This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Book One GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES, THE PERSONS LIABLE AND THE PENALTIES
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY Chapter One – Felonies………………………………………………. 11 1. Classification of Felonies…………………………………. 12 2. Incurrence of Criminal Liability ……………………………14 3. Duty of Court When Penalty is Excessive………………. 20 4. Stages of Execution……………………………………… ..21 5. Light Felonies………………………………………………. 24 6. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony……………. 25 7. Offenses not Subject to the Code…………………………26 Chapter Two – Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability …………27 1. Justifying Circumstances……...………………………….…27 2. Exempting Circumstances…………………………………. 32 3. Mitigating Circumstances……..…………………………… 37 4. Aggravating Circumstances….…………………………….. 43 5. Alternative Circumstances…….……………………………. 62
Title Two PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES 1.Who are liable ……………………………………….. …..65 2. Principals…………………………………………………...65 3. Accomplices………………………………………………..68 4. Accessories………………………………………………...69 Title Three PENALTIES 1. Penalties In General……………………………………...73 2. Classification of Penalties……………………………… .73 3. Duration of Penalties………………….………………….75 4. Preventive and Subsidiary Imprisonment………………76 5. Application of Mitigating and Aggravating………………77 6. Other Effects of Penalty…………………………………..80 7. Complex Crimes and Their Penalties………..………….81 8. Continuing Crime………………………………..…………82 9. Indeteminate Sentence Law………………………………83 10. Probation Law………………………………………………86 11. Conditions of Probation……………………………………88 12. Other Instances When Probation Not Applicable……….88 Title Four EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: TOTAL AND PARTIAL 1. Extinction of Criminal Liability (Total and Partial)……….89 2. Reason for Prescription of the Crime and/or Penalty…………………………………..………94 3. Marriage of the Offended Party with the Offender…………………………………………..…95 4. Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability……………………..96
Title Five CIVIL LIABILITY 1. Person Civilly Liable for Felonies……………………………..97 2. Civil Liability of Parents and/or Guardians…………………..…………………………………...97 3. Subsidiary Liability of Inn Keepers, Tavern-Keepers, Employers, Teachers or Persons Engaged in Industry………………………………………………………98
(Black’s Law Dictionary) Accused is a person formally charged in court for having violated a penal law – either the Revised Penal Code or a special law. 3. Special laws defining acts and providing penalties for them passed by the legislative department or branch of Philippine Government known variously in Philippine history as Philippine Commission. an offense against the state. 1932. Ferdinand E. Crime is defined as an act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it. 3815) which took effect on January 1. Philippine Legislature. and its amendments. Corazon C. and 4. treats of their nature. Marcos during his term. Batasang Pambansa and Congress of the Philippines. Philippine Assembly. National Assembly. It is a positive or negative act in violation of penal law. Aquino during her incumbency. 2. (Black’s Law Dictionary) Sources of Philippine Criminal Law 1. . The Revised Penal Code (Act No. Presidential Decree of Pres. a person whom an accusastion is made. Executive Orders of Former Pres. and provides for their punishment.INTRODUCTION CRIMINAL LAW Definition Criminal Law is that branch or division of public law which defines crimes.
and production of evidence. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To have the right to appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. 8. Art. 19. to have a speedy. 14. Right not to be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. and the right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses. Right to bail except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua (and/or death) when evidence of guilt is strong. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. (Sec. degrading or inhuman punishment. To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him 3. To confront and cross-examine the witness against him. III) B. impartial and public trial. (Sec. and 9. (Sec. Constitutional Rights 1. 7. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. (Sec. III) 3. to be heard by himself and counsel. 6. To have a compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. Art. 13.Rights of the Accused A. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Not to be compelled to be a witnessed against himself. 17. . to meet the witness face to face. 2. III) 2. (Sec. Rules of Court) It must be taken note of that the right to appeal is not a constitutional right. impartial and public trial. To testify as a witness in his own behalf. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. III) 4. to defend himself in person when its sufficiently appears to the court that he can protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. Statutory Rights 1. Art. 2. Art. III) 5. 115. 4. Right against excessive fines or cruel. (Sec. Congress may therefore pass a law eliminating or taking away this right. To have a speedy. 5. Art.
Philippine criminal laws can not be enforced. There are exceptions however. on March 14.S. 11 of Art.A. sex or nationality.meaning that Philippine criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines. C. 2. there are five (5) instances where the provisions shall be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of our country against those who: . Minister residents. Laws of Preferential Application An example is Sec. 1027) There are exceptions to this general application of criminal Law: A.Cardinal Features or Main Characteristics or Components of Philippine Criminal Law There are three (3). as a sovereign state. Under the VFA.A.G. whatever be your creed. if a Senator A delivers a libelous speech in Congress against B. as long as you reside in the Philippine territory. an American soldier committing a crime during military exercises is also exempt from the operation of Philippine criminal law. Whoever you are. penal laws of the Philippines shall apply on you. Territorial . and charges d’affaires even if residing or sojourning in the Philippines.S. 1947 – any offense committed outside the bases by any member of armed forces of the United States where the offended party is also a member of the said armed forces is not cognizable by the Philippine courts. (People vs. “Thus. he can not be punished or be held liable even if he is residing in the Philippines. Thus. 1.A. religion. Ambassadors. Treaties or Treaty Stipulations The persons who are exempted from the operation or application of our criminal laws under the provisions of the treaties entered into by the Philippines with another country are likewise exempted. has a right to uphold its law and maintain order within its domain.VI of the Constitution which provides that “No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. Under the defunct Military Base Agreement entered into by Philippines and U. Ministers plenipotentiary. much less convicted of. Illegal Possession of Firearm because it is a constitutional right of the citizen of the U. sovereigns and other chiefs of state. C. Galacgac. the contention of the accused that being an American citizen he can not be prosecuted for. “to keep and bear arms” without need of securing government license therefore is untenable since the Philippines. Outside of the parameters of the Philippine archipelago. and committing crimes herein not subject to our penal laws. 54 O. and with the general jurisdiction to punish person for offenses committed within its territory. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.in that our criminal law undertakes to punish crimes committed only within the Philippine territory. General . Under Art. Principles of Public International Law Thus. B.
crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time the same were perpetrated. (Tavera vs. (People vs. took effect on 6 July 1997. 3. even if the law is favorable to the accused if he is a habitual delinquent or where the law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions. People vs. The retroactive effect shall benefit the accused even if at the time of the publication of the law. or doing it away altogether. 1 Phil.A. (People vs. It reflects the maxim: mullum crimen sine poena. or after the crimes involved in the case at bar were committed in 1994.8294. should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions. 468) If the repealing law favors the accused by diminishing the penalty. While being public officers or employees. nulla poena sine lege . 236 SCRA 291) There is no retroactive effect however. as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code x x x. Even if the law uses the words “felony” and “habitual criminal as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62. Exception however is provided for by Article 22. (People vs. 36 Phil. 383 SCRA 296) . Soliman. Soliman. 5) If a repealing law contains provisions which are favorable to the accused and also provisions unfavorable to the accused and also provisions unfavorable to the accused only those parts which are favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive effect. then the same should be applied to the extent it is favorable to the offender. C. It is consonance with the constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto Law. 36 Phil. it is advantageous to the accused. D. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines.” this is applicable to special laws which provide more favorable conditions to the accused. or E. People vs. B. Although R. No. Valdez. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. 234 SCRA 555. In other words. Prospective . Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. Simon. hence it should be given retrospective application in so far as it spares the accused from a separate conviction to the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm. 5. there is no crime without a penalty and there is no penalty without law. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. a final judgement has been pronounced and the convict is serving sentence.A. Candido.meaning that a penal law can not make an act punishable when it was not punishable when committed. It says: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal. De Lara.that is.
(Estolas vs. He will be considered exempt as penal laws are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused.A. he is exempt unless he acted with discernment. then the Court loses jurisdiction. the penal law must be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state. (Cooperative Development Authority vs. Inc. as in effect. This is the Pro reo doctrine. if he is more than fifteen but below eighteen. 382 SCRA 552) . Mabalot 381 SCRA 702) However. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative. when the law speaks in clear and categorical language. 2 provides that a person under (9) years of age is exempt from criminal liability (even if he acted with discernment) while a person over nine(9) and under fifteen (15) years old is not exempt if he acted with discernment. The Supreme Court has always ruled that agrarian laws must be interpreted in favor of the grantees in order to give full force and effect to the clear intent of such law. Under R.. there is no room for interpretation. doubt would exist as to his criminal responsibility. If the new law fails to penalize the act. Thus a boy who killed his classmate on his ninth (9th) birthday and acting with discernment is not criminally liable since there is a doubt in the provision of the law. So if the boy will kill his classmate when he was exactly nine(9) years old because it was his birthday. par. 9344. Article 12.Judicial decisions which are favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent shall also be accorded retroactive effect. a child exactly fifteen years of age or below is exempt from criminal responsibility. INTERPRETATION IN CASE OF DOUBT Where doubt exists. there is no crime existing. No. vacillation or equivocation – there is only room for application.
the Person Liable and the Penalties . and Regarding the Offenses.BOOK ONE General Provisions Regarding the Date of Enforcement and Application of the Provisions of this Code.
(Filipinas Life Assurance Co. 358) The act or omission however. mere passive presence at the scene of a crime. xxx . did not do anything despite M’s threat that he would burn the house which he actually put on fire. In felony by omission however. negligence. 56 Phil. “there is no crime where there is no law punishing it. when the wrongful act results from imprudence. or lack of skill. must be punishable by laws. Estafa 2. she can not be held criminally liable with M. or taking unlawfully personal property – Theft or Robbery. 2 and 3) Felonies take the form of a positive act – like killing a person – Homicide or Murder. Culpable felonies – where the wrongful acts result from imprudence. vs. (People vs.” CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES A. Tolentino. 1) The word “felony” has been understood to mean an act or omission punished by the Code. 1976) They are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) – that is. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. October 1. like failure to issue a receipt of a public officer entrusted with collection of taxes (Illegal Exaction) or failure to deliver within the prescribed time a person arrested (Delay in the Delivery of Detained Person). Where therefore R. Intentional felonies – committed by means of deceit or malice. there being no proof of conspiracy between them. (Art. it does not cover a crime punished by a special law. 3. Thus. par. 3. when the act is performed with deliberate intent. (Art. 3) 1. there must be a law requiring the doing or the performance of an act. According to manner or mode of execution (Art. lack of foresight or lack of skill Example: Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence or Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide.Title One FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE FELONIES Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by law. SP-5858. or an omission or failure to perform an act. negligence. lack of foresight. pars. This is based on the maxim NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE – that is. but also by means of fault (culpa) meaning. about a meter away from M. Silvestre & Atienza. Example: Murder. her live-in partner. mere silence and failure to give the alarm.
while those that are mala prohibita are wrong. Good faith is not defense. constitutes the offense. and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Example: Slight Physical Injuries. They are generally referred to as mala prohibita. The act alone. Less Grave felonies – those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional. . theft. rape. such as murder. while crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.00) pesos. Illegal Discharge of Firearm 3. 25 of the Revised Penal Code. like Illegal Posession of Firearm or violation of the Ombus Election Law. Attempted – when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Alarm and Scandal under Article 155 While Article 3 classifies the crimes into Intentional and Culpable. Grave felonies – those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive in accordance with Art. etc. Mala in se and Mala prohibita. Example: Rape.9) 1. distinguished Mala in se are crimes which are wrong from their nature. C. As a rule. Parricide 2. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by city or municipal ordinances. 2. irrespective of the motives. intent to commit the crime is not necessary. According to gravity (Art.6) 1. or both provided. Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for the almost unanimous condemnation of its members. merely because they are prohibited by statute. Frustrated – when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.B. Consummated – when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. a third class can be grouped with it – that its. Example: Attempted Homicide. 3. Light felonies – those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding two hundred (P200. According to stage of execution (Art..
The CFI. Thus. 5880) INCURRENCE OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Criminal liability shall be incurred: (1)By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. and (2)By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property. election inspectors and poll clerks who were tasked to transfer the names of excess voters in one precinct to a newly created precinct and because of pressures of work and fatigue. he is liable for the death of his father. (People vs. convicted them. saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door and fired at him but the man turned out to be Serapio Tecson. and proceeding to the latter’s house. in attempting to commit suicide. be perpetrating or committing an offense otherwise there can be no criminal liability.A. who then were not allowed to vote. they are mala in se. shot him.When the acts however are inherently immoral.Two (2) peace officers were ordered to arrest Balagtas. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. C. it is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violated his constitutional right. Oanis. a person who committed a crime which he really intended is no doubt liable for that offense like. He must. there must be malice or criminal intent. The opening sentence of Article 4 should have been: “Criminal liability shall also be incurred by. omitted some names of person. when charged with violation of the Election Code.” No. you cannot hold him criminally liable for Intentional Homicide because he was not committing any felony at that time since committing suicide is not a felony. Thus. al. There are three (3) scenarios under paragraph 1 of Article 4: A. et.G. relied on good faith as a defense. (Art. intending to kill his father. the Court of Appeals in acquitting the accused ruled that the failure or omission to include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited. even if punished under special law and before the actor can be held liable. Error in personae (mistake in the identity of the victim) . the election inspectors and poll clerks. To be held liable. reasoning that the offense is malum prohibitum and good faith is not a defense. et. 1 speaks of a situation where a person was committing a felony but the consequence was not the one he had intended.. however. On appeal. 74 Phil. Sunico. Thus. (People vs. 257) . if A. must act willfully and maliciously. al. jumped out from the window of a four (4)-story building and fell on another person who was killed.. an escaped notorious convict. the Supreme Court ruled they are guilty of murder. 50 O. if A. 4) This article does not mean to exclude offenders who are liable even if they do not fall under any of the situations spoken of in the said article.
The connection between the premature and erroneous announcement of the accused and the deaths of the victims is direct and natural. must be the direct and natural consequence of the felonies act. intending to kill Y. Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) – Thus. and in the process of warding off the same. however.) In Bringas vs. The wrong done. citing Vol. When X shot Y. vs. When he slapped his wife.” (Vda. People. C. the peace officers were committing a felony. the felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. the Supreme Court said: “The proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of the conductor. where the accused attacked the offended party with a knife. in natural and continuous sequence. B. the wrongful act committed was the killing of his own father which he never intended. et. which. his left hand was injured. This announcement prompted the two (2) victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Medina. 27 Phil. In People vs. produces the injury. and without which the result would not have occurred. The fact that the original condition of the finger could be restored by a surgical operation is immaterial and the victim is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused of the natural and ordinary results of his crime. vs. Without said announcement.S.. et. fired at the latter but the shot hit Y only superficially and killed Z. Proximate cause has been defined as “that cause. 85 Phil 307. al. A was committing a felony. the Supreme Court held that the accused is criminally liable. Stated otherwise.” . A is liable for Parricide.When they fired on the sleeping man without making any inquiry and believing him to be the notorious escapee. al. Their wrongful intent was to hit or kill Balagtas but the wrongful act that was done was the killing of Serapio Tecson. if X. his own father. and when the train that slowed down suddenly picked up speed causing Martina Bool and the three (3)-year-old child she was carrying to fall from the door causing their deaths. where the conductor shouted “Lusacan. 181. walked towards the left front door facing the direction of Tiaong. a passenger. he (X) is criminally liable for Attempted Homicide with Parricide. 38 of Am. Guillen. Praeter intentionem (Injurious result is greater than that intended) – Thus. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. De Batacan. 504. Marasigan. In U. Roxas but killed Simeon Varela and injured several persons was found guilty of Murder with Assault and Multiple Attempted Murder. unbroken by any intervening efficient causes. 125 SCRA 687. Lusacan” knowing that the train would reach the Lucasan Station full three (3) minutes more and deceased Martina Bool. he was perpetrating a felony with the wrongful intent to kill Y. Quezon carrying a child with one hand and holding her baggage with another. the accused who threw a hand grenade at Pres. the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked as it picked up speed. severing the extensor tendon in one of the fingers. her head hitting a hard pavement rendering her unconscious and thereafter died. Jur. His wrongful intent is only to cause injury but the wrongful act done was greater – the killing of the spouse. if A slapped his wife who fell on the ground. 102 Phil.
Culpable Insolvency. Duel or Physical Injuries. Estafa and Other Deceits. reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape. (Art. On the other hand. he stabbed B several times on his chest. Chattel Mortgage. (See The Revised Penal Code. People vs. an American case. The Court having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender shall impose the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred (P200. from drowning owing to his possible inability to swim or the strength of the current. C. RPC) The requisites are: A. the actor is liable. 503. 39 Mich. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. Reyes. Red. This is the only crime provided for in Book I of the Revised Penal Code. Usurpation. be no efficient intervening cause. People vs.00) to five hundred (P500. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Arson and Malicious Mischief. impelled by the instinct of self-preservation. citing U. The act performed would be an offense against persons or property like Parricide. Book I by Luis B.S. Theft. So with intent to kill. jumps into the water. 62 Phil 162. and People vs. in People vs. B. that is. It turned out that B had been dead twenty (20) or thirty (30) minutes ago. calculated to destroy or endanger life. because the act of the horse constitutes an efficient intervening cause. Illustre.A. 27 Phil 504. however. Brigandage.Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous. 61 Phil 341.S. vs. In U. or that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis. . Quianson. refusal of the victim to submit to surgical operation. That the act was done with evil intent. the assailant was not held responsible for the death of a person whom he knocked down with his fist but who was jumped on by a nearby horse killing him. Reyes.G. Impossible Crime An act performed with malice which would have been an offense against person or property. vs. Rockwell. 43 O. C. 59. Marasigan. Valdez. Abortion. 54 Phil 594. Murder. Homicide. This is true even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.00). Examples: Inherent Impossibility (Legal and Physical) A saw B lying down whom he thought was only sleeping. 8072) There must. it was ruled that if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed. People vs. The inability to swim and the strong current can be considered intervening causes but not efficient ones since they are not acts or facts absolutely foreign from the criminal act. heart disease or other internal malady or that the resulting injury was aggravated by infection. or Robbery.
proceeded to the house of X whereupon A pointed to the room that X used to occupy and all fired at the said room. otherwise the crime could be attempted or frustrated homicide or murder as the case maybe. 22 is a product of this article. It turned out that the said ring was the one X lost two(2) days ago. 5. drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value. C. The elements of the offense under B. al. and the drawer or maker commits no deceit. had not the drawer without any valid reason. 315. Court of Appeals. that is.P. 360 SCRA 618) . and shall report to the Chief Executive through the Department of Justice. Court of Appeals. undressed and had sex with her. the quantity is not sufficient to kill..Legal Impossibility X stole the ring which Y inadvertently left on his desk.. the reasons which induced the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. dismiss the case. no longer a crime against chastity. 22 are (a) the making. but thinking that she was only sleeping. Nobody was hit as no one was inside the room. Under this law. B. Blg. all armed. No. 1 of Art. et. he is criminally liable.A. al.P. par. RPC provides that whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law. D & E. (b) the maker. 215 SCRA 52) A saw a beautiful lady lying down already dead. and (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason. This is a case of Impossible Crime to Commit Murder: (Intod vs. Ineffectual means – Giving a person a drink mixed with sugar which accused believed to be poison Inadequate means – If it were really poison. even if the dishonored check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation. et. Physical Impossibility A. ordered the bank to stop payment. the intended victim should not suffer any injury. 8353. Is There A Common Law Crime in the Philippines? No. In case of inadequate means. considering the difficulty securing a conviction for Estafa committed by issuing a postdated check under Art. the crime rape has been reclassified as an offense against persons. This is an Impossible Crime to Commit Rape considering that under R. (Bautista vs. it shall render the proper decision. Blg. as the par. drawer and issuer knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. B. 2[d] since the defense of having been issued in payment of a preexisting obligation has always come out as a ready-made defense.
(Art. it was ruled: “We are aware of the trial judge’s misgivings in imposing the death sentence because of his religious convictions. as the case may be. 2. resulting in her pregnancy. the Judge may write the President of the Philippines for the granting of Executive Clemency to the poor daughter on account of the circumstances of the case. when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty. frustrated or consummated. (Art. this is a case of Frustrated Homicide or Frustrated Murder. While this Court sympathizes with his predicament. 63) However. if A. or passion or obfuscation will not affect the imposable penalty as the same is in indivisible penalty. if A poked a gun at B and squeezed the trigger but it jammed and no bullet was fired. if in the above-cited example. (Art. through the Department of Justice. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. In the same vein. intending to kill B. In People vs. . shoots the latter to death. A is liable only for Attempted Homicide or Attempted Murder. The discomfort faced by those forced by law to impose the death penalty is an ancient one but it is a matter upon which judges have no choice. without suspending the execution of the sentence. 5. it is its bounden duty to emphasize that a court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence. Efficacy Or Morality Of Laws The court shall submit to the Chief Executive. (Ibid. par. should be punished with death by the court since Parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. It is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Ibid. Veneracion. A shot B but missed or hit B only on a superficial part of his body which would could not cause B’s death. 249 SCRA 244. the attempted stage has been reached. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific and well-defined instances. 3. does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (par. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. 6. taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. such statement as may be deemed proper. if A hit B on a vital portion of the body which injury could cause the death of B but because of timely medical attention B did not die.” STAGES OF EXECUTION Felonies could be attempted. the crime is consummated Homicide or Murder.DUTY OF COURT WHEN PENALTY IS EXCESSIVE Courts Are Not Concerned With Wisdom. and there is an aggravating circumstance of treachery.) In the example above.) So. 1) Thus. RPC) A daughter who killed her father while he was sleeping because the latter had raped her. par.
C.G. is guilty of Consummated Theft. it is consummated. frustrated or consummated. the crime is Consummated Qualified Theft. In Valenzuela vs. vs. 23 Phil. 185 (Machinations in Public Auctions) which punishes any person who shall solicit . (People vs. where the accused. mere solicitation or proposal consummates the offense. he would be guilty of Consummated Robbery. were put on fire before any part of the house catches fire. (3) the manner of committing the same. it is important to consider (1) the nature of the crime. Art. the crime would be Frustrated Arson. (U. 332) If he was caught in the act of removing the property. It is not necessary that he be able to carry it away. a salesman was held liable only for Frustrated Estafa even if the proceeds of the sale which he failed to turn over to the cashier was found out to be in his pocket. 46 O. He need not be able to carry it away. Thus. This is to be distinguished from Estafa where damage to the offended party is one of the elements to consummate it. vs. the crime would be Attempted Robbery. proposal or overt act. 299 or 302). 487) Where the offender is about to set on fire a building but was apprehended before any portion gets burned. once he takes hold of it. 38 Phil. In Robbery with force Upon Things (Arts. 408.S. the accused who abstracted a leather belt from a Japanese tourist and placed it in the drawer of his desk. nor is it affected by the prompt extinction of the fire. In U. Thus. after untying a carabao from a tree near the offended party’s house. Adiao. there are offenses which are consummated in one instant and the act cannot be split into parts to be categorized as attempted or frustrated like Slander or Libel. and had removed the property he intended to steal but was apprehended before he could get out. (U. Po Chengco. 754) So also. 41 Phil. (2) the elements constituting the offense. People (June 2007). Where rags and jute sacks soaked in gasoline and placed near the house that the offender intends to burn. Anent the manner of committing crime. Dominguez. If he was able to bring the property out of the house or building. With respect to Theft. the accused. In Abuses Against Chastity (Art. There are also crimes which are consummated by mere attempt.S. it is attempted. the crime is Frustrated Robbery. There was no damage yet to the owner of the store because of the timely discovery. the crime of Flight to Enemy’s Country (Art.S. They are called Formal Crimes. considering the nature of the crime of Arson when a building is set on fire. the Supreme Court held that there is no such crime as Frustrated theft ruling out that before the offender takes hold of the personal property with intent to gain.How To Properly Determine The Stage Of Execution In determining whether the felony is attempted. vs. where the accused had entered the building or house. he being an inspector of the Bureau of Customs. it is not necessary that it should be entirely consumed in order to constitute the consummated stage. was apprehended after pulling the carabao away by about two (2) or three (3) meters. the same is consummated once the offender takes or gets hold of the material possession of the property with intent to gain. it would be Attempted Arson. So also. Thus. 245).A. Jose Del Rosario.121) is consummated by mere attempt.
any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction. In material crimes like Homicide, Rape, Murder, etc., there are three (3) stages of execution. Thus, if A would stab or shoot B, missing him or injuring him only superficially, the crime is Attempted Homicide or Murder; but if he hit B and inflicted injuries which otherwise would have been fatal were it not for timely medical attention, it is Frustrated; if B dies, the case is Consummated Homicide or Murder. In the crime of rape, the accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her skirt and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with her very apparent, is guilty of Attempted Rape. Note: (If the effort to have sex is not clear, the crime is only Acts of Lasciviousness) On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, consummates the crime. (People vs. Tayabas,62 Phil. 559; People vs. Royeras, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, 58 SCRA 505) This brings us to the question of Frustrated Rape. In People vs. Orita, 184 SCRA 105, the Supreme Court said: Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished xxx the felony is consummated. xxx Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. xxx Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commended the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. The court continued that the case of People vs. Erina,50 Phil. 998, where the accused was found guilty of Frustrated Rape, appears to be a “stray” decision in as much as it has not been reiterated in their subsequent decisions, and that the particular provision on Frustrated Rape in Art. 335 as amended by R.A. No.2632 and R.A. No. 4111 is a dead provision prompted probably by the Erina case. (NOTE: R.A. No.7659, Sec. 11 also contains the provision that when the Rape is attempted or frustrated and a Homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death). In People vs. Aca-ac,357 SCRA, it was the ruling of the Supreme Court that there is no such crime as Frustrated Rape.
LIGHT FELONIES Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property. Thus, a person who, within any town or public place, attempts to fire or to discharge his gun is not criminally liable even if his acts would fall under Art. 155 punishing Alarms and Scandals in its attempted stage as this light felony is a crime against public order.
Likewise, in light felonies, only the principals and accomplices are liable (Art. 16) so that a policeman who assists in the escape of a person who slightly injured another (Slight Physical Injuries) is not liable. (NOTE: See P.D. No. 1829 however)
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY
Conspiracy and Proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore. (Art. 8. par. 1) Conspiracy to commit a felony as well as Proposal to commit a felony is, generally speaking, not crimes. As such, they are not punishable. Thus, although conspiracy to murder a person is apparent, the conspirators can not be held criminally liable because there is no law punishing Conspiracy to Commit Murder. If what was done however was Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion, then the conspirators are liable because there is a law that punishes Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion. (Art. 136) The same is true with Proposal to commit a felony. Unless there is a law that punishes Proposal to commit a crime, the proponents are not liable. Art. 115 punishes Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason, while Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 6968 penalizes Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Coup d’etat. On the other hand, Conspiracy to Commit Sedition (not Proposal) is punishable under Art. 141, while Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 1613 punishes Conspiracy (not Proposal) to Commit Arson. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (par. 2, Ibid.) It could be evidenced by a written agreement among the conspirators or by their verbal covenant, or it could be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. People vs. Manuel,234 SCRA 532) There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. (par. 3, Ibid.) To constitute proposal, in law, the proponent himself must be determined to commit the crime so that if he only aired his grievances against the government and made suggestions on how to fight the authorities, he can not be considered liable for Proposal to Commit Rebellion. Under Section 7 of P.D. No. 1613. Conspiracy to commit Arson shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period. It would seem that like in Sedition there is no crime of Proposal to Commit Arson. On matters of conspiracy, it is a settled rule that it need not be proved by direct evidence prior agreement on the commission of the crime as the same can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the perpetration of the offense showing that all the accused acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. ( See People vs. Pablo,349 SCRA 79)
OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE CODE Special Laws Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. (Art. 10) Thus, in case of conflict between the provisions of the special laws and those of the Revised Penal Code, the former shall prevail. The provisions of the latter however shall be supplementary to special laws whenever applicable. In People vs. Simon,234 SCRA 555, citing People vs. Macatanda,109 SCRA 35, it was held: “While these are special laws, the fact that the penalties thereunder are those provided for in the Revised Penal Code lucidly reveals the statutory intent to give the related provisions on penalties for felonies under the Code the corresponding application to said special laws, in the absence of any express, or implicit proscription in these special laws.”
1996) To give rise to self-defense. 14. it must be imminent and positively strong to palpably show the wrongful intent to cause injury. Thus.CHAPTER TWO CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY There are five (5) circumstances affecting the criminal liability of an individual.. the accused places himself in an unlawful status and himself becomes an unlawful aggressor. October 30. G. Mere intimidating attitude is not sufficient. (Philippine Law Dictionary by Moreno.R. 3rd Ed. 102772. September 16.September 24. barging on the door of the accused with shouts of threats to kill can not be considered Unlawful Aggression. ( People vs. 1) Unlawful Aggressio means an assault or attack. 1980) There must be an actual assault or a threat but in case of the latter. the aggression must not be a lawful one like the attack of a husband against a paramour of his wife whom he surprised in an uncompromising situation. and 15) JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. 1996) Likewise. we can not speak of complete self-defense as a justifying circumstance. They are justifying. or a threat in an imminent and immediate manner which places the defendant’s life in actual peril. (3) This includes defense of honor. No. 106345-46. thus.R. Trison. Unlawful Aggression is wanting because by accepting the challenge and immediately approaching the victim. 13. mitigating. defense of home as defense of property. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed to prevent or repel it. aggravating. if the accused agrees to fight. anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights incurs no criminal liability provided that the following circumstances concur: (1) (2) Unlawful Aggression. (Art. This is and indispensable requisite even in incomplete self-defense. as aggression as an incident of fight is bound to arise. 1 in justifying circumstances is SELF-DEFENSE. and Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending himself. No. Deopante. (Arts. and alternative circumstance. 1996) Without this requisite. 114007. Self-Defense No. 12. Unlawful aggression on the part of the injured or the victim is the first element of self-defense. No.G. 13. or a chief of police who threw stones at the . par. (People vs. (People vs. or incomplete self-defense as a mitigating circumstance. exempting. 11. Galas.G.R.
(People vs. there was no reasonable necessity of her course of action since in the chapel where the killing took place. 174. On the other hand.accused who was running away to elude arrest for a crime committed in his presence. that he could only have deliberately used the gun to repel the alleged aggression. Unlawful Aggression contemplates an actual. in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency. if the shooting was accidental. When the deceased laid down his gun. (People vs. or where provocation is sufficient but is not immediate to the act (U. there was unlawful aggression but when the latter immediately stabbed him with a knife killing him. character and size. Jaurigue. On the other hand. 252) or where the sufficient provocation was given by the companion of the accused of which the latter had no part. his physical condition. and reasonable necessity of the means used. What the law requires is a rational equivalence. she was convicted. Under the principle of Battered-Woman Syndrome. sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof. then it was immaterial whether the accused employed reasonable means to repel the alleged aggression. the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed. and the instinct more than the reason that moves or impels the defense. ( People vs. In People vs.341 SCRA).. Florague. 387 SCRA 685) The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repeal an unlawful aggression. whether the means employed is reasonable or not depends upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor. Their aggression was not considered unlawful. as well as of the person defending and the place and occasion of the assault. p. 76 Phil. it ceases to be an unlawful aggression and does not warrant selfdefense. (See The Revised Penal Code Book 1 by Luis B. Geneblazo. while there was an inkling that this syndrome could be considered as a viable plea within the concept of self-defense (People vs.Genosa. Reyes. and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude but when its author does not persist anymore in his purpose or when he discontinues his attitude to the extent that the object of his attack is no longer in peril. or when the accused gave provocation but is not sufficient for the offended party to assault him. Rabanal.S. Consequently. it was well lighted and there is no possibility of her being raped. 176) Self-defense and accidental shooting cannot be both be raised by the accused as a defense. unlawful aggression had already ceased and it was no longer necessary for accused-appellant to have fired successfully the way he did at the victim. If accused is acting in self-defense. There must be a reasonable necessity of the course taken. 22 Phil. while it was ruled that when the deceased placed his hand on the upper thigh of the lady accused. vs. 1993 Ed.361 SCRA 573) The second element is Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed to prevent or repel it. 360 SCRA 587) The third element – Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending himself – pictures a situation where there was total lack of provocation on the part of the accused when he was attacked without any reason at all. Laurel. the Supreme Court in . there were many people including her father.
must be present. if the relative making the defense had no part therein. meaning children. second is reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. which is. There are three (3) requisites – first is unlawful aggression. it is provided that victimsurvivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liabilities despite the absence of the elements of self-defense provided for in the Revised Penal Code. that there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. any person who acts in defense of the person or rights of another can legitimately claim the defense of stranger. furnished the person assaulted with a gaff. and third. 2. The following however must be present: first. (Art. 26 of R. he can successfully invoke defense of relative. 9262. ascendants. par. 11. in Sec. Thus. etc. relatives by affinity in the same degrees. that is. does a act which causes damage to another. one who. second. 3. with which his neighbor used to inflict a mortal wound on the assailant is entitled to the claim of defense of strangers. as he himself is also old and may not be able to cope with the assailant. and brothers or sisters-in-law as relatives. 1 of Art. that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.. great grandparents. and third is that the relative being defended gave no provocation.an en banc decision has ruled that the same can not be considered a form of self-defense. the law gives a leeway – that is. great grandchildren. The law adds another requisite. It would only imagine the woman accused liability. descendants. the persons are considered. grandchildren. that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. that is. Defense of Relatives The law speaks only of spouse. Defense of Stranger Outside of himself. parents-in-law. unlawful aggression. 4) . Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury/State of Necessity The fourth justifying circumstance speaks of a person who. vs.S. as strangers. 11. 11 of the Revised Penal Code. and reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. No. etc. and those relatives mentioned in Art. However. resentment or other evil motive. in criminal law. par. the same has effectively amended par.. children-in-law. brothers and sisters. In effect. 31 Phil. 376) 4. The first two (2) requisites however. Anent the third requisite however. meaning parents. 2. (U. grandparents. in order to avoid an evil or injury. even if the relative being defended gave the provocation. Outside of these people.A. seeing his seventy-eight (78)-year-old neighbor held down on the ground by a strong and robust young man and in serious danger of being throttled. Subingsubing. that the person is defending be not induced by revenge.
a policeman who killed an escaping prisoner after making the warning shot and shouting to him not to continue with his escape. no penal liability shall be inflicted on him. here there was a crime committed. can shield criminal liability behind this provision. But we must that there are two (2) requisites for this justifying circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in lawful exercise of a right. and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office. A acted in the lawful exercise of right. and who prior to that even attacked him with a spear. hi head hitting the hard pavement causing his death. may invoke this defense. The order however of guerilla officer for the killing of a civilian is not lawful. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. does so in the lawful exercise of an office. 334 SCRA 161) So also. 11. and as a consequence B fell from the jeep. (People vs. This is different however from Euthanasia – the so-called mercy-killing which is not justified in our jusrisdiction. Obedience to an Order of a Superior It is also a justified act if a person acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. 5. there is a criminal but for reasons of public policy. and he is running out of time. this justifying circumstance is applicable.The doctor who had to kill a foetus to save the mother where both could not be saved. And the executioner of convicts sentenced to die. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Article 12 enumerates persons who are exempted from criminal liability. if A hit B with his fist inside a running passenger jeep because B was snatching his (A’s) watch. who ordered the jettison of cargoes against the will of the owners to prevent the ship from sinking and save the passengers. . Fulfillment of Duty or Exercise of Right or Office The fifth justifying circumstances provides that no criminal liability shall be incurred by any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. acted in lawful fulfillment of duty. Unlike in justifying circumstances. 6. (Art. Thus. the accused killed them. par. Where the order of arrest was issued by his superior for the purpose of delivering the person’s subject of the order to the commanding officer who made the request that they be apprehended and arrested for a crime they committed but because they resisted arrest. who would make the lethal injection in the Bureau of Corrections on the day and time scheduled by the Court. 6) This justifying circumstance needs an order issued by a superior officer of the accused which was for a lawful purpose and the latter obeyed the order. A captain of a ship caught by storm and huge waves in his journey.Belbes.
A Person Fifteen Years of Age and Below. Nunez. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. An insane person may have lucid intervals but an imbecile has none. An Imbecile or an Insane Person Unless the Latter has Acted During a Lucid Interval. 1947) In People vs. in order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile within the meaning of Art. No.The following are exempt from criminal liability: 1. 12 of the RPC so as to be exempt from criminal liability. also People vs. An insane person may have suffered from mental disorder. Rather. (See People vs. 87 Phil 658. Ambal. 412429-30. Dungo. 100 SCRA 325. he has a mental development of children between two (2) and seven (7) years of age. A Person Over Fifteen (15) above and under eighteen (18) Unless He Has Acted with Discernment (R. (People vs. insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. It is analogous to childishness and dotage. While advanced in age. Ed. No. (People vs. he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. An imbecile within the meaning of Article 12 is one completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. No. he who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. Valledor. Codigo Penal. the ruling was that. Formigones. it may be considered negligence. In People vs. And the evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution.) Imbecility is defined as a feeble-mindedness or a mental condition approaching that of one who is insane. 333 SCRA 699.” He must be deprived of reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of the freedom of the will. Estrada. Any deprivation therefore of reason or discernment at the time of the trial of the case is not an exempting circumstance.A. citing 1 Viada. 383 SCRA 653) An imbecile is a person marked by a mental deficiency while an insane person is one who has unsound mind or who suffers from mental disorder. The accused must be “so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent. In the eyes of the law.R. July 23. Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity.A. 2. (R. G. 199 SCRA 860. 9344) . The reasoning of the accused that he resorted to cutting grass instead of guarding his victim could hardly be indicative of imbecility. 4th. 9344) 3. it was held that one who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense can not in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts.
together with B. and when he demanded for the surrender of A and B. striking him with the butts of their guns. who has no weapon. 7. Any Person Who Fails to Perform an Act Required by Law When Prevented by Some Lawful or Insuperable Cause. Problem: A. and C the owner of the store. While Performing a Lawful Act With Due Care. Any Person Who. He is also not liable for the death of B. 1 of Art.It is clear therefore that even if a person has acted with discernment. 4. the latter can ask exemption from criminal liability if he stabbed C to death. were seen by P. of a Saturday in a small town in the province. 12. is not liable under Article 125 of the RPC when he filed the criminal complaint only in the morning of the following Monday [more than thirty-six (36) hours as required by the said Article] since there was . not because of self-defense because the latter being weaponless can not commit unlawful aggression. So. the store owner. Causes an Injury by Mere Accident Without Fault or Intention of Causing It. 6. if he is under fifteen (15) years of age. Any Person Who Acts Under the Compulsion of an Irresistible Force. A shot him but missed. 5. who hits a boy who suddenly darted into the street is exempted from criminal liability due to accident. Any Person Who Acts Under the Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear of an Equal or Greater Injury. but because of performance of duty. and so P repelled the attack. In such case. An accused who knows the morality of his acts. he is free from penal responsibility. if he is over fifteen (15) years of age but under eighteen (18). If A with a revolver in his hand threw a knife at B. On the other hand.m. a policeman who was armed with . A was killed. A policeman who arrested a man who had just killed another in his (policeman’s) presence. but in the course thereof. or can fully appreciate the consequences of his actuation has acted with discernment which can be shown by the manner the crime was committed or his conduct after its commission. a person sleeping nearby otherwise he will shoot B. in the proper lane and within the limits prescribed by law. The three were killed by the bullets fired from a . is not criminally liable as an accessory. one driving car duly licensed to do so. and ordered him to kill C. P.45 caliber. at 6:00 p. a person who was compelled to bury the body of one who was murdered by the killers. threatening to kill him too. is also not criminally liable obviously not because of self-defense nor of fulfillment of duty but because of accident provided for in par.45 caliber gun. armed with a . he will be held criminally liable if he acted with discernment. P is not liable for the death of A due to self-defense as all the three (3) elements were present.38 caliber and B. Thus. For the death of C. robbed a store. In the exchange of shots.
332) 5. 247. inns and other public houses while the same were open. 1995) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Mitigating circumstances are those which do not entirely free the actor from penal responsibility but serve only to lessen or reduce the penalty imposable. where the actor otherwise innocent. People vs. already a law-breaker. taverns. 19. whom they surprised in the act of sexual intercourse with another. He was prevented by a lawful or insuperable cause to comply with the requirement of the law. In case of theft. and which if present tends to reduce the penalty by degrees. Buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment and the accused entrapped is liable. They are: 1.. G. and brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law if living together. No. was induced by a public officer to commit the crime such that the latter himself becomes a principal by inducement or by indispensable cooperation. Accessories with respect to spouse. al. sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees except those falling under par. 220 SCRA 432. and which if present tends to reduce the penalty by periods. [NOTE: Entrapment however is not an absolutory cause. ways and means are resorted to by the authorities to trap and capture the actor. the occupants of the dwelling or a third person or rendered some service to humanity or justice.no court where to file the complaint. Spouse or parents who inflicted Less Serious or Slight Physical Injuries on his/her spouse or their daughters living with them. Instigation. ascendants. RPC) 3. 110116. et. in the execution of his criminal activities. and Privileged Mitigating which can not be offset by any aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Juma. Any person who entered another’s dwelling to prevent serious harm to himself. They are two (2) classes – Ordinary Mitigating which can be offset by aggravating circumstances. (Art. par. ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line. (Art. 280.1 of Art. 20. Absolutory Causes Absolutory causes are those where the actors are granted freedom from charge or immunity from burden for reasons of public policy and sentiment even if their acts constitute a crime. 3) 4. In Entrapment. (Art. (Art. February 1. descendants. brothers. Nicolas. swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. RPC) 2.R. or entered cafes. .
When there was sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party that immediately preceded the act. 5. and because he was expecting an attack by a group of armed men. When the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. When the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the person committing the felony. 10. If the offender is deaf and dumb. ascendants. Voluntary surrender to person in authority or his agents by the accused. 46 O. blind in two eyes. An illustration of incomplete exempting circumstances of uncontrollable fear is one where the accused. Such illness on the part of the offender as would diminish the exercise of his will power without depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. When the offender is under eighteen (18) years or over seventy (70) years of age.The following are mitigating circumstances: 1. 3. or otherwise suffering from physical defect which restricts his means of action. 2. brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. his spouse. C. 4. descendants. 1655) He acted under an impulse of a fear which is not uncontrollable although it promised an equal or greater injury .A. 8. 13. 1.G. was awakened by a shot. Incomplete Justifying and Incomplete Exempting Circumstances In incomplete self-defense. 6. or if he voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to prosecution’s presentation of evidence. shot a man he saw in the dark who turned out to be unarmed innocent person. When the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.1 of Art. 9. incomplete self-defense of relative and incomplete self-defense of stranger. Magpantay. It is the second (2nd) or the third (3rd) element that is lacking. otherwise there is no incomplete justification as a mitigating circumstance under par. the element Unlawful Aggression on the part of the victim is an indispensable requisite. while sleeping. (People vs. Any other circumstances of a similar nature or analogous to those above-mentioned. Incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting circumstances. 7. defense or communication with his fellow beings.
Under eighteen (18) or over seventy (70) Years Old For purposes of criminal liability. after he told said father-in-law that he can not live anymore with his adulterous wife. So. (People vs. . par. 3. (Art. the accused who was charged with Rape with Homicide. whom he caught in flagrante with her paramour. 242 SCRA 354) He could have interpreted this warning as a serious threat which prompted him to decide to eliminate his fatherin-law before he could carry out such threat. and later I found that because of that she died. Lack of Intent to Commit so Grave a Wrong Intention partakes of the nature of a mental process. But this attenuating circumstance is not applicable in case of several accused where conspiracy was proven for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. the age of a person may be divided as follows: 1. over nine (9) and below fifteen (15) – conditional – liability – that is.2. helpless and defenseless and he ought to know the natural and inevitable result of the act of strangulation. over seventy (70) years of age – mitigated liability. 6. but when she tried to shout I covered her mouth and choked her. Bautista. Sufficient Provocation or Threat The sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the victim must immediately precede the act of the offender. nine (9) years or below – exempted from penal responsibility. for he knew that the girl was very tender in age [six (6) years old]. and who admitted that “My only intention was to abuse her. if he acted without discernment. Yu. weak in body. over nine (9) and below fifteen (15) acting with discernment – mitigated liability at least by two (2) degrees lower. It can be gathered from and determined by the conduct and external acts of the offender and the results of the act themselves. 1 SCRA 199) A husband who slaps his wife who fell down her head hitting a hard pavement and died as a result can avail of this mitigating circumstance. over fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age – mitigated liability by one degree lower. He is entitled to this mitigating circumstance. 38 SCRA 184) 4. 3.” is not entitled to this mitigating circumstance.2) 5. par. (Art. an internal act. 68. 2. (People vs.1) 4. Rivero. he is exempted. A killed his father-in-law who warned him to be careful because he would kill him before the end of the day. (People vs. over eighteen (18) and below seventy (70) years of age – complete criminal liability. 68. the daughter of the deceased.
Pajares. citing People vs. Held: No mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation as the anger of the accused did not arise from lawful sentiments. Ablao. It would seem that the rule is that. 210 SCRA 237. Voluntary Surrender and Plea of Guilty Accused who went into hiding for two and a half (2 ½) years after killing the victim cannot claim this mitigating circumstance for in order that voluntary surrender may be appreciated. lasted until the moment the crime was committed. 64 Phil. 6.R. where the brother of the accused was mauled by the victim’s companion and the victim himself ten (10) hours earlier. Tiongco. January 29. 183 SCRA 658. Passion or Obfuscation To be considered mitigating. and because he could not see F at once. the accused who killed the deceased was adjudged not entitled to the benefits of this circumstance since such interval of time it was more than sufficient to enable him to recover his serenity. 331. No. 4) that should immediately precede the act. it is necessary that the same be spontaneous in such manner that it shows the intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities. and so he called F. the court must consider the lasting effect and influence of the grave offense to the offender when he resorted to commit the crime to vindicate such grave offense.” However. Parama. where it was after a few hours from the time he was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many people. the Supreme Court considered this mitigating circumstance in favor since the influence of said offense ”by reason of i ts gravity and circumstances under which it was inflicted. L-34019. 236 SCRA 458) 7. in People vs. to buy one but because it took time for the latter to awaken. Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense The word “immediate” in par. either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wisher to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. he shot him when finally he saw him returning to the house. accused started shouting bad words to F who finally got up. got dressed and went to the comfort room to brush his teeth. accused followed him. While watching a TV show. G. 5 is not an accurate translation of the Spanish text which uses the term “proxima” and somehow a lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the vindication unlike in provocation or threat (par. the same must arise from lawful sentiments provoked by prior to unjust or improper acts of the offended party. Thus. his stepson. Lingatong.5. and when F got out of the house. when he killed said deceased. in People vs. This further angered the accused who boxed him (F). the ballcaster of the swivel chair on which the accused was seated broke and got detached. (People vs. 1990) . ( People vs. The delay in obeying his request to buy the ballcaster is too trivial a matter as to fairly and justly cause such overreaction on his part.
in effect holding some teachers and students as hostages. as the faculty room was surrounded by soldiers and there was no escape open to him. that he surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent. defense or communication with his fellowmen. he still entitled to a mitigating circumstance under this article as long as his physical defects restrict his means of action. Illness Which Restricts Means of Action The law says that the offender is deaf and dumb meaning not only deaf but also dumb. ( People vs. and that the surrender was voluntary. and the court allows the prosecution to present evidence to prove the qualifying circumstance. The forum however must be the court that has jurisdiction over the offense. stabbed his wife. Serafica. in a fit of jealousy. and fails to establish the aggravating circumstance that would qualify the killing to murder. 658) . or blind only in one eye.So also. or that he is blind. 382 SCRA 43) For surrender to be voluntary. and the surrender being made to his brother who was not a person in authority nor an agent can not be considered an attenuating circumstance. (People vs. the accused is entitled to this mitigating circumstance. Zeta. his illness does not give him the privilege to mitigate his criminal liability for the said crime 10. 382 SCRA 141) 8. warrants the finding in his favor of this mitigating circumstance. So the surrender of his gun. even if he is armless or somehow limping because he was a polio victim in his younger days. 9. it must be surrender of the body of the accused to persons in authority or their agents. 182 SCRA 601) Voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been actually arrested. the plea of guilty must be made before the prosecution presents its evidence. if the charge is libel or oral defamation. 87 Phil. (People vs. The restriction however must relate to the mode of committing the crime. Spontaneous Plea of Guilty To be appreciated as an attenuating circumstance. then carried her up to the house. it becomes an exempting circumstance to be classified as insanity or imbecility. or dumb only but not deaf. not himself. 27 SCRA 123) However. Feeblemindedness of the accused who. (People vs. Thus. Tac-an. but even if he is only deaf and not dumb. by handing over the weapon through the balustrade of the faculty room. Formigones. if it is a plea to a lesser offense – let us say. laid her on the floor and then lay down beside her. meaning blind in both eyes. it must be spontaneous and show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. where the charge is murder and the offer is a plea of guilty to Homicide. He holed in the faculty room. Illness Diminishing Will Power If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of offender’s will power but deprives him of the consciousness of his acts. Callet. (People vs. and it must be an unconditional plea.
citing People vs. can be applied to all offenses like dwelling. sex or age which are applicable only to crimes against persons or honor. . . 14 par. pp. . over sixty (60) years old with failing sight is analogous to over seventy (70). 86 Phil. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless mitigating circumstances.A.those which generally. in consideration of price. 14).1(a) of R. No. Generic C. recidivism. without however exceeding the maximum period prescribed for the offense. Navasca. 76 SCRA 72) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Those which if present in the commission of the crime serve to increase the penalty imposable. Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances A. such as by means of poison.those which if attendant. alter or change the nature of the crime necessarily increasing the penalty. reward or promise. (Art. Mitigating Circumstance of Similar Nature Return of the property stolen in analogous to voluntary surrender. cruelty which applies only to crimes against person. Ignominy which applies only to crimes against chastity. Villamora. 1. These circumstance however must be alleged in the information to make them qualifying. . esprit de corps is similar to passion or obfuscation. when in the commission of the crime advantage was taken by the offender of his public position. 312-314.those that apply only to some particular crimes like disregard of respect due the offended party on account of rank. B. 7659. Specific . with aid of armed men in killing persons or grave abuse of confidence which makes stealing one of qualified theft. 23. testifying for the prosecution by a co-accused divulging the truth of what really transpired is akin to plea of guilty. (See The Revised Penal Code by Reyes 1993 Ed. Qualifying The aggravating circumstances are as follow ( Art. 1) Under Sec.those which necessarily accompany or inhere in the commission of the crime like evident premeditation in theft or robbery. People vs. 287. Inherent D.11..
this circumstance can not be taken into consideration. Age or Sex Considering the fact that the deceased. prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose. 3) a. So that if X. 7659). Indirect – 211. 4. was already sixty (60) years old at the time she was killed by the accused who was then only twenty-three (23) years old.It would seem that when this aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of heinous crimes. 88 Phil 1. or that (b) it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given any provocation. That the act be committed (a) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank. 2. Where the public position in an element of the offense like Bribery (Direct – Article 210. R.263 SCRA 460) However. in People vs. 257 SCRA 528) A clerk in the Cash Section of the Civil Service Commission who attacked the Assistant Chief of the Personnel Division of the said . (People vs. They are also called persons in authority. Since no evidence was adduced to prove that the killing was in any way facilitated by the public position of the accused. 2)] Public authorities are public officers directly vested with jurisdiction and who have the power to govern and execute the laws. (par. age or sex. this aggravating circumstance can not be considered. still continued to assault his opponent. If it were however. it can not offset by any mitigating circumstance. Rubio. For this circumstance to be appreciated as aggravating the accused must be a public official who used his influence. The public authority however must be engaged in the exercise of his duties. this circumstance was considered against the accused. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities. it was not even shown whether the accused wore his uniform or use his service firearm. there is disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her age. a policeman or an NBI agent. then there is no abuse of public position. (People vs. No. (par. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position. who made known of his presence to him. Silvina Cuyos. must not be the person against whom the crime is committed. Sumaoy.A. Madrid. and the offender must know that he is a person in authority 3. this aggravating circumstance is not present. despite his knowledge of the presence of the Mayor or Governor or a Judge. as he committed the crime (Robbery with Homicide) with the aid of a gun which he had been authorized to carry as a peace officer. and he succeeded in going through the check point unmolested and unsuspected because of his official position. Insult or Disregard of Rank. in fact. whom witnesses saw as if wrestling with the said deceased who sustained fatal injuries at the neck. as a policeman or an NBI agent is a mere agent of a person in authority. or Qualified Bribery – Sec. this circumstance must be taken against him. a law officer.
and it includes every dependency of the house which forms an integral part thereof. brought to a nearby Barangay where she was raped. if the assault was commenced inside the dwelling and terminated outside the same. b. 74 SCRA 271) Where the accused took turns in hitting the victim. 330 SCRA 519) To consider it however. 362 SCRA 202. Daniel. So also. (Ibid. is sheltered by the same . while the latter pertains to the relationship of the victim with the offender.government office has committed a crime aggravated by disrespect due the offended party on account of his rank. 132622. G. (People vs. occupant or lessee of the house. 2000) In People vs. and much more its terrace. since “the stranger.R. However. there is dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. However. dwelling can be considered. dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. 187 SCRA 566. Lacanieta. and the victim was inside his dwelling when he was fired upon. June19.) It would seem that for this circumstance to be taken against the accused. it was ruled: He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. (People vs. as long as the latter had not provoked the offender. Thus. the circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex and age is present. sex or rank of the offended party. The victim should be the owner. 171 SCRA 539) NOTE: While nighttime is absorbed in treachery. a seventy (70)-year old woman. even if the attacker was outside the house. It may mean only the room of the bedspacer in a boarding house. the aggravating circumstances of disregard of sex and age can not be similarly absorbed. as an aggravating circumstance. 86 SCRA 511) Dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms an integral part thereof including staircase of the house. as Treachery refers to the manner of commission of the crime. Rios. (People vs. Lapaz. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered. as an invited guest. Dwelling It must be taken note of. Where the complainant was forcibly taken from her house. it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense – it is enough that the victim who gave no provocation was attacked inside his own house. it was held that the victim need not be the owner or occupant of the dwelling where he was shot. Benito. that dwelling is a building or structure exclusively used and devoted for rest and comfort. in People vs. (People vs. as the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. with pieces of wood they brought in going to the house of the said victim. the crime of Rape against the offended party who was renting a bedspace in a boarding house is aggravated by dwelling. Balansi. there must be a showing of insult or disregard of the age. No. the victim must not have given the provocation. Perreraz. (People vs.
there is likewise no nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. (par. home to him. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. it was held that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should be considered. (People vs. or where authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties or in place dedicated to religious worship. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive. 6. 244 SCRA 362) 5. 13. this aggravating circumstance is not present. p. and terminated when it was already dark.m. It may not be his house. or in his presence. or a place dedicated to religious worship. And even if it was really dark. In a place where authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties. (See The Revised Penal Code by Reyes. (People vs. but it is. even for a brief moment. Contrariwise. Pareja. for nocturnity to be considered as an aggravating circumstance. and during such recess a crime was committed in his courtroom. any offence committed thereat even if no ceremony is taking place. Cabresas. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place. (People vs. so that if the Judge declared a recess. Grefiel. the rape that he committed against his niece is attended with Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Ungratefulness. a killing occurred in a dance party where the place was bright or keenly illuminated.. 265 SCRA 429) So also if the criminal act was commenced while the atmosphere or environment was still bright. if it is a place dedicated to religious worship. 4) Where the accused is the uncle of the victim and who had taken shelter in the house of the victim’s parents. there is no nighttime to speak of. it is necessary that actual fulfillment of functions be going on. is aggravated by this circumstance. if at 10:30 p. but finished it already at daybreak where the place is already bright. 5) To consider the palace of the President. this circumstance is not presence. However. Thus.m.roof and protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. (Art. it must have been particularly sought for by the accused. (par. this circumstance cannot be considered. or a band whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure his impunity from capture or otherwise to facilitate his gateway. In the case of Forcible Abduction with Rape which was committed at 2:00 a.” 4. It is more of the darkness or nocturnity that enshrouds the situation. Civil Code) Viada poetically defines it as the beginning of dusk to the end of dawn. 356) It is not however the period or the time that is material. if the offender began to perpetrate the crime while it was still dark. the accused must have the intention to commit the crime in such place so that if the meeting of the offender and the victim was only casual. Night has been defined as a period of time from sunset to sunrise. 215 SCRA 596) .
The law uses the words “men” and “persons” – meaning in the plural form and so at least two (2) persons are involved. Rodriguez. Polones. this circumstance can not be appreciated. this aggravating circumstance is not present because the offender did not take advantage of the situation. 258 SCRA 1) Thus. adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them. the commission of burglary in the said area where no routine patrolling was done is aggravated by the aid of persons who insure or afford impunity. Landicho. if the meeting is casual. (People vs. If the accused relied on the presence of armed men. shipwreck. at least four (4) must be the number (People vs. the Court must convinced that the cover of darkness was purposely sought for the purpose of ensuring the consummation of the crime. 362 SCRA 361. If the crime coincidentally took place during the occasion of the misfortune or calamity. There is a band whenever more than three (3) armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of the offense. upon assurance of policemen A and B that they would not patrol the area so that he could commit theft or robbery thereat. Desalisa. When the two (2) groups are almost similarly armed. 150) 8. instead of lending aid to the afflicted.In People vs. 19 Phil. (People vs. the homicide committed by the killers comprising a band is not aggravated. there was reasonable impossibility of the victim receiving some help. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. (U. 196 SCRA 821) If accused. That the crime be committed on the occasion of conflagration. vs. where it appeared that appellants were not merely present at the scene of the crime but were in conspiracy with the assailant. epidemic or other calamity or misfortune. Umbrero. while the offenders were four (4) who were all armed and therefore constituted a band. earthquake. his liability is aggravated. shooting the victim and leaving the scene together after apparently accomplishing their purpose clearly evincing conspiracy. there is no band as aggravating circumstance as it did not facilitate the commission of the crime. 229 SCRA 35) 7. availing himself of the aid of the latter. It must be noted that the reason behind this circumstance is found in the debased form of criminality met in one who. Cabangcala. . However. The uninhabitedness of a place 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. there was no reasonable impossibility for the victim to receive any assistance. like where the group of the offended party numbered five (5) but only three (3) were armed so that there is no band. Likewise. in the midst of a great calamity. it was ruled that for nighttime to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and many fruit trees and shrubs obstructed the view of neighbors and passersby. 230 SCRA 279) and they must be armed although the arms need not to be limited to firearms. or where the accused took advantage of the blankness of the night.S. (People vs.
In such a case. The crimes should not be embraced in the same title of the Code for accused will then be classified as a recidivist. On the other hand. 8353) 10. . 1990 but after his apprehension. and B.00). there was no prior or previous final judgment.” and so B told him “If you do that.000. 1983 for murder. 11. so that if the previous conviction is for Homicide and when it was already final there is a subsequent conviction for Rape – recidivism exist as Rape is now a crime against persons. reinteracion is also present. 1990 when the same was promulgated. if A had been punished for Slight Physical Injuries in 1985 and then underwent punishment again for Perjury in 1986. and after grant of parole committed Homicide. Another requisite is that the crimes involved must be embraced in the same title under the Revised Penal Code. told him he had already killed X. and par. 1990 and Robbery on July 1. and later on committed Rape. judgment became final on October 1. His conviction for Theft was not yet final.000.9. he labors under this paragraph (10) known as reiteracion. reward or promise must be the primary reason or the primordial motive for the commission of the crime. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price reward or promise. he is a recidivist. at the time of his trial for one crime. The law defines recidivist as one who. if A approached B and told the latter what he thought of X. Thus. and thereafter the court rendered a Joint Decision finding him guilty of both offenses. the trial for the two (2) crimes were consolidated in one hearing as there was only one victim. 1983 and the second conviction was rendered on October 26. 1983 and there being no appeal. While he was convicted of Theft committed on June 1. A again approached B. if A has been convicted of Murder. 10 will no longer apply to him. this aggravating circumstance is not present. 196 SCRA 611) If accused committed Theft on June 1. if the previous conviction is Homicide. Where accused was convicted of Homicide on September 15. Thus. (R. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two (2) or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. he will be considered only as recidivist. shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. I’ll give you five thousand (P5. and B answered “he is a bad man” to which A retorted. To consider this circumstance. but if the penalty is equal or greater. but he is also suffering from recidivism (reincidencia). Lagarto. a single offense is sufficient. the price. there is no recidivism as there was no previous final judgment of conviction. (People vs.00)” and after killing X. delivered the five thousand (P5. Thus. and later on the conviction is for Falsification (lighter than Homicide). The previous crimes for which accused underwent punishment must be at least two (2) in number if the law imposes a penalty lower than the crime he had been currently convicted. No.A. in compliance with his promise. “you see I am going to kill him this afternoon. That the accused is a recidivist. his liability for the last offense will be aggravated by reiteracion.
poison. sharpened it the whole morning of the following day and looked for B whom he killed with the said bolo. it can not be deduced with . etc. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. (People vs. the lapse of one (1) hour and forty-five (45) minutes (4:15 p. as long as it is the reason why the offense was done.A. No.Whenever present however.) was considered by the Supreme Court as sufficient. The purpose in employing the means – that is. is sufficient. of the said date accused stabbed the victim. That the crime be committed by means of inundation. (2) an act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination.m. However. the same is aggravating. 263 SCRA 187. Gerolaga.m.2) 13. the accused returned to kill the victim after four (4) hours. evident premeditation shall be taken against him. detonation agents or incendiary devices resulting in the death of a person. there is no aggravating circumstance of by means of fire. this aggravating circumstance affects not only the accused who perpetrate the crime because of the money or consideration but also the accused who offered. when a person commits any crime under the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use of explosives including but not limited to pillbox. 12. In People vs.m. where the purpose of the offenders in putting in flames the polo shirt of the victim was for further merriment because the victim continued to dance even while his clothes were on fire. there is no lacking. derailment of a locomotive or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. So.” and at 4:30 p. explosion. after they separated “Hanggang bukas na lang ang buhay mo” and thereafter forgot everything but when he saw B in the afternoon of that day. Under R. Cabodoc. it was held that the lapse of three and a half hours (3 ½ hours) from the inception of the plan to the execution of the crime satisfied the last requisite of evident premeditation. 10 SCRA 515. if after making the threat A went to his friends borrowing firearm. to the delight of the crowd. where A and B had a fistic fight and A found himself at the receiving end despite his size and threatened to kill B shouting. a principal by inducement. Where it appears that after the fight was broken up. as obviously the objective of using fire to kill the victim is not present. where at 1:00 p. to 6 p.D.. (Sec. as the former becomes a principal by direct participation while the latter. inundation fire. 263 SCRA 143) Mere promise. he brought a bolo. stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto.. and when nobody lent him. No. the accused opened his balisong and uttered “I will kill him (referring to the victim).m. fire. must be to kill the offended party to consider it as aggravating. 8294 which amends P. he stabbed him. poison. Molotov cocktail bombs. In People vs. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. Mojica. The following requisites must be proved before this circumstance may be appreciated: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. 1866. Thus.
fraud or disguise be employed. There is no evident premeditation. 399. (People vs. told the latter that if he (B) would just drop his weapon their differences would be settled amicably him with his knife fraud is said to be present. 191 SCRA 530. thus paving the way for their identification. Thus. (People vs. otherwise. the offended party even before the initial stage knew him. or his putting of charcoal over his body. (People vs. entered the house of his neighbors and raped her. There is only a hairline distinction between craft and fraud and the Supreme Court in various cases has used them interchangeably. . (Antazo vs. 344 SCRA 331) 14. 138 SCRA 292) Thus. If despite the mask worn by the accused. et al. he was not able to hide his identity and this circumstance can not be appreciated. Cando. where the accused wore masks to cover their faces. 109660. 160 SCRA 98) If the offender put charcoal on his entire nakedbody. by a party to misled another into believing a fact to be true when it is not so. 1993 Ed. has distinguished the two (2) terms. That craft. Lee. who was holding a lead pipe. in that when there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations. they robbed the driver and other passengers. No. Book 1. 1997) Evident premeditation while inherent in crimes against property. 204 SCRA 900) However. G.R. July 1. when once inside the jeep. Even without such pretense. in People vs. Justice Luis Reyes in his book. this aggravating circumstance is present as there could have been no other purpose but to conceal their identities. fraud involves acts. or spoken or written words. Craft is present since the accused and his cohorts pretended to be bonafide passengers of the jeep in order not to arouse suspicion. the commission of the crime and his identity must have been discovered only later on. fraud is present. the crime of rape is aggravated by this circumstance. they could nonetheless have carried their unlawful scheme. Disguise is the use of any devise or artifice by the accused to conceal his identity. But the accused must be able to hide his identity during the initial stage. to consider his aggravating circumstance. People.. So also. (People vs. Aspile. if not all trough out. appellants are ruled not to have employed craft since they had already boarded the vessel when they pretended to buy Tanduay Rum in exchange for the dried fish and chicken they were carrying. the act of the accused done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victims constitutes craft. where A. Barrios. Nell. may be considered in robbery with homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides stealing.certainly that he clung to his decision to kill the victim. even if the masks subsequently fell down. Cotabato. 92 SCRA 195). The Revised Penal Code.. such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance although it will not qualify the killing to murder. armed with a knife and ready to meet B. where treachery obtains in this special complex crime. p. While craft is a circumstance characterized by trickery or cunning resorted to by the accused (People vs. robbery with homicide being a case of a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code.
and the attack is continues. from defending himself. this circumstance must be present at the inception of the attack and if absent. giving said victim no opportunity to defend himself. (People vs. (People vs. 16. who had just stood up. (People vs. Casingal. The fact however that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength. (People vs. it is . the crime is aggravated by abuse of superior strength in as much as no alevosia was proven as the appellant’s did not consciously adopt their mode of attack. 265 SCRA 810) For treachery to be appreciated however. treachery may also be considered if the attack on the victim. treachery at a subsequent stage is not to be considered.. That advantage be taken of superior strength or means employed to weaken the defense. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 265 SCRA 444) Even if the attack is frontal. Jr. if there is a break in the continuity of the aggression. Escoto. there is treachery. 244 SCRA 382) However. with sand in his hand. method and manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender. Malabago. The accused who. two (2) of whom were armed with bladed weapons while the victim was unarmed surrounded by the group. Escander. and was stabbed fatally sustaining two (2) frontal wounds and other injuries. 243 SCRA 37) Where appellant’s group numbered more than five (5). Estanislao.15. and (b) the means. 241 SCRA 91) The attack of the three (3) men all armed with bladed weapons against an unarmed woman whose body bore seventeen (17) stab wounds. 244 SCRA 382) Had treachery or alevosia been proven. clearly shows the presence of this circumstance. shot the deceased from behind knowing he was carrying a bolo. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. For treachery to be present.” was undoubtedly sudden and unexpected and prevented the unsuspecting victim. There is (alevosia) treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. it would have absorbed abuse of superior strength. employing means. Daen. (People vs. 265 SCRA 198) Where the accused. suddenly and without any warning. That the act be committed with treachery. (People vs. although preceded by a warning “Tara Sergio. Panganiban. two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim. with his hand held by at least one (1). (People vs. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself. threw the same into eyes of the offended party when they were about to strike each other causing momentary blindness on the part of the latter has employed means to weaken the defense.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order. or one made from behind. (U. 183 SCRA 511) The ruling that if robbery with homicide was committed with additional killings and/or rape.. vs.S. Gano. a landowner. the dog-style position in the sexual act. the additional killings or the rape shall be considered aggravating circumstances has been rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. 191 SCRA 530) There is likewise ignominy when the accused “plastered” with mud the vagina of the offended party right after raping her. 353 SCRA 126. (People vs. is treachery if such mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight of retreat. But since it attended the commission of Robbery with Homicide. Hence. 417) but raping her in the presence of the husband shows ignominy and aggravates the offense. vs. it is the Rape itself that aggravates the crime. 19 Phil. the crime of Rape cannot be regarded as principal offense. this aggravating circumstance would be present. (People vs. was killed. 164) As a rule. mere suddenness of the attack. Balagtas. 242 SCRA 671) However. 247 SCRA 220) 17. it is sufficient that when the fatal blow was inflicted. Saylan. that is. Where before the victim. the Supreme Court citing the Regala case held: It should be noted that there is no law providing that additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. In People vs. so that killing a man in the presence of the wife does not constitute ignominy (U. 1 Phil. there was treachery.S. Fernandez. 2 Phil. (People vs. using the same position as dogs do. (People vs. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if it is not clearly made so by the statute. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. does not necessarily compel a finding of treachery for the essence of this circumstance lies in the adoption of ways and means that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the offended party. whether frontally or from behind. a sudden attack by the assault. holding that there is no law providing that additional rape/s homicide/s committed on the occasion of robbery should be considered as aggravating circumstance. which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. Instead of ignominy. De Leon. the Rape is aggravated by ignominy. Gonzagan. he was made to kneel in front of his house helpers.S. Real. vs. Aspile. Regala. (U. 163) When the victim was raped with the accused forcing her. the Rape is deemed to aggravate the crime. Abaigar. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where . 130 SCRA 159) The original intent of the accused did not comprehend the commission of rape. 329 SCRA 709. (People vs. Jr.not necessary that treachery be present in the beginning of the assault.
there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. However. Sunga. That as a means to the commission of a crime. However. (People vs. attended by the aggravating circumstance of forcible entry. The crime committed is Robbery. door or window be broken.” in one case. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age. the crime is aggravated by Unlawful Entry. or by means of motor vehicles. 190SCRA 328) . door or window. 205) Since the accused entered the second-floor window of the residence of the accused. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an “anomalous situation” where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. That the crime committed after an unlawful entry. So. the offence is classified as Theft. roof. the Supreme Court considered the crime of Murder. In taking away certain valuable articles from the house. The crime is aggravated by the use of motor vehicle where the accused deliberately availed themselves of a tricycle in order to consummate their dastardly act and to use it as a cover to facilitate the commission of Murder. a way not intended for ingress. accused entered through the window. airships or other similar means. The minors here could be accessories. but because this circumstance is not alleged in the information. where accused entered a field tent cutting the ropes at the rear of the tent. (People vs. 19.. and killed the victim soldiers sleeping thereat. accomplices or principals who aided the accused in the commission of the crime. 224 SCRA 218) Where the escaped was done through the window. floor. 43 Phil. The law intends to put a stop to the practice of professional criminals of employing people whom they know could be exempt from criminal liability or would not be fully punished under the law. Said minors could avail the exempting or mitigating circumstance due them on account of minority. 20. floor. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender x x x. a wall. this aggravating circumstance is absent. roof. (People vs.” 18. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. the crime of Robbery with Homicide is aggravated by Unlawful Entry. escaped by breaking the jalousies of the window or the door. The breaking of the parts of the house must be made as a means to commit the offense. De la Cruz. the remedy lies with the legislature. the crime is not attended by this circumstance since there was no unlawful entry. if A entered the door of his neighbor and after killing him. Baello. While that law uses the words “wall.
the use of motor vehicle by the accused aggravated the commission of Robbery with Homicide since the vehicle was used to facilitate their escaped from the scene of the crime.Likewise. insult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than to sever the head there from. The fact that the victim’s decapitated body bearing forty-three (43) stab wounds. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augment by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission. 192 SCRA 621) Other similar means provided for in this article should be understood to refer to motorized vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane (See The Revised Penal Code Book 1 by Reyes. 182 SCRA 601. When the victim was decapitated. (People vs. Under the influence of Dangerous Drugs Sec. courts must be wary and critical of indirect evidence considering the severe consequences for the accused of a finding that he acted under the influence of prohibited drug. when a crime is committed by an offender who is under the influence of dangerous drugs. This is cruelty provided for Art. it was said that “in the abse nce of a competent medical or other direct evidence of ingestion of a dangerous drug. 233 SCRA 231) It would seem that there must be proof showing that when the second and subsequent stab wounds were inflicted.” Aggravating circumstances not provided under Revised Penal Code. The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence directed towards it can not but be deliberately or inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Tac-an. (People vs. 1993 Ed. p. 248 as a qualifying circumstances. A. caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. Bartulay. In People vs. 241 SCRA 764. the Supreme Court considered the presence of this aggravating circumstance stating that: “no greater o utrage. In People vs. 21. was found dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that the accused. twenty-four (24) of which were fatal. Ilaoa.” . for his pleasure and satisfaction. the victim was still alive because the essence of cruelty is that the culprit fins=ds delight in prolonging the suffering of the victim. There is cruelty when the offender deliberately and inhumanly augment the suffering of the victim. 179 promulgated on March 2 1982 pro-vides: “The provision of any law to the contrary notwithstanding. Blg.. Binondo. 459) since the purpose of aggravating the penalty is to discourage the criminals from taking advantage of the great facilities offered by modern means of transportation and communication. 17 of B.P. such state shall be considered as qualifying aggravating circumstance.
otherwise it is mitigating. applying by analogy Art. children-in-law. 7659) ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. and relatives by affinity in the same line. C. it may still be taken into consideration to increase the penalty because of the explicit provisions of Presidential Decree No. 264 SCRA 425) but not that of uncle and niece. ascendants. The relationship of step-daughter and step-father is included (People vs. If the results in the death of the victim even if he is of a lower level. it is mitigating. Organized/Syndicated Crime Group The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. if the evidence is clear that the accused perpetrated the act while under the influence of illegal drugs. 23.. 15) There are those circumstances which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. fire bombs or other incendiary devices which result in the death of any person. 1. 3 thereof. descendants.A. the relationship is aggravating. (People vs. Further. No. Cabresos. . where relationship is always aggravating the rule is where the offended party is relative of a higher degree.However. Molotov cocktails bombs. No. 14. relationship is aggravating. RPC. like parents-in-law. Jr. brother or sister. or where he is of the same level as the offender. (Art. when a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use of explosives like pill box. swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. and (3) degree of instruction and education of the offender. Tan. or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. par. such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Use of Unlicensed Firearm Although the circumstance that human life was destroyed with the used of an unlicensed firearm is not aggravating under Art. they must be living together. In crimes against persons. 3 of said law says that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The law enumerates them as (1) relationship of the offender and the offended party (2) intoxication. brothers and sisters. 1866 as amended by R. Section 1. confederating or mutually helping helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. B. Relationship Relationship shall be considered when the offended party is the spouse. with a proviso that in case of brothers or sisters and brothers-in-law or sistersin-law. the crime is aggravated. 332 which provides that there is no criminal but only civil liability in case of theft. 8294. 244 SCRA 362) When is relationship a mitigating circumstance? In crimes against property. R. or brothers-in-law or sisters-inlaw. An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. ascendant. except serious physical injuries.A. under Sec.
the liability of the offender is not aggravated even if he is a bar or board examination topnotcher. the Supreme Court ruled: “This Court has held that the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction should not be taken into consideration with the crime of rape. 59 Phil. at the same time. and has graduated summa cum laude from his college degree. Intoxication The ordinary rule is that. never mitigating when applicable. 88 Phil.” 2. Degree of Instruction and Education of the Offender High degree of education and instruction of the offender is always aggravating. On the other hand. sufficient to produce the effect of blurring his reason. if the intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. the murder he committed is attenuated by this alternative circumstance (People vs. the liability of an accountant or a lawyer who commits Estafa by means of “Kiting” or violation of the Trust Receipts Law shall be aggravated since he used his high degree education and knowledge in committing the criminal act. depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. prior to the commission of the crime. Director of Prisons. 407. intoxication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating. this rule is subject to the “other conditions attending the commission of the crime. But also lack of sufficient intelligence. Low degree of instruction or education. Buenaflor. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty. it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. so also in perjury where the affidavit is written in English this mitigating circumstance is present. is necessary to successfully avail of this alternative circumstance as mitigating. x x x No one is so ignorant as not to knopw that the crime of rape is wrong and violation of the law. Limaco. 35). never aggravating when applicable. In a case for Homicide or Murder. he must prove that not only was intoxication not habitual but also that his imbibing the alcoholic drink was not intended to fortify his resolve to commit the crime. The rule however is that not only illiteracy. 211 SCRA 492) 3. a quantity of alcoholic beverage.However. on the other hand is always mitigating. Where the accused did not finish even the first grade in elementary school. (People vs. In Molesa vs. upon the other hand. when intoxication is habitual or intentional. The person pleading intoxication must present proof that he had taken.” .
The acts of the participants must be towards the same end in carrying out their plan. and B just accompanied C to the room where X was sleeping. 1957) To hold liable thus as principals by direct participation. C and D conspired with each other to kill X and then proceeded to the house of X. and (c) Principals by Indispensable Cooperation. all the. (Art. (Art. (People vs. if A. even if A only acted as lookout in the yard of X’s house. 16) By the personal nature of criminal liability. Thus. 17) Principals by Direct Participation are those who. and Z passed by the house of W who was apparently not in the mood and upon Z’s loud calling. the persons criminally liable are only the principals and the accomplices. he is a principal by direct participation in the two (2) murders. Omnibus Election Code. accomplices. three (3).Title Two PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES Who are the particeps criminis – that is. . they must have conspired with each other (and with other participants of there are any) and went to the scene of the crime to personally execute what they agreed upon. (b) Principals by Inducement or Induction – those who directly force or induce others to commit the crime. their acts tending towards the same objective. but before reaching the same. proceed to perpetrate the crime and personally take part in its realization. he did not proceed to the scene of the crime. W can not be classified as a principal by direct participation as he did not conspire with his wife in killing Z even if he was at the scene of the crime. B and C are principals by direct participation. 16401-R. and while grappling with W. meaning A. 1. those who take a direct part in the execution of the act. General Banking Act. corporations and juridical persons can be ordered to pay fine as a punishment under some special laws. like the Corporation Law. the latter’s wife came out from nowhere and stabbed Z with her spear. if X. for light felonies. In some cases. So that in the first example above. and accessories. only natural persons can be the active subject of a crime. D pretending to answer the call of nature went out of the way and did not join A. executing acts which directly tend to the same end. February 19. ready to assist C if the need arises. So also. Y. etc. B. However. Guballo. However. and it was only C who fired the gun that killed X. went out of his house with a bolo whereupon Z tried to wrest possession of said bolo. Where the accused conspired with this three (3) co-accused to kill the two (2) victims and the role assigned to him was to kill one of the victims which he did. those who cooperate in the execution in the offense by another act without which the crime would not have been accomplished. Principals There are three (3) Classes of Principals – (a) Principals by Direct Participation – that is. the officers of the corporation and/or partnerships are the ones personally held liable. B and C anymore when the three. those participants in the crime? They are the principals. participating in the criminal resolution.
Principals by Indispensable Cooperation are those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. So that if he would commit the offense just the same with or without the price. reward or promise must be the primordial consideration why the principal by direct participation proceeded to commit the crime. there can be no principal by induction. he still can not be classified as principal by induction if the inducement is not the determining cause for committing the crime. Even if the inducement be directly made. Necessarily. it presupposes the existence of the principal by direct participation otherwise with whom shall be cooperate with indispensably. B. Principals by Induction are of two (2) classes: those who directly induce others to commit the crime.” and later on. the one who gave the price or reward is not liable. There are two (2) ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime: (a) By giving price. A is a principal by inducement by directly forcing another to perpetrate a crime. and those who directly force another to perpetrate the offence. B killed X. A can not be considered a principal by inducement. it is necessary that the inducement be made directly to secure the commission of the crime. the act of one is the act of all. with a gun in his hand. reward or promise. or a thoughtless expression or a chance word spoken without any intention or expectation that it would produce the result can not hold the utterer liable as principal by inducement. promise or reward. thus. on the other hand. Thus. Thus.Where conspiracy has been adequately proven. individual criminal liability may ensue. the price. (b) Mere suggestion. if the actor has reason of his own to commit the offense. To fall under the scenario. if there is no conspiracy proved. and the doer of the act. is a principal by direct participation although he would be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12. 6. for in conspiracy. Those who directly forced another to commit a crime are also categorized as Principals by Inducement. there is collective criminal responsibility. and that such inducement be the determining cause of the execution of the act by the principal by direct participation. there must be conspiracy between the giver of the consideration. On the other hand. “Kung ako ikaw eh papatayin ko iyang si X. The one forced or induced is the principal by direct participation. By using words of command. par. told B. If B would stabbed X to death. The cooperation here is an assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered which can not exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act . if A. in response to B who was narrating to him his (B’s) bitter experience with X in a chance conversation. A gave B a knife and ordered him to kill X who was sleeping nearby otherwise he (A) would shoot him (B). To hold the principal by inducement liable. Like in the case of Principal by Inducement. with the inducer insistent and determined to procure the commission of the crime.
B is an accomplice cooperating by previous act. 3rd Ed. If A approached B. Where both accused conspired and confederated to commit rape. stabbed Y. If the offender. conspired with B for the latter to present a false receipt and which receipt was the basis of the reimbursement approved by A. (People vs. a municipal treasurer. having knowledge of the commission of the crime. W is an accomplice cooperating by simultaneous act.. has participated as a principal. and one had sex with the offended party while the other was holding her hands. not having participated as principal. and B Knowing A’s criminal design. Accessories (Art. X continued choking Y. The existence of an accomplice presupposes the existence of a principal by direct participation. both are principals by direct participation and by indispensable cooperation in the two (2) crimes of rape committed. even of performing the acts of an accomplice. he will be punished as a principal. even upon seeing the stabbing made by W. borrowing the latter’s gun. W went behind Y without any knowledge of X and once within striking distance. take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: . That act of A however must have a relation to the participation of B. if while B. 19) (Also accessory after the fact) They are those who. Accomplices An accomplice is one who. and both thereafter shared the proceeds. telling him that he (A) is going to kill X. 213) In other words. B is a principal by indispensable cooperation. (Phil. knowing A’s purpose to kill X. lent his gun with which A shot and killed X. choking contributed to the death of Y. 183 SCRA 511) Where A. 3. and thereafter the latter was the one who raped the victim. Thus. A is the principal by direct participation and B by indispensable cooperation in the crime of Malversation. but his cooperation is in the performance of another act without which the criminal would have been accomplished. however. in this case. p. but A used a bolo in killing X. (Art. While X was choking Y. and no longer as an accomplice. still lent his gun to A. then B can not be considered an accomplice. take note that while B did not conspire with A to kill X. 2. he must have conspired with the principal by direct participation or must have a unity of criminal purpose and intention with him immediately before the commission of the offense. 18) He is sometimes referred to accessory before the fact. cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act. before an accused can be tagged as a principal by indispensable cooperation. The accomplice does not conspire with the principal although he cooperated in the execution of the criminal act. who died of stab words. In the above example.intended to be executed. Fernandez. and without having participated as principals or accomplices. Had he conspired with A. he (B) concurred with A in his purpose. Law Dictionary by Moreno.
He is also an accessory. Bantagan. Where A. Madlangbayan. keep. he should no longer be punished as an accessory since he will be held already as a principal. A person who profits or assist the offender to profit by the effects of the crime is also illustrated in a kidnapping case where the kidnappers ask a person who has not participated in the actual kidnapping. he is an accessory. (People vs. or should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery of theft shall be punished depending on the value of the property involved. . possess. sell or dispose of. to contact the parents of the victim to negotiate the delivery of ransom money. without having participated as principal or accomplice in Robbery or Theft but knowing that the property being offered to him is the proceeds or subject matter of the said crime. sold some of the property stolen. The most common example is a person who. 841). receives a share from the same. shall buy.” any person who. 2. Corpus delicti simply means the fact that a crime has actually been committed. he is also an accessory. the body or the substance of the offense. bought or purchased or dealt in any manner with such property. or shall buy and sell. 1612. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof to prevent its discovery. and he does so and thereafter given a share. obtaining benefit from said transaction or helping the thief or robber to profit therefrom. conceal. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. If the robber or thief request him to sell the property stolen. to make it appear that his friend had killed the victim in self-defense constitutes an act of an accessory.D No. knowing that B and C had killed X. Under P. object or anything of value which he knows. This phrase refers to CORPUS DELICTI – that is. Where the wife misled the authorities by informing them that the person who killed her husband was a theft who has fled. (Sec. with intent to gain for himself or for another. and having successfully done so. 94 SCRA 685) Placing a weapon in the hand of the deceased who was killed by his friend. receive. But if a person being co-conspirator in theft or robbery. buried the corpse to prevent the discovery of the killing. 54 Phil. (People vs. or in any other manner deal in any article. The body of the crime however does not only mean the body of the person killed. otherwise he is a principal in the crime of theft since a stolen property can also be the subject of theft or robbery.1. 2) The accessory however should not take the property without the consent of the principal or accomplice in possession of the same. otherwise known as “Anti-fencing Law. acquire. item.
he is not liable as an accessory under the article because in case of a private individual assisting the escape of the principal. murder or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. and after killing B. charged as principal in a murder case. Presidential Decree No.00) to six thousand (P6.when in truth. went to B and told the latter to hide the gun he used. to Y. and A was acquitted because of self-defense or that the court adjudged the crime to be only Homicide. provided the accessory acts with abuse of public functions. and asking him to conceal the car so that the crime would not be discovered. impedes. the killer was her paramour. which B did with the objective of concealing the crime. or facilitating the escape of any person whom he knows. if X would deliver the car he had carnapped. concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime. If the one who harbors or assist in the escape of the principal is a public officer. Thus. he is an accessory by concealing the effects of the crime. the acquittal of the latter does not mean acquittal of the accessory. Thus. B is not liable as an accessory.000. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to . the latter is liable as an accessory. 1829 provides that the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period. and he is assisted in his escape by a public officer. after killing a person. telling the latter of the carnapping he did. the crime committed must be treason. However. the wife is liable as an accessory for concealing the body of the crime. B is an accessory by concealing the instrument of the crime. parricide. A was assisted by private individual C in his escape.000. In connection with this matter. if A and B agreed to fight. or a fine ranging from one thousand (P1. But if A was acquitted because of insanity. murder or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. C is not liable as an accessory because the crime committed by A is only Homicide there being an agreement to fight. or is known to be guilty of some other crime. While accessories’ liability is subordinate to that of the principal. will make him an accessory. if A rapes a woman. 3. or the case against him dismissed because he died during the trial. By harboring. shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs. and he assisted A in his escape. If A. frustrates or delays the apprehension of subjects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by harboring or concealing. whatever be the crime committed by the said principal provided it is not a light felony. and Y did so. with B indicted as accessory for helping him escape before he was finally arrested. So that if A.00) pesos or both. So also. or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason. or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. if the one who assist the rapist in his escape is a private individual. B can still be held liable as accessory as long as it was proven that the crime was murder. parricide.
(People vs. 44 Phil. reclusion temporal. perpetual or temporary special disqualification and prison mayor which are considered Afflictive penalties. 186 SCRA 851) Classification of Penalties Art. (People vs. aresto menor and public censure which are Light penalties. perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. 25 categories penalties into Principal penalties which death is the capital punishment. perpetual or temporary special disqualification. 186 SCRA 851) Classification of Penalties Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission but the law can not impose cruel and unusual punishment as the Constitution prohibits it. suspension and destierro which are Correccional penalties. indemnification. suspencion from public office. In a judgment of conviction for any crime. In the order of severity and for the purpose of successive service sentences. In a judgment of conviction for any crime. reclusion perpetua. prision correctional. and the payment of costs. (People vs. 2. the court should specify the appropriate name of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code or in special laws. Title Three PENALTIES In General Penalty is the punishment imposed by lawful authority upon a person who commits an unlawful. 5. Aquino. civil interdiction. forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense. and Accessory penalties which are perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. This is what is popularly known as Obstruction of Justice. 3. Principal penalties are those expressly imposed by the court while Accessory penalties are those that are deemed included in the principal penalties imposed. deliberate or negligent act. 4. 6. Moran. arresto mayor. the penalties have the following scale: 1. 431) Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission but the law can not impose cruel and unusual punishment as the Constitution prohibits it. Aquino. the court should specify the appropriate name of the penalty provided for the Revised Penal Code or in special laws. Death Reclusion Reclusion Temporal Prison Mayor Prision Carreccional Arresto Mayor .prevent his arrest. prosecution and conviction.
8. 70) With respect to Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment which more often than not become somehow confusing. 6. Arresto Menor Destierro Perpetual Absolute Disqualification Temporary Absolute Disqualification Suspension from public office.7. 5. and Reclusion Perpetua carries Accessory penalties. Abapo. (People vs. 10. 9. 3. the following are their differences: 1. 71) 4. 9. the right to follow profession or calling 12. 5. Reclusion Perpetua entails imprisonment for only thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon while Life Imprisonment does not appear to have any definite extent or duration. 3. 11. Reclusion Perpetua is imposed by the Revised Penal Code while Life Imprisonment is by Special Law. 10. the right to vote and be voted for. SCALE NO. 4. For the purpose of graduating the penalties in the light of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the offense. the courts shall observe the following graduated scales: SCALE NO. 1 1. 239 SCRA 373) 2. . while it is not so in Life Imprisonment. (Art. 8. Death Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion Temporal Prision Mayor Prision Correccional Arresto Mayor Destierro Arresto Menor Public censure Fine 1. 3. and the right to follow a profession or calling Public censure Fine (Art. 2 Perpetual absolute disqualification Temporary absolute disqualification Suspension from public office. Said maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40) years. the right to vote and be voted for. 2. 7. 2. Public censure The maximum duration however of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed.
Arresto menor. suspension. 266 SCRA 305) . however. in which case. correctional penalty.00). except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty.A. suspension and destierro. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years.00). Duration or Penalties Article 27 specifies the duration of penalties. – The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one (1) day to thirty (30) days. its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. – The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. – The duration of the penalties of prison mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. is hereby amended to read as follows: Art. 232 SCRA 537). Lucas. No.00) but not less than two hundred (P200. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. Arresto mayor. 7659 – twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years – is still to be classified as an indivisible penalty (People vs. 27. whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty.000. Reclusion Perpetua. in which case.000. – The duration of the penalties of prision correccional. No. its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. and light if it be less than two hundred (P200.A fine. despite its “defined duration” in R. if it does not exceed six thousand (P6. (People vs. Reclusion Temporal. Magallano. Prison Mayor and temporary disqualification. Prison correccional.00). 7659 which provides: Section 21. shall be considered afflictive if it exceeds six thousand (P6. and should be imposed in its entire duration in accordance with Art. except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty.A. and destierro shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. xxx Reclusion Perpetua. This was amended by Section 21 of R.
and the range of this penalty is six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years only. 27) But the trial shall proceed so that in case of acquittal. (Art. In case of conviction. Indivisible penalties are those which have no fixed duration like death. he will have no criminal record. (Art. 249 in relation to Articles 6 and 51). he shall be ordered immediately released. 29. He is known as detention prisoner. he is detained in jail. The following are exceptions however: 1. if the trial of A for Attempted Homicide is still going on for more than six (6) years. he shall have failed to surrender voluntarily. RPC) 2. can not afford to post the bond. Subsidiary penalty. and he has been detained from the beginning of the trial for failure or inability to post bail bond. 29. he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. 52 O. If the convict is a recidivist or has been previous convicted twice or more of any crime. perpetual absolute or special disqualification. . During the trial of his case. to be subtracted from his sentenced. for the crime is punishable by prision correccional (Art. on the other hand. reclusion perpetua. (People vs.G. (Art. Moreover the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one third (1/3) of the principal penalty or one (1) year which ever is lesser. Application of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances The court must first consider whether the penalties imposable are Divisible or Indivisible. if he agrees in writing to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners. When upon being summoned for the execution of his sentenced. There is no subsidiary penalty of imprisonment if the principal penalty of imprisonment is more that six (6) years. or even if bailable. is the personal penalty prescribed by law in substitution of the payment of fine embodied in the decision when the same can not be satisfied because of the culprit’s insolvency. RPC) So that. otherwise. Jarumayan.Preventive Imprisonment and Subsidiary Penalty Preventive imprisonment is the incarceration undergone by a person accused of a crime which is not bailable. he will not be imprisoned anymore. 248) Whenever as accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced. and his case is not yet terminated. only four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be deducted. The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accuse shall be credited fully. and public censure.
3.while Divisible penalties are those having fixed duration and case be divided into three (3) periods. So also. No. and the accused is a minor below sixteen (16) years old. Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art. 63) When the penalty is single indivisible. the rules (Art. 7659 – which is reclusion perpetua. the court shall reasonably offset them according to their relative weight. Example: “By means of fire” (Art. 14. If there is one ordinary mitigating circumstance it shall be applied in it minimum period. the lesser penalty shall be applied. If there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstance.A. the reduction of the penalty shall be by degree. 6 of R. (the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death under Art. while the presence of an aggravating circumstance would mean the application of the greater penalty. 64) If the commission of the crime was attended by both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 12) will not be considered to incre ase the liability in Murder qualified by using poison. like reclusion perpetua to death (the penalty for Infanticide. If the mitigating circumstance present is privileged one. 12) shall not be considered in the crime of Arson. par. the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. 62) are as follows: 1. Thus. par. etc.). No. like the penalty for Piracy under Article 122 as amended by Sec. the penalty shall be reclusion temporal. (Art. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party (Art. Murder.A. Parricide. the penalty may be reduced by a degree. not only by period. in which case. the presence of one mitigating circumstance would result in the application of the lesser penalty. In case the law prescribes two indivisible penalties. 7659). when the crime proven is Murder. the penalty shall be applied in medium period. If there be present both mitigating and aggravating circumstance. R. 14. “by means of poison” (Art. the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another. . If there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance. the penalty shall be lowered by one degree. If the mitigating circumstance in attendance is privilege mitigating. 248. 3) shall not aggravate the liability of the offender convicted of Trespass to Dwelling. When the penalty is divisible and there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. Such is also the rule in case of two (2) indivisible penalties like reclusion perpetua to death. and if there is one (1) aggravating circumstance. such penalty shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance such as minority. 14. par.
2. par. the fact that the victim is X’s brother-in-law would affect the liability only of X while recidivism which is personal to Y shall increase the liability of Y only. 333 applies to both the wife and her lover because their act is only one. killed W who is X’s brother in-law. (People vs. A saw the opportunity and put poison in the glass of X. Aggravating circumstances which are inherent in the crime to such a degree that they must of necessity accompany the crime shall not increase the penalty. The treachery that attended the commission of the crime shall also affect B and not only C treacherously killed X in his sleep because B had knowledge of the employment of the treacherous act being present actually during the shooting. Z committed it with evident premeditation while Y is a recidivist. al. 194) 4. The circumstance which consist in the material execution of the act or in the means employed to accomplish it shall aggravate or mitigate the liability of those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act. et. Example: X. A. 3. X died after taking the poisonous drink. conspiring with each other. B and C agreed to kill X and in a drinking spree. B. it was C who shot him. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation applies only to Z. Y. the mitigating circumstance of abandonment by the husband provided for in adultery under Art. So also. Other Effects of Penalty Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. and Z.] 40 O. being in the yard.G. Example: Abuse of confidence (Art. and C agreed to kill X and so armed with guns they proceeded to the house of the latter whereupon A told B and C that he would just stay in the yard to prevent any relative of X from helping the victim. Example: A. B saw (X should be substituted by A) pouring the poison while C did not see it and was unaware of it. A’s liabilit y is not aggravated by treachery as he had no knowledge of it. Avelino.A. judicially speaking. 4) shall no longer be considered Qualified Theft with grave abuse of confidence to increase the penalty.. [C. However. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated in favor of the . 14. The aggravating circumstance of “by means of poison” affects only A and B. When B and C entered the room of X. and saw him sleeping. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender or from his private relations with the offended party or from any personal cause shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the culprit to whom they are attendant.
00) from a taxpayer. 1 of Article 294). which is the complex crime proper. 48 speaks of two (2) types of complex crimes: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. 48) Art. otherwise known as compound crime. A committed the crime of Attempted Homicide with Parricide. Court of Appeals. He is not an accountable officer. If A stole the gun of B who is duly licensed to possess it. (Art. to be applied in its maximum period. No. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. et. No. complex crime proper.000. 11. the gun will no longer be confiscated in favor of the government but would be returned to C. 48 is not applicable in case of special complex crimes specifically provided for in Revised Penal Code like Robbery with Homicide or Rape or with Arson (Sec. and (2) when an offense is a necessary means of committing the other. is when the Municipal Treasurer. An example of No.A.00) is guilty of Malversation through Falsification of a Public Document because Falsification is necessary means to commit Malversation. It is however. R. 2 – that is.00) and then misappropriated the difference of nine thousand ((P9. Complex Crimes and Their Penalties (Delito Compuesto) When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.. who received ten thousand (P10. 1 – that is. then they shall be ordered burned or destroyed. 7659 amending par. but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. al. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. 7659 amending Article 335) and applies only when no specific penalty is stated in the law. (Sambiniano vs. if the proceeds or tools can not be subject of lawful transaction like marijuana or shabu. An example of No. (Art.Government unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense. missing him but the bullet hit X who is A’s father. 45) This forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense is provided for as an accessory penalty under Article 25. when in fact the treasury warrant is not payable to him. is when A with a revolver shot B. not Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document. compound crime. when in recklessly driving his car.A. the damages suffered by the two (2) cars resulting in grave or less grave felonies (not merely light).000. Or. and used it in killing C. 249 SCRA 24) . when a casual employee of the Bureau of Lands encashed a treasury warrant by affixing his signature thereon. 9. placed in the duplicate original of the receipt the amount of one thousand (P1000. Art. Y hit the car of W which in turn hit the car of A. or Rape with Homicide (Sec. Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. R.
are to be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the rebellious acts. merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict. although of a delictual character. there being unity of purpose and of right violated. the accused-twins ran amuck killing eight (8) persons and wounding one during that occasion. Toling. offenses which were not committed in furtherance of the rebellion but for personal reasons or other motives. 5824. there is no complex crime committed because one crime is punishable under a special law while the other is by Revised Penal Code. it was held that the eight murders and one attempted murder were committed qualified by treachery. Where. it was defined as a continuous. 76 O. While one can be convicted only of rebellion where the murders. Both must be a violation of the Revised Penal Code. 68 SCRA 314) The taking of several cows belonging to different owners while admittedly committed through several acts was held to be punished only as one crime when done or perpetrated during the same occasion. 215 SCRA 596) In complex crimes. Court of Appeals.” (Gamboa vs. such concurrence of delictual acts is called “delito continuado. while Illegal Possession of Firearm could be argued as a necessary means to commit Murder or Homicide. shall be that which. (People vs. brought out the victim from her house to a nearby school building where he raped her is guilty of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. in view of the . Hereafter. (People vs. Grefiel. (Philippine Law Dictionary by Moreno) In People vs. or its amendments. who. commits diverse acts. 344 SCRA 435) Continuing Crime (Delito Continuado) A single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code. robberies and kidnapping were committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion. through intimidation.G. Thus. unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force however long a time it may occupy. one offense should not be punishable under another law. each of which. 62 SCRA 17) Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103 as amended by Act No. in a train. Oliva. Encila. (People vs. the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which. 4225) Section 1.The accused. however. When the actor.
People vs. the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence. modified the penalty to . the seventeen (17)-year-old convict did not voluntarily surrender but is a recidivist. The sentence of the court thus is as follows: “Accused is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months and one (1) day [or more but not exceeding six (6) years] of prision correccional as minimum. the court shall first determine the applicable penalty by applying the mitigating circumstance present. or five (5) years. and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. which is one degree lower. to six (6) years and one (1) day [or more but not exceeding eight (8) years] of prision mayor as maximum. or ten (10) months. or one (1) year. 249) will be reduced to prison mayor. Thus. the court shall impose a straight penalty of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day nor more than six (6) years as this is the range of destierro provided for in Article 27. he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of minority which is a privileged one. The minimum term shall be any range of prision correccional which is the penalty next lower in degree to prison mayor. Since the accused is only seventeen (17) years old. the accused was found guilty of carnapping under Republic Act No. Since the opening sentence of this law says: “xxx in imposing a prison term xxx” this Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to destierro. 225 SCRA 361. the penalty of reclusion temporal prescribed for Homicide (Art. So that if a concubine is found guilty under Article 334. that is ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) but the minimum is the same – any range within prision correccional. the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. This Indterminate Sentence Law is applicable to special laws as it says: “if the offense is punished by any other law. ruling that the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to violation of special laws.attending circumstances. and if the offense is punished by any other law. 6539 and was sentenced by the trial court to a straight imprisonment of thirty (30) years. The Supreme Court. The Judge thus can sentence a concubine to a straight prison term of six (6) months and one day. How to Apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law To cite a specific example: If A who is only seventeen (17) years old was found guilty of Homicide with a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. then the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is prision mayor in its maximum period. If in the above example.” Thus. etc. Viente. The court will the consider the other mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender so that the maximum period under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is prison mayor which has a range of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years. could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code.
868. 63 Phil. (People vs. nor to those already sentenced by final judgement at the time of the approval of the Act. The same is true with an accused confined in the National Center for Mental Health (formerly National Mental Hospital) since their confinement can not be considered punishment but more of administrative matters for their rehabilitation. the penalty is imprisonment for not less than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months and not more than thirty (30) years.” Although there is a great distinction between reclusion perpetua and Life Imprisonment. C. (People vs. Martinado. Accused Mary Rose Ondo. conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. not on the imposable penalty. 63 SCRA 435) When the accused escaped from jail from his case was on appeal. 7451) A person sentenced to destierro who entered the prohibited area within the prohibited period has evaded the service of his sentence (People vs. to those who are habitual delinquents. 214 SCRA 712) A youthful offender whose sentenced is suspended under Sec. The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is based on the penalty actually imposed. to those who violated the conditional pardon granted by the Chief Executive. misprision of treason. There are exceptions to the application of the Indeterminate Sentece Law. the courts have uniformly refused to apply this law to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua. having bee sentenced to life imprisonment for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment is not entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (People vs.seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum since Section 14 of the said Republic Act provides that. 174) and when he committed a crime in that area. otherwise known as the “Child and Youth Welfare Code. Soler. 603 and who escaped from his confinement is still entitled to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not mention reclusion perpetua as an exception. 192 of P. 227 SCRA 562) The Court also refused to grant her the benefits of P. if carnapping is committed by means of violence or intimidation. 67 O. he will not be entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law for the new crime. to those convicted of treason. sedition or espionage or piracy.D.D. he is not entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. and the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed such ruling. Recidivists are entitled to the availment of the Indeterminate Sentence Law since those disqualified are Habitual Delinquents.G. People vs. Ondo. (People vs. Abilog. Thus. Co. 603. rebellion. No. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one (1) year. and its purpose is to uplift and redeem . Section 2 provides that the law shall not apply to person convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. 82 Phil. No. Venus.A.
No. the trial court may. Probation Law Probation is a disposition under which a defendant.00). Who have previously been convinced by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not more than (should be not less than) two hundred (P200. 3[a]. Probation is a mere privilege.D. multiple prison terms imposed against the accused found guilty of several offences in one decision should not be added up. P. and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness. he is no longer entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law. It is rather an act of grace or clemency or immunity conferred by the State which may be granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law. suspend the execution of the sentenced and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best: provided that no such application shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Who have been once on probation. 968 as amended by P. and their sum total should not be determinative of his eligibility for. Sentenced to serve a maximum of imprisonment of more than six (6) years. 5. 3. 2. 1990 and B. Blg.valuable human material. 76) Under Section 4 of the law. P. Who are already serving sentenced at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable. Convinced of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order. No. (Sec. Court of .D. 1275. subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. after it shall have convinced and sentenced a defendant.P. nay his disqualification from. However. No. and upon application by said defendant within the period of perfecting as appeal. 4. after conviction and sentenced is released. not a right of the accused. (Francisco vs. probation since the law uses the word “maximum” not “total” term of imprisonment. The benefits of the law shall not be extended to those: 1.D. If the accused is sentenced to more than six (6) year imprisonment even by a day.
. Conditions of Probation Every probation order issued by the court shall contain the following conditions: 1. When the accused is convinced under R. If accused appeals his conviction irrespective of the purpose of the appeal even if it is only to question the propriety of the penalty imposed. Conviction of an election offense under the Revised Election Code. 9165 – the new AntiDangerous Drugs Law except when he is a first offender minor in which case he is eligible for probation even if the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years. if A. However if he is convinced of drug trafficking or pushing he is disqualified. No. 3. Other Instances When Probation Not Applicable 1. That probationer shall present himself to his designated supervising probation officer within seventy two (72) hours from receipt of the order. The trial court may impose other conditions for the probationer to comply. et al.Appeals.A. 2.. 243 SCRA 384) Thus. 2. he is not disqualified to avail of the provisions of the Probation Law. having been charged for five (5) cases which were jointly heard is sentenced in one decision for one (1) year and eight (8) months for each of the charges so that the totality of the prison term is more than six (6) years. He shall report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place specified in the order.
may thus be categorized as total extinction thereof. Prescription of the crime. 2. Prescription of the penalty. 344 (Art. it is partially extinguish by: 1.Title Four EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: TOTAL AND PARTIAL Criminal liability is totally extinguish by: 1. Service of the sentenced. 5. was out on bail. With respect to civil liability of the accused. the same is not extinguished and it can be enforced against the . and Marriage of the offended woman as provided for in Art. it can be considered as partial extinction only. 3. personal penalty is totally and permanently extinguished. However. Amnesty. 89) On the other hand. 1. at whatever stage of the case. 6. that unlike in service of sentence. It must be noted however. 4. in probation. Death of the Accused If the accused dies. 7. Commutation of the sentenced. With respect to pecuniary liabilities like fine or costs of the proceedings. Conditional Pardon. they are extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 3. if he dies after the judgment has become final. the probationer is still required to report to a Probation Officer at a certain period until the duration of the probation period. Death of the convict. 2. Absolute Pardon. and Good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while serving sentenced. The grant of probation may be considered as a form of extinction of criminal liability which was bestowed while accused who was never been incarcerated. You can not imprison a dead person. if it was granted after the conviction of the accused who was in jail.
the civil liability is also extinguished. (Art. Bayotas. and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time. 23. Service of Sentence When the accused has fully served his sentence. Concubinage. (Art. (Black’s Law Dictionary. but the same is not yet final. recidivism can not be considered against him. to be considered as a mode of extinction of criminal liability should be pardon by the President of the Philippines and not pardon by the offended party which only extinguishes civil liability. Of Prisons. before promulgation of sentence. Acts of Lasciviousness. if A was convicted of Homicide and was granted Absolute Pardon.. Art. 82 Phil. vs. his personal or criminal liability is to be considered permanently terminated. Seduction or Abduction when granted before the institution of the criminal action also extinguishes criminal liability. this time based on either contract. 3. (Barrioquinto. it needs concurrence of Congress. p. he will be considered a recidivist.estate of the deceased. law or quasi-delicts (the other sources of obligation under Article 1157 of the Civil Code). quasi-contract. and later on committed Murder or Homicide. RPC) Pardon by the offended party. However. 642). granted by the Government to a certain class of persons. in cases of Adultery. Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself..” Thus. RPC) Under R.A. 60) It is the Chief Executive who can grant both but in the case of Amnesty. Fernandez. 344. on account of an appeal or a motion for reconsideration duly filed. While pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted. usually political offences. The offended party nevertheless is allowed to file a separate civil action. et al. Rape. Dir. 4th Ed. it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. if his first offense is Rebellion and was granted amnesty and later on was found guilty of sedition. however. (De Leon vs. 89 says “xxx by amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. 31 Phil. (People vs. If he dies however. Thus. or even after. 108) Pardon is an act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed. et al. . Pardon. 236 SCRA 239) 2. Amnesty and Absolute Pardon Amnesty is a sovereign act of oblivion for past acts. charged or guilty of crime. The statute of limitations on the civil liability in such a case is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case.
(Sec. the prescriptive period is interrupted. in ten (10) years except those by arresto mayor which shall prescribe in five (5) years while grave oral defamation and grave slander by deed prescribed in six (6) months. 122 SCRA 538. Prescription of Crime It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to Prosecute the offender or file criminal action after the lapse of a certain period of time. . and after twenty (20) years and one (1) day from the discovery of the crime. in the crime of rape. he reported to the police authorities what he witnessed. in the example above.Bargas vs. (Art.No. and since A not being related to X. and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules on prescription. Thus. in fifteen (15) years. if it is the husband who is the offender. and those by correctional penalty. those punishable by the other afflictive penalties (like prision major). or was dismissed. and did not report the crime to the authority. if B was charged before the court or the prosecutor’s office on the tenth (10th) year from discovery. the subsequent forgiveness by the wife shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty except when the marriage is void ab initio. the crime (Murder or Homicide) will never prescribe. 227 SCRA 56) or with the court shall interrupt the prescriptive period. If one (1) year after the filing of the complaint or information. (See The Revised Penal Code. RTC-Pasig. the proceedings were stopped without fault on the part of B. the authorities or their agents. reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribed in twenty (20) years. Book I by Luis B. Reyes) Crimes punishable by death.) The filing of the complaint even with the Fiscal’s office only (Francisco vs. When the penalty imposable is a compound one. Court of Appeals. and no complaint is filed in court within twenty (20) years. Metro Manila. 2) 4. (Ibid. The period shall be interrupted by the filling of the complaint or information. and after nine (9) years and one (1) day. Light offences shall prescribe in two (2) months. Calderon. if A witnessed the killing of X by B. got scared. the crime of B shall be deemed prescribed since the ten (10)-year period that lapsed without filing any criminal complaint shall be considered so that only nine (9) years and one (1) day would be needed to complete the prescriptive period of twenty (20) years. or even if not related to X. 90) The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of discovery of the crime by the offended party. 8353. 91) Thus. no charge can be filed against B anymore. (Art. or are unjustifiable stopped for any reason not imputable to him. then the crime will prescribed. But if A is the son of X. the period shall begin to run again.
(Sermonia vs. appealed the decision. a case of slight physical injury thus covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Court of Appeals. 233 SCRA 155) Even if libel is punishable by prision correccional. for . which are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure under the Rules of Court must be filed with the Court. and escaped from jail where he has been detained during trial. if A after conviction by the trial court. If the penalty imposed is death or reclusion perpetua.Criminal cases. however. The Zaldivia case involved a violation of a municipal ordinance where the applicable law is not Art. prescribe in ten (10) years. Reyes. to be subject of prescription must have been imposed by final judgment. 92). he must be able to hide from the authorities for a period of twenty (20) years. Geronimo. the penalty will never prescribe. 211 SCRA 277) However. such fine should not be reduced or converted into a prison term and should be considered as afflictive. to determine their prescriptive period. 5. et al. Prescription of Penalty Prescription of the penalty is that loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to execute the final sentence of conviction after the lapse of a certain period of time. after the lapse of sixty (60) days. other afflictive penalties (like reclusion temporal and prision mayor). 3326. Light penalties shall prescribe in one (1) year. Thus. (Zaldivia vs. From the day he escaped. In prescription of penalty. Of the Revised Penal Code but Act No. RPC) The penalty. The penalties of death and reclusion perpetua prescribe in twenty (20) years. it prescribes not in ten (10) years but in one (1) year as expressly provided for in Article 90. in fifteen (15) years while correctional penalties except arresto mayor which prescribes in five (5) years. otherwise. and a bigamous marriage is generally entered into a place where the offender is not known to be a married person. the prescription of penalty commences to run. in order to conceal his legal impediment. and must have escaped. in Cabelic vs. correctional or light under Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code. the Supreme Court ruled that the period by prescription was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor. but the crime of Bigamy shall commence to prescribe from discovery by the offended party or the authorities of the crime.. May 27. et al. With respect to offenses punished with a fine. or if it is reclusion temporal. the offender must be serving sentence. Prescription of Falsification of Public Documents shall begin from registration of the falsified document with the Register of Deeds since the registration is the official notice to the whole world. (Art. they shall prescribe even if filed already with the Fiscal’s office.. committing the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence. and not from the time the bigamous marriage was registered with the Local Civil Registrar since marriage is not property which would be registered in the place where it is located. 2002.
the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party in the crime of rape shall extinguish the criminal action . the marriage benefits the accessory or accomplice even if he is already serving sentenced. In the crimes of SARA (Seduction. 1986. or should commit another crime. Santiago. or would go to a foreign country with which the Philippines has no extradition treaty. The provision of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-pricipals. Suppose he was arrested after five (5) years of escape – that is. He must be able to elude authorities up to January 2. 92 Phil.fifteen (15) years. or be captured. Santos. accomplices and accessories after the fact of the abovenamed crimes. 51 Phil. (People vs. The five (5) – year period during his escape must have to be considered for purposes of completing the fifteen (15) – year period for the prescription of the penalty of Homicide. 56 Phil. and if undertaken only to avoid criminal prosecution. 344. (See Inflate vs. 1985. Abduction. loneliness and misery. he must hide for just ten (10) more years. discomfort. he lives a life of a hunted animal. If within the prescriptive period he should give himself up. Problem: A was sentenced to reclusion temporal for Homicide and while serving sentence. As the distinguished penal commentator Viada said. the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. and at times. on January 1.A.) In other crimes. then the period is interrupted and the penalty will not prescribed anymore. (Laceste vs. comfortable and peaceful. 8353. far from being happy. 68) If done in good faith however. His life. marriage of the complainant and the accused does not extinguish criminal liability. Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness (SARA). hiding mostly in the mountains and forest in constant mortal fear of being caught. 1995 to consider the penalty prescribed. For all this. Reason for Prescription of the Crime and/or Penalty During the period that the accused/convict escaped. escaped on January 1. And all the tie he has to utilize every ingenuity and means to outwit the Government agencies bent on recapturing him. 1980. his voluntarily exile is more grievous than the sentence he was trying to avoid. Abduction. last par. 310) Marriage of the Offended Party with the Offender In cases of Seduction. and was able to re-escape on January 1. No. such marriage does not result in the extinction of penal liability. Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness). Provincial Warden. the convict who evades sentence is sometimes sufficiently punished by his voluntary and self-imposed punishment. the marriage must be entered into in good faith. is reduced to a mere existence filled with fear. 472) Under R. the Government extends to him a sort of condonation or amnesty. (Art.
even if later on. Commutation is the substitution of a lesser penalty for that of a greater punishment imposed on the convict by the Chief Executive. the commutation of penalty in favor of the convict does not need his acceptance. he can not be entitled to the good conduct allowances. 68 Phil. this kind of pardon is delivered to a convict still serving sentence who must accept the condition in order to effective. instead of pardon. (Art. he may grant a commutation altering or changing the penalty to prison mayor.L. must be serving his sentence. 530) With respect to Good Conduct Allowances. In case of multiple rapes.or the penalty imposed. there is no extinction of penal responsibility because this is a case of multiple rapes. the President may commute the death penalty to reclusion perpetua. There is no doubt a partial extinction of criminal liability occurs. (People vs. (Art. 122) The allowances for good conduct granted by the Director of Prisons (now Bureau of Corrections) shall not have revoked. A contracted marriage with W. Thus. The commutation of the original sentenced for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former. and when it was B’s turn. if A. and when C was the one having sex with W. B. Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability Conditional Pardon by the Chief Executive partially extinguishes the penal liability of a convict. part of his sentence is remitted which he will no longer undergo. Oftenly. one of which is that he will not commit any crime anymore. or if the penalty is reclusion temporal. Martin.C. Art. and C were holding the legs and arms of W. Thus. however. Even if rape is now a crime against person and no longer a crime against chastity. the principle does not apply. It is that pardon granted to a prisoner which is subject to some conditions. A and C were the ones holding W’s legs and arms. Thus. (22 R. The prisoner however. B and C raped W in that when A was having sex with W. the ones holding her arms and legs were A and B. If the accused is enjoying liberty under a conditional pardon. 96) Unlike in conditional pardon. 99) . the principle of marriage as a form of extinguishment of criminal liabilities applies. to be entitled. 97 provides for the guidelines which by its nature may be expanded or supplemented by the prison’s authority.
A. the property of the minor or the insane shall be liable. he is obliged to pay the offended party the civil liability which includes restitution. aside from imprisonment. If an accused however was not held criminally liable. No. like illegal Possession of Firearm (P. tavern-keepers and any persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for the crimes committed in their establishments. 8294) or illegal Sale. the convict incures no civil liability. (Art. in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulations shall have been committed by them or their employees. Theft or Rape. it does not mean he is not civilly liable. No. . and indemnification for consequential damages. (Art. innkeepers. 101. so as not to coincide with rush-our traffic will be civilly liable if a person is killed inside their establishments. Sec. (Art. 104) Of course. 100) Thus.m. RPC) This is thus a direct and primary liability of the parents or guardian. (Rule 120.A. No.A. In fact. the judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability of the accused in favor of the offended party.D. the civil liability shall devolve upon those having legal authority or control over them unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part or that they are insolvent. in which case. (Art. Employers. No. Subsidiary Liability of Inn Keepers. if A committed Murder. Tavern-Keepers. excepting property exempt from execution.Title Five CIVIL LIABILITY Person Civilly Liable for Felonies Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. under the Rules of Court. 2) Civil Liability of Parents and/or Guardians For the crimes committed by minors and insane persons who are exempt from criminal liability. if the crime is one from which no civil liability may arise. Transport or Possession of Prohibited or Regulated Drugs (R. Teachers or Persons Engaged in Industry In default of the persons criminally liable. unless there is a clear showing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. and the accused-killer is insolvent to satisfy the civil liability. 6425 as amended by R. 7659). in case of acquittal. 102) A restaurant or movie house owner who opens his establishment before 9:00 o’clock in the morning despite the existence of an ordinance that they can open only after 9:00 a. reparation of the damage caused. 1866 as amended by R.
workmen.00) but died while serving sentenced. The convict shall be obliged to satisfy the civil liability contained in the judgment of conviction even if he has served his sentence. the latter owe the former thirty thousand (P30. for felonies committed by their servants. RPC) This is subject however to the provision of Article 1288 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides: Article 1288. since civil liability arising from the crime shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. the heirs of the convicted man A.000. (Art. However.The same rule applies to employers. 108. pardon. pupils.00) if he left properties sufficient to cover the civil liability.000. Neither shall there be compensation if one of the debts consist in civil liability arising from a penal offense. commutation of sentence or any other reason.00). and the action demand likewise descends to the hiers of that person injured. can deduct the said indebtedness from the fifty thousand (P 50. if A was found guilty of killing B. (Art.00) award provided in the decision. fifty thousand (P 50. 103) The civil obligations arising from crimes devolve upon the heirs of the person criminally liable. or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty.000. teachers of persons engaged in any kind of industry. or employees in the discharge of their duties. (Art. 112. if on account of a business transaction between the heirs of A. RPC) Thus. apprentices. (Art. 113. his (A’s) heirs are bound to pay the heirs of B the said amount of fifty thousand (P 50. and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of B.000. and the heirs of B. RPC) .