You are on page 1of 39

THE REVISED PENAL CODE (Act No. 3815, as amended AN ACT REVISIN!

THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LA"S P#e$%m%na#%es "HAT IS CRI&INAL LA" ' Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. "HAT IS A CRI&E' A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. "HAT IS THE RATIONALE (OR CRI&INAL LA"' Two theories justify criminal law: relative and absolute. The relative theories of punishment are: (1 prevention, or to prevent the offender from further offending! (" public self#defense, or the right of the $tate to repel an attac% threatening its e&istence! (' reformation! (( deterrence or to terrify others! and () e&emplarity, penal justice is law teaching by e&ample. The absolute theory is that punishment is an act of retributive justice to which reformation and e&ample are incidental. *egel says that punishment is for the negation of a negation, or an effort to annihilate the wrong in its effort to annihilate the right. "HO HAS THE PO"ER TO P)NISH CRI&ES' The $tate has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and lay down the rules of criminal procedure (+eople v. $antiago "HAT IS THE LI&ITATION O( THE PO"ER O( THE LA"&A*IN! +OD, TO ENACT PENAL LE!ISLATION' • • • • ,ust be general in application. ,ust not parta%e of the nature of an ex post facto law. ,ust not parta%e of the nature of a bill of attainder. ,ust not impose cruel and unusual punishment or e&cessive fines.

• •

Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law anne&ed to the crime when committed! Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authori-es conviction upon less or different testimony than the law re.uired at the time of the commission of the offense! Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful! and /eprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or ac.uittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

"HAT IS A +ILL O( ATTAINDER' A bill of attainder is legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. 0ts essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. "HAT IS THE RATIONALE O( THE PROHI+ITION A!AINST A +ILL O( ATTAINDER' The rationale is that 12o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.3 ($ec. 1(, Art. ', +hilippine Constitution "HAT ARE THE CONSTIT)TIONAL RI!HTS O( THE ACC)SED' • All persons shall have the right of a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, .uasi#judicial, or administrative bodies. 2o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. All persons, e&cept those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recogni-ance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. 4&cessive bail shall not be re.uired. 0n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until guilty, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. *owever, after

• •

• •

"HAT IS AN E- POST (ACTO LA"' An e& post facto law: • ,a%es criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act! • Aggravates a crime, or ma%es it greater than it was, when committed!

1

arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that the has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. • • 2o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any persons under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remains silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. 0f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot e waived e&cept in writing and in the presence of counsel. 2o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will of shall be used against him. $ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or $ection 15 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 4&cessive fines shall not be imposed, not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. 2o person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 0f an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction, or ac.uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. 6ree access to the courts and .uasi#judicial bodies and ade.uate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason poverty. •

a.

6oreigner criminals are liable within the +hilippines if they commit a crime while living or sojourning in +hilippine territory. 4ven foreign military employees, can be held liable, so long as there isn:t an e&press legislation holding otherwise. The 8evised +enal Code, however, is not applicable when the military ta%es cogni-ance of the case, since the accused will instead be subject to a court martial. A case before a court# martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, this invo%es the principle of double jeopardy. ;ffenders of war crimes are triable under a military commission, which has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues. This includes the period of an armistice, or military occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty of peace.

b.

c.

• • •

d.

E-CEPTIONS' 0n instances provided for in 1treaties and laws of preferential application,3 and 1principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.3 E-A&PLES' a. b. c. Treaties: <ases Agreement of 1=(5 between the >nited $tates and the +hilippines. ?aw of +referential Application: 8A. 5), in favor of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants. +rinciples of +ublic 0nternational ?aw: $overeign immunity, which include: 1. sovereigns and other chiefs of state, and ". ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident and charges d:affaires. 7consuls, vice#consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nationals, do not enjoy such sovereign immunity9

• •

Certain rights may be waived 78ight of the accused to confrontation and cross#e&amination9 however, some acts are non#waivable, such as the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This is true because, some rights involve public interest, and as such may be affected, it could not be waived for the general benefit as against to rights that can be waived which are personal in nature. "HAT ARE THE CRI&INAL LA"' • CHARACTERISTICS O(

TERRITORIAL. That criminal laws underta%e to punish crimes committed within +hilippine territory. "HAT DOES THE TERRITOR, INCL)DE' PHILIPPINE

!ENERAL. That criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the +hilippine territory. •

+hilippine territory includes the +hilippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters, and maritime -one. E-CEPTIONS'

"

$ee Article " • PROSPECTIVE. That criminal laws cannot ma%e an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. (Art. '@@ of the 8evised +enal Code E-CEPTIONS' Ahenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, but not if: a. The new law is e&pressly made inapplicable to pending actions or e&isting causes of action. b. The offender is a habitual criminal "HAT ARE THE E((ECTS O( REPEAL O( PENAL LA"' • Ahen repeal ma%es the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, e&cept when (1 the new law is e&pressly made inapplicable to pending actions or e&isting causes of actions or (" where the offender is a habitual criminal Ahen repeal imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission shall be applied. Ahen repeal totally repeals the e&isting law so that the act is no longer punishable, the crime is therefore obliterated.

HO" IS THE REVISED PENAL CODE DIVIDED' The 8evised +enal Code includes <oo% 1, basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1#"F , and the provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. "1#11' . <oo% ", defines felonies and their corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under fourteen titles (Arts. 11(#'@) . "HAT ARE THE T"O THEORIES IN CRI&INAL LA"' • The classical theory that holds that the basis of criminal liability is the human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. The positivist theory that holds that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon and which subdues man occasionally causing him to do wrong, contrary to his volition. PHILIPPINES

"HAT THEOR, DOES THE (OLLO" IN CRI&INAL LA"'

The 8evised +enal Code is based on the principle of old or classical school, though some provisions are eminently positivistic. "HAT IS THE ESPO)SED +, THE CLASSICAL THEOR,' • • The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of penalty is retribution. ,an is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man itself. To establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. Aith scant regard to the human element.

• •

HO" ARE PENAL LA"S CONSTR)ED' • +enal laws are strictly construed against the government and liberally in favor of the accused, this is invo%ed only when the law is ambiguous. This is %nown as the doctrine of pro reo. 0n interpretation of the provisions of the 8evised +enal Code, the $panish te&t is controlling, because it 7the 8evised +enal Code9 was approved in its $panish te&t.

• •

+OO* ONE !ene#a$ P#o/%s%ons Re0a#d%n0 t1e Date o2 En2o#cement and A33$%cat%on o2 t1e P#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code, and Re0a#d%n0 t1e O22enses, t1e Pe#sons L%a4$e and t1e Pena$t%es PRELI&INAR, TITLE Date o2 E22ect%/eness and A33$%cat%on o2 t1e P#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code ART. 1. DATE O( E((ECTIVIT,. 55 T1%s code s1a$$ ta6e e22ect on t1e 2%#st da7 o2 8an9a#7, n%neteen 19nd#ed and t1%#t75t:o. "HEN DID THE REVISED PENAL CODE TA*E E((ECT' The 8evised +enal Code (Act 2o. 'B1) too% effect on F1 Canuary, 1='"

"HAT IS THE HISTOR, O( THE REVISED PENAL CODE' The 8evised +enal Code is a revision of the old +enal Code of 1BB5 (1( Culy, 1BB5 to '1 /ecember, 1='1 and inclusion into the draft of other penal laws related to it. The 8evised +enal Code does not embody the latest progress of criminal science, as the results of the application of advanced and radical theories 1still remain to be seen.3 The committee formed to revise the old +enal Code included Anacleto /ia- as chairman, with members Duintin +aredes, Euillermo Euevara, Ale& 8eyes and ,ariano de Coya, deriving it:s authority from Administrative ;rder =( of the /epartment of Custice.

'

violation of neutrality. interior waters and maritime -ones. for e&ample.ART. 1. "1%$e 4e%n0 394$%c o22%ce#s o# em3$o7ees. IS CO&&ITTED O)TSIDE O( THE PHILIPPINES' • • • • • . AND A CRI&E IS CO&&ITTED ON THE SAID VESSEL' 6ollowing the principle of territoriality.' CRI&ES A!AINST NATIONAL 3. Crime against national security and law of nations (defined in Title 1. %ts %nte#%o# :ate#s and ma#%t%me @one. "HAT IS ENCO&PASSED TERRITOR. 1 applies when the crime is committed outside +hilippine territory. E-CEPTIONS' 4&cept in application. in the high seas. malversation. it is triable before our courts. should they commit an offense in the e&ercise of their function.. it is 2. "HAT IS THE R)LE "ITH RE!ARD PHILIPPINE VESSEL OR AIRCRA(T' TO A The +hilippine vessel or aircraft must be registered in the <ureau of Customs. inciting to war. where such is first filed. 49t a$so o9ts%de o2 %ts A9#%sd%ct%on.T triable in our courts following the principle of territoriality since the merchant ship is considered an e&tension of the country:s territory to which it belongs. "HO HAS 8)RISDICTION OVER CRI&ES CO&&ITTED ON +OARD A (OREI!N &ERCHANT SHIP' • • 0f the ship is within +hilippine waters. espionage. etc. but not inside the territory of another country. the laws of the country shall govern.n a +hilippine ship or airship 6orge counterfeit any coin or currency note. treaties and laws of preferential ( . s1o9$d comm%t an o22ense %n t1e e?e#c%se o2 t1e%# 29nct%onsB o# S1o9$d comm%t an7 o2 t1e c#%mes a0a%nst nat%ona$ sec9#%t7 and t1e $a: o2 nat%ons. +ublic officers and employees.. IN "HAT CASES ARE THE PROVISIONS O( THE REVISED PENAL CODE APPLICA+LE EVEN I( THE (ELON. "HAT A+O)T CONTIN)IN! O((ENSES' Continuing offense on a foreign vessel are triable when such reaches territorial jurisdiction. S1o9$d comm%t an o22ense :1%$e on a P1%$%33%ne s1%3 o2 a%#s1%3B S1o9$d 2o#0e o# co9nte#2e%t an7 co%n o# c9##enc7 note o2 t1e P1%$%33%ne Is$ands o# o4$%0at%ons and sec9#%t%es %ss9ed 47 t1e !o/e#nment o2 t1e P1%$%33%ne Is$andsB S1o9$d 4e $%a4$e 2o# acts connected :%t1 t1e %nt#od9ct%on %nto t1ese Is$ands o2 t1e o4$%0at%ons and sec9#%t%es ment%oned %n t1e 3#eced%n0 n9m4e#.' 8egional Trial Courts cogni-ant of such crimes. <oo% " of the 8evised +enal Code "HAT ARE THE R)LES )SED IN DETER&ININ! 8)RISDICTION ON (OREI!N VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL "ATERS O( ANOTHER' The 6rench 8ule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies. O( ANOTHER CO)NTR.' +hilippine territory is comprised by the +hilippine archipelago including atmosphere. "HAT ARE CRI&ES THAT &A. Art. APPLICATION O( ITS <REVISED PENAL CODE=S> PROVISIONS. notwithstanding the citi-enship of the owner. etc. PHILIPPINE "HAT IS THE SHIP OR AIRSHIP IS IN THE TERRITOR. 5. %nc$9d%n0 %ts atmos31e#e. if on a ship or airship in the territory of another country. +. C. ". t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code s1a$$ 4e en2o#ced not on$7 :%t1%n t1e P1%$%33%ne A#c1%3e$a0o. "HICH CO)RTS HAVE 8)RISDICTION OVER CRI&ES CO&&ITTED A+OVE THE TERRITOR. unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. . de2%ned In T%t$e One o2 +oo6 T:o o2 t1%s Code. obligations and securities issued by the Eovernment Acts connected with the introduction into the islands of such counterfeit obligations and securities. +E CO&&ITTED IN THE E-ERCISE O( P)+LIC ()NCTIONS' Crimes that may be committed in the e&ercise of public functions include direct and indirect bribery. . Crimes against national security include treason. par. a0a%nst t1ose :1o. "HAT ARE SEC)RIT. 0f the ship is in the high seas. 55 E?ce3t as 3#o/%ded %n t1e t#eat%es and $a:s o2 3#e2e#ent%a$ a33$%cat%on..

) . <oth the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. $ac6 o2 2o#es%01t. e&cept if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. 0f it is not within the jurisdiction of any country. because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of the public order.uiring that a person must report a crime that he witnessed. mere silence. SILVESTRE DID NOT REPORT THE INCIDENT TO THE A)THORITIES. "HAT IS AN ACT' An act is bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the e&ternal world. 55 Acts and om%ss%ons 39n%s1a4$e 47 $a: a#e 2e$on%es (de$%tos . (>$ v. 3. IS O+SERVED IN THE T1e#e %s dece%t :1en t1e act %s 3e#2o#med :%t1 de$%4e#ate %ntentB and t1e#e %s 2a9$t :1en t1e :#on029$ act #es9$ts 2#om %m3#9dence. (>$ v.. these rules will not apply. "HAT *IND O( ACT IS P)NISHED' The act must be e&ternal. (e$on%es a#e comm%tted not on$7 47 means o2 dece%t (do$o 49t a$so 47 means o2 2a9$t (c9$3a . DOES THE PHILIPPINES HAVE 8)RISDICTION' 2. when the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable.anila <ay constitutes a breach of public order and can be tried in our courts. no matter how immoral or improper will never constitute a felony. Ah $ing HO" A+O)T THE DI((ERENCE AS RE!ARDS &ERCHANT SHIP AND "ARSHIPS' The merchant ship is subject to territorial waters and the warship is sacrosanct the territory of registration of such vessel.uiring the doing or performance of an act The person re. the person in possession of opium is liable and can be tried in our courts.mission means inaction or failure to perform a positive duty. . 6owler TITLE ONE (e$on%es and C%#c9mstances :1%c1 A22ect C#%m%na$ L%a4%$%t7 CHAPTER ONE (e$on%es ART.ere passive presence at the scene of another:s crime. DE(INITION.. A (OREI!N &ERCHANT VESSEL IN O)R TERRITORIAL "ATERS IS IN TRANSIT AND IS IN POSSESSION O( OPI)&. 0t must also be voluntarily made. "HAT IS AN O&ISSION' . o# $ac6 o2 s6%$$. is referred to as a misdemeanor. (>$ v. because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. SILVESTRE SA" ATIENEA SET (IRE TO A HO)SE. "HAT IS THE RED)ISITE P)NISHED +ECA)SE O( A O&ISSION' • • (OR +EIN! (ELON. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied. . there is no occasion to apply the two rules.uired to do the act voluntarily fails to perform it. "HAT ARE (ELONIES' 6elonies are acts or omissions punishable by the 8evised +enal Code. ne0$%0ence. "HAT ARE &ISDE&EANORS' A minor infraction of the law. There must be a law re. "HAT IS A CRI&E' Ahether the wrongdoing is punished under the 8evised +enal Code or under a special law. Aong Cheng Also. "HAT ARE O((ENSES' A crime punished under a special law is called as statutory offense. IS SHE CRI&INALL. such as a violation of an ordinance. smo%ing opium aboard an 4nglish vessel while anchored in . "HICH R)LE PHILIPPINES' The 4nglish 8ule. LIA+LE' 2. or the opium is landed in +hilippine soil. Aarships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. There is no law re. ?oo% Chaw <ut. +. (+eople of the +hilippines v.The 4nglish 8ule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law.ere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in +hilippine courts. 0f that vessel is in the high seas or open seas. the generic word crime can be used. A criminal thought or a mere intention.

man ceases to be human. hence. NE!LI!ENCE' 2egligence means deficiency in perception or lac% of foresight "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE NE!LI!ENCE AND I&PR)DENCE' +ET"EEN 0n negligence. Aithout voluntary#ness. *is acts were not voluntary because he acted in a dream. nulla poena sine lege means that there is no crime where there is no law punishing it. Criminal intent is always presumed to e&ist. a crime or offense is used for special laws.' The word voluntary in criminal law does not mean acting in one:s own volition. This presumption does not arise when the act performed is lawful. while in imprudence. I&PR)DENCE' 0mprudence means a deficiency in action or lac% of s%ill "HAT IS &EANT +.. IS CRI&INAL INTENT PRES)&ED' H4$. there can be no dolo or culpa. (+eople of the +hilippines v. lac% of foresight. A CRI&E +E CRI&INAL INTENT' CO&&ITTED "ITHO)T 0ntentional and Culpable felonies are both voluntary in nature. he got a bolo and injured his wife. rec%less imprudence. Taneo &A. 0n criminal law. 0n culpable felonies. INTELLI!ENCE' Aithout intelligence. negligence. 02T4??0E42C4 while committing or omitting an act 02T42T while committing or omitting an act HO" IS DOLO DI((ERENT (RO& C)LPA' /olo is e. As such. 6844/. AND A CRI&E' A felony is specific to the +enal Code. negligence. N)LLA POENA SINE LE!EG 2ulla crimen.oreover. there is no felony. to commit or omit an act. provided that there is proof of the commission of an unlawful act. '. A culpable felony on the other hand is that which is performed without malice. imprudence. the presumption can always be rebutted by proof of lac% of intent. but a tool. INTENTIONAL AND "H. "H. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN INTENT AND DISCERN&ENT' 0ntent is the determination to do a certain thing. ". thus there should be no liability. intelligence and the fact that the act was intentional. "HAT IS &EANT +. N)LL)& CRI&EN. INTENT' 0ntent is mental but presumed from the commission of overt acts.uivalent to malice. IS IT. "H. is he criminally liable? 2. ". so an intentional felony is that which is performed with malice. 0??>$T8AT0. lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill! • Crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. +E CO&&ITTED' 1. DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN C)LPA+LE (ELONIES. 0t is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts. lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill is lac%ing. *owever. intentional felonies means that the act is malicious and intentional. there is no voluntary#ness if either freedom. while culpable felonies are acts without malice and are unintentional. or a lac% of s%ill. @ . (REEDO&' Aithout freedom. and the act resulting from a deliberate intent to cause an injury.. . THAT +OTH ACTS ARE CONSIDERED VOL)NTAR. there is deficiency of action. an aim or purpose of the mind. there is deficiency of perception.2: A was walking in his sleep. An act or omission +unishable by the 8evised +enal Code The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo (deceit or culpa (fault . "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN A (ELON. "HAT IS &EANT +. intelligence or H4$I Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: • Crime is a product of culpa or negligence. the act resulting from imprudence. he had no criminal intent. DOLO "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( DOLO' 1. '. voluntary comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action. &A."HAT RED)ISITES &)ST CONC)R +E(ORE A (ELON. man cannot determine the morality of the acts "H.

Ahen there is motive in the commission of a crime. Are the officers criminally liable? H4$. 0f the crime is intentional. 0ntent. many would escape criminal liability. %he victim turned out to be an innocent man and not $alagtas. a husband came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with a former suitor. He then said. 0n mista%e of fact. $ince the act and intention of A is unlawful. this is not criminal intent. he cannot properly invo%e mista%e of fact as a defense..ista%e must be without fault or carelessness on the accused:s part. sit rea means a mind of person be innocent (act unless his intent (ACTI I!NORATIO 0gnoratio facti e&cusat means ignorance or mista%e of fact relieves accused from liability. . "HAT IS &EANT +.n the other hand. before going to bed. "HEN IS &OTIVE RELEVANT' • • Ahen there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant (+eople of the +hilippines v. $elieving he was being attacked. '. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN &OTIVE AND INTENT' . he took a kitchen knife and stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. on the other hand. discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 6or e&ample. which they did not do so. so that means he is desirous to %ill the former suitor.uate intent as a state of mind. Criminal intent is the means resorted to by him that brought about the %illing. 0ntent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. A invokes mistake of fact. 0t relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo. ACT)S &E INVITO (ACT)S NON EST &E)S ACT)SG Actus me invito factus non est meus actus means cct done by me against my will is not my act. #f you enter the room. ". Ah Chong %wo police officers were instructed to arrest one $alagtas. which is self#defense. he was struck by the chair... . A wanting to kill $ shot C instead. The two officers had ample time to determine the identity of the accused. it cannot be committed without intent. He called out. <ut a crime may be committed without motive. 0??>$T8AT0. he locked himself in his room and placed a chair against the door. it always comes before the intent. .uire immediate action. there was mista%e of fact. fired at him without in&uiring as to his identity. therefore. Act done must be lawful had the facts been as accused believed them to be. a notorious criminal. 0f we e. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( &ISTA*E O( (ACT' 1.uino ." At that moment. he was awakened by someone who was trying to open the door. he got a %nife.2: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one evening. is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such a resultJ it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. This is absolutory if crime involves dolo.. "HAT IS &EANT +. Tabije Ahere the evidence is merely circumstantial (+eople of the +hilippines v. *ad the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be. paragraph 1. he would have been justified in %illing the intruder under Article 11. it cannot be said that he acted with criminal intent. # will kill you. Thereupon. #s his defense proper? 2. After going to bed. distinct from intent.ista%e of fact must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. (>$ v. 0n this case. the intention of the accused in performing the act must be lawful. The intent is the resort to the %nife.andapat Ahen there is a need in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the crime (+eople of the +hilippines v. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage. The moving force is jealousy. %hey went to his room and finding a person sleeping. !ho is there?" twice but received no answer. nisi mens crime is not committed if the performing to act complained to itself doesn:t ma%e a man guilty were so "HAT IS E-C)SATG &EANT +. there was no circumstances which would re. &ISTA*E O( (ACT' 5 . ACT)S NON TACIT RE)&. NISI &ENS SIT REAG Actus non tacit reum. #s he criminally liable? 2. 0ntention of accused in performing such an act is lawful.ista%e of fact means a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. 4ven if the offender states that he had no reason to %ill the victim. . C)LPA "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES IN C)LPA' • "HAT IS &EANT +.otive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result.

there are attempted.uently. A SPECIAL LA" "HAT IS THE &AIN CHARACTERISTIC O( A CRI&E P)NISHED +. shot it. &ALA IN SE &AL)& PROHI+IT)& 1. Ahen there is more than one offender. it is malum in se. $ and C were hunting at night. *unting is not prohibited by law and there was no criminal intent nor negligence on the part of A which may classify the act as a felony. %here is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote.ala prohibita (Arong by law is injurious to public welfare. such as when a person doing a lawful act with due care. to commit or omit the act 02T4??0E42C4 while committing or omitting to the act '. . 8amireA and $ were hunting. he was ac. in imposing the penalty! thus. as a rule.itigating and aggravating circumstances . A saw a pair of eyes with his lantern and thinking it belonged to a deer. Eood faith or lac% of criminal intent is a valid Eood faith is not a defense defense! unless the crime is the result of culpa The degree of accomplishment of the crime is The act gives rise to a crime only when it is ta%en into account in punishing the offender! consummated! there are no attempted or frustrated thus. A stumbled on a rock and fell down. the The degree of participation of the offenders degree of participation of each in the is not considered. 'uddenly. the crime.6844/. A performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun. The moral trait of the offender is considered. #s A criminally liable? H4$. but because with or without a law. offenders are There is no principal or accomplice or accessory classified as principal. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN &AL)& IN SE AND &AL)& PROHI+IT)&' . frustrated. or when it is a crime punished by a special law. (+eople of the +hilippines v. He claims good faith. 0n other words. Catangay "HEN IS A CRI&E NOT A (ELON.. A is guilty of homicide through rec%less imprudence. par. CRI&ES P)NISHED +.2: An election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter(s register the name of a certain voter. Although the resulting homicide is without malice. intent to commit the crime is not necessary.' A crime is not a felony when it doesn:t have the re.ala in se (Arong in itself is inherently immoral. A should have e&ercised all the necessary diligence. (+eople of the +hilippines v.uisites of either a felony committed by dolo or culpa..2: A.n the other hand. . 1". good faith is a defense. and stages. that act is wrong. The moral trait of the offender is not considered! it is This is why liability would only arise when there enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 0t is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law freely and consciously. (>$ v. 0. $oth had their guns already cocked. with his two companions. causes an injury by mere accident without fault of causing it. unless the special law e&pressly penali-e the consummated stages in the commission of mere attempt or frustration of the crime. Ahen the crime is punished by a special law. $ince the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice. #t turned out to be his companion $.uitted. without fault or negligence. #s A criminally liable? 2.itigating and aggravating circumstances are are ta%en into account in imposing the penalty not ta%en into account in imposing the penalty. ". $unico B . since the moral trait of the offender is considered. is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. . %nowing he had two other companions. 0??>$T8AT0. Conse. accessory. (Art.+8>/42C4K24E?0E42C4 while committing or omitting an act "HEN CAN IT +E SAID THAT A PERSON "AS NOT NE!LI!ENT' Ahen the person acted with due care. ( 0??>$T8AT0. A SPECIAL LA"' 0t is generally mala prohibita. !ould such defense prosper? /isenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime. accomplice and to consider. All who perpetrated the commission of the crime is ta%en into account prohibited act are penali-ed to the same e&tent. accidentally discharging the gun which hit $ and killed him.

natural and logical conse. RES)LT TO SO&ETHIN! DI((ERENT (RO& "HAT "AS INTENDED' .uence of the felony. Ahen a person has not committed a felony. *e was only defending his possession of the bolo. Article ' refers to the manner of incurring criminal liability. 55 C#%m%na$ The act or omission should not be punished by special law because the offender may not have the intent of injuring another. jumped out of the window to kill himself. the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply. 0f the wrongful act results from imprudence. EL D)E ES CA)SA DE LA CA)SA ES CA)SA DEL &AL CA)SADOG 4l . 0t was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed. that is. struc% the victim on the bac%. but because of poor aim. :e#e %t not 2o# t1e %n1e#ent %m3oss%4%$%t7 o2 %ts accom3$%s1ment o# on acco9nt o2 t1e em3$o7ment o2 %nadeF9ate o# %ne22ect9a$ means. %illed C instead . $%a4%$%t7 s1a$$ 4e %nc9##ed. <indoy A. DIRECT NAT)RAL AND LO!ICAL CONSED)ENCE' • • • <low was efficient cause of death <low accelerated death <low was pro&imate cause of death "HAT ARE THE T"O OTHER INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. #n the course of the struggle.ista%e in identity (error in personae ## 0n error in personae. $ wrenched the bolo from A(s hand with such force that the point of the bolo hit C(s chest who was standing behind $. causing the victim to fall down and hit his head on the pavement.ue es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado means he who is the cause of cause if the cause of the evil caused. CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender. with malice. (A. Anyone who creates an immediate sense of danger which causes something resulting in injuries is liable for such injuries. " DISTIN!)ISH ARTICLE 3 (RO& ARTICLE C.I IN ARTICLE C. There was really a mista%e in identity. because par. • +7 an7 3e#son 3e#2o#m%n0 an act :1%c1 :o9$d 4e an o22ense a0a%ns 3e#sons o# 3#o3e#t7. A was not committing a felony when he attempted suicide. attempting to commit suicide. but he was not really the intended victim. PARA!RAPH 1 G "RON!()L ACT DI((ERENT (RO& "HAT INTENDED "HAT IS &EANT +. the latter not knowing of the other(s presence. the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. '. = .' 1. his liability should be determined under Article '@). E-PLAIN THE PHRASE HCO&&ITTIN! (ELON. A The felony committed by the offender should be one committed by means of dolo. the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. "A. #s A criminally liable? 2. which defines and penali-es criminal negligence.ART. (A. 0f the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed. Arong done be direct. but because of lac% of precision. 0njurious result greater than intended ( praeter intentionem ## 0n praeter intentionem.. (A.2: • +7 an7 3e#son comm%tt%n0 a 2e$on7 (de$%to a$t1o901 t1e :#on029$ act done 4e d%22e#ent 2#om t1at :1%c1 1e %ntended. Criminal liability is incurred by any person in the cases mentioned in Article (. shot at <. ". "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. without intent to %ill. 1 0mpossible crimes (par. C. wanting to %ill <. hit C instead. (par. 0??>$T8AT0. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 0n aberratio ictus. "HAT IS &EANT +.. #s $ criminally liable? There is no evidence to show that the accused injured the deceased deliberately and with the intention of committing a crime. 1.S O( A was trying to snatch $(s bolo. lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill. 1 of Article ( spea%s of wrongful act done different from that intended. that blow landed on somebody else. PAR. negligence.ista%e in blow (aberratio ictus )) A person directed the blow at an intended victim. He then fell on an old woman on the street who died.' • • The wrongful act is different from that intended. "HAT ARE THE CA)SES "HICH &A. This article has no reference to the manner criminal liability is incurred. 0ntentional felony is committed. it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended.

$ was brought to the hospital where an operation was performed upon him. (>$ v. As a general rule. A horse nearby suddenly jumped upon $ killing him.2: *uring a robbery in the jeepney. The infection of the injury. the latter injures himself.2: A punched $ who fell to the ground. /eath may be e&pected from inflicted physical injuries. #s the culprit criminally liable for the death of the woman? H4$. in so doing. the man creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries.uences. although not intended. he moved towards the victim. without which the result would not have occurred.0C0/4. 0??>$T8AT0. and. one of the culprits told the women passengers to bring out their money and not to shout or else there will be shots. %he victim died of drowning. with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him. it was but the e&ercise of a choice between two evils.uence. *is contention that his liability should be only for grave threats since he did not even stab the victim.uences of his felonious act. 0f a man creates in another person:s mind an immediate sense of danger. (+eople of the +hilippines v. does not hold weight. A resented this. thereby causing his injuries to become infected and serious. therefore.. $ecause $ was slow in his work. (>$ v. unbro%en by any efficient intervening cause. Although the stab wound was not the immediate cause of <:s death.uence of surgical operation in the abdomen sometimes result in paralysis of the ileum. $ut ." +ne of the women jumped out of the jeepney.uence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony. if there is a neglect of the wound or there is improper treatment of the wound? 1F . The reason for the ruling is that when the culprit demanded money. be considered as the author of the death of the victim. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the conse. '. de los $antos #s the accused responsible for the result. The accused is responsible for the natural conse. #s A liable for $(s death? H4$. that the victim died of drowning. ma%ing it a serious physical injury was not the pro&imate cause of the felony committed."HAT IS THE &EANIN! O( PRO-I&ATE CA)SE' +ro&imate cause means the cause which in natural and continuous se. A pro&imate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. and the latter deliberately immerses his body in a contaminated cesspool.uences of his own acts. A inflicted slight physical injuries upon $. The accused must. threw himself into the water. $ developed paralytic ileum which takes place sometimes in conse&uence of the exposure of the internal organs.uences of his acts.. $ replied that they would be better if A would not insult them. and this can be considered as a supervening cause.. in throwing himself into the river. hitting her head on the pavement. it was the pro&imate cause of <:s death. #s A criminally liable only for grave threats or homicide? *. HO" CAN "E DETER&INE I( IT IS NOT THE PRO-I&ATE CA)SE' • • Active force intervened between felony and resulting injury 8esulting injury due to intentional act of victim or a third person 1. (+eople of the +hilippines v. #s A responsible for $(s death? 2. "HAT IS A S)((ICIENT INTERVENIN! CA)SE' A sufficient intervening cause is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from criminal act which causes the aggravation of the effects of the crime. and was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. 0t was held that the deceased. Toling A is in charge of the crewmembers engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel. 0t has been established that the e&posure of the internal organs in conse. 8eloj "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES THAT THE DEATH CAN +E PRES)&ED THE NAT)RAL CONSED)ENCE O( PH. acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self#preservation. the offender is not responsible for such conse. process of recovery. #s A liable for serious physical injuries? 2. and so the culprit is responsible for all the conse. which causes such person to try to escape. and rising in rage. 0f the conse. %he operation was successful and $ was in the 0??>$T8AT0. $ believing himself to be in immediate peril. /eath ensued within a reasonable time. a felony was already being committed. LaldeA stabbed $ with an ice pick. and any reasonable person under the same circumstance might have done the same. if the felonious act is the pro&imate cause of the felony or resulting felony. The act of < in deliberately immersing his body in a contaminated cesspool was the pro&imate cause and not the slight physical injuries caused by A.SICAL IN8)RIES IN(LICTED' Lictim at time of physical injuries was in normal health ". produces the injury. As to him. A shouted at him.uences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act. days later. the offender is criminally liable for all the conse.

$ut he found that the safe was empty. #s there an impossible crime? of $. is only liable for physical injuries inflicted upon <. $. %hereafter. and to pay him also whatever lost of income $ may have failed to receive.2: A.uences of the criminal act and which might naturally follow in any case. +ersons who are responsible for an act constituting a crime are also liable for all the conse. medical evidence were presented that tetanus to&ic is good only for two wee%s. it is impossible for that to happen. the $upreme Court said that the act of < of wor%ing in his farm where the soil is filthy. using his own hands. $ was wounded at the back. A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of $. opens the safe in the office for the purpose of stealing money. but is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act. must have its origin from his malicious act or omission. looked for him. There was no evil intent on the part of A because he %new he could not cause an injury to <. !hen A saw $. the doctor pronounced the wound already healed. 'omehow. $efore midnight. he may have not committed a crime. A.. it is necessary that the victim could be injured or %illed. who wanted to kill $. he would not have lasted two months. and they must in law be deemed to have been among those conse. in crimes against persons. determined to poison $. he found out that $ was already dead. $ not killed. Cooler heads intervened and they were separated. 0ntermediate Appellate Court PARA!RAPH . The act performed would have been a crime of theft were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. <ut where the means employed is ade. %o satisfy his grudge. The means employed in this e&ample is inade. Also. >ns%illful and improper treatment may be an active force. Ta%ing into account the incubation period of tetanus to&ic. <ecause of this. uses a small &uantity arsenic by mixing it with the food given to believing that the &uantity employed by him sufficient. #s the accused criminally liable for the conse&uences which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person? 2. other than those due to incidents entirely foreign to the act e&ecuted. which would brea% the relation of the felony committed and the resulting injury.times with a knife.uate and the result e&pected is not 11 . on the other hand. 0f there is no personal property that could be ta%en.' • • • THREE T. %wo months later. having known the combination of the safe. it is inherently impossible to commit crimes against property. After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic. That if. $ came home and he was chilling.onasterial The fault or carelessness of the injured party. indeed. #s A guilty of an impossible crime? H4$. as when the injured party had a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant. $ went back to his farm. Ahat brought about tetanus to infect the body of < was his wor%ing in his farm using his bare hands. "HAT IS THE PENALT.uences arising therefrom and inherent therein. if at all. their differences were patched up. is an efficient supervening cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of <. (>$ v. 2avarro A and $ had a &uarrel and started hacking each other.uences which were in contemplation of the guilty party and for which he is to be held responsible. he died out of tetanus poisoning.uate or ineffectual. %he heirs of $ filed a case of homicide against A. #s A liable? 2. is is H4$. the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A... Act should not constitute a violation of another provision of the 8evised +enal Code.uate to %ill a person. "HAT ARE THE I&POSSI+ILIT. (>rbano v.PES O( 0nherent impossibility +hysical impossibility ?egal impossibility O( PENALIEIN! "HAT IS THE P)RPOSE I&POSSI+LE CRI&ES' The purpose is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. signed a forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition. These are conse. (OR AN I&POSSI+LE CRI&E' Arresto mayor or a fine ranging from "FF to )FF pesos. 0??>$T8AT0. A %new that < was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless body of <. A stabbed $ in the breast . an employee who. he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A. G I&POSSI+LE CRI&ES "HAT ARE THE I&POSSI+LE CRI&E' RED)ISITES (OR AN • • • • Act performed is a crime against persons and property Act done with evil intent Accomplishment inherently impossible or the means employed is either inade. A. A. or which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person. 0n this case. #s this an impossible crime? 2. . but he is a criminal. $ut since in fact it is not sufficient. (>$ v.H4$.

"HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( ARTICLE 5. In t1e same :a7 t1e co9#t s1a$$ s94m%t to t1e C1%e2 E?ec9t%/e. PARA!RAPH . !as an impossible crime committed? The $upreme Court held the petitioner liable only for the so#called impossible crime. The act of A in pointing his gun at < already constituted at least the crime of grave threats. considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime. A committed the impossible crime of murder. when he was about to box his wife.uit the accused 8eport to chief e&ecutive through the secretary of justice. . "HAT IS THE PARA!RAPH 1' +ASIS O( ARTICLE 5.' 1. because said Article applied only to acts mala in se. "HEN IS ARTICLE 5. D)T. s9c1 statement as ma7 4e deemed 3#o3e#. (. As a result. +ne day.2: Her deceased husband. #t so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. #f you were the judge. He also continuously hit his wife. (0ntod v. PARA!RAPH 1' 1. 0our culprits. dismiss the case and ac. :1en a st#%ct en2o#cement o2 t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code :o9$d #es9$t %n t1e %m3os%t%on o2 a c$ea#$7 e?cess%/e 3ena$t7. (. Duebral • 0??>$T8AT0. Court finds accused guilty after trial Court finds penalty clearly e&cessive Accused acted with lesser degree of malice 2o injury or injury caused is of lesser gravity Court should not suspend e&ecution of sentence. all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets. %t s1a$$ #ende# t1e dec%s%on and s1a$$ #e3o#t to t1e C1%e2 E?ec9t%/e.uisite of an impossible crime that it should not violate another provision of the 8evised +enal Code. became a habitual drunkard. NOT APPLICA+LE' • 0t is not applicable to an offense defined and penali-ed in a special law. O( THE CO)RT IN CONNECTION "ITH ACTS "HICH SHO)LD +E REPRESSED +)T "HICH ARE NOT COVERED +.produced (for e&ample. not content with s&uandering away the family substance. 5. or crimes committed with malice or criminal intent (+eople of the +hilippines v. A tried to kill $ by putting his soup a substance which he thought was arsenic when in fact it was sugar. :%t1o9t s9s3end%n0 t1e e?ec9t%on o2 t1e sentence. ). THE LA". t1#o901 t1e De3a#tment o2 89st%ce.. 55 "1ene/e# a co9#t 1as 6no:$ed0e o2 an7 act :1%c1 %t ma7 deem 3#o3e# to #e3#ess and :1%c1 %s not 39n%s1a4$e 47 $a:. Court of Appeals ART. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( ARTICLE 5. "HAT IS A !)IDLINE (OR DETER&ININ! "HETHER A PENALT. t1e #easons :1%c1 %nd9ce t1e co9#t to 4e$%e/e t1at sa%d act s1o9$d 4e made t1e s94Aect o2 3ena$ $e0%s$at%on. '. the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed. $ala-ar 0t also cannot be invo%ed in cases involving acts mala prohibita. how would you rule? The violence with which appellant %illed her husband reveals the pent#up righteous anger and rebellion 1" . the victim has developed a resistance to poison it is not an impossible crime but a frustrated felony.. 0t is based on the legal ma&im that there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. An essential re.3 (+eople of the +hilippines v. the latter killed him. thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 12322 in the evening. t1#o901 t1e De3a#tment o2 89st%ce. par. " specifically mentions 1the provisions of this Code. went to the intended victim(s house and after having pinpointed the latter(s bedroom. A wanted to rob $ of the watch he was wearing. Cudge submits statement to Chief 4&ecutive through the $ecretary of Custice re. AND IN CASES O( E-CESSIVE PENALTIES. all armed with firearms and with intent to kill. PARA!RAPH . '. A poked a gun at him and asked for the watch. $omehow. @. petitioner#accused was sentenced for the felonious act he committed with intent to %ill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim:s house. and not satisfied with keeping a mistress. The means employed by him was ineffectual. ta6%n0 %nto cons%de#at%on t1e de0#ee o2 ma$%ce and t1e %nA9#7 ca9sed 47 t1e o22ense.pon getting the watch. ". IS E-CESSIVE' +enalties are not e&cessive when it is intended to enforce a public policy. A reali/ed that the watch was his. since Article ). is he criminally liable? H4$. and so some members of the bench and bar spo%e out against the soundness of the ruling. Act committed is not punishable by any law Court deems it proper to repress such act Court must render proper decision.uesting 4&ecutive Clemency. !as there an impossible crime of robbery? 2. ".

..ffenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance • 2on#performance of all acts of e&ecution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. Canja A. not punishable even if had they been carried out. do not 3#od9ce %t 47 #eason o2 ca9ses %nde3endent o2 t1e :%$$ o2 3e#3et#ato#.against years of abuse. "HAT IS AN ATTE&PTED (ELON. 55 Cons9mmated 2e$on%es. ACTS' +reparatory acts are those that do not have a direct connection with the crime which the offender intends to commit. frustrated and consummated. the appellant is deserving of e&ecutive clemency. ne/e#t1e$ess.' A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of e&ecution which would produce the felony as a result.' There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by over acts. a trial judge. T1e#e %s an attem3t :1en t1e o22ende# commences t1e comm%ss%on o2 a 2e$on7 d%#ect$7 47 o/e# acts. more than mere planning or preparation. and does not perform all the acts of e&ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause of accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (+eople of the +hilippines v. A 2e$on7 %s cons9mmated :1en a$$ t1e e$ements necessa#7 2o# %ts e?ec9t%on and accom3$%s1ment a#e 3#esentB and %t %s 2#9st#ated :1en t1e o22ende# 3e#2o#ms a$$ t1e acts o2 e?ec9t%on :1%c1 :o9$d 3#od9ce t1e 2e$on7 as a conseF9ence 49t :1%c1. DO THE STA!ES O( E-EC)TION APPL. $antos ART. but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. TO ALL CRI&ES )NDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE' 2. they would constitute a crime. "HAT IS AN OVERT ACT' . indication the intention to commit a particular crime. E-TERNAL ACTS' 4&ternal acts must be related to the overt acts of the crime the offender intended to commit.vert acts are some physical activity or deed. CONS)&&ATED. #s he correct? 2. he must interpret them in accordance with the interpretations of the $upreme Court. (+eople of the +hilippines v. namely attempted. but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with his personal view. ATTE&PTED (ELON. "HAT IS A (R)STRATED (ELON. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( THE ATTE&PTED STA!E O( E-EC)TION' • Commences commission of the offense directly by overt acts • /oes not perform all the acts of e&ecution which should produce the felony • . "HAT IS A CONS)&&ATED (ELON. (+eople of the +hilippines v. "HAT ARE PREPARATOR. (R)STRATED AND ATTE&PTED (ELONIES. There is no attempted or frustrated stage when a crime is done by means of culpa. a#e 39n%s1a4$e.laes The same rule applies regarding laws interpreted by the $upreme Court. and imposed a lesser penalty. Considering the circumstances. "HAT DO E-TERNAL ACTS INCL)DE' 1' . regardless of the manner their judgments are e&ecuted and implemented by the 4&ecutive /epartment. and does not 3e#2o#m a$$ t1e acts o2 e?ec9t%on :1%c1 s1o9$d 3#od9ce t1e 2e$on7 47 #eason o2 some ca9se o# acc%dent ot1e# 1%s o:n s3ontaneo9s des%stance. INTERNAL ACTS' 0nternal acts are mere ideas in the mind of a person. felt that the penalty set by law was too excessive. which it carried to its complete termination following is "HAT IS &EANT +. "HAT ARE THE STA!ES THAT A CRI&E PASSES THRO)!H +E(ORE ITS CO&&ISSION' • • 0nternal Acts 4&ternal Acts 4&ternal acts include preparatory acts and acts of e&ecution. These are ordinarily not punishable e&cept when e&pressly provided for. A judge may state his opinion on the matter. "HAT IS &EANT +.. as :e$$ as t1ose :1%c1 a#e 2#9st#ated and attem3ted. not of full pardon but of a substantial if not a radical reduction of her life sentence. "HAT ARE ACTS O( E-EC)TION' $tages of acts of e&ecution are those punishable under the 8evised +enal Code. J. The courts should interpret and apply the laws as they find them on the statute boo%s.' A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for the e&ecution and accomplishment of the felony are present.

the owner of the store was sleeping inside. "HAT IS THE S)+8ECTIVE PHASE O( THE O((ENSE' $ubjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime. A stole a chicken under the house of $ one evening. pursuant to the agreement with A.. of some personal property of another..vert acts have a direct connection to the crime.. Although there was an attempt on the part of A. the fact is that he inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim with the intent to %ill. A induced $ to kill C. Ahen there is conspiracy. A was surprised by a policeman while in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap good. and because A was not able to perform all the acts of e&ecution which should produce the offense of attempted trespass to dwelling. because the intention of the accused was obviously disclosed by his act of ma%ing an opening. both A and < would be guilty of an attempted felony. However. with intent to %ill. There is no direct connection between brea%ing one board and unfastening another with the crime of robbery. but $ refused to do it. 6or e&ample. 0n attempted felonies. The purpose is not clear in this case. A returned the chicken. ACTS (RO& OVERT ACTS' . #s his contention correct? 2. just before he pulls the trigger. buying rat poison is a preparatory act. the act of one.2: 4 points a gun at A with intent to kill the latter. (+eople of the +hilippines v. starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts.' • • • • +erforms all the acts of e&ecution All the acts would have produced the felony 6elony is not produced <y reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator 1( . A had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall. 4 desists at the last moment. without however inflicting a mortal wound. At that time. "HAT IS AN INDETER&INATE O((ENSE' An indeterminate offense is where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. At an early dawn. The inducement by A to < is in the nature of a proposal which is not directly punished by law. is the act of all. his liability should therefore be limited to the slight injury he caused. because a crime is not committed by mere buying of rat poison. IN ATTE&PTED (ELON. must fire at the offended party. *e is therefore liable for the crime of attempted homicide. <ut if <. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE O( PREPARATOR. The slight wound did not cause the death of the victim nor materially contribute to it. A..natural cause. Araneta (R)STRATED (ELON. 0ts nature and relation to its objective is ambiguous. The action of A in placing his hand on his revolver is susceptible of different interpretations. such an attempt was not done directly by overt acts. the person using a firearm. including the natural course. #s there an attempted robbery in this case? 2. A had already performed all the acts of e&ecution which produced the crime of theft before he returned the chic%en. the non#performance of all the acts of e&ecution must be due to cause or accident other than the offender:s spontaneous desistance.. $ then suddenly embraced him to prevent him from drawing out the pistol. a policeman. A claims that there was no attempted felony because he desisted in committing the crime. while talking to $. made a motion to draw his pistol. #s 4 guilty of an attempted homicide? 2. would develop to a concrete offense. The return of the stolen property does not relieve A of criminal liability. $hould an accused who admittedly shot the victim but is shown to have inflicted only a slight wound be held accountable for the death of the victim due to a fatal wound caused by his co#accusedG H4$. IT IS STATED THAT THE O((ENDER NEVER PASSES THE S)+8ECTIVE PHASE O( THE O((ENSE. it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to ta%e possession for the purpose of gain. will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. commenced the commission of the homicide.. To constitute attempted homicide. 0??>$T8AT0. 0n order that it would be considered an attempted robbery using force upon things. !as there an overt act of homicide on the part of A? 2. #s A liable for attempted homicide because of conspiracy? 2. 5eali/ing that what he did was wrong. *owever. without being frustrated by e&ternal obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( A (R)STRATED (ELON. The use of a gun fired at another certainly leads to no other conclusion than there is intent to %ill. 0t cannot be definitely concluded that the attempt of the accused in drawing out his pistol. The crime of theft has already been consummated. The crime committed was attempted trespass to dwelling.

(R)STRATED AND I&POSSI+LE CRI&E. Malalo 1) . The crime is frustrated robbery. intent cannot be accomplished. or attempted theft? N is guilty of consummated theft. then the crime is attempted homicide. #s this a frustrated felony? 2. 6ither was not proven. removed a sack of sugar from the pile. DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN ATTE&PTED. 0n the crime of murder which re. 0n a frustrated felony. (+eople of the +hilippines v. #s 4 guilty of consummated.2: A is prosecuted for estafa which re&uires that the element of deceit or abuse of confidence is provided. All the elements of the felony for which the accused is prosecuted must be present in order to hold A liable in its consummated stage. who did not die. A suddenly turned around and caught 4 by the shirt just as the latter was about to run with the wallet. !as the crime of robbery consummated? 2. the felony is accomplished.uiring the intervention of " persons are consummated by the mere agreement (eg. <etting . %he culprits.uate means is used. the evil intent was not accomplished. He mixed arsenic with her soup. *owever. treason. the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. Can A be held guilty for estafa? 2. the offender was overcome with guilt. shot $.. 0n impossible. after breaking the floor of the bodega through which they entered the same. (RO& A (R)STRATED (ELON. Crimes consummated by the mere attempt or proposal or the overt acts. A doctor conceived the idea of killing his wife. slander. 4 picked A(s wallet. 0n attempted. Crimes re. as well as an attempted felony. 0n robbery by force upon things. 0n a consummated felony. IN THE CRI&E O( ARSON. it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a mortal wound is inflicted. in frustrated. he must be able to carry out of the building the thing ta%en to consummate the crime.. DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN A CONS)&&ATED (ELON.2: A.uires that the victim should die to consummate the felony. for e&ample. 0n both. that the cause which prevented the consummation of the offense be independent of the will of the perpetrator. or flight to enemy country 6elony by omission: no attempted stage. performance of all acts of e&ecution which should:ve produced the felony as a conse. since the offender must enter the building to commit the crime. The most important re. intervention of certain cause or accident in which offender had no part.aterial crimes (' phases • • • 0??>$T8AT0.. 7erceiving the theft.. for e&ample.anner of committing the crime. *ernande- "HAT ARE THE CLASSI(ICATIONS O( CRI&ES )SIN! THE &ANNER CO&&ITTIN! S)CH' • • 6ormal crimes: consummated in an instant. 0n attempted and frustrated. evil intent can be accomplished. <ut if the wound inflicted was not mortal or if there was no wound.uence. "HEN IS THE CRI&E ATTE&PTED. it is inherently impossible or ineffectual and inade. 0t is not necessary that the property is totally destroyed by fire. (+eople of the +hilippines v.DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN A (R)STRATED AND ATTE&PTED (ELON. no attempt. 0n all. the crime is consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing ta%en or is in a position to dispose of it freely. offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. 0n impossible crime. 0??>$T8AT0.uisite for a frustrated crime is lac%ing. (R)STRATED OR CONS)&&ATED' 0t is consummated even if a part of the house. "HAT IS )SED TO DETER&INE "HETHER THE CRI&E IS ONL. while in attempted and frustrated. but were caught in the act of taking it out through the opening on the floor. 6rustrated reaches the objective phase while the attempted only reaches the subjective phase. commencement of the commission of the felony by overt acts does not perform all acts of e&ecution. The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the e&tent of the damage caused. 'o he himself washed out the stomach of the victim and administered to her the ade&uate antidote. $ut immediately after the victim took the poisonous food. no matter how small is burned. 0n robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. frustrated. with intent to kill. *e was able to perform all the elements necessary for the e&ecution and accomplishment of the crime when the wallet was ta%en from A. ATTE&PTED OR (R)STRATED OR CONS)&&ATED' • • • 2ature of the offense 4lements constituting the felony . #s A liable for attempted or frustrated homicide? 0t depends.

. :%t1 t1e e?ce3t%on o2 t1ose comm%tted a0a%nst 3e#sons o# 3#o3e#t7. AS A (ELON. ART.' A conspiracy is when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning commission of a felony and decide to commit it. tried to steal 712. 6urthermore. "HAT ARE LI!HT (ELONIES' ?ight felonies are infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not e&ceeding "FF pesos or both as provided. (+eople of the +hilippines v. "HAT IS A CONSPIRAC. Ahen a person had poured gasoline under the house of another and was about to stri%e a match to set the house on fire when he was apprehended. that is. were in fact concerted and cooperative. AND PROPOSAL TO CO&&IT (ELON. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. IS THE ATTE&PTED AND (R)STRATED STA!E O( A LI!HT (ELON. sedition. "HAT IS THE !ENERAL R)LE AS RE!ARDS CONSPIRAC. rebellion. 0??>$T8AT0. a policeman stopped him. but only a manner of incurring criminal liability. "HEN LI!HT (ELONIES ARE P)NISHA+LE. "HAT ARE THE T"O *INDS O( CONSPIRAC. The acts performed by him are in direct connection with the crime of arson. CAN THERE +E AN ATTE&PT OR (R)STRATION O( AN I&POSSI+LE CRI&E' 2. ART.. it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage of rape can be committed. treason and rebellion. because of hunger. IS THERE S)CH A CRI&E AS (R)STRATED RAPE' 2. A committed a light offense which is punishable only when consummated. one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to complete it.' Conspiracy as a felony is only punishable when provided for.rita This case reverses the earlier judgments of frustrated rape including +eople of the +hilippines v. $ince the offender has already performed all the acts for the e&ecution of an impossible crime. Treason. for e&ample. 8. he is guilty of attempted arson. 4&cept if felony is against a person or property because of moral depravity. elements and manner of e&ecution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter.22 from $. no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. T1e#e %s a 3#o3osa$ :1en t1e 3e#son :1o 1as dec%ded to comm%t a 2e$on7 3#o3oses %ts e?ec9t%on to some ot1e# 3e#son o# 3e#sons. (+eople of the +hilippines v. and coup d:etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. 55 L%01t 2e$on%es a#e 39n%s1a4$e on$7 :1en t1e7 1a/e 4een cons9mmated. there can no attempted impossible crime. A cons3%#ac7 e?%sts :1en t:o o# mo#e 3e#sons come to an a0#eement conce#n%n0 t1e comm%ss%on o2 a 2e$on7 and dec%de to comm%t %t. Ta%ing into account the nature. "HEN IS THERE A CONSPIRAC.' • • Conspiracy as a crime Conspiracy as a means of incurring liability "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN THE T"O' Ahen conspiracy itself is a crime. the crime of arson is frustrated. 6or the consummation of rape.. Eeronimo 1@ . Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. NOT P)NISHA+LE' 2o penalty is provided for the attempted or frustrated stage of a light felony because wrong is so slight there is no need of providing a penalty. and their acts. CONSPIRAC. The conspiracy here is not a felony. with a view to the attainment of the same object. it is not punishable as a separate offense. $ut before he could do so.0f there was a bla-e. This is only true when the law e&pressly punishes the mere conspiracy! otherwise. though apparently independent. 4rina.' Ahen the acts are aimed at the same object. "H. 55 Cons3%#ac7 and 3#o3osa$ to comm%t 2e$on7 a#e 39n%s1a4$e on$7 %n t1e cases %n :1%c1 t1e $a: s3ec%a$$7 3#o/%des a 3ena$t7 t1e#e2o#. AS A &ANNER O( INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. K. . the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act.2: A. but no part of the house is burned. when there is conspiracy. There is also no frustrated impossible crime because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense. #s A liable under the 5evised 7enal Code? 2.. perfect penetration is not essential. the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability applies where there is a crime actually committed.

$ut A is afraid to do it himself. his part in the felony has not been consummated. AND LI!HT (ELONIES. 0n this case. "HAT ARE THE A((LICTIVE PENALTIES' &A. !ill he still be held liable? 2.' Erave felonies are those punished by the capital punishment or penalties in the afflictive. where a sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection and for the perpetrator to deliberate on the conse. the higher or the highest. which is determined by the penalties attached to them by law. #s A liable for proposal to commit rebellion? 2.MM 3esos. %n acco#dance :%t1 t1e a4o/e5ment%oned a#t%c$e. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( CONSPIRAC. and before the murder. if crime was committed. his part in the criminal design has already been consummated. (RO& EVIDENT PRE&EDITATION. decided to kill *. and C? They are all liable for murder. and the acts of the conspirators must show a common design. $ and C after having conceived a criminal plan. !RAVE (ELONIES. L%01t 2e$on%es a#e t1ose %n2#act%ons o2 $a: 2o# t1e comm%ss%on o2 :1%c1 t1e 3ena$t7 o2 a##esto meno# o# a 2%ne not e?ceed%n0 .' An indication of conspiracy is that the acts of defendants must show a common design.onroy "HAT IS A PROPOSAL' A proposal is when a person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its e&ecution to some other person or persons. !hat if A. A has not decided to commit rebellion. &ERE A. A acted as guard outside *(s house. ART.' Afflictive penalties are those that when there are two or more distinct penalties. ran away because of guilt. e&pressly or impliedly. A crime li%e treason should be actually committed by reason of the proposal. (ELONIES' They are classified according to gravity. A CRI&E PROPOSAL' H4$. %s 3#o/%ded. before the murder.2: A desires that the present government be overthrown. 15 . again because of guilt. The person who proposes must be determined to commit the felony. (>$ v. Eil conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree. liable for the felony not the proposal "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( A PROPOSAL' • • • A person has decided to commit a felony *e proposes its e&ecution to other person or persons The proposal need not be accepted or else it shall be a conspiracy 0??>$T8AT0. there must be unity of purpose. L. !hat if A. LESS !RAVE (ELONIES. (+eople of the +hilippines v. spontaneous desistance.uences of his intended deed. therefore holding him liable for the entire criminal design. $.0n short. to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. was supposed to drive the conspirators to the site of the crime. "HAT IS AN A((LICTIVE PENALT... Less 0#a/e 2e$on%es a#e t1ose :1%c1 t1e $a: 39n%s1es :%t1 3ena$t%es :1%c1 %n t1e%# ma?%m9m 3e#%od a#e co##ect%ona$. HO" DOES ARTICLE L CLASSI(. "HAT IS CAPITAL P)NISH&ENT' Capital punishment is the death penalty. this is li%e in Article @. while $ held *(s arms as C stabbed him. Although A was part of the criminal plan. DISTIN!)ISH CONSPIRAC. Therefore. AN A!!RAVATIN! CIRC)&STANCE' >nli%e in evident premeditation. %n acco#dance :%t1 t1e A#t%c$e . the guard. . AS A &ANNER O( INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. A then proposed the overthrowing of the government to some desperate people who will do it at the slightest provocation. !hat are the liabilities of A. and so the act of one is the act of all. o# 4ot1. <ecause although the crime has yet to be consummated. ran away.' • • • Two or more persons came to an agreement Agreement concerned the commission of a crime 4&ecution of a felony was decided upon +E CO&&ITTE+ +. "HAT IS A !RAVE (ELON. !ill he still be held liable? H4$. 55 !#a/e 2e$on%es a#e t1ose to :1%c1 t1e $a: attac1es t1e ca3%ta$ 39n%s1ment o2 3ena$t%es :1%c1 %n an7 o2 t1e%# 3e#%ods a#e a22$%ct%/e. fine of @FFF and more. "HAT IS AN INDICATION O( CONSPIRAC. therefore no criminal liability. Their conspiracy is a manner of incurring criminal liability.5 o2 t1%s Code.

"HAT ARE E-A&PLES O( PROVISIONS IN THE REVISED PENAL CODE "HICH CANNOT +E APPLIED TO O((ENSES P)NISHA+LE )NDER SPECIAL LA"S' Article @. 0??>$T8AT0. Reasona4$e necess%t7 o2 t1e means em3$o7ed to 3#e/ent o# #e3e$ %tB c.is a special law amending the 5evised 7enal Code. 8)STI(. a. should prevail because Article = classifies according to gravity. 11. penalties. 55 T1e 2o$$o:%n0 do not %nc9# c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7. An7one :1o acts %n de2ense o2 1%s 3e#son o# #%01ts. 1. mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Article 1' and 1(.2: 7* . 9n$ess t1e $atte# s1o9$d s3ec%a$$7 3#o/%de t1e cont#a#7. 0f no justice would result.itigating circumstances (Article 1' Aggravating circumstances (Article 1( Alternative circumstances (Article 1) ART. what is the classification of the offense according to Article :? 0t is a light felony. and Article @(.ualification +rision mayor temporary temporary absolute special special laws3. last paragraph! "BF. ART. the highest of the penalties will determine the classification of the penalty according to Article =. "HAT ARE SPECIAL LA"S' A penal law which punishes acts not defined and penali-ed by the 8evised +enal Code. while Article "@ classifies according to the amount. $pecial laws amending the 8evised +enal Code are subject to its provisions. or simply correlate the violated special law. if needed to avoid an injustice.• • • • • 8eclusion perpetua 8eclusion temporal +erpetual or dis. Article 1B and 1=. Although Article "@ provides that a fine not less than +"FF is a correccional penalty. )n$a:29$ A00#ess%onB 4. "HAT IS &EANT +. #s it subject to the other provisions of the 5evised 7enal Code? H4$. T1%s Code s1a$$ 4e s933$ementa#7 to s9c1 $a:s. $pecial laws do not provide for a scale of penalties.' • • A((ECTIN! "HAT ARE LESS !RAVE (ELONIES' ?ess grave felonies are those whose penalties in the ma&imum period are correccional. 1B .2: #f the penalty prescribed by the offense is prision correccional 8correccional penalty9 to prision mayor 8afflictive penalty9. accessories and accomplices. Article = which states that a fine not e&ceeding +"FF is a light felony. 0??>$T8AT0. attempted and frustrated stages of e&ecution. (+eople of the +hilippines v. "HAT ARE THE CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES' • • • • +rision correccional Arresto mayor $uspension /estierro "HAT ARE LI!HT (ELONIES' ?ight felonies are those whose penalty is not more than arresto menor or the fine is not more than "FF pesos or both. ARTICLE 1M' 0n Article 1F. there is a reservation 1provision of the 8evised +enal Code may be applied suppletorily to • • • Custifying circumstances (Article 11 4&empting circumstances (Article 1".-.IN! CIRC)&STANCES.ualification +erpetual or dis.22. . last paragraph. Ahen the penalty prescribed by the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties.acatanda CHAPTER T"O 89st%27%n0 C%#c9mstances and C%#c9mstances "1%c1 E?em3t 2#om C#%m%na$ L%a4%$%t7 "HAT ARE CIRC)&STANCES CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. do not give suppletorily application of the 8evised +enal Code to that of special law. . 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2o$$o:%n0 c%#c9mstances conc9#. application of penalties. plus public censure. !hen the fine for the offense is exactly 7. Lac6 o2 s922%c%ent 3#o/ocat%on on t1e 3a#t o2 t1e 3e#son de2end%n0 1%mse$2. and other absolutory causes (Articles "F! 1"(. Hou will only apply the provisions of the 8evised +enal Code as a supplement to the special law. what is the classification according to Article :? An afflictive penalty. 55 O22enses :1%c1 a#e o# %n t1e 29t9#e ma7 4e 39n%s1a4$e 9nde# s3ec%a$ $a:s a#e not s94Aect to t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code. ''"! '((! etc. O((ENSES NOT S)+8ECT TO THE PROVISIONS O( THIS CODE. Articles )F to )5. 1M.

could not constitute unlawful aggression. 0n this case. An7 3e#son :1o acts %n t1e 29$2%$$ment o2 a d9t7 o# %n t1e $a:29$ e?e#c%se o2 a #%01t o# o22%ce.uisite. 1= . A told $ that he had no singing voice. there must be a concurrence of all three re. Ahen there is a defense of property. %he accused threw the stones back and hit the policeman in the head. in order to avoid criminal liability.uisite is an indispensable re. Can $ invoke self)defense? 2.. no matter how objectionable they may have been without physical assault. 3. PARA!RAPH 1 G SEL(5DE(ENSE "HAT IS SEL(5DE(ENSE' Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. A. the first re. c. sei/ed A by the throat. %n case t1e 3#o/ocat%on :as 0%/en 47 t1e 3e#son attac6ed. "HAT ARE 8)STI(.uires the aggression must be unlawful. addressed to the accused. Eayrama %wo policeman. O# o2 1%s #e$at%/e 47 a22%n%t7 %n t1e same de0#ees. 0??>$T8AT0. #esentment o# ot1e# e/%$ mot%/e. 6urthermore. a. ascendants. &)ST ALL THE RED)ISITES CONC)R IN ORDER TO INVO*E SEL(5DE(ENSE' H4$. T1at t1e e/%$ so901t to 4e a/o%ded act9a$$7 e?%stsB 4. to prove the justifying circumstances claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court.IN! CIRC)&STANCES' The accused.uisite of self#defense re. Can A plead self)defense? 2. t1at t1e one ma6%n0 de2ense 1ad no 3a#t t1e#e%n. An7 3e#son :1o acts %n o4ed%ence to an o#de# %ss9ed 47 a s93e#%o# 2o# some $a:29$ 39#3ose. The first re.IN! CIRC)&STANCES' They are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law. 6or complete self#defense to apply. 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2%#st and second #eF9%s%tes 3#esc#%4ed %n t1e ne?t 3#eced%n0 c%#c9mstance a#e 3#esent.. An7one :1o acts %n de2ense o2 t1e 3e#son o# #%01ts o2 a st#an0e#. $. T1at t1e %nA9#7 2ea#ed 4e 0#eate# t1an t1at done to a/o%d %t... %n o#de# to a/o%d an e/%$ o# %nA9#7 does an act :1%c1 ca9ses dama0e to anot1e#. A and $. A then took hold of his gun and killed $. uttered insulting words against $ who retaliated by hitting A on the head. J. T1at t1e#e 4e no ot1e# 3#act%ca$ and $ess 1a#m29$ means o2 3#e/ent%n0 %t. the aggression caused by the policeman was lawful since the accused was trying to avoid arrest. and imminent when there is a threat to inflict real injury. 0nsulting words. (+eople of the +hilippines v. were kidding each other. limb or right. complete or incomplete. descendants. "HAT ARE THE RI!HTS INCL)DED IN SEL(5 DE(ENSE' $elf defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights. provided the following circumstances concur: • >nlawful aggression • • 8easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it ?ac% of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.uisites. Can the accused plead self)defense? 2.2: A. nat9#a$. it must be coupled with an attac% on the person entrusted with the said property. o# ado3ted 4#ot1e#s and s%ste#s. in the spirit of fun. An7 3e#son :1o. and t1ose 47 consan09%n%t7 :%t1 t1e 2o9#t1 c%/%$ de0#ee. "HO HAS THE +)RDEN O( PROVIN! THE E-ISTENCE O( 8)STI(. o# $e0%t%mate. 0t is actual when there is an actual physical assault. 5.. there can be no self#defense. An7one :1o acts %n de2ense o2 t1e 3e#son o# #%01t o2 1%s s3o9se. The mere fact of sei-ing the accused by the throat in the spirit of fun cannot be considered unlawful aggression since there was no peril to A:s life. there was no peril to one:s lie which was actual or imminent. C. "HAT IS )NLA"()L A!!RESSION' There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one:s life limb or right is either actual or imminent. The circumstances mentioned in Article 11 are matters of defenses so that it is incumbent upon the accused. 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2%#st and second #eF9%s%te ment%oned %n t1e 2%#st c%#c9mstance o2 t1%s a#t%c$e a#e 3#esent and t1at t1e 3e#son de2end%n0 4e not %nd9ced 47 #e/en0e. and t1e 29#t1e# #eF9%s%te. unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression. 0n this case. The law recogni-es that there is the non#e&istence of a crime. threw stones at the accused who was avoiding arrest. 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2o$$o:%n0 #eF9%s%tes a#e 3#esent. a policeman.

Can A invoke self)defense? 2. claims that $. A.uivalence.O) TEST THE REASONA+LENESS )SED +.uires is rational e. causing A to run. O( THE CO)RSE O( ACTION TA*EN' The necessity of the course of action ta%en depends on the e&istence of unlawful aggression. Conse.uently. directly or indirectly. and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the "F . after treating his wounds. the imminent danger to which the person attac%ed is e&posed and the instinct. a defiance of an individual:s personality.<)year old male armed with a gun and a bolo. A.uisite means that there must be: • 2ecessity of the course of action ta%en by the person ma%ing a defense. the one ma%ing a defense has no more right to %ill or even to wound the former aggressor. pursued A and shot him. Ahen lawful aggression which has begun no longer e&ists. challenged $ to a fight. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the paramour. #t turned out that gun was only a toy. A suddenly strikes $ with a club. 0n order to justify homicide on the ground of self#defense.uently regarded as placing in real danger a person:s dignity. The law protects the person who repels (which refers to actual as well as the person who prevents (which refers to imminent the unlawful aggression. 0n a plea of self#defense the circumstances of the case (nature of the wound. #n the course of the fight. without which there would be no necessity for any course of action to ta%e as there is nothing to prevent or to repel. it is essential that the %illing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attac% made by the deceased. that moves or impels the defense. A and $ were walking down an alley. Can C invoke self) defense? 2. went to the paramour(s house. EuttiereA. who is =2 years old. improbability of the deceased being the aggressor . he was only defending himself when he struck $ and killed him. 0n order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually committed. from the person who was subse. must be considered. provided he really believed it was a real gun. in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency. (+eople of the +hilippines v. According to A. and • 2ecessity of the means used. $abio A. (+eople of the +hilippines v. THE PERSON IN &A*IN! THE DE(ENSE' 8easonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attac% and defense. more than reason. Although the accused was unlawfully attac%ed. a . with a knife in his hand. rights and safety.. it is necessary that an attac% or material aggression. this unlawful aggression cannot be considered in this case as an element of self#defense! because in order to constitute an element of self#defense.. she saw the paramour with a knife in her hand and in a threatening manner asked what had brought A there. Having approached near enough in the same attitude. or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time. slapping it is a serious personal attac%. The honest belief of the accused may be considered in determining the e&istence of unlawful aggression. #s A(s contention correct? 0t was unli%ely that a se&agenarian would have gone to the e&tent of assaulting the "(#year old accused who was armed with a gun and a bolo. in the peaceable pursuit of his affairs. $ then took out his gun which caused A to run away. <ut if the challenge to a fight was not accepted. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.%wo persons met in the street. E-PLAIN THE SECOND RED)ISITE O( SEL(5 DE(ENSE' The second re. $ accepted. Can $ claim self)defense? 2.uently attac%ed by the accused. A then took the gun she brought and fired at the paramour.O) DETER&INE THE REASONA+LENESS O( THE NECESSIT. therefore. unlawfully attacked $ with a knife. be fre. the accused can invo%e self# defense. #s a slap on the face considered unlawful aggression? H4$. HO" CAN . suddenly attacked him. As she was about to go up the latter(s stairs. HO" DO . C drew out his knife. $ince the face represents a person and his dignity. A. Can A invoke self) defense? H4$. A suddenly attacked C to the surprise of $.. A got killed. which is dependent on the e&istence of the unlawful aggression. There is no unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight. nevertheless. +ne slapped the face of the other and the latter repelled it by clubbing him and inflicting less serious physical injuries. The e&istence of unlawful aggression can be determined by e&amining the place and occasion of the assault as well as other circumstances. 0t may. an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. the aggressor was not the deceased but another person. and stabbed $. Can $ invoke self)defense? 2. sees $ rushing toward him. 0t is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard. <oth must be reasonable. with a pistol in his hand and shouting violent words against him. the unlawful aggression must come. killing him. Ahat the law re.. nay. who was looking for her husband. $. because the aggressor runs away.

and seeing upon awakening that in fact $ was infuriated and pursuing A(s husband with a bolo in his hand and his arm raised in an attitude as if to strike. "HAT IS THE REASON (OR RED)ISITE O( SEL(5DE(ENSE' THE THIRD Ahen the person defending himself from the attac% by another gave sufficient provocation to the latter. Ahile the law on self#defense allows a private individual to prevent or repel an aggression. As a conse&uence. he took a knife and looked for $ and stabbed him.2: A was running amuck with a dagger and was rushing towards $. #s there self)defense? "1 . A slapped $ in the face. the second re. since the latter:s aggression also gravely threatened the lives of the parties assaulted. to be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self#defense. 0t is not necessary. the one defending himself must not have been given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provo%ing the assailant.. represents the law which he must uphold. 0n this case. O( THE &EANS E&PLO.. it was not given by the person defending himself! or Ahen. it was not pro&imate and immediate to the act of aggression. which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and ade. in the performance of his duty. $elf#defense is based on the necessity of the part of the person attac%ed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.uisite of self#defense is satisfied. As A had on hand a loaded shotgun. Ahen the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one ma%ing a defense to determine as to what course of action to ta%e.uires him to overcome his opponent.uate to stir the aggressor to its commission (+eople of the +hilippines v. O( THE PROVOCATION' The provocation must be sufficient. being abruptly awakened by shouts that $ was pursuing A(s children. the danger or ris% of aggression has disappeared so the second re. Can A invoke self)defense? 2. 0??>$T8AT0.O) DETER&INE THE S)((ICIENC. A. the latter hit the deceased with a piece of wood on the head.uisite of self#defense is lac%ing. even if the provocation was sufficient. but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (+eople of the +hilippines v. even at the ris% of %illing the aggressor. At the moment A was about to stab $. The course of action ta%en by A was not necessary. "HAT ARE THE CA)SES IN "HICH THE THIRD RED)ISITE O( SEL( DE(ENSE IS CONSIDERED PRESENT' • • • • Ahen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself! or Ahen. A fired at random hoping that he would hit $. it was not sufficient! or Ahen..harm done. even if a provocation was given. #s $(s contention correct? 2. took up a shotgun lying within her reach and fired at $. invoking self)defense. there was no rational necessity to employ the means used. this weapon was the most appropriate one that could be used for the purpose. #s the contention correct? 2. !hen A recovered.. even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself. 0??>$T8AT0. (OR THE PROVOCATION TO +E S)((ICIENT THAT THE ONE "HO !AVE IT &)ST HAVE +EEN !)ILT. The means employed by the person ma%ing a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. *ence.2: A was attacked by $. killing him at once. a lot of other people were shot. the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression. !as the means reasonable? >nder the circumstances. and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon. >nowing there were many people. in view of the imminence of the danger. Can A invoke self) defense? 2. $ then drew out his gun and killed A. 0n repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression. A was suddenly hit on the head by $ with an iron bar at the mall. %he latter then got a club and hit A with it in the head. HO" DO . #t is contended that $ should have only struck the hand of A or hit him in a less vulnerable part. who &uickly ran after the attack.. 0n this case. was to render the aggressor harmless. the duty of a peace officer re. the one defending must aim at his assailant. Alconga IS IT NECESSAR. the only remedy which would be considered reasonably necessary to repel or prevent that aggression. O( )SIN! VIOLENCE AND TH)S +ECO&IN! AN )NLA"()L A!!RESSOR HI&SEL(' 2. 4ncomienda "HAT IS THE R)LE RE!ARDN! THE REASONA+LENESS O( THE NECESSIT.ED "HEN THE ONE DE(ENDIN! HI&SEL( IS A PEACE O((ICER' The peace officer. The sufficiency depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The husband of A:s sister# means "" . A acted in defense of the husband of A(s sister)in) law. <ut if C induced his son to slap <. The provocation by A of slapping < in the should be disregarded. #s there defense of the relative in this case? 2. in which case. The first and second re. A invoked self)defense. 4ven if it is true that the . the relation between A and the husband of A:s sister#in#law is not one of those mentioned in paragraph " of Article 11. but by A:s brother. the third re. attacked the latter but was seriously injured when A defended himself. #s $ still related by affinity to A(s brother? 0t depends. 8ather he was motivated by revenge. $ unlawfully attacked A(s cousin and was about to kill him when A suddenly took his gun and shot $. The fact that the relative defended gave the provocation is immaterial. 0n case. and so the third re&uisite of self)defense is not present. having discovered that $ had built a part of his fence on A(s land asked $ why he had done so. A was previously shot by the brother of $. (+eople of the +hilippines v.. the accused was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. DISTIN!)ISH SEL(5DE(ENSE (RO& DE(ENSE O( A RELATIVE. +E DE(ENDED' • • • • • • $pouse Ascendants /escendants ?egitimate. then there would not be a complete defense of relative since C already too% part in the provocation. 0n defense of relative. There is self#defense in this case.uires only that the one defending had no part in the provocation.uisite since there was no provocation whatsoever on the part of <.H4$. $ut $ holds that there was sufficient provocation given by A(s brother.uisite of self#defense is present. Can A invoke self)defense? H4$. (>$ v. +ascua A(s brother provoked $. A. a child.3 A slapped $ two days before and $. who as a conse&uence drew out his knife and tried to stab A. !ho is correct? A is correct. 0t was not pro&imate immediate to the aggression made by <.uisite for both are different.2: A slapped the face of $. the third re. upon meeting A. The first two re. %his &uestion angered $ who immediately attacked A. +ne day. The third re. !as there defense of relative? H4$.uisite does not mean that the relative defended should give provocation to the aggressor. The clause merely states an event which may or may not ta%e place.uisite of self#defense s present. who defended himself and hit $ on the head. The third re.2: A is the husband of $. #f A would kill $ to defend himself. natural or adopted brothers and sisters 8elatives by affinity in the same degree 8elatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree face and this still in#law is a stranger to A for purposes of the law on defense of relatives. Toring PARA!RAPH 3 G DE(ENSE O( A STRAN!ER "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR DE(ENSE O( A STRAN!ER' • • >nlawful aggression 8easonable necessity of the employed to prevent or repel it 0??>$T8AT0. resentment or evil motive because of a running feud between them. the father of A. who is still living. /eath of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity unless the marriage has resulted in issue. #s there defense of relative in this case? 0t cannot be said that in attac%ing the victim. The sufficient provocation was not given by the person defending himself which in this case is A. PARA!RAPH . C. the relationship of affinity continues.uisites are the same for both. provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation. such provocation is not sufficient.uisite re.uestion of A angered <. starting a feud between them. There is still legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( DE(ENSE O( RELATIVES' • • • >nlawful aggression 8easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 0n case the provocation was given by the person attac%ed. 0??>$T8AT0. A died. <ut the third re. thereby ma%ing < attac% A. saw $ trying to stab his son so he killed the latter. G DE(ENSE O( RELATIVES "HO ARE RELATIVES THAT &A. as well as the third re. the one ma%ing a defense had no part therein. is the third re&uisite of self)defense present? H4$. $ then unlawfully attacked A.uisite of self#defense refers e&clusively to the 1person defending himself.

Can C claim that he was trying to avoid a greater evil or injury? 2. #n the course of the struggle. ( of Article 11 is not applicable. All the three re.. he will be civilly liable for the damages caused in the other car. *e was forced to choose between losing his life and injuring the passerby. A(s friend. A saw $ attacking a woman. 0f the evil sought to be avoided is merely e&pected or anticipated or may happen in the future. Can he still invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury? 2. par. he would fall into a precipice. 0??>$T8AT0.uisites are present. 'uppose in the above example. he pointed it to A and when about to shoot. if a driver swerved his car to prevent hitting a child and hit a car instead.• The person defending must not be induced by revenge. The evil sought to be avoided must actually e&ist. The fact that it was the innocent man who was %illed will not matter because C acted in the honest belief that it was < who was the aggressor. fearing that a pregnancy would cause the death of his wife and the expected child.uisites for avoidance of a greater evil has been met.. %hey were fighting for the possession of A(s gun. #f he would swerve his car to the left. The third re. $(s son got killed. embraced him and grappled with the gun. *id A commit a crime? 2. C took out his own gun and shot $. was attacking $ who was wounded. there is a defense of a stranger because all the three re. C (RO& OTHER PARA!RAPHS O( ARTICLE 11' As a rule.2: A heard screams and cries for help. all the re. OR LA"()L E-ERCISE O( RI!HT OR O((ICE' • That the accused acted in the performance of a duty in the lawful e&ercise of a right or office "HO ARE DEE&ED STRAN!ERS' Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph " of Article 11. in the course of which A inflicted wounds on $. He is accused of the crime of intentional abortion. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR AVOIDANCE O( !REATER EVIL OR IN8)R. 0t is only in paragraph ( "' . A then ran away. gave abortive pills to his wife. OR LA"()L E-ERCISE O( RI!HT OR O((ICE "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( ()L(ILL&ENT O( D)T. 6or e&ample. with a bolo. a truck appeared in front of him.uisite of defense of stranger still e&ists. he saw $ attacking his 8$(s9 wife with a dagger. A approached $ and struggled for the possession of the weapon. The act of C in preventing <:s son from shooting A was designed to insure the %illing of < without any ris% to the assailant. or other evil motive. #s C guilty for killing $? 2. PARA!RAPH 5 G ()L(ILL&ENT O( D)T. A has a grudge against $. 0n this case.. C was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disarm <:s son.. !hen A responded. he did not slacken his speed. #s there a crime if he injures the passerby? 2. resentment. After $ was able to grab the gun. A was driving his car with due diligence. #s A justified in accordance with a defense of a stranger? 0t depends.' • • • That the evil sought to be avoided actually e&ists That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. $(s son was about to shoot A to defend his father when C. 0t is reasonable that between his life and that of another. THE "HAT DI((ERENTIATES PAR. the third re. C then came and saw $ about to kill A. there is no criminal nor civil liability in justifying circumstances. +ne day.3 *ence. +aragraph ' of Article 11 uses the phrase 1be not induced. A got a cane and hit $ on the head. 0n this case. even if the person enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger from bodily harm. because the defense of a stranger would be only a prete&t. 'uddenly. A.2: A.uisite would be lac%ing if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant.uisites of defense of stranger is present in this case. A was driving his car at a very high speed and although he saw the truck approaching. where the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit. 0??>$T8AT0. or if he would swerve it to the right he would injure a passerby. PARA!RAPH C G AVOIDANCE O( !REATER EVIL OR IN8)R. it is justified to choose one:s life due to man:s nature for self# preservation. The greater evil or injury must not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor. is considered a stranger for purposes of this law.. Can he invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury? 2. an assassin was trying to kill $. A..

The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to e&clude any person from the enjoyment or disposal thereof. or in their desire to ta%e no chances. a very dangerous criminal.. the means used by the subordinate to carry out the order was not lawful since he went against the date set by the court..anis A escaped from jail. and the accused was not bound to obey it. hitting and killing $. Although a lawful order has been issued. #t turned out that the person was not A. Tan A leveled his gun at $. (+eople of the +hilippines v. A. 0??>$T8AT0. A contends that he was justified since he was only following an order in accordance with paragraph =. A s&uee/ed the trigger causing it to fire. DI((ERENTIATE THIS PARA!RAPH (RO& SEL(5 DE(ENSE. then it is self#defense. threatening the latter with death. it is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the person charged with the performance of a duty or lawful e&ercise of a right or office. !hen $ tried to arrest him. $ threw a stone at him resulting in injuries. 0n this paragraph.uisite. Can the two officers invoke paragraph . %hey went to his house and opened the door to his bedroom. A fled and $ told him to stop or he would shoot. There is in this case an absence of the third re. *id $ commit a crime? 2. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <ut it must always be remembered that the force used in the circumstances must be reasonably necessary and the use of unnecessary force is never justified.uisite is not present because through impatience.? 2.. raise his hands. Can A invoke paragraph =? 2. .. The attitude adopted by A in putting his hands in his poc%et is not sufficient to justify the accused to shoot him. the accused e&ceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when they %illed a sleeping person without ma%ing an in. Although the first re. (+eople of the +hilippines v. !hile he was about to steal a guava fruit. A. 6or this purpose.2: %he court ordered A.bedience to an order of a superior is justified only when the order is for some lawful purpose. . #s A criminally liable? H4$. outside a bar. *e is acting in the lawful e&ercise of his office. The policeman was compelled to resort to such an e&treme measure. %hey saw a person lying down on the bed. a policeman. he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. or do the things a policeman is trained to do. 0??>$T8AT0. .. The order to torture the deceased was illegal. to stop where he was. The deceased was under obligation to surrender and had no right to commit assault on the officer. A put him to death a day earlier than scheduled. was ordered by his superiors to torture a man. $ grabbed the mu//le of the gun and in the struggle for the possession. The %illing was done in the performance of a duty. #t turned out that there was no weapon in A(s pockets. they shot the person. #s $ criminally liable? 2. Can $ invoke the defense of fulfillment of duty? 2. in accordance with Article B" of the 8evised +enal Code.. an executioner to execute a convict on a certain date. A continued running so $ shot him. $ecause they didn(t want to take any chances. the neighbor or $.2: %wo police officers were ordered to apprehend A. was confronted by $.argen "( . A took out his knife and tried to stab $. because he was afraid that A would get a weapon. who were trying to get a wanted criminal..• That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary conse. *e was unarmed and the accused could have warned him. sleeping. A is criminally liable under Article (. He was spotted $. a policeman. #s his contention correct? 2.uisite is present because the police officers. <ut the second re.uence of the due performance of duty or the lawful e&ercise of such right or office. instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that the deceased was armed. a soldier. A tried to put his hand on his pocket. There is in this case no performance of a duty or a lawful e&ercise of a right or office. %he man died as a conse&uence. 0f there is unlawful aggression. killing him. entered the latter(s property one night. a thief. were acting in the performance of a duty. $ shot him. paragraph 1 of the 8evised +enal Code. Can a surgeon be held liable for the crime of mutilation if he amputates a leg to save a patient from gangrene? 2. which although it may prove fatal was justified in the circumstances. A. PARA!RAPH J G O+EDIENCE TO ORDER "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( O+EDIENCE TO ORDER' • • • That an order has been issued by a superior That such order must be for some lawful purpose That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.uiry to his identity. over#an&iety.

An7 3e#son :1o. "1en t1e %m4ec%$e o# an %nsane 3e#son 1as comm%tted an act :1%c1 t1e $a: de2%nes as a 2e$on7 (de$%to .. 9n$ess 1e 1as acted :%t1 d%sce#nment. (+eople of the +hilippines v. when it ") . can ac. one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing a crime. it is actor acted without voluntariness. and because there is no crime. <ut there is no criminal liability. there is there is a crime.uestion. 1e s1a$$ 4e comm%tted to t1e ca#e o2 some %nst%t9t%on o# 3e#son ment%oned %n A#t. 1L. the burden of proof in these instances is held by the defense. there is no $ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal. "HO HOLDS THE +)RDEN O( PROO(' 4&emption being a defense.IN! E-E&PTIN! C>$T06H02E C08C>..D.ne who acts by virtue of any of the e&empting circumstances commits a crime although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act. An7 3e#son :1o acts 9nde# t1e com39$s%on o2 an %##es%st%4$e 2o#ce. in paragraphs ( and 5 of Article 1".A. Ahen you apply for justifying or e&empting circumstances. An7 3e#son :1o acts 9nde# t1e %m39$se o2 an 9ncont#o$$a4$e 2ea# o2 an eF9a$ o# 0#eate# %nA9#7. $ got killed. 9n$ess t1e $atte# 1as acted d9#%n0 a $9c%d %nte#/a$. The accused acted upon the order of a superior officer. AND INSANIT. 55 T1e 2o$$o:%n0 a#e e?em3t 2#om c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7. +ET"EEN AND 8)STI(.. An7 3e#son :1o 2a%$s to 3e#2o#m an act #eF9%#ed 47 $a:. . <eronilla ART. A 3e#son o/e# n%ne 7ea#s o2 a0e and 9nde# 2%2teen.$TA2C4$ The circumstance affect the actor. :1en 3#e/ented 47 some $a:29$ o# %ns93e#a4$e ca9se. :1%$e 3e#2o#m%n0 a $a:29$ act :%t1 d9e ca#e. JM3 "1en s9c1 m%no# %s adA9d0ed to 4e c#%m%na$$7 %##es3ons%4$e. *e is a mere tool legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law or instrument of the crime $ince the act is considered lawful. therefore he is at all times e&empt from criminal liability. 1L. without any fault or negligence on his part. *e obeyed the orders in good faith without being aware of their illegality. . IN E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES. The insane. (No: A#t. which he as a military subordinate could not . P. there is no $ince the act complained of is actually wrongful. *e is not liable because he had no criminal intent and was not negligent. t1e co9#t s1a$$ o#de# 1%s con2%nement %n one o2 t1e 1os3%ta$s o# as7$9ms esta4$%s1ed 2o# 3e#sons t19s a22$%cted. J. crime. but the been done within the bounds of law! thus. P. s1a$$ comm%t 1%m to t1e ca#e and c9stod7 o2 1%s 2am%$7 :1o s1a$$ 4e c1a#0ed :%t1 s9#/e%$$ance and ed9cat%onB ot1e#:%se. was ordered by his sergeant to capture $. 5. A 3e#son 9nde# n%ne 7ea#s o$d. is e&empt by virtue that imbeciles does not gain intelligence.uire intelligence. "HAT ARE E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES' 4&empting circumstances are those grounds for e&emption from punishment because there is an absence in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which ma%e the act voluntary or negligent. it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea%ness of prosecution:s evidence PARA!RAPH 1 G I&+ECILIT.$TA2C4$ 4N4. K. DISTIN!)ISH CIRC)&STANCES CIRC)&STANCES. An %m4ec%$e o# an %nsane 3e#son. ca9ses an %nA9#7 47 me#e acc%dent :%t1o9t 2a9$t o# %ntent%on o2 ca9s%n0 %t. 1. #s A criminally liable? 2. #t turned out that the sergeant(s orders were personal and was not given by his superiors. JM3 C. LM o2 t1%s Code. *owever. there is civil liability for the wrong done. not the act The act complained of is considered to have The act complained of is actually wrongful.+T02E C08C>. a soldier. %n :1%c1 case s9c1 m%no# s1a$$ 4e 3#oceeded a0a%nst %n acco#dance o2 A#t. <ut because the actor acted without voluntariness. E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE INSANE AND I&+ECILE' +ET"EEN AN 0mbecile is distinguished from insane because an imbecile.. dead or alive. 3. 1. there is absence of dolo or culpa. 8M (No: A#t. t1e co9#t %n con2o#m%t7 :%t1 t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s and t1e 3#eced%n0 3a#a0#a31. no criminal liability arises. there is neither criminal nor civil liability. There is no criminal $ince there is no crime or criminal.D. :1%c1 1e s1a$$ not 4e 3e#m%tted to $ea/e :%t1o9t 2%#st o4ta%n%n0 t1e 3e#m%ss%on o2 t1e co9#t. however.

it may be used as an insanity defense.uent paragraph which does not totally e&empt a person 1over nine years of age 1if he acted with discernment.' • • • 0f the insanity is only occasional. 6ormigones "HAT ARE OTHER INSTANCES "HERE THE CO)RT &A. reason or discernment. The phrase 1under nine years3 should be construed 1nine years or less3 as may be inferred from the ne&t subse. At such times. Aith regards to %leptomania. . An "@ . and not up to the date of the trial.' >pon conviction. 0n such a defense. though can be considered as one with mental faculties of a child below nine years old. "HAT HAPPENS "HEN IT IS PROVED THAT THE INSANE OR I&+ECILE CO&&ITTED THE (ELON. it could not be held as an insanity defense. can only be adjudged if his actions conform to that of insanity. Clear and convincing circumstantial evidence is suffice to prove insanity. with no immediate jurisprudence. even in instances of superior mental capacity or actual appreciation of the crime as shown in his actions or declarations. can be considered insane because though capable of lucidity. it is stated that if the condition only lessened his will power. it is presumed that the offense was committed in one of them. including motives and emotions. "HAT ARE THE R)LES RE!ARDIN! THE PRES)&PTION O( THE CONTIN)ANCE O( INSANIT. PARA!RAPH .EARS OLD. DEE& A PERSON INSANE' A person suffering from dementia praeco&. or deprived of freedom of will.can be proven that he acted during a lucid interval. I( THE &INOR "HO CO&&ITTED THE CRI&E IS E-ACTL. can only be %nown by overt acts.. A defense of insanity which would only plead a mere abnormality of mental faculties is not suffice to e&empt the offender. The permission of the court would only be granted with the opinion of the /irector of *ealth. a nervous disease with intervals of lac% of consciousness. AS AN E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCE' 0nsanity must be proved during the commission of the crime and not insanity during trial. the may do so. An insane person. A senile person. is presumed to continue to be insane. The insane. and not lose his consciousness. +)RDEN TO PROVE THIS imbecile or an insane cannot distinguish right from wrong. "HEN SHO)LD INSANIT. "HAT IS THE R)LE "ITH RE!ARD &INORIT. L . can only be construed as a mitigating circumstance. an element of voluntariness. 6eeblemindedness is not e&empting because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. 0t could however be. has complete absence of intelligence.' H4$. +E PRESENT TO D)ALI(. IS (EE+LE&INDEDNESS CIRC)&STANCE' AN E-E&PTIN! 2. The thoughts.3 "HEN IS A!E CO)NTED' The age of the accused for the purpose of determining whether he comes within the e&empting circumstance of minority should be computed only up to the time of the commission of the crime charged.ther instances that could totally diminish intelligence are somnambulism or sleepwal%ing and malignant malaria. accepted as a mitigating circumstance. he is deemed without control of his actions. does not amount to the loss of intelligence.ual to imbecility with regards to e&emplifying circumstances. *is trial would however be suspended until he regains lucidity to afford him a fair trial. and would only be allowed to leave with the permission of the court. thus. if lucid during the commission of the crime. (+eople of the +hilippines v. "HO HAS THE CIRC)&STANCE' The court:s bias being for sanity. would be ordered confined in a mental hospital or asylum. the burden of proof rests in the defense. it is significant to note the person:s mental condition before and after the incident. AND 3 5 &INORIT.' An absolute rule that the law follows is one that persons under nine years old are presumed incapable of committing a crime. he suffers from delusions that can ma%e him violent and homicidal.n epilepsy. The mind. "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( PARA!RAPH 1' 0t is based on the complete absence of intelligence. 6eeblemindedness. the presumption of its continuance does not arise. because consciousness of the act is not lost. if the committing of the crime happened during such epileptic attac%. 0f the defendant had lucid intervals. though lessens intelligence. <ut a person who has been judged insane or who is committed to a hospital for the insane. it can not e. to be e&empt must prove beyond reasonable doubt. is completely deprived of intelligence. and insane during trial remains criminally liable. This is primarily because a person of such a tender age. the insane or imbecile. . that the accused upon committing the crime. DOES HE (ALL )NDER PARA!RAPH .

"HAT HAPPENS "HEN THE CO)RT (INDS THAT THE &INOR CO&&ITTED THE CRI&E "ITH DISCERN&ENT' $uch minor will then be proceeded against in accordance with 1The Child and Houth Aelfare Code3 (Articles 1B= to 1=" of +residential /ecree @F'.uence here was clearly foreseeable. fear or intimidation must be present.SICAL (ORCE RED)IRED +. 0??>$T8AT0. based on the "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( IRRESISTA+LE (ORCE' • • • That the compulsion is by means of physical force That the physical force must be irresistible That the physical force must come from a third person "HAT IS THE NAT)RE O( PH. Tanedo A was driving very fast in a populated area. lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable conse."HAT IS THE +ASIS O( PARA!RAPH . it will be a case of negligence. #s $ entitled to the exempting circumstance of paragraph <? H4$. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused "HAT IS AN ACCIDENT' An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will. < was performing a lawful act when he defended himself. he accidentally hit C who died. he did so with due care as re. the person does not commit either an intentional or culpable felony. he is not e&empt from criminal liability. and the conduct of the offender after its commission. "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( ACCIDENT' This e&empting circumstance is based on the lac% of negligence and intent.uences of his unlawful act.uences. PARA!RAPH 5' The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. $uch capacity may be %nown and should be determined by ta%ing into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case. there is no criminal liability. over = and under 1) years of age. the bullet recoiled and struck a person who died.uences are plainly foreseeable. $ince A was driving fast in a populated area.uired. After hitting the chicken. "HAT IS DISCERN&ENT' /iscernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the conse. and although it comes about through some act of our will.2: A attacked $. #s A criminally liable? 2. "HAT IS &EANT +. while hunting. saw wild chickens and fired a shot. so it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that such minor. as amended "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( PARA!RAPH 3' This e&empting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence. (>$ v. <ut it must be noted that when < was defending himself. 0t presupposes a lac% of intention to commit the wrong done. >nder this paragraph.' Again. !hile $ was defending himself against the unjustified assault. the conse. he suddenly hit $ who was crossing the street. but he will be proceeded against in accordance with Article BF of the 8evised +enal Code which is now Article 1=" of +residential /ecree @F'. A threat of future injury is not enough. 0f he acted with discernment... acted with discernment. PARA!RAPH 5 G IRRESISTA+LE (ORCE The phrase 1unless he acted with discernment3 indicates an e&ception. "HO HAS THE DISCERN&ENT' +)RDEN TO PROVE 0f the conse. Can A invoke paragraph <? 2. imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well# grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is done. "5 . 0f life is ta%en by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act e&ecuted with due care and without intention of doing harm. force. !hen he turned a corner. PARA!RAPH 3' +aragraph ' enunciates that minors over = years and under 1) years of age must have acted without discernment. The fact that he %illed C was an accident. the basis of this e&emption is the complete absence of intelligence. PARA!RAPH C G ACCIDENT "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( ACCIDENT' • • • • A person is performing a lawful act Aith due care *e causes an injury to another by mere accident Aithout fault or intention of causing it. A. the manner the crime was committed. 0t is apparent that A did not ta%e the necessary precautions demanded by the circumstances. The duress.

"B . the arrested person must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within -= hours 8Article 1.pon reaching a banana plantation. #s A guilty of arbitrary detention? DI((ERENTIATE IRRESISTA+LE )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR.. they spotted A and striking him with the butt of their guns. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause. (+eople of the +hilippines v.. #s $ exempt from criminal liability? 2. A is not criminally liable since he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. or obfuscation as in this case. A immediately got a gun. >nder the law the priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to %now by reason of the confession made to him in his professional capacity. is he criminally liable? 2. < is not e&empt from criminal liability since the civil with which he was threatened was much less than that of %illing his father. (ORCE AND "HAT IS CA)SE' The basis for this e&empting circumstance is that the accused acts without intent.ual combat. 0t must consist of an e&traneous force coming from a third person. sought $. Can A be held criminally liable as an accomplice to murder? 2. the municipal president detained the offended party for .for escape r self#defense in e.pon learning this. or remote fear. "HAT IS THE NAT)RE O( THE )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR SO THAT IT CAN +E )SED AS A VALID DE(ENSE' 0t should be based on real. . (>$ v. Caballeros A(s wife was killed by $. otherwise the public officer will be guilty of arbitrary detention. . This paragraph presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another by means of intimidation of or threat unli%e in irresistible force where the compulsion is by means of force or violence. a 0ilipino citi/en who knows of a conspiracy must report the same.. A.2: A band of rebels murdered some American school teachers.. or reasonable fear for one:s life or limb and should not be speculative.. and killed him.2: A and $ were compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance to the >atipunan whose purpose was to overthrow the government by force of arms.days because to take him to the nearest judicial authority re&uired a journey for . 0??>$T8AT0. #f the priest does not disclose the information. $ killed his father for fear that A might burn his house.ual to that committed.. compelled him to bury the bodies of their victims.ual combat. A threatened to burn the house of $ should he not kill his own father.days by boat as there was no other means of transportation. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self#defense in e. fanciful. PARA!RAPH K G PREVENTED +. PARA!RAPH J G )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR "HAT ARE RED)ISITES O( )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR' • • • 4&istence of an uncontrollable fear The fear must be real and imminent The fear of an injury is greater than or at least e. . A threat of future injury is not enough.uired by law to be done. Can A and $ be held liable for rebellion? 2. That a person fails to perform such act. A contends that he was acting under an irresistible force caused by the anguish of his wife(s death.9. the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felonies. THE +ASIS (OR INS)PERA+LE is based on the This e&empting circumstance is based on the complete absence of freedom. INS)PERA+LE CA)SE "HAT ARE THE RED)SITES O( INS)PERA+LE CA)SE' • • • That an act is re. 0??>$T8AT0. .ual or greater injury. They joined the rebels under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an e. 0??>$T8AT0.nder Article 11=.nder the law. The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion.2: A confessed to a priest that he and several other persons were in conspiracy against the government. imminent. an element of voluntariness. #s his contention correct? 2. ?oreno "HAT IS (ORCE' THE +ASIS (OR IRRESISTA+LE "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR' This e&empting circumstance complete absence of freedom.

A was instigated to commit the crime of smo%ing opium. the agent arrested A. 1e s1a$$ 4e 3#oceeded a0a%nst %n acco#dance :%t1 t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 a#t%c$e 8M. The distance which re. the detective arrested the thief. the accused must be ac. T1at s922%c%ent 3#o/ocat%on o# t1#eat on t1e 3a#t o2 t1e o22ended 3a#t7 %mmed%ate$7 3#eceded t1e act. (Article 5 The accessory is a relative to the principal (Article "F ?egal grounds for arbitrary detention (Article 1"( ?egal grounds for trespass (Article "BF. T1at t1e o22ende# 1ad no %ntent%on to comm%t so 0#a/e a :#on0 as t1at comm%tted.. becomes a co#principal.times to convince him. not performing a public function. %he agent went to A .nly public officers or private detectives. paragraph ' The crime of theft. O( INSTI!ATION' . crime comes from him Absolutory cause. In t1e case o2 t1e m%no#. 0f the one who made the instigation is a private individual. ?ight felony is only attempted or frustrated. The law enforcer conceives the commission of The means originates from the mind of the "= . DISTIN!)ISH ENTRAP&ENT. 0??>$T8AT0. T1ose ment%oned %n t1e 3#eced%n0 c1a3te#. After doing so. After stealing the jewels. • • • • • • • • "HAT IS INSTI!ATION' 0nstigation happens when a public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission. both he and the one induced are criminally liable. 13 &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES.. 1. C. 3.arriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape. %he detective asked the thief how and the latter told him that they were going to break into the house of a rich man to steal jewels. +helps A detective represented himself as a private individual who was in need of money. "HO &A. CA)SES "HAT ARE A+SOL)TOR. . He befriended a well)known thief who told him there was a way they could get money. Lincentillo A+SOL)TOR. CA)SES IN THE REVISED PENAL CODE' • $pontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Article @ and no crime under another provision of the Code or other penal law is committed. CA)SES' Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed. seduction.uired a journey for ' days was considered an insuperable cause. The original design of committing the crime was formed by the thief independently of the agent. 55 T1e 2o$$o:%n0 a#e m%t%0at%n0 c%#c9mstances. (>$ v. or acts of lasciviousness (Article '(( 0nstigation the crime and suggests to the accused who criminal. "HAT ARE THE A+SOL)TOR..2.2: An agent of the law posed as private individual and went to A and induced him to look for a place where he could smoke opium. :1en a$$ t1e #eF9%s%tes necessa#7 to A9st%27 t1e act o# to e?em3t 2#om c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7 %n t1e #es3ect%/e cases a#e not attendant. (>$ v. +E !)ILT. A made efforts to look for a place where they could smoke opium. INSTI!ATION (RO& INSTI!ATION ENTRAP&ENT The instigator practically induces the would#be Aays and means are resorted to for the accused into committing an offense and himself purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbrea%er. ART. and is not against persons or property. swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative (Article ''" Ahen only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of se&ual intercourse with another person (Article "(5 . There was entrapment. $ecause of the agent(s insistence. T1at t1e o22ende# %s 9nde# e%01teen 7ea#s o2 a0e o# o/e# se/ent7 7ea#s. #s A criminally liable? 2. the former as principal by inducement and the latter as principal by direct participation. the idea and resolve to commit the adopts the idea and carries it into e&ecution. abduction. #s the thief criminally liable? H4$. A is e&empt from criminal liability.uitted 2o bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbrea%er.

paragraph ) Loluntary release of the person illegally detained within ' days without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of the criminal action (Article "@B. +roduces the effect of imposing upon the offender produces the effect of applying the penalty the penalty lower by one or two degrees that that provided by law for the crime in its minimum provided by law for the crime. $o if there are " ordinary mitigating circumstances. paragraph ' 0??>$T8AT0. and no aggravating circumstance. was charged with robbery. 0f there was no mitigating circumstance. &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES PRIVILE!ED&ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES $usceptible of being offset by any aggravating Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances circumstance 0f by an aggravating circumstance. 4$%nd o# ot1e#:%se %s s922e#%n0 some 317s%ca$ de2ect :1%c1 t19s #est#%cts 1%s means o2 act%on. so the penalty will be reduced only by one period. #t was proved that there was the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender. T1at t1e o22ende# 1ad /o$9nta#%$7 s9##ende#ed 1%mse$2 to a 3e#son %n a9t1o#%t7 o# 1%s a0ents. He committed the crime during nighttime which was purposely sought. period. medium. o# t1at 1e 1ad /o$9nta#%$7 con2essed 1%s 09%$t 4e2o#e t1e co9#t 3#%o# to t1e 3#esentat%on o2 e/%dence 2o# t1e 3#osec9t%on. 8.itigating circumstances are those which. $ince there is a mitigating circumstance. "HAT ARE &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES' . $e0%t%mate. *owever. The number of ordinary mitigating circumstances corresponds to the number of time the penalty will be reduced by a period.5. it would prision mayor ma&imum. such will offset the effect of one mitigating circumstance. in the period that it may deem applicable. punishable by reclusion temporal. And. intelligence. (RO& PRIVILE!ED &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES.rdinary mitigating circumstances which are enumerated in Article 1' and privileged mitigating circumstances which are in the other parts of the 8evised +enal Code. who is less than 1? years old. minimum . L. "HAT ARE THE T"O CLASSES O( &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES' . S9c1 %$$ness o2 t1e o22ende# as :o9$d d%m%n%s1 t1e e?e#c%se o2 t1e :%$$53o:e# o2 t1e o22ende# :%t1o9t 1o:e/e# de3#%/%n0 1%m o2 consc%o9sness o2 1%s acts. They have the effect of reducing the penalty. according the number and nature of such circumstances (Article @(. !hat effect would that have on A(s criminal liability? A would be charged with homicide. do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability. 2%na$$7. 1M. an7 ot1e# c%#c9mstance o2 a s%m%$a# nat9#e and ana$o0o9s to t1ose a4o/e ment%oned. the penalty will be reduced by " periods. ascendants. 0n the case given above. DI((ERENTIATE ORDINAR. "HAT ARE THE CIRC)&STANCES' • • • PRIVILE!ED &ITI!ATIN! not offset • • Ahen the offender is a minor under 1B years of age (Article @B Ahen the crime committed is not wholly e&cusable (Article @= Ahen there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. ORDINAR. o# comm9n%cat%on :%t1 1%s 2e$$o: 4e%n0s.2: A was charged with homicide. T1at o2 1a/%n0 acted 93on an %m39$se so 3o:e#29$ as nat9#a$$7 to 1a/e 3#od9ced 3ass%on o# o429scat%on. A:s penalty will be reduced to the minimum of the penalty for murder which is reclusion temporal minimum. K. penalties in the 8evised +enal Code are divided in ' periods (ma&imum. but serve only to reduce the penalty. paragraph ' Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery (Article '''. nat9#a$ o# ado3ted 4#ot1e#s o# s%ste#s o# #e$at%/es 47 a22%n%t7 :%t1%n t1e same de0#ees. the court shall impose the penalty ne&t lower to that prescribed by law. T1at t1e o22ende# %s dea2 and d9m4. They are based on the diminution of either freedom or action. if present in the commission of the crime. if there is one aggravating circumstance. descendants. in case the penalty is divisible. J. an aggravating 'F . A. As a general rule. T1at t1e act :as comm%tted %n t1e %mmed%ate /%nd%cat%on o2 a 0#a/e o22ense to t1e one comm%tt%n0 t1e 2e$on7 (de$%to 1%s s3o9se. but they do no change the nature of the crime. the penalty would be reclusion temporal medium. de2ense.

'ince the second re&uisite of the exempting circumstance of minority of a person over : but under 1. ma%ing the said circumstance mitigating. C is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of Article 1'. $ince there are only two re. PARA!RAPH . <ernal A. He was awakened by a shot.uisite are absent.uisites for the justifying circumstance of performance of duty. A and $ contend that their act was justified since they were in the performance of a duty. the presence of one re. DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL. attacked $ who was teasing him. The other re.uisite is already a majority. A.uisites in order the obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose is lac%ing in this case. paragraph 1 . was expecting to be attached by his enemies. 0f the second re. is a 12 year old boy who committed a crime.. 6ourth. a sergeant in the army. and will not fall under this paragraph. G )NDER 18 OR OVER KM .. Article @= and not Article 1'. There was the incomplete e&empting circumstance of uncontrollable fear (Article 1". The case of such minor is specifically covered by Article @B. a person must be performing a lawful act. TO PARA!RAPH C O( ARTICLE 1.uisites for the e&empting circumstance of accident. The effect would be li%e a mitigating circumstance since said article states that the penalty will be lower than if the felony was committed intentionally. %hey went to his house. $ut the court found out that the second re&uisite for the justifying circumstance of performance of duty was lacking. At most. $ defended himself by getting a knife which he used to stab A repeatedly. #s Article 1. such must be done with due care. which is in this case is paragraph 1 of Article 1'.uisites. it being an indispensable re. 6irst. felonies by negligence or imprudence. paragraph 1... shot him. Also. 0f the first re. the case will fall under Article '@). !ill the circumstances offset each other? 2. #t was proved that he acted with discernment. 0??>$T8AT0. #s he entitled to the justifying circumstance of self)defense? 2. an injury was caused to another by mere accident. which is a privileged mitigating circumstance. There is therefore a privileged mitigating circumstance (Article @= in this case.uisite will no longer apply. However he fell asleep. *owever if two of the three are present (one of which must be unlawful aggression . a dangerous criminal.uisite. unlawful aggression must be present. is lacking. There is in this case incomplete self#defense. who was very drunk. #t turned out to be another person.. dead or alive.2: A. HO" DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL. not an ordinary mitigating circumstance (Article 1'. the second and third re. defense of relatives and defense of stranger. had a grudge against $. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot offset the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. there are four re. paragraph '.uisite and the second part of the fourth re.uisite are absent. >nder Article 1". and finding a person lying down in the bed in C(s room. #s his contention correct? 2. paragraph @ .. TO THE THREE CLASSES O( DE(ENSES' 0n self#defense. $o there is only a mitigating circumstance. A. there is no fault or intention of causing such injury. such would be a privileged mitigating circumstance in accordance with Article @= of the 8evised +enal Code. He therefore ordered C.EARS O( A!E "HAT SIT)ATIONS DOES PARA!RAPH . < gave sufficient provocation.paragraph 1 applicable in this case? 2. A and $ were ordered to capture C. is this article applicable? 2. C now contends that his act is justified since he was just obeying an order. RE(ER TO' '1 . his subordinate to kill $. $econd. Although there is an incomplete justifying circumstance. The same principle applies to the e&empting circumstance of uncontrollable fear which also has only " re. Third.uisites. paragraph 1 should be applied.circumstance. PARA!RAPH 1 G INCO&PLETE 8)STI(. The former article states that a majority of such conditions to ma%e an act justifying or e&empting will merit a penalty lower by one or two degrees. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph 1? H4$. it will be an intentional felony.' 2. The deceased was in a state of drun%enness and so the necessity of the means used to repel the aggression is clearly not reasonable. Ahat is absent are the two other re. C complied.IN! AND E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES "HICH CIRC)&STANCES DOES PARA!RAPH 1 RE(ER TO' The justifying (Article 11 and e&empting (Article 1" circumstances. (+eople of the +hilippines v. and he immediately grabbed his gun and shot $ who was in the vicinity but was innocent and unarmed. The fear in this case was not uncontrollable and was not real and imminent.uisite and the first part of the fourth re.

or for a shorter period as the court may deem proper after considering the reports and recommendation of the department. • • THERE(ORE. &A. ARE THE STA!ES O( A. A punched her in the abdomen. A PERSON OVER KM . upon application of the youthful offender and if it finds that the best interest of the public as well as that of the offender will be served thereby. it would be prision mayor. 0n conspiracy. %he punch caused her spleen to rupture. This will go on until he shall have reached "1 years of age. 6or e&ample.EAR O( A!E. the part of the body injured. provided there is no aggravating circumstance. and the effects of the injury committed. 8eyes HO" DO . must be judged by the circumstance surrounding the case.EARS OLD. • . PARA!RAPH 3 G NO INTENTION TO CO&&IT SO !RAVE A "RON! "HAT IS THE R)LE (OR THE APPLICATION O( THIS PARA!RAPH' The facts proven must show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to e&ecute the criminal act and its conse. the injury inflicted. 0f the accused is over 1) years or over but under 1B years of age. Article @B applies Ahen the offender is over 5F years of age. HO" "O)LD HE +E PROCEEDED A!AINST' Through Article 1=" of the +/ @F' which is applied in lieu of Article BF of the 8evised +enal Code. 0t is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be determined and not at the time of the trial. 0n the same e&ample. "HAT IS THE E((ECT O( THIS &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE' 0t depends on the age of the accused. li%e the weapon used. The penalty will be lowered by " degrees.. $uch minor shall then be committed to the custody or care of the /$A/. reclusion temporal minimum.' $tages of 8esponsibility: • Absolute irresponsibility: nine (= years and below • Conditional responsibility: between nine (= and fifteen (1) years • 6ull responsibility: eighteen (1B or over to seventy (5F '" . "HAT RESPONSI+ILIT. CO&&ITTED A CRI&E "HEN HE "AS 1J . the fact that they were in conspiracy ma%es them liable for all the acts made by their companions.• • • Ahen the offender is over = years but under 1) years of age and acted with discernment (in which case. CAN HE STILL +ENE(IT (RO& PARA!RAPH . which is 1 degree lower than reclusion temporal. Article @B applies Ahen the offender is 1) years or over but under 1B years of age (in which case.' H4$. the husband only wanted to cause physical injuries. Article @B will also apply and the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree. 0??>$T8AT0.2: A had a &uarrel with his wife. +)T THE TRIAL STARTED "HEN HE "AS ALREAD. A &INOR AND THAT +. #s the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong applicable in this case? H4$. Article @B will apply. IN ACCORDENCE "ITH PARA!RAPH . +la-a "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN A CRI&E CO&&ITTED +. 1L. the court. and over seventy years of age and with less (5F I( IT IS PROVED THAT THE &INOR CO&&ITTED A CRI&E. *e never intended to %ill his wife. the manner it was inflicted. or to any training institution operated by the government or any responsible person. THE LAC* O( INTENT TO CO&&IT SO !RAVE A "RON! +E CONSIDERED IN CONSPIRAC.uences. (>$ v.' 2. institution or person under whose care he has been committed. Article @B does not cover crimes committed by a person over 5F years of age.' A crime committed by a minor is specifically covered in Article @B which provides for a mitigating circumstance.O) SHO)" THAT THE ACC)SED DID NOT INTENT THE "RON! CO&&ITTED' 0ntention. At most.itigated responsibility: over nine (= under fifteen (1) . killing her. the penalty two degrees lower would be prision correccional. this paragraph will apply. 0nstead of pronouncing a judgment of conviction. if acting discernment. #n the course of the fight. • 0f the accused is over = years and under 1) years of age and it was proven that he acted with discernment. 0f the accused is over 5F years of age. which is in this case. being an internal act. $o even though some of the conspirators did not intend to commit so grave a wrong. fifteen (1) or over but than eighteen (1B . in this crime of homicide which is punishable by reclusion temporal. may suspend all further proceedings. the act of one is the act of all. and the penalty will be lowered by one period. (+eople of the +hilippines v.

. A and $ were together. inciting or irritating a person to commit a wrong and must be proportionate to its gravity. As they were about to escape with their loot. A contends that he was acting in self) defense. $ince the offender:s real intent cannot be determined. 0earing that * would call the police. A contends that he had no intention to kill $. and the number of stab wounds point to the fact that the accused had intent to %ill when he attac%ed <. (+eople of the +hilippines v. #s his contention correct? 2. <ut it must be noted that vague threats is not sufficient provocation. * awoke and shouted at them. when $ saw A walking alone. A then took out his knife and stabbed $. 0n this case. A contends that he had no intention to commit a wrong. "HAT IS S)((ICIENT PROVOCATION' Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party capable of e&citing. A %new that the girl was very tender in age. . paragraph ' addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he e&ecutes or commits the criminal act. $. This paragraph is not applicable to felonies by negligence where the offender acts without intent. *owever. the abdomen . A. who was one of the laborers in the line waiting to receive their wages. $ecause of this. $ut when he tried to do so. #s his contention correct? 2. The provocation in this case is not sufficient.. the circumstances show that A had the intent to commit the grave crime. Can A avail of the mitigating circumstance of paragraph <? 2. Hu A. wanted to rape $. %hereafter. not to his intention during the planning stage.. they did intend to %ill him. . a = year old girl. A can be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of paragraph (. $ died. (+eople of the +hilippines v.since their plan was only to rob and not kill *. he the mitigating his contention • That the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person provo%ed. A was walking along @uneta when $ approached him and pointing to him. helpless and defenseless and he ought to %now that natural and inevitable result of the act of strangulation. a jail guard. 0n this case.. armed with a bolo. The sufficiency of the provocation will depend on the circumstances in each case. The paragraph says that the provocation must come from the offended party.. *ence in felonies through negligence there is no intent on the part of the offender which may be considered as diminished. A is prosecuted for the crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners through negligence. forgot to lock $(s cell since he was very drunk. +rovocation must commission of the crime. left his place and forced himself up front. be immediate to the The weapon used. 0??>$T8AT0. 7rosecuted contends that he is entitled to circumstance in paragraph -. at the precise moment they ganged up on /. %he accused ordered him to get back in line but he persisted vehemently.. Article 1'. PARA!RAPH O((ENSE 5 G VINDICATION O( !RAVE '' . < never gave any provocation..A. Can $ benefit from paragraph <? H4$. A provoked $ in front of a large crown. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph -? 2. A hit C on the head with a piece of stone from his sling shot and ran away. As he could not overtake A. wea% in body. #s his contention correct? 2. #s their contention correct? 2. $ stabbed him in the back. only rape her. asked what he was doing in their territory. attacked $. hours later. then it would be an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self# defense. C contends that he should be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph <. they killed him. all the accused contend that they are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph . #s correct? stabbing him in for murder. A hit him in the head. C faced $ and assaulted him.2: A is a foreman in a construction company. the part of the body injured. <oyles A. she shouted so A had to cover her mouth and choke her. PARA!RAPH C G PROVOCATION OR THREAT "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH C TO APPL.n the other hand. . if the threat was offensive and positively strong. times. $ was able to escape. $ and C went to rob *(s house. Can $ benefit from paragraph <? 2. 0t is that moment to which this paragraph applies. At the trial.' • • That the provocation must be sufficient That it must originate from the offended party A threatened $ with bodily harm because of which the latter attacked and injured the former. The threat immediately preceded the act.bviously there was no unlawful aggression on the part of <.

legitimate. 0t cannot be said that the second incident was a pro&imate vindication of the first. even if it is proved that there is actually passion and obfuscation but the act was done in a spirit of lawlessness or revenge. descendants. The defense must be able to prove that the act which produced passion or obfuscation too% place at a time not far removed from the commission of the crime.3 A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense. PROVOCATION VINDICATION (RO& .O) DETER&INE THE !RAVIT. A immediately got the knife. which admits of an the provocation and the commission of the interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused. $ remarked that the C'C was a hang)out for thieves. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Although a lapse of time is allowed.? 2. HO" LON! &)ST THE LEN!TH O( TI&E +E +ET"EEN THE ACT THAT !AVE RISE TO THE PASSION AND O+()SCATION O( THE ACC)SED AND THE CRI&E' 0t depends on the circumstances. !hile he was eating lunch with his fellow employees. also "HAT IS THE R)LE (OR THE APPLICATION O( THIS PARA!RAPH' +assion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when the same arose from lawful sentiments provided by prior unjust or improper acts of the offended party. . ascendants. he saw his son stabbed to death with a knife which he recogni/ed to belong to $..? 2.uisites for this paragraph to apply is present in this case.ffended party need not have done a grave . Therefore. A committed physical injuries on $. HO" LON! SHO)LD THE LAPSE O( TI&E +E +ET"EEN THE !RAVE O((ENSE AND VINDICATION' 0t depends on the circumstances of each case. and attacked him. and stabbed him. O( THE O((ENSE IN VINDICATION' $uch must be decided by the court. A. offense to the offender. during which the perpetrator might recover his normal e. $ stabbed him to death. DISTIN!)ISH PROVOCATION VINDICATION.' • • That there be an act.ust be a grave offense. or relatives by affinity within the same degree. feeling that a grave offense was committed against his person. The supposed grave offense must be directed to the accused. natural or adopted brothers or sisters. the remar% was general in nature and could have applied to the other people in the vicinity. waited for $ after work. The passion and obfuscation must have caused a diminution of intelligence and intent on the part of the accused.uanimity. looked for $. #s he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense? '( . the lapse of time in this case has already been too long. 0n this case."HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH 5 TO APPL.ade directly to the person committing the Erave offense may be committed against felony.. !hen A returned home one night. when $ saw A alone. HO" DO . then this mitigating circumstance cannot apply. The re.' • That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony. his spouse. : months later. A was facing criminal and administrative charges in the Civil 'ervice Commission.uanimity during the length of time There must not be an interval of time between $uch may be pro&imate. H4$. • The word 1immediate3 in paragraph ) is not an accurate translation of the $panish te&t which uses the term 1pro&ima. <enito PARA!RAPH J G PASSION OR O+()SCATION "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR THE &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE O( PASSION OR O+()SCATION TO APPL. ta%ing into consideration the circumstances surrounding each case. Can he avail of the mitigating circumstance in paragraph . both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind and That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. 0t actually depends on whether the accused has recovered his normal e. Can A avail of the mitigating circumstance in paragraph . offender:s relatives mentioned by law. 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. That the felony is committed in the immediate vindication of such grave offense.

#s paragraph = applicable in this case? H4$. He was overcome with uncontrollable passion and he wanted to have carnal knowledge with $. . (>$ v. the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self# control must originate from legitimate feelings. (>$ v. immediately killed C. and he did so. The action of A in ta%ing the carabao to the barrio lieutenant was perfectly legal and proper and constituted no reasonable cause for provocation to the accused.. ARISE (RO& CA)SES E-ISTIN! ONL.between the two acts. PASSION OR O+()SCATION LA"()LL. not when the crime was planned and calmly meditated. de la CruA saw $ almost naked in front of him. disappointment and anger by his wife:s refusal to continue in their illicit relations with him.. 'o A deliberately planned to injure $. the cause of passion and obfuscation was his ve&ation.uired only that the influence thereof lasts until the moment the crime is committed. !hen $ saw A ') . #s his contention correct? 2.. A and $ lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? 2. A poisoned the :)month)old child entrusted to her since a few hours before.. and shot $. he saw $ in flagrante. so the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot apply. 'o he raped her. half an hour was not considered. is sufficient to confuse his reason and impel him to commit the crime. years. and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. li%e in this case where the relationship was illegitimate. and not those which arise from vicious. A went to $(s house to collect the debt $ owed him which he has not paid for in a long time. 0??>$T8AT0. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? H4$. Can paragraph = apply to him? 2.2: A was insulted by $ in front of a large crowd. the effect is the loss of reason and self# control on the part of the offender. +assion and obfuscation in this case is not justified because A was clearly within his rights in what he did. 4ven if it is true that A acted with obfuscation because of jealousy. he got a stick and his both A and $ on the head. and so he killed $. so the mitigating circumstance wouldn:t apply. 6errer DISTIN!)ISH PASSION (RO& PROVOCATION. they also proceeded to kill C(s son who was near the PROVOCATION PASSION OR O+()SCATION Comes from the injured party +roduced by an impulse which may be caused by provocation 0mmediately precede the commission of the +assion and obfuscation need not be immediate. (+eople of the +hilippines v. A and $ were causing trouble in the wake of C(s father. IN THE HONEST +ELIE( O( THE O((ENDER' H4$. so he could take it to the barrio lieutenant. *ic%s A and $ were living together for a long time already. Afterwards. A contends that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation be applied to his case. A then got hold of a knife. (+eople of the +hilippines v. (>$ v. A was motivated in a spirit of revenge. Can $ claim that he was overcome by passion and obfuscation? 2. believing that C would inflict other wounds upon their father who was already wounded. 0t crime is re. 0n one case. 0n both. A was enraged by such conduct. unworthy and immoral passions. The crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. Can A invoke paragraph =? 2. &A. !hen C saw them wreaking havoc on the place. 0n *ic%s. Thus the belief of accused that the deceased had caused his dismissal from his employment. even though the latter had no part in it. This case must be distinguished from the *ic%s case because since the impulse causes here was the sudden revelation that < was untrue to him. the former shot the latter.. !hen A went home one night. the child(s mother scolded her for being with a man in the master(s bedroom. 2oynay 0or about . Considering that the trouble created by the deceased was both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate C. The passion and obfuscation here was motivated by a spirit of lawlessness.nder great excitement. $he was actuated by a spirit of revenge rather than a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. Caliso A and $. $ still refused to pay so A got hold of $(s carabao. 0n this case. his guilt is mitigated by passion and obfuscation. $ separated from A and lived with another man. having carnal relations with a common ac&uaintance. which she had a perfect right to do. OR O+()SCATION taking his carabao.

After a warrant of arrest was served upon him. went into hiding and refused to surrender until he had spoken to the town councilor. and the accused surrendered. threw away his bolo. mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation... #s his contention correct? 2.scene at that time.' AN A!ENT O( A PERSON IN A)THORIT. board or commission. C:s son had no part in the . $alvilla A. A told $ that he was good)for)nothing husband and that he was gay.' A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous. Their surrender was not spontaneous as it was motivated more by an intent to insure their safety. either because: • *e ac%nowledges his guilt. one for each insult by his wife. Ahen the offender imposed a condition. 0n the absence of proof to the contrary. $ ran toward the municipal building. who. raised his two hands. Aindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation. the act of the accused in surrendering is voluntary since he had no %nowledge of his warrant of arrest. Tenorio A killed $. thereafter he went into hiding. only one of them could be considered. or • *e wishes to save them the trouble and e&penses necessarily incurred in his search and capture 0f none of the two reasons impelled the accused to surrender. or by election or by appointment by competent authority. Can this paragraph apply to them? 2. A immediately took the gun. and the protection '@ . A contends that there are two mitigating circumstances in his crime. <rana After committing a crime. after committing a crime. it is not mitigating." #s he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph B? H4$. The provocation that caused passion and obfuscation must come from the offended party. looked for $ and shot him. whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation. $linded by passion because of A(s remark. a policeman "HEN IS S)RRENDER VOL)NTAR.uarrel and had not in any manner provo%ed the sons. with arms raised. S)RRENDER' • • • That the offender had not actually been arrested That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter:s agent That the surrender was voluntary and security of life and property and any person who come to the aid of persons in authority. and said to the patrolman3 Here is my bolo. shouted that they would be surrendering. the surrender is not spontaneous and therefore not voluntary. There was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities (+eople of the +hilippines v. %hereafter. police and military authorities surrounded their house and asked them to surrender. Ahen an accused surrenders only after a warrant of arrest has been served upon him. is charged with the maintenance of public order. Two mitigating circumstances are provided for in this paragraph: • Loluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents • Loluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution Ahen both are present. At most. He saw $(s gun nearby. $ took out a knife and stabbed A. Can he avail of the mitigating circumstance of surrender? 2. A and $. they should have the effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances. +ne day. he immediately surrendered. After doing so. Can they invoke passion and obfuscation regarding the death of C(s son? 2. #s his contention correct? *4?? 2. 8oldan !hen the warrant of arrest had not been served or not returned unserved because the accused cannot be located. (+eople of the +hilippines v. PARA!RAPH K G S)RRENDER AND CON(ESSION O( !)ILT E-PLAIN PARA!RAPH K. A and $ went into hiding..2: After killing A. is the surrender mitigating? H4$. "HO IS A PERSON IN A)THORIT. # stabbed the victim. not both simultaneously. (+eople of the +hilippines v. showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. his surrender is not voluntary. offered no resistance. he surrendered himself.I +rovocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating circumstance.' A person in authority is one vested with jurisdiction. a barangay captain An agent of a person in authority is a person. by direct provision of the law. $ contends that he is entitled to .. (for e&ample. (for e&ample. #s he entitled to a mitigating circumstance? 2. Lindication of grave offense cannot co#e&ist with passion and obfuscation. 0??>$T8AT0. A went home to find his wife killed. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR VOL)NTAR.. (+eople of the +hilippines v.

A committed a crime which was punishable by death. (+eople of the +hilippines v. $ went to the Chief of 7olice to surrender the bolo. A went into hiding. The confession of guilt must be made in open court in order for the confession to be mitigating. A plea of guilty.oreover. nor alter the fact that by giving himself up. he changed his plea of not guilt to a plea of guilty. %he court granted this and the information was amended to that of homicide and frustrated homicide. *oes paragraph B apply to his case? 2. There was an entirely new information and no evidence was yet presented in connection with the charges made therein before the accused entered his plea of guilty. The plea must be made before trial begins. The chief cler% is not a person in authority or his agent. can paragraph B still apply? H4$. Clemente After killing A. The confession in this case was made e&tra# judicially. 0??>$T8AT0. and it was only after the fifth day did he surrender. the prosecution had already presented evidence on the guilt of the accused.. but not himself. is A still entitled to the mitigating circumstance of surrender? H4$. full significance and conse. or a court where the case is to be tried. '5 . 0t was not A:s fault that aggravating circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information. After that.uently justified. After committing the crime. A plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies. #s his contention correct? 2. is it still necessary to proceed with the trial? H4$. That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation does not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender.. . A(s trial had already begun on the original information for murder and frustrated murder. and not to a lesser offense. it was subse.uences of his plea and IS A PLEA O( !)ILT.oreover. must be made in a competent court. "HAT ARE THE R)LES SO A PLEA O( !)ILT. #s he still entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph B? 2. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Considering the length of time before his surrender. Crimes punishable by death must be tried at the 8egional Trial Court.2: A confessed to the fiscal while he was in custody at the police head&uarters. to be mitigating. Although a plea of guilty must be to the offense charged and not to a lesser offense. He hid for .uisites for voluntary surrender. #s paragraph B applicable? 2. #s paragraph B applicable in this case? H4$. A immediately gave himself up to the police. Considering that the plea of guilty was to a lesser offense. He pleaded guilty in the municipal trial court. $ecause of fear from the retaliation of $(s brothers. 0t is enough that the accused satisfy the re. it must be done at the first opportunity. He expressed willingness to plead guilty for a lesser offense.uires that the offender must have voluntarily surrendered 1himself3 to a person in authority or his agents. and in crimes punished by special laws. 7rosecuted for murder. Co search warrant was issued.A killed $. this accused saved the $tate the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested. the . A plea of guilty on appeal is not mitigating.. Can A avail himself of the mitigating circumstance of paragraph B? H4$. The court should determine whether the accuses really and truly comprehended the meaning. he contends that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of surrender. the prosecution failed to prove it.ualification here did not deny the accused: guilt. !hen the court re&uired the presentation of evidence on premeditation. The law re. . Can this mitigate his liability? 2. that he was guilty of the crime. Hturriaga A pleaded guilty to murder... *uring the trial of A. A pleaded guilty but held that evident premeditation which was alleged in the information did not attend the commission of the crime. (+eople of the +hilippines v. CAN +E A &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE' • • • • • • • That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt That the confession was made in open court The court is the competent court to try the case That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution 0t is made at the first opportunity and not on appeal 0t is an unconditional plea The plea is to the offense charge. APPLICA+LE TO ALL CRI&ES' 2. 8amos After committing malversation. A surrendered to the chief clerk of a district engineer. The 8evised +enal Code does not ma%e any distinction among the various moments when the surrender may occur. 'ince he has already acknowledged his guilt. days..

>sually. on the occasion of extreme poverty. !hen prosecuted. Amit PARA!RAPH 1M G SI&ILAR AND ANALO!O)S CIRC)&STANCES "HAT IS THE PARA!RAPH' SI!NI(ICANCE O( THIS DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL. "HAT IS THE REASON (OR RED)ISITE O( PARA!RAPH L' THE SECOND The significance of this paragraph is that even though a particular circumstance does not fall under any of the enumerated circumstances in Article 1'.. he claims that what he did was right since he saved a lot of people from being killed. The restriction must relate to the mode of committing this crime.' • • The offender is deaf and dumb. And although the accused had saved the lives of a lot of persons.SICAL DE(ECT "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH 8 TO APPL.' That the illness of the offender must diminish the e&ercise of his will#power That such illness should not deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts. or communication with his fellow beings. 0??>$T8AT0. Also. he is nonetheless. A was adjudged sane. However. stole two sacks of paper and sold them at a cheaper price. a =2 year old man with failing sight. <ut it can only mitigate when the crime is against property li%e theft and not when the crime is violent such as murder. .2: A. PARA!RAPH 8 G PH. 0??>$T8AT0. if he caused the %illing of a single human being. no matter how meritorious it may be. the court is authori-ed to consider in favor of the accused 1any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those mentioned. this paragraph applies to diseases of a pathological state that trouble the conscience or will. DOES THIS &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE INCL)DE ILLNESS O( THE &IND' H4$. for in that case such illness would be an e&empting circumstance. then it may be an e&empting circumstance based on insanity. the physical defect of A has no relation to the mode of committing the crime of libel. This paragraph does not distinguish between educated and uneducated deaf#mute or blind persons. Although judged mentally sane. it is mandatory that evidence be presented in accordance with the 8evised 8ules of Court.2: "HAT ARE THE &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES "HICH ARE PERSONAL TO THE O((ENDERS' 'B . or a person over 5F years of age.oreover. 4&treme poverty maybe a mitigating circumstance based on Article 11. 'o A took out his gun and killed his neighbor. defense. (+eople of the +hilippines v. *owever.2: A is armless. she is suffering from a mild behavior disorder. The physical defect must restrict his means of action. #s he entitled to the mitigating circumstance in this paragraph? 2. 0n this case. A found out that his neighbor was a terrorist and that the latter was planning to bomb a mall. !ill A be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of illness? H4$. or communication. e&empting or mitigating in the commission of wrongs. defense. &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES PERSONAL TO THE O((ENDERS "HICH ARE 0f the offender is deprived of all consciousness of his acts. "HEN THE DEA(5&)TE OR +LIND IS ED)CATED' H4$. when it is a capital offense. her mild behavior disorder can be considered a mitigating circumstance. #s he entitled to a mitigating circumstance? H4$. PARA!RAPH L G ILLNESS O( THE O((ENDER "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH L TO APPL.3 0??>$T8AT0. then this paragraph cannot be a mitigating circumstance. committed the crime of homicide. !hat is the effect of his claim to his criminal liability? The performance of righteous action. A:s case falls under paragraph 1F since his case is similar to that of paragraph ".that the same was voluntarily and intelligently entered or given by the accused. A. criminally liable. when the accused impoverished himself and lost his occupation by committing crimes and he was not driven to crime by reason of poverty. illness of the mind is also included as long as it doesn:t amount to insanity. #s he entitled to a mitigating circumstance? H4$. is not justifying. he was charged with libel. blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect $uch physical defect restricts his means of action. paragraph (.

and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 1< years old and acting with discernment. committed robbery against the latter. thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A and cooperating with him by simultaneous acts. entitled to a mitigating circumstance?? 2. Are both A and $ entitled to the mitigating circumstance of relationship? 2. bought the property taken by A from $. A acting under an impulse which produced obfuscation. an accessory. '= . son of $. $uch shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals. (Article @". A. The mitigating circumstance of relationship (Article 1) arose from the private relations of A with < and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. an accomplice.Those which arise: • 6rom the moral attributes of the offender • 6rom his private relations with the offended party • 6rom any other personal cause. which C. 0t shall not mitigate the liability of C. Are both A and $. knowing that the property was the effect of the crime of robbery. The circumstance arose from the moral attribute of A and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. $. a stranger. A. 0t shall not mitigate the liability of <. paragraph ' 0??>$T8AT0. seeing what A had done to C. The circumstance of minority arose from other personal causes and it shall mitigate the liability of A only.. inflicted serious physical injuries on C. #s $ also entitled to the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation? 2..2: A and $ killed C. 0t will not mitigate the liability of <.. kicked the latter. accomplices.