Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amurao)
Sources: - Lectures of Prof. Amurao (take note of the check marks, these are Atty.
Amuraos Supposings)
- The Revised Penal Code (J.B.L. Reyes)
- Ortega Notes (UP Law Center)
- Obligations and securities of the GSIS, SSS, Landbank are not of the
government because they have separate charters
- Examples of obligations and securities of the Philippine government are:
5
(a) treasury bills
(b) tickets of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and Lotto
(c) bonds of the Central Bank of the Philippines
Article 2, Section 3
- those who introduced the counterfeit items are criminally liable, even if
they were not the ones who counterfeited the obligations and securities
- on the other hand, those who counterfeited the items are criminally liable
even if they did not introduce the counterfeit items
Article 2, Section 4
- the crime committed should be related to the offenders official functions as
a public officer
- eg. Philippine Ambassador to Australia, committed malversation of funds
and falsification of public documents, while in office in Australia = can be
held liable in Philippine courts
if, however, he committed rape = he cannot necessarily be held liable
because it is not related to his official functions as diplomat
Article 2, Section 5
Crimes against national security Crimes against the law of nations
- treason
- genocide - crimes against humanity
- espionage
- terrorism - war crimes
Coup de etat and rebellion are not covered by Art.2, Sec.5 because these
are crimes against public order
French rule
- when a vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed in
that area are not triable in that other country, unless the crimes committed
have endangered the peace and security of that other country
- the emphasis is on the nationality of the vessel; jurisdiction lies where the
merchant vessel is registered
English rule
- when a vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed in
that area are triable in that other country, unless the crimes committed
involve purely internal matters within the vessel
- the emphasis is on the territoriality of the vessel; where the vessel is found
the Philippines adheres to the English rule
(c) intent essential to a felony; prosecution has to prove intent; good faith is
a defense
7
Causes which may produce a result different from that which the
offender intended, as contemplated in Art. 4 (1)
1. there is a mistake in the identity of the victim
- also known as error in personae; or napagkamalan
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
2. there is a mistake in the blow
- also known as aberratio ictus
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
3. the injurious result is greater than that intended
- also known as praeter intentionem
Proximate Cause
- there is a chain of causes from an original act that results to an injury
- if the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the
original act can be held liable
Motive
- special reasons that impel the accused to act (Amurao)
- the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (Reyes)
- not an essential element of a felony
- evidence of motive is necessary only in case of: (1) doubt in the identity of
the accused (Amurao), (2) two conflicting versions of the crime
- motive is established by the testimony of the witness
- lack of motive may be an aid in showing innocence
2. When the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the
unskilled medical treatment from the doctors:
(a) if the wound is mortal = accused is criminally liable, because the
unskilled treatment + infection are not efficient intervening
causes
- mortal wound + unskilled medical treatment only = accused is criminally
liable because the mortal wound naturally led to the death of the victim
(b) if the wound is slight = accused is not criminally liable, because the
unskilled treatment + infection are efficient intervening causes
In People v. Intod, the Court erred in its decision of considering the acts of
the accused as an impossible crime under Art.4(2) of the RPC because the
4th element/requisite was not satisfied. The acts of the accused of shooting
at the house and damaging the same, can constitute as malicious mischief,
which is a crime against property. Therefore, the accused should have been
charged with the latter instead of finding them guilty only of the impossible
crime of murder.
11
Rape used to be a crime against chastity; but because of RA 8353, rape was
reclassified as a crime against persons, therefore, one can now be held
liable for the impossible crime of rape
12
(a) frustrated the felony is complete but is still not produced as far as the
offender is concerned
(b) consummated when all the elements under the Revised Penal Code
are present
13
Arson
(a) consummated = so long as a part of the building is burned, no matter how
small
(b) frustrated = if only the contents of the building (eg. chairs and tables) are
burned
(c) attempted = contents havent been burned
Supposing, the accused brought gasoline into a building, with the intent
to burn the building, but was apprehended by the security guard; did the
crime of arson commence? YES, thus the accused is liable for attempted
arson, because the bringing of gasoline was already an overt act while the
apprehension was the reason other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Supposing, using the same set of facts above, but without the intent to
burn the building, is there criminal liability? NO, in fact there is no crime,
because the acts were only in an indeterminate stage.
Indeterminate Stage we do not know what crime is in the mind of the
offender; the crime has not yet been determined; there are still two
possibilities when the accused was caught
According to Prof. Amurao, when a person is accused of committing a
felony, we have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to
establish the commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise,
the situation when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage,
wherein the crime that the accused intended to do could not be determined
Theft/Robbery
- both these crimes are committed by taking the personal property of another
and, with the intent to gain
- the difference is that in robbery, there is the use of force or violence
- so long as the act stated in the RPC is done, the crime is consummated
- it does not matter how long the property was in the possession of the
accused; it does not matter whether the property was disposed or not; what
matters is whether or not there was asportacion = unlawful taking
- momentary possession consummates the crime of theft or robbery
- returning the item to the owner is immaterial; has no effect to the crime
- upon consummation of the crime, criminal liability automatically attaches
Supposing, the accused was tinkering with the lock of the gate of a
neighbors house, without the intent to commit a felony; is he liable for
anything? NO, because the situation was in an indeterminate stage wherein
it could not be determined what the accused intended to do
Supposing, the accused jumped over the fence into another persons house
without the intent to commit robbery, 14
is he liable for attempted robbery?
NO, but he is liable for the crime of trespassing
Same with arson, when a person is accused of committing a felony, we
have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to establish the
commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise, the situation
when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage, wherein the crime
that the accused intended to do could not be determined
In People v. Lamahang, the accused was able to open one board of the
door to private respondent Tan Yus store, when the police caught him.
The SC ruled that the accused is not liable for attempted robbery because
the intent to rob Tan Yus store was not established, thus when accused
was caught, it was in an indeterminate stage. But the Court held him liable
for attempted trespass to dwelling
In People v. Salvilla, the accused were held liable for the crime of robbery
with serious illegal detention and serious physical injuries, and not
frustrated robbery, even without physical taking or possession of the
money they demanded because the money was within the dominion, which
the accused had control over and it was where the crime was being
committed. During the time when negotiations were going on between the
accused and the police, the crime of robbery was deemed consummated
Crimes involving the taking of human life/ Crimes against persons
- these crimes are committed by killing a person (MHPI):
i. Murder killing a person with attending or aggravating circumstances
ii. Homicide killing a person without attending circumstances
iii. Parricide killing a relative, i.e. spouse, parent, child, sibling, etc.
iv. Infanticide killing a child less than three (3) days old
- even without intent, the moment the victim dies, intent is presumed by
operation of law and the crime is consummated
- if the victim doesnt die but the wound inflicted is mortal, it is frustrated
- if there is no intent to kill, but the wound inflicted is mortal or fatal, the
crime is neither MHPI but serious physical injuries
Mortal when the wound inflicted can cause the death of the victim;
when death will follow
- for frustrated & attempted cases, it is important to determine intent to kill
Crime
Consummated MHPI
Frustrated MHPI
Attempted MHPI
Attempted MHPI
Serious physical injuries
Less serious/Slight
physical injuries
In People v. Trinidad, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of
two counts of murder (for killing Soriano and Laroa) and frustrated murder
(for shooting at Tan). The SC modified the decision by ruling that the
accused was liable for two counts of murder and attempted murder, not
frustrated, because the wound inflicted on Tan was not mortal or fatal
In People v. Lim San, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of
attempted murder for stabbing Keng Kin in the left eye. The SC modified
the decision by ruling that the accused should be liable of frustrated
murder because not only was it established that there was intent to kill, but
also the wound inflicted was mortal. It just so happened that the victim did
not die because of the prompt and efficient medical assistance given to the
victim. The treatment was the cause independent of the will of the accused.
In Mondragon v. People, the SC held that the accused was only guilty of
less serious physical injuries because when the accused and the victim
were hacking each other with their bolos, there was no intent to kill on
neither party; and also because the victim did not die since the wounds
were not mortal
Rape
- the crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ,
no matter how slight
Supposing, the penetration was only 2 millimeters deep, consummated?
YES, no matter how slight the penetration is, it is still consummated
Supposing, the rape was consummated because there was penetration, but
according to the medical examination, the victim was still a virgin, can the
accused still be held liable for consummated rape? YES, as long as there is
penetration, the rape is consummated.
In People v. Orita, the medical examiner testified that the victim was still a
virgin therefore the rape may not have been consummated. But the SC
ruled that the testimony of the victim herself should be given greater weight
because she herself can feel whether or not there was penetration.
Instances of attempted rape:
- when the skirt of the victim has been lifted, no matter what position
- when the accused mounted on the body of the victim
- when there is epidermal touching of the genital organs of the accused and
the victim
The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is that
with the former, there is carnal knowledge or the intent to have sexual
intercourse is established
There is no such thing as frustrated rape; the only exception was when
the SC ruled in People v. Eria that the accused was guilty of frustrated
rape. Thereafter, no one has since been held guilty of frustrated rape.
Estafa
- the elements for the crime of estafa are (1) deceit, and (2) damage
- without one of the two elements, estafa would not be consummated
In US v. Dominguez, the SC ruled that the accused was guilty of frustrated
estafa because before accused could cause damage by disposing of the
money that he deceitfully took, he was apprehended by their stores
supervisor, which was the cause independent of the will of the accused.
Other instances for homicide and other crimes
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused pulls out a gun then points it at
someone, what crime is the accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone but
misses, what crime is the accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Supposing, using the same set17of facts, but without the intent to kill, what
crime is the accused liable for?
- for pulling out the gun and pointing it = grave threat
- for firing the gun = illegal discharge of firearm (obsolete; must be deleted)
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then
accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The accused did
not know that he missed because the victim played dead. What crime is the
accused liable for? Attempted homicide, attempted because there was no
wound, but there was still intent to kill. What is important is that there was
no wound
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then
accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The victim is hit
but it is not fatal or mortal. What crime is the accused liable for? Still
Attempted homicide, because what is important is the extent or gravity of
the wound. (People v. Orinaga)
ARTICLE 7 LIGHT FELONIES
- Light felonies are infractions of law which have the punishment of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated
Reason: involves insignificant moral and material injuries; if not
consummated, the wrong done is so slight that a penalty is unnecessary
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property are
punishable even if in the attempted or frustrated stage
Reason: presupposes moral depravity
For light felonies, the only ones who can be held liable are the principals
and accomplices.
For grave or less grave felonies, those who can be held liable are
principals, accomplices and even accessories, because the degree of the
penalty to be imposed depends on 3 factors:
(1) stages of execution
(2) the degree of participation
(3) the presence of attending circumstances
ARTICLE 8 CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL
May there be conspiracy even if other conspirators do not know who the
other conspirators are? YES
In People v. Manlolo, it was held that there was implied conspiracy on the
part of the accused because they were acting in concert, one performing an
19 all aimed at the same object
act, the other doing another act,
Rule on determining whether there is conspiracy
- based on the (1) acts done before, during or after the commission of the
crime, or, based on the (2) words, remarks or language used before, during
or after the commission of the crime, it is necessary to determine after these
acts were done whether the conspirators had the following:
1. concerted action
3. community of purpose
2. common criminal design
4. joint criminal objective
- all of which are geared towards the attainment of the felony or crime
Suggested cases for conspiracy on this rule
- People v. Salcedo; People v. Briones; Medija, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
Supposing, only minor acts were done, will the actor still be liable? YES
Supposing, there was no conspiracy, what will happen? The perpetrators
of the crime will be individually liable depending the extent of the degree
of each ones participation
In People v. Agapinay, the SC ruled that there was no conspiracy in
commission of the murder because the incident was only a spur of the
moment or in this case, a chance stabbing, which cannot be considered
conspiracy, thus they were held individually liable, some as principals and
some as accomplices only
Supposing, there was only mere presence of a person when the crime was
being committed, will he be liable? NO, that person not participating shall
not be liable because he did not perform any overt act; there should be an
overt act to establish the participation and liability of a person
Supposing, the persons presence when the crime was being committed
was to provide moral support, or to persuade the participants from
performing the acts constituting the crime, will he be liable? YES, in both
cases the person shall be held criminally liable
In order to hold someone criminally liable, in addition to mere presence,
there should be overt acts that are closely-related and coordinated to
establish the presence of common criminal design and community of
purpose in the commission of the crime.
In People v. Taaca, the SC ruled to acquit Regalado because there was no
evidence to prove that Regalado assisted his brother Herminio in the
killing of Alfredo Gabuat; there was no proof to show that Regalados
20
presence was accompanied by overt acts for the commission of the crime
and that there was no proof of conspiracy between the Taaca brothers.
In People v. De La Cruz, the SC also ruled that the mere presence of the
Galaw-eys were not enough to prove that they conspired to the commission
of the crime despite the fact Galaw-ey had a grudge against one of the
victims; his participation in a conspiracy cannot be assumed especially
when no acts by the Galaw-eys proved to be connected with the crime.
In People v. Manero, however, the SC ruled that even though the accusedappellants were not present in the actual commission of the crimes, it was
established that they met in an eatery and conspired to liquidate communist
sympathizers; therefore they were still held criminally liable.
Supposing, one person desisted from participating in the actual crime and
instead decided to stay inside the get-away car to wait for the others, is he
liable? NO, because there was voluntary desistance
Supposing, while committing the crime of robbery, an additional crime
was committed that was not part of the original plan, eg. homicide; can all
the participants be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, even
though some of them performed very minor acts (i.e. look-outs or drivers,
etc)? YES, they can all be held liable for that same crime, because it is not
required that all the participants perform each and every detail in the
commission of the crime; as long as the acts performed are closely
coordinated and that they have the same criminal purpose.
ARTICLE 9 CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
1. Grave Felonies those that the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties that are afflictive based on Article 25 of the RPC
2. Less Grave Felonies those that the law punishes with penalties whose
maximum periods are correctional
3. Light felonies infractions of law that are punishable by arresto menor or
fines
Illustration:
Grave felonies
Light felonies
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro
Arresto Menor
Fines
afflictive penalties
Public Censure
correctional penalties
light penalties
Supposing, using the same facts mentioned earlier, but the retreat of the
aggressor was with the purpose to take a more advantageous position or to
get a more effective weapon, to insure the success of his attack, is there
still unlawful aggression? YES, when the purpose of retreating is to take a
more advantageous position or to do something to insure the success of his
attack, unlawful aggression is continuing, therefore the danger is still
continuing; in this case, the accused or the person defending himself, does
not have to wait for the aggressor to get another weapon
Supposing, there is an agreement to fight or a challenge to fight was
accepted, is there unlawful aggression on one of the parties? NO, there is
no unlawful aggression in agreements to fight because self-defense
cannot invoked since both parties are assailant and assaulted
Supposing, using the same facts above, there is agreement, but one of the
parties attacks the other even before the agreed time arrives, is there
unlawful aggression? YES, when the attack is made ahead of the time
agreed upon, there is unlawful aggression
Supposing, the aggressor used a toy gun and the person defending himself
killed the aggressor, believing that the gun was real, is he still criminally
liable? NO, assuming clear and convincing evidence is provided, and that
the accused believed the weapon/gun to be real, then honest mistake of fact
while in self-defense can be invoked
Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed
- there is a continuing necessity to eliminate the danger
- involves two elements:
1. necessity for the course of action, necessity to eliminate danger
2. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that danger
Both should be reasonable
It is not necessary to have material equality or material commensurability
between the danger and the means employed to prevent or repel that danger
In determining reasonable means, some facts and circumstances can be
considered as factors, such as:
1. emergency to which the person defending himself has been exposed to
2. presence of imminent danger
3. impelled by the instinct of self-preservation
4. nature of the weapon used by the accused compared to the weapon of the
aggressor
5. size and/or physical character of the aggressor compared to the accused
and other circumstances that can be considered showing disparity between
aggressor and accused
25
26
(3rd degree)
daughter-----son-in-law
child (4th degree)
child
(starting point, eg. this is you)
28
Who are the women who can invoke Battered Woman Syndrome?
- wife
- any woman having a sexual relationship with a man
- girlfriend
- including dating women, if relationship is intimate
- former wife - common law wife
- former wife whose marriage with her has been annulled by a judicial
declaration of nullity (JDN)
It is not necessary that the woman suffering from BWS is still in a
relationship with the man that she killed or harmed.
Doctrine of Stand your ground when in the right
- The law does not expect you to run away
- When in the right, defend your right or position, defend yourself
- A total opposite of the old doctrine of retreating to the wall, where the law
expects you to run away and avoid defending yourself
ARTICLE 12 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
- a circumstance if present during the commission of the crime will free the
accused from criminal liability
- there is a crime, but there is no criminal
- burden of proof to prove the existence of an exempting circumstance: lies
with the defense
Article 12(1) Imbecility and Insanity
- an imbecile or an insane is entitled to be exempted, unless the latter acted
during a lucid interval
Imbecile one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of will when committing a crime; exempted in all cases; mentality
is comparable to a child 2-7 years old
Insanity not so exempt because during a lucid interval, the person can
act with intelligence
What is the test for the degree of insanity for it to count as an exempting
circumstance? The tests of the degree of insanity are the existence of:
1. complete deprivation of intelligence
2. total deprivation of freedom of will
Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities are not enough
Supposing, a man suddenly just stabs another person, he then began to run
away because he knew he committed a crime, then as the authorities tried
to catch him, as they got closer to him, he ran even faster, can he invoke
insanity as an exempting circumstance? NO, the fact that he was running
31
The legal effect of the exemption: the child shall be given to the custody of
the parent or guardian; in their absence, the custody is given to the
following, according to their order of availability:
(a) registered non-governmental organization
(b) registered religious organization
(c) member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC)
(d) local office of the Dept. of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
(e) national office of the Dept. of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
Another effect is that the minor is subjected to an intervention or
diversion program which involves: seminars and classes on family and
mediation, skills improvement, emotional management, etc.; other
diversion programs are for reformation and rehabilitation, in which the
public prosecutor usually initiates the recommendation for the minor to be
subjected under the program
General Rule for minors above 15 or below 18 years of age: exempted,
because the presumption is that they acted without intelligence
Exception: the minor acted with discernment
How is discernment determined? (Reyes)
(1) manner of committing the crime
(2) conduct of the offender
Discernment can also be determined by the words uttered by the minor
attendant to the commission of the act, eg. the words, Buti nga sayo!,
which indicates an expression of accomplishment, victory or satisfaction
When the case has been decided by the court
If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall immediately take effect
without suspension, and the decision shall be promulgated and pronounced
What is the significance of promulgation?
- it is full of significance; the decision is read in open court
- immediately after the reading the judgment of acquittal becomes
immediately final and executory, which cannot be subject for any motion
of reconsideration, hence the decision cannot be either reversed or
modified
If the judgment is conviction, the promulgation of the decision and the
sentence shall be suspended by the court; the minor shall be ordered to
undergo intervention, which shall have the following effects:
(a) If after the intervention, there is reform on the part of the minor, the
minor shall be returned to the court to dismiss the criminal case and
dismiss the charges against the minor
(b) If after the intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be returned
to the court for the promulgation of the decision against the minor; then,
the court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention
33
Exempting
- there is a crime but there is
no criminal
- the act is not justified but the
actor is not criminally liable
- there is civil liability except in
paragraphs 4 and 7
PRIVILEGED
- cannot be offset by a generic
aggravating circumstance
- penalty lowered by degree
39
What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence; judgment can
already be rendered but both sides can still present evidence to prove
aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Arraignment charges are being read to the accused in open court in a
language known to him; if the charges are read in a language not known to
him, the arraignment or plea is void.
It is the duty of courts to read charges in a language known to him
Promulgation physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused
- can be limited to just the dispositive portion (the wherefore clause)
- if there is an acquittal, the decision is final and executory and not
appeallable because of the risk of double jeopardy
- if there is a conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail of legal remedies,
if not availed after, the conviction becomes final and executory
Basis for mitigation: lesser perversity of the offender
Article 13(8) Deafness and Dumbness
- must restrict the means of action, defense or communication with others
Basis for mitigation: offender does not have complete freedom of action;
diminution of freedom and voluntariness
Article 13(9) Illness
- the offender has diminished exercise of willpower; loss of willpower may
even be exempting
- deprivation of consciousness
Basis for mitigation: diminution of intelligence and intent
Article 13(10) Other Analogous Circumstances
ARTICLE 14 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
- those if present, are not automatically offset by mitigating circumstances
- may increase the penalty provided by the law without exceeding the
maximum penalty or it changes the nature of the crime
- Classification:
1. Generic those that generally apply to all crimes, eg. Recidivism, Aid of
Minors, Advantage taken by Public Position, etc
2. Specific those that apply to particular crimes, eg. Ignominy, Treachery
3. Qualifying Those that change the nature of the crime, eg. Treachery,
Evident Premeditation, Cruelty, etc.
4. Inherent necessity accompanies the commission of the crime, eg. sex is
inherent in crimes against chastity
41
44
Supposing, the offender was 90 years old when he stabbed the 105-year
old victim, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age be
appreciated? YES, even if the offender was also very old, the disparity of
their ages still matters
Disregard of sex of the offended party
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication or
those with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent
- the victim contemplated in this paragraph should be a woman
- the offender should act with deliberate intent to disrespect the woman
- disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery
Dwelling
- a place or structure that satisfies the requirements of domestic life of a
person
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- there should be no provocation on the part of the offended party
- all the ingredients of the crime should be done in the dwelling
- if the offender and offended are both occupants of the same house, dwelling
cannot be appreciated
- dwelling may mean temporary dwelling
Supposing, the crime was committed in the garage of the house, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the
garage is part of the dwelling
Supposing the crime was done in the roof? YES
Supposing, a child was kidnapped while at the stairs of the dwelling,
there was no ransom but the child was killed in Cavite, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the
stairs is still part of the dwelling
Supposing, a husband kills his wife in their conjugal dwelling, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the housemaid killed the employers child, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the accused was on the road when he shot the victim who was
at the stairs, can dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, if the victim was in the yard going to the direction of the
stairs, can the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
45
Supposing, the victim was about to step on the stairs? can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the employer raped their maid, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the houseboy killed the housemaid, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the wife killed her husband in the conjugal house, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing the wife commits adultery, can the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the accused owner of the house and dwelling of the victim,
where the victim was a tenant, killed the victim, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because dwelling may
mean temporary dwelling
Supposing, the owner was killed in the toilet, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the toilet is part of
the dwelling
Supposing, the owner of the house was killed 500 meters from the toilet
which was situated outside the house, can the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling be appreciated? NO, because if you destroy the toilet, the house
remains intact
Basis of the aggravation: Place of the commission of the crime; the sanctity
of privacy that the law provides the human abode
Article 14(4) Abuse of Confidence/Obvious Ungratefulness
- this paragraph contemplates TWO aggravating circumstances
Abuse of Confidence exists only when the offended party has trusted
the offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime. The
abuse of confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the
crime. The culprit taking advantage of the offended partys belief that the
former would not abuse said confidence
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; can be raised to the maximum
There are instances where abuse of confidence is qualifying:
- qualified theft
- qualified rape
- qualified seduction
Requisites:
1. offender had trusted the offended
2. offender abused such trust with the commission of the crime
3. abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
46
- what is especially sought for by the offender is the darkness of the night
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental
meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment
Supposing, the crime was committed inside a dark movie house at around
4pm, can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be appreciated? NO,
because what should be especially sought for is the darkness of night, not
the darkness of the movie house when the lights were only off because it
was only 4 in the afternoon
Supposing, the crime was committed inside a movie house when the
lights were still open and the time then was 9pm, can the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime be appreciated? NO, because even though it
was nighttime, the place of the commission was well-lighted when the
crime was committed
Supposing, the crime was committed in a place where it was well-lighted
by a Meralco lightpost, can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be
appreciated? NO
Uninhabited Place
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- there should be intent
Spur of the moment Not applicable
What is considered is the reasonable possibility for the victim to receive
some help; the degree of difficulty of giving assistance or help
Solitude (must be sought for to better attain criminal purpose)
- for an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal design
- to insure concealment of the offense; security against detection and
punishment
Band
- more than three malefactors
- shall have acted together
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
What do you mean by armed? only guns? NO, knives are considered;
anything that can kill a person
Aggravating in crimes against property and crimes against persons; not
applicable in crimes against chastity
Basis for aggravation: time & place of the commission & means
employed
50
Requisites:
1. that the accused is on trial for an offense
2. that he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense
3. that he is convicted of the new offense
3. Habitual Delinquency/Multi-recidivism
4. Quasi-recidivism
53
62
e. relative by
affinity
Supposing, the crime was done not in a civilized society, can the
alternative circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating
circumstance YES, it is a mitigating circumstance
Supposing, the accused killed a person, can the alternative circumstance of
low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be appreciated?
NO, because killing is inherently wrong
Supposing, the accused committed the crime of treason, can the
alternative circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating
circumstance be appreciated? NO, because love for country is a natural
feeling that requires no degree of instruction
Supposing, accused committed crimes against chastity, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, accused committed crimes against chastity, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, accused committed the crime of murder, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, a lawyer committed the crime of estafa, can the alternative
circumstance of high degree of instruction as an aggravating
circumstance be appreciated? YES
Supposing, a doctor prepared a special poison to kill the victim, can the
alternative circumstance of high degree of instruction as an aggravating
circumstance be appreciated? YES
ARTICLE 16 WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
-the following are criminally liable for grave and less grave offenses:
1. Principals
3. Accessories
2. Accomplices
- the following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
Accessories are not liable for light felonies because the social wrong is so
small
Rules on light felonies
1. punishable only when consummated
2. when committed against persons or property and punishable in the
attempted or frustrated
3. only principals and accomplices are liable
4. accessories are not liable even in crimes against persons or property
64
Arresto Menor
Fines
Public Censure
Afflictive penalties
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification
Prision Mayor
Correctional penalties
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro
72
Accessory Penalties
- Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification
- Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification
- Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or
calling
- Civil interdiction
- Indemnification
- Forfeiture of confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense
- Payment of cost
Compound Crime
- Requisites:
1. that only a single act is performed by the offender
2. that the single act produces (i) 2 or more grave felonies, (ii) one or more
grave & one or more less grave felonies, (iii) 2 or more less grave felonies
The single act should produce a grave felony or a less grave felony or a
combination of both
Light felonies produced by the same single act should be treated and
punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony
Supposing, you shot your neighbor then the bullet hit two children; the
result was your neighbor died, two children slightly injured, the result was
1 grave and 2 light felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate,
because the single act should produce a grave or less grave felony only
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 grave felony and 10 light
felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 less grave felony and several
light felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced a crime punishable by the RPC
and a crime punishable by special law, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate, considered as separate violations
Supposing, Prof. Amurao throws a grenade in class, 5 students died, is the
crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, using the same facts above, in addition 3 light felonies were
produced, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to automatic and
shot at the students with one single act of pressing the trigger, producing
several injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Separate, because the
what is considered is the no. of bullets discharged (People v. Desierto)
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to not automatic
and fired one bullet aimed at someone but hit 3 others producing serious
physical injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, the act of firing a machine gun produces the crimes of
attempted murder and physical injuries, is the crime complex or
separate? Separate, as held by the Court of Appeals
Supposing, two shots were fired directed against two different persons, is
the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, in a notorious village, a commander ordered all his soldiers
to shoot at the residents, is the crime complex or separate? Complex, the
SC held in People v. Lawas that it was a complex crime because there was
a single offense since there was a single criminal impulse/intent/purpose
76
Third Rule
- when three penalties are imposed in one (eg. Reclusion temporal Death)
- since Death is not imposed, three periods lowered immediately following
ARTICLE 62 - EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING AND
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
First rule: Aggravating circumstances:
1. should not themselves constitute a crime, eg. by means of fire = arson; by
means derailment of a locomotive = destruction of property
- Is unlawful entry a crime in itself? YES
2. should not be included in defining the crime, eg. by means of poison in the
crime of murder
3. The maximum period shall be imposed regardless of mitigating
circumstances if the offender is a public officer who took advantage by
public position
4. The maximum period shall be imposed for members of an organized or
syndicated crime group
Organized or Syndicated Crime Group group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes
of gain in the commission of any crime
Second rule
- Aggravating circumstances are not applicable if inherent in the crime, eg.
evident premeditation in robbery or theft; advantage taken by public
position in malversation; sex in crimes against chastity; breaking wall in
malicious mischief
Third rule: Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances arising from:
1. Moral attributes
Supposing, the victim gave sufficient provocation, which irritated the
accused who called his brother for assistance, then they both killed the
victim, can the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation be
appreciated for both of them? NO, only to the one who was the target of
the provocation (the accused) and not his brother
2. Private relations
Supposing, your neighbor slapped your mom, then you asked your friend
to accompany you to kill your neighbor, can the aggravating circumstance
of immediate vindication of a relative for a grave offense be appreciated
for the both you? NO, only to you because it was your mom who was
offended first and not your friend
81
3. Personal cause
Supposing, you and your friend entered your neighbors house, not
knowing that your friend is afflicted with kleptomania, can the mitigating
circumstance of illness be appreciated for the both of you? NO, illness can
be appreciated only to your friend
Fourth rule: Aggravating or mitigating circumstances apply in the:
- material execution of the act and in the means employed to accomplish it;
only to those who had knowledge at the time of the execution
1. Material execution
Supposing, Prof. Amurao asked his student to simply kill his classmate,
but the student applied cruelty when he killed his classmate, can the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty be appreciated with Prof. Amurao?
NO, because he had no knowledge of the material execution used.
Supposing, using the same facts above, but Prof. Amurao told his student
to kill his classmate at all costs, can the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty be appreciated with Prof. Amurao? YES
2. Means employed to accomplish
- Principal by direct participation uses poison to commit murder without
the knowledge of the Principal by inducement
Habitual Delinquency
Habitual Delinquent a person who, within a period of 10 years from the
date of release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, found guilty for a
3rd time or oftener. A habitual delinquent shall suffer an additional penalty
Difference between Habitual Delinquent/Recidivist/Reiteracion
Habitual Delinquent
Crimes - specified crimes
Recidivism
Reiteracion
- 2 crimes embraced in
- 2 crimes not
the same title of the RPC embraced in the same
title of the RPC
- time bet. 2 offenses
- has served sentence
is immaterial
for the 1st offense
- 2nd time is sufficient
- a generic aggravating
- not always an
circumstance; can be
aggravating
offset by an ordinary
circumstance
mitigating circumstance
82
- lowered by 1 or 2 degrees
Majority of such conditions must be present
In self-defense, defense of a relative, defense of a stranger
- Unlawful Aggression is indispensable
ARTICLE 70 SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Simultaneous Service if the nature of the penalties will so permit, i.e.
Reclusion temporal and Perpetual Absolute Disqualification (refer to Reyes
book for a complete list of penalties that ca be served simultaneously)
Successive Service if cannot be served simultaneously (such as two jail
sentences) shall follow the scale provided by Article 70 based in the order
according to severity
3-fold rule the maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be
more than 3-fold the length of the time corresponding to the most severe of
the penalties imposed
only applies when the convict has to serve at least 4 sentences
In no case shall the sum total of penalties exceed 40 years
In the scale, Arresto menor comes before destierro because complete
deprivation of liberty or imprisonment in arresto menor is more severe than
destierro
Supposing, you are a judge, can you impose the sentence of 500 counts
of malversation, which is each punishable by 15 yrs. of imprisonment,
without violating Article 70? YES, because the 3-fold rule does not refer
to the imposition of sentence but refers to the service to the penalty; the
courts can sentence no matter what and no matter how much
The 3-fold rule is the concern of the Director of Prisons, NOT of the
courts
85
If the sum total of all the penalties does not exceed the most severe
multiplied by 3, the 3-fold rule does not apply
Duration of convicts sentence refers to several penalties for different
offenses not yet served out = has to serve continuous imprisonment
ARTICLE 71 GRADUATED SCALES
Penalties are classified between personal penalties (imprisonment) and
political rights (suspension, fine, etc)
Arresto mayor is followed by destierro
ARTICLES 72-77 (reading matter)
Article 73 Accessory penalties are deemed imposed
Subsidiary imprisonment is NOT an accessory penalty
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT 4103 AMENDED BY ACT 4225)
- mandatory in nature; whether the courts like it or not, they have to apply
the same except for those mentioned in Sec. 2 who are disqualified
Purpose/Objectives of the ISLAW
1. to uplift and redeem valuable human materials
2. promote economic usefulness
3. prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty
The ISLAW was enacted to benefit the accused by allowing the convict not
to serve the full sentence
These objectives are attained with the application of the ISLAW
Court fixes a Maximum term and a Minimum term
After serving the Minimum term, the convict shall be entitled to parole
upon evaluation of the Board of Pardons and Parole
The release shall be evaluated by the Court whether the convict is:
- fitted by training for release
- reasonable probability not to commit another crime or violate the law
- compatible with the welfare of society
(take note of this; this was given by Prof. Amurao)
As applied in special penal laws
- the Maximum term should not be more than what is prescribed
- the Minimum term should not be less than what is prescribed
Example: 5 yrs and 1 day to 15 yrs
- the Minimum may be anywhere from 5 yrs to 14 yrs, but not less than 5 yrs
- the Maximum may be anywhere from 6 - 15 yrs. but not more than 15yrs.
86
88
Beyond the 15-day reglamentary period, you cant file an application for
probation, except in RA 9344, a child in conflict with the law can file an
application for probation anytime
ARTICLES 78-80 (reading matters)
- Article 79 Suspension of Execution
- Article 80 (repealed by RA 9344) involves the diversion and intervention
programs for children in conflict with the law
ARTICLES 81-85 PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EXECUTION
OF DEATH PENALTY (reading matter)
ARTICLE 86 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER ON PENITENTIARIES
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 87 DESTIERRO
- prohibition in a certain place or places designated in the conviction
- not permitted to enter the place or places nor within the radius specified not
more than 250, but not less than 25 kilometers from the place
ARTICLE 88 ARRESTO MENOR
- shall be served in municipal jails
- or for health reasons, can be allowed to stay home (house arrest)
ARTICLE 89 TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. Death of a convict = extinguishes personal penalties but not pecuniary
if death comes before final judgment, even pecuniary liabilities are
extinguished
2. Service of sentence
- crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a consequence; after service of
the sentence, the debt is paid
3. Amnesty
- extinguishes the penalty and its effects; as if the crime was not committed
4. Absolute Pardon
- an act of grace by the Chief Executive; exempts the person from
punishment only
5. Prescription of crime
- forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute
6. Prescription of penalty
- loss or forfeiture of right of the government to execute the final sentence
7. Marriage of offended woman (Article 344)
- private crimes (abduction, seduction, lascivious acts adultery, concubinage)
cannot be prosecuted de officio
- public crimes (rape) can be prosecuted de officio (meaning initiated in
Court by filing a complaint
Marriage can extinguish either crimes
90
92
94
1. Pending trial of his criminal case for theft and unable to post bail for his
provisional liberty, Ernesto was detained. After 3 years of trial, the Court
rendered a judgment sentencing him to suffer 4 years imprisonment. May
Ernesto be compelled to undergo the sentence of 4 years? Why?
2. After switching his armalite rifle to automatic, Mariano pointed the gun to
the people in the town plaza who were watching a show. He pressed the
trigger once which resulted in the discharge of several bullets hitting and
killing 10 persons. Discuss his criminal liability.
3. A, B and C met inside a restaurant where they discussed and agreed to rob
MN Bank. Their discussion was overheard by the waiter who informed the
Police Station which, in turn, wasted no time in sending a team of plain
clothes men who arrested A, B and C while they were about to leave the
restaurant. Are A, B and C criminally liable? Why?
95
96