Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CrimRev Book 1 PDF
CrimRev Book 1 PDF
3.
(Terms)Crime may be a:
1. FELONY act/omissions punished by the Revised Penal
Code
2. OFFENSE punished by a special law
3. ACTS/INFRACTIONS punished by ordinances, local
legislation
Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime.
Legislative Department power to enact penal laws
In case of emergency, president may issue a Penal Issuance Order
provided that there is a law granting it to the president.
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?
A: No, there are limitations.
Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:
1.) Penal law must be general in application otherwise it
would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause
2.) Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law
3.) Not a Bill of Attainder
4.) Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or
punishments
(e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309
death, by saying that henceforth that any who
commit theft will be given death. This is unusual
punishment so it is prohibited.)
Characteristics of Penal Laws:
1. Generality
Persons to whom criminal law shall apply
2. Territoriality
1.) GENERALITY
Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being
within the Philippine territory whether they are
Filipino Citizens or foreigners regardless of any of
their personal circumstances
Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines
Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the
Philippines, they are given protection in the same way
that the government protects its own citizen
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
a.) Generally Accepted Principles of PIL
Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic
heads such as ambassadors and public ministers are
immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the country
where they are assigned. Since they are immune, they
cannot be arrested, prosecuted or punished.
(Diplomatic Immunity from Suit)
*consuls not among those who enjoy the diplomatic
immunity from suit
Generally, consuls are subject to penal laws of the
country where they are assigned.
XPN: When there is a treaty or an agreement
between the home country of the consul and the
country where he is designated stating that the
consul is immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the
host country
Example: A is an employee in ADB, a foreigner economist. A Filipino
filed an oral defamation against the foreigner economist. The DFA
issued a letter and protocol to the court which states that ADB and
PH has an agreement that the ADB economist is immune from suit.
The SC held that it was erroneous that there was a decision
immediately to dismiss the case without adducing any evidence,
without informing the fiscal. SC ruled that diplomatic immunity is
only applied in the exercise of ones function, but in this defamation
case, it immunity will not lie. Evidence first must be gathered to
determine if the act was done in the exercise of ones functions.
b.) Laws of Preferential Application
Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal
prosecution
e.g. members of Congress are immune from libel,
slander and defamation for every speech made in the
House of Congress during a regular or special session
2.) TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws shall be applicable only within the
Philippine jurisdiction including its atmosphere,
internal waters, etc.
GR: Crimes committed outside the Philippine
jurisdiction cannot be under Philippine courts
XPN: Art. 2 (RPC)
3.) PROSPECTIVITY
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
proving
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
Ex. A lust for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass by
going to work, A would always look at the neighbor. And for the
whole day, he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No
matter how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a crime
because it is merely an internal unless he performs an external act
or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape or
rape. The law requires an act.
OMISSION - is the failure of a person to perform an act or to do a
duty which is required by law
Ex. If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any
place and he failed to deliver the same to the owner or to the local
authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft. Or if a person
was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And
instead of helping that person, he increased his speed and left. It is a
hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he failed to lend help and
assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal liability under
Art. 365. So here, for failing to perform an act which is required by
law to be done. He commits a felony. So felonies are acts or
omissions punishable by the RPC.
2 kinds of felonies that are may be committed under Art. 3:
1.) Deceit/dolo/intentional felony when the act is done with
deliberate intent
Elements:
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender
2. Freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the
offender
3. Intelligence of the offender
An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by
means of deliberate intent.
2.) Fault/culpa/culpable felony when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill
Elements:
1. Criminal negligence
2. Freedom of action
3. Intelligence
Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein the
offender, although without malice or deliberate intent caused an
injury to another by the means of negligence or imprudence.
Therefore, even a culpable felony is a voluntary act.
In so far as criminal law is concerned, voluntariness is actually the
concurrence of the 3 elements of intentional felony and the
concurrence of the 3 elements of culpable felony. In other words, in
so far as voluntariness of intentional felony is concerned, it is the
concurrence of criminal intent, freedom of action and intelligence.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
a material element in
determining the criminal
liability of the accused
established/proven by the
overt act of the offender
or by the means
employed
MOTIVE
moving power which
impels a person to do a
specific act to achieve the
desired result, therefore it
is the reason behind intent
immaterial to determine
the criminal liability of the
offender
established by the
acts/statements made by
the accused prior to or
immediately after the
commission of the crime
However, the 1 element is wanting - that the act done would have
been lawful and justifiable had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be - the victim was only trying to enter. Will that
act already constitute unlawful aggression?
MALA PROHIBITA
Not inherently evil or
wrong
Criminal liability is based
on the mere doing of the
prohibited act
Good
faith/lack
of
criminal intent is a valid
defense
Modifying circumstances
such as mitigating and
aggravating
are
considered by the court
in the imposition of
penalty
Good
faith/lack
of
criminal intent is not a
valid defenses
Modifying circumstances
are not considered in the
imposition of penalty
UNLESS
otherwise
provided by the special
penal law
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
Degree of participation
by the offender not
considered
all
perpetrators of the act
are punished equally
Stage
(attempted,
frustrated
or
consummated) is taken
into consideration in the
imposition of penalty
The
only
stage
considered
is
the
consummated stage. No
attempted or frustrated
stage.
**Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala prohibita!!
There are some special penal laws which punish acts mala in se.
e.g. plunder is a special penal law yet the SC said plunder is
malum in se. criminal intent matters.
Garcia v. CA
Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of
votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In decreasing the number of
votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. So it did not
favor any candidate. So according to him, he acted in good faith, no
criminal intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal
law, therefore they should be held criminally liable. What did the SC
say?
>The act of decreasing or increasing a candidates vote although
punished by special penal law is a malum in se. it is inherently evil or
wrong.
What about in this case, it is a malum in se. And Garcia and company
said, they acted in good faith, they were already so tired, because of
the counting. So how come they were still convicted?
>According to the SC: They should exercise extraordinary diligence in
the counting of the votes. Hence, they are still held criminally liable.
The defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board of
canvassers.
Can an act mala in se absorb an act mala prohibita? And vice versa?
> Lonely v. People
Lonely and company, the head of marcopper company were charged
4 cases violation of the water code of the Philippines, violation of
the Philippine mining act, violation of national pollution control
degree all three are acts mala prohibita and one act malum in se
that is violation of Art.365 reckless imprudence resulting to damage
to property. Their contention was that the 3 other informations
involving violation of spl should already be quashed because they
are absorb by Art. 365. Anyway, the incident resulted from the same
act of polluting. What did the SC say?
>SC: Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita. What makes
an act malum in se is the presence of intent, deceit or dolo or fault
or culpa. On the other hand, what makes an act malum prohibitum
is the fact that its in violation of a special penal law. Therefore, one
cannot absorb the other. So they have to be prosecuted on all 4
cases.
X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and bumped B. X was
charged with murder. So the information charges an intentional
felony of murder. Trial on merits ensued, after the prosecution
presented evidence, the defense presented evidence. The defense
was able to show, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
reason for the said act of killing B was because X lost control of his
brake. Therefore, according to them, there was only imprudence
and so X should only be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide. The judge believed the defense. So in an information
for an intentional felony of murder, the said court convicted X only
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a culpable felony. Is
the judge correct? Can the judge convict a person of a culpable
felony in an information that charges him of intentional felony?
>Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is necessarily included in
an intentional felony because a culpable felony is of lesser offense
than that of intentional felony.
*A malum prohibitum is not necessarily included in malum in se.
Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. But a culpable felony by an
intentional felony.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Proximate Cause Doctrine (PCD)
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
Elements (Garcia)
1. The intended act is a felonious act
2. The resulting act is a felony
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felonious act of the offender
Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is
necessary that the offender is performing a felonious act and since
he is performing a felonious act, he becomes liable for all the
resulting crime although different from that which he intended.
Provided that the resulting felony is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of his felonious act. Otherwise stated, his felonious act
must be the proximate cause of the resulting felony.
For one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is not necessary that
the offender should have even touch the body of the victim. It
suffices that the felonious act performed by the offender has
generated in the mind of the victim, fear for his life. By reason of
that fear for his life the victim performed acts, made risk that injured
himself. The accused will become criminally liable.
PROXIMATE CAUSE (PC) - the cause that sets in to motion all other
causes and which unbroken by efficient intervening cause produces
the felony without which the felony would have not been
committed. Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the PCD,
it is necessary that the felonious act and the resulting felony must
not be broken by any efficient intervening cause. No efficient or
supervening intervening cause must have broken the causal
connection between the felonious act of the offender and the
resulting felony.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE (EIC) - an active force which is a
distinct act absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
Therefore, in order that an act is considered an EIC, it is necessary
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
Ex. A fired B, but because of poor aim, C was hit. C sustained a fatal
wound, a mortal wound. However, C was immediately brought to
the hospital and he survived because of immediate medical
intervention.
> in so far B is concerned, the crime committed is attempted
murder.
In so far as C, what crime is committed? Is it frustrated homicide?
> it is not frustrated homicide because in so far as Cis concerned,
there was no intent to kill on the part of C but since C suffered a
fatal wound but survived, he is liable for serious physical injuries.
Therefore the crime committed by A is a complex crime of
attempted murder with serious physical injuries. A single act
constitutes one grave felony which is attempted murder and one
less grave felony which is serious physical injuries.
What if he sustained a less serious wound?
> attempted murder with less serious physical injuries.
Ex. A and B were friends. After farming while they were having a
drinking spree, they had a political discussion, A was pro Pnoy and B
was pro GMA. Their agreement heated, B stood up and broke a
bottle of beer, stabbed A. A was wounded. They parted ways. A was
on his way home when suddenly it rained. After it rained there was
lightning and A was hit by lightning. A died. The heirs of A filed a
case of homicide against B.
Is B criminally liable for the death of A?
> under the PCD, B is not criminally liable for the death of A because
there was an EIC that is the lightning. The lightning was an active
force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the offender which was the stabbing of the victim.
Therefore he cannot be held liable for the death of A but only
physical injuries sustained by the victim.
Effects: it depends
1. If there is variance between the intended and actual crime
committed, mitigating
2. If none, no effect on the criminal liability of the offender
Ex. A saw his enemy B walking on the pedestrian lane. With intent to
kill, A pulled out his pistol and shot B. However, he has poor aim, he
is not a sharp shooter, so instead of hitting his target B, the bullet
landed on C. C died. B was not hit at all.
What are the crimes or crime committed by A?
> in so far as B is concerned, A is liable for attempted murder
because he intended to kill B. he already performed an overt act
when he fired the gun with intent to kill against B. there was
treachery, the victim was totally defenseless. However because of
poor aim it was C who died.
> in so far as C is concerned, the crime committed is homicide.
Ex. A and B were fighting A boxed B. It was a strong box that B fell on
the ground, his face facing the ground. A left the scene of the crime.
At that precise moment when A left, here comes the father of B who
saw his poor son boxed by A so he came to the rescue of his son and
went near him. To retaliate, B took out his balisong and stabbed the
person next to him thinking that it was still his opponent A but in
truth it was already his father. Let's say the father died.
What was the intended crime committed by B?
> homicide because he intended to kill A, the person who boxed
him.
What crime did he commit?
> parricide because he killed his own father.
Of what crime will you prosecute B?
> parricide because that is the that he actually committed.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
10
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
11
1.
Crimes against persons under Title 8, we have parricide, murder,
homicide, abortion, infanticide, duel, physical injuries, rape.
Crimes against property, we have robbery, brigandage, theft,
usurpation or occupation of real property, estafa or swindling,
malicious mischief, arson.
Only crimes against persons and property would an IC
2.
It is necessary that the offender in doing the act must be incited by
an evil intent.
3.
Intod vs. CA
Killing a person when it is already dead.
SC: discussed 2 kinds of inherent impossibility
2 KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
a. Legal Impossibility - there is legal impossibility when all
the intended acts even if committed would not have
amounted to a crime.
Ex. Intod vs. CA - Killing a person when he is already dead
Ex. X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed Y
10x not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hrs due to
a heart attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to
murder, still murder would not arise which is a crime against
persons because the victim is already deceased. He is no longer a
person in the eyes of criminal law. Therefore there is IC and what we
have is legal impossibility.
b. Physical and Factual Impossibility - when an extraneous
circumstance unknown to the offender prevented the
consignation of the crime. Here, there are circumstances
unknown to the offender, the inadequate control of the
offender which prevented the consignation of the crime.
Example given by SC in the case of Intod vs. CA
A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of another,
intended to get the wallet of the said person but the pocket was
empty. It is an IC. Extraneous Circumstances unknown to the
offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Unknown to him
the wallet was not inside his pocket. S it is an IC because it would
have amounted to theft, a crime against property.
4.
It is necessary that the act done must not be a violation of any crime
under the RPC. Otherwise that person would be held liable of that
crime and not of an IC. So an impossible crime is a crime of last
resort. One should only file a case of IC if the act of the offender
does not constitute any other violation of the RPC.
Intod vs. CA
Intod accompanied by other men, wanted to kill Palampangan,
peppered the room his room with bullets. However, the intended
victim was not there. Only son in law and children were there but
they were not hit. Intod and his company were charged with the
crime of attempted murder up to the CA.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
12
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
13
Frustrated Stage
- when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
Ex. A wanted to kill his own father to get his inheritance immediately
and wanted to be rich. Went to drug store and bought poison.
Before going home, he went to the house of his friend and told his
friend "tonight I will be rich, I will be poisoning my father, I will be a
millionaire." After telling that to his friend, A ran to his house. Upon
reaching his house he was already taking the poison out of the
plastic. Meanwhile, the friend went to the police and told plan of A
to kill the father. The friend and the police went to the house of A
and the father. Upon reaching the house, they saw A in the act of
taking out the said poison from the plastic bag. A was arrested.
Is A liable of attempted parricide?
> No. He is not yet liable of attempted parricide. The act of buying
poison, taking out of the plastic are only preparatory act. It is not yet
an OA directly connected to parricide. He may use the poison not
really to kill the father, he may use it to kill insects or pests.
Therefore, he cannot be liable of attempted parricide.
A mixed the poison to the juice of the father and then he gave it to
his father. The father was about to drink the juice with poison.
However, since the father was clumsy, the glass fell from the hands
of the father.
Is A liable of attempted parricide?
> Yes. He already liable. The moment he poured the poison in the
juice of the father and he gave it to the father for him to drink, he
already performed an OA directly connected to parricide. However,
parricide was not consummated and he was not able to perform all
the acts of execution by reason of an accident. It was purely
accidental because the father was clumsy and the glass slipped from
his hands.
In the same problem, after mixing the poison in the juice, he gave it
to his father. The father was about to drink the juice with a poison
when A took pity on his father and had a change of heart. He
immediately grabbed the juice and threw it on the garden.
Is A liable of attempted parricide?
> No. He is not liable of attempted parricide. The act of mixing of the
poison with the juice is an OA directly connected to parricide,
however, he was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason
of his own spontaneous desistance. Therefore, he is absolved of
criminal lability. Because for one to be liable in the attempted stage,
the reason for the non consummation of the crime must not be his
own spontaneous desistance.
In the same problem, A mixed the poison with a juice and gave it to
his father. The father drank the juice and was poisoned. Suddenly,
he was already showing signs of being poisoned, he was chilling.
Upon seeing his father in that condition, A immediately
administered an antidote to his father, after that he immediately
rushed his father to the hospital. The father survived. The doctor
said, were it not for the antidote given by the son, the father would
have died.
Is the son liable of attempted parricide?
> He is not liable of attempted parricide. Because the moment the
father drank the juice, all the acts for the performance of the crime
has already been done. The offender has already performed all acts
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
14
In the same case, the woman opened the glass shelf. She was about
to take the lipstick when suddenly there was this hand placed on top
of her hand before she could even get the lipstick. Unknown to her,
her acts were being seen on a CCTV camera and the head of the
administrative office immediately went to her upon seeing that she
was about to take the lipstick.
Is the woman liable of any crime?
> Yes. She is already liable of attempted theft. A note was posted on
the glass shelf saying, do not open, ask for assistance. The moment
she opened it with use of the key, it shows her intent to gain. It is on
the attempted stage because she has not yet taken possession of
the personal property of another.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
15
co-conspirators but they are not yet punishable, they are not yet
criminally liable.
2 KINDS
1. Direct or Express Conspiracy - when the offenders or conspirators
met, planned, agreed, decided to commit a crime. There is a
preconceived plan prior to the commission of the crime.
For one to be criminally liable, it is necessary that he is not only a
part of the agreement, he must also be present at the time of the
commission of the crime. Even if he is part of the agreement if at
the time of the commission of the crime he failed to appear, such
failure on his part to appear at the scene of the crime would be
construed by law as a desistance. Therefore, even if he part of the
agreement he will not be liable as a conspirator.
Ex. A, B and C decided to kill X on a particular date and time. Onthe
said date and time, A and B arrived and killed X. However, C failed to
appear.
Although C was part of the agreement , he cannot be held criminally
liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder because he failed to
appear at the scene of the crime. His failure to appear is construed
by law as a desistance on his part.
In the same problem but all were present. A and B were about to kill
X but C performed acts preventing A and B from committing the
crime.
Although C was a conspirator, part of the agreement, although he
appeared at the scene of the crime. Since C performed acts trying to
prevent A and B from committing the crime, he cannot be held
criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder in the said
case.
For a conspirator to be held liable, he must be part of the agreement
and he must be present at the scene of the crime to commit the
crime. His failure to appear is desistance and therefore, he cannot
be held criminally liable. Likewise even if he appeared at the scene
of the crime but he performed acts to prevent others from
committing the crime, he is also not criminally liable.
GR: Conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed upon. They are
not liable for any crime which is not agreed upon.
Ex. A, B and C decided to kill X. Went to the place where X will be
passing at night time. When they saw X, A B and C surrounded X and
they all stabbed X. When X was lying on the ground, A and B left. C
remained and took the valuables of X.
What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C?
A, B and C are all liable for the crime of murder as conspirators
because it is the crime agreed upon.
Only C will be liable for the crime of theft. A and B cannot be held
liable for the crime of theft because theft was not a crime agreed
upon by all of them. Also, theft was committed in the absence of A
and B. Therefore, only C will be held liable for theft.
It cannot be robbery because the victim is already dead. There is no
longer force or intimidation to be used upon person or upon things if
the victim is already dead. The taking from the person is only theft
not robbery.
In the same problem, C took the valuables of X in the presence of A
and B. While he was taking them, A said what about the cellphone, B
what about the ring, here take it also.
Although theft was not a crime agreed upon, all of them will be held
liable of the crime of theft because although theft was not agreed
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
16
SC: Although the participation of Milan was only to close the door,
Chua was only to order Milan to shoot the 3rd police officer, such
act of Chua showed that he exercised moral ascendancy over Milan.
Therefore, since what is present here is a prior agreement to kill the
police officers, mere exercise of moral ascendancy will already make
one a conspirator. It is not necessary that they actually participate in
the execution of the crime. Thus, all of them are held criminally
liable.
People vs. Garchitorena
SC: Direct proof is not necessary for one to become a conspirator
because conspiracy can be proven from the acts done or performed
prior, during or subsequent to the commission of the crime.
Ex. A, B and C decided to rob the house of X. They went inside the
house of X. They have already taken the valuables. On their way out
however, C pushed a chair. The chair fell on floor and created a
noise. The owner of the house was awakened and began shouting
upon seeing A, B and C. C shot the owner of the house. The owner
died.
What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? Who is liable for
the death of X? Are all of them liable for the death of X or is it only
C?
The crime agreed upon was robbery. However, by reason or on the
occasion of robbery, homicide was committed. Therefore, the
resulting felony is a special complex crime. Under Art. 294 it is
robbery with homicide. Since the resulting felony is a special
complex crime, which cannot be separated from each other, all of
them can be held criminally liable of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.
Ex. A, B and C alighted in the house of X, they were all armed with
armalites. They all went in front of the door. A knocked at the door.
When X opened the door, B fired at X. X fell on the floor. C kicked his
body inside and closed the door. All of them left still armed. Are they
all criminally liable or conspirators for the death of X? Are they
conspirators for the crime of murder?
Yes. It is evident here that there is a pre conceived plan prior to the
commission of the crime. Although the only participation of A was to
knock at the door and the only participation of C was to close the
door, it was obvious, there was a pre conceived plan. All of the,
arrived at the same time armed with armalites. They went in front of
the door, one knocked, one fired, one closed the door, left together
still armed. All of these showed that there was a pre conceived plan
to kill X. As such they are all liable as conspirators regardless of the
quantity and quality of their participation.
XPNS:
1. When the other crime was committed in the presence of the
other conspirators and they did not perform acts to prevent its
commission.
2. When the other crime committed was the natural consequence of
the crime agreed upon.
3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or a special
complex crime or a single indivisible complex crime.
Under the xpns, the other conspirators are liable for the crime
committed although not agreed upon.
In case of direct or express conspiracy, for one to be conspirator, it is
not necessary that he actually participate in the actual execution of
the crime. The participation of the conspirator may be direct or
indirect in the execution of the crime. Since there was a prior
agreement, mere presence at scene of the crime, mere exercise of
moral ascendancy over the others will already bring about criminal
liability as a conspirator because there was a prior agreement, there
was a pre conceived plan.
People vs. Carandang, Milan and Chua
All of them were charged of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of
frustrated murder. The only participation of Milan was to close the
door. It was only Carandang who shot the 3 police officers. Chua
instructed Milan to finish the 3rd police officer and Milan followed
him.
It may happen that the conspirators do not know each other. Since
the offenders acted in a synchronized and coordinated manner, a
conspiracy was established instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the
moment.
Ex. X was trying to stab Y. Y evaded all the blows. Z saw that X was
having a hard time stabbing Y. Z was an enemy of Y. So Z went at the
back of Y and held both hands of Y at the back and told X to stab Y
which X did.
Is Z a conspirator of X?
Yes. An implied conspiracy was established, instantly, impulsively, at
the spur of the moment. There was no pre conceived plan but the
act of Z of holding the hands of Y is a direct and positive overt act
showing that he has the same criminal design as That of X which is
to kill Y.
People vs.
In case of implied conspiracy, for one to be considered as a
conspirator, it is necessary that the offender actually participates in
the commission of the crime. Mere presence at the scene of the
crime, mere approval, mere acquiescence, mere knowledge of the
commission of the crime will not make one a conspirator absent any
active participation. Because the basis is on the acts performed by
the offender. Unlike a preconceived plan there was a prior
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
17
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
18
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
19
in her bag. When the man placed himself on top of the woman, the
woman stabbed the man. The man died. Prosecuted for homicide.
The woman invoked self defense particularly defense of ones honor
and chastity.
Is there self defense?
> Let's go by the requisites.
First, unlawful aggression. Was there unlawful aggression? Yes, the
man boxed her, dragged her, undressed her, pinned her down. This
is unlawful aggression sufficient to mean that she would be raped.
Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the aggression. The man was unarmed.
Is it reasonably necessary for the woman to make use of the
balisong?
> Yes, because of the factors to be considered. Although the said
man has no arms, you must take into consideration of the personal
circumstances of the woman versus that of the man, the physical
circumstances. Likewise, you must take into consideration the place
and the occasion. It was 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody could give
help to the woman. The only means she could do to help herself and
prevent the act of rape would be to stab the man.
The second element is present.
Third, lack of sufficient provocation. It is present. The woman was
merely walking on her way home. Absolutely there was no sufficient
provocation coming from the woman.
Therefore, the woman was justified in killing the man. She acted in
self defense.
Ex. When the father went home, his son was crying. When he was
asked by his father why he was crying, he said he was slapped by the
neighbor. When he was asked why he was slapped, the son did not
answer. The father decided to inquire from the neighbor why he
slapped his son. Such inquiry angered the neighbor. The neighbor
who was at that time was gardening tried to hit the father with a
rake that he was using for gardening. The first blow and the second
blow were evaded. The neighbor tried to hit again the father for the
third time, the father saw a pointed stick on the ground, took it and
stabbed the neighbor. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound, brought
to the hospital and survived. The father was prosecuted for
frustrated homicide. He invoked self defense.
Is there self defense?
> First, there was unlawful aggression. The neighbor tried to hit him
with a rake 3 times. There was an image of danger from his life.
Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the aggression. The father went to the house of the neighbor
without any arms and at the time he was attacked, he just saw a
pointed stick. That is the only means that he could avail at the
moment to protect himself. Therefore it was reasonably necessary
to use the said means.
Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. The act of the father inquiring from the neighbor
why he slapped his son was an act within his right. It cannot be
considered as sufficient provocation. It is the right of the father to
know why his son was hurt or injured by the neighbor.
Toledo vs. People
SC: there is no such thing as accidental self defense. You cannot
invoke self defense and accident at the same time. Because in self
defense it is direct and positive overt act in the name of self
preservation. The offender killed the victim so as to preserve his
own life. It is direct and positive. It cannot be done out of accident
imminence. Therefore, it is inconsistent with accident.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
20
The reason behind self defense stand ground when in the right.
Stand ground in the right means that where the said accused is
where he should be and his assailant is fast approaching, the law
does not require him to retreat because the moment he retreats he
runs the risk of being stabbed at the back.
2. Defense of a Relative
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one
making the defense had no part therein.
Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one
provoked the offended party, the offender should took no part in
the provocation in said situation so as to justify the defense of a
relative.
3. Defense of a Stranger
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the attack;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or
motive.
The 3rd element requires that the said offender must be
disinterested and not induced by any other motive, otherwise,
defense of a stranger will not lie.
Q: What if one night, A and B were on board a jeepney. Said jeepney
was flagged down by X. Upon reaching a dark portion of the street, X
pulled a balisong and declared a hold-up. X poked A with his
balisong and said give me your cellphone. A did not want to give
her cellphone to X. X was about to stab A when B, upon seeing that
the latter was about to stab B, immediately kicked X out of the
jeepney. X, who fell from the jeepney suffered physical injuries. B
was prosecuted for serious physical injuries. B invoked defense of a
stranger.
Answer:
>We should go by the elements:
1st: Unlawful aggression. Was there unlawful aggression?
A: Yes, X was about to stab A because A did not want to give her CP.
2nd: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel said aggression
A: Yes. Note that B was unarmed. All that he did was he kicked X out
of the jeepney. It was necessary for him to do said act in order for
him to prevent the aggression
3rd: The offender was induced by revenge, resentment, or motive
A: Yes. In the problem, there was no showing that B knows X, so it
cannot be said that B is induced by any motive.
4. State of Necessity
Elements:
1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
21
every minor mistakes that she commit. The wife would always suffer
physical injuries and would often go to her psychiatrist. One time,
the husband arrived home and drunk. This time, he did not beat his
wife, but immediately went to the bedroom and slept. The wife took
this opportunity to kill her husband. She took a bolo and hacked her
sleeping husband. Upon seeing her husband dead, she wrapped him
with their blanket. Thereafter, she took her children and left the
house. After some time, the neighbors of the husband and wife
noticed a foul smell coming from the house. When they opened the
house, they saw the body of the husband. The wife was prosecuted
for parricide.
If you were the counsel, what will be your defense?
You can have the defense of the Battered Woman Syndrome.
What is a battered woman?
She is woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or
psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.
>Battered women includes wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men.
>Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once.
If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is
defined as a battered woman.
>Note that battered woman syndrome is akin to akin to justifying. It
is even better that self-defense because in self defense, you have to
prove that the elements are present. However, in battered woman
syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is suffering from
battered woman syndrome. It is through the expert testimony of the
psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering from battered
woman syndrome. If this is proven, she is absolved from criminal
and civil liability.
>This is an actual case People vs Genosa wherein the wife was
prosecuted for parricide. However, in this case, RA 9262 was not yet
enacted, so the wife was convicted for parricide, but she was
entitled to mitigating circumstances.
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid
interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act
which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of
this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the
court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
22
the evidence that the son sold the jewelries of the mother at a low
price)
B:
What if A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the killing, he could
not sleep and there was a voice that kept nagging him, Kill B, kill B.
And so he killed B, so he followed the voice. He pleaded guilty but
his defense was insanity.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
23
>The same case was applied in People vs Mantalaba. They have the
very same issues. The case is about the sale of illegal drugs involving
minors. In this case, the SC remanded the CA. The CA should have
suspended the sentence because at that time the law was enacted
and was on appeal to the CA, the accused was 20 years of age,
hence he is entitled to the automatic suspension of his sentence.
What if a police officer saw two men fighting on a street. They were
hitting each other. The police tried to pacify the two men, but they
wont stop. So what the police officer did was that he fired shots to
pacify the men. However, one of the stray bullets landed on the
child. Unfortunately the child died. The police officer was
prosecuted for homicide. As a defense, the police officer invoked
accident
Lets go by the elements:
5.
Elements:
1. There must be Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
3. Physical force must come from a third person
In irresistible force, the offender must be reduced as a mere
instrument, that he is not acting in his will. Therefore, if he is acting
against his will, voluntariness is absent.
6.
Elements:
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be real and imminent
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed
It is necessary by the means employed by the third person, it would
cause a person to suffer uncontrollable fear. Again, he is reduced as
a mere instrument such that he acted against his will. It is necessary
that such fear must be of imminence that an ordinary man cannot
stand. When there is an existence of uncontrollable force or fear
there is lack of freedom of actionan element of voluntariness.
Therefore, the person totally has no free will.
Even if there was force employed but the person has a choice to do
the act or not, this exempting provision will not lie.
Situation:
A farmer and his carabao was on his way home. On his way home,
he heard gun shots, so he went to the place where he heard the gun
shots. He hid behind a tree and saw two men shooting X. X way
already lying on the ground. The farmer was so shocked and afraid
that he tried to leave the place. However, when he was about to
leave, he stepped on the dried leaves and caused a noise. The two
men saw him. One of the men pointed the gun at the farmer and
told him to come near them. Afraid for his life, the farmer obeyed.
The men, pointing the gun at the farmer told him to bury X lying on
the ground. The farmer said, No, I dont want to. If you will not
bury X, we will shoot you, said one of the men. The farmer was so
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
24
Is the threat of the mother actually exist? No, because the threat is
in the future. Therefore state of necessity is not present. The
Supreme Court ruled that she was not in state of necessity. Because
she has several jewelries. She could have sold the jewelries to pay
for the hospital expenses
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
The law requires the person to require a lawful act, but was
prevented because of an insuperable cause.
Note that it is one of the instances in exempting circumstances that
the actor is exempt from both criminal and civil liability. It is akin to a
justifying circumstance because what prevented the offender from
performing a lawful act is a lawful cause.
Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable
cause.
For example, there is a war in which the Philippines is involved. A, B,
and C conspired to commit treason against the government. A, one
of the conspirators went to the priest and confided to the priest that
there was conspiracy between B and C to commit treason against
the government. Despite knowledge on the conspiracy to commit
treason, the priest did not immediately divulge it to the police.
Under Art 116, the priest is criminally liable for misprision of
treason, for not divulging the conspiracy to commit treason.
However, the priest failed to perform such act due to a lawful cause.
Under your rules on evidence, a confession made to a priest is
considered as a privileged communication. Therefore the priest does
not incur any criminal liability.
Article 13.Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating
circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability
in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy
years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
25
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
26
Elements:
1. the provocation must be sufficient
2. it must originate from the offended party
3. requires that the commission or the provocation must be
immediate from the commission of the criminal act by the
person who was provoked
PROVOCATION is any unjust or immoral act or conduct on the part
of the offended party which is capable of inciting, exciting or
inflating(?) another.
When is provocation is sufficient?
>For provocation to be sufficient, there must be 2 elements.
st
1 it must be adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful
act
nd
2 it must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime.
rd
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
27
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
28
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
29
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense
to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
30
Example:
1. Art. 248
- the circumstances therein present would qualify the
killing of a person from homicide to murder
- presence of treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty in
killing would make a crime not of homicide but would be
qualified to murder
Unlike justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances, which are
not stated or alleged in the information, aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the information. Even if they are proven in trial
but they are not alleged in the information, they cannot be
considered against the person. They must be both alleged and
likewise proven during trial, so as not to deprive the accused of
right to know the nature of the accusation against him.
In case of qualifying aggravating circumstance, for example, A killed
B there was treachery, it was done in consideration of a price,
reward or promise, there was also cruelty, so there are three
qualifying aggravating circumstances present. Only one of them will
qualify the killing to murder. So if treachery is already proven, the
crime committed is already murder. Cruelty and the other
circumstance of in consideration of a price, reward or promise shall
only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
- this aggravating circumstance can be applied only if the
offender is a public officer.
- the offender use the prestige, influence or ascendency of his
office in the commission of the crime or to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
Example:
1. Police officer A was having a drinking spree with his friends
outside his house. In the course thereof, they were discussing about
the alleged shoot out in Quezon. According to the police officer,
since he was a police officer, it was a shoot out. But according to his
friend it was a rob out. They were arguing, exchanging views until
the police officer got mad. At that time, he had with him his pistol.
He used his service pistol and shot his friend who thereafter died. Is
the said act of killing done by taking advantage of his public
position?
- this aggravating circumstance is not present. It is not
present because the said offender, public officer, did not use or
misuse his public office. He did not use the influence, the
ascendency or the prestige of his office in order to commit the
crime. Even not being a public officer he could have killed his friend
in the same situation . He could even have used another weapon,
not necessarily his service pistol.
* Under Art. 14, taking advantage of his public position is a generic
aggravating circumstance. However, under Art. 62 (as amended by
RA 7659), the fact the crime was committed by taking advantage of
his public position is a special aggravating circumstance because the
maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed.
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult
to the public authorities.
Elements:
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
31
space. The mayor went down the building and talked to both A
and B. He told them to shake hands and forget everything. Then
he told A to just allow B to park his car anyway there was
another parking space available. This angered A because he
thought that the mayor was siding with B. A took out his
balisong and stabbed the mayor. Is the aggravating
circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public authority
present?
it is present but it is not an aggravating circumstance but
an element of the crime because the crime committed is
direct assault. It is direct assault because the public
authority at the time of the attack was engaged in the
performance of his functions. Since the crime committed
was against the public authority himself, the fact that it
was committed in contempt of or with insult to the said
public authority is an ingredient of the crime.
2. That the public authority is not the person against whom the
crime is committed.
- if he is the person against whom the crime is committed, such fact
that the crime was committed in contempt of the public authority is
an element because the crime committed would be direct assault. In
direct assault, in contempt of or with insult to public authority is an
element, no longer an aggravating circumstance.
3. That the offender knows him to be a public authority.
- there must be knowledge on the part of the offender
that the said person is a public authority. Otherwise, it cannot be
said that he disrespected the said person as a public authority if he
has no knowledge that he is a public authority.
4. That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the
offender from the commission of the crime.
Disregard of rank
Disregard of age
Disregard of sex
Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party
Disregard of rank
Rank refers to a high social standing, a high position in the
society. For this to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance, it is necessary that the offender be of lower
rank than that of the offended party.
Example:
1. A student attacking a professor. There was a disregard of
rank of the said professor.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
32
Disregard of age
Age here refers to both minority and senority.
Example:
1.
2.
Disrespect of sex
Disrespect of sex refers to the female sex. This is inherent
in the crime of rape and in certain crimes involving
chastity.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
33
Abuse of confidence
Elements:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party;
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of
the crime
Example:
A and B have been living here in Manila for 4 years. Suddenly
here comes X. X was there former neighbor in Batangas. He told
A and B I am looking for work here in Manila, can I live in your
house while I am looking for work? Since he was a good
neighbor back then A and B trusted X and allowed X to live
inside their house. X now sleeps in the house of A and B while
he was looking for work here in manila. One time A and B were
out of the house in their respective works. The only person left
in the house was X and their daughter who was only 9 years
old. While the couple were out, X molested and raped the said
daughter. Is the aggravating circumstance abuse of confidence
present in this case?
Yes, it is present. X was there because A and B trusted him,
yet he abused such trust and confidence and instead
facilitated the commission of the crime. Therefore this
aggravating circumstance is present.
Obvious Ungratefulness:
- ungratefulness means the offender has no gratitude, does not
even know how to say thank you.
Elements:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party;
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
Example:
A was selling kettles and other kitchenwares on the street
under the heat of the sun. A goes from one house to another
under the heat of the sun. He was so thirsty already so he
knocked on the gate of the house of X. X opened the gate and A
told X that he was so thirsty. X being a good person, allowed A
to go inside their house and asked him to take a sit while he get
him a glass of water. When he came back, he was not only
holding a glass of water but also brought some biscuits.
However A suddenly, brought out his knife and stabbed X and
thereafter robbed him. Is the aggravating circumstance obvious
ungratefulness present?
Yes. Instead of showing gratitude for having been allowed
to enter the house and given a glass of water with biscuits,
he instead took advantage of the goodness of the man and
committed the crime of killing and robbery. There was
obvious ungratefulness on the part of the offender.
2.
-
3.
4.
-
Example:
1. A and B are chefs in Malacanang. They are outdoing each other in
trying to prepare the best meal for P-noy. One time, both of them
were preparing lunch for the president. Suddenly they had an
argument. In the course thereof, A stabbed B. B suffered a fatal
wound but he survived. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide. Is the
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the
palace of the Chief Executive present?
- No, it is not present. Because he works there, he lives there. It
cannot be said that he sought the said place in order to commit the
crime. It cannot be said that he went to said place in order to
commit the crime or can it be said that he disrespected the said
place.
2. What if many farmers were having a rally outside the DAR. They
started the rally around 6am, it is now 8pm, they were still there.
The officials and employees had already left, so the farmers were
there still having their rally. They set tents and prepared to sleep
there. In the course thereof, 2 farmers argued at each other. In the
course of their argument one farmer jumped into the fence and
went inside the DAR. The second farmer followed him and when the
second farmer was able to catch up with the first farmer, he killed
the latter. Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime was
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
34
Nighttime
from sunset to sunrise
in order for these aggravating circumstances to be
considered, it is necessary that the offender deliberately
sought the darkness of the night. He deliberately sought to
cover in darkness either to facilitate the commission of the
crime or to insure or afford impunity.
To facilitate the commission of the crime, he use the cover
of darkness, so that his actual perpetration of the crime
will be unmolested. He cannot be disturbed. Therefore,
there is an assurance that crime will be consummated. To
insure or afford impunity he sought to cover in darkness so
that no one will be able to recognize him.
Even if the offender sought nighttime, the moment the
scene of the crime has been illuminated by any light, rule
out nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
Example:
In the commission of the crime, A decided to kill B, his enemy.
A knew that B would pass by the place wherein there were no
light posts. A waited for B in the said place. Upon the moment B
arrived A left his post and was about to stab B when suddenly a
tricycle passed by and the light coming from the tricycle
illuminated the scene of the crime. Even if A deliberately sought
nighttime, nighttime is not aggravating because a light
illuminated the scene of the crime. Whenever any light has
illuminated the scene of the crime, rule out nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance.
light coming from the tricycle, from any vehicle, nearby
house, light posts or even from the moon, for as long as
the scene of the crime has been illuminated, nighttime is
not aggravating.
An uninhabited place
Means a place which is isolated from the others or located
far from others. However this is not the requirement for it
to be considered aggravating.
Requisites:
1. That in the place where the crime was committed there
was a remote possibility for the victim to receive some
help
2. That the offender deliberately sought the uninhabited
place in order to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Example:
A, B and C are fishermen. Around 3 am, they all went out fishing on
their respective boats. They were sailing 5 meters away from each
other. Suddenly X sprung out of the water and he stabbed A. In the
prosecution for killing of A, is the aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place present?
- Yes it is present. First, in the place where the crime was
committed, there was very little, remote possibility for A to receive
some help. Because B and C must still swim before they could
render help or assistance to A. Before they could have swum and
reached A, A is already dead. Therefore there was very litter or
remote possibility for the victim to be saved. The said accused X
deliberately sought the place in order to facilitate in the commission
of the crime because he suddenly appeared from the water.
Therefore the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is
present.
By a band
- for the aggravating circumstance of by a band to be present,
the law says where more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of the offense, it shall
be deemed to have been committed by a band. Therefore,
there must be at least 4 armed men in the commission of the
crime or they must have acted together in the commission of
the crime.
Example:
A, B, C, D and E all armed with knives, killed X. The information
stated that A, B, C, D and E conspired with one another and as a
band they committed the crime of murder against X. during the
presentation of evidence, conspiracy was proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Likewise, band as an aggravating
circumstance was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the
judge convicted A, B, C, D and E for the crime of murder as
conspirators. The judge also considered the aggravating
circumstance of by a band. The counsel for the accused filed a
motion for the consideration, questioning the consideration of
the aggravating circumstance of by a band. According to the
counsel, conspiracy has already been considered therefore by a
band can no longer be considered by the court. Is the counsels
contention correct?
No, the counsels contention is wrong. Even if the court
already considered conspiracy, by a band may still be
considered by the court because conspiracy is a means of
committing a crime. It means they have the same criminal
liability. On the other hand, by a band is an aggravating
circumstance. One does not absorb the other, therefore,
both maybe considered and appreciated by the court.
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other
calamity or misfortune.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
35
Who is a recidivist?
- A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have previously been convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
Elements:
1. that the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime;
3. That both the first and second offenses are embraced in
the same title of the code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense
charged.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or
for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
Elements:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another crime to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty;
3. That he is also convicted of the new offense.
Under the second element there are two situations. The first
situation is that, he has already served out the sentence, he has
already been punished for a crime. If it is only one crime it is
necessary that the said crime must carry a penalty equal to or
greater than the second crime. But if there are two crimes for
which he had been previously punished, it is necessary that
they carry a lighter penalties than the new crime for which he is
convicted.
Example:
A has been convicted of the crime of attempted homicide. The judge
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he was
convicted. The judgment became final and executory, therefore he
was behind bars. He served out his sentence. Once out of prison cell,
he lived a good life. However, after 25 years, he engaged in a fight
and killed the other man. By reasonable doubt he was charged with
and convicted of the crime of murder. Can the judge consider
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty
for murder?
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
36
5.
Evident premeditation
It is the stubborn adherence to a decision to commit a
crime.
It implies a deliberate plans before or after the
commission of the crime.
Requisites:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the
crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
his determination;
3. Sufficient lapse time between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his acts.
Example:
A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so humiliated so
he told A the next time I see you, I will kill you! B went home and
searched for his gun. He found the same and kept it under his pillow,
waiting for the time to kill A. A month has lapsed. B while walking
saw A. upon seeing A, he immediately run to his house, went to his
bedroom and took the gun under his pillow. He raised back to A and
shot him. Is the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation
present?
First, the time when the offender determined to commit
the crime. That is the time when B told A the next time I
see you, I will kill you!
Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination. He brought a gun. It is an overt act showing that he
has clung to his determination.
Third, a sufficient lapse time between the determination and
execution. A month has passed. That is sufficient for him to cool off,
to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. Therefore, evident
premeditation was present in the commission of the crime.
Par. 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
Craft
intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by the accused
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
37
Example:
The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the maid
was at home. He told the maid that he was a relative of the
owners of the house who came from the province. He was
allowed to enter the house, thereafter he committed a crime of
robbery. There was cunning or intellectual trickery resorted to
by the accused for he tricked the maid to consummate the
crime of robbery.
Fraud
it means deceit
it is manifested by the use of insidious words or
machinations resorted to by the accused so that the
offended party will perform an act that will make the
offender do the crime easily.
Example:
The offended party was about to sleep on the upper portion of
the house because the lower portion is a store. The offender
called over the owner, saying that he was going to buy
something. The owner went down the house and opened the
store. However, upon opening the store, he was stabbed and
robbery was committed. There was fraud as manifested by the
insidious words or machinations, resorted to by the offender.
Disguise
ways and means resorted to by the accused to conceal his
identity.
Stockings, bonnet or anything that could be used so that
one could not be recognized.
If despite disguise he is recognized, rule out disguise as an
aggravating circumstance, it did not serve its purpose.
Inequality of forces
Example: Offender enjoys numerical superiority over that of the
offended party
If the victim was able to put out any defense, no matter how
minor, treachery is not present.
Example:
A was about to stab B but he was able to parry the blow, that is
already a defense on his part. He was able to run away, that is
already considered as a defense. Treachery is no longer
present. It is necessary that the offended party or the victim
must be totally without defense.
Elements:
1. That the offender deliberately adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed by him.
2. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself.
The mere fact that there was numerical superiority does not
automatically mean that there is abuse of superior strength.
Under the second element, evidence must show that the
offender deliberately took advantage of their strength to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
Example:
Victim is 17 years of age, but a big, macho man, full of muscles.
Is there treachery?
the Supreme Court held that whenever the offended party
is a minor, there is always treachery. Minority here does
not refer to the statutory definition of minority, that is,
being below 18 years of age. Minority here is with
reference to the sense of helplessness of the victim. So it
is necessary that the victim is helpless.
Example:
1. A prisoner arrived at the police station. Upon removal of
his handcuffs, he immediately grab the pistol of the
arresting officer. Thereafter he went out pointing the said
gun. Upon seing a woman who was getting inside the PNP
station, he shot the woman. The woman died. Is the
aggravating circumstance of treachery present?
- the aggravating circumstance of treachery is not present
it is a mere chance encounter. The first element is wanting. There is
no showing the offender deliberately adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him in killing the woman.
2. A was found on the street. He has 10 stab wounds all at the back.
No one saw the commission of the crime. However A witness
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
38
claimed that he saw X leaving the place with a weapon full of blood.
X was arrested. Is treachery present?
- No, treachery is not present because the
witness failed to observe the start or the commencement
of the attack. For treachery to arise it is necessary that he
must be present at the commencement of the attack in
order to know whether the offended party was totally
defenseless.
Example:
1. A was on vacation. B knew that A was on vacation. He
saw that the window on the third floor of the house was
open. He got a ladder and placed it in the window, climbed
it and entered the house. then he took the valuables, got
out through the window. Is the aggravating circumstance
of unlawful entry present?
- No, it is not present. The reason is that, the fact
that a crime was committed after an unlawful entry is
inherent in the commission of the crime because the crime
committed is robbery under Art.299, robbery with use of
force upon things. The essence of robbery, is in the act of
unlawful entry. The entry was done through a means not
intended for anything that is to a window. Thus, the fact
that a crime was committed after an unlawful entry is not
an aggravating circumstance.
Ignominy
a moral circumstance which add to the injury suffered by
the victim. It is humiliation, embarrassment, moral killing.
Par. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized
watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA
5438).
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
39
Example:
A person was found dead with several wounds all over his body. Is
the fact that he has several wounds on different parts of his body
mean that there was cruelty?
- No. the fact that there was 25-50 wounds cannot immediately
mean that there was cruelty in the commission of the crime. It is
necessary to determine, whether first, he was still alive at the time
the physical pain was inflicted; second, did the offender enjoy and
delight in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the
physical pain. If there were defense wounds, cruelty cannot be
appreciated.
Ignominy vs. Cruelty
1. a. Ignominy, the victim suffered moral pain.
b. Cruelty pertains to physical pain or physical suffering.
3. A father and son had an argument. The son shot his father with an
unlicensed firearm. The father died. Two cases were filed against the
son: parricide and illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. The fiscal
opined that under section 1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294 if
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. It did not provide for parricide, therefore
two cases should be filed. Is the fiscal correct?
- No, the fiscal is wrong. SC has already ruled, that the
words homicide and murder in the said law is used in its generic
sense. Therefore it includes all kinds of killing where the penalty
prescribed by law is the same as murder which is reclusion perpetua
to death. The penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua to
death.
4. A killed B. thereafter he chopped the body of B. because of the
manner employed by the accused in killing the victim, the police
suspected that he was under the influence of prohibited drugs. He
was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for forensic examination.
the results provided that he was under the influence of prohibited
drugs. What is the effect of the positive result of the said
examination on the commission of the crime of the said accused?
- Under Section 25 of RA 9165, when a crime is committed
by an offender under the influence of dangerous drugs, such state
shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance.
Therefore, it will bring about a change in the nature of the crime to a
more serious crime with a higher penalty.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
40
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally
liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
41
Kinds:
1.
-
Ex2: What if, A.B and C decided to rob the bank. On the agreed
time and place, they were already about to go to the bank, but
suddenly they realized they have no vehicle. So the flagged
down a taxi. They informed the taxi driver of their criminal
design, to which the taxi driver agreed for his car to be used as
a getaway vehicle. while on their way to the bank, they
realized that they needed a lookout. They saw a balut vendor
and asked him, Can you be our lookout? The moment you see
a police coming, shout baluuuuut! The said vendor agreed to
the said criminal design. After robbing the bank, A B C and the
balut vendor boarded the taxi. Criminal liability of each?
2.
-
3.
-
Accomplices
Art. 18. Accomplices. Accomplices are those persons who,
not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Cooperate in the commission of the crime by previous of
simultaneous acts
The participation is only minor in character. It only
provides material and moral aide in an efficacious manner
but not in an indispensable manner.
-
Requisites to be an accomplice:
1. There must be community of design
The accomplice had been informed of the criminal design
of the offender and having been informed, he concurs
with the said criminal design. Hes not part of the
conspiracy but he knows and concurs with the design
because he was informed of the same only after the
principal had come up with agreement.
2. That he performs the acts previous or simultaneous to the
commission of the crime; and
3. That the acts performed by the principal is related to the
acts performed by the accomplice.
Ex.: A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their
agreement, A.B, and C will be the ones to enter the bank. D will
serve as lookout. E will serve as the driver of the vehicle. They
committed the crime on the date agreed upon. What are the
liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E?
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
42
rd
43
2 kinds of penalties:
1.
2.
Principal; and
Accessory
Principal penalties
Are penalties prescribed by law or precribed by the court
Accessory penalties
Those which are necessarily included in the imposition of
principal penalties.
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory
penalties . Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty
which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties,
according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of
this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties
are also imposed upon the convict.
Ex.: The judge need not state the accessory penalty, civil
interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification because
these two necessarily follow the principal penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. The penalties
which may be imposed according to this Code, and their
different classes, are those included in the following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense,
Payment of costs.
Death
-
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Perpetua
Penalty imposed in case of
violation of the RPC
Carries a fixed duration: 20 to 40
years
Carries with it accessory penalty
Life Imprisonment
Penalty imposed in case of
violation of Special Penal Laws
No fixed duration
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
44
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. It shall be the duty of
any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present
two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will
not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case
such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined
by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount
in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said
undertaking.
Civil Interdiction
Under article 40 to 41, civil interdiction is an accessory
penalty that follows the principal penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal.
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto mayor
A person under civil interdiction can make a last will and testament
because the effect of the same is mortis causa or after the death of
such person, which is not prohibited.
Suspension
Both principal and accessory penalty
Art. 27: Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro.
The duration of the penalties of prision correccional,
suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one
day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that
of the principal penalty.
Destierro
Principal penalty
Art 27: see above
Art. 87: Destierro. Any person sentenced to destierro
shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
Also involves deprivation of liberty
Arresto Menor
Public Censure
Principal penalty
Has no fixed duration
Fine
-
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
45
A: Yes
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from
term of imprisonment. Offenders who have undergone
preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of
their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full
time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously
twice or more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their
sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall
be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of
the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17,
1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he
may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall
be released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal,
if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to
which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
Can the period of preventive imprisonment be deducted in case of
destierro?
Yes. Because destierro also involves deprivation of liberty and has a
fixed duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 yeears
NOTE: If detention has already exceeded the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged but his case is not yet
terminated, file a case for Habeas Corpus for the immediate release
of the accused.
PARDON
Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. A pardon shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of
the pardon.
-
Pardon
granted
by
the
President (Art. 36)
Extinguishes criminal liability
Pecuniary Liabilities
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. In case the
property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment
of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the
following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages
3. The fine.
4. The cost of the proceedings.
Pecuniary Liabilities
Those imposed by the court in
case of conviction but not as a
penalty
Subsidiary Penalty
Is a substitute penalty for fine and fine alone.
Either the penalty of the court must be a fine and the
convict must be insolvent. Absent such statement in the
judgment, the convict cannot suffer subsidiary penalty.
Not a principal penalty nor an accessory penalty, but only
a substitute penalty for fine.
Rate has been amended by RA 10159 which states: "If the
convict has no property with which to meet the fine
mentioned m paragraph 3 of the next preceding
article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal
liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the hIghest minimum wage rate
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the
rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with
which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest
preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal
liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
following rules:
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
46
Elements:
1. Offender performs single act
2. Resulted to two or more less grave felonies
Basis: Singularity of act
Effect: Penalty for the most serious charge in its maximum period.
Example: aberratio ictus
A aimed the gun at B. But because of poor aim, it shot C a pedestrian
walking. Treachery was attended. As to B, crime committed is
attempted murder. As to C, murder. Crime committed is attempted
murder.
A) A political rival placed a bomb on Bs car.
A person died, several persons injured
A single act placing the bomb produces two or more less grave
felonies
Crime is murder with multiple frustrated murder
B) Two persons died
Double murder
C) Many persons died
Multiple murder with multiple frustrated murder
D) Machine gun was used, different bullets come out, 10 people were
killed. Multiple murder or 10 counts of murder?
As many crimes are there are as many persons. Not a compound
crime therefore.
Basis is singularity of acts
2. Complex crime proper when the offense is a necessary
means commit the other the other
Elements:
1. Two offenses committed
2. Offenses necessary means to commit the other
3. Punished with the same statute
Penalty: like compound crime
Example:
a) Rape with forcible abduction - A was on the ladder of the
house, B a woman abducted her against her will and with
lewd design
b) Estafa thru falsification of public document. Person
falsifies a public document Falsification used to defraud
another.
>No estafa by falsification of private document. A cash voucher was
falsified. No crime such as estafa with falsification of private
document. When it is falsified, determine what to charge. Only one
charge. damage is essential element of both. There can be no twice
recovery for damages. Damage not an element of falsification of
public document
>If estafa can not be committed without falsification falsification
is the correct charge, estafa is merely a consequence
>If estafa can be committed without falsifying estafa. Falsification
is only incidental.
Other kinds of special crime:
4. Special complex crime in reality two or more crimes
committed but in the eyes of law only one. Law provides
what crimes would be complexed and what crimes go
together.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
47
a)
b)
c)
As to the offenses
Special
complex
crime
Law provides the
offense which should
be complexed
Penalty
Compound crime
Two or more grave
or less grave offense
or
offense
necessarily
to
commit the other
Imposed on the
maximum period
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
48
Cannot offset by
circumstance,
additional penalty
mitigating
provides
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
49
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
50
Those whose maximum term of sentence does not exceed one year.
Give him a straight penalty. Arresto mayor medium period.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. In imposing fines the courts may fix
any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the
amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to
the wealth or means of the culprit.
1. Facts such as necessary such as aggravating and
mitigating circumstance.
2. Wealth and means of the offender
What if it is fine. Fine - Pecuniary penalty imposed by court in case
of judgement of conviction.
Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. - A fine,
whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be
considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not
less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
>If he is an accomplice, accessory or frustrated? Answer is Art. 75.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more
degrees. Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce
the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the
maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing
the minimum.
If A prevented the meetings of congress by means of fraud. 200
2000 . If accomplice, One degree lower. the maximum. 200
1500.
>What if a person is given multiple sentence. Person committed 5
counts of rape. Five Reclusuion perpetua.
A.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
51
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
52
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the
records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by the
Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible exercise
of the pardoning power. (As amended by Sec. 25, RA# 7659)
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the
same. The execution shall take place in the penitentiary or
Bilibid in a space closed to the public view and shall be witnessed
only by the priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and
by his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the physician
and the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by
such persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize.
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed
and its burial. Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the
culprit shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings
subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the institute of
learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose
of study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take
charge of the decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director
of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at
government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to
the members of the family of the culprit and the friends of the
latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced
to death be held with pomp.
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one(1)
year but not later than eighteen(18) months after the judgment
has become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise
by the President of his clemency powers at all times . (As amended
by RA# 8177)
Execution of Distierro
) Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place
designated in the sentence nor within the radius specified,
which shall not be more than 250 and not less than 25 km
from the place designated.
) If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits
evasion of sentence
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
53
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
54
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
55
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
56
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
57
saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may
be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been
acquired by the third person in the manner and under the
requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
Art. 106. Reparation. How made. The court shall determine
the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the
thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the
injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Art. 107. Indemnification What is included. Indemnification
for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the
injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime.
Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages,
or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to
demand the same Upon whom it devolves. The obligation to
make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification
for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person
liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification
likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. If there are two or
more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine
the amount for which each must respond.
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices
and accessories of a felony Preference in payment.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the
principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other
persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property
of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly,
against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has
been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall
have a right of action against the others for the amount of their
respective shares.
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. Any
person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent
to the extent of such participation.
Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. Civil liability established in
Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in
the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions
of the Civil Law.
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. Except in case of
extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding
article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil
liability resulting from the crime committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting
of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required
to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of
sentence or any other reason.
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
58
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
59
[ Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
60