracy relates to crime actually committed. and its refusal on the part of the official whom it was proposed to bribe alone prevented the consummation of the crime." the accused. PEOPLE vs. ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL A person has decided to commit a crime He proposes its commission to another 1. B. Magcomot. In the case in question the proposal was in fact an "attempt" as defined in article 3 of said code.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) punished in cases where specific authority therefor is to be found in the Penal Code. Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in the case at bar. Cabiling contends that he could not have killed Guido since he was not the one with the lead pipe. Moreover. overt acts and does not perform all of the acts of execution which constitute the crime. with several others had the victim killed. came and attacked the persons inside the truck killing the victim. through apparently. C. It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused. Issue: W/N Cabiling is as guilty as his other companions for the murder of Guido. According to People v. at the accomplishment of some unlawful object. There is need in the language of Justice Mapa in the early leading case of United States v. VI. it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony. by their acts. Suddenly. E. having made an offer of money for the purpose of bribery. and that there is nothing in said code which penalizes a proposal to commit the crime of bribery. Verga A. three men. the act of one is the act of all the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree of liability as the others. A. each doing a part so that their acts. Two or more persons come to an agreement (US vs. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed. If such be the case then. a 1909 decision. LIABILITY OF CONSPIRATOR determination to commit felony taking part in every detail is not essential A. who previously had a confrontation with one the truck passengers. by reason of some cause or action other than his own voluntary desistance. D. not a felony but only a means of incurring criminal liability. B. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed. PEOPLE vs. the godson of one of the defendants. act of all (People vs. Decision: Yes. if proposal is accepted. the victim did not support the defendant during the elections. Villarino) Agreement concerns commission of felony (US vs. Their truck broke down while in the highway causing them to stop.' The usual phraseology employed in many of the later cases is 'common and joint purpose and design. Every one of the conspirators who took active part in its execution is therefore responsible for all he acts of the others done in the furtherance of the common design. were in fact connected and cooperative.
it is necessary to prove who shot and killed the victim. TOLING Facts: The defendants were all found guilty for the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide. However. for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed. Mere presence at crime scene does not establish conspiracy Positive and convincing Founded on facts and not mere conjectures. But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion. An accomplice is one who cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts. this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. According to Bolando. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N Quinto should be acquitted Vena V. which caused his untimely death. PEOPLE vs. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. All that there is the agreement. B. B. if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act. there is no evidence tending to show conspiracy. there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. provided that he has not taken direct part in the execution of the crime or forced or induced others to execute it. the prosecution was not able to establish whether it was really the defendant who killed the victim. But if Union B accepts the proposal. the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. he went along with Toling because he was afraid to displease the latter and he only learned of their purpose on their way. Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy 2. Bolando contends that he did not know of Tolings plan till they were in the barrio. Francisco shouted for help. This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. does not establish criminal liability. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability. When the conspiracy itself is a crime. there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. Verga VIII. the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. or cooperated in its perpetuation by an indispensable act. Their agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY Same Degree of proof required to establish crime 1. In the instant case. /vvverga Page 43 of 100 . So. Toling an Bolando robbed a certain Francisco Lumpayao. In the absence of conspiracy. as mere Presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion. Illustration: A. if any. and although he did not directly participate in the robbery he gave moral encouragement to them with his presence and shared in the loot in the amount of Php . in the company of others. the criminal responsibility of several accused is individual. inferences presumptions LIABILITY IN ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY Individual liability or A. Decision: It is significant that in the instant case. among whom could have been the culprits. A. will your answer be different? There is no crime committed. IX. He only joined them because of the Php . the nature and extent of appellant's participation. It was said that Quinto and his companions. none of the co-conspirators would be liable. Quinto‟s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt thus he was acquitted. he should be criminally responsible as an accomplice for the crime of robbery. such a desistance would negate criminal liability. Upon seeing this. had a heated encounter with the victims in topside café.50. Issue: W/N Bolando is as guilty as the other defendants Decision: Conspiracy not having been established. Upon seeing Isabelo. who were at that time already drunk. It is settled that where conspiracy is absent.50 share in the loot that was promised to him. Toling shot Isabelo thereby killing him. PEOPLE vs. QUINTO Facts: The defendants were charged of murder for hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of Patrolman Butawa‟s body mortal gunshot wounds. When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability. The victim went to Francisco‟s house. unless there is an overt act. in the acts leading to the commission of the felony has not been established by the evidence for the prosecution. Considering that Bolando after knowing that thy were to rob someone still went with them to the Barrio. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal. each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own act. On the other hand. C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Question & Answer Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. C. Conspiracy is not proven in this case because it does not appear that the appellants had a common design.
If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention. is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. like in a killing. so that when they reached the place. 204 SCRA 9.00. But when one of them commits any overt act. must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. or approval of the act. however. there was no proposal but a conspiracy. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim. it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability. 186 SCRA 5980. but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule. Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. a conspiracy arises. acquiescence to. 200 SCRA 489. agreement to cooperate. and his desistance negates criminal liability. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness. the police were caught in traffic causing their delay. Proposal is unilateral. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. CA. the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. and they attacked the victim simultaneously. Laurio.000. one party makes a proposition to the other. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Verga Illustrations: A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime. if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place. they have equal criminal responsibility. conspiracy exists. All will be liable for the consequences. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. conspiracy is bilateral. In the evening of that same day. the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the coconspirator regarding the commission of the felony. A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. B had already killed A. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. all of them shall be held liable. Do not search for an agreement among the participants. unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up. Once the proposal was accepted. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. without cooperation or at least. In Taer v. Unfortunately. it requires two parties. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. it was held that mere knowledge. Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it. Vena V. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50. all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible. there is only a preparatory stage. Pinto. The wife ran away. In People v.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Illustration: Three persons plan to rob a bank. Question & Answer /vvverga Page 44 of 100 . There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective. This is just a preparatory act. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. In this case. the act of one is the act of all. Before this stage. Do not think that participants are always known to each other. the law shall reward him for doing so. As pointed out earlier. anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective. As a general rule. the court will not consider the same. This was the ruling in People v. so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had. otherwise. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable. do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. there is no crime yet. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. And when conspiracy exists.” Where there are several persons who participated. not by conjectures or speculations.
A raped the girl upstairs. /vvverga Page 45 of 100 . the young lady agreed to marry D. B and C will be liable for robbery with homicide. which is not a complex crime. Unknown to B and C. there was a planned robbery. it is well settled that any killing taking place while robbery is being committed shall be treated as a single indivisible offense. and after committing the robbery I will return later”. all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. All of them will be liable for robbery with rape. in substance. the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him. Eventually. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes. there is only one crime. such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. B. hence. B and C became hostile with one another. When A. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice. The taxi driver agreed but said. a co-conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. Nierra. The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. and C stands guard outside. B would stay in the first floor. At most. in the eyes of the law. under the influence of marijuana. All went to their designated areas in pursuit of the plan.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. A stabbed D. In Siton v. they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. acting out a common criminal intent. the owner was awakened. the crimes of robbery with homicide. When A looked back at the young lady with D. B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. For example. when there is conspiracy. the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy. there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim. CA. At that instance. if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts. Vena V. Because of this. This notion is no longer absolute. While A was ransacking the second floor. Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy. B. Even if B and C did not know that rape was being committed and they agreed only and conspired to rob. One day. It was agreed that A would go the second floor. Illustrations: A. he saw D laughing menacingly. he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. Rape can not be separated from robbery. B was to wait outside. and C. As a general rule. In this case. There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design. This is because. The crime committed is robbery with rape. a victim was found dead. but an indivisible felony under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Pursuant to their agreement. the participants are punished as principals. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy. such that even without his cooperation. Composite crimes Composite crimes are crimes which. and C decided to commit robbery in the house of D. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. what he only extended was his cooperation. In the case of People v. On several occasions. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death. B saw a camera and took that. There. robbery with physical injuries. A. A would ransack the second floor. broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. they even visited the lady on intervening hours. nobody would be prosecuted. This is because. B and C agreed to rob the house of D. A killed him. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. In case the crime committed is a composite crime. and the taxi driver was present during the planning. yet rape was part of robbery. it was held that conspiracy was present. The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. C and B followed. They ransacked the house. all are principals. His cooperation was not really indispensable. and C found a can of salmon and took that. After the robbery was finished. D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. A got a colored TV. the crime could be carried out as well. When they fled. A. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known? There is collective responsibility here. In the crime of robbery with force upon things. and C would stay on the first floor. robbery with rape. B and C learned about this. Without the principle of conspiracy. “I will bring you there. Illustration: A. thus. The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved. For example. A. Verga A.
which prescribes in five years. felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. That was what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require candidate to classify but also to define. Felonies are classified as follows: (1) According to the manner of their commission Under Article 3. When they saw the opportunity. After two months.00. B and C agreed to kill D. In the case of light felonies. If the penalty is exactly P200. crimes prescribe in two months. (2) According to the stages of their execution Under Article 6. B and C are liable because that was agreed upon and theft was not an integral part of homicide. it can be promulgated even if absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply because it was not the crime agreed upon.. 6 and 9. Verga the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. reckless imprudence.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Article 26. even though the co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime. B and C killed D and after that. except arresto mayor. and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the not the the /vvverga Page 46 of 100 . 6 and 9. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years. he can be made to suffer the fine. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified? What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3. So C will be liable for homicide and theft. apply Article 26. If the offender escapes while in detention after he has been loose. If the penalty is fine and exactly P200. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. In other words. Do not write classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore. the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. less grave or light? To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not. 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. lack of foresight or lack of skill. C inspected the pocket of the victim and found that the victim was wearing a ring – a diamond ring – and he took it. and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned. Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense. intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent. C will be the only one liable. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty. A and B ran into different directions. (3) According to their gravity Under Article 9.00. A. felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator. If the crime is correctional. they are classified as. the examiner was after classifications under Articles 3. and. consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. the state loses the right to prosecute unless the running period is suspended. if there was already judgment that was passed. The crimes committed are homicide and theft. The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime. it is only considered a light felony under Article 9. A. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies. it prescribes in ten years. and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence. 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. and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave. Illustration: A. the fine of P200. these are felonies classified according to their gravity. As far as the homicide is concerned. all will be liable for such crime. less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional. stages and the penalty attached to them. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes.
not the burden of proof. Mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances. Thias was the ruling in People v. In Article 10. With regard to Article 10. There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code: (1) (2) Absolutory cause. If no justice would result. It can absorb the crime of murder. His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12. so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. 533. Rodriguez. is not a special law. In People v. But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. So Presidential Decree No. the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party. or simply correlate the violated special law. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party. the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. if he would not be indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance. and Alternative circumstances. Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies. two prosecutions can be had: (1) sedition. If in the course of cattle rustling. natural and adopted brothers and sisters. The amendments of Presidential Decree No. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. and (2) illegal possession of firearms. For example. 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 Revised Penal Code. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. Martinada. Verga SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. 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. he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. Circumstances affecting criminal liability There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Justifying circumstances. 7659. considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes. murder was committed. Hence. For example. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. Absolutory cause The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability. if needed to avoid an injustice. although not from civil liability. means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Decree No. Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. ascendants. observe the distinction. do not give suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law. there is no criminal liability. descendants. Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law. it is already a special law. are incompatible with dolo. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that would be caused to the private offended party. legitimate. punishing cattle-rustling. there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws”. When an accused invokes them. Exempting circumstances. In justifying and exempting circumstances. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. hence. it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion. In the crime of sedition. which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code. and Extenuating circumstances. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed. or relatives /vvverga Page 47 of 100 . a special law punishes a certain act as a crime.
when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse. It is a case of entrapment because the fellow is already committing the crime from the mere fact that he is possessing marijuana. Service of the sentence. he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. Under Article 219. a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation. Amnesty. abduction. he pleaded to spare him a smoke so this fellow handed to him the cigarette he was smoking and found out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. ascendant. This is a case of entrapment and not instigation. This fellow went to the place and mingled there. Verga Difference between instigation and entrapment In instigation. Vena V.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Prescription of the penalty. the crime is committed with dolo. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. in the case of theft. If the law enforcer were able to enter the house and mingle there. therefore. he would not be there. the offender is already committing a crime. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation. On the other hand. there is no criminal liability but only civil liability. the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and. When he saw somebody. He apprehended the fellow. It did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. On his own. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment. Under Article 332. The law enforcer ascertained if it is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. swindling and malicious mischief. In instigation. the raid was conducted and he was among those prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He arrested the fellow. a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. Under Article 344. Even if the law enforcer did not ask for a cigarette. Defense is instigation. The means employed by the law enforcer did not make the accused commit a crime. the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. Is he criminally liable? No. If the crime is culpable. in entrapment. before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. Illustrations: An agent of the narcotics command had been tipped off that a certain house is being used as an opium den by prominent members of the society. The reason he is there is because he cooperated with the law enforcers. The law enforcers told the undercover man that if he is offered a cigarette. It is confused with entrapment. Then. Is he criminally liable? Yes. and rape. and Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. There is absence of criminal intent. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. He was only there upon instigation of the law enforcers. descendant. Under Article 247. in cases of seduction. acts of lasciviousness. liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. He approached a person suspected to be a pusher and prevailed upon this person to sell him two kilos of dried marijuana leaves and this fellow gave him and delivered them. Prescription of the crime. Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished: Death of the convict as to the personal penalties. The law enforcers cannot themselves penetrate the house because they do not belong to that circle so what they did was to convince a prominent member of society to visit such house to find out what is really happening inside and that so many cars were congregating there. nobody would offer him a cigarette because he is unknown. Even /vvverga Page 48 of 100 . Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Unfortunately. and as to pecuniary penalties. The time came when he was offered a stick of cigarette and he tried it to see if the cigarette would affect him. Defense was that he would not give a cigarette if he was not asked. do not talk of instigation. because he would not have come out for the marijuana leaves if the law enforcer had not instigated him. In another instance. then he should try it to find out whether it is loaded with dangerous drugs or not. the offender was already committing a crime. Absolute pardon. a law enforcer pretended to be a buyer of marijuana.
without which he would not have been a criminal. this act is justified. this is not a case of instigation. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the woman. This is not exempting. both will be criminally liable. When that fellow was delivering the package. The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness. both will be criminally liable. entrapment is not an absolutory cause. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned. there is criminal liability. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime. the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence. If the instigator is not a law enforcer. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability. he was apprehended. If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be not a law enforcer. But he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13. to whom the package was brought to found it to be marijuana. The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) without selling. The fact that he was appointed to another person to find out its contents. he is not committing a crime. but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. Even without bringing. The law enforcer asked him. and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12. The law enforcer is only ascertaining if this fellow is selling marijuana leaves. is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. Mistake of fact is not absolutory cause. not instigation. Is he criminally liable? This is a case of instigation. because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime. he is already possessing the marijuana. Illustrations: An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. who happens to be a law enforcer. Extenuating circumstances The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. He was approached by a law enforcer and was asked if he wanted to deliver a package to a certain person. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment. is to discover whether the crime is committed. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him. In other words. because he is asleep. If not. Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. If element of voluntariness is absent. you cannot have a case of instigation. mere possession is already a crime. because there is no mistake of fact anymore. In instigation. If the instigator is a law enforcer. Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor. Selling is not necessary to commit the crime. although there is civil liability. One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. This is entrapment. Since there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty. How can one sell marijuana if he is not in possession thereof. He is moving like a robot. the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. In entrapment. there is no criminal liability. depriving him of the consciousness of his act. however. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. so this is entrapment. refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer. It is not even mitigating. penalty is lowered by two degrees. A policeman suspected a fellow selling marijuana. The offender is acting without criminal intent. at the time she was abandoned by her husband. In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband. “Are you selling that? How much? Could you bring that to the other fellow there?” When he brought it there. Vena V. only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13. Verga In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping. there is a crime committed by him: illegal possession of dangerous drugs. So this is an extenuating circumstance. it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be. the person. This is a case of inducement. he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. but even without those ways and means. that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without. this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act. When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. So in mistake of fact. /vvverga Page 49 of 100 . On the other hand. unaware of what he is doing. this is an extenuating circumstance. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. A fellow wants to make money. the person instigated cannot be criminally liable.
Jaurigue. In justifying circumstances. He started feeling through the dark. But because the actor acted without voluntariness. B pulled out a revolver and shot A on the chest. As long as that arm of A was down holding the bolo. Illustration: A and B are long standing enemies. If the unlawful aggressor was killed. there is absence of dolo or culpa.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Self Defense Vena V. and in the process. the act of B in shooting A is not justified. The act complained of is actually wrongful. Therefore. She said that she believed that her own honor was at stake. Because of their continuous quarrel over the boundaries of their adjoining properties. it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law. but the actor acted without voluntariness. there is civil liability for the wrong done. he awakened the accused. But there is no criminal liability. there is no crime. (4) When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances. there is a crime. where there were so many people. Mateo. not the act. there is no imminent danger to the life or limb of B. the honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity. Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal. Mere provocation is not enough. The accused claimed as having acted in defense of her honor and mistake of fact. she realized that she had stabbed her brother-in-law. while a woman was sleeping. what was said was that A was holding a bolo. not the actor. When he was about five feet away from B. if any? The act of A is nothing but a provocation. The reasonableness of the means employed depends on the gravity of the aggression. Therefore. Verga Distinctions between circumstances justifying circumstances and exempting In justifying circumstances – (1) (2) (3) (4) The circumstance affects the act. and because there is no crime.” /vvverga Page 50 of 100 . When this is given in the bar. her sister and brother-in-law went to see a movie and came home late that evening. Since there is no crime or criminal. this can only be justified if it was done to save the life of the person defending or the person being defended. it was held that it was not possible to rape the accused because the whole thing transpired in the church. there is no criminal. In US v. The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law. The brother-in-law came up first while his wife was still in the staircase. That bolo does not produce any real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. Defense of rights is included in the circumstances of defense and so is defense of honor. killing him. it is the element of unlawful aggression that is in issue. Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed. Since the act is considered lawful. Believing that her honor was at stake. However. Apparently. It cannot be characterized as an unlawful aggression because in criminal law. When the lights were turned on. there must be always unlawful aggression. Since the act complained of is actually wrongful. the most important is self-defense. The accused was already asleep. There was already some sort of aggression but it was not enough to warrant the act In exempting circumstances – (1) (2) (3) The circumstances affect the actor. Defense of honor here is being equated with one of abuse of chastity of a woman. there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability. She could not possibly be raped in that place. in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12. he approached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. In the facts of the problem given above. under the Revised Penal Code. The equation is “life was taken to save life. she got a pair of scissors and stabbed the man. there is neither criminal nor civil liability. her availing of defense of honor is not tenable. an unlawful aggression is an attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life and limb of the one resorting to self-defense. it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution‟s evidence Justifying circumstances Since the justifying circumstances are in the nature of defensive acts. Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. hence. In US v. He is a mere tool or instrument of the crime. In this case. the offended party placed his hand on the thigh of the woman who was then praying. There is no criminal. when A saw B one afternoon. It was held that the whole matter is purely her imagination. Touching the arm could not produce such danger as would really be imminent to the honor of the woman.
you cannot invoke self-defense. or defense of stranger. How. if only the element of unlawful aggression is present. Illustration: Two policemen quarreled inside a police precinct. At that moment. It was held that the hacking was not justified. the condition that a person making the defense did not act out of revenge. even if there was an unlawful aggression that has already begun. resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor. it would still apply. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In such a case. it means that not all the requisites to justify the act are present or not the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. the offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance. In that position. a woman went into the house of another woman whom she suspected of having an affair with her husband. At the time the accused killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. this policeman who was shot at the thigh was already able to get hold of the revolver. Since the woman has children inside the house. Or absent. The other was wounded on his thigh. the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of the requisites present. The policeman who shot the other guy fell on the floor. First. In the process. Question & Answer The person being defended was a relative – a first cousin. he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. Actually. defense of relative. if at all. If ordinary. but not all. the other requisites being absent. They grappled with the bolo. he started emptying the revolver of the other policeman who was lying on the floor. Defense of property rights This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. On the other hand. if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite. If that is not the situation. Is he entitled to a justifying circumstance? Yes. /vvverga Page 51 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) resorted to by the accused in getting a small knife from her bag and thrusting it on the chest of the offended party. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended. even though he acted out of some evil motive. On that point. What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the aggressor. Incomplete self-defense or incomplete justifying circumstance or incomplete exempting circumstances When you say incomplete justifying circumstance. the one who jumped out of the house was able to wrest the bolo away and started hacking the other woman. defense of relative or defense of stranger. Do not confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. Defense of stranger Vena V. In People v. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge. when she killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. they wrestled for possession of the gun. there can be no incomplete self-defense. the offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. But while there may be no justifying circumstance. Rodriguez. In law. Verga If the person being defended is already a second cousin. That is the focal point. Second. resentment or evil motive is not a requirement in defense of relative. are present. to have incomplete self-defense. do not forget the incomplete self-defense. Life cannot be equal to property. The shooting was not justified. The policeman who was wounded on the thigh jumped on the arm of the fellow who shot him. she jumped out to prevent this other woman from pouring gasoline around the house. Third. it has the effect of lowering the penalty by one to two degrees. it will be his own life that will be lost. She started pouring gasoline on the house of the woman. her life and limb were no longer in imminent danger. it was held that the defense of self-defense is no available. may incomplete self-defense affect the criminal liability of the offender? If the question specifically refers to incomplete self-defense. depending on how the court will regard the absence or presence of conditions to justify the act. you do not invoke defense of relative anymore. and that the person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression. But the fellow who killed the aggressor had some score to settle with the aggressor. It will be defense of stranger. there is no self-defense. if the relative defended is still within the coverage of defense of relative. This is only required in defense of strangers. you have to qualify your answer. so she started hacking the other woman with it. it has the effect of reducing the imposable penalty to the minimum period. But if it is privileged. That will be the situation. was her life in danger? If the answer is no. This mitigating circumstance is either privileged or ordinary. Without this. This is a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 13. In this case. The woman who was pouring gasoline had a bolo. One shot the other.
When they were there. if at all?” Make a separate answer with respect to self-defense. This is what you call incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty or incomplete justification of exercise of a right. defense of relative or defense of stranger. A cannot be justified because the state of necessity was brought about by his own felonious act. On the other hand. It is wrong to treat this as an exception to the rule that in justifying circumstances. In general. In People v. In that case. the offender will be entitled to a privelege mitigating circumstance. The goats rushed to the land of A to be saved. but the land of A was destroyed. but C is not civilly liable because he did not receive benefits. He will not be civilly liable. the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Invariably. The accused arrived at the house of a dancer who was supposedly the girlfriend of Balagtas. you need only to say this: If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. the question should be. The author of the act is C. a policeman. The second requisite is absent because they acted with negligence. started firing at the man. they were held guilty of the crime of murder because the fellow was killed when he was sleeping and totally defenseless. damage or injury caused. Illustration: A and B are owners of adjoining lands. defense of relative or defense of stranger because in these cases. who mistook him for someone else. A owns the land for planting certain crops. He swerved his car towards a house. there are only two conditions: (1) (2) The felony was committed while the offender was in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. on the principle that “no one should enrich himself at the expense of another”. they saw a certain person who resembled Balagtas in all his bodily appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but facing the other direction. a hoodlum. There could not be any danger on their life and limb. although he was not the actor. he drew his revolver and went after B. There was heavy rain and floods. there is no criminal nor civil liability. the penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees. when you are given a problem on this premise. without going around the house. persons who did not participate in the damage or injury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity. “how may incomplete justifying circumstance affect criminal liability of the offender. and the first condition is present. B did not /vvverga Page 52 of 100 . destroying it and killing the occupant therein. The accused. while waiting for his wife to go home. there would be no incomplete selfdefense. For example. C drove all the goats of B to the land of A. There was an order to kill Balagtas if he would resist. It was B who was benefited. When A saw B. his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. When there are only two conditions to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability. Oanis and Callanta. otherwise. and The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office. A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so that when he reached the curve. State of necessity The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances. There was nothing that prevented them from looking around the house and looking at the face of the fellow who was sleeping. the presence of one shall be regarded as the majority. Do not confuse fulfillment of a duty with self-defense. B owns the land for raising certain goats. his defense would be that he acted out of a state of necessity. He cannot claim that it was fortuitous event. C used another land for a vegetable garden. the Supreme Court granted them the benefit of incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty and the penalty was reduced by one or two degrees. was suddenly stabbed at the back by B.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. However. Fulfillment of duty In the justifying circumstance of a person having acted out of fulfillment of a duty and the lawful exercise of a right or office. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. They tried to invoke the justifying circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of a duty. Hence. you always have to specify the element of unlawful aggression. Civil liability is based on the benefit derived and not on the act. After firing a shot in the air. the accused Chief of Police and the constabulary soldier were sent out to arrest a certain Balagtas. supposedly a notorious bandit. but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa. with respect to other circumstances. B will answer only to the extent of the benefit derived by him. They found out later on that the man was not really Balagtas. Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of necessity. Dam was opened. Illustration: A. Verga If the question refers generally to justifying or exempting circumstances. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the state of necessity. If C who drove all the goats is accused of malicious mischief. The penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees.
The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the offender acted with discernment. Is the act of A justified? Yes. Note that the commitment of the offender in a reformatory is just a consequence of the suspension of the sentence. in the eyes of the law. the exemption is absolute. the following are the two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity: (1) The test of cognition. 1991. he will be given the benefit of an incomplete fulfillment of duty. Even if the offender nine years or below acted with discernment. He must be below 18 years old because a youthful offender is one who is below 18. a distinction has to be made whether the offender acted with or without discernment. It is /vvverga Page 53 of 100 . An offender below 18 is always entitled to a mitigating or exempting circumstance. When the unlawful aggressor started fleeing. Imbecility and insanity There is complete absence of intelligence. or absence of negligence. This is wrong. and (2) (2) Vena V. You apply paragraph 5 on fulfillment of duty. 1179 requires that before a youthful offender may be given the benefit if a suspension of sentence. the policeman still fired indiscriminately. If over nine but below 15. imprudence. However. If the sentence is not suspended. It seems that the view of many is that when the offender is a youthful offender. This means he is a first timer. But if. the reason for the exemption lies on the involuntariness of the act – one or some of the ingredients of voluntariness such as criminal intent. he must necessarily be confined in a reformatory. to bring the criminal to the authorities. The intellectual deficiency is permanent. If the person attacked runs after him. or whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will. Under the amendment to Presidential Decree No. How does the minority of the offender affect his criminal liability? (1) If the offender is within the bracket of nine years old exactly or less. this is true only if it was the person who stabbed was the one killed. or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime. as defined is limited to mental aberration of the mind. Rafanan. The offender was not only defending himself but was acting in fulfillment of a duty. this should not be taken against him because in this age bracket. 603. There is no lucid interval unlike in insanity. In People v. lack of foresight or lack of skill. As long as he was not acting out of malice when he fired at the fleeing criminal. Presidential Decree No. the policeman was stabbed and despite the fact that the aggressor ran into a crowd of people. This was the ruling in People v. he becomes the unlawful aggressor. The justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be invoked because the unlawful aggression had already ceased by the time A shot B. the most important issue is how the minority of the offender affected his criminal liability. Exempting circumstances In exempting circumstances. or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing. B died. intelligence. Schizoprenia (dementia praecox) can only be considered a mitigating circumstance because it does not completely deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. There is no more bracket where the offender is a minor yet no longer entitled to a mitigating circumstance. emotional or spiritual insanity are exempting circumstances unlike in this jurisdiction because the Revised Administrative Code. Note that the age of majority has been reduced to 18.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) stop so A shot B who was hit at a vital part of the body. Dungo. The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental aberration or disease of the mind and must completely impair the intelligence of the accused. there is no commitment in a reformatory. Verga The test of volition. In case it is a culpable felony. he cannot be made criminally liable. This type of offenders are absolutely exempt. the unlawful aggression ceased. he is exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. Minority In exempting circumstances. The policeman would be held criminally liable because he acted with imprudence in firing toward several people where the offender had run. The commitment is in a penitentiary. The offender should not have been given the benefit of a suspended sentence before. A youthful offender can only be confined in a reformatory upon order of the court. Imbecile has an IQ of 7. there is absence of freedom of action or intelligence. decided on November 21. But although he will be criminally liable. Under common law countries. there must be an application filed with the court which should pronounce sentence. Self-defense cannot be invoked. since suspension of sentence requires certain conditions: (1) (2) (3) The crime committed should not be punishable by reclusion perpetua or death penalty. let us say.
the offender must act without voluntariness. If the sentence is promulgated. If the youthful offender has filed an application therefor. that he was doing it with due care but somehow.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) not for the minor to prove that he acted without discernment. This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim “damnum absque injuria”. It cannot be less than two degrees. In exempting circumstances. Apply to exempt from criminal liability are Damnum absque injuria /vvverga Page 54 of 100 . it will be Article 365 on criminal negligence. However. he cannot avail of a suspended sentence. paragraph 2. in paragraph 4 of Article 12. the court will promulgate the sentence but the minor shall be entitled to the reduction of the penalty by at least two degrees. All that the minor has to show is that he is within the age bracket. it has to prove that the crime was committed with discernment. the penalty to be imposed is discretionary on the court. (3) If at the time the judgment is to be promulgated he is already above 18. injury resulted by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. It may be lowered by three or four degrees. he is not 18 years old or over yet. he would have to be committed to a penitentiary. If the offender has still freedom of choice. where generally there is civil liability. Compulsion of irresistible uncontrollable fear force and under the impulse of an The offender must be totally deprived of freedom. If at the very beginning. Suspension of sentence is not automatic. Notice that in the last paragraph of Article 365. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. this is where the court may give him the benefit of a suspended sentence. the circumstance of incomplete exemption the rule if majority of the requisites otherwise be exempt. yet. the penalty is qualified to a higher degree. What is the liability of the driver? There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12. whether to act or not. When the offender is over nine but below 15. but the person who caused the injury is duty bound to attend to the person who was injured. Verga Under Article 12. he is only civilly liable but he will be committed to the surveillance of his parents who will be required to report to the court periodically on the progress or development of the offender. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. but lowered by at least two degrees. Instead. in the case of the so-called hit and run drivers who have injured somebody and would abandon the victim of the accident. paragraph 4. the court will impose a penalty one degree lower. but the requisites offender is still entitled to a mitigating under paragraph 1 of Article 13. If he would abandon him. This means that the offender must be performing a lawful act. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor. The driver is not under obligation to defray the medical expenses. In a situation where the offender would for exemption are not all present. Article 275 gives you the crime of abandoning the victim of one‟s own accident. Here. while considering the condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that time. there is no exemption anymore but he is also given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions stated earlier and if at the time the sentence is promulgated. Since he cannot be committed to a reformatory anymore because he is not less than 18 years old. It is to be imposed one degree lower and in the proper periods subject to the rules in Article 64. If the sentence should not be suspended. Illustration: A person who is driving his car within the speed limit. you do not apply Article 275. correlate paragraph 4 of Article 12 with the second paragraph of Article 275. Here. there is no civil liability as well as criminal liability. Although. It is a crime. The limitation that it should be lowered by at least two degrees is just a limitation on the power of the court to reduce the penalty. the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability. this is just an exempting circumstance. the accident referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 275 is in the concept of paragraph 4 of Article 12. Vena V. he is not exempt from criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. he would be committed in a reformatory. the offender was negligent. although the minor may be qualified. The reason is because if the sentence were to be suspended. If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment. tripped on a stone with one of his car tires. That means promulgation of the sentence shall not be suspended. if the offender was exempt from criminal liability because the prosecution was not able to prove that the offender acted with discernment. the infliction of the injury by mere accident does not give rise to a criminal or civil liability. This time it is fixed. under paragraph 4 of Article 12. If the prosecution would want to pin criminal liability on him. it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is punished under the second paragraph of Article 275. (4) If the offender is 15 years old and above but below 18. Here. even if force was employed on him or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear. depending upon whether the court deems best for the interest of the offender.
you disregard the privileged character of minority. before you go into any circumstance. In bar problems. Article 69 would apply. Mitigating circumstances Distinctions between ordinary mitigating circumstances (1) mitigating circumstances and privileged Vena V. The answer. the offender is a 17-year old boy. Privilege mitigating circumstance aggravating circumstance. among other situations. That means that the penalty prescribed of the crime committed shall be reduced by one or two degrees in accordance with Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. when you are given indeterminate sentences. these articles are very important. If less than a majority of the requisites for exemption are present. That circumstance is privileged. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. is yes. Although the bulk of the circumstances in Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances. He shall be given the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. therefore. The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating. Question & Answer A 17 year old boy committed parricide. therefore. paragraph 2. since being 17 years old is a privilege mitigating circumstance. two or more of this ordinary mitigating circumstances shall have the /vvverga Page 55 of 100 . So before you go in the Indeterminate Sentence Law. it is a privilege. You have learned that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. in cases where the offender is below 18 years old. You can easily detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of the offender is privilege or not. The offender shall be given the benefit of privelege mitigating circumstances. But if over nine but under 15. it is privilege. When there is a lowering of penalties by degrees. you have to apply that circumstance first. the penalty would go one degree lower and the penalty for parricide which now stands at reclusion perpetua will go down to reclusion temporal. when the crime committed is punishable by a divisible penalty. that is. except in paragraph 1. if not offset. such an offender if criminally liable is entitled to the lowering of penalty by one degree. Being a 17-year old boy. if the penalty is reduced by degree. therefore. yet. is reclusion temporal. It cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) present. Although the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is reclusion perpetua. That is precisely why this circumstance is considered privileged. the facts state. So also. that is not the imposable penalty. Between giving the offender the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and withholding it away from him. provided the penalty is a divisible one. That privilege lowers the penalty by one degree. depending upon what the law provides. will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum period. It is wrong for you to determine whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not on the basis of reclusion perpetua because that is not the imposable penalty. he is entitled to a discretionary penalty of at least two degrees lower. Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees. The moment you do that. when the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. That means the penalty shall be reduced to the minimum period of the prescribed penalty. When the circumstance which mitigates criminal liability is privileged. When you arrive at the correct penalty. The imposable penalty. do not compensate because that would be violating the rules. But then in the problem given. You are only treating it as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. therefore. Reclusion temporal is already governed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Privilege mitigating circumstance will apply over and above all other considerations. It takes preference over all other circumstances. there is more reason to give him its benefit. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to this and so the offender will be given its benefit. can never be offset by any (2) As to effect Ordinary mitigating circumstances. lower first the penalty to the proper degree. Verga effect of a privilege mitigating circumstances if there is no aggravating circumstance at all. Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. the offender shall be given only the benefit of ordinary mitigating circumstances. even if there is an aggravating circumstance. In other words. Will he be given the benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law? Then. Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of imposing the penalties under Articles 63 and 64. Criminal laws are to be construed always in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. unless the mitigating circumstance is offset by an aggravating circumstance. that is As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. you give effect to it above all considerations. where it is privilege.
thinking of the humiliation and outrage done to him. Article 13 will not apply. but A cannot hit back at B because B is bigger. Verga The commission of the felony must be immediate to the threat or provocation in order that this circumstance be mitigating. the law presupposes that during that interval. this time. The evidence for the accused showed that when he went home. as well as the Court of Appeals. In other words. C told B that sometime in the past. The common set-up given in a bar problem is that of provocation was given by somebody. whatever anger or diminished self control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or disappeared. he was armed with a knife and he stabbed the bully to death. Praeter intentionem The common circumstance given in the bar of praeter intentionem. mitigating circumstances does not apply. there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at /vvverga Page 56 of 100 . there is sufficient provocation. it is not mitigating because the one who gives the provocation is not the one against whom the crime was committed. The outrage was so serious unless vindicated. he did not fight back. This is the correct interpretation of paragraph 4. so he was humiliated and embarrassed. and because he was small. it is the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be promulgated. has stretched this criterion – it is not only a matter of time anymore. The accused tried to reason out but the bully slapped him several times in front of so many people. The accused was still acting under a diminished self control because he was thinking of the humiliation he suffered in the hands of the offended party. paragraph 4. Accused had no choice but to go home. he cannot fight the bully at that time because the latter was much bigger and heavier. For purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. The reason stated by the Supreme Court for allowing the accused to be benefited by this mitigating circumstance is that the effect of the humiliation and outrage emitted by the offended party as a provocation upon the accused was still present when he committed the crime and. this is the product of intentional felony. not a culpable one. As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat. Can A invoke sufficient provocation to mitigate criminal liability? No. therefore. If there is sufficient break of time before the provocation or threat and the consequent commission of the crime. some of whom were ladies who were being courted by the accused. the person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or on an elder father. but if provocation did not come from the person offended. he is acting under a diminished self control.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the time when you find out whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not. under paragraph 3. despite the lapse of about 22 hours. You have to look at two criteria: (1) If from the element of time. B at that time was with his brother C. the courts are generally considering that there must be no break between the provocation or threat and the commission of the felony. Sufficient provocation must come from the offended party. Vena V. not the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be imposed. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed. In applying this mitigating circumstance. thus. the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime shall be the basis. he was not able to sleep throughout the night. Although in fact. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The Supreme Court gave him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. the reason for paragraph 4 still applies. there was a ruling that if a period of one hour had lapsed between the provocation and the commission of the felony. means that there must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. the recent rulings of the Supreme Court. Question & Answer A was walking in front of the house of B. this circumstance does not avail. There may actually be sufficient provocation which immediately preceded the act. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or culpa. A boxed him. This is the reason why it is mitigating. B approached A and boxed him. so A boxed C. This is one of the three instances where the offender has performed a felony different from that which he intended. Illustration: The accused went to a barrio dance. there was a bully and he told the accused that he is not allowed to go inside. Article 13. Before. However. The person provoked cannot retaliate against him. the felony was committed precisely because he was then and there provoked. this mitigating circumstance is no longer applicable. However. In that gathering. Sufficient threat or provocation This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the very person who made the threat or provocation. Therefore. When he saw the bully again. the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed is not considered. But for purposes of suspension of the sentence.
So. In considering whether the wrong is a grave one upon the person who committed the crime. Hence. So.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the time he committed the crime. C danced with B. The trial court denied his claim because the relationship was a common law one. facts are given indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime. it need not be the same person who committed the grave offense or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party. the accused was given the benefit of the circumstances and the basis of considering passion or obfuscation in favor of the accused was the act of the common law wife in committing adultery right from the conjugal bed. The word “immediate” here does not carry the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. Since they are predicated on different set of facts. it is enough that the offender committed the crime with the grave offense done to him. in one case. whether natural. that requisite which in the first place. Here. However. they may be appreciated together. when a married man upon coming home. one of the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4. If this act was done somewhere else and the accused kills the paramour or the spouse. then he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. In a case where the relationship between the accused and the woman he was living with was one of common law. Here. the vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed. If the case involves a series of facts. still. although they arose from one and the same case. his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister. Passion or obfuscation This stands on the premise or proposition that the offender is suffering from a diminished self control because of the passion or obfuscation. he came home and surprised his common law wife having sexual intercourse with a friend. This infuriated him. Illustrations: A is courting B. then Article 247 does not apply.” Therefore. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be given in favor of the offender. consider whether passion or obfuscation is generated by common law relationship or by some other human consideration. However. then you can predicate any one of these circumstances on one fact and the other on another fact and so on. the accused will be given the benefit of sufficient provocation if the intercourse was done in his dwelling. If he kills them. sufficient provocation was one of the mitigating circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in favor of the accused. Article 247 does not apply. education and social status will be considered. Actually. if there is that time element and at the same time. there is a ruling to the effect that if the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4. he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him. Whether or not they are married. he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6. 5 and 6 stands or arises from a set of facts. When a married person surprised his better half in the act of sexual intercourse with another. He killed the friend and he claimed passion or obfuscation. here. The word “immediate” here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the Spanish word is “proxima” and not “immediatementa. his spouse. Vena V. In People v. A saw this and stabbed C. As a rule. It was held that jealousy is an acknowledged basis of passion. adopted or legitimate and that is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. and another mitigating /vvverga Page 57 of 100 . However. it was almost three days before accused was able to locate the house where the Chinaman brought the woman. the prohibition against considering all these mitigating circumstances together and not as one applies only if they would be taken on the basis of the same set of facts. in vindication of a grave offense. (2) However. it cannot be based on common law relationship because common law relationships are illicit. Although this is the ruling. The passion must be legitimate. On review. the offender must have surprised his/her spouse actually committing sexual intercourse should be present. It is enough if what was imputed or what was done was wrong. or vice-versa. Verga circumstance arises from another set of facts. If the surprising was done not in the actual act of sexual intercourse but before or after it. a Chinaman eloped with a woman. vindication of a grave offense will be mitigating in favor of the offender. a receptionist in a beerhouse. Therefore. this may be considered as mitigation of a grave offense to him or otherwise as a situation sufficient to create passion or obfuscation. then you use the criterion based on the time element. unlike in sufficient threat or provocation where the crime should be inflicted upon the very person who made the threat or provocation. any man who discovers that infidelity was committed on the very bed provided by him to the woman would naturally be subjected to obfuscation. he gets the benefit of Article 247. Vindication of a grave offense The word “offense” should not be taken as a crime. his age. The same is true with the circumstances under paragraphs 4 and 5. Diokno. surprises his wife who was nude and lying with another man who was also nude.
However. the surrender is not spontaneous. It was held that passion and obfuscation were considered mitigating. a female classmate. the ruling was that voluntary surrender is mitigating. he cannot talk so what he did was. Ingratitude was shown here. this is not voluntary surrender. the offender did not flee and he went with the responding law enforcers meekly. because (1) he acknowledges his guilt (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expenses of searching and capturing him. he continues to elude arrest. This was held to be obfuscation. If he would give up. If. Even if the offender may have gone into hiding. 1992. defense or communication with others are not restricted. Verga do not know of his whereabouts. People v. If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been slandered. had evaded the law enforcers and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime committed. She gave him the best years of her life. Where the offender went to the municipal building not to own responsibility for the killing. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. almost naked. In this case. On the way out. The man left the village where they were living and never returned home. Mindac. Although he admitted his participation in the killing. The crime committed was physical injuries. On the scheduled wedding day. the offender would come out in the open and he gives himself up. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers Vena V. voluntary surrender is not applicable. must be spontaneous. She practically waited for him day and night. there is a ruling that if after committing the crime. his act of surrendering under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also thereby saves the government the effort. The fact that he was deaf and dumb is not mitigating because that does not bear any relation to the crime committed. In a case where the offender is deaf and dumb. In short. as long as his means of action. instantly killing him. However. after having committed the crime. she stabbed the groom in the chest. The male classmate stabbed said men. for which reason he raped her. the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim. the surrender is not considered as indicative of remorse or repentance. if he comes out from hiding because he is seriously ill and he went to get medical treatment. Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The surrender here is only done out of convenience to save his own self. /vvverga Page 58 of 100 . a male classmate is escorting B. The common law wife learned that he was getting married to a classmate. the offender had the opportunity to go into hiding. decided December 14. Analogous cases The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender. The Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only way is to use his force because he cannot strike back. if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place. such fact is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. demonstrating an intent to submit himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent in authority. If the offender is blind in one eye. The act of a thief in leading the authorities to the place where he disposed of the loot has been considered as analogous or equivalent to voluntary surrender. As a general rule.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) A. This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was committed. he tried to avoid responsibility by claiming self-defense which however he was not able to prove. When a man saw a woman bathing. Physical defect The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. A man and a woman were living together for 15 years. Surrender to be considered voluntary and thus mitigating. She confessed and explained that any woman cannot tolerate what he did to her. under this circumstance. it is not mitigating. some men whistled lustfully. such man cannot claim passion as a mitigating circumstance. then even if the law enforcers do not know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out. if after committing the crime. the fact that he did not flee is not voluntary surrender. Hence. personal property was entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. such circumstance is not mitigating. his act of doing so will be considered as indicative of repentance and he also saves the government the time and the expense of looking for him. Where the reason for the surrender of the accused was to insure his safety. his arrest by policemen pursuing him being inevitable. The crime committed was estafa. the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him. Voluntary surrender The essence of voluntary surrender requires that the offender.
the crime was already murder. however. the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are referred to simply as aggravating circumstances. This is so because there is no qualifying circumstance that is not aggravating. they are susceptible of being offset by a mitigating circumstance. In Article 248. The treachery was not proved. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices. Qualifying or those that change the nature of the crime. During the trial. Just the same. Inherent or those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. Thus. it is not qualifying. Qualifying circumstances to be appreciated as such must be specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Only one of these is qualifying. what was alleged in the information was treachery. the law specifically mentions thereunder several circumstances which are aggravating under Article 14. if there is any ordinary mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. However. if there are three of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the complaint or information. If any one of the three circumstances was proven. although initially they are considered as qualifying. the two other circumstances which are otherwise qualifying could be offset by the mitigating. The others will merely be considered as generic. with the same degree of proof required to establish the crime itself. If not alleged but proven during the trial. It is generic because it is not alleged in the information at all. even if they are alleged in the information or complaint. reward or promise were alleged as aggravating. The circumstance is actually an ingredient of the crime. provided the mitigating circumstance is not a privileged mitigating circumstance. Verga The circumstance affects the nature of the crime itself such that the offender shall be liable for a more serious crime. the accused cannot be convicted of murder because the circumstance proven is not qualifying but merely generic. only one will qualify the crime. Therefore it is included in the provision of law defining the crime. his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will not be considered mitigated by incomplete state of necessity. reward or promise as a consideration for killing. if that is not the circumstance alleged in the information. It only affects the penalty to be imposed but the crime remains the same. such will be wiped out by these circumstances. Most important of the classification of aggravating circumstances are the qualifying and the generic aggravating circumstances. It is not an ingredient of a crime. If the other two are also proven. what was proven was the price. can be offset by an ordinary mitigating No need to allege this circumstance in the information. In qualifying circumstance – (1) Vena V. To say qualifying aggravating circumstance is redundant. (2) (3) An aggravating circumstance is qualifying when it is an ingredient of the crime. If it is proved during trial. If it is not so included. Three of these circumstances: treachery. Therefore. as a result of which he became poor. Specific or those that apply only to a particular crime. as long as it is proven during trial. they are only to be taken as generic. In the examination. (3) /vvverga Page 59 of 100 . Let us say. you have to think about these as aggravating circumstances which are the ingredients of the crime. All of these will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. In practice.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. this is not so where the offender became impoverished because of his own way of living his life. in the crime of murder. Distinctions between aggravating and qualifying circumstances: In aggravating circumstances – (1) (2) The circumstance circumstance. If let us say. Aggravating circumstances Kinds of aggravating circumstances: (1) (2) (3) (4) Generic or those that can generally apply to all crime. it will be considered only as generic aggravating circumstance. if you find qualifying circumstances. the accused was charged with murder. Being an ingredient of the crime. it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. If this happens. the court would consider the same in imposing the penalty. If there is any mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. Even if any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 on murder was proven. The so-called qualifying aggravating circumstances are simply referred to as qualifying circumstances. Do not hesitate to offset on the principle that a qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance because only one is necessary. If any of these qualifying circumstances is not alleged in the The aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certainty. it cannot qualify the crime. evident premeditation and act was done in consideration of a price. you understand that only one is qualifying.
age. The rule that dwelling. The accused abused the child. This is only true however. Article 14. the fellow was hired to kill the parent of the one who hired him. colleges and universities. he is liable for the same crime committed. If the confidence is reposed by another. professors. the offended party is one of the members of the family. privacy and comfort. Husband inflicted physical violence upon the wife. if the servant was still in the service of the family when he did the killing. not against property like Robbery with homicide (People v. If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender. What was committed is different from what was agreed upon. If he was driven by the master already out of the house for some time and he came back and poisoned the child. Verga Abuse of confidence Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of trust. Taking advantage of public position Article 62 was also amended by the Republic Act No. supervisors of public and duly recognized private schools. Dwelling can be aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended party. abuse of confidence is no longer aggravating. in order to be aggravating must be owned by the offended party is no longer absolute. (People v. provided that the offended party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and equally enjoys peace of mind. Ga. The wife left the conjugal home and went to the house of her sister bringing her personal belongings with her. It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind. sex Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor. Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. This is aggravating only when the very offended party is the one who reposed the confidence. Vena V. 7659. it cannot be considered qualifying because a qualifying is an ingredient of the crime and it cannot be taken as such without having alleged in the information because it will violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. Taoan. In a case where the offender is a servant. as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance. dwelling is not aggravating. like treachery. It was held that the abuse of confidence is not aggravating. let us say. Disrespect due to rank. comfort and privacy. Illustration: A person induced another to kill somebody. The legal import of this amendment is that the subject circumstance has been made a qualifying or special aggravating that shall not be offset or compensated by a mitigating circumstance. That fellow killed the other guy and employed treachery.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) information. If the crime charged is qualified trespass to dwelling. If not alleged in the information. dwelling is no longer aggravating. Correlate Article 14 with Article 62. The reason is because that confidence has already been terminated when the offender was driven out of the house. the treachery will qualify only the criminal liability of the actual executioner. He killed a stranger and not the parent. Illustrations: A mother left her young daughter with the accused because she had nobody to leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. It was held that abuse of confidence is aggravating. Aggravating circumstances will not be considered when it is the crime itself. 182 SCRA 601). it will only aggravate the criminal liability of those who employed the same. but not for purposes of aggravating circumstances in paragraph 2. Privileged mitigating circumstances always lower the penalty accordingly. The fellow who induced him becomes a co-principal and therefore. the offended party is different from the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case is not aggravating. rest. The fellow who hired him will not be liable for the crime he had done because that was not the crime he was hired to commit. 156 SCRA 790). Teachers. The husband went to the house of the sister-in-law and tried to /vvverga Page 60 of 100 . It should also not be the dwelling of the offender. Dwelling Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the dwelling of the offended party. it is only appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. When the aggravating circumstance refers to the material execution of the crime. The sister accommodated the wife in the formers home. but proven during the trial. however. The servant poisoned the child. However. Article 62 gives you the different rules regarding aggravating circumstances. Illustration: Husband and wife quarreled. The mitigating circumstance referred to in the amendment as not affecting the imposition of the penalty in the maximum are only ordinary mitigating circumstances. As far as the killing is concerned. What is present is betrayal of trust and that is not aggravating.
this aggravating circumstance. If the dwelling portion is attacked. /vvverga Page 61 of 100 . If the offender entered the house and the offended party jumped out of the house. rest and peace of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a dwelling. 1992). All the appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort. If the place used is on the second floor. the stairs which are used to reach the second floor is considered a dwelling because the second floor cannot be enjoyed without the stairs. It was held that dwelling is aggravating. If he is killed there. Due to the wife's refusal to go back to the conjugal home and live with the husband. each one is his own dwelling. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. De Los Reyes. Hence. considering that any dependency necessary for the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered a dwelling. Hence. is considered a dwelling. the same being necessary and an integral part of his house or dwelling. when an attack is made while A is on the stairs. A garage is part of the dwelling when connected with an interior passage to the house proper. dwelling is not aggravating. However. dwelling is still aggravating. In the provinces where the comfort rooms are usually far from the house proper. dwelling is not considered aggravating. if the offended party while answering the call of nature is killed. dwelling is not aggravating. Vena V. rest. dwelling is already aggravating. If a young man brought a woman in a motel for a short time and there he was killed. provided that he also stays there once in a while. Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is appurtenant to the house Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home (People v.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) persuade the wife to come back to the conjugal home but the wife refused because she is more at peace in her sister's house than in the conjugal abode. The reason is because he could not have left his dwelling were it not for the fact that the attacker entered the house. Illustrations: A and B are living in one house. was shot. the law is presuming that he is not intending to commit a wrong so one who attacks him while in the tranquility of his home shows a degree of perversity in him. A man was killed in the house of his common law wife. A person has more than one dwelling. it is not considered part of the dwelling. there is another separate entrance to the portion used for dwelling. the husband pulled out a knife and stabbed the wife which caused her death. The term “dwelling” includes all the dependencies necessary for a house or for rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. if the paramour was also residing on the same dwelling. the circumstance is aggravating. Verga Whenever one is in his dwelling. in case the store is closed. When he is only a visitor there. decided October 22. peace of mind and comfort. even if the offender caught up with him already out of the house. If not connected. If the offended party was assaulted while on the stairs. Roof still part of the house. One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used for dwelling but there is only one entrance. A occupies the ground floor while B the upper floor. it is a public place and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. then dwelling is aggravating because the comfort room is a necessary dependency of the house proper. dwelling is aggravating since here. Even a room in a hotel if rented as a dwelling. where the offended party seeks privacy. However. The stairs here would form part only of B's dwelling. maintaining the room. Dwelling is aggravating. The paramour is not a resident of the same dwelling. If the offended party was inside the house and the offender was outside and the latter shot the former inside the house while he was still outside. Dwelling was considered aggravating on the part of the paramour. the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not present. Dwelling is aggravating in this case because the house was provided by the man. For this reason. If the dwelling portion is attacked where even if the store is open. A room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of permanence. Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. then the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. dwelling will be aggravating. So. A person while in the room of his house. Peace of mind and comfort. It was held that dwelling was aggravating although it is not owned by the offended party because the offended party is considered as a member of the family who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enjoyed privacy. The crime of adultery was committed. Illustrations: A man was fixing something on the roof of his house when he was shot. like what the salesmen do when they are assigned in the provinces and they rent rooms. Dwelling is still aggravating even if the offender did not enter the house. if a man has so many wives and he gave them a places of their own. the store is not a public place as in the first case. dwelling is not aggravating because whenever a store is open for business. If the attack is made while B was on the stairs.
Is there an aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place here? Yes. hence. Whenever you talk of band. (2) (3) (4) Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency In recidivism – /vvverga Page 62 of 100 . estafa or falsification. the chances of B receiving some help was very little. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 – Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by law for the new felony. Do not say three or more because it is four or more. B and C also are on board on their respective bancas. Vena V. Uninhabited place It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense . Even if there are four. a “home”. Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset to sunrise. there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Darkness is what makes this circumstance aggravating. although he is not the owner thereof as when victim was shot in the house of his parents. Illustration: A is on board a banca. Verga As a rule. D showed up from underwater and stabbed B. It must be shown that the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness and the offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense. Illustration: One evening. Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) – The offender within the period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries. Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender (1) Recidivism under Article 14 (9) – The offender at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.Brigandage. The Supreme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance meeting.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Dwelling is aggravating where the place is. when actually it should be 4 or more. a crime was committed near the lamp post. The way the law defines a band is somewhat confusing because it refers simply to more than 3. it is not a band. always have in mind four at least. darkness was not present. no aggravating circumstance just by the fact of nighttime alone. band becomes aggravating. Even if the crime was committed at night. shall be necessary. Evidence tending to prove that the offender took advantage of the place and purposely availed of it is to make it easier to commit the crime. Correlate this with Article 306 . there is no aggravating circumstance here. robo. as well as crime began at night and ended at day is not aggravated by the circumstance of nighttime. The crime is the band itself. All of them should be armed. Suddenly. not so far away. Band In band. the crime must begin and end during the nighttime. but there was light. despite the fact that there were other persons not so far from the scene. Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) – The offender has been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. However. even for a brief moment. Nighttime What if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime? This is not aggravating. considering the fact that A and C before being able to give assistance still have to jump into the water and swim towards B and the time it would take them to do that. from dusk to dawn. there should at least be four persons. where brigandage is actually committed. Crime began at day and ended at night. but only three or less are armed. hurto. The mere forming of a band even without the commission of a crime is already a crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itself is the way to commit brigandage. is found guilty of the any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
hence it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. It is important that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed earlier than the subsequent conviction. the fifth and so on . (d) theft. . In recidivism. but if the defense does not object to the presentation of evidence during the trial and the same was proven. otherwise the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose additional penalty. The trial for robbery ended in 1981. No matter how long ago the offender was convicted. the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was previously convicted by final judgement of a felony and subsequently found guilty of another felony embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. If not offset. In recidivism. Verga Illustration: In 1980. it is enough that they may be embraced under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Question & Answer In 1975. it is necessary that the conviction must come in the order in which they are committed. The law considers this aggravating when a person has been committing felonies embraced in the same title because the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any specialization. it would only increase the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed to its maximum period. (3) (4) (5) Recidivism In recidivism. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute recidivism. no aggravating circumstance is present. Aside from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed. but not the conviction. it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the penalty. he was convicted of theft and he did not appeal this decision. It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information. (c) robbery. an additional penalty shall be imposed depending upon whether it is already the third conviction. Pardon does not erase recidivism. Recidivism may be considered even though not alleged in the information because this is only a generic aggravating circumstance. Vena V. While the same was being tried in 1978. A committed robbery. The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical injuries. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of a special law. even if it is absolute because only excuses the service of the penalty. he committed theft in 1983. Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance. the crimes committed should be felonies. Recidivism does not prescribe. The crimes are not specified. . there was no other crime of which he was convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater. although the law defines it as a circumstance where a person having been convicted by final judgement was previously convicted also by final judgement for a crime embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code. Recidivism is imprescriptible. He was found guilty and was convicted of theft also in 1983. he committed theft. The circumstance must be alleged in the information. Hence. the court shall consider such aggravating circumstance because it is only generic.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) Two convictions are enough. He also did not appeal this decision. It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the offender has already served his sentence and he was extended an absolute pardon. when a person commits a crime under different titles. . There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every convictions computed from the first conviction or release from punishment thereof to conviction computed from the second conviction or release therefrom to the third conviction and so on . The conviction became final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his earlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. (e) estafa or swindling and (f) falsification. the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more penalty so it shall be understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime. the offender committed robbery. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed. the fourth. /vvverga Page 63 of 100 . ordinarily. In 1980. The circumstance need not be alleged in the information. (b) less serious physical injuries. There is no time limit between the first conviction and the subsequent conviction. May the judge (5) In habitual delinquency – (1) (2) At least three convictions are required. if he is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. . While the case was being tried.
This is the philosophy on which the circumstance becomes aggravating. If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less serious physical injuries and the second conviction is for robbery. the objection should be overruled. if that conviction is subsequent to the commission of the robbery. this fellow was corrected because instead of committing a serious crime. theft or estafa and the third is for falsification. the date when the accused was convicted or discharged. The reason why habitual delinquency cannot be appreciated unless alleged in the information is because recidivism has nothing to do with the crime committed. there was already a previous conviction. that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to consider habitual delinquency. the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. This is because in 1975 when he committed the robbery. If these are not alleged. Habitual delinquency We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the titles of crimes in the Revised Penal Code. the trial court can appreciate it. he will more or less refrain from committing crimes again. the accused has the right to avail of the so-called bill of particulars. the law expects that since he has already tasted punishment. you cannot avoid that he is a habitual delinquent and at the same time a recidivist because at least. If the Vena V. it must specify the crimes committed. he committed a lesser one. the court cannot admit the evidence presented to prove habitual delinquency over the objection of the accused. Thus. Reiteracion This has nothing to do with the classification of the felonies. recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. If you will interpret the definition of recidivism. if proven during trial. even though in imposing the penalty for the robbery. even if recidivism is not alleged in the information. That means he has not yet tasted the bitterness of life but if he had already served out the penalty. he is deemed to have waived the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the habitual delinquency. Generally. it does not have to be alleged in the information because even if not alleged. /vvverga Page 64 of 100 . it was held that even though the details of habitual delinquency was not set forth in the information. this would seem to be covered but that is not so. the fourth time will have to fall under any of the three categories. as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual delinquent. Thus. you have a situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no two crimes fall under the same title of the Code. Habitual delinquency refers to prior conviction and therefore this must be brought in the information before the court can acquire jurisdiction over this matter. if proven during trial. It must be the other way around. in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court. then he becomes a repeater. Even if the accused is in fact a habitual delinquent but it is not alleged in the information. Verga prosecution tried to prove recidivism and the defense objected. an added penalty will be imposed in accordance with Article 62. the offender has already tasted the bitterness of the punishment. even though over and above the objection of the defense. the penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. If he committed another lesser one. If it is not alleged in the information and in the course of the trial. the court can appreciate the same. That is why if the offender committed a subsequent felony which carries with it a penalty lighter than what he had served. The reason is recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance only. If the offender had not yet served out his penalty. However. In the absence of the details set forth in the information. being a special or specific aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information. When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent. In reiteracion. This is the correct view because recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. Right now. he is not a recidivist. Habitual delinquency. the court has no jurisdiction to consider the offender a habitual delinquent. there was no crime committed yet.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) in imposing the penalty for robbery consider the accused a recidivist considering that he was already convicted in 1980 for the crime of theft which is under the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of robbery? No. the dates when they were committed. then the moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth conviction already. After determining the correct penalty for the last crime committed. forget about reiteracion. Even in a criminal case. the prosecution when introducing evidence was objected to. On the other hand. the prosecution tried to prove that the offender is a habitual delinquent over the objection of the accused. the court which tried the case. the present rule is that it can be appreciated even if not alleged in the information. the procedure you know that when the prosecutor alleges habitual delinquency. It is necessary in order that there be reiteracion that the offender has already served out the penalty. It need not be alleged in the information. If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. reiteracion is not aggravating because the law considers that somehow. the information is defective. because the robbery which was committed earlier would be decided later. If the accused fails to file such. As such.
since there are already two of them subsequently.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) So. reward or consideration. as when to kill someone. you disregard whatever penalty for the subsequent crimes committed. as the case may be. Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire. but even at this stage. because while serving sentence. a principal by inducement while the person receiving the price. The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or before serving sentence. he killed someone. the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No. the penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed should be higher or at least equal to the penalty that he has already served. pay attention to the penalty attached to the crime which was committed for the second crime. he was found smoking marijuana. The killing was committed before serving sentence but convicted by final judgement. The emphasis here is on the crime committed before sentence or while serving sentence which should be a felony. promise. Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes. this is murder. Illustration: Offender had already been convicted by final judgement. the crime is arson. he escaped from his guard and in the course of his escape. Verga Reverse the situation. While he was serving sentence. In consideration of a price. the offender is already a repeater. It should not be a violation of a special law. Vena V. You will only consider the penalty in reiteracion if there is already a second conviction. reward or price offered or given as a consideration for the commission of the crime. The offender must already be convicted by final judgement and therefore to have served the penalty already. the person making the offer is an inducer. their responsibilities are the same. This is so because if the penalty attached to the felony subsequently committed is not equal or higher than the penalty already served. he committed a felony. the offender is a repeater. the law considers that somehow he has been reformed but if he. when there is a promise. This cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and the imposition of the penalty in the maximum period cannot be lowered by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. or reward but not the criminal liability of the person who gave the price. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. He becomes a quasi-recidivist because the crime committed was a felony. If that is the situation. In so far as the earlier crime is concerned. you burn down his house while the latter is inside. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance. subsequently. he got involved in a quarrel and killed a fellow inmate. Illustration: The offender was convicted of homicide. again commits another felony which carries a lighter penalty. reward or promise but also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer. if there is only a second conviction. it is necessary that it be a felony. reward or promise who would execute the crime is a principal by direct participation. Assume that the offender was found guilty of illegal use of prohibited drugs. Sentence was promulgated and he was under custody in Muntinlupa. Even if the penalty for the subsequent crimes committed are lighter than the ones already served. even if literally. Hence. However. a violation of the Revised Penal Code. he committed a felony before beginning to serve sentence or while serving sentence. By means of inundation or fire Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. but then it shall be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasirecidivist. He was prosecuted for illegal use of prohibited drugs and was convicted. Quasi-recidivism This is found in Article 160. /vvverga Page 65 of 100 . that means that the offender was never reformed by the fact that he already served the penalty imposed on him on the first conviction. reward or promise The Supreme Court rulings before indicate that this circumstance aggravates only the criminal liability of the person who committed the crime in consideration of the price. However. The crime committed is only murder. When there is a third conviction. if he commits a felony carrying a lighter penalty. While he was in Muntinlupa. It is either arson or murder. in reiteracion. then he becomes a repeater because that means he has not yet reformed. because the crime committed while serving sentence is not a felony. While serving sentence in Muntinlupa. They are both principals and that is why the recent rulings of the Supreme Court are to the effect that this aggravating circumstance affects or aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price. However. If the victim is already dead and the house is burned. That is why it is said that reiteracion is not always aggravating. repetition is not aggravating.
"This week shall not pass. he hid somewhere in the house. The fact that the offender premeditated is not prima facie indicative of evident premeditation as the meeting or encounter between the offender and the offended party was only by chance or accident. Can there be evident premeditation when the killing is accidental? No. A told B that someday he will kill B. the son of B was also in their house and who was peeping through the door and saw what A did. qualify. However. the crime is attempted murder because there is evident premeditation. acts indicative of his having clung to his determination to kill B. A then dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. A decided to seek revenge. This is one aggravating circumstance where the offender who premeditated. It could not be murder. Law enforcers only use this to indicate that a killing occurred while arson was being committed. As far as the killing of C is concerned. It is only treachery because the evident premeditation is the very conscious act of the offender to ensure the execution. Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution. "I will kill you this week. Vena V. What is necessary to show and to bring about evident premeditation aside from showing that as some prior time. No such crime as arson with homicide. Do not consider both aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation against the offender. At the most.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If the intent is to destroy property. Evident premeditation was not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the manner of committing the crime. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. They fought on Monday and parted ways." On Friday. I will kill you. too. Illustration: A. On Friday. the following conditions must concur: (1) (2) (3) The time when the accused determined to commit the crime. he waited for B but killed C instead. Premeditation must be clear. Is there evident premeditation in both cases? None in both cases. A and B had a quarrel. A and B fought on Monday but since A already suffered so many blows. A boxed B. there is murder even if the house is burned in the process. But there may be evident premeditation and there is treachery also when the attack was so sudden. the crime is homicide because there was no evident premeditation. One argument led to another until A struck B to death with a bolo. Evident premeditation shall not be considered when the crime refers to a different person other than the person premeditated against. A and B are enemies. Is there evident premeditation? None but there is treachery as the attack was sudden. On Thursday. A did not know that C. If the intent is to kill. on Monday. there was no evident premeditation. A knew that B is coming home only on Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday evening when he comes home. that murder cannot be considered for C. It is required that there be evidence showing meditation between the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and the time when the offender executed the act. While it is true that evident premeditation may be absorbed in treachery because the means. the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence. A did not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a stranger but instead. and subsequently killed the victim. /vvverga Page 66 of 100 . the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house only. A told B. to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. A met B and killed him. Afraid that A might kill him. A killed B. Is there evident premeditation? There is aberratio ictus. A saw a knife and used it to stab B with all suddenness. As far as the killing of B is concerned. the offender has manifested the intention to kill the victim. Verga Illustrations: A and B fought. So. He bought a firearm and practiced shooting and then sought B. Evident premeditation is always absorbed in treachery. As a consequence. the law says evident. method and form of attack may be premeditated and would be resorted to by the offender. On Friday. he told B. What condition is missing to bring about evident premeditation? Evidence to show that between Monday and Friday. In evident premeditation. there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender. C was burned and eventually died too.” Evident premeditation For evident premeditation to be aggravating. It is not enough that there is some premeditation. thought of killing B on Friday. It must appear that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime. you could designate it as “death as a consequence of arson. if the killing was accidental." A bought firearms. Illustration: A and B were arguing about something. the offender clung to his determination to kill the victim. it is homicide since it is noted that they were arguing. However. When A saw B in the restaurant with so many people. A killed B. Insofar as C is concerned. Insofar as B is concerned.
there is no treachery anymore. Illustration: A and B quarreled. In treachery. Because of this. There are some crimes which cannot be aggravated by evident premeditation because they require some planning before they can be committed. just to intoxicate the latter. He. he thought of killing somebody. Illustration: A person who has been courting a lady for several years now has been jilted. Craft Aggravating in a case where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers of a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion. What crime was committed? The crime is only homicide because the aggravating circumstance is only nocturnity and nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance. In the first situation. method or form employed by the offender. Lee. It is not necessary that the victim is identified. A premeditated to kill any member of particular fraternity. A was just waiting for him to get intoxicated and after which. B accepted. 191 SCRA 12). the offended party was not able to put up any defense. A waited for B and stabbed B. decided on December 20. even only a token one. A was wounded but not mortal so he managed to run away. If the offended party was able to put up a defense. If this was the very means employed. /vvverga Page 67 of 100 . B was having too much to drink. B was not able to put up a defense and A was able to flee while B died. The reason why treachery cannot be considered as present here is because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. The mere fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute abuse of superior strength (People v. method or form employed by the offender. and estafa through false pretenses where the offender employs insidious means which cannot happen accidentally. However. the offended party. A positioned himself in the darkest part of the street where B passes on his way home. A thought of killing B but then he cannot just attack B because of the latter's size. A approached B and befriended him. So. Verga execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. due to the means. the crime was homicide only. Intoxication is the means deliberately employed by the offender to weaken the defense of the offended party. and that the offender took advantage of such superior strength in committing the crime. This is murder – a homicide which has been qualified into murder by evident premeditation which is a qualifying circumstance. the nighttime is generic aggravating circumstance. but once inside the jeepney. robbed the passengers and the driver (People v. B was able to walk a few steps before he fell and died. method or form employed my be an aggravating circumstance which like availing of total darkness in nighttime or availing of superior strength taken advantage of by the offender. This is a circumstance that will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. 1991). Treachery Treachery refers to the employment of means. B pulled a knife as well and stabbed A also. It was held that evident premeditation is not present. the very person/offended party premeditated against must be the one who is the victim of the crime. Carpio. However A had no chance to fight with B because A is much smaller than B. the circumstance may be treachery and not abuse of superior strength or means to weaken the defense. employing means to weaken the defense. the crime is murder because there is already treachery. method and form in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its Vena V.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In order for evident premeditation to be considered. The means. Instead some other aggravating circumstance may be present but not treachery anymore. One day. Evident premeditation is part of the crime like kidnapping for ransom. What is the essence of treachery? The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means. Abuse of superior strength There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in their age. If because of the cover of darkness. then bought a knife. they were going to drink. It is essential for this aggravating circumstance for the victim to be identified from the beginning. A pretended to befriend B. robbery with force upon things where there is entry into the premises of the offended party. sharpened it and stabbed the first man he met on the street. the offended party was denied the chance to defend himself. size and strength. A proposed that to celebrate their renewed friendship. he stabbed B. It is enough that the victim is determined so he or she belongs to a group or class who may be premeditated against. Same where A planned to kill any member of the Iglesio ni Kristo. Illustration: A and B have been quarreling for some time. A thought of committing a crime at nighttime with the cover of darkness. One evening. He then killed one.
In the absence of evidence to this effect. this is also a qualifying circumstance. being one year old and 12 years old. Although the qualifying circumstance is abuse of superior strength and not treachery. Treachery not appreciated where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a killing. because the victim would be put on guard (People v. there is no cruelty. A upon seeing B pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 times. Cruelty pertains to physical suffering of the victim so the victim has to be alive. which is also a qualifying circumstance of murder under Article 248. Gupo). it is something which offends the moral of the offended woman. The crime is murder if 60 wounds were inflicted gradually. Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of treachery. Illustration: A and B are enemies. 1991). the offended party fought back. The crime committed is murder but then the correct circumstance is not treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. they took advantage of superior strength but somehow. the body was thrown into pile of garbage. decided on July 6. It is not enough to show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make them aggravating circumstances of cruelty. Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of the crime. aggravated by dwelling and in disregard of age. Although one of the victims was barely six years old. Toribio). Gahon. In plain language. raping a woman from behind is ignominous because this is not the usual intercourse. 191 SCRA 643). Example: A had a gunshot wound at the back of his head. there is cruelty only when there are evidence that the offender inflicted the stab wounds while enjoying or delighted to see the victim in pain. whether or not the victim is dead or alive. A clear example is a married woman being raped before the eyes of her husband. decided on April 30. treachery was considered as the victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v. the accused was convicted only for homicide. Accused held liable only for the killings. if the offender avails of the services of men and in the commission of the crime. Robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The SC ruled this is only homicide because treachery must be proven. Ignominy refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order. the killing is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown (People v. ignominy is aggravating. But in murder. absence of this evidence means the crime committed is only homicide. There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. In a case of homicide. Verga Distinction between ignominy and cruelty Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man while cruelty is physical. although stabbing may be sudden since A was not shown to have the intention of killing B. Lucas. B died. while the victim after having been killed by the offender. if B despite intoxication was able to put up some fight against A but eventually.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In the example where A pretended to befriend B and invited him to celebrate their friendship. In People v. the crime is still murder if the victim is killed. It must be shown that the victim was totally defenseless. treachery cannot be considered present. In a case where the crime committed is rape and the accused abused the victims from behind. ignominy is adding insult to injury. the Supreme Court considered the crime as aggravated by ignominy. 181 SCRA 315). Ilagan. Hence. Vena V. means and form used or employed by him. But although a quarrel preceded the killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree. Unlawful entry /vvverga Page 68 of 100 . In the same manner. The Supreme Court held that it added shame to the natural effects of the crime. 1992. the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide. if A and B casually met and there and then A stabbed B. then the attendant circumstance is no longer treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. Will that fact be considered as an aggravating circumstance of cruelty? No. Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was consciously adopted by the offender to render the offended party defenseless (People v. there must be evidence showing that the accused inflicted the alleged cruel wounds slowly and gradually and that he is delighted seeing the victim suffer in pain. But where children of tender years were killed. This is how animals do it. ignominy is held aggravating. For cruelty to exist as an aggravating circumstance. So. the offender shoved the body inside a canal. Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (People v. Lapan. After having been killed. the implication is that the offender had consciously and deliberately adopted the method.
Motor vehicle The Supreme Court considers strictly the use of the word “committed”. is automatically aggravating. Intoxication. The circumstance being special or qualifying. that there is an organized or syndicated group even when only two persons collaborated. or mutually helped one another in the commission of a crime. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed. To be aggravating. that if the circumstance is present. it must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. If mitigating. motor vehicle becomes aggravating if the bicycle is motorized. There is a decision by the Court of Appeals that a motorized bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the offender used only the foot pedal because he does not know how to operate the motor so if a bicycle is used in the commission of the crime. if not mitigating. it must have been used to facilitate the commission of the crime. the court will not consider it at all. even if they are present. the said special aggravating circumstance can be appreciated if proven. That is wrong. It is noteworthy. a spouse does not incur criminal liability for a crime of less serious physical injuries or serious physical injuries if this was /vvverga Page 69 of 100 . Except for the circumstance of intoxication. the court cannot validly consider the circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under Article 14 of the Code as aggravating. which acts are inherent in a conspiracy. If relationship is aggravating. then refer to it as such. and Education. motorized means of transportation or motorized watercraft. Aggravating when a motorized tricycle was used to commit the crime Organized or syndicated crime group In the same amendment to Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. An organized or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand. the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. Relationship may not be considered at all. Do not think that because the article says that these circumstances are mitigating or aggravating. confederated. paragraphs were added which provide that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime group. motor vehicle is not aggravating. Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circumstance is not involved in any case or problem. the allegation may be considered as procedurally sufficient to warrant receiving evidence on the matter during trial and consequently. With this provision. Where therefore. Degree of instruction. Otherwise. but if they do not influence the crime. If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender. Among such circumstances are: (1) (2) In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed in Article 20. Vena V. the circumstance of an organized or syndicated crime group having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a special aggravating circumstance. refer to it as aggravating or mitigating depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. refer to it as aggravating.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. There are specific circumstances where relationship is exempting. Also in Article 247. the court will have to take it as mitigating. however. The moment it is given in a problem. even though proven during the trial. confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime. conspiracy in the commission of the crime is alleged in the information. It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating. This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the commission of the offense. aggravating. if not alleged in the information. that the crime is committed with the use of a motor vehicle. Relationship Relationship is not simply mitigating or aggravating. Verga Alternative circumstances Four alternative circumstances (1) (2) (3) (4) Relationship. But the other circumstances. especially if it is not inherent in the commission of the crime. do not use alternative circumstance.
When they drank two cases of beer they became more talkative until they engaged in an argument. ascendant. CASES FOR JUSTIFYING. even if the woman is 60 years old or more. Vena V. that will aggravate his criminal liability. So the mere fact that the offender has taken one or more cases of beer of itself does not warrant a conclusion that intoxication is mitigating. If a child or son or daughter would kill a parent. One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated. where he used his special knowledge as a lawyer. The conduct of the offender. If the offender did not go higher than Grade 3 and he was involved in a felony. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis of the mitigating circumstance. On the contrary. There must be indication that because of the alcoholic intake of the offender. So he understands what is right and wrong. requires that the offender has reached that degree of intoxication where he has no control of himself anymore. Example: A has been living with professionals for sometime. then there is no diminished self control. So if this reason is not present. malicious mischief and swindling or estafa. This is the rational why intoxication is mitigating. But if he committed falsification. This is an absolutory cause. Intoxication to be considered mitigating. because his knowledge has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. is incompatible with the idea that the offender is already suffering from diminished self control. So although the offender may have partaken of two cases of beer. There is no criminal liability but only civil liability if the offender is related to the offended party as spouse. The intoxication in law requires that because of the quality of the alcoholic drink taken. In such a case. The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liability if the crime committed is one which he inherently understands as wrong such as parricide. MITGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES /vvverga Page 70 of 100 . Since it was payday. illiteracy will not mitigate because the low degree of instruction has no bearing on the crime. When arraigned he invoked intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. The idea is the offender. regardless of whether the woman is of bad reputation.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) inflicted after having surprised the offended spouse or paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse. (3) Those commonly given in Article 332 when the crime of theft. only he is the black sheep because he did not want to go to school. but after stabbing the victim he hailed a tricycle and even instructed the driver to the place where he is sleeping and the tricycle could not reach his house and so he has to alight and walk to his house. Degree of instruction and education These are two distinct circumstances. The fact that he has knowledge of the law will not aggravate his liability. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. But it does not follow that he is bereft of education. crime is qualified seduction. the offender may be a lawyer who committed rape. the offender had practically lost self control. One pulled out a knife and stabbed the other. Otherwise intoxication cannot legally be considered. There were 11 stab wounds and this. The Supreme Court did not give the mitigating circumstance because of the number of wounds inflicted upon the victim. intoxication will not be considered mitigating. yet it cannot be said that he lacks education because he came from a family where brothers are all professionals. Illustration: In a case. because of the intoxication is already acting under diminished self control. Verga Sometimes. It is not the quantity of drink that will determine whether the offender can legally invoke intoxication. the indication is that the offender gained strength out of the drinks he had taken. relationship is a qualifying and not only a generic aggravating circumstance. In the crime of qualified seduction. the manner of committing the crime. he is suffering from diminished self control. they should prove that it is habitual and that it is intentional. It may happen also that the offender grew up in a family of professionals. Exempting circumstance is the relationship. the same will immediately aggravate. The Supreme Court held that although he did not receive schooling. the offended woman must be a virgin and less than 18 yrs old. his behavior after committing the crime must show the behavior of a man who has already lost control of himself. He may just be a maid in the house with no degree of instruction but he may still be educated. or descendant or if the offender is a brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law of the offended party and they are living together. they decided to have some good time and ordered beer. But if the offender is a brother of the offended woman or an ascendant of the offended woman. In the same manner. the Supreme Court said. Intoxication This circumstance is ipso facto mitigating. regardless of the crime committed. There is diminished voluntariness insofar as his intelligence or freedom of action is concerned. so that if the prosecution wants to deny the offender the benefit of this mitigation. he was invoking lack of degree of education. Intoxication does not simply mean that the offender has partaken of so much alcoholic beverages. The moment it is shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission of the crime. there were two laborers who were the best of friends. relationship is qualifying.
“gaddemit!”. after admitting having shot the deceased from the window of his house with a shotgun under the foregoing circumstances claim that he did so in defense of his person and his rights and therefore he should be exempted from criminal liability. it cannot be believed that it was necessary for him to resort to violence. Issue: W/N the defendant can plead complete self-defense. /vvverga Page 71 of 100 . Appellant is therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only two (2) homicides. The third element is also present. she was not warranted in making such a deadly assault. All the requisites of exempting circumstance are present and should be taken into consideration. There is no question that there was aggression on the part of the victims: one of the deceased ordering while the other actually participating in the fencing. although she actually believed it to be the beginning of an attempt against her. Thus. there was present the circumstance of incomplete exemption from responsibility since the second requisite is missing. LUAGUE Keyword: Woman about to be raped while her husband was at work. notwithstanding the woman's belief in the supposed attempt. Decision: When it is proven that the deceased had for some time maintained illicit relations with the accused. but in order for it to be appreciated. his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. SELF-DEFENSE (PROPIA DEFENSA). the following requisite should be present: unlawful aggression.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. and at a time when they were both in bed. jumping from the window fell on some stones. When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window. mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Decision: Yes. couple coming from Nasugbu. attacks the said person with a pocketknife. The accused exceeded her right of self-defense since there was really no need of wounding the victim. MERE TOUCHING OR GRASPING OF ARM. However. APEGO Keyword: Paranoid sister. (2) WHEN KILLING HELD UNJUSTIFIED. There was no reasonable cause for striking a blow in the center of the body where the vital parts are located. KILLING OF PARAMOUR NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ATTEMPT TO RAPE ACCUSED WHO MAINTAINED ILLICIT RELATION WITH VICTIM FOR SOME TIME PEOPLE vs. and therefore a statement alleging such violence is improbable and inadmissible as a basis for an exemption from liability. believing that some person is attempting to abuse her asks who the intruder is and receives no reply. PEOPLE vs. WITHOUT INSISTENCE OR REPETITION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AN ATTEMPT AGAINST PEOPLE vs. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled on grounds of legitimate selfdefense. upon the ground that the accused in committing the homicide acted in self-defense. land dispute. (1) WHEN KILLING FOR HONOR HELD JUSTIFIED. we have the right to property acquired by us. reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph I of Article 11. the circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered because the nighttime was not purposely selected by the accused. and the nature of the wound shows that she was either standing up or sitting up at the time. self-defense Issue: Can the defendant. paragraph 1 of the RPC. Revised Penal Code. in the commission of the crime. The crime having been committed by the owner of the house against the person who had by mutual consent frequented the house. there was not sufficient provocation to justify her in using a deadly weapon. The defendant‟s act constitutes a justifying circumstance since: Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our person. and the right to honor which is not the least prized of our patrimony. Decision: When a sleeping woman is awakened at night by some one touching her or grasping her arm. Decision: No. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. POTESTAS Keywords: Woman kills her paramour who was not her live-in partner saying that the latter tried to rape her. as the injured person did not insist or repeat any act which could be considered as an attempt against her honor. husband stabbed at the vital organ by the sister with fan knife and TIN CANS. defense of one‟s person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 . NARVAEZ Keywords: fencing. (a) PICKING UP KNIFE OF RAPIST PREPARING TO LIE WITH ACCUSED AND STABBING HIM). Issue: W/N the woman can plead self-defense considering that the man seems to be asleep when he was killed. Victim. being accustomed to pass the night in her house. EVEN IF INTRUDER DID NOT REPLY WHEN ASKED WHO HE WAS I. PEOPLE vs. killing his two victims. it is concluded that. Verga HONOR. and she.
Decision: Yes. Unlawful Aggression When present Attempt to rape a woman PEOPLE VS. the force employed by the defendant was reasonably necessary and that he acted in legitimate self-defense. he is completely exempt from criminal liability. SUPRA US vs. Decision: No. while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased. Decision: Yes. Both men accused each other for starting the fight. though originally the unlawful aggressor. would be the aggressor. Issue: W/N there is a reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the attack. Decision: Considering the preceding relations between the contending parties. The element of practicability made it impossible for him to determine during the heat of a sudden attack whether he would increase or diminish the risk to which exposed by standing his ground or stepping aside. striking with a “Japanese wood” and inflicting with a tuba knife causing the victim‟s death. There was reasonable necessity for the means employed by X to repel the attack. Verga Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled to acquittal for having killed the victim in the exercise of his right of self-defense. and the means employed having been reasonably necessary in this defense. The appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other passengers in the boat in striking the deceased with an oar in order to make him desist from trying to upset the boat. A policeman in the performance of his duty must stand his ground and cannot take refuge in flight when attacked. Issue: W/N the defendant can maintain that he killed the victim in self-defense and that he is exempt from criminal liability. DOMEN Keyword: Fight over a carabao. there was no longer any danger to the life of the accused but the latter pursued him and inflicted many additional wounds. There was no provocation on the defendant’s part. Guards. This doctrine make it the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is justified in meeting force with force. PEOPLE vs. the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. Victim became so angry and threatened to inflict harm on the defendant. The resistance was not disappropriate to the assault thus the accused is exempted from criminal liability because he acted in legitimate defense of his person. it is the offended party who was directly or indirectly affected and who would naturally be interested in demanding an explanation and therefore in seeking the interview. SUBINGSUBING Keywords: 78 year old man aided by another man to parry the blows of X who made unchaste proposals to the old man’s wife. there being then no more aggression to defend against. Since one of the ingredients of self-defense is missing. CABUNGCAL Keywords: ROCK THE BOAT! Issue: W/N the defendant is completely exempted from all criminal liability. /vvverga Page 72 of 100 . An accused was no longer acting in self-defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary. PEOPLE vs. ALCONGA Keywords: Gambling. The law did not require the accused to retreat. The ancient common law rule in homicide was denominated ―retreat to the wall‖.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) II. Accused did not provoke the assault. His duty requires him to overcome his opponent and the force he may exert therefore differs somewhat from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. PEOPLE vs. MOJICA Keywords: Constabulary versus Police. There were two stages in the fight. the deceased assaulted the defendant but the latter was able to resist the aggression. threatened by the constabulary. defendant cheated the victim. complete self-defense cannot be invoked. Defendant was a police Vena V. when not satisfied with the explanation offered. Decision: Yes. In the initial stage. LUAGUE. Under the circumstances. When the deceased retreated. Issue: W/N it was the defendant who was the assailant. LAUREL Keywords: Stolen kiss. PEOPLE VS. This principle has now given way in the US to ―stand ground when in the right‖ rule. so that when they meet it is to be presumed that such offended party. US vs. The victim then can invoke self-defense. and this presumption is confirmed by the evidence.
DELIMA Keywords: Escapee who was killed by a policeman while ordering the latter to surrender. Verga Issue: W/N the person who aided the old man by furnishing a weapon to the latter makes the former liable for homicide. Poultry area. the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his sets conform to the practice of people of sound mind. that is. it is illogical and unjust to deny to said assistant the same exemption from responsibility and the exoneration granted the slayer on the grounds of self-defense. circumstantial evidence. PEOPLE vs. Decision: The act performed was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. This would be a great detriment to public interest. Mind can only be known by outward acts. PEOPLE vs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Policeman committed no crime. that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. The killing was done in the performance f a duty. ―I’ll pay you‖ Issue: W/N the prosecution have the burden of proving that the accused was sane at the time he committed the crime. PEOPLE Keywords: Detention prisoner charged of stealing chickens. viz. there would be half- hearted and dispirited efforts on their part to comply with such official duty. In the case at bar. Issue: W/N the action of the defendant can be justified. Thereby. therefore. the logical consequence of that declaration of exemption from responsibility is that the other. suffice (People vs. as was held in the same judgment to be lawful and right. who furnished the legitimate weapon used in his defense should be also acquitted and declared exempt from any responsibility. Police only tried to hit the victim on the leg but unfortunately hit him on the back. To prove insanity. but sanity is presumed. the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him. HOW INSANITY IS PROVED In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act. with freedom intelligence. If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the requisites the penal law lays down for exempting him from responsibility should be acquitted of the charge in a case prosecuted against him. BONOAN Keywords: barbershop. and when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity. to be sure. Decision: No. Direct testimony is not required nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. RENEGADO Keywords: Insane security guard. is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. was declared to be exempt from responsibility in repelling the attack of which he was the victim and in wounding his assailant therewith. Decision: No. the obligation of proving that affirmative allegation rests on the defense. In the Philippines. although it proved to be fatal. with the result that thereafter. Issue: W/N the policeman should be held liable Decision: No. the defense interposed being that the defendant was insane at the time he killed the deceased. if clear and convincing. to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand. Bonoan). VALCORZA vs. it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind a reasonable period both before and after that time. we read the thoughts. then when a person who did nothing more than furnish a weapon to one whom he saw in peril and in great need of defending himself and repelling a serious assault. was justified by the circumstance. which although the policeman to resort to such an extreme means which. Slave-driver teacher who asked the guard to type test questionnaires. the burden. that one of the causes which will overthrow this presumption of voluntariness and intelligence is /vvverga Page 73 of 100 . Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted with the argument that he should be exempted from criminal liability on account of insanity. The deceased did not head several warning shots. that a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso) is presumed to have been done with deliberate intent. insanity ―I’ll kill you‖. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender and had no right after evading service of his sentence. Where the one. To hold the accused guilty of homicide may have the effect of demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical or similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged at the time he fired at the deceased. and malice because the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Decision: No. who used the weapon. For purposes of disposing of appellant's defense it becomes necessary to restate certain basic principles in criminal law. PEOPLE vs.
or must be conscious of his acts. baby killed by animal bites. or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. in order that he may be held liable. Under all the circumstances of this case. if it cannot be attributed to the misconduct or the negligence of the operator in the management of his machine. conscious and. Applying these principles. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary. of the Revised Penal Code. DUNGO /vvverga Page 74 of 100 . The traveler may pass to the front when he has good and sufficient grounds to believe that he can do so in safety. KNIGHT Keyword: chauffer of US Army. US vs. Issue: W/N the municipal president can be found guilty of ―illegal and arbitrary detention‖ of the accused for a period of three days. to be punishable. the accused is deprived of reason. ordinary man would have succeeded to it. Decision: No. BANDIAN Keywords: infanticide. that the. The case of U. free act or omission. by giving birth to a child in a thicket and later abandoning it. Even in cases where said crimes are committed through mere imprudence. and one has not the exclusive right to precede another. that is. Fortaleza followed as to the authority of a municipal president to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence. VICENTILLO Vena V. PEOPLE vs. in a particular case of defiance of local authority by the unlawful violation of a local ordinance even where the offense thus committed is. PEOPLE vs. it may not have been necessary or at least expedient to make an arrest and bring the offender forthwith before the proper judicial officer. insanity exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. One person is not compelled to travel behind another on the highway. Decision: Chief mate did not exercise influence over the accused. trivial and unimportant. Whatever may have been the cause of an automobile accident. must be committed willfully or consciously. The law exempts from criminal liability any person who acts under the circumstances in which the appellant acted in this case. this court will not presume that.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) insanity in which even the actor is exempt from criminal liability as provided for in Article 12. She has in her favor the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances. as set forth in the opinion. defense fails. vs. or at least equal to that which he was required to commit and that it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it might be said. it must appear that the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater that. trivial crime committed by X to a municipal president. unfortunate circumstances than prolonged the detention. Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one. Issue: W/N the defendant should be charged for reason of reckless negligence. US vs. notwithstanding the fact that three days were expended in doing so. Verga Keywords: illegal detention. he cannot be held liable either civilly or criminally. with no fault or intention on her part. abandonment Issue: W/N the mother can be held liable for infanticide and or abandonment of a minor. brought him before a justice of the peace as soon as "practicable" thereafter. must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties. the person who commits them. mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. US vs. The defense in a criminal action that the defendant in committing the crime acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear produced by a threat of an equal or greater injury to himself can be held to be sustained. under said circumstance. S. Decision: No. paragraph 1. it reduces him to a mere instrument. In the eyes of the law. Impulse of uncontrollable fear of a greater injury should the defendant refuse. ELICANAL Keyword: Captain killed by shipmates. Issue: W/N the defendant can invoke that he was acting under the impulse if an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. the defendant. The onus probandi rest upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstances and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. not because of imprudence or any other cause than that she was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility. he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern. Decision: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor. or must produce such an effect upon the individual that in spite of all resistance. the municipal president being held to have all the usual powers of a public officer for the making of arrests without warrant. after having arrested the complaining witness without a warrant. or at least it must be the result of a voluntary. Child was run over while the defendant was trying to overtake. in itself.
We can apply as test or criterion the definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code. Whoever. However. a person is insane when he suffers from such perverted condition of the mental and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Dungo). there are three major criteria in determining the existence of insanity. DAR employee killed. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense. functional or organic. inhibition. which is manifested in language or conduct. it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. therefore. The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. his acts and conduct inconsistent with his previous character and habits. of disease or defect of the brain. Insanity in law exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence. However. In order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts: thereby we read the thoughts. Accused confined in the mental hospital after the incident. Insane delusion is manifested by a false belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which would be incredible under the given circumstances to the same person if he is of compos mentis. Thus: In considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a prosecution for crime. An insane person has no full and Vena V. Otherwise stated. under our jurisdiction. However. Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of the person whose sanity is in issue. Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit an accused on the ground of insanity. Appellant has not successfully discharged the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime as charged freely. and as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. which is the subject of inquiry. which states that insanity is "a manifestation in language or conduct. his irrational acts and beliefs. invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of sanity. Direct testimony is not required nor the specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will (People vs. his free agency being at the time destroyed. his insanity admitted of lucid intervals. and his improvident bargains. the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind. and the right and wrong test. Decision: One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts. in the defense of insanity. Thus. Verga clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act. or by disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties. The fact that the defendant remembered his acts proves that he was not insane or if insane.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Keywords: confined in a mental hospital for insanity but found sane while perpetuating the crime. the existence of which no rational person would believe. there has been no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity. RAFANAN Keywords: Schizophrenic person pleading not guilty for the crime of rape. that the accused be deprived of cognition. that he acts without the least discernment. A person acts under an irresistible impulse when. Lastly. and characterized by perversion. Hiding a deadly weapon and embarking to evade arrest are conscious adoption of the pattern to kill. that is. insanity may be shown by surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject. Under the delusion test." Insanity as defined above is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties. the law presumes all acts to be voluntary. he has lost the power to choose between right and wrong. it is permissible to receive of his mental condition for a reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in question. Under foreign jurisdiction. or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality. DISTINGUISH INSANITY FROM SANITY It is difficult to distinguish from insanity. and that it is improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously. Under the right and wrong test. irresistible impulse test. and through which we determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. in criminal cases. every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. or by impaired or disordered volition. to avoid the act in question. tinig ng ibon‖. and intelligently. an insane person believes in a state of things. motives and emotions of a person. There no definite defined border between sanity and insanity. Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance. His unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental defect. such as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance. HOW COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES INVOLVING PLEA OF INSANITY Generally. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. by reason of duress or mental disease. the State should guard against sane murderer escaping punishment through a general plea of insanity. So far. which he described as ―parang ibon. (People vs. at the very time of doing the act. knowingly. Seclusive who allege that he hears sounds. Puno). /vvverga Page 75 of 100 . namely: delusion test. PEOPLE vs.
US vs. however.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted of the charge of rape on the ground that he was suffering from a mental disorder called schizophrenia at the time he committed the crime. Acts penalized by law are always refuted to be voluntary. was doubtless unable to flee from the place where she was standing." i. namely: (a) the tests of cognition-"complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act. Decision: No. The woman found another man. Issue No 3: W/N the accused can invoke loss of reason and selfcontrol produced by jealousy." This is perhaps to be expected since person's volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence. and at a time when she was listening to a conversation.. defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code. in which she was concerned." But our case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition. The standard set out in Formigones were commonly adopted in subsequent case. doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design.e." examination of the case law has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. and it is improper to conclude that a person acted unconsciously. a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime. behaving himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand. a man kills his concubine upon discovering that she had carnal communication with another man. unless his insanity and absence of will are proved. constitute the crime of murder. and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety. she being suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly fired upon Vena V. notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon and carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver." the /vvverga Page 76 of 100 . and immoral passions. 1: W/N the circumstances can be considered an extenuation of his criminal liability. in order to relieve him from liability. disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent repose and tranquility. on the basis of his mental condition. or even escape or divert the weapon." and (b) the test of violation-"or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. in what appeared to be a proper manner. The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved. in that defendant "acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation. between her aggressor and a third person. it will be presumed that he was in normal condition. Issue No 1: W/N murder was committed. "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his Acts. Jealousy. unworthy. not those which arise from vicious. greeting everyone courteously and conversed with his victim. he entered the house. AGGARVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES US vs. The circumstance of premeditation can be appreciated but should only be considered as merely a generic one. not an exempting. Premeditation is. Decision: No. In any case. rather than on the test relating to "freedom of the will. The only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as originate from legitimate feelings. Decision: The above-stated facts. Evident premeditation. The commission of the offense of which defendant was convicted was marked with the extenuating circumstance defined in subsection 7 of article 9. without an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence. in that the woman Agustina Sola met a violent death. manifest and evident by reason of the open acts executed by the accused. deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man. 2: W/N Evident premeditation can be appreciated. Without positive evidence that the defendant had previously lost his reason or was demented. Verga with a 45-caliber revolver. DELA CRUZ Keywords: Due to heat of passion." The law presumes every man to be sane. while the injured woman was unarmed and unprepared. HICKS Keyword: Afro-American soldier and Moro woman having an illicit affair. where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence. if not point blank range. and after usual and customary words had passed between her and her aggressor. which have been fully proven in the present case. Decision: Yes. and forms were employed in the attack that directly and specially insured the consummation of the crime without such risk to the author thereof as might have been offered by the victim who. All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused. whether that intelligence be diseased be healthy. From all of the foregoing it is logically inferred that means. Decision: Yes. Issue No. owing to the suddenness of the attack. at close. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia). the Court has recognized at most a mitigating. circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. manners. Issue No.
Decision: No. disappointment and anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him. . and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. 5 glasses of tuba. 1: W/N the woman committed a crime. 3: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause grave injury. White slave trade. Under the circumstance. The stab-wound inflicted upon the deceased by the accused was not only mortal. /vvverga Page 77 of 100 . ―that woman‖. this was a "sufficient impulse" in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the court. his reason for killing her being merely that she had elected to leave him and with his full knowledge to go and live with another." was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him. but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him. In the case at bar the impulse upon which the defendant acted. Issue No. to repel which it is lawful to employ a means of defense which may be reasonably necessary.1: W/N treachery can be appreciated in order to qualify the crime to murder. PEOPLE vs. Woman refused to give support and was seeing another man. Decision: No. Verga same does not persist in his purpose or when he desists therefrom to the extent that the person attacked is no longer in peril. A slight push of the head with the hand-which. a short time before the aggression. "Considering that an unlawful aggression. Issue No. penknife Issue No. Decision: Yes. upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. BELLO Keyword: Old man. and. kaingero. 2: W/N a slight pushing of the head which hurt the woman can be considered a mitigating circumstance: Decision: No. Issue No. The defendant is a mere wage-earner and could not even sign her statement before the police and had to affix her thumb mark. we repeat. and which naturally produced "passion and obfuscation. Decision: Yes. was not present in the instant case.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) evidence disclosing that in the heat of passion he killed the deceased. knife in hand. according to her was the cause that led her to stab him. nor is it necessary to inquire whether or not there was "sufficient provocation" on the part of the one invoking legitimate self-defense because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression.the latter would perhaps have inflicted upon him other wounds had it not been for the timely arrival of policeman who calmed her bellicose attitude and placed her under arrest. Issue No. in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. In the former case the cause of the alleged "passion and obfuscation" of the aggressor was the convict's vexation. PEOPLE vs. This marked obstinacy of the accused in her aggression clearly reveals her intention to cause to its full extent the injury she has committed. Issue No. such act does not constitute the unlawful aggression mentioned by the Code. which. Issue No 5: W/N she entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. as a fundamental requisite of self-defense is not necessarily implied in any act of aggression against a particular person. This mitigating circumstance should be taken into consideration in favor of the accused. who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover). and the harsh treatment which the deceased gave the accused on the afternoon of the day in question. induced his young bride to work as a public hostess. YUMAN Keyword: Man refused to go back to his live-in partner. it would be an error to take into consideration this circumstance. but the victim thus wounded and running away was also pursued by the accused. Decision: No. As said by the supreme court of Spain in the above cited decision. 4: W/N the defendant is entitled circumstance that she acted under obfuscation. 6: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. Issue No 2: W/N this case can be decided based on Hick’s case. when the author of the Vena V. to a mitigating Decision: Yes. Her act of mortally wounding her lover had not been precede by aggression on the part of the latter. especially the fact that the accused had been abandoned by the deceased after living together for three or four years. which she had a perfect right to do. There is no occasion to speak her of the ―reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it".
and without any present plan or intent to use it against his commonlaw wife. For this reason. The facts are not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative strength. cannot be taken into account because his second conviction took place fourteen years later. MACBUL Keywords: habitual delinquent. That he watched her movements daily manifested his jealous character. either. Issue No. and which would bear any relation. but there is no evidence that from this jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her life. a remark that so deeply wounded the appellant's feelings that he was driven to consume a large amount of wine (tuba) before visiting the deceased to plead with her to leave her work. The evidence does not show. 2: circumstance. At any rate. with the crime committed. Decision: Yes. treachery cannot be imputed Issue No. Issue No. but the physique of the aggressor ought also to be considered.. any superior strength on the part of the accused. both lived Vena V. This court approves it. The accused had been carrying a balisong with him for a long time as a precaution against drunkards. while Alicia was in the prime of her youth. not possessing it. without regard as to which portion of her body was the subject of attack. and. likewise. Issue No. Decision: No.. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life. Her loose conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by a remark he heard on the very day of the crime that the accused was the husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for purposes of prostitution". appellant's first conviction. but he was old and baldado (invalid).e. Decision: No. the wound was but a part and continuation of the aggression. Decision: No. A person shall be deemed to be habitually delinquent. and his rage at her rejection of the proposal. or connection. 4: W/N nighttime maybe appreciated as aggravating circumstance. 3: W/N the crime can be qualified by abuse of superior strength. The four (4) stab wounds were inflicted indiscriminately. or falsificación. but the accuse did no seek or take advantage of it to better accomplish his purpose. hurto. PEOPLE vs. 5: W/N the can be aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness. Mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and extreme poverty. can be properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions." Therefore. 6: W/N the accused can claim a mitigating circumstance of having acted on provocation strong to cause passion and obfuscation. namely. or that he was penniless while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave him money. taking into account the emotional excitement of the accused. not established. In fact. We can not see how the accused's insistence that she live with him again. that last one. but showed her determination to pursue a lucrative profession that permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately. Verga together as husband and wife. was not motivated by any desire to lead a chaste life henceforth. hence the circumstance did not aggravate the crime. Issue: W/N the court erred in considering the defendant a habitual delinquent. The trial court itself found that the stab in the back was inflicted as the victim was running away. Hence within the purview of habitual delinquents. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison with the accused. Neither is it shown that the accused took advantage of any such special confidence in order to carry out the crime. or any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to be respected. he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of robo. the place was bright and well lighted. The crime was committed at nighttime. stealing two sacks of papers which belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu. deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. It will be recalled that the lower court found that the accused had previously reproved the deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Issue no. estafa. Issue No.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: While it cannot be denied that Alicia was stabbed at the back. True that he was armed with a balisong. recognizing the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. Decision: Yes. therefore. Decision: Evident premeditation was. and not infirm. /vvverga Page 78 of 100 . one previous conviction against him. Even without benefit of wedlock. a monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful promiscuity. W/N extreme poverty can be appreciated as a mitigating Decision: Yes. it is not clearly shown that there was "intención deliberada de prevalerse de la superioridad aprovecharse intencionadamente de la misma" i. Possession of a balisong gives an aggressor a formidable advantage over the unarmed victim. since. he could not take advantage of it. There is nothing to show that the assailant and his common-law wife reposed in one another any special confidence that could be abused. None is inferable from the fact that the accused was much older than his victim. 2: W/N there is evident premeditation.
Decision: No. Decision: Yes. is not recognized by the RPC. treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime. The evidence at hand hardly satisfied the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the charge of kidnapping.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Kidnapped. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. Issue: W/N the accused be held liable for the crimes of kidnapping and murder. Decision: It is clear that appellants took advantage of nighttime in committing the felonies charged. The necessary result is that the accused can he held liable only for the killing of the victim. It may not be amiss to state that an accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. DY POL Keyword: falsification of public document. Decision: Yes. Decision: killing him help from solitude of The place was ideal not merely for burying the victim but also for for it was a place where the possibility of the victim receiving some third persons was completely absent. On the basis of the foregoing evidence. (Rule 133. 2: W/N the accused can invoke the fact that no irreparable material damage was caused to the offended part in the commission of the crime. A special case therefore is present to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply. These facts portray well that the tied hands of the victim rendered him defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to commit the crime without risk at all to their person. Issue No. Issue: W/N the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. Issue: W/N the purposive selection of uninhabited place be appreciated. Issue No 2: W/N treachery can be appreciated in qualifying the crime to murder. Neither is it among those which may be considered as similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized in accordance with Article 13 section 10 and therefore it cannot correctly be taken into consideration. Verga PEOPLE vs. The plea of guilty spontaneously entered by the accused prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution constitutes mitigating circumstance. The accused sought the the place in order to better attain their purpose without interference. Inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the fact that the victims' hands were tied at the time they were beaten. PEOPLE vs. This aggravating circumstance was correctly appreciated by the lower court regardless of whether or not the same was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused for it is clear that the darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime and was taken advantage of by them. Section 1. Issue No. The crime was murder only. Thus. /vvverga Page 79 of 100 . Undisputed facts show that the victim‟s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a flannel cloth before he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried in a shallow grave near a creek. but can be perceived distinctly therefrom. since the treachery rests upon an independent factual basis. Issue: W/N treachery can be appreciated as regards the two other accused who did not do the actual stabbing. Revised Rules of Court). Decision: Conspiracy. the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery. ONG Keyword: Debt. In other words. Victim even made a proposal of love to the wife of the accused in lieu the latter’s gambling debt. stabbed to death and buried. the time interval when the deceased was actually deprived of his liberty was short and the same was only incidental to the main objective of murdering him. The four participated in the planning and execution of the crime and were at the scene in all its stages. reduction of penalty due to mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and lack of irreparable material damage. connivance and unity of purpose and intention among the accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. Treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing to murder. Decision: No. the accused can hardly be held liable for kidnapping as well. which is that the crime committed by the accused has caused no irreparable material damage to the offended party. 3: W/N the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be absorbed in treachery. There was no illegal detention and victim was killed and promptly buried. The mitigating circumstance so invoked. They cannot escape the consequence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of.
These facts clearly establish the qualifying circumstance of alevosia in so far as the accused is concerned. For cruelty to exist. Decision: Yes. 4: W/N the uncle should be considered as a principal by induction. It is true that he owed his uncle a sum of money and the latter could have used these obligations in order to force his nephew to commit the crime but it has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the uncle actually hired his nephew to kill the deceased since the nephew rejected the offer. 5: W/N the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated. Cruelty (ensañamiento). arising from the defense which the priest might make. Indeed. 7: W/N cruelty can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually. Revised Penal Code). Issue No. 8: W/N there is evident premeditation. causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act. bury him. the SC was compelled to give him the benefits of the mitigating circumstance of lack of discretion since it was shown the nephew was a poor ignorant fisherman and only depends on his uncle for subsistence. The nephew merely depends on his uncle for his subsistence while the latter was found to be a man of great influence. It is essential too that the confidence be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime. 3: W/N extreme ignorance can be used as a mitigating circumstance. He was unable to see by whom the blow was struck. Decision: Yes. cannot be considered here. Inducement by the uncle. Decision: The accused Benjamin Ong is likewise is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that is analogous to passion and obfuscation (Art. Owing to his extreme ignorance. 13. the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation (premeditacion conocida) attended the commission of the crime. The purposive selection of an uninhabited place is thus clear from the evidence. and flee from the locale of the fearful crime. 2: Was the crime properly classified as murder? Decision: Yes. Issue: W/N the plead of guilt can be used as a mitigating circumstance. The motor vehicle facilitated the stark happening. Issue: W/N the aggravating circumstance that the accused forced or induced his nephew to murder the priest by hire or reward be appreciated. Issue: W/N the accused can be credited with any mitigating circumstance. Verga to this information naturally would be most unfair to the accused since the penalty would be that of capital punishment. The accused showed signs of remorsefulness upon his arrest when he cooperated with the police authorities in the solution of the crime. US vs. nephew refused the money but nonetheless carried on with the crime. It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused. Issue No. it would appear that the plead of guilty Vena V. as it appears from the record. GAMAO Keywords: Priest killed in exchange of a sum of money. Since the kidnapping portion of the crime cannot be appreciated beyond reasonable doubt. Issue No. The murderer taking advantage of the darkness was lying in wait for his victim. The brief of the Acting Solicitor General agrees with that of the accused in denying the attendance of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. it appears that the victim's burial was not meant to make him suffer any longer but simply to conceal his body and the crime itself. Decision: Yes. thereby employing means or methods in the execution of this crime which tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself. and that the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) and to secure themselves against detection and punishment. it is necessary that there be a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed. Decision: Yes. He had no opportunity to offer any resistance whatever. par. Even granting that the victim died because of asphyxiation when he was buried and not hemorrhage from stab wounds. the group intended merely to kill the victim. Issue No. Issue No. It was merely because the accused had some accounts to settle with him. Issue No. The record does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was forced or induced to commit this crime. 6: W/N the use of motor vehicle be appreciated as aggravating circumstance. Decision: No. He hated the Roman /vvverga Page 80 of 100 . Decision: No. Decision: Yes. Issue No. The accused and the victim were together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because of said confidence. 10. the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. The deceased received the fatal blow while he was in the dark space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the convent. is an aggravating circumstance. The accused meditated and tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime and were not prompted merely by the impulse of the moment. Decision: In order for this circumstance to obtain.
It is probable that McMann was actually going to shoot the Moro but because he was drunk at that time. McMann and McKay found themselves waiting in a room (not clear if they were waiting to be investigated. Decision: It is unlikely that the shooting was accidental since he witnesses testified that they say McMann aiming the gun at Mac Kay‟s head. The court also held that the defendant was drunk at the time the crime was committed. it will be presumed that intoxication is not habitual. Vena V. where it appears that the accused fired a loaded revolver at the deceased and killed him. which knocked the latter down. Issue No. Thereafter. FEATI. Decision: Yes. Verga of the commission of the crime must then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Issue No. The influence exercised by the uncle over his nephew was so great and powerful that the latter could not resist it. vs. Issue No 3: W/N the accused be credited with aggravating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wong as that actually done. McMann and McKay went to the house of a Moro to get some matches with which to light their cigarettes however.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Catholic Church and called a meeting in his house where the question of murdering the priest was discussed. The crime committed is murder with multiple attempted murder qualified by the use of explosive. FITZGERALD Facts: The accused and the victim had a dispute in a distillery. Facts: McMann and on McKay (one the victims) were packers at Camp Vicars in Mindanao. Clearly. and the fact that the accused was drunk at the time /vvverga Page 81 of 100 . but they were all together during that time). Nor can the fact that the homicide was immediately preceded by an affray between the deceased and the defendant may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Marsh died soon after. the Moro. Issue: W/N intoxication may be considered a mitigating circumstance. He selected his nephew to commit the crime and dominated all who were present. The moro then reported McMann to the authorities. There can be no question that the latter was directly induced by his uncle to kill the priest. McMann snatched the bolo cutting the latter‟s fingers. After which. i) (a) NOT HABITUAL PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF NON-HABITUAL CHARACTER OF INTOXICATION II. No other mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in his favor for one who attacks another with a deadly weapon as a revolver must know that the most probable result of such an aggression is the death of the person attacked. INTOXICATION WHEN MITIGATING. Decision: In the presence of proof to the contrary. killed Mac Kay instead. DE LA ROSA Keywords: demonstration. Decision: No. The victim (Marsh) struck Fitzgerald. and he is not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance established by the Penal Code. I. Habitual drunkard is defined as one who habituated to intemperance whenever the opportunity offered US vs. Provocation on the part of Marsh cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since there was no evidence how the quarrel arose. the owners of the house would not allow them to enter.‖ ran toward the ice plant in search of a revolver and returned. it must be presumed that he intended the natural consequences of his act. 1: W/N the act of the accused can be characterized as murder and multiple attempted murder Decision: Yes. security guard threw a pillbox hitting one of the demonstrators in the head. 2: W/N the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated as well. Also. MCMANN A. Mcmann also fired at him. and saying ―I will show you sons of b—s. Issue: W/N a mitigating circumstance can be considered. Fitzgerald immediately arose. defendant cannot claim lack of intention. McMann then saw another Moro who was carving the head of a bolo. PEOPLE vs. But intoxication in this case cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since the defendant is a habitual drunkard. It can be deduced that both are intoxicated. he saw Marsh and fired at him. ii) DEFINING HABITUAL DRUNKARD AS ONE GIVEN TO INTOXICATION BY EXCESSIVE USE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS U. When the Moro tried to run.S. McMann suddenly fired at McKay hitting the latter. Accused is only entitled to a mitigating defense of intoxication.
Cannibal. If there is.” “culprits. The circumstance of his having made a voluntary plea of guilt before the court of evidence by the prosecution. or accessory. Issue No. if the participation of one is so insignificant. Decision: Yes. the first thing to find out is if there is a conspiracy. But where the felony is only light only the principal and the accomplice are liable. If they are not and the same is not consummated. because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. less grave. But even the principal and the accomplice will not be liable if the felony committed is only light and the same is not consummated unless such felony is against persons or property. Use the “offenders. Decision: No. legitimate. Issue No. 2: W/N the accused used superior strength. The accessory is not. Issue No. descendant. such that even without his cooperation. accomplice. Nothing in the record shows that before the deceased died. PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Under the Revised Penal Code. Uncle killed his niece to taste human flesh. ascendant.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) ACCUSED SEEN DRUNK TWELVE TIMES OR MORE PEOPLE vs. do not use principal. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration only when the offended party is the spouse. even the principal and the accomplice are not liable. banana Vena V. the crime would be committed just as well. No. she was subjected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suffering. 3: W/N sex can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused. the Code takes into consideration whether the felony committed is grave.” or the “accused. 6: W/N there are any mitigating circumstance that can be appreciated in favor of the accused. Decision: No. Issue No. The facts and circumstances narrated by the accused in those different statements tally in important details. the criminal liability of all will be the same. or less grave. natural or adopted brother or sister or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offended. BALONDO Keywords: leaves. The reason for this ruling is that the law favors a milder form of criminal liability if the act of the participant does not demonstrate a clear perversity. The accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. Issue No. Decision. Only use the term “offender. The commission of the crime was attended by aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex. As to the liability of the participants in a felony. The accused had made several statements which were reduced into writing and signed by him. This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code and is not used under special laws. the Revised Penal Code classifies them as: (1) (2) (3) principal. The record constitutes sufficient justification for the conclusion that the accused was not insane at the time of the commission of the crime. the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders. all participants are criminally liable.” When a problem is encountered where there are several participants in the crime. 5: W/N the fact that the victim was the niece of the accused aggravate the crime. Decision: Yes. then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy. When the felony is grave. such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice.” Also only classify offenders when more than one took part in the commission of the crime to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. 1: W/N it can be contended that three years after the commission of the crime. 4: W/N Ignominy can be added to the natural effects of the act. Issue No. So. when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime. Do not use the term principal when the crime committed is a violation of special law. Since the accused was charged of having killed the deceased for more than three years ago. if only one person committed a crime. /vvverga Page 82 of 100 . or light. that the court should have subjected the accused to some psychiatric test to determine his sanity. because the act of one is the act of all. Verga Decision: Yes. The attendant circumstance qualifies the crime committed as murder. as a general rule. However. it is not possible now to ascertain the mental condition of the defendant as of the time when he committed the crime of which he is charged.
and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance. where three men were accused. the facts indicate that if the fellow who held the legs of the victim and spread them did not do so. the Supreme Court ruled that all participants are principals. 35 years old. 186 SCRA 812.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Therefore it is only when the light felony is against person or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice. In a case where the offender was running after the victim with a knife. than the latter. In case of doubt. Verga cooperation because if he did not block the way of the victim. The accused are father and son. we will bury him.” “I will not marry you if you do not kill B”(let us say he really loves the inducer). They practically become co-conspirators. The act of the father in holding the legs of the victim merely facilitated the penetration but even without it the son would have penetrated. one held the legs. degree of inducement anymore. Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar. The Supreme Court ruled that the father is liable only as an accomplice. In the second situation. A was mauling B. C. the offender on top could hardly penetrate because the woman was strong enough to move or resist. One of the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. it is more than if the crime could hardly be committed. The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime. Is the mother liable? No. It was held that there was no conspiracy. In People v. who was 18 yrs old. Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. Apply the doctrine of pro reo. the offender could not have caught up with the latter. It must be strong as irresistible force. The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the crime. It is not that the crime would not be committed because if that is what you would imply it becomes an ingredient of the crime and that is not what the law contemplates. Another fellow came and blocked the way of the victim and because of this. Oscar has no rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter. he only stopped to other fellow from stopping the mauling. This is tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the execution of the crime. threw her on the ground and placed himself on top of her while the father held both legs of the woman and spread them. Understandably he did not cooperate in the mauling. the son was much bigger than the woman so considering the strength of the son and the victim. The son was a robust farm boy and the victim undernourished. then such cooperation would bring about a principal. He shot and killed someone. Is that inducement? No. the one chasing the victim caught up and stabbed the latter at the back. favor the lesser penalty or liability. Examples of inducement: “I will give you a large amount of money.” A killed the other fellow.” while the felonious aggression was taking place cannot be held liable /vvverga Page 83 of 100 . one was on top of the woman. one held the hands. clothing as well as food and shelter. a person shouted to A. a friend of B tried to approach but D stopped C so that A was able to continuously maul B. “Kill him! Kill him. Those who held the legs and arms are principals by indispensable cooperation. The liability of the fellow who stopped the friend from approaching is as an accomplice. Balderrama. So when they saw the opportunity the young man grabbed the woman. but accessories are not liable for liable for light felonies. Therefore you do not look into the It is not just a matter of cooperation. “Birahin mo na. It was held that the fellow who blocked the victim is a principal by indispensable In People v. Ernesto is principal by inducement. But if the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime. Is the person who shouted criminally liable.” Oscar stabbed the victim. The father told his son that the only way to convince the victim to marry him is to resort to rape. penetration is possible even without the assistance of the father. In another case. even though the felony is only attempted or frustrated. Considering that Ernesto had great moral ascendancy and influence over Oscar being much older. In the first situation. If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation. “Shoot!”. the one who uttered “Kill him. In the case of rape. There was a quarrel between two families. Agapinay. Principal by inducement Concept of the inducement – one strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. this would make the cooperator merely an accomplice. birahin mo na. While in the course of a quarrel. Principal by accomplice indispensable cooperation distinguished from an Vena V. Ill advised language is not enough unless he who made such remark or advice is a co-conspirator in the crime committed. His mother then shouted.
acquires and/or sell. If the crime is embezzlement or estafa. therefore. he cannot be an accessory any further even though he performs acts pertaining to an accessory. One must not have participated in the commission of the crime. the participation of one who conceals the effects of robbery or theft gives rise to criminal liability for “fencing”. is the wife criminally liable? Can she be prosecuted as an accessory and as a fence? The liability of the wife is based on her assisting the principal to profit and that act is punishable as fencing. the liability of persons acquiring property subject of piracy or brigandage. The penalty is higher than that of a mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft. Madali. There is only a fence when the crime is theft or robbery. or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate. unless the accessory himself profited from the effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom. but such assistance merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting. Presidential Decree No. She will no longer be liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery. 1612 has. natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree. the same act is the basis of liability and you cannot punish a person twice for the same act as that would go against double jeopardy. May one who profited out of the proceeds of estafa or malversation be prosecuted under the Anti-Fencing Law? No. Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft brings about the presumption of “fencing”. Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour. Verga assists the principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not just an accessory to the crime. keeps or in any manner deals with any article of value which he knows or should be known to him to be the proceeds of robbery or theft is considered a “fence” and incurs criminal liability for “fencing” under said decree. In both laws. In People v. Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage It is relevant to consider in connection with the criminal liability of accessories under the Revised Penal Code. not a command to be obeyed. Any person who. he went home to get a rifle. Accessories Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable: (1) (2) When the felony committed is a light felony. but principally liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. such participation of an accessory brings about criminal liability under Presidential Decree No. 2. When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse. 1612. with intent to gain. Anyone who participated before the consummation of the crime is either a principal or an accomplice. He cannot be an accessory. She assisted her husband in taking good aim. where the crime committed by the principal was robbery or theft. So the accessory shall be liable for the same felony committed by the principal. shoot him” cannot make the wife the principal by inducement. Questions & Answers 1. The shouts of his wife “Here comes another. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that the words had great dominance and influence over the husband. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). When an offender has already involved himself as a principal or accomplice. not a fence. the son was mauled. Father challenged everybody and when neighbors approached. Presidential Decree No. 1612 and the Revised Penal Code. The family was not in good graces of the neighborhood. modified Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. However. One who knowingly profits or /vvverga Page 84 of 100 . and considering further that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. possesses. or as an ascendant. the liability of the wife is only that of an accomplice. Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could have accomplished the deed without his wife‟s help. If principal committed robbery by snatching a wristwatch and gave it to his wife to sell. Accessory as a fence The Revised Penal Code defines what manners of participation shall render an offender liable as an accessory. Likewise. Vena V. still an accessory to the crime of estafa. not simply of an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Code.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) as principal by inducement. Neither is the wife‟s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the commission of the killing. Among the enumeration is “by profiting themselves or by assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime”. The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is already consummated. The act of knowingly acquiring or receiving property which is the effect or the proceeds of a crime generally brings about criminal liability of an accessory One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime. 188 SCRA 69.
Article 19 of the Code. Harboring or concealing an offender In the third form or manner of becoming an accessory. he becomes an accessory. the nature of the crime is immaterial. there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred for harboring. When the soldiers left. The law requires that the principal must have committed the crime Vena V. prosecution and conviction. 1981. but under this decree. 7659. parricide. the aunt is criminally liable but not as an accessory. To this end. So in the problem. or conceals such offender. Such officer becomes an accessory by the mere fact that he helped the principal to escape by harboring or concealing. parricide murder or attempt on the life of the Chief executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Presidential Decree No. concealing. 1829 is no longer an accessory. murder or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. The reason is because one who is not a public officer and who assists an offender to escape or otherwise harbors. do not overlook the purpose which must be to prevent discovery of the crime. Illustration: Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom. /vvverga Page 85 of 100 . this is not the reason. which penalizes obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. On the other hand. His aunt hid him in the ceiling of her house and aunt denied to soldiers that her nephew had ever gone there. the crime committed by the principal must be either treason. 1829. In the case of a public officer. in case of a civilian. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest. Article 20 does not include an auntie. even if the corpse is not recovered. The crime committed by the principal is determinative of the liability of the accessory who harbors. Principal was being chased by soldiers. What is material is that he used his public function in assisting escape. the standard of the Revised Penal Code. But if the crime was piracy of brigandage under Presidential Decree No. effective January 16. 1829. This Decree penalizes under Section 1(c) thereof. incorporated therein the crime of piracy in Philippine territorial waters and thus correspondingly superseding Presidential Decree No. the law specifies the crimes that should be committed.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) under Article 19. If this is not the crime. if the principal is acquitted of the charges. or murder or parricide or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. 7659. Destroying the corpus delicti When the crime is robbery or theft. of “(c) Harboring or concealing. However. Even if the crime committed by the principal is treason. said act constitutes the crime of abetting piracy or abetting brigandage as the case may be. not just an accessory. Such an offender if violating Presidential Decree No. the aunt even gave money to her nephew to go to the province. although under paragraph 3 of Article 19 when it comes to a civilian. 532 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 and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. the act. yet there is a special law which punishes the same act and it does not specify a particular crime. aunt is not criminally liable because crime is kidnapping. to the piracy or brigandage. 533 (Anti-piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Law of 1974). and the offender need not be the principal – unlike paragraph 3. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.” Here. making use of his public function and thus abusing the same. concealing or assisting the principal to escape and a private citizen or civilian harboring concealing or assisting the principal to escape. conceals knowing that the crime is committed. or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. Is aunt criminally liable? No. still stands as it has not been repealed nor modified. Otherwise the effect would be that the accessory merely harbored or assisted in the escape of an innocent man. although the penalty is that for an accomplice. The corpus delicti is not the body of the person who is killed. the civilian does not become an accessory unless the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. However. Verga of treason. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly. but under Presidential Decree No. punishes acts commonly referred to as “obstructions of justice”. Section 4 of the Decree which punishes said acts as a crime of abetting piracy or brigandage. as long as that killing is established beyond reasonable doubt. and is not inconsistent with any provision of Republic Act No. unless the contrary is proven. the mere fact that he harbored concealed or assisted the principal to escape does not ipso facto make him an accessory. Although Republic Act No. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532. the accessory cannot be held criminally liable without the principal being found guilty of any such crime. inter alia. with respect to the second involvement of an accessory. the crime committed by the principal is immaterial. criminal liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the corpus delicti to prevent discovery. or facilitating the escape of the offender. The subject acts may not bring about criminal liability under the Code. take note that the law distinguishes between a public officer harboring. in amending Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape. If the person is a public officer.
unless the acquittal is based on a defense which is personal only to the principal. CA. Yet it is not always true that the accomplice and accessory cannot be criminally liable without the principal first being convicted. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. liberty and property without due process of law. It is a malum prohibitum. the principal must first be found guilty of the crime charged. If there is no crime. [Taer should have been liable for violation of the Anti-fencing law since cattle rustling is a form of theft or robbery of large cattle. 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 accomplice and the accessory shall not be criminally liable also. then said accused will be acquitted. concealed or assisted in the escape did not violate art. then there is no criminal liability. take note in the case of a civilian who harbors. There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the accessory and accomplice must be charged together with the principal and that if the latter be acquitted.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. In other words. And in filing an information against the person involved in the commission of the crime. whether principal. in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers. Conspiracy was not proven. So this means that before the civilian can be held liable as an accessory. the constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. accomplice and accessory. Article 19. If the principal is acquitted. or accessory. All will be accused and whether a certain accused will be principal or accomplice or accessory will depend on what the evidence would show as to his involvement in the crime. superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. Although this ruling may be correct if the facts charged do not make the principal criminally liable at all. But if the evidence shows that the act done does not constitute a crime and the principal is acquitted. 19. the law does not distinguish between principal. the civilian who harbored. either treason. if the evidence presented against a supposed accomplice or a supposed accessory does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. parricide. or attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. Under paragraph 3. because there is no crime committed. In Taer v. the law requires that the principal be found guilty of any of the specified crimes: treason. 1829. Even if the principal is convicted. Amin. Taer was held liable as an accessory in the crime of cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. Deprivation of rights and reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form. conceals. Fines and other corrective measures which. This special law does not require that there be prior conviction. accomplice. or assists the escape of the principal. Repeal of Article 80 When may a minor be committed to a reformatory? /vvverga Page 86 of 100 . except that he was not charged with fencing. murder. 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. etc. Otherwise. parricide. Verga Whether the accomplice and the accessory may be tried and convicted even before the principal is found guilty. PENALTIES Measures of prevention not considered as penalty The following are the measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties under Article 24: (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. But not Presidential Decree No. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in art. 80 for the purposes specified therein.] In Enrile v. that means he is not guilty and therefore. or knowledge of the crime. a person charged with rebellion should not be separately charged under Presidential Decree No. no need for guilt. accused received from his co-accused two stolen male carabaos. (2) (3) (4) (5) Why does the Revised Penal Code specify that such detention shall not be a penalty but merely a preventive measure? This article gives justification for detaining the accused. the liability of the accused will depend on the quantum of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the particular accused. But the prosecutor must initiate proceedings versus the principal. the detention would violate the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life. 1829. 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. The paragraph uses the particular word “guilty”. then the supposed accomplice and accessory should also be acquitted. 533. And also. That is as far as the Revised Penal Code is concerned.
one can see that the detention of the offender may subject him only to the treatment applicable to a detention prisoner or to the treatment applicable to convicts. he will only be given 80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention. 1980. but by express provision of Article24 is not a penalty. the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty. he has practically served the sentence already. the same treatment exactly is applied there. if the accused has actually undergone preventive imprisonment. but if he has been convicted for two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not. That is why the trial must go on. and whether the proceedings are terminated or not. such detention prisoner shall be discharged. or when he has been previously summoned but failed to surrender and so the court has to issue a warrant for his arrest. This amendment has been incorporated under Rule 114 precisely to do away with arbitrary detention. As such.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If the minor is between 9 . Verga preventive imprisonment. then the next thing to determine is whether he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. because he has been detained for a period already equal to if not greater than the maximum penalty that would be possibly be imposed on him if found guilty. From this provision. Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit Under Article 24. preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted. If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty imposed involves deprivation of liberty. So. it follows that he is also civilly liable. he cannot be subjected to the treatment applicable to convicts unless he signs and agrees to be subjected to such disciplinary measures applicable to convicts. Questions & Answers If the offender has already been released. but since he is not convicted yet. provides that the period during which he had undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the sentence. even though the proceedings against him are not yet terminated? Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code has been amended by a Batas Pambansa effective that tool effect on September 20. If the crime committed is punishable only by destierro. what is the use of continuing the proceedings? The proceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. sentence must first be suspended under the following conditions: (1) (2) (3) Crime committed is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua. then he will only be subjected to the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. he is suffering like a convict. unless he is one of those disqualified under the law.15 years old and acted with discernment. yet the law considers this as part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentence. The civil liability must be determined. that is why the credit is full. while he is under Vena V. Detention prisoner has more freedom within the detention institution rather than those already convicted. When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty. This amendment is found in the Rules of Court. Yet Article 29. Duration of penalties /vvverga Page 87 of 100 . the law does not speak of credit. under the rules on bail in Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. whatever credit he is entitled to shall be forfeited. He must still be a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. If he was criminally liable. In the amendment. Proper petition for habeas corpus must be filed to challenge the legality of the detention of the prisoner. If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. Correlating Article 24 with Article 29 Although under Article 24. the most the offender may be held under preventive imprisonment is 30 days. The discharge of the offender from preventive imprisonment or detention is predicated on the fact that even if he would be found guilty of the crime charged. The convicted prisoner suffers more restraints and hardship than detention prisoners. Whether the person is entitled to credit is immaterial. Under what circumstances may a detention prisoner be released. He is availing of the benefit of suspension for the first time. But if the offender did not sign an undertaking. then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment. Understand the amendment made to Article 29.
If a convict who is to serve several sentences could only be made to serve 40 years. But if the convict himself would go further from which he is vanished by the court. which is the Three-Fold Rule. what /vvverga Page 88 of 100 . the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years. or guardianship either as to the person or property of any ward. by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. It is a punishment whereby a convict is vanished to a certan place and is prohibited form entering or coming near that place designated in the sentence. Under Article 70. and/or the paramour or mistress. (3) (4) (2) Vena V.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Reclusion perpetua What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? Do not answer Article 27 to this question. Destierro What is the duration of destierro? The duration of destierro is from six months and one day. not less than 25 Kms. There is no provision of the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in jail for 40 years and neither is there a decision to this effect. the penalty one degree lower is destierro. unless such person. this is only by analogy. destierro is the penalty imposed in the following situations: (1) When a legally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediately thereafter should kill or inflict serious physical injuries upon the other spouse. In the crime of concubinage. which is the same as that of prision correcional and suspension. This is found in Article 247. such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so that he would not be able to carry out his threat. Can a convict execute a last will and testament? Yes. Thus. limit is upon the authority of the court in vanishing the convict. The duration of 40 years is not a matter of provision of law. The proper answer would be that reclusion perpetua has no duration because this is an indivisible penalty and indivisible penalties have no durations. The right to manage his property. offender during the time of his sentence: (1) (2) (3) (4) Civil interdiction shall deprive the The rights of parental authority. there is no evasion of sentence because the 240-Km. Destierro is a principal penalty. Civil Interdiction Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty. Under Article 27. with more reason. is the duration? If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory. to six year. he commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. and The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. Marital authority. However. If the convict should enter the prohibited places. Verga In the crime of grave threat or light threat. Questions & Answers 1. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification. one who is sentenced to a singly penalty of reclusion perpetua should not be held for more than 40 years. but the offender is entitled privileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the prescribed penalty by one degree. shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. Primary classification of penalties Principal penalties and accessory penalties The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the following: (1) (2) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. the penalty prescribed for the concubine is destierro under Article 334. Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor. it shall be the one imposed. Under the Revised Penal Code. those sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for 30 years.. the court cannot extend beyond 250 Kms. when the offender is required to put up a bond for good behavior but failed or refused to do so under Article 284.
the court will specify only the principal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the offender will suffer. There is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this penalty.civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. The accessory penalties follow the principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of course. Bond to keep the peace One of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to keep the peace. Arresto . do not just state the accessory penalties. An example is the penalty of civil interdiction. Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent: (1) (2) Article 40. Article 42. as provided in Article 34.suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. Prision mayor . What do we refer to if it is perpetual or temporary disqualification? We refer to the duration of the disqualification. Prision correccional . If you were the judge. A creditor moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not qualified to execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. Bond for good behavior Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crimes of grave threats and light threats under Article 234. The classification of principal and accessory is found in Article 25. One of the disqualifications is that of making a conveyance of his property inter vivos. Articles 40 to 45 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. 3. If asked what are the accessory penalties. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal . If the penalty of temporary disqualification is imposed as principal penalty. Penalties which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed penalty are automatically imposed even though they are not stated in the judgment. what is meant by this is that those penalties classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. Death .perpetual absolute disqualification. 2. There are accessory penalties which are true to other principal penalties. 4.temporary absolute disqualification perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. Remember that no felony shall be punished by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission pursuant to Article 21. So in the imposition of the sentence. and perpetual absolute disqualification.suspension from public office. You cannot find this penalty in Article 25 because Article 25 only provides for bond to keep the peace. Questions & Answers We refer to the nature of the disqualification. from the right to follow a profession or calling. Its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. This is an accessory penalty and. Article 43. and civil interdiction during 30 years following date of sentence. Questions & Answers What accessory penalty is common to all principal penalties? Confiscation or forfeiture on the instruments or proceeds of the crime. Article 41. what is the duration? The duration is six years and one day to 12 years. The convict can convey his property. What do we refer to if it is special or absolute disqualification? (5) Article 44. State the principal penalty and the corresponding accessory penalties.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. As to the particular penalties that follow a particular principal penalty. and perpetual special (3) (4) /vvverga Page 89 of 100 . Illustration: A has been convicted and is serving the penalty of prision mayor. While serving sentence. how would you resolve the move of the creditor to annul the sale? Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. In classifying the penalties as principal and accessory. a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain disqualification during the term of the sentence. he executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of land. Verga disqualification from the rights of suffrage if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months.
In other words. Because of this. there is no such thing as minimum. it is error for the court to use the term “life imprisonment”. Thus. May 25. Verga Before the enactment of Republic Act No. when a penalty has a fixed duration. it is said to be divisible and.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 1. Understand that you are not taking the examination in Theology. it was stated as 34 years.34 years. it is an indivisible penalty. The issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty was raised. the same article now provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years to 40 years. As amended by Section 21 of Republic Act No. with each portion composing a period as follows: Minimum . the Court concludes that although Section 17 of RA 7659 has fixed the duration of /vvverga Page 90 of 100 . 1995. to 33 years and four months. because instead of beginning with 33 years. instead of the straight penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. eight months and one day. the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no fixed duration. there will be no corresponding accessory penalties that will go with them. Is it beneficial in deterring crimes or not? This should be the premise of your reasoning. it is implying that the penalty is divisible. applied Article 65 of the Code in imposing the penalty for rape in People v. In a resolution promulgated on January 9. Otherwise. four months and one day of reclusion perpetua. GR No. remember that when the penalty is indivisible. to 26 years and eight months. Reclusion perpetua as modified Vena V. The nature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the proper penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in Article 63 or the rules in Article 64 should be observed in fixing the penalty.26 years. 1994. and the maximum. the designation is wrong. after being given a problem. 108172-73. you were asked to state the period in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed. Do not talk of period. because the moment they deviate from this designation. by its First Division. to 40 years. unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. consistent with the rule mentioned. If it is indivisible. and because the issue is one of first impression and momentous importance. the medium. The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either for six months or 30 days. the courts are not correct when they deviate from the technical designation of the principal penalty. the First Division referred the motion to the Court en banc. Thus. Explain the issue on the basis of social utility of the penalty. The appellee seasonably filed a motion for clarification to correct the duration of the sentence. the courts are not at liberty to use any designation of the principal penalty. if the penalty has no fixed duration. As we know. there is no period. but instead of saying reclusion perpetua. The capital punishment You were asked to state whether you are in favor or against capital punishment. To this end. Maximum . are they one and the same bond that differ only in name? No. Considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship. which made amendments to the Revised Penal Code. or it is light only on the other hand. depending on whether the felony committed is grave or less grave on one hand. it is clear that the two bonds are not the same considering that the legal effect or the failure to put up the bond is not the same. Conrado Lucas. four months and one day. it sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. Medium . Designation of penalty Since the principal penalties carry with them certain accessory penalties. the resolution states: After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislation history of RA 7659. speculations arose as to whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty. because when you talk of period. in accordance with the provisions of Articles 65 and 76. the Supreme Court en banc held that reclusion perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. you are implying that the penalty is divisible because the period referred to is the minimum. Illustration: When the judge sentenced the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. four months and one day. the Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 34 years. The Revised Penal Code provides in Article 27 that the convict shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years. four months and one day. The legal effect of each is entirely different. If. the Supreme Court. The legal effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under Article 284. 7659. he is not deserving of pardon. It divided the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three equal portions. should be divided into three equal portions to form one period of each of the three portions. So it was held that when the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.20 years and one day. medium and maximum. 7659. Divisible and indivisible penalties When we talk of period. If bond to keep the peace is not the same as bond for good behavior.
the question arises: “What then may be the reason for the amendment fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua?” This question was answered in the same case of People v. Now then. can he be made to pay? Yes. pursuant to Article 70. such as Article 41 on the accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 61. Article 81 has been amended and. for the full amount with deduction. Lucas by quoting pertinent portion of the decision in People v. reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal. is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict‟s eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of penalties. if Congress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty. and the sentence shall be carried out not later that one year after the finality of judgment. In the matter of executing the death penalty. then Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence. then there would be no statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty. there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion perpetua as the penalty in drug cases. in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code. There are. it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. which have not been touched by a corresponding amendment. There are two situations there: (1) When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries with it a fine. After undergoing subsidiary penalty and the convict is already released from jail and his financial circumstances improve. although. regardless of the attendant modifying circumstances. it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict‟s natural life. as set out in Article 25. The latter is the law on what are considered divisible penalties under the Code and what should be the duration of the periods thereof. Reyes. the case of an offender who is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Innovations on the imposition of the death penalty Aside form restoring the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. Ultimately. To illustrate. Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. has been deleted and instead. Since. thereof. the death penalty may not be meted out on an offender who was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime because Article 68 the lowers the imposable penalty upon such offenders by at least one degree than that prescribed for the crime. limits such suspension to last while the woman was pregnant and within one year after delivery. Verga and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of Reclusion Perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal but is less than thirty (30) years. directs that the manner of putting the convict to death by electrocution shall be changed to gas poisoning as soon as the facilities are provided. anent the suspension of the execution of the death penalty for three years if the convict was a woman. Subsidiary penalty Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty? No. there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. however. thus: The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua. Republic Act No. then it should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code. and (2) (3) /vvverga Page 91 of 100 . other provisions of the Revised Penal Code involving reclusion perpetua. If Article 63 of the Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be a divisible penalty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Reclusion Perpetua from twenty years (20) and one (1) to forty 40 years. as well. 70 and 21. In fine. 212 SCRA 402. If the convict does not want to pay fine and has so many friends and wants to prolong his stay in jail. But even without this amendment. 6425 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated herein. if reclusion perpetua was classified as a divisible penalty. can he stay there and not pay fine? No. Verily. thus. 7659 made innovations on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the death penalty: (1) Article 47 has been reworded to expressly include among the instances where the death penalty shall not be imposed. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended RA No. It would be legally absurd Vena V. The original provision of Article 83.
Therefore. the judgment of the court must state this. This is a penalty where a public officer anticipates public duties. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one year. It must be that the convict is insolvent to pay the fine. and a penalty with a fixed duration. Subido. But this will only be true if the one year period is higher than 1/3 of the principal penalty. III. A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. the convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty more than 1/3 of the duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 year . it tried to modify the sentence to include subsidiary penalty after period to appeal had already elapsed. The subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the principal penalty. that means it does not go with another principal penalty. The term is wrong because the penalty is not only served by imprisonment. Verga (2) When penalty is only a fine. If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the principal penalty imposed be fine only. the convict shall be required to save subsidiary penalty. the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary penalty and it will also be in the form of destierro. it must be expressly stated in the sentence. So the duration does not exceed six years. Since it is not an accessory penalty. The convict was detained. the addition of subsidiary penalty will be null and void. if any. if the felony committed is grave or less grave. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days. but the sentence does not specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the convict cannot pay the fine. Suppose the convict cannot pay the fine. If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty. Otherwise. The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. whether he likes it or not. The sheriff then tried to levy the property of the defendant after it has become final and executory. If the judgment is silent. This particular legal point is a bar problem. the non-payment of the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty. the most that the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six months. When is subsidiary penalty applied (1) If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which goes with the principal penalty. It will then be the prison authority who will compute this. which is a single penalty. there is no subsidiary penalty. there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of damages to the offended party. In People v. because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. This being a restriction of liberty with a fixed duration under Article 39 for the nonpayment of fine that goes with the destierro. so that even if the convict has no money or property to satisfy the fine. if the judge failed to state in the sentence that the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine. he entered into the performance of public office even before he has complied with the required formalities.get 1/3 of the principal penalty . It is not within the control of the convict to pay the fine or not and once the sentence becomes final and executory and a writ of execution is issued to collect the fine. A subsidiary penalty will only be served if the sheriff should return the execution for the fine on the property of the convict and he does not have the properties to satisfy the writ.whichever is lower. if the felony committed is slight. Illustration: A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. That means that the writ of execution issued against the property of the convict. he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter is not an accessory and so it must be expressly stated. So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case. so there is no subsidiary penalty that goes beyond one year. Since it is a penalty with a fixed /vvverga Page 92 of 100 . if convict has property to levy upon. such imprisonment should not be higher than six years or prision correccional. thereafter. This is tantamount to double jeopardy. suspension and destierro have the same duration as prision correccional. may he be required to undergo subsidiary penalty? Yes. this being a divisible penalty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. The judgment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty. or not to pay the fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. is returned unsatisfied. the same shall answer for the fine. Therefore. Will the petition prosper? Yes. for which reason he filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his detention is illegal. If the principal penalty is destierro. The sentence will merely provide that in case of non-payment of the fine. he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty. (2) There are some who use the term subsidiary imprisonment. Under Article 27. If the court overlooked to provide for subsidiary penalty in the sentence and its attention was later called to that effect. but it was returned unsatisfied. it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve. The court then issued an order for said convict to suffer subsidiary penalty. This subsidiary penalty is one of important matter under the title of penalty. Questions & Answers The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only. that convict cannot be required to suffer the accessory penalty. otherwise.
00 x 50. such shall be 1/3 of the period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. Articles 63 and 64 If crime committed is parricide. because it is an indivisible penalty. Because of that. So do not apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a case where the penalty is divisible. penalty to be imposed shall be one degree lower to be imposed in the proper period. This means one year and six months only. Do not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will be required to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. If the totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years. provided it is not a light felony against persons or property. even if the totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond six years. I am not in the position to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the ThreeFold Rule is to be given effect when the convict is already serving sentence in the penitentiiary. I would impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of P200. Article 66 When there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the penalty is only fine. What penalty would you impose? Reclusion perpetua. it is not a crime at all unless it is consummated. Hence. the Three-Fold Rule will apply. The collector appropriated the amount collected and so was charged with estafa. the penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty. Cannot go below the minimum period when there is an aggravating circumstance. When he was collecting NAWASA bills. This is because the imprisonment that will be served will not go beyond six years. there is a privileged mitigating circumstance or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated. In such a case when there are aggravating circumstances. voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon arraignment. after offsetting.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) duration under Article 39. Arresto mayor + P200.000. Do not apply this when there is one aggravating circumstance. then.00. do not go down any degree lower.00 multiplied by 50 counts and state further that “as a judge. Court offsets the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances. that will be the penalty to be imposed. If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a light penalty.00. But the subsidiary penalty will be served not by imprisonment but by continued suspension.00 in each count. when it is only ordinary mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance. the convict cannot be required to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has no fixed duration. But if the penalty would be lowered by degree. Penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine.00 multiplied by 3.00 x 50 = P10. Illustration: There are about four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. If you were the judge. the judge lowered the penalty by one degree. for the non. after committing parricide.000. no matter how many mitigating circumstances there are.” For the purposes of subsidiary penalty. the penalty does not go beyond six years. So.Fold Rule. Is the judge correct? No. apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine of P200. he shall still be Vena V. Because you determine the imposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the offender. P200. It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the means of the convict should improve. even if he has already served subsidiary penalty. Thus.payment of the fine of P10. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance. The accused. Illustration: A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 houses within a certain locality. Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years. do not go one degree lower because it is not /vvverga Page 93 of 100 . penalty is reclusion perpetua. applying the Three. what penalty would you impose? May the convict be required to undergo subsidiary penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fine? The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. when there is a subsidiary penalty. the charges of all these consumers was a minimum of 10. It will only be one year and six months. since in the service of the sentence.00. He was convicted. Verga required to pay the fine and there is no deduction for that amount which the convict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty. if it is attempted or frustrated. As far as the court is concerned. but in the minimum period. and no aggravating circumstances were present. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-Fold Rule. It was also established that he was intoxicated. The penalty prescribed by law will be the penalty to be imposed. because if it is a light felony and punishable by fine. apply Article 66. In this case of 50 counts of estafa. So. Go into the lowering of the penalty by one degree if the penalty is divisible.
the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which is six months and one day to six years. This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is a whole divisible penalty -. In homicide under Article 249. When the penalty prescribed by the Code is made up of two periods of a given penalty. Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory. every time you go down one degree lower. if homicide is frustrated. Memorize the scale in Article 71. But generally. in the scale of penalties graduated according to degrees. such penalty should be understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall govern: (1) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Code is made up of a period. with respect to the range of each penalty. penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law. Every degree will be composed of two periods. by way of destierro or disqualification. the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional minimum. arresto mayor is higher than destierro. the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code are only in periods. But be this as it is. every time such penalty is lowered by one degree you have to go down also by two periods. and the penalty another degree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) punishable unless it is a light felony against person or property where the imposable penalty will be lowered by one degree or two degrees. the range of arresto menor follows arresto mayor. Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases: (1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated If it is frustrated. since arresto menor is one to 30 days or one month. Take note that destierro comes after arresto mayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor. When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever. /vvverga Page 94 of 100 . Verga In Article 27. each degree will be made up of only one period because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period. the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. you have to go down by three periods. (3) Vena V. like prision correcional minimum. to a limited extent. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to maximum. and two degrees lower is prision correccional. whether absolute or special. One degree lower. or prision correcional minimum to medium. In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree. If it is attempted. the penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. (2) When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is made up of three periods of different penalties. and the penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor maximum. Another (2) (4) (5) Penalty commonly imposed by the Revised Penal Code may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine or. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated stage. is prision mayor. Whenever the provision of the Revised Penal Code specifically lowers the penalty by one or two degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed. under Article 71. the penalty one degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum. Although the penalty is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code as a period. On the other hand. it will lower the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law depending on what the particular provision of the Revised Penal Code states. while arresto mayor is one month and one day to six months. Illustration: The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. the reference is Article 71. In other words.one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be punished as a whole. the penalty is reclusion temporal. like prision correccional medium. It is necessary to know the chronology under Article 71 by simply knowing the scale. (3) When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a given crime refers to the consummated stage. or there is an accomplice participating in homicide. but destierro.
Article 75 – Fines With respect to the penalty of fine. the fine will be imposed at P200. So. Article 66 In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the form of a fine. not in the imposition of the penalty. whether sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences promulgated by different courts on different days. that Three-Fold rule is to be applied.00. no matter how many ordinary mitigating circumstances there are. In other words. The Three-Fold Rule Under this rule. Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death. indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. For instance. What is material is that convict shall serve more than three successive sentences. These rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances. the penalty upon Vena V.00 and that would leave a difference of P250. the fine is lowered by deducting 1/4 of the maximum amount of the fine from such maximum without changing the minimum amount prescribed by law. the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P200.00.00 to P250. under the Three-Fold rule. P125. If the penalty is perpetual disqualification.00. when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime. Under this article.00. Instead. you will only apply this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will the penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years. the rules are found in Articles 63 and 64.00 shall be deducted therefrom. Article 63 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is indivisible. When the penalty is indivisible. the prescribed penalty is never lowered by degree. it cannot go lower than P200. If the sentences would be served simultaneously.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium. when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever. so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification. The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed. the Three-Fold rule does not govern. The penalty one degree lower is P375. the the the are the For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule. the penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum – reclusion perpetua – death. the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. Verga an accused who is poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the same crime but who is wealthy . it is discretionary upon the court to apply the fine taking into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the same. but primarily. if the fine has to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation. /vvverga Page 95 of 100 . Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. This penalty made up of three periods. in no case should penalty exceed 40 years. you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. So not only penalties with fixed duration. even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into account. Article 64 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. So.00 to P500. not the the the This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so.00 shall again be deducted from P375. it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years. leaving a difference of P375.00. Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule. you take the most severe and multiply it by three. he will actually serve the penalties imposed by law. when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. If at all. As to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances may affect the penalty. These rules refer to the lowering of penalty by one or two degrees. when a convict is to serve successive penalties. This rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by degree. Hence. The three-Fold rule will apply whether sentences are the product of one information in one court. such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the proper period.00. but the felony is frustrated so that the penalty should be imposed one degree lower. To go another degree lower. It takes a privileged mitigating circumstance to lower such penalty by degree. the court may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper. However.00 from P500. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively. For the same crime. it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances that the court shall take into consideration. the most severe of penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be only term of the penalty to be served by him. even perpetual penalties are taken into account. and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper. and their penalty consists of a fine only. On the other hand. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P200. It is in the service of the penalty.00. the fine has to be lowered further. 1/4 of P500. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule. This is done by deducting P125.00.
whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. A person was sentenced to three death sentences. the court will fix the maximum of the sentence.Fold Rule in this case. as long as it will not exceed the limit of the penalty. they would deteriorate. Instances when it does not apply. you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by three. Act No. maximum or minimum period. and when we say maximum.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court. Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. Even if you add the penalties. This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively. If there is a privilege mitigating circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.000 years or more. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime -. Verga It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment. So. If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code.6 years and 1 day to 12 years Vena V. In other words. the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule. in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. saving the government expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail. at the same time. Illustration: Penalties imposed are – One prision correcional – minimum – 2 years and 4 months One arresto mayor One prision mayor . and How it operates Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a special Law. the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law. we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the convict may be held in jail. the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range of the penalty next lower in degree. use the term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum. the two remaining penalties must still be executed. If the crime is a violation of a special law. The common mistake is. for purposes of ISLAW. the court will fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence. the court will take into account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account.1 month and 1 day to 6 months . what penalty would you impose. whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed. Illustration: A district engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 914 years in prison. /vvverga Page 96 of 100 . because it is proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. imprisonment. Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three. as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty under said law. even if it would amount to 1. the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources. Significance: If ever granted pardon for 1 crime. and within the range of the penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71. In fixing the minimum. if given a situation. as amended Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) (2) (3) Its purpose. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into account the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. So. if you were the judge. If not by Purpose The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment.to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and. the court will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law. if the valuable human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail. It is not limited to violations of the Revised Penal Code. 4013 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). Within the range of one degree lower. It is only when the convict is serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail. the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum and maximum. For the purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence. then it does not apply. do not say. The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. If asked. for purposes of imposing the penalty.
the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and not that which may be imposed by court. Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty. In the same manner.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. it is that penalty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should be the basis. Moreover. If there is mitigating circumstance. which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. Just the same. the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the proper rules of the Revised Penal Code. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro reo. there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. But in so far as the minimum is concerned. according to – (1) (2) (3) The time committed. Therefore. of misprision of treason. consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. in applying the Indetermiante Sentence Law. So in the case of statutory offense. rebellion. and The offender involved. If the mitigating circumstance is privileged. So. months and days. courts are required in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve. crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. This ruling. Verga In one Supreme Court ruling. and to set a maximum as the limit of that sentence. you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned. To fix the maximum. shall have escaped from confinement or evaded /vvverga Page 97 of 100 . no mitigating. penalty under the Revised Penal Code is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the court must apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. sedition. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment. If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances. no aggravating. Persons convicted of piracy. Vena V. Persons who are habitual delinquents. This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. the court may fix any penalty as the maximum without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. Persons convicted espionage. If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied. whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. This means – (1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. when the crime is punished under a special law. Disqualification may be divided into three. and go one degree lower than that. (2) (3) (4) (5) Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in determining the minimum. no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be taken into account. Under the law. To fix the minimum and the maximum of the sentence. it may happen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum. there is no need to mention the number of years. there are no degree or periods. apply the rules. penalty shall be in the minimum. they shall offset against each other. as long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed. however. conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. If there is aggravating circumstance. penalty shall be imposed in the maximum. is obviously erroneous. Persons who sentence. otherwise. If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code. the rule is. The penalty imposed. Whatever remains. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. Persons convicted of treason. the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. courts are given discretion to fix a minimum anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law. In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
So even if he would be convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction. only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment are those qualified for probation. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals. without regard to the penalty. This may be availed of before the convict begins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did not appeal anymore from conviction. Once he appeals. So even if the offender may not be disqualified of probation. An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the judgment. Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment. Under the amendment to the Probation Law. Cempron. If the penalty is six years plus one day. For the offender to apply in such court. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit of the hearing. The idea is that probation has to be invoked at the earliest opportunity. the courts are always required to conduct a hearing. under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. but not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of Indeterminate Sentence Law. that convict can still file an application for probation. because the earliest opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court. Verga (7) (8) Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term thereto. Although a person may be eligible for probation. such convict is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried jointly and one decision was rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty. /vvverga Page 98 of 100 . Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court by placing him under supervision of a probation officer. Without regard to the nature of the crime. May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law? As a general rule. Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. regardless of the purpose of the appeal. On the other hand. the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less. the court may refuse or deny an application for probation. the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of conviction. the most important is probation. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. if none of the individual penalties exceeds six years. the penalty of which is only arresto menor or a fine. Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200. 968 (Probation Law) Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability. Presidential Decree No. So know the crimes under Title III. the denial is correctible by certiorari. no. he is no longer qualified for probation. If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to say.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. even though he may thereafter withdraw his appeal. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. he is not disqualified from probation provided that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of the crime committed by him is not against public order. national security or subversion. where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probation Law. he should not appeal such judgment. the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies (People v. those convicted of a crime against public order regardless of the penalty are not qualified for probation. So even if the prison term would sum up to more than six years. Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the benefit of probation or not. because it is an act of the court in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. less than six years. the basis for determining whether the penalty disqualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision.00. he cannot avail of probation anymore. yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the crime. Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua. those who are convicted of subversion or any crime against the public order are not qualified for probation. and to save the government much needed finance for maintaining convicts in jail Probation is only a privilege. 187 SCRA 278). he will be disqualified from applying for Probation. to prevent the commission of offenses. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the earliest instance after conviction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the sentence has become final and executory. but only based on the report of the probation officer. to decongest our jails. if after considering the attendant circumstances. the offender is not disqualified by such penalty from applying for probation. the order denying the application therefore is null and void.
but also the probationable penalty. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. If the convict perfected an appeal. (2) These conditions being mandatory. the probation is cancelled. as a probationer. the penalty will already be final and exeuctory. To allow him loose may bring about a lack of respect of the members of the community to the enforcement of penal law. unless the convict has waived expressly his right to appeal or otherwise. he has partly started serving sentence and in that case. that does not mean that they already start serving the sentence even after promulgation of the sentence. As far as offenders who are under preventive imprisonment. Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows: (1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions: (1) (2) Mandatory conditions. Generally. abduction. and as to pecuniary penalties. and Discretionary conditions. must report to the PO at least once a month during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO. no right to probation can be applied for. those against public order and those with reference to subversion. the courts do not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. and The convict. sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period. provided the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject to this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer. That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime. By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects. Probation is only available once and this may be availed only where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not perfected an appeal. By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape. Verga Generally. the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny the benefit of probation. So it is not along the purpose of probation to grant the convict the benefit thereof. /vvverga Page 99 of 100 . the moment any of these is violate. Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time. that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime committed. the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. just the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of the society and the community where the convict would be staying. then regardless of the penalty. he forfeits his right to apply for probation. naturally he goes back to detention. IV. By absolute pardon. although bailable. Probation shall be denied if the court finds: (1) (2) (3) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution. By prescription of the penalty. the convict cannot avail of probation. In such a case. liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment By service of sentence. and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of conscience of the probationer EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Always provide two classifications when answering this question. If it were the non-probationable crime. they cannot afford to put up a bail. Discretionary conditions: The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender. By prescription of the crime. or Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime. Mandatory conditions: (1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order approving his application. Offenses which are not probationable are those against natural security. Consider not only the probationable crime. because of the prevalence of the crime. upon promulgation of the sentence. if he would be released on probation.
no matter how long ago was the first conviction. Total extinction of criminal liability Among the grounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction. he was granted absolute pardon. is he a recidivist? No. he shall not be considered a recidivist. By commutation of sentence. what was given was absolute pardon. the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion. Although pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. decided on September 2. then years later he rebelled again and convicted. the offender even if granted pardon shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar. if he will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that crime. Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty /vvverga Page 100 of 100 . because the pardon wipes out the effects of the crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) By conditional pardon. instead of amnesty. and so he was given an amnesty. So that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty. a crime embraced in the same title. 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. unless the language of the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects thereof. Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. Pedro was again prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft. the case on appeal will be dismissed. For good conduct. During the ensuing election. Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. 170 SCRA 191. he cannot be considered a recidivist. Considering that recidivism does not prescribe. So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was given a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore. although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime. In Monsanto v. because it does not require a final judgment. it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the conviction but also the effects of the conviction itself. Bayotas. that his constituents have pardoned him. Pardon. If given before this. Death of the offender Where the offender dies before final judgment. But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned. 1994) Amnesty and pardon The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. the pardoned convict must reapply for the new appointment . So while a case is on appeal. (People v. and therefore even if he commits theft again. Amnesty erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. it is premature and hence void. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence. a public official was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Ten years later. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when the convict had 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. Factoran. he was convicted. Jr. Verga Yes. then years later. In one case.. allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence. if he has served all six years of the first sentence. The Supreme Court ruled that the re-election to public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. is he a recidivist? Vena V. After serving sentence for three years. it may be given before final judgment or after it. There is no such thing as a premature amnesty. Illustrations: When the crime carries with it moral turpitude. Suppose. he shall still be a recidivist. Parole. This is only true to administrative cases but not criminal cases. you cannot find among them the election to public office. that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the crime. and Probation. he was nevertheless reelected by the constituents. this time he shall be a recidivist. the offender dies. one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his constituents. On the other hand. his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. and his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon.
prescriptive period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at the public prosecutor‟s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. If the 60th day falls on a Sunday. so he brought the criminal action only then. the prescriptive period already commenced to run. After which the prescription will resume to run. the crime has already prescribed. When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an extradition treaty. so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence. the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescribed. Moreover. the earlier jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or overruled. Australia. The crime committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe. the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned. as a general rule on the day the crime was committed. no matter how long such convict has been a fugitive from justice. he must be brought to Muntinlupa. placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of Property. even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this ground the trial court. and the appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue. the crime has indeed prescribed. So the earlier rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not. So if the offender goes to any of these countries. if the subject could leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty. on the way to the penitentiary. if legally. the penalty imposed by the trial court will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. Indonesia. hence. but after conviction and during the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed. the period will only commence to run when the convict has begun to serve the sentence. so that the initial crime of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty. When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor‟s office. after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period. the prescription thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or the government learns of the commission of the crime. Verga When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7. the prescriptive period still continues to run. the prescription of the crime will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial court. for purposes of prescription. the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only after 10 years. The prevailing rule now is. Actually. it is the commission of other crime. the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country. Presently the Philippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan. the moment the convict commits another crime while he is fugitive from justice. the offended party may not really know of the falsification. Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty. not public. in which case. even though the last day such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a Sunday. When a crime prescribes.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Prescription of the crime begins. (2) The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended – (1) Vena V. the State loses the right to prosecute the offender. the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the offender leaves Philippine territory for that country. Local Government Code. but the suspension of the prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. For instance. but not the filing with the barangay. the period for filing a complaint or information may not be extended at all. In the case of the prescription of the penalty. the prescriptive period of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public registry. USA and Switzerland. prescription of the crime is not waivable. Illustration: In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry. and the conviction becomes final and executory. From the moment the falsified document is registered in the Registry of Property. But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure. the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. thus enabling the prisoner to escape. /vvverga Page 101 of 100 . the prescription of the crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the accused. It is not the filing of the complaint.This does not mean alone that the crime was within public knowledge or committed in public. Canada. booked there. unless the crime was concealed. “Commission of the crime is public” -. For the penalty to prescribe. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has already prescribed. the falsification is deemed public from the time the falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though. such accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal. On the prescription of the penalty. So if an accused was convicted in the trial court. but the filing of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.
Parole This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court. And yet. if the property is illegally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. and Indemnification of consequential damages. although already his wife can still prosecute him again. /vvverga Page 102 of 100 . Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good faith. Article 158 refers only to those who leave and return. abduction. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may refile the complaint. but not when such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the crime. When apprehended. Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Partial extinction of criminal liability Good conduct allowance This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98. CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories: (1) (2) (3) Restitution and restoration. do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under Article 344. It is only in the crimes of rape. Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. no partial extinction. When the offender was asked why he got on of the earrings of the victim. seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability. Restitution or restoration Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property. This is the partial extinction referred to. even though such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property. the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation. otherwise. For example. so that if the convict was never given parole. It is only true in the crimes of rape. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after the marriage. For example. except when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer. the offender got on of the earrings of the victim. Regardless of the crime committed. not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman. notwithstanding such marriage. during the rape. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration. the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. if there are any. earthquake or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48 hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. Verga Marriage In the case of marriage. If the property is in the hands of a third party. and such property must be returned. abduction. Reparation of the damage caused. will also benefit from such marriage. Marriages in these cases may even compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only cooperated. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. So the offended party may only resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender. such convict shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming back. the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. the offended woman. this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. The latter crime is not a crime against property. but also that of the accomplice and accessory. in relation to Article 158. although the marriage remains a valid marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. the offender was required to restore or restitute the earring to the offended woman. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party. this is not correct. in a case where the offender committed rape.
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person. Where personal property was divested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the property may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid. The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it to him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him. The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations. The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender. Reparation of the damage caused In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private
prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages including attorney‟s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and the amount duly proven. Indemnification of consequential damages Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime. 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. Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property of their guests. Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors: (1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest; and The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.
The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability. Noncompliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it won‟t absolve the management from civil liability. Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment. Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper‟s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and force upon things.
Page 103 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requisites concur: (1) (2) (3) (4) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his employee; At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existing between the two; The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable; The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability.
Vena V. Verga
To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here. There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability. 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; 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.
When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused. When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of the 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.
The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable. Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable. In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute. COMPLEX CRIME Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who, 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. Purpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo. If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore. Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right). 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 may be in the form of: (1) Compound crime;
Page 104 of 100
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
Complex crime; and Composite crime.
Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat: Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion) The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148. The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in complexing or 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. When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one act formed, it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be imposed. Conversely, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse and for ever criminal impulse, 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, considering that Criminal Law, if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime, the offender should be penalized only once. There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse, the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. There are cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse. CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse, there is what is called a continued crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue, this is referred to as a continuing crime. The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”, however, although both terms are analogous, they are not really used with the same import. “Continuing crime” is 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
A compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes. A complex crime strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a complex crime. A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are regarded only as a single indivisible offense. V. Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime
This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide. The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex crime, but “complex crimes” are limited only to a situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave. Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave felonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes. Illustration: A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting felonies are only slight. Illustration of a situation where the term “necessary” in complex crime should not be understood as indispensable:
Page 105 of 100
some of the Muslims may escape. In another case. When the hands of the Muslims were tied. so no one would run away. Although the killings did not result from one single act. because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them. it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. If confronted with a problem. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses. Hence. There were a series of acts. When the robbers entered the compound. Verga 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. The question of whether the constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme Court. the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. even those cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies. the accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. The confusion lies in this. some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. These soldiers feared that on the way. However performing a series of acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one crime is committed under one information. there is multiple rape. Such situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. the Supreme Court considered this as a complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse. although. Although in this case. the roosters were owned by different persons. it was held that there is only one crime of theft committed. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary. so it is clear that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. after which. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes. So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once. In People v. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded. In the eyes of the law. The act of one is the act of all. the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places. Lawas ordered his men to fire. and the soldiers mechanically fired. they were moved by a single criminal intent. In People v. but the decision in the Lawas case is correct. another act out of this is done simultaneously. You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime. Garcia. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. In criminal procedure. A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. 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. use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less grave felonies. it must be called a complex crime. if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her. this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslims from one barrio to another place. This becomes a complex crime. In earlier rulings on abduction with rape. it is regarded in law as one. Duplicity of offenses. where the accused took five roosters from one and the same chicken coop. Lawas. They abducted the woman. one of them protested. the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. Jose. regardless of a series of acts done. each committed four crimes of rape. except when the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime. he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a Hajji. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48. In People v. So Lawas ordered the men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other. The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. The three rapes /vvverga Page 106 of 100 . it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the compound. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information. in order not to violate this rule. One of the four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy. there were four participants here. a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. de Leon. In People v. because the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. Not because there were several quarters robbed. It was held that there is only one crime committed – multiple robbery.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. not because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. The Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to Vena V. Supreme Court considered this as complex. the four took turns in abusing her. because there is no other provision in the RPC. because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse. At the height of the commotion. The nearest article is Article 48.
Although under Article 48. Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can. only one complex crime of rape would arise. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime. The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. Apparently. the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the provision of Article 48. This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino. 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. 320). regardless of the number of rapes committed. the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases: (1) Two Estafa cases. However. referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v. Otherwise. Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence. CIV. Sabbun. The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran‟s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney‟s fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. 1936. there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December. the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino in People v. Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates. that of collecting fees for services rendered. In adultery. 13 Phil 306). June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of Article 48. after all. the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. there is only one information and prosecution only. (2) (3) On the other hand. regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim. one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. Bojas. the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v. This would mean two penalties to be imposed. the singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases. Pabasa. Jaranillo). although only the first part thereof (compound crime). The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. Pabasa. Each intercourse brings with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) are not necessary to complaints/information. that there could be only one complex crimeof abduction with rape. In People v. two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted. Bulaong. But the multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime. the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: (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. In People v. that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her. Verga In People v. (2) (3) /vvverga Page 107 of 100 . a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence. Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime – one count or forcible abudction with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them. together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. Applying the concept of the “continued crime”. 10 SCAR 156). Dichupa. yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court. Several malversations committed in May. each intercourse constitutes one crime. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive. 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. 351). Tumlos. The second part of Article 48 does not apply. 67 Phil. separate Vena V. The reason being that. a light felony should not be included in a complex crime. 66 Phil. and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse. commit the other rapes. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith. instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. Said acts were committed on two different occasions. Therefore.
The idea of amnesty wipes out the crime cannot not be carried to the extent of saying. The criminal action has been extinguished by prescription. Issue: Should the case be dismissed and accused acquitted since the crime was politically motivated. constitutes one larceny only. The accused must first show compliance with the requirements for availing himself of the benefits like taking the required oath. 1993). amnesty. The date of computing the period of prescription would be from the date of the filing of the application.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In the theft cases. FACTORAN Keywords: Estafa. for the purpose of depriving a person of a legal civil right to which he was entitled. the case will be dismissed. The authorities. Although caution should be observed in applying the rule of construction in civil cases. The dismissal of the criminal action does not extinguish the civil responsibility. REYES Keyword: prescription of crime. and (3) they were done in the same day. decided on December 2. registration of public document Issue: W/N the act charged has already prescribed. Justice Garchitorena. MADLANGBAYAN Keyword: spy. 324. crime politically motivated Issue: W/N the civil aspect is extinguished too on account of amnesty. falsification of public documents. Decision: Yes. or their agents and shall be interrupted by the filling of the complaint or information and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. the oath. The application of the rule on constructive notice in the construction of Article 92 of the RPC would most certainly be favorable to the accused since the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned with earlier. MONSANTO vs.. The date of the violation of the law becomes the operative date for the commencement of the period of prescription. The criminal offense of falsification of public document has already prescribed. 91 cannot be construed in such manner as to admit application of the rule on construction. under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. Decision: No. SANDIGANBAYAN Keyword: Torrens. FULL and ABSOLUTE FREEDOM: EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Death of the convict as to the personal penalties before final judgment By service of the sentence By amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects BY prescription of the crime By prescription of the penalty By the marriage of the offended party (rape) US vs. registration being a constructive notice to the whole word. Here. Even if the ten year period commenced to run from the registration and issuance of the free patent title by the register of deed. Also 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 (Santiago v. (2) caused injury to one party only – the government. Decision: No. that is taking of several things. unless the latter provides the contrary. All persons must take notice. PEOPLE vs. PEOPLE vs. Considering the lapse of more than 20 years. Decision: No. at the same time and place. Subsequently. that the criminal act never existed. The title. once registered is a notice to the world. Prescription shall not run when offender is not in the Philippines. 32 amended informations were filed. Dismissal of the case will not be without prejudice to the right of the widow to enforce the civil liability of the accused. /vvverga Page 108 of 100 . Many courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine. the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine. filling in the register of deeds Issue: W/N the crime prescribed Decision: Yes. Vena V. the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws. the prescriptive period would lapse on 1986 or 5 months before the filing of the complaint. whether belonging to the same or different owners. Verga ARTICLE 91 (PRESCRIPTION) Period of prescription shall run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. the crimes charges already prescribed. Issue: Does Art. 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. the accused was charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. the court will not hesitate to do so if the factual and legal circumstance so warrant. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Article 10. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one information. Upon filing in the court.
The civil liability. thus. the employer can not be held liable. before delivery. Pardon if granted before conviction. SC dismissed the criminal aspect Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability. he must be presumed to be the author of the theft and not merely an accessory. Said liability is extinguished. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale. where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility. CASTILLO Keyword: Chauffer. them is no question. this issue was settled in the affirmative. Another person aided in procuring registration certificate. ARTICLE 100 Every person criminally liable for a felony in also civilly liable. a few days prior to their recovery.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution. The jewels were pawned without the knowledge of the owner thus must be restored by the pawnshop owners. Issue: Can the employer be held liable. the employer cannot be civilly liable. provided. MARQUEZ vs. Although stolen property is acquired in good faith by a third party. they may repatriate for the injury or indemnify the owner. Decision: Yes. unless it be satisfactorily shown that the property was stolen by some other person. Such liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. The law is plain. The owner has an absolute right to the jewels from the possession The Vena V. Verga of whoever holds them. If restitution is impossible. consequent upon condition. If granted after conviction. jewels Issue: W/N the owner of the jewels direct four pawnshops to restore the jewels without indemnity on the party of the petitioner. The subsidiary liability of the master only takes place when the servant. Statutory construction is unnecessary. Decision: No. He is principal to the crime. the employer is not engaged in business or industry and merely uses automobile for private ends. subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual performance of his own ordinary duties and he was innocent thereby rendering incapable of satisfying by himself his own liability. it prevents any penalties and disabilities. Decision: Yes. MC the employer did not know his car was used. VARELA vs. Castillo. Issue: W/N the jewels can be recovered. the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by the legislative action. Absolute pardon dies not blot out the crime committed. STEIMETZ vs. Where it admitted that the employer did not know that his chauffer was using the car that day and the he exercised due diligence in hiring the chauffer. REYES vs. PEOPLE vs. Thus. Decision: Yes. VILLALOBOS Keyword: Theft of carabao. BAYOTAS Keyword: Rape. Decision: Yes. altered the brands on the animals. His participation as an accessory cannot be admitted. FINNICK Keyword: Estafa of jewels. RUIZ Keyword: Defraud. This is the reason why the employee is not entitled to backpay when pardoned. in accordance with the judgment entered in the aforesaid cause for estafa. Among the civil responsibilities incurred by a person committing estafa is that of restoring the thing taken. victim died. the extinction of the latter by death. however. poses a problem. Every person criminally liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable. ipso facto extinguishes the former. US vs. Issue: W/N the driver‟s employer can be civilly liable. A number of stolen carabao were found in the possession of a person who kept them hidden for a time and. Decision: No. Issue: W/N that person is mere accessory to the theft or principal. Pardon implies guilt. it does no erase the crime and the conviction thereof. VALDEZ Keyword: 2 vehicles collided in intersection. The very essence of pardon is forgiveness and remission of guilt. Stated differently. The employer was also no in the automobile when the accident happened and when it exercised due diligence in choosing a driver. With reference to Castillo's criminal liability. he can not lawfully withhold the possession thereof from the true owner and insist upon reimbursement. of course. pawned instead of selling them. it removes penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89. /vvverga Page 109 of 100 . that death supervenes before final judgment. The case of People v. only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. from attaching. victim cannot collect from the driver.
if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1. Finally. 3. Verga against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused. the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription. Where the civil liability survives. This separate civil action may be enforced either Vena V. the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. 4. In such case. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. in cases where -during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. conformably with provisions of the Civil Code. /vvverga Page 110 of 100 . 2. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. as explained in Number 2 above. Corollarily. depending an the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 1.