«SX XX B@«XXEXXEeEe idem — Coren prey Bushy neihioreel (L., Same fs SO et Re fod RR pt b mt nw hes —thet re CL iA est) do) BR. Serauitio COMPACT Sef oa Hes pn REVIEWER i IN CRIMINAL LAW sot gna mies Slee ay ERE Eee, dove foe poy ! Cotlos Hece mone vercle ml - Zero, nothing i as Nay~ rot merely tnig but alsa: pot onl torn aa ) ditto iege ,0€ peste fv dedec poem Cuffian. a bru person pimp = 6 men whe solicits clenls fer a enecvale fo lecsen te chende ae Vieor 3) Weekew 1 mised ot boi, bane- woe, harm feign - predend Keviar~ £1 ber eemo2ePn on viet ATTY. LEONOR D. BOADO mm aching @ rahi? SECOND EDITION stihl ‘ ae Mahal, pakatértanclaan ma, Pegribry ko dl maclalaho. Kun noon at ngayon mae fats manshabin Se dadetes ie 4 P42 tdrt rates Pep) Philippine Copyright, 2007 ISBN 978-971-23-4916-4 No portion of proceedings with proper ¢ Any copy of this book without thecorrespond- ing number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR No. 0539 ISBN 978.971.23-4916-4 Masri Printed by REX PRINTING Company, inc. nei oe Cocky PREFACE AND DEDICATION It is generally admitted that Criminal Law is the most diff- teresting branch of law. Relatively the shortest, consist- articles and a number of special and amendato- {is a most perplexing subject matter because a slight changes the crime committed or erases the existence ily the bar reviewees in mind. ‘This work is likewise in memory of the author's professors in the University of the East College of Law, especially the Crimi- nal Law professors who will always be her “Sirs.” Special gratitude to Ms. Remy Cabasal-Hadap, librarian at the Legal Office Library, Commission on Audit (COA), Quezon City and Ms. Reina Afos of the Office of Legal Affairs, COA. ‘October 20, 2007. LDB fehs pon focit Teum, nisi mens sit tea — There Con be > crime whey the criminal mind ts wating‘This textbook was written under the auspices of the Profes- sional Chair program of the “Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Reynato 8. Puno Library” Collegeof Law, University of East July 28, 2004. Antonio R. Tupaz Dean UE. College of Law ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface and Dedicati Article 10 — Special Law: CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL ‘srdcle 12 — Beempting x Cicumstances RA. No. 9344 — Juvenile Justice and Welfare ‘Act of 2006. In contempt of or wit Age, sex, rank, dwelling ‘Abuse of confidence/ obvious ungratefulness. Committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, etc. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band, aid of armed men... eR Ss BERERES SB ssgge see &BELEEECEEE eee EEE Eee Eee rete CeCe eee ree eee eee eee eee eee eee ener epee ee teer eer eee eee ert eeeeeeeeeeeeaee ‘On the occasion and by means of caa Aticle 71 — Graduated Sca Ww f or misfortune... 2 n9 racion, habitwal delingueney ‘and divism 121 dE Article 65 — Rules when penalty not composed ‘Abuse of superior strength ‘of 3 periods 124 Treachery (alevosia) Article 76— Legal 124 Ignominy and cruelty... “Article 66 — Imposi 125 — Unlawful entry, breaking of door “Asticle 68 — Penalty on minors 125 Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle. Article 69 — Penalty for inctmplete justification and exemption.. 126 Article 70 — Successive service of sentences 128 je eee ee : Article 75 — Increasing or reducing fine . 129 ! pangs : : Article 77— Complex penalty . 130 a Article 19 — Accessories INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. 131 Article 20 — \ eae PROBATION i Article 89 — Presidential Decree No. x fee Article 81 — Execution of Death Penalty. 139 Articles 21 Article 89 — Total extinction of er 139 Article 23 — Pardon by the offended Article 94 — Partial Extinction 139 rc Article 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executiv Article 36 — Pardon by the 139 | Article 24 : ‘Article 23 — Pardon by the Offended... 139 ‘Article 29 — Deduction of Preventive, Article 95 — Conditional Pardé 146 a imprisonment Article 98 — Deduction for loyalty 148 Article 25 — Classification of penalties. stiles 100-113 — Civil Liabilit 149 RA. No. 9846 — Abolition of Death Penalty... Article 4 — Civil Interdiction TITLET Derren Arner Are ‘CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL ile 39 — Subsidiary Pes oe Article 45... Article 48 Complex Crimes a ein 162 r frustrated felonies on the accomplices i L and accessories. 17 ie Article 61 — Rules for graduating penalties 7 * ow -oe en ae 5 1 TITLE CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE Article 124 — Arbitrary Detention... so Article 125 — Delay in the delivery of detained persons. RA. No. 7438 — Ri Detained or under Custodial Invest Article 126 — Delaying Rel Article 127 — Expulsion... Article 128 — Violation of Domicil Articles 129-130 — Search warrants m ‘obtained; Abuse in Service; Searching without witnesses : Atticles 131, 146, 147, Articles 132-128. TITLE WI CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Articles 134-134-A. Articles 138, 142, 148, 1 Article 153 — Tumult Article 155 — Alarms and Scandals... Articles 156-158 — Delivery of prisoner of service of sentence. Article 159. Article 160 TITLE IV CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Atticle 169 — Forge: Articles 171-172... Article 177 — Usurpation. Articles 180-184 — False Testimony and Perjury .. Articles 185-189. vis Anti-Alias Law ... TITLEV OPIUM Instigation, entrapment, buy bust operation and frame-up. TITLE VI AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS R.A. No. 9287 — Gambling and Illegal Lottery.. TITLE Vi CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Articles 210-211-A — Bribery. Article 212 — Corruption of Public Officer Article 213... Articles 214-217, Articles 218-220. Articles 221-222 R.A. No. 3019 —Anti-Graft Law. R.A. No. 7080 — Plunder Law Articles 236-245... TITLE Vu CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Article 246 — Parricide... 209 mai BRR BRERER 239 243, 244 5 RRRBR B 8eee ecco reed ae ce pe sae as aot Article 247., Article 248. Article 249, PD. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 R.A. No. 7877 — Sexual Harassment Law ... TITLE IX ‘CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY TITLEX CRIMES AGAINST 2ROPERTY Articles 294-296, 329 Articles 308-311, eee 343 PD, No. 1612 — Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. 346 PD, No. 533 — The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974... 349 R.A. No, 6599 — Anti-Carnapping. 350 PD. No. 704, as amended — Illegal Fishing 354 PD. No. 705, as amended — Forestry Code. 355 356 359 BP. Blg. 22 — An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit 365 376 378 382 384 385 : 386 Article 392... : 387 TITLE XI ‘CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Articles 333-334, 388 Articles 336 and 339... 390 Articles 337 and 338 391 Articles 340-341, 392 Articles 342-343. 392 Articles 347-348, Articles 349.351,Bde ord eee eat ‘TITLE XU CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Articles 353-36: Articles 363-364, ‘TITLE XIV ‘CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Article 366..... APPENDIX Appendix A— Republic Act No, 9372 Human Security Act of 2007... 402 413 415 421 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIP) 1. Penal laws are o€& of the cts oF omissions and’ penalties for their vio- lations. Those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment, (Lacson vs, Executive Secretary, GR. No. 128096, January 20, 1999) . Criminal law is a branch of public law because it treats of acts or omissions which are primarily wrongs against the State, Hence, the criminal case is denominated “People of the Philippines vs, xxx." lature paohibting certain tional limitations on the power of Congress to en- ‘act penal laws found in the Bill of Rights: a, The law must be general in application (equal protes- tion). b. It must observe substantive and procedural due pro cess. © Itshould not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines, 4. Itshould not operate as a bill of attainder. t must not operate as an ex post facto law. 4, ‘The prohibition on ex post facto law applies solely to penal laws. It cannot prohibit the retroactivity of procedural laws such as one that prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer such as the Extradition Treaty. (Wright vs. CA, GR. 213, August 15, 1 5. Provisions in the Code complementing ex post facto rule: a. Article 21: no felony shall be punishable by any pen- alty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.Peele aaa eee ce ae eee Sede Ree) ca need eee ae eenl dee to cal b. ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. icle 2: penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in- sofar as they favor the offender who is not a habitual delinquent. Therefore, a law which increases the pen- alty for an act or omission or prejudices the right of the accused cannot be given retroactive effect (irretrospec- > ity) 6 Examples of ex post facto law: @. Makes an act or omission criminal which when com- mitted was not criminal Aggravates the seriousness of the crime than when it was committed. Imposes a penalty that is higher than when the crime ‘was commi Makes it easier for the prosecution to establish the: of the accused than when the crime was commit Requires a lesser quantum of evidence than when the crime was committed, Alters, in relation to the offense or its consequences, the situation of a person to his disadvantage. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful. Deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or 3 proclamation of amnesty. (Lacson vs. Executive Seere- ane GR. No. 128096, January 20, 1999) (Characteristics of penal law: Generality — (persons to be governed) — penal law is binding on all persans who reside or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizens or not. Basis — Art. 14, Civil Code; Art. stitution, [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 3 ition or the place where appli- applicable to all crimes committed ippine territory. Basis — Art. 2, Revised Penal Code — (when the law shall be applicable) should have only prospective application jorable to the offender. (Irretrospectiv- the retroactive application of penal laws.) Basis — Arts, 21 and 22, Revised Penal Code Art, 10(22), Constitution (ex post facto) Att. 4, Civil Code 8. Doctrinal application of the prospectivity rule: a, ‘The prospectivity rule applies to administrative rulings and circulars, and to judicial decisions which though not laws, are evidence of what the laws mean. Thus under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, judicial deci- sions applying the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system. Legis io legis wim obti This is especially tnie in the construction, and appli- cation of criminal laws, where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society. (Co vs. CA, GR. No. 100776, Octo- ber 28, 1993) Lex prospicit, non respicit, The law looks forward not fackward. The rationale against retroactivity is that a law usually derides rights which may have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract, hence, unconstitutional. Prior to the statute's nullificar wust have been in force and had to be complied with (doctrine of operative fact). It would be to deprive its quality of fairness and justice if there be what had transpired prior to such ad- prokibita doctrine and the prospectivity rule in the adjudication of cases,Peete ee eee eee ee err ‘ ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. the latter should prevail because all doubts must be re- solved in favor of the accused. (id,) Moreover, ex post Jacto law is a constituti is is 9. Philosophies underlying the criminal law justice system: Classical or juristic 1. _ Basis of criminal liability — human free will ion, for the right fended party 2. Purpose of the penalty — ret of the State and/or the pri must be observed, 3. Imposable penalty — predetermined penalty for every crime the gravity of which is directly pro- portionate to the crime committed, 4, Emphasis of the law — on the offense. Under the classical theory on which the penal code is ‘mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free wil is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely choose between g¢ with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free appears unimpaired. (People us. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, September b. Positiv sis after considering his circumstances. 4. Emphasis — on the actor. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 5 ‘The Indeterminate Sentence Law, Probation Law, the three-fold rule, the rules on mitigation of crimes exemplify this theory. c. Eclectic (or mixed) combines the good features of both the classical and the positivist theories. Ideally, the classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made to work on economic and social crimes. Aghsinidtis crime’ is a grievous, odious and hate- ful offense by reason of its inherent or manifest usness, atrocity and perversity, is re- garded as seriously outrageous to the common stan- dards or norms of decency and morality in a just, civi- and orderly society. (R.A. 7659) d. Utilitarian or protective theory under which the pri- ‘mary function of punishment in criminal law is to protect society from potential and actual wrongdoers. ‘The retributive aspect of penal laws should be directed against them, The law should not be applied to further materialism and opportunism. (Magno vs. CA, GR. No. 96132, June 26, 1992) 10, Penal laws are construed strictly against the State and liber- ally in favor of the accused. Whenever two interpretations ‘of law or appreciation of evidence are possible, the exculpa- tory interpretation shall prevail, consistent with the rule on presumption of innocence. Under the equipoise rule, when the evi ~prsessuton, inced;tho.scale— should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience. to the. i .presumption.of-innacence. (Ursua vs. CA, 01996 Capa t-Peple, GR. No re the State fails to meet the to overcome the constitutional resumption of innocence, the accused is entitled to acquit- fal, as a matter of right regardless of the weakness or even the absence of his defense. For any conviction must zest on. eee eee eee eee eed“Toe ~ erties teat eetaned ane ery ees asta: Saaeetcead: m ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW the strength of the prosecution’ ness of the defense, (Cosep vs. People, G.R. No, 110353, May 21, 1998) 11. Classification of crimes: a, sto commission (Article 3) 1. Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate in- tent; 2. Culpa or those committed by means of fault. B. As to stage of execution (Article 6) 1, Attempted; 2. Frustrated; 3. Consummated. Related to this isthe classification of felonies as to: 1, Formal felonies, those which are always consum- mated because the offender cannot perform the act necessary for their execution without consum- mating the offerise. For instance physical injuries are punished as to result, whether serious, less serious, or slight. Th degree of injury cannot be determined without first consummating the of- fense. 2. Material felonies, or those which have various stages of execution. 3. Crimes which have no frustrated stage, such as rape because its essence is, camal, knowledge. Hence, even the slight penetration of the female organ consumma on especially since the amount of, property has been deleted in the to the law on arson, a e 12, Crimes mala in se and mala prokibita Poe ee cr [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 7 As to gravity (Art. 9) 1. Grave felonies; 2. Less grave felonies; and 3, Light felonies. As to count — composite, compound, complex, contin: ued, continuing. ‘As to nature — mala in se and mala prohibita Anact or omission may either be inherently evil (mala i use there isa law prohibiting the same felonies under the Code are mala in se where- in special laws are mala prokibita. However, it e nature of the act or omission that makes ther malum in se or malum prokibitum. Also, ‘even if a special law uses the terms of penalties in the Code, that alone will not make the act or omission a time malum in se. The law may only intend to make the Code apply suppletorily thereto. For instance, PD. 533 is an amendment of Articles 308, 309, and 7 of the Code. Thus, cattle rustling is still malum in se. (Taer v5. CA, GR. No. 85204, June 18, 1990) ~~ le. whereas mala pro- do Rot. The doing of the act itself and not its 05° illegality lies in its positively being prohib- (Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, \ctions: In mala in se: 1. Basis — moral state of the offender hence, good. faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense.esa ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 2, Modifying circumstances — taken into account in imposing the penalty on the offender precisely because his moral trait is the basis of this crime. ipation— penalty is computed on the basis of whether the malefactor is a principal offender, or merely an accomplice or accessory. 4. Stage of accomplishment — the penalty imposed depends on whether the crime is consummated, mala in se generally in- lly 80 for its basis is the Revised Penal ariness, hence, good faith or lack is not a defense, unless intent is the crime such as in Section 3(e) of 2. Modifying circumstances — not considered be- cause the law intends to discourage the commis- sion of the act specially prohibited. 3. Degree of participation — the penalty on the of- fenders is the same as they are all deemed princi- pals. 4. Stage of accomplishment — violation of law is punished only when accomplished or consum- mated ‘betayse intent is inherent in attempted. gr frustrafGd stage and intent is not relevant in ‘qtimes mala prakibita.» 5. Moral turpitude — not involved in crimes mala prohibita because the act would not have been ‘wrong if not for the prohibition by law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. ’ 6. Law violated — generally, special penal laws. €. Amalaise leony (such as reckless imprudence result- ing in damage to property) cannot absorb mala prohi- bita crimes (such as those violating P.D. No. 1067, PD. "No. 984, and R.A. No. 7942). What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enact- ‘ge ® Absolute or total repeal or express repeal — the act or Smission ls decriminalized = Pending case ~ dismissed whether the accused is, habitual delinquent or not Offender has been convicted fect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the law prior to its repeal and this isbeca ified repeal of a penal law constitutes a rendering legal what had been previously legal, sucha the offense no longer exists and ‘ho committed it never did 60. There tions to the rule, as follows:ecg later aa acc eee om: fauin eel eae i} (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a, The inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing stat- ute that provides that the repeal shall have no effect on pending actions. b. Where the repealing act re-enacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law, In such instance, the act committed before the re-enactment continues to be an offense in the statute books and pending cases are not affected, regardl whether the new penalty to be imposed is m able to the accused. (Benedicto vs. Court of Apps No. 125359, September 4, 2001) 14. TheSpanish version should prevail over the English version for the Code was originally approved and-enacted ia Snap- shSection 15, Revised Administrative Code). For instance, Article 267 of the Code uses the rather than “kidnap” (secuestar or raptar), thus, the Spanish version should prevail in the interpretation of that Article. (People ws. Astorga, GR. No. 110097, December 22, 1997) 15. Finality of acquittal rule: The fundamental philosophy highlighting this rule cuts dee into the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfuiness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State. The State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a con. i as well as enhancing ty that even though innocent, he may be found guilty. (People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000) ARTICLE 2 — Scope of application of the Code 1. Two applications of the Code »pplication — within the Philippine \cluding its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, n b, _Extra-territorial — the Code may be given application even to those crimes committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. when the question asks for the exceptions to the application of the Code, do not include in the an- swer the intra-territorial application in paragraph one for that is the general rule.) 2. Treaties and laws of preferential application such as R.A. 75 on iri of diplomatic representatives of foreign coun- tries prevail over the provisions of the Code. Under inter- national laws, sovereigns, heads of states and their official representatives enjoy immunity from suits. Pursuant to the Vienna Convention an DiplomaticRes, jons the heads of diplomatic missions are of three levels: (@) Ambassadors or muncios accredited to the heads of State; (6) Envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of States; and (©) Charges a” affairs accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the stalt of the (diplomatic) mission are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the tech- nical and service staff. Only the heads of missions, as well taff, excluding the members technical and service staff of the mis- tank. (Minucher vs. CA, G.R. respective states in concerns of commerce and navigation and perform certain ative and notarial duties, do not ordinarily enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunitiesa os iene ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW and privileges accorded that they are not charged. ymats, mainly for the reason he duty of representing their en re main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity, is the determination of whether or not he performs di fiplomatic nature. (id) The basis Of toga of diplomatic agents and immunity is suit which requires the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the re- ceiving State except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplo- if the foreign country Philippines will have b. The countruntcagistry determines.the nationality of the ship or airship, not its ownership. Thus a Filipino- ‘owned ship registered in a foreign country isa foreign ship. French/English Rules refer to the jurisdiction ouse Bnexchant-vessele-ef-ene-countiy located in another FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES w jurisdiction over the crime under in a merchant vessel is about the same because the general rule of one is the exception in the other. Thus: 1. French rule recognizes flag or nationality of was- The country. af ogistcy ilove jurisdiction but When the crime violated. eaceandorder The hostsGianiny Gich as drug-trafficking), the. yuntry will i jon. (Memory aid : Jelates.fo.intemal managenicnt.of.thewessel. In other cases (such as druj i Decause the crime shall be subject to Philippine courtswas the high seas is not within the jurisdiction of any country. War vessels. and olficial vessel of heads.otSiatos such as Ang Pangulo i iuzisi 5, Second and third exceptions: Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true genuine document or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. (Art. 169) If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin, currency note or obligations and secu- ities. The special mention of -in.the Code should be deemed as.not-waitten fac the Philippines is no longer. a. commonwealthofthe JS, eee6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Fourth exception: A public officer /employee who commits a crime related to ce. Without this re- lation, they are acting in their private capacity and hence bound by the law of the host country. Example of this ex- ception is the act of a Philippine official sent to a war-torn country who absconds with public funds intended for repa- triation of OFWs thereat. Fifth exception: Title I of Book Il on crimes against national security and the law of nations which covers Treason, Espi- onage, Provoking War and ty in Case of War, Piracy and Mutiny, but not rebellion. ellion i abroad, the Phili ARIICLE 3 1 Felony refers exclusively to acts or omissi der the Code, Felonies in general‘have the elements comprising ei- ther dola or culpa whereas specific felonies under Book il of the Code have their own specific elements which are alleged in the Information. The elements under Article 3 appertain to the actor. The elements of specific felonies relate to the act or acts constituting the felony. ‘ase ofa lethal weapon would sh Kill although death did not result te thus the need to determine it by the tis demonstrated by the overtacisak AseCferezaT Rte ceimina intent pesymed from the vol untary commission of an unlataful ach. (Abdulla vs. People” No-150129, April 6, 2005) Thus, when the victim dies, ied from, the. act of kill- R.No. 142773, January 28, 2003) juries vis-a-vis at- sciviousness vs. at- tempted rape; ler by deed, etc. In these cases, specific criminal intent cannot be presumed but must be established. tances when the offender can be criminally liable, e is no criminal “These two species of crimes can only be consummated i c ime by other oan oer dent of hi nny front; (3) where the defendant, to stop a fired his 45 cal. twice in the air, and, as the bout id, he inal. (Llamoso vs. Sandigan- 163408 & 64026, August 7, 1985) A felony tequites ctiminal intent, Hence, when intent isabsontesthe— wind isnobcciminal, no crime. is committed. This doctrine applies only to dolo,6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW c 7. Motive is the moving power or force (such as vengeance) which impels a Generally, motive ‘Simmaterial in determining criminal lability, except ae 2% Macoy, GR. Nos, 9664950, July 1, 1997) In Article 3, culpa is a mode of committing a crime hence killing, for instance, s denominat Intelligence isthe capacity to understand what is rightand ‘whabiswssang. Discernment is relevant to intelligence, not q}levertheless, a conviction + ormatis i FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, 7 gence is an element of both dolo and culpa, thus, whether the ting felony is intentional or culpable, discemmentisan. clement. Absent discemmmment, there is no.olfense whether dalo.or gulma... ‘12. When insanity is intesposed as.a defense or a ground of a motion to quash the burden rests upon the accused ta ese {ablish that fact, for the law presu absence of sulficient evidence to prove insan- ity, the legal presumption of one's sanity stands. (Zosa vs. CA, G.R. No, 105641, March 10, 1994) passlon and obfncaton merely mitigating. fo commit a felony, whether by dolo or culpa, ‘commit an impossible crime. 2. There are two clauses in no. 1 ofthis article: a. “By any person committing a felon ” referring to dolo because of te the word “intended”). The elements in the second clause are: 1. Anintentional felony is committed. 2. ‘The wrong done is the direct, natural, and logis cal consequence of the felony committed even though different from that intended.w ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 3. Factors affecting intent and correspondingly the criminal li- ability: 3. Mistake affect, . -Brosimate-causo(the cause ofthe cause isthe cause of the ef ERR flees 4. Mistikeoffactisan shel tory ca relevant only in dota, hen ining the true state of facts, he may be free from dolo but not from culpa 9. Invaberratio ictus or error in the victim of the blow the of- fender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on. another, There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim, Consequently, of fact where there is no crimi The effect of error in personae wepends upon whether the in- tended crime and actual crime committed are: x FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES the actual felony ‘Somumitisd.shall_be jmapased. Example: if the intend- ed crime is homicide but parricide was committed or vice-versa. In effect error in personae is extenuating cir- ccumstance, b. Of the same gravity or severity, the penalty is not miti- gated. Example: ifthe intended crime is homicide and the actual crime committed is also homicide but on a ‘wrong victim. The mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in ‘on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is that eee nee errr 39519, November 21, ol 8 In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is much more grave than in- tends SKeptit, s0 grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated where the accused had no intent to kil but only to inflict in- juries when he attacked the victim. (People vs. Flores, infra.) 9. Proximate cause is that cause which, in its natural and con- ‘tinuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening ‘cause, produces the injury and without which the result ‘would not have occurred. Proximate cause is to be consid- ered generally in determining whether the consequence of the act should also be borne by the offender. (Art. 4, no. 1)tl es ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW der i ‘5. Acuramt, GR. No. 117954, 4 pril 27, 2000) |. Anyone who inflicts injury voluntarily and with intent is liable for all the consequences of his criminal act, such as death, that supervenes as a consequence of the injuries. Here, accused is liable for the demise of the victim for such ‘was caused by the violent kicks which he inflicted on the vital parts of the victim’s body. (People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA) . The significance of evidence on the precise nature of the inju- ries sustained by the deceased is that it often leads the care- ful examiner to uncover the real cause of death. the examination of a wound, from the legal point should lead to the determination as to when the wound ‘was inflicted, what the degree of danger of the wound is, with its dangers to life or function, whether the wound was given by the injured man himself, or by some one else, and with what manner of instrument (People vs. Matyaong, G.R. Ni In fine, ines to he another, the evidence mus beyond reasonable doubt proximate cause of such ial when there are several possible causes of deat ing thatthe victim was af- ficted with food poisoning, accused may still be held liable for 1 prosecution had presented proof that accused's act of beating his wife was the efficient or proximate cause of death, or had accelerated her death, (id,) a. The acts performed would have been acrime against. Persons or property; $2 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, a ‘b. There is criminal intent; ¢ _ Ik is not accomplished because of theinherentimpos- sibility-9s Because the means employed is inadequate ot ineffectual — ‘The act performed by the offender cannot fense against persons or property because: sion of the offense is inherently impossi me ) th teach a lesson to the offender, Subjectively, the offender is a criminal although objectively no crime has been comunitted. ‘There is no attempted or frustrated stage. ‘There is now the impossible crime of rape because of the amendment brought about by the Anti-Rape Law which re- classified rape under Crimes against Persons as anew chap- ter and renumbered Article 266-A to D. ‘There is legal impossibility where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime, le-steale ing propes -cuwned. by-the stealer. It would apply to those circumstances where: a. The motive, desire, and expectation are to perform an act in violation of law: b, There is an intention to perform the physical act; There is a performance of the intended physical act; d. The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount toa crime, ity is present when extraneous circum- ‘stances unknown to the actor or beyon¢ his control prevent the consummation. be completed. Bremp)t: gtealing froma, vault. that fumed, out to be empty.teen 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 7. The offender must not know the circumstance which made the crime an impossible crime. For instance, in killing a per- son who has just died; homicide/murder requires intent to kill. Had the offender known that the victim is already dead, intent to kill will be absent. At most, to desecration of the dead. The malefactors will not go to all the trouble and risks attending the commission of bank robbery if they knew that the vaults are empty. ARTICLE 5 |. Nulluma crimen nulla poena sine lege — there is no crime when there is no law that defines and punishes it. As a civil law country, in the Philippines penal laws are enacted. Crime is ‘the product of the law: no matter how evil an act ig its not a crime unless there is a law punishing it. Moreover, Article 21 prohibits the imposition of a penalty not prescribed by aw prior to the commission of a felony; and, the Constitu- tion prohibits the retroactive application of a penal law (ex post facto). 2. On the other hand a common law crime is one that is mani- festly contrary to good customs and public though not expressly punished by law. As from statutory law created by enactment common law comprises the body of those p: iples and rules of action relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their auth eras on aioe does not rest for ‘“Aitfiority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. (Black's Law Dictionary) ARTICLE 6 1. Inthe consummated stage all acts hence the offender jp in the o as he no longer has control over the outcome of his acts, having performed all that is necessary to accomplish his purpose. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES a 2. Im the frustrated stage, the offender has also reached the_ ee for he has peconmed-al-the 3 For the atempted felony, the stage because he has not is accomplishment. he may or may not continue his overt acts. The important phrases here are: Preparatory act refers to a prior act. Sxiple: buying poison to kill the intended victim. ple: ropont and conspragy to commit a cri punished except in those cases provided for by law, racy to commit rebellion. son intending to rob ast the store but before he could enter he was apprehend- ‘open the window is no He may be charged with at that act is directly related to . “Desistance” — Is an apsolutory circumstancecSnly 15> he suempted-sace The’ stage exists at time when the offender stillfas contro}(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. ‘The moment he has lost control of the outcome of his acts the subjective phase is passed; the stage is now either frustrated or consummated (objective phase) where desistance is merly factual. and, produces no legal effect, hence, will not exempt the offender from criminal liability. felony is attempted. (People vs. Pareja, CR. No, 88043, cember 1958) ~ Seep. 3ej (3)(b) ~Abeali 4. Criteria to determine whether the crime is formal: {1 QAM: a The offender cannot possibly perform all the acts of ‘execution to bring the desired result without consum- mating the offense, such as slander. cannot be frustrated. For instance, since the gra~ of rape is carnal knowledge, the slighte f the female organ consummates the Since the burning of even a portion of the g is considered arson, the mere scorching thereof consum- mates the crime. When the crime requires the concurrence of the will of two parties, there is no frustrated stage, as in corrup- tion of public officers — the momentthe public officer. the gift, promise or consideration in bribery, eae of corruption ig consummated 6aPuhen the ‘ublic officer refuses to be corrupted, the crime is at tempted only. When the crime is treated by the Code in accordance th the results, ie, the result should be there before can be determined, eg., physical injuries, the in the consummated stage. In physi it cannot be determined whether the injury be slight less serious, or serious unless consummated. PS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, 3 5. Between attempted and frustrated felonies: a. A8 to acts of execution — in attempted, not all acts of execution had been done whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had been performed. b, As to causes of non-accomplishment — in attemy it is a cause gr accident other. ” c. _Inattempted stage, the offender shase as he still has control of hi i strated stage, he is already in the objective phase. d. Example: in attempted homick mortal, hence the offender shoul other blow on the victim, which not able to do becau: He is therefore still in subjective stage. In frustrated homicide, the wound is mortal, sufficient to bring about death hence, there is no need of another blow but death nevertheless did zot supervene because of timely medical attendance. He has passed on to the objective phase because he has preformed all acts necessary to bring about the death of the victim. 6. Amere attempt to commit a felony is subsumed in the full execution thereof. To attempt is to commence the commis- ime by overt acts. If one has been proved to have ct required in an attempt. Thus, the accused could have suffered no prejudice, had they been tried under either one or the other section. (People vs. Boco, G.R, No. 129676, June 23, 1999) ARTICLE 7 1. When light felonies are punishable: Persons or property.rm “Io es = — 4 % ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW b, Inall stages if the crime is. againsS.persons or property. 2 Who are punishable — principals and accomplices. te Accessories are CEtpriminaly liable for light felonies. (Article 16) 3. Why is attempted and frustrated light felony not punish- able? And why is an accessory in consummated light felony not punishable? Because the deduction in penalty is 1 de- agree for frustrated, 2 degrees for the attempted stage and nother 2 degrees fr accessory offendensbifoe the penalty for light felony is arresto menor, there is no way of further reducing the penalty. De minimis non curat lex. ARTICLE 8 1. When the proposal is accepted, it becor essence of conspiracy is community of ple vs, Tilos, G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 20 2. Itis essential for one to be liable for the acts of the others that there be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common desi heis the mastermind or principal by 3. The overt act of a co-conspirator may be in the form of: ‘Active participation in the actual commission of lf assistance to his, Epona ses by being pres- ent at the commis A. Exerting moral ascendancy over fe ‘other co-conspira- tors. (Pecko vs. People, G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996) An overt actin furtherance of the conspiracy may consist ly participating in the actual commis- sion of the crime, in lending moral assistance to his co- FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 2 conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or in exerting moral ascendancy. (People vs. Pablo, GR. Nos. 120394-97, January 16, 2001) 4, Two concepts of conspiracy: a. Asa crime by itself, the subject of conspiracy is not yet “COMMIET DUE the mere act of conspiring is defined and punished as a crime, for instance, proposal and b. As.a basis of incursing liability, the execution of the plan is commenced. Conspiracy by itself ceases to be the crime but is absorbed. Hence, the crime above is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion under Article 135. 5. Asa basis of incurring liability it is necessary to determine: there was prior agreement on how to commit the crime, in which case, a conspirator is Jia ashebppearedin he scene ech ule, Zisthe x nar naictyeonspiracy by rg agreement the la lity of the ie only for the crime agreed \ipon except 1. When the other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its commission 2. When the other crime is the natural consequence planned, eg, homicide resulting from 3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or special complex crime considered single indivis- ible felony composed of 2 distinct crimes. (infra) b. Whether it is an implied conspiracy, that is, the of- fenders acted in concert during the commission of theme i 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or approval of * the act without coo} is not enough to co cy absent the intentional particip: a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. (People vs. Bragaes, G.R. No, 62359, November 14, 1991) oe, Necessarily, conspiracy as a crime cannot be im- lied conspiracy. It can only be by pre-agreement or planned because itis the act of conspiring that is penal- ized, 6. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary for conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or in- ferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such rest. acy is one that is deduced from the mode which the offense was committed. The con- and mannet ‘certed acts ofthe parties to achieve the same objective signify conspiracy. People vs, Gu 13, 1989 first described 8. Conspiracy is not presumed Like the physical acts consti- tuting the crime itself, the elements absanspiracy saust.be roved beyond reasonable-doubt. While |. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperat FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES » tion is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert. ‘The act of ons and cachof the, accused will thereby be deere rpsinci- pale.of the crime committed, ippellant never fired a gun, he would still be a8 a co-conspirator in the killing of the might have inflicted the fatal blows or wounds, neve: blender Theptecniotn the act of a conspirator isthe act of all co-conspixators The degree ofactual participation in, E75, July . Although conspiracy is a joint ac, there is nothing irregular if a supposed co-conspirator is acquitted and others con- vvicted. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed: the mere act of conspiring is not self punishable, Hence, it does not follow that one consp: tor alone cannot be convicted when there is a conspiracy. Aslong as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, other conspirators may bbe found guilty of the offense. (People vs. Tiguman, G.R. Nos, 130502-03, May 24, 2001) ‘ot enough to constitute one as a conspirator absent any. tive participation in the commission of the crime pursuant to the common design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends7me aa cual feaahane eel (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW companionship. (People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, May 28, 2001) Mere presence at the scens that the accused had prio: of the principal perpetra make him as co-conspir act is essential for he may yet be an accomplice. (People vs. Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001) to exist there intentionality on the part of cohorts (“decides to (Magsuci vs. Sardiganbayan, G.R. No. L-101545, When may the head of a government office be held liable as co-principal for the acts of his subordinates? Either by reck- ‘Tess imprudence or by conspiracy: if he by an act of reckless imprudence brought about the commission of estafa thru falsification, or malversation through falsification, without which the crime could not have been accomplished. When, however, that infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplaced by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held to pre- vail. (Arias vs. Sandigantayan, G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989) i . Under the Arias doctrine all heads of offices have to rely to sonable extent on their subordinates and on the good those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or en- ter into negotiations. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small goverment agencies or com- ‘missions can attest to the volume of papers that must be [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES a signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memo- anda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or depart- ‘ments is even more appall 16. Jefthe absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal pur- pose and intention immediately before the commission of the cri unity of crimi the participants is, by him. (People vs. Desoy, 127754, August 16, 1999) ARTICLE 9 — Grave, less grave, light felonies ‘Stion, reese a 2. Less grave felonies are punished with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, thus the maximum riod of the penalty must be dest a shod with fe menar or ‘Article 26,2200 fine is correc: Whether the accessory is liable; (Article 16). c. Whether a complex crime was comiitted; (Article 48) d. The duration of the subsidiary penalty; (Article 39, no.2) . The duration of the detention in case7 oo @ al) 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW f. Whether the crime has prescribed; (Article 90)-and g. The proper penalty for quasi-offenses, (Article 365) ARTICLE 10 — Special Laws 1. Special penal laws define and penalize crimes not'included in the Code; they are different from those defined and pun- ished therein, ‘The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in them fstinefon is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful actis done. In acts mala prahhita the , a? When.an acts laws. ‘The second sentence is the soul of th shall have supplementary applic: ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY = laws use the nomenclature of the penalties in ‘the Revised Penal Code, the effets ae: 's which are mere amendments of the provisions Penal Code, such as the Anti-Cattle Rustling jer vs. CA; Canta vs. Peo Camnapping Law, through amendment of Artide 310, 15 alum prohibutur) 9. The benign provis b. fenders . (People vs. Ondo, 227 SCRA 5E2) UMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL my the Philippines, penal laws subscribe to the classical the- ory hence there is a predetermined penalty for each crime.Poon taeee cn celts) tee eee Gd fee cree) (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW Itis the office of modifying circumstances to increase or de- crease the penalty in accordance with the presence or ab- sence of circumstances showing the moral status of the of- er. ee circumstances which affect or are: ify criminal liabilit Justifying — Article 11 Exempting — Article 12 Mitigating — Articles 13 and 15 Aggravating — Articles 14 and 15 ‘Absolutory — exempting circumstances outside Ar- ticle 12 Extenuating — mitigating circumstances not found in Article 13, such as cong @@bandonment of wife by the hu fe tseorycecunstances Instigation due to public policy; Article 63) — pone desiatanse ia theatiema 3 ‘overt act committed constitutes an- Article 16 — accessories in light felonies; “Article 20 — accessories-relatives other than profiting. in the crime; oe Article 332 — certain relatives in theft, es cious mischief; ‘Somnambulism due to lack of intelligence; Mistake of fact due to lack of intent; ‘otal repeal of inalizes the act. (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY s 4. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means f ment or instigation the mind of the instigator and mission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. (People vs, Ramos, Jr, G.R. No. 88301, October 28, 1991) the delivery ofthe goods, fon ‘vs, Utoh Lakibul, G.R. No. 94337, January 27, 193) 6. Instigation and frame-up cannot be both present in a case for they are incompatible. In instigation, the crime is actu- ally performed by the accused except that the intent origi- nates from the mind of the inducers. In frame-up, however, the offense is not committed by the accused. Precisely, the accused is only framed or set up in a situation leading to a false accusation against him. allegation of frameup and.extactias, by police of- is a common and standard defense in most dangerous cases, It is viewed by the court with disfavor, for it can -rformance of their official duties, (id.)6 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 7. Distinctions: ENTRAPMENT a. The mens rea originated from the accused who was merely trapped by the peace officer in fla- grante delicto is not absolutory as 4. Trap for the unwary iminal (People vs. Mar- »s, GR. No. 83325, May 8, 1990) e. The peace officer is with- ‘out criminal liability for hisacts rein accordance with law a b. INSTIGATION ‘The evil idea originat- ed from the peace of- ficer who induced the accused to commit the act Absolutory by reason of public policy Contrary to public poli- y |. Trap for unwary inno- Gent yar ~ Coutts The peace officer ig a rincipal_by induce: EE aoe as Ramos ARTICLE 11 —~ Justifying Circumstances 1. Justifying circumstances are thosewheratheactsobthaac- -haxececeivad* The civil i tot on the actor but on those who benefited from the act. 3. The j ing circumstances are: a. Defense of self, of relatives, and of strangers; * 5. x 3. Unlawful aggressic ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” b. State of necessity; Fulfillment of duty; and d. Obedience to superior order. Self-defense includes-défensé of ite, chastity pfoperty and Honor.of the accused who must prove with clear and con- ‘Vineing evidence the following elements: A. Unlawful aggression; ssity of the means employed to pre- nd vocation on the part of the person The effect of invoki ‘to place the burden in the a sccssl ip oroya inthe salifactonat tig ak tue tat ‘Of legiiimate defense hecayse thereby he admits the com: mission of the act, complains. y must at all times be present, When unlawful ageression is absent. there js no self-defense whether complete (Article 11) or incomplete (Articles 69 and 13[1}). Tt must be actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidat- ing attitude. The accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. Unlawful ag such as to, aggression means ‘weapon such as to cause inj safety. Aggression is imminent at the point of happenin; tively strong,= (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 9. That petitioner sustained injuries does not signify that he ‘was a victim of unlawful aggression. (Roca us. CA, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001) ‘When the aggression no longer exists, such as when the ag ee need for self-defense Defender Musi stop for when agges- sion ceases and he still contin..ed to attack, he becomes the aggressor. 1. The presence of large number of wouinds inflicted on the victim and the severity thereof disprove self-defense, so do they belie the aim of incomplete defense of one's relative and indicate not the desire to defend one's relative but a de- termined effort to kill. (People vs. Santos, G.R. Nos. 99259-60, March 29, 1996) 12, Reasonable necessity of the means employed depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal. 13, There is no reasonable necessity of the means of defense when the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim has ceased because there is no more need for the offender to defend himself. 14, Ik does not imply commensurability between the means of the attack and defense — the law requites a rational equiva- lence which is determined by the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense. The proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (People vs. Gutual, G.R, No, 115233, February 22, 1996) 15. The presence of a lary victim clearly indica the accused to kill his prey and belies the reasonableness of (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2 the means adopted to prevent or repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. (People vs. Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999) is the rule which applies a weapon and is espe- cially more liberal ifthe person attacked is a peace officer in the performance of his duty. Ths rule has superseded he APT. In defense of one's chastity, there must be mediate, just 18. Slandez may be a necessary.means.ta-repel-slander. But it Ar inust not be more than needed to defend oneself from the defamatory remarks, a “a i t pe ‘in addition, be the necessity to save another igh hese even if there eg nos onthe fense, there must be lack of sul- of the defender; as a mitigat- ing circumstance, there must be presence thereof on the part of the offended.“a #@ ae o (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 22, For defense of strangers, the third requisite is that the per- son defending is not induced by revery ae 24. The presence or lack of all or some of the requisites for the defense have the following effects: a. All requisites are present — justifying circumstance; (Article 11) Sb. Tho requisites are present unlawful aggresion pls another — 69) One requisite present which must be unlawful aggre sion — ordinary miti (Article 13, nol) (> Can 25. The elements of state of necessity are: a. Theevil sought to be avoided actually exists; b The injury feared be greater than that dogg te axoid.it; c. There is ng other practical and less preventing it The state of necessity must not be caused by the neg- ligence or violation of the law of the actor otherwise this benefit cannot be invoked Under Article 101, the civil liability shall be borne not by the actor but the ones benefited by the avoidance of the evil 26. The elements of fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office are: nder acted in the performance of 2 dutySpthe a. The lawful exercise of a right or office; feed by aegtouating citcumdta ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY a b. The injury caused or the offense committed jg the nec- sa. “When posession has aleagy been Tesort ajming his, ‘Management and Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 495) otherwise be could belliahle for sossciode. 27. Appellant was not in the performance of his duties at the time of the shooting for the reason that the girls he was at- re not committing any act of prostitu- all, the only person he was autho- the time was “R,” who offered him a jpellant caused the victim were not uence of performance of his duty as a 28. The elements of obedience to: superior order are: 7a. Anorder has been issued by.a.superior; >. The orders i 0 A. Themeans used 5 I, the suk czality, ead bayan, GR. NOCTSSD- 03, February 17, 1997) ARTICLE 12 — Exempting Circumstances: 1. The exempting circumstances are: a. Imbecility/insanityr te 1 . Distinctions between j COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW b. Minority © Accident d e £ _ Insuperable or lawful ng and exempting circum- stances: JUSTIFYING 'EXEMPTING’ a. The actis legal a. The acts criminal b. Thereisnocrime hence b. There is a crime, hence ‘ng criminal actiminal law exempts the actor from criminal liabiliges The emphasis of the ‘son the asi, €8., self- law is'enithe actor.eg., defense insane, imbecile Insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code is “a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain or a more oriess permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mental iscernment because there is rn, or there is a total de- "eaple vs. Dungo, G.R. No. iy.ofsbe mental facul (People vs, Danao, GR. No. ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY «6 5. When insanity is interposed as a defense or a ground of a juash, the burden rests upon the accused to es- ‘at fact, for the law presumes every man to be sane. in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove insan- legal presumption of one’s sanity stands, (Article ‘ode) (Zosa vs. CA, G.R. No. 105641, March 10, Jaw presumes all acts to Le voluntary. Not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency i ) 6. When insanity is alleged, the evidence on this point must Preceding the actSpto the very moment of acquitted. He is presumed to be sane when he committed it. (id) 7. Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoid- arcs, and as such must be proved beyond reasonable wdloubs. c (ee 5 a vio insanity in Article 12 e-ccimeis being committed. fence shall.be suspended only. with regard to the personal ‘Renalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circum= stance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the core, sponding cases, If ime the convi i teason—his sentence shall be executed, shall have prescribed in accordance with this Code.” provisions of 9. Where the imbecile or insane person has committed a felony, der his confinement in one of the hospitals lished for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same eople vs. Rafanan, Jr, GR. No. 54135, November 21, 1991)73s e il 10. n, 1B. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Care must be taken to distinguish between lack of reason (insanity) and failure to use reasgn or good judgment due toextremeanger (passion). Mere mental depravity or moral insanity which results not from any disease of mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from the re- ‘sponsibility for crimes committed under its influence. Thus, before the defense of insanity may be accepted, there must bea complete deprivation of intel wvity of that assault and that igence. In Dungo, that the ac- at he had done negated his claim that he was insane when he fatally stabbed the vic- tim. In Aquino, appellant who consumed cough syrup and ing his victim and killing her 6, 1998) complete deprivation ed (b) Vo ‘accompanied by the cognition sufficient to exempt from liability (id.) Where the accused failed to show complete impairment or der characterized by and reality and often accom: ‘ormerly called dementia praecor, itis said to be R.A. 9344 — Juvenile Just 7 ind Welfare Act of 2006 1. The youthful offender is a conflict with the lau" who : Achild ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY “6 the most common form of psychosis and usually develops between the ages of 13 and 30. (id.) In cases where schizophrenia was interposed, it has mostly been rejected mental faculties, such to deprive that accused of of his acts. Schizophrenic reaction. although not exempting hhecause it does not completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a mitigating -CircumstanceunderAtticle 30} is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having commit- ted an offense under Philippine laws. (Section 4, item e). Be- fore becoming such, he may have been a “child at risk” who is vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal of- fenses because of personal, family and social circumstances, such as sexual, physical and other kinds of abuses, aban- donment, dysfunctional or broken family, ete. at the time of the commission of 1¢ offense shall be exemnpt from criminalliabitity. However, he shall ke subjecfec.io an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of RA. 9344, Acchild over 15 but below all likewise be exempt from. S&S fed to diversion program under Sec‘ion 23 of the law. : the provision of Asticle.68 of the vised Penal Code for the youth 15 or under is no longer entitled to 2 degrees reduction of penalty but has become ly exempt from criminal liafa to or “ COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 5. Aside from exemption from criminal responsibility due to minority, children under 1 av offenses ‘a. Sfatus offenses or any conduct not considered an of- fense and-not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child, Example: drinking liquor, vio- lation of curfew hours, et. b. _ Vagrancy and prostitution under Article 202 of the Re- vised Penal Code c. Mendicancy under PD. 1563 4. Snuffing of rugby under PD. 1619 ‘The child however shall undergo appropriate counsel 7. Discernment is not relevant to intent but to intelligence. While there may be discernment, it does not necessarily ‘mean that the minor intended the crime. (People vs. Cordova, , 8373-74, July 5, 1993) If intent is not proved, the acquitted from the offense charged. legation in the information that the iscerament. (People us. Cordova, et al, GR. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993) ~» For accident to be appreciated, the following must concur: a. The accused_was performing alawiuleanb with due ae b, Thenjury is caused by n.ere accident; and (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY @ ¢ There was no fault or intent of causing the injury{Peo- ple vs. Mat-an, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992) This is because when the with fault, it;will fall under culpa; when with intent it will become an intentional felony. The accident must not be foreseeable or there will be fault or criminal negligence. 10. The basis of exemption from criminal liability for accident is the lack of criminal intent. For an accident to become an ‘exempting Grcamstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act. (People vs. Agliday, G.R, No. 140794, October 16, 2001) 11. Having claimed that the shooting was.agcidental, petition- ‘er must, ye the same by clear and convincing evidence. erg ara ag ae a crime remained with the prosecution. (People vs. CA, G.R. No. 1036613, February 23, 2001) 12 his shotgun and retumed to the kitchen had intervened in his quarrel with his wife. Ashotgun would not have fired off without first being cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fie it at someone. (People vs. Agliday) Drivers of vehicle who bump the rear of another ve- hicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence. The rationale behind this presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW control of the situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. Consequent avoid the collision with the front of accident, the im op glse he will bei TU). ._ Irresistible force has the following elements: a, The fosce must be physical, must come from an outside source, and the accused must act not only without a will but also against hi 3. The elements of impulse of uncontrollable fear are: a. Thizatwhich caused the fear of an evil greater than oF at least equal to that which the accused was required to it; thas been reduced toa mere ‘nstrument of the offender. be delivered to the judic enforcers to do so on ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ° arrestee for preliminary investigation will result to waiver of the provision of Article 125. R.A. 9262 — Anti-Violence against Women and their Chil- dren’ 1. “Violence against women and their children” covers any act or series of acts against a person's wife, former wife, or 2. "Battery" is ipicting physical hammaipon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological or emo- ” is the intentional act by one who knowingly and ‘without lawful justification follows a womap-or her. child GF places themuundar-surveillance.directly or indirectly or a ‘combination thereof. |. “Dating relationship” is a situation wherein unmarried par- ties live as husband and wife re romantically involved uentine aifPon a continuing Basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socializa- tion between two individuals in a business or social context is GEA dating relationship. 5. The law prescribes protection orders to prevent further acts of violence against a woman or her child and granting other necessary relief to be enforced by law enforcement agencies, ‘These are the Barangay Protection Order, Temporary Protec- tion Order and Permanent Protection Order. Theseliefshall begranted.even in absencootdecres.of legal senaration/an-_ bulmentox.declasation,of absolute nullity of marriage. The protection is granted ex parle. ‘The orders are enforceable anywhere in tion thereof shall be puns and /or imprisonment of 6 months.8 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Sronen Deleeaghas Battered women it ‘St women in any form of intimate relationship bbe classified as such, the couple must go through the batter- ing 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 situa is defined as a battered woman. (People vs. Genosa, GR. No, 195981, Janu- ary 15, 2004) The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the “cy cle of violence,” which has 3 phases: (a) tension-building; (b) acute battering incident; and (c) tranquil, loving or non- violent. id.) 1. At the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs — verbal, physical abuse or other form of hostile behavior. “The woman tries to pacify the batteres but this behavior oy fing incident is said to be characterized by tiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the battered woman has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, Acute battering incidents intervengrs are likely to get hurt. ‘The final phase of cycle of violence begins when the il batterer ma) ay show ae tender, ‘qd nurturing behaviartowards. | ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY a 10. Because of the: ‘of stimulating the development of coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the victim's ability to muster an active response to try to escape further trauma, Justas the battered woman believes that she is somehow respon: sible for violent behavior of Is unsafe, suffers from pervasive anxiety, and usually fails to leave the relationship. (id.) 1h res the brutalized person is already suffering fromthe 5 ? frome, further evidence of actual ssault at the ing of batierer must have produced in the battered person's mind. use force in order to save her life. batterer must have posed probal by the former against the latter. (id.) tion 26 of R.A. 9262 provides that the victim any criminal liability despite the absence of justifying circumstances under the Revised Penal igence or intent analogous to illness that diminishes exercise of will-(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW hout depriving her of consciousness of her acts, jon and obfuscation, of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. This state of mind is present when a crime ion provoked 80 powerful as to overcom do not arise from the same set of cyclical nature and severity of violent aggression inflicted ARTICLE 13 — Mitigating Circumstances 1. Mitigating circumstances shows lesser perversity of the of- fender and are considered to lower the penalty imposable generally to the minimum period of the penalty prescribed in the law. They are matters of defense which donot have '9 be alleged in the information. 2. The rationale behind the whole concept of mitigating cir- ccumstance is to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of accused who has nevertheless shown lesser perver- sity in the commission of an offense. Thus, where the evi- dence on record bespeaks of vileness and depravity, no mer- og of leniency should be accorded an accused who should be made to suffer in ful for acts perpetrated with complete voluntariness and intent for their tragic consequences. (Peo- ple vs, Santos, supra.) . Article 13 enumerates ont! ary mitigating circumstances ‘with the effect of reducing the penalty to the minimum pe- Hod. Howeves inset WMleged mil! cb a Misa ‘ah ging, Dut is always privileged mitigating thot altogether exempting: and 1b, _Incompleteness of the requisites to.exempt from crimj- ity or justify the act which becomes privileged 6. sites are present rragraph 1 for Article 69 which allows reduc tion of penalty by degree. ~ceduction of penally b 7 ee ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY % 4, + Outside of Article 13 are extenuating circumstances (such as concealment of dishonof‘on tke part of the mother in infan- ticide) which have the effect of reduc 7 b. « (privileged mitigating) va the minimum potted (ont estes epee aggravating circumstance, there are analogous ig circumstances, cs of mitigating circumstances: inary — lowers the penal iod. The penalty must Be ra penalty has no peri Privileged — lowers the penalty prescribed by one or mote degrees whether it be a divisible or indivisible penalty. Specific — applies to a specific felony like concealment of dishonor case of abortion by the pregnant woman and could either be ordinary ot privileged de- the minimum pe- 3t be divisible for an indivisible ding upon the extent of reduction of penalty. 7, inctions between ordinary and ‘privileged’ mitigating! circumstances: Ordinary can-be offset by generic aggravating circum- stance; Privileged cannot heoffset by any kind of ag- gravating circumstance. Ordinary mitigating lowers the penalty prescribed to the minimum period except where there are 2 or- inary mitigating wat wbsolitely no aggravating ci cumstance in which case the penalty is lowered. bya degree only. Pr i sd mitigating lowers the penalty ision of the Revised Penal penalty for a particular felony is lowered by one or two degrees in view of the presence of a particular circumstance, such is a privileged miti- gating circumstance which cannot be offset by any ge- neric aggravating, Example: Article 6®.0n incomplete justification /exemption.8, One and the same fa ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Ordinary mitigating isnot considered in the determina- tion of the proper penalty when the penalty prescribed is a single indivisible penalty (paragraph 1, Article 63). Privileged is considered whatever penalty is impos- able. should not give credit to more than. ce in favor of the accused. For in- of a grave offense and provo- are based upon the same fact, 1ce should mitigate the criminal ‘one mitigating circums stance, passion, cation cannot co-e» hence only. one lability of the offender. 9. The mitigating circumstances are: [A Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances; (2. Minority /senility: A. Pracler intentionem (supra.); LA. Sufficient provocation or threat; “e Immediate vindication of a grave offense; ‘A. Passion or obfuscation; (As Voluntarily surrender; Je Voluntarily plea of guilt; 3: Deaf and dumb, blind or other physical defect; 4 Az K Analogous cisumstnses. 10. The first mitigating circumstance is the incompleteness of the requirements to justify the act or exempt from criminal ii ‘under Articles 11 and 12. This should he related. to shich prescribes a privileged mitigating circum- ty of the requisites to exempt or justify are , Adticle i4nodshallapply, and the winimum period onl} year law student knows that unlawful not a mitigating circumstance. (Estoya vs. -91-758, September 26, 1994) It is not aggression Singson, ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 5 unlawful aggression but the incompleteness of the requisite for defense that is mitigating. 1), Minority is always a privileged mitigating circumstance for pursuant to Acti the offender is over 15 but less than 18, the penalty shall be 1 degree lower but in the proper period. If he is 15 or under he i le 68(1) by icreconcilable sepuenancy 12. R.A. 9344 merely amended Article 192 of PD. No. 603, as “amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is al- ready 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronounce- ment of his/her guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of PD. No, 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Secticit 38 of Rep. ‘Act No. 934. Evidenty, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided in Article 192 of PD. No, 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-41-18.SC. Her Files who have been convicted of a © crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are_disqualified from having theit_se (Dedlarador vs. Gubaton, GR. No. 155208, August 18, 2006} {Note: with due respect, how could an SC A.M. amend PD. 6037) If the child reached 18 years of age while under sus- pended sentence, the court shall determine whether: a) to re in accordance with the applicable 9344; b) to order execution of sentence; nce for a specified period iI he reaches the maximum age of 1. (Section 40, id) 13, The offender must be a minor under 18 at the timé of the com- ‘mission ofthe crime. If he were then 18 or over, he is no longer in the eyes of the law. Neither can his “minority” at the time of commission of the crime be ap- {19 year preciated as a mitigating factor. (People vs. delos'Reyes, GR. No. 44112, October 22, 1992)creme eee 4. 18. 19, (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the of- ring the gravity of the offense and in the in- , the presentation of and admission of the ‘ofthe accused to prove minority should be allowed although said certificate was not presented or of- fered in the trial court, An official document prepared by the DSWD in the exercise of its functions and incorporated in the case records can be taken judicial notice ex mero motu, (People vs, Regalario, 220 SCRA 368) (over 70) is an ordinary mit sain circumstance. it of the death peat, when the penalty impossble le death it shall be re duced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 83, thus par- taking of the nature ofa privileged mitigating circumstance. disqualifieshim ‘The clements of surfioat Provocation are: a, The provocation must be sufficient; tween the provocation and the commission ‘crime. (People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570) Accused cannot claim that he was provoked when the of- and attack him, (People. P 1994) GR. No. 75508, June 10, Sulficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-de- ‘ql f incomplete self. _fenseis from sufficient provocation as a mitigating Bee rot allow an iokvval of (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY a circumstance. As an element of self-defense, it requires its “absence onthe part.of the person. defendingabimsalf; as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the partof the offended pasty. (People vs. CA, fo. 103613, February tolervel of fme ition of grave offense, “offense” not xy be any act or event which offends eeeed ca \g mental agony to him and moves him to vindicate himself of such offense. For instance, insulting, anold. aman (US. vs. Aisa 37 Phil. 301) or sloping with the ig stl siiffering from the mental agony t ‘he “offense” to him. (Pope. Para, 64 Pl cation of a grave oifense cannot be considered the accused when he had sufficient time to recover his se- renity. (People vs. Santos, supra.) siderable lengt have recovered ‘passion or obfuscation can arise. = ee 8. CA, GR. No, 103613, February 23, 2001)a oe 25. & (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Voluntary surrender and voluntary plea are independent of each other and can be simultaneously and separately con- sidered in favor of the offender being based on different grounds. ‘The elements of voluntary surrender are: a. The offender surrendered to a persor ral cigar hie is guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture; d. There is no pending warrant of arrest or informati iva, to. For instance, when Ampie learned that the po- lice were looking for him for the death of Salvador, he immediately went to the police station where he con- fessed to killing Salvador in self-defense. However, the said surrender does not constitute as a mitigating, ircumstance fo ime of his surrender, he had a pending warrant of arrest issued five days before his surrender. His arrest by that time was imminent. (id.) Voluntary surrender can be appreciated even ifthe accused. turned themselves one week after the crime, The factis they voluntarily surrendered to the police before arrest could be effected. (People vs, Amaguin, G.R. Nos. 54344-45, January 10, 1994) Since it was the police officer who went looking for the ac- ‘cused immediately after obtaining information from eye- witnesses as to who had perpetrated the crime even if he did not resist arrest or deny his criminal act, this cannot be ‘equated with voluntary surrender. (People vs. Rebamontan, GR. No. 125318, April 13, 1999) 30. 31, (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2 surrender by his employer do not sideration of his voluntary surrer that he was not arrested and that he presented himself to the Provincial Com: der to surrender. (People vs. Morato, GR. Nos. 95358. 993) ‘The offender render. Ifthe offerider did not submit him: \rities and it was his superior who surrendered custody of the court, such is not the voluntary surrender contemplated by law. (People 2s. Acuram, supra.) ‘That accused surrendered because of fear of reprisal does not detract from the spontaneity of his surrender and the fact that he had saved the State the time and trouble of search- ing for him. (People vs. Amazan, G.R. No. 136251, 16, 2001) The fact that accused yielded his weapon at the ident albeit with some persuasion should be is favor. (People vs. Amon, GR. No. 140511, ‘The elements of voluntary plea of guilty are: a. The plea was made in open court (judicial confession) 'b. It was spontaneous and unconditional Made before puesentation ofthe evidence by the pans not made in open ‘tunity and befor dence. If the court where the plea’ of guilty was made was diction and later on accused pleaded guilty be- sper court, the proceedings before the former is void while the plea of guilty on the latter is mitigating.37. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 1. Ina case it was stated that a confession of guilt made be- fore the media is not within the benefit ofthis provision but should be viewed with caution for there is the possibility of the law enforcer making use of the media to extract confes- sion from the sus use it is an act of icates a moral dis- form. Plea of guilty in capital offenses must not be accepted with alacrity but the accused must be made to understang-fully sa and its consequences. Dréaccused fe only evidence of his fe to the prodding of his PAO lawyer. GR.No. L-80845, March 14, 1994) essence of a plea tionally his guilt and responsi to him. Hence, he may not ‘on the court by admitting his penalty will be meted unto him. (People vs. Magat, G.R. No. 1130026, May 31, 2000) ‘The offender's being deaf and dumb or blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect must be related to the offense committed because theJaw requires that the defect lness must only diminish and not deprive the offender of s acts. Otherwise he will be exempt For instance, schizophrenia is miti- 1es but not deprive the accused of the consciousness of his act. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINALLIABILITY “ 40. Analogous circumstances mnust be similar to those enumer- ated in Article 13, Examples of these are: ‘a, Restitution of the questioned funds by petitioner may be considered mitigating circumstance in malversation of public funds (Ni 107383, December 7, 1994) as analogous to volunt. plea of guilty. ae voluntarily took the cow to the munici- it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus save them the trouble of recover- ing the cow, can be analogous to voluntary surrender. (Camas. Pope, GR. No, M0597, February 28,2001) 7 7 2. SiguR nature gr analogous.to.those ener (Gallardo vs. Tzbamo, Jr, Adm. Mat. RTJ- ‘that defendants belong to the non-Christian minorities cannot reduce from the subjective ‘view their awareness of the gravity of the of- fense for robbery and kil ARTICLE 14 — Aggravating Circumstances 1. Ageravating circumstances are those which show greater perversity of the offender, hence, they have the effect of in- creasing the penalty. ._ Aggravating and mitigating dreumstances may be distin.fee eee -y ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW the judge to determine what other circumstances may increase the penalty. If there are analogous aggravating circumstances, the accused would not know beforehand what specific circumstances. would be appreciated as analogous aggravating, hence, it would violate his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. vating circumstances, no matter how many qan.only increase the penalty to the, dipum, iod within thal Taw. The increase can never ST be by degree. c. Mitigating circumstance is a matter of defense which ‘does not have to be alleged in the information; aggra- vating circumstances must be alleged in the informa- tion before they can be proved and appreciated. 3. Examples of the distinction in 2a: a. Where the accused killed 3 persons by reason or on the ‘occasion of the robbery, the issue of multiplicity of ho- micide was the of conflicting views. In some ‘cases it was held that the additional rapes /homicides ‘committed on the occasion of robbery would not in- crease ‘while in other cases, the ruling wes, icides should be appreciated as aggt snces. People vs. Regala settled the issue thaf‘no Yaw provides that the excess rape or ‘homicide should be considered as aggravating cizcum- stance. (People us. Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001) b. Immogal mative, while itmay find supp inevidence Boy Gop cenidere das an fal ane a (People vs. Villaver, GR. No. L-32104, March 25, * ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY e © Four kinds of aggravating circumstances: a. Generic aggravating circumstances: A. Have the effect of the penalty being imposed in the maxim od. Note that the penalty pre- scribed in Book Il is thecfaxir able, thus the increase in the penalty cannot be to the next higher degree but only to the maximum pe- riod; Apply to all felonies generally; and Can be oi itigati Stance. Prior to the amendment of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information but proved may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance for not being an ele- nent ofthe crime, its appreciation does not violate the tight of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. However, such rule has been debunked.with the Revised Rules on Criminal Proce- dure-The information must now specify th and aggravating circumstances. (Section 8 A cursory examination of the informa show that the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling are not specified therein. Now, at the time the trial court rendered its decision, the nor-al- legation of generic aggravating circumstances in the information was immaterial, since the rule then pre- vailing was that generic aggravating circumstances duly proven in the course of the trial could be taken into account by the trial court in determining the prop- er imposable penalty even if such circumstances were aXe ould not alleged in the information. (People vs. Deberto, 205 SCRA 291; People vs. Legaspi, 357 SCRA 240) \ JAE circumstances enumerated in Article 14 are ge- ‘ner. If some of them are qualifying in particular crimes such as treachery, evident premeditation, etc. in murder it is because the specific provision makes them so.Sel ee ee coat eal ey ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW >. Qualifying circumstances: A 2 oie in the penalty. is penalized with reol penalty but the change in the sgravating circumstances which {stony. they do nat change the generic aggravating applies to special agg as both do not change the character of the ‘maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person belonging to an organized/ ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 6 syndicated crime group which is defined as a group of ‘more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutu- Iping one another for purposes of gain in the com- erent aggravating circumstance which is an_ele—_ ating circumstances duly proven in'the course of the trial could be taken into account by the trial court in determining the imposable penalty. (People vs. Legaspi, supra) + -9s_a_qualifying circumstance. the others will be generic. Since treachery has qualified the crime as murder, evident premeditation should be considered as generic. (People vs. Fabros, G.R. No. 90603, October 19, 1992)“ ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY @ In contempt of o with insult to public authorities 1. Requisites: one becomes the act of all, The presence of conspiracy can- A. The public authority is engaged in the discharge of bis not per se qualify a killing to murder. (People vs. Feran, Octo- duties: bber 1992) a. 10. “Aggravating circumstances” has fwo constructions: z a. Broad or generic sense when the penalty to be imposed pe is teetering between reclusion perpetua and death and in 2. The term “public authori thority but also agents of persons in ai r public officers. Rodriguez, (19 Phil. 150), Siojo (61 Phil. 307) 1403) were reconsidered in Rodi, be~ fied by the employment of the term public ‘A instead of the term person in authority in and 152. There is no reason why the phrase public authority should comprehend only persons in author- ity. The lawmaker could have easily utilized the term “per- in authority” in Article 14 in much the same way that employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 152. R.Nos. ee c February 13,2004) ne, applazhon of indivisilde] rae eat Sen b. For purposes of Article 65 the term must be under- stood in the striciest sense to include only those Article 14 when the aggravating cireut spell the difference between life and been mooted by R.A. 9346) ‘Taking advantage of official position im 3. A municipal mayor, haraneay captain, or barars is Qe paisa in author ona publicauthosiy Even publis pubs ‘School is now considere 1. The test is: “Did the accused abuse his office in order to qf circumstance is present. Hq the duties of his ‘ - health officer, og uni preparing of otherwise intervening in the p health offices or a nu, or an a ‘a document. (Layno vs. People, September 1992) (See notes of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. ‘under Article 62) Y 2. That should i |_Dositian. For such to be considered aggravating, the pub- lic official must use juence, prestige and ascendancy which his office purpose. (People vs, Aion, G.R. No. 14051“| 1 oT ow ~~ November 28, 1999) However. de las Reyes. October 1992, ae took dwell “ (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW circumstance cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation 3, The aggravating circumstance of sex is not sustained solely by the fact that the victim was a woman. It must further ap- the unlawful taking of her life, there was some # disrespect shown to her womanhood. (Peo- crimes against property such as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. (People vs. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, g into account xfGsoning tag robbery with ho- be committed without necessarily tranggressiny de can’ due the victim on account of his rank. That the accused was cognizant of the rank of the deceased police officer or that he articulated hatred against all policemen in general does ab per se suffice to prove this aggravating circumstance. Or ‘when the raiding police officers were not even (People vs, Verchez, G.R. Nos. 82729-32, June 7. Age refers to both the elderly and the youth. For instance, Jayvee was barely six years old when ruthlessly stabbed 14, times before his body was submerged in the pail. It was er- ror not to have considered his age as an aggravating circum- stance. (People vs. Lapan, G.R. No. 88300, July 6, 1992) 8. “Dwelli a i enclosures under the Wotse. It is not necessary.that.the house be owned by the offended, It incudes.asoom.in.a oe AE exent as in parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINALLIABILITY ® boarding house. Homeis that which the Jaw seeks to protect : oo z 52%. boards orabad spaces. 9. Adwelling must be a building or structure &clusivg for rest and comfort. Where the crime was” mitted in a store which is about fifteen meters away from the com plainant’s house, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling ‘cannot be considered. Obviously, the store cannot be con- ling or even a dependency of complainant's Joya, GR. No. 79090, October 1, 1993) 10. Dwelling ighoDaggravating whet: A. Offended has given provocation %. Both the offended and offender live therein /e. Dwelling is inherent in the crime such as trespass to dwelling or robbery in an inhabited place. 11. Rationale for this circumstance — the offender's greater per- domicile. (Penple vs. Lapan) 12.” In the crimes of abduction and illegal detention where the offended i ., dwelling may be taken as, circumstance. However, this circumstance jeans 1o-perpetrate.the.as- ‘Examples: attack from below the floor of the house, as in fact the target victim was hit inside his own house (People vs. Dacibar, G.R. No. 111286, February 2000) or when the victim was abducted while she ‘was in the staircase. (People vs. Magat, G.R. No, 130026, May 31, 2000)n ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. ‘Abuse of confidencelobvious ungratefulness* 1. Requisites of abuse of confidence obvious ungratefulness: A envied had Gi? the offender. (6. Offender abii5yd such trust & Suchabuse ‘Sf confidence adilitated commissigh of the~ gn See 2, The confidence between the parties must be immediate@ang> 2esonal ‘Committed in the palace of the Chief Executlve, etc. sary in the circumstanc- 1. Performance of function is n« es of the offense being conv in the palace of the Chief Executive, in a place devot gious worship ot in the presence of the Chief Executive. 2. Offender must have sought any of the 4 places for the com- mission of the crime. Nighttime, uninhabited place, bend, ald of armed men 1. “Nighttime” is the period of darkness beginning at dusk and ending at dawn 6p from sunset to sunrise. The crime ‘must be committed exalusively at nighttime and not started at daytime. Itis not considered in crimes where nighttime is merely accidental or coincidental or has no influence in the perpetration thereof. Nighttime (nocturnity) is x simple fact that the feiberately sought in crime, (People vs. Ferrer, 255 SCRA) 1. The cri t If the light was Tight enough to see what was going on and to recognize ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIASILITY n the assailants, noctumity does not qualify as an aggravating 8, Band consists of more than 3 (at least 4 < rganized with the intention of carrying out any unlawful design. They should have acted i of the crime. (People vs. Robiego, November 1993) 9. “Band is inherent in brigandage. It is similar to abuse of su- perior strength whose essence is the utilization of the com- bined strength of the assailants to overpower the victim to consummate the offense. 10.) The elements of aid of armen are: a. Armed men or persons took the crime directly or indirectly, and b. The accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. 1. Band vs. aid of armed men: a. In band there must be at least 4 armed men; in aid of armed men, there is no required number of malefac- in the commission of tors. b. The band members are all principals for they take part in the commission of the felony under the same plan74 4m | n (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW and for the same purpose. The armed men who aided the pri offender are mere-accomnalies for ey give and moral aid and encouragement in the c. Band absorbs aid of armed men. 12. Band vs. organized crime: a. Band requires atleast 4 membersuho are Ged argae sssedienmorequires only 2 members who may oF may notbe armed. b. There is no particular crime, for which the band is or- ganized ci ie group is for de pumas i ain such as Kidnapping for 13. a generic aggravating and as qualifying.ciroums. stance: a. Band asa generic circumstance applies to any. grime; as a qualifying circumstance under Articles 299,and.296, it applies only to mbbezy-with-physicalinjurjes under Article 294 paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. b. Whether generic or qualifying, the definition of band is the same. ‘On the occasion and by means of calamity or misfortune ‘The “other calamity or misfortune” in paragraph 7 refers to the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake or ep- demic when the offense was committed. In paragraph 12, the calamity is the means in the commission of the crime, Aggravat- ing becay fender instead of lending aid te she vichis, to their sufferings. a Recidivism, reiteracion, habitual delinquency and quasi-ecidivism 1. There ared forms of habituality: recidivism, reiteracion (both, in Article 14), habitual delinquency (Article 62, NaS) and quasi-recidivism (Article 160) ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” Arecidivist is ne who, at the time of his shall. ‘ther crime embraced in.the.same.titlooot.the.Cade, There must be 2 convictions. . “Final judgment” means executory, ies a. 15 days have elapsed from its promulgation without the convict appealing the conviction; b. Offender started serving sentence; ly waived his right to appeal; or Recidivism compared with reiferacion: a. Recidivism requires a previous conviction by final judgment; reteracion requires service of sentence. b. In recidivism the offenses are under the same title of the Code; in reiteracion, itis not so required. c. In the former, there is no requirement as to penalty; in the latter the prior crime must have been imposed with. A person is a habitual delinguer [COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a penalty equal to or greater than the second crime or he must have served 2 or more crimes carrying lighter penalty. Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance g circumstances within a period of 10 ‘last conviction of the te of his release are ggainst property and the last gainst peCtender may be a recidivist and a habitual de- lings same time if he was convicted for the third time of the crimes within the same title of the Code. released when again convicted. third conviction that ‘must be within 10 years from sase or second convic- tion, Note that the law says “if within a period of 10 years he is found guilty of any of said crimes a 3rd time or oftener.” Recidivism and habitual delinquency: a. Inrecidivism, a 2nd conviction is enough; in habitual delinquency, a 3rd conviction is necessary. b. Recidivism requires that the crimes involved be both ‘under the same Title of the Code; in habitual delin- quency, the crimes are specific which may or may not be within the same Titl ‘GLRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 6 c. Recidivism does not prescribe because there is no time limit between the 1st and 2nd convictions; habitual de- linquency prescribes if the 10-year period is exceeded. d. Recidivism is a generic aggravating. circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circum- Gitcumstance which must be considered by the court in. the imposition of penalty. It cannot be offset. 11. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance * which may not be offset by an ordinary mitigating circum- stance. The offender has been previously convicted py final . judgment and before beginning to serve such sentence Or) enle serving the same he committed a felony. 12. Quasi-recidivism is penalized in addition to habitual delin- quency because of the opening phrase in Arties "Be sides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62.” #fe effect is to penalize the convict with the maximum period far the new Aslony committed plus the onic: penalty fo plete the service of the original conviction he shall be pardoned, qipless he.is a habitual. other circumstances shovw.thathe Price, promise or reward Price, promise or reward affects equally the offeror and the acceptor. The offeror is a principal by inducement, and the ac- ceptor, the pring the primary consideration in the commission of the crime for this circumstance to be aggravating. Evident premeditation 1. The elements of evident premeditation are: FX a. The TIME when the offender determined to commit the crime;7] 4 oom i sae cecal xX micide. In such an offense, the evid \editation must 7% ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW b, An ACT manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and . Sufficient LAPSE of time between such determination allow him to reflect upon the conse- 2. It must be shown when the plan to commit the crime was ‘that elapsed before it was car- is stub- born adherence t lony. Otherwise stated, the gueGtion of the-plan-must be preceded.by cool thought and reflection of the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive ata calm judgment. 3, Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify 1 killing to murder in the absence of evidence, not only of sufficient lapse of time, but also of the planning and fas conceived. (People vs. Nel that Edgardo heard Arturo was “hunting” him because of competition over @ git] is not sufficient to prove evident premeditation (People 1. Wenceslao, G.R, No. 95583, August 2, 1992) or of alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive pr premeditation. (People vs. Padama, G.R. No. 1 41,1999) 5. Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with ho- ‘Craft, fraud, ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” 6. If the attack upon the village is planned, the killing of any individual during the attack is attended also by evident pre~ m 7. Under normal conditions, where tablished. with proof of thé attendant ‘selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the exist is litatic ‘hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out for “Whe accused to have “sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment dis nately to consider and accept "adlan, GR. No. 111263, May 21, 1998) 1. Craft is cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resort ed to hy the accused to carry out his evil design. Ex. the offender assumed position of authority to gain entry in a house: feigning friendship to lure victim to an uninhabited place. 2. Fraud constitutes deceit manifested by insidious words or machinatiorss. Disguise is resorted to conceal the identity in spite of the disguise, the offender was recognized, such cannot be aggravating, s 3. Not aggravating ifit did not facilitate the commission of the crime(opit is not taken advantage of by the offender in the course of the assault. 4. Ifresorted to in insuring the commission of the crimeagainst _personsuithout risk to offender, absétbed by treachery” ‘Abuse of superior strength 1. Abuse of supesir stuength i gletionaiy employing ex: cessive force. out-of propartion.io.the means of defense‘Treachery (alevosia)’ ‘COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW available to the offended party. There must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor . Superiority in number does not necessarily mean that the offenders abused their superior s that means are ‘employed to weaken the defense dMust be proved that the fattackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from superiority of strength. This ig taken into account if ized SF Sohascationos made during a quarrel. woeen i elle or ly, the husband is physi- cally SORGET ‘wife; and in rape itis absorbed "nto account in fixing the penalty. ‘An attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an un ‘armed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superi- or strength which his sex and weapon afforded him. (People bs. Espina, G.R, No. 123102, February 29, 2000) or where the aggressors, who were all armed, first hit the legs.of their unarmed victim, causing the latte kneeling; then, stabbed him above the knee; and, having deprived him of hhis means to stand or run, took tums in inflicting mortal wounds on him. (People vs. Apelado, G.R, No, 132137, Octo ber 1, 1999) (BBE This is manufest where the victim was unarmed anc “wae trying to flee while the 2 felons were armed and used their weapons in perpetrating the crime. (People vs. Alacar, GR. Nos. 64725-26, July 20, 1992) ‘Where 3 persons assaulted the victim inside his house and the appellant stabbed the deceased while the latter was firmly held by the 2 other ‘companions, treachery.cannpt bea js included in abuse of superior strength. = q (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” 3, ‘Treachery must: (a) insure that the offended was not able to put up any defense, not even token defense; and (b) the means, manner, and form was consciously and deliberate- ly chosen. (People vs. Magallanes, August 1997) The means, ‘methods or forms of the execution of the crime must be con- sciously adopted because fhe'law requires that the same in- sure its execution. must be intended to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to the offender from a defense the victim might offer. wamed of the, that the gxetGition of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. (People vs. Landicho, by ‘reachery may be appreciated even when the victim was ger to his person, for what is us physical injui stance which increases the penalty. 6., There is no treachery if the attack is an impulse of the ac- cused or when the killing is due to passion or when the ac- ‘cused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased 60 as to insure the commission of the crime. 7. When the attack is frontal, generally, there is no treachery. “a But there is treachery when the attack althous sudden aid fhade, pene trocar its execution free from dangexand.withs “oulisk in.the offends ; 8, Whereas the essence of evident premeditation ig_cool ae ion, the essence of treachery is the gwift- nei e ss tack upon pecting and unarmed victim, who does not give the slightest “Bebeson le Rebamontan GR. No, 125318, April 15, 1999) 9, Generally, it must be present at the inception of the attack. If the attack was without treachery at its inception, there. ‘must be a break.or interruption in the attack forit-to-be-0 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW considered jf the attack was consummated with treachery. “Riker the commencement of such an attack, and before its termination, an accused person may have employed means cor methods which were of a treacherous character, and yet such means or methods wovld not constitute the circum: stance of alevosia. One continuous attack cannot be broken ‘up into 2 or more parts. Where the lone witness was not commencement of the assault, he cou it ali began and developed. Abse to observe the testify on how 10, “Treachery must be proved as convinch i Ttg&ninot be inferred just The attack is not shown. There is a trength between the pifender and the vi superior strength appreciated as it is necessarily absorbed in treachery. 12, The allegation in the information that the victims are both i considered compliance with the above-men- ‘commonly understood in practice that when not be equated with rot so much as to Abuyen) 13, Treachery absorbs bath nighttime and taking advantage of superior strength in the light of the circumstances of the case at bar. Considering that treachery qualifies the killing ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 5 of the 4 victims, the accused is guilty of 4 counts of murder. (People vs. Bechayda, G.R. No. 72001, August 7, 1992) 14, ‘Treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus. When the Ac of fired at his adversary but missed, thevictims werr helpless to defend th ‘Their deaths were murders ‘not simply homicide since the acts were qualified by treach- (People ws. Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000) aliation” relevant in the appreciation of treachery sme frotn the victim, not from anyone else. That the site of the crime was heavily populated where others could thus intervene is not significant at all. (People vs. Costelo, GR. No, 134311, October 13, 1999) Ignominy and cruelty produces more suffering on account of its humiliating ef- fects. It was not appreciated in a case where the sexual as- ‘as not shown as having been done by the accused to, ‘victim to shame before killing him. (People vs. Diaz, GR. No. 154311, October 13, 1999) 2. “Tgnominy selates to moral suffering whereas cruelty tophys- ical suffering. There is cruelty when the culprit delights in to show that these were inflicted unnecessarily while the victim was still alive to prolong his physical suffering. 3, The mere fact that there were numerous stab wounds does not imply cruelty because the offender may be overwhelmed by passion or obfuscation or it may be that the victim was already dead when the stab wounds were inflicted and can 1.0 longer suffer pain in excess of that necessary to commit the crime.1m faa] 2 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 4. Assuming that the victim was still alive during the entire period of the ordeal he was subjected to, there could possibly be cruelty since appellants deliberately augmented the ‘wrong they committed. On the other hand, ifthe victim died immediately after he was stabbed, then appellants could be held to have outraged his corpse when they fiendishly slashed his intestines to pieces. Further, the intervening time between the initial attack and subsequent acts must be sufficiently established to enable determination as to whether they were one continuous series of acts or were So deliberately spaced as to constitute either cruelty or outrage. (People vs. Balisteros, G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994) 5, The killing was done with cruelty, by deliberately or inhu- manly augmenting the suffering of th or scoffing at his person or corpse. No greater outrage, in- sult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than to sever its head. The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence directed towards it cannot be interpreted in any other manner than an outrage to his corpse. (People 1s, Binondo, GR, No. 97227, October 20, 1992) rolled unconscious after she was ravished, hacked her, almost splitting her face in two. isa formof perversity which ag- gravated the crime, it being unnecessary to the commission thereof, and manifestly an outrage on the victim’s person. (People vs. Nescio, G.R. No. 102008, December 28, 1994) Unlawful entry, breaking of door, ete. ‘There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a ‘way not intended for that purpose. It must be entry not exit. But breaking a door to enter is not unlawful entry since this is cov- ered by paragraph ich states that “as a means to the commission of the crime a wall, rouf, floor, door, oF win- dow be broken” showing that unlawful entry excludes ingress bby means of such breaking. ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ® Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle 1. These are distinct circumstances: with the aid of minor show- ing greater perversity of the offender in educating a minor on how to commit a crime and the use by modem criminals not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act. (People vs. Amion, supra.) to the authorities in apprehen ARTICLE 15 —Alternative Circumstances 1. Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according the crimg aed other conditions ission. They apeGonsidered only when, they influenced the commission of the imstances are not aggravating per se forshey ing. As aggravating circumstances, Of ETAT a 4. Relationship is considered when the llended >a Spouse, Ascendant, Descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopteda SADBroSA} of the offender. Ste + in ao (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Brother or Sister or relative by Affinity [memory aid — ildren because the law specified only legitimate, natural, or ad- opted. physical injuries committed against Eto the par- excessive chastisement, relationship ist pggravat- (Art. 263) &p punithmect 6. Incrimes against chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, rela- tionship is aggravating, (People us. Marifio, G.R. No. 141183, January 18, 2001) 7. BeBe aggravating SPmtigating Jationship is an ele- ent of the crime such as in parrici qualified rape, If ‘what was charged was murder or homicide instead of parti- cide, relationship becomes generic only because the accused cannot be convicted of what was not charged against him. 8. The father-daughter relationship in rape cases is a special circumstance hence, relationship as an alternative circum- in view of the amend- stance should.no longer be appli ly produce a state of intoxication. Apperson pleading intgyication as a mitigating circum- stance ust sow thet he ‘as ben quantity of = beverage prior to the commission of the a ae ind did not take the alcoholic .inseinlarorhio-reselve lg commit 13,y Put differently, high education could be aggravating but CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY s (People vs. Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, or not degree of education and instruction would idered as aggravating or mitigating depends the gravity of the crime committed. For instance, is as much reprehensible to the educated as to the illiterate. literacy alone(Bupthe lack of intelligence or instruction that W considered. Even if one is not schooled but comes from a family of professionals, he must have had some degree of instructions hence he could easily realize the significance of his act. His lack of schooling then ting; low education could be mitigating but © “will never be aggravating. The fact that a person is a pro- f ce, cannot mitigate a crime he commits. that a person is not schooled cannot ag- 14. CAVEAT: The deg i Pe ready have been considered in the pen. ra Se considered anymara., ARTICLE 16 — Who are crimin: 1. For gra als, accomplices and accessanies. 2. For light felonies: prin Accessories 3 are not liable for lig) ished with arresta cwogoy x Why are accessories notliablatondi Becatigethe. law does not deal with, (de minimis non cuatTex) Also 0 menor is not possible,% (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY o 2 Tp natural persons(Snlp) j= 4, The inducer is generally ki idical persons cannot commit a crime which requires a Jaw favors a lesser pe willful purpose, voluntariness or malicious intent. : 5 ARTICLE 17 — Principals: ax ve been committed without the inducsivient and because 1. Principals by direct pastcipation are Ju who material they Induce others to commit the crime so they do not have “4 = ‘i “A to appear or do the “dirty work.” ‘The fact that Manalili and not petitioner who dealt di- cexculpate the latter from the 2 is a principal by inducement in of said crime. (id.) { te 6. Article 17 considers as principals those who “directly force a a. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is fa- is induce "was done for the we was GR Nos. 133527-28, December ‘concurrence of the criminal act to be executed, Consequent- ly, he is a co-conspirator by indispensable cooperation, al- ‘though the common design or purpose was never bottled up by previous undertaking. (Subayco vs. Sandiganbayan, GAR. Nos. 117267-117310, August 22, 1996) Tihedie somaitt make.the utterer an inducer 125812, November 28, 1996) Mere by one who does not possess dominance or dancy over the offender will make him neithes by inducement nor an accomplice.rs COMPACT REVIEWER I CRIMINAL LAW 9. A principal by indispensable cooperation participates by means of an act without which the crime would not have ‘been committed. The cooperatorneed.not be-e partyin the Janning stage of & for he may become a prin=, pice Thus, in the pump boat owner who helped the offenders by pretend- ing that his pump boat needed towing by the passing boat was held to be m the offenders transferred to the boa inders could have asked the rence, the accused's coop- proval ol The eye defect of accused aka. “bulag” raises doubt as to his abi the role of a supposed lookout. (People vs, Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, October 26, 1999) Sang without ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY » "3 material or moral aid to the principal in an ef- is way. Accomplices participate in the the offense by simulfaneous acts, which boxe a.zelation 1n— 00, Sr, Supra.) : ‘operates knowingly or intentionall ‘sole in the perpetration of the crime is of a 1. (People vs, Frond, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May ers to commit an act in such a way that without the inducement the crime would not be committed. His inducement must be obeyed by exerting influence or ‘moral ascendancy over the other malefactors. An acx_ ‘omplice’s inducement or utterance is immaterial forr ” (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. with or without such utterance, the crime would be committed. pensable without which the crime would not be com- mitted whereas the cgoperation of the accomplice isin aminor way. € Both the principal and the accomplice act before or during the commission of the crime. But the principal while crime and he cooperates after the decision to com- e same had already been made. (People vs. Suarez, 267 9; People us. De Vera, G.R. No, 128966, August 18, 1999) Conversely, a “lookout” is a principal if he were a co- conspirator and participated in deciding the course of ac- tion to be taken in the criminal design or he is a co-author of the crime and provides his companions effective means and, encouragement to carry out the same. His being a lookout is necessary part of the concerted action to achieve the desired result. (People vs. Loreno, 136 SCRA 311) ARTICLE 19 — Accessories 1. Accessories: a ’. 1. By profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime; “CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LABILITY a 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus deliti or effects or the instruments thereof to prevent its discovery; and i 3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape. - see a. Incase of agnfblic offices For any crime ithe b, Teme: # se Chiet Exe ae 5 t is actor omission i also pet Seine rine ‘under special law of ciinies ala prohi- fa, the offenders generally are penalized as principals un- less otherwise provided. lice and an accessory’ axtcipate bfar.or during the com _imission ofthe lense accessory, eubsequent there b.Anaccomplice knows ofthe criminal design ofthe prin- ‘an accessory knows of the commission of the. of: or, moral aid. in.an manner indispensable to in the 3 ways specifies 4. Accomplices have ng,exemption from liability; gy accessories are exempted under Articl 4, Accessories by profiting a. If the crime is robbery or theft and one bought, sold, possessed, or in any other manner dealt with the ar ticles which he knew or should have known are pro-Per eparte information then he (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ceeds of robbery or theft, he is {Gis be cine Ihe were not with, fencing ces- ble only as a sory ih the crime of robbe: ‘Ton pthervwisehe, would received any property from another, and, 1owing that the same property had been sto- len is guilty as an accessory because he is profiting by. the effects of the crime. By employing the two carabaos in his farm, Taer was profiting by the objects of the cat- tle rustling. (Taer vs. CA) Accessories by concealing or destroying the body of the crime . 2. The existence of a criminal aggney as the cause of this actor result. © Otherwise stated, is clamentanare: the proof of the occurrence of a certain c¥ent; and lf some person's criminal responsibility. (People vs. Boco, G.R. No. 129676, ‘must be established ted drug took place; thors thereof. and the accused were the Assisting the principal to escape a, The offender to be.assisted-must be incipab assist. ing ar Bccomplice is not included...» ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY o b. A police officer who was present when the crime was committed abused his official function when he failed to immediately arrest the offender and conduct a speedy investigation of the crime, but instead left the scene of the crime together with the offender, thus as- sisting the offender to escape. Being a public officer, he is an accessory to the crime. (People vs. Antonio, July 14, 2000) > Those who assist the principal to escape may he pros. penalty under PD. 1829 or any ol including the Revised Penal Code, whichever is higher. (Sec. 1, last paragraph) d. Obstruction of justice is committed by any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates, 'sthe apprehension of suspects and the inves- wuish between a public.officerandaa- ho assists the principal. ARTICLE 20 — Accessories exempt from crimin: The offender's spouse, ascendant, descendant, legit ind adopted brothers. ssories to, the offender sherated ih Arti ives assist the principal by con iy of the crime or by assisting i the law recognizes that they are motivated by natural affes ition for the ofender. However, when they profit or assist* ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW the offender in profiting by the effects of the crime, they are_ doing so because of greed, hence, they are liable. PENALTIES 1. Penalties are the péhishment imposed by lawful authority ‘upon a person who commits a deliberate or negligent act. (Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 34 ed., of, People vs. ‘Moran, 44 Phil. 431) 2. Penalties are prescribed by statutes and are essentially and exclusiv ter. Judges cant Oily inter- Pret and apply them and have no authority to modify or revise their range as determined by the legislature. (People 1s. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992) |. Under the Code, penalties are: a Graduated; b. Divided isindi sible: & Classified into principal or accessory; d. Understood to be a degree for purposes of lowering the penalty under Article 61 in applying the Indetermi- nate Sentence Law or owing to privileged mitigating circumstances; Even if the provision provides for 1 or more pe- riod of a le penalty, that is considered 1 degree for purposes of lowering the penalty. For instance, if the penalty prescribed is arresto mayor, medium period, that is 1 degree and the penalty next lower in degree is, arresto mayor, minimum period. €. Imposed on the principal offender in the consummated stage: {The maximum imposable, ie, the court cannot in- «crease the penalty prescribed by any degree no matter how many aggravating circumstances are present. For instance, in homicide, even if there are 10 aggravating PENACTIES * (not qualifying) circumstances without any mitigat- ing, the penalty can only be increased to the maximum. period of reclusion temporal and cannot be increased to reclusion perpetua. . Courts must emplay. the proper nomenclature epecified.in the Code, such as reclusion perpetua not life imprisonment; or ten days of arresto menor not ten days of imprisonment. (People vs, Lat: pan, G.R, Nos. 112453-56, June 28, 2001) ARTICLES 21-22 L Article 2] enunciates the principle: nullum crimen nulla poena rig felony shall be punishable by any penalty not preseil by law prior to its commission. Unless there is a ing an act or omission, the offender cannot be atter bow teprebensible.the act may.be.This. the ex post facto edict under the Constitution. that Ne application. Article 22 provides the excep- that is, when the law shall be given retroactive . The favorable provisions of R.A. 7659 ran be given retroac- tive effect to entitle the drug offender to a lesser penalty. By force of Article 10, the beneficent provisions.of Article 22 applies to. il be given effect to crimes-punished those convicted oF drug offenses since it refers to convic- ions Tor thE 3rd titer or OTe Of the crimes of falsificatis robbery, estafa, theft, serious and less serious physical in ties. (People os. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29, July 29, 1994) |. The court can sua spouteapply-Acticle 22 even when nat ine voked by the accused otherwise, the plain precept thereof ‘Would’ De Useless aid nugatory if courts were not under obligation to fulfill such duty, whether or not accused has applied for it, just as would also all provisions relating to prescription of crime and penalty. (id,) (Contra: People vs. Bon, infra.)96 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. ARTICLE 23 — Pardon by the offended ARTICLE 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executive (See notes under Article 89 on ARTICLE 24 1. The Smeasures in this articleare not penalties for otherwise? it will violate the constitutional provis i SUIMOGEECE ARM Becatise these measures ie charges against 763 The Tatter from intimidating iy prisoners) jg for the m going into hiding, 2. The accused is bailable he cannot nizance, PENALTIES ” sion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. (Sec. 3, Rule 114, Rules of Court) There can be no pretense that such un- vocal and explicit provisions in the Constitution and the Rules of Court would admit of any exception, qualifica- tion or distinction, (Reyes vs. CA) Full credit for the detention shall be granted [fvhe detention Prisoner agf6ein writing to abide by the sitne disciplinary. ‘Eales imposed on convicts. gnlesw a. They are recidivists G) convicted previously tyice-om more of anyctimer b. When upon being summonesforshe execution oftheir sentence they have fai 5. Credit shall be 4/5 of the stay in detention when he does nat “agiee to be treated similarly as convicted prisongss,. 6 When the maxi 2, the,ace used shall be released after 30 days.of pieventive.impsis- Sament beans sree ner more severe penalty han. destierro under Acie 70. 7. The_ deduction of the period of proventive-imprisonment applies where the accused is sentenced to destiergy becaust ARTICLE 25 — Classification of penalties 1. Principal penalties are those specified in Book Il of the Code ‘on specific feronies. They must be imposed by the court ex. i ive partion.ob the decision. . he principal ‘They are deemed impased to-.—o ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW gether with the principal penalty. As such, they need not he. expressly stated in the decision. (Article 73) @ Atticle 25-elassifies the penalties into principal and ac- cessory, b. Article 20-provides for the scale when there are 2 or more sentences to be served, and prescribes the 3-fold rule. © Alticle Z1-graduates the penalties in the order of se- verity for purposes of applying the rules under Article 61 in relation to Articles 50-57 on lowering of penalties considering the stage of accomplishment of the offense and the level of participation of the offender. R.A. 7659 which defined heinous crimes took effect on De- cember 31, 1993, That is 18 days after December 16, 1993 issues of the Manila Malaya and Phil. Times Journal, and not on January 1, 1994, 22's sometimes misinterpreted. (Peopte vs. Simon; People vs em ‘The Code has its own legal designation of the penalty for offenses defined therein, thu: 6, June 23, 1999) Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua a. Under special laws a. Forviolationof the, Revised Penal Code b. Haspo fixed duration —_b, With fixed duration ‘of 20 years and 1 day 040 years » PENALTIES 9 Without accessory Has accessory penalties ‘was made clear that reclusion perpetua is 6-A-92 (June 21, 1993) amending Circular 6-92 (October 12, 1992) enjoins strict observance of their distinction to curb ice of using them interchangeably in the imposition of penalty for serious offenses like murder. (Peo- ple vs. Narca, G.R. No. 108488, July 21, 1997) . Although reclusion perpetua has.now. a definite term it rex le penalty fr there is no clear legislative in. nsidered divisible penalties and what should. ion of the periods. thereof. Other provisions in- volving reclusion perpetua such as Article 41 on accessory penalties and paragraphs and 3.o/ Article. 6Liverenatalso amended. (People vs. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 168172-73, January 9, 1995 in telation to People vs. Reyes) of inne shall Fears. It would be ical absurd and violative of the scales of penalties to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at 30 years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum 20 years of reclusion temporal but is less than 30 years. (People vs. Reyes, 212 SCRA; People vs. dela Petia, GRR. No. 116060, July 31, 1997) ration of pena perpetua shall be computed at 30 years. The imputation of the 30-year duration is only to serve ag abasis for determining the-convict’s eligibility for pardon unless? ‘eis deemed unworthy of such or for the application of theie ad 100 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 14 pthe pear? is a principal penalty fet vhere is 6B gfime in Book I-for.which it can be imposed cctuss,.Be- ing a principal penalty, it. must be specifically prescribed-in “Book fora particular felony Thereheing none, the penalty is virtue: which states that felony-shall be punishable by any penalty not pas. Jaw prior to its commission. 16. Compared with bond for good behavior: a. Bond for good behavior (BGB) is a principal penalty which is not prescribed. 7: bond to keep P) is a penalty specifically applicable to ve and light threat only. failure to post BKP will supposedly make him PENALTIES 01 ion is both a pelcipl an an aoessonepen- alty when ser offense of rebellion then punished with pri- mayor, absorbs the grav ished with reclusion perpetua furtherance of rebellion; b. The lesser offense of forcible abduction, which is pun- ished by re sporal, absorbs the graver offense of iltegal det man, which is punished by reclusion perpetua {to death]; ties 5. Fine whether imposed singly Ghalternatively ist a Afflictive/ grave if more than P6,000.00 b. Correctional/less grave if P200.00 — P6,000.00, © Light ifless than P200.00 ARTICLE 39 — Subsidiary penalty 1. Subsidiary penalty takes the place of the fine for insolvent canvicts. It is neither a princiy ‘The subsidiary penalty went Or Heprivation at sight ing ures ne ea emen Sepa aton ot ihe wick. 2. Subsidiary penalty is computed at 1 day for each PROQof- eG in no case to exceed Lyear. Ifthe penalty is: 1 Parely fine and subsidiary imprisonment ee felony committed is: shall Grave or less grave not exceed 6. Light felony not be more than 15 days,(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW b. Fine and imprisonment which should not be higher than prision correccional ot 6 years, the subsidiary im- Fisonment is the least among the following: iss 1/3 of the principal penalty(6r) the quotient of fine divided by P8.00/6)) year. ©. Fine and destierro which musthe.ot fixed duration: destierro also in accordance-with. the abowe-rales. The subsidiary penalty shall lvency petaluse this is not an acces- ws the priripal penalty as a matter be served in case 5. Subsi is also imposable in violations of special BP. i Benal laws such as, a ARTICLE 45 1 2Effiscation/ forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of - the crime is automatically imposed gATE35>> a. They were the property of 3rd person who has no com- plicity in the cri PENALTIES. 1 regoingyconfiscation shall 3) ticles are by. themselves contraband’ornot subject. of lawful commerce like dangerous drugs. standing ARTICLE 48 — Complex Crimes 5. |. Article 48 speaks of 2 kinds of plurality of: a. “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies” otherwise called compound crime or delito compuesto, b. "When an offense is a necessary means for commit: ting the other” also known as complex crime proper or delito complejo Compound crimes are those committed when a single act results to 2 or more grave or less grave ‘The felonies committed may less grave felonies: grave felonies. The resultant ight felony shall be treated as a separate offense. ‘The basis of compound crimes is the singularity of the act such as the single acf oF irowing Hand grenade, Telling some and seriously wounding a number of persons. (People vs, Guillen, 47 O.G. No. 7, 3433)-However, the act of pull: ‘ ei u nal impulge, such as throwing hand grenade, it constitutes a single offense. Since the 3 murders and attempted murders were produced by a single act (the explosion caused by the hurling of a grenade into the bedroom of the victim), the case comes under Article 48. Only 1 information should be filed. (People vs. Carpo, G.R. No. 132676, April 4, 2001) fense is necessary to commit.another This means that the‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW first offense is committed imission ofthe aeakxime. It. a. Actime to conceal another because the law specifies to commit not to conceal, b. Acrime which is an element of the other for in that case, the former shall be absorbed such as trespassing which is an clement of robbery. . Acrime which has the commit, For intan lement as the other crime nd falsication ofp ere is ee oo lex crime of estafa ation of private documents But falsification of publi olfcial"or commercial documents does not have the element of damage, hence, there is a complex crime of estafa falsification of public, official, 6 commercial documents. 4. Actime which is incidental to the other such as taking. ofa woman from her house, bringing her to a concealed place o commit rape on he. The tk ‘he main purpese.te commitapeg rape only ‘The penalty for complex crimes under Article 48 is the.pen- the most serious crime in the maximum period. Such soniye reneliclal fo the accused because of the fact that he is given a single pena . People vs, Caldito, February 1992, stated the exception to the “singe act” rule citing the Laws ruling, Accused therein ‘were held, lex crime of mult i Tow Gat the elie as the result of a siogle impulse-which was induc derof Lawas to fire, and continued with the intention . ‘comply therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as the lead- cer gave the order to that effect. About 50 Maranaos died in the slaughter. There was no intent on the partof the accused, PENALTIES 109 to fire at each and every one of the victims as separately and. distinctly from each other. There is absolutely no evidence as to the number of persons killed by each and every one to ascertain the i deaths caused by each and everyone and therefore possible to hold each accused responsible for each and ev- ery death caused by hie. a _B First, determine the penalty for the most serious of- fense, Second, for purposes of determining the next lower de- gree, the full range of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense, not merely the imposable penalty because of its complex nature, should, a priori, be considered ‘maximum period following Article 48 on the penalty for complex crimes. d. The presence of mitigating circumstance would in imposing, period the court may deem a Considering, however, that the penalty has mitigating circumstance is to impose the minimum portion of that maximum period. (Ni- zurlado vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, December 7, 1994) ‘separate | Example: The accused killed 4 persons and the house was bumed to conceal the killing. In the course of the arson, a‘COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW aby in the house was burned to death. How many crimes ‘were committed? ‘One arson resulting to death of the infant and 4 counts of murder, each co avated by dwelling, For the ar- son where death resulted, they should be sentenced to a separate term of reclusion perpetua (R.A. 7659 was not yet 1 4 terms each of re- in accordance with io, January 1994) mes where a single pen- the Code. (People Aa te imposed ae: u. a. Composite crimes or special complex erimes; b. Continued crime or delito continuado; and Continuing crimes or transitory crimes. ‘Composite crimes are thi divisible offenses although comprising more than one 5 Ge crime and with specie penalyy They aie also ad rimes, Such a8 arson with he ecial complex cri those found under Article 294 on robbery wit a. _Imediposite crime, the offenses comprising the same age Bixee by lave gy rSODEEY ith Tae TORbENY WTR ‘mutilation. mplex crime, the combination of the ‘offenses is not specified but gerieral at is, grave anil [Or TESS BRAVE! OF OH OfRense being the necessary means to commit the other. ‘lum period. PENALTIES m aimmes, the other felonies are absorbed. Thus, in rob- bery with homicide, the homicide is deemed generic and includes the slight physical injuries inflicted on the saype occasion of robbery. Sounts, ¢g., kidnapping with iple homicides result to a single crime of kidnapping with rape or kidnapping with ho- micide, The excess rapes. and homicides-are absorbed. lapel crimes, the excess crimes are not absorbed. ible abduction with multiple rapes, the ymplexed with the abduction, the excess. rapes are separate crimes. 13, When one of the crimes is not proved the effect is that the accused can be convicted of the other. For instance, in rape with homicide, if the rape was not proved, the accused may there is an allegation of qualify- ing circumstance, cont for murder is also proper be- cause the term “homicide” as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries com mitted by reason or on the occasion of rape, But unless the ifying circumstances are alleged in the information, the sumed to have no independent knowledge t constitute the offense and cannot be con- snse higher than that for which he is tried. It When a complex crime is charged, such as foreible abduc- tion with rape, the prosecution must allege and prove the15. v. seny doctrine,” that is, the taking of several thing ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of rape. When appellant using. blade, rigital information charged petitioner with performing, single criminal act — approving the applica- tion for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also averred of EO. 324 dated Delito continuado, although an outcrop of the Spanish Penal Code, has been applied to crimes penalized under special TO the Codes be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles de- veloped from Penal Code may be appli capacity to crimes punished under spe ‘er belonging to the same cr different owners—atthe same i! y. Abandoned is ie “separate larceny doctrine” under which there was a distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. Also aban- doned was the doctrine that the government has the dis- PENALTIES 13, cretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims. (id.) Also, the act of taking 2 roosters belonging to 2 different persons in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to 2 crimes having an independent existence of their own, be- cause there are not 2 distinct appropriations nor 2 intentions that characterize 2 separate crimes. 18. Some examples of delito continuado: a. Theftof 13 cows belonging to different owners commit- ted at the same place and at the same period of time. (People vs. Tumos, 67 Phil. 320) 2 roosters in the same place and on the same (People vs, De Leon, 49 Phil. 437) . The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer each time he collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that the attorney's fees SCRA 156) The collections of the legal fees were im- pelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse. (People vs. Lawas, 97, Phil. 975) ‘a. 2estafa cases one of which was committed during the period from January 19 to December 1955 and the oth ex from January 1956 to July 1956. (People vs. Dickupa, 113 Phil. 306) The said acts were committed on differ- cent occasions. Several malversations committed in May, June, and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal the said offenses committed in August and October 1936. The malversa-1 = 2 Goatees ‘COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINALLAW in June 1964 involving ‘a sewing machine. (People 75 estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agent of collections from customers of the employer made on different dates. (Gamboa vs. CA, 68 SCRA 308) 20. Asontinuing crime is~ LD ég, rebellion ers and continuing up to the present. 21. Examples of continuing crime: a b. Rebellion, insumection, conspiracyand_propasal_to ‘Sommitsuch crimes, setting them apart from the com- mon offenses, aside from their essentially involving a i of nationwide magnitude. (Garcia- SCRA) Squatting, hence even if the illegal occupancy of the Property of another commenced prior to the promulga- tion of PD. 772 on Augus 1975, since it continued tion, the offender can be under the law. (People vs. City Court, General Santos City, G.R. No. L-49019, April 10, 1992) (PD. 772 had been repealed) ago by the offend-" PENALTIES, ns a. Asingle crime, with one crime absorbing the other of- fenses; b. Acomplex crime when the offenses constitute grave or less grave felonies or when one crime is the necessary to commit the other; © Asspecial complex crime, with each offense constitut- ing elements of the composite offense; 4. Two separate crimes. For instance, the taking of woman forcibly and thereaf- ter, rape was committed on her. How should the offenders to rape, the taking is merely a intended offense in which case, , the abduction being a neces- sary means to bring about the desired result, : b. If the intention is to take the woman against her will with lewd designs, there is the complex crime of forc-fee eed eee) Ga eee veer seg ee eee eee om) 1 om moo I | 6 2. ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. terthought, the offense committed is special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. 4. Ifin (b) above, there were several counts of rape, the first rape shall be complexed with the forcible abduc- tion and the subsequent rapes treated as separate crimes of rape. The. words. “besides.” “ip addition,” “without prejudice,” for instance: a. Article 128.0n the additional liability for perjury for the additional injury in the use of excessive force in en- forcing the warrant; Sana delinquency; " Article 209 on betrayal of public trust by an attorney ‘r solicitor in addition to the proper administrative ac- tion; d. Article 210 on direct bribery in addition to the penalty for the crime agreed upon; ©. Article 214.an other frauds in addition to the penalties Prescribed in the provisions of Chapter 6, Title X; & Attic 279 on additional penalties for other offenses resulting from the abandonment and exploitation of minors under Articles 275 to 278; h. Article 312 on occupation of real property which has 2 penalties, fine for the occupation and the penalty for the acts of violence executed: i. Article 315 which shall ‘prosecution for B.P. provided in such special laws; ithout prejudice to the scruitment as expressly PENALTIES w j- Article 330.0n damage and obstruction to means of communication without prejudice to the criminal liability for the consequences of the criminal act committed, PPanricue a0 1. The penaltios for the Intended and if Imicide but due to error in personae, the actual crime com- mitted is parricide, or th led crime is parricide but the crime committed is homicide, either case, the penalty shall be for the homicide. 2. GgtesPaetden fe the ushedled or aflempted ARTICLES 50-57 — Penalty for attempted and frustrated felonies on the accomplices and accessories ARTICLE 61 — Rules for graduating penalties ARTICLE 71 — Graduated scales 1, The penalties in Book Il of the enalties Imposed; (efupon the principal the consummated felony. (Article 46) Hence, there is a need to provide the rules when the crime is not ‘consummated, and when the offenders include accomplices and/or accessories. 2. Article 71 provides the scale from which the penalty pre- scribed in the rules in Article 61 shall be taken. Article 61mm im na ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW in degree is arresto mayor maximum to prision minimum, ticles 50-57, the penalty for the three stages e offenders: Consummated Frustrated Attempted as provided less 1degree less 2 degrees’ Accomplice less degree less 2 degrees less 3 degrees Accessory less 2 degrees less 3 degrees less 4 degrees > thenexblowenisthatimoes 80 for reclusion perpetua the penalty next lower is reclusion temporal. is unenforceable by virtue of R.A. 9346) of Lor more, PENALTIES us iy Tollows Free towar than ection Drgpral medmum to (row) reclusion perpetua is temporal mediui ce under Apticle 306 i puis ovinarsisouengenl aca es Maximum — prision mayor, minimum, Medium — prision correccional, maximum Minimum — prision correccional, medium 6. According to Asticle ZL, the he ban arestomayor isdestiona and pot arresto menar< in Article 70, destiero, resto menor in seventy ARTICLE 62 1. The different kinds af modifying ciscumstances referred to here'are: ing a crime and prescribing the penalty (paragraph 1)CRIMINAL LAW PENALTIES. a r 19 CcoMPAcT REYIEN ing hands upon a person in authority in direct {See noteraher Avil 1 fr habitual delinquency) ARTICLE 63 — Rules for application of indivisible penalti under paragraph 1 — (reclusion femory Aid — SIP) © "perpetyg TO}death) (Memory Aid —T1P) R.A. 9346 which took effect on June 29, 2006 (People ‘altbute shall be affected, a8 Tor Instance, only the one Binge by pasion or 3 passion oF obfus ted. In rape, the re vs, Audine, G.R. No. 168649, December 6, 2006) repealed all ovisions insofar as they impose the death penalty. Thus, P ey impos anders. Hal : paragraph 1 has been modified to exclude death penalty the one te and paragraph 2 has been altogether repealed or rendered. crime of the other offenders. inoperative. As of now, the only indivisible penalty is reclu- sion perpe 2. Under the 1st paragraph, modifying cir considered. No matter h by R.A, 7659 and renumbered Ar- is the mo vis. Alberca, GR, No. 117106, new provision referring to the aggravating cise se of official postion where the gana. feel eed wnnot be lowered by a degree no matter how ig circumstances are present because modi- [ regard (0 no. Thus, “them ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ARTICLE 64 — Rules for application of divisible penalty 1. The rules when the penalty imposable is a divisible are: 2 Modifying Circumstances Proper Period a. Noaggravating andno a, Medium ee © Aggravating only Maximum d. Some of both circum- d._ Offset and apply the ae Coe aggravating aceetenats imposed, the minimum ty shall be computed without anymore considering this article. 4. The court shall impose the penalty scribed by the Code in the period that it may deem apy ble depending upon the number and nature of the mi ing circumstances pursuant to paragraph 5 of For inste the crime of homicide which PENALTIES wm maximum thereof within the range of prision mayor. (People 9s. Germina, GR, No, 120881, May 19, 1998) nnbdeModifying citcumstances substitute Tor the discretion ‘of the judge in the imposition of the penal these circumstances are not applicable, the judge is given leeway to exercise his sound discretion. Also, uodifying cir- cumstances inhere in intentional feloni te separates I degree fromthe ouher. For instance, pri= corrercional (6 months and I day to 6 years) is sepa- rated from prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) day dif x TeModuying circumstances,i mm ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE 65 — Rules when penalty not composed i of 3 periods. ARTICLE 76 — Legal duration of penalty 1. Article 76 is the law on duration of divisible per that divisible penalties shall be considered as periods: the minimum, medium and maximum. 2. The duration of the period of a divisible penalty is comput he ed as follows: Using as an example prision mayor with a period of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years: Step 1 — Deduct the beginning ofthe period from the end of the perio [abaieded sates 12 years minus 6 years = 6 years Step 2 — Divide the difference hy 3 corresponding to. the 3 pe ‘minimum, medium and maxis 6 years divided by 3~ 2 years Step3— Add the quotient i.stp.2ata the begin: of each period start .e minimum. 6 years and aday fea ar) mm Minimum — 6 years and 1 day to 8 years Medium — 8 years an¢ 1 day to 10 years Maximum — 10 years and 1 day to 12 years Cedeeteed c minus 2 years and 4 months = 3 years and 8 months or 44 months PENALTIES ro Med:um ~ 3 years 6 months TI days to 4 years 8 months 20 days Maximum - 4 years 8 months 21 days to 6 years ARTICLE 66 — Imposition of fines 1. The factors to consider in the imposition of fines to the cul- @5-Th one case, the Supreme Court reduced “F10,000.00 to only P2,000.00 in view of the presence of 3 mitigating circumstances. (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbay- ‘an, supra.) b, More particulary, the wealth ormeans of culprit, Thus the fine to be imposed may be red standing the presence of aggravating circumstance, the culprit cannot afford the correct fine ARTICLE 68 — Penalty on minors omer Tuy those who are 15 years old and under arc@bsolutely exempy Fro CMAN NRE — 2. Facaver15 but ungGul®— Wy shal be Hable onlfshey-- *> acted with discernment. Pursuant to this article, the penalty shall be I degree lowersial a 135 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. Thus, considering Bravity oF the offense and in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court admitted the birth certificate of the accused to prove the mitigating circumstance of minority although said birth certificates were not presented or offered in the trial court. (People vs. Regalario, G.R, No. 101451, March 23, 195 4 pew 1or was 17 years old when he committed the offense. finority under paragraph 2, Article 68 should be appreci- ated in his favor. The penalty prescribed for the crime of robbery with rape is reclusion perpetua {to death}. The ag- ‘gravating circumstance of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the rime. With 2aggra- vating circumstances present with no ordinary mitigating imstances to offset them, the penalty shall be imposed maximum period. The imposable penalty prescribed by law therefore is reclusion temporal in its maximum pe- riod. (Qne degree lower because of the priv Indeterminate rminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. (People vs. Mendoza, GR. No. 123186, July 9, 1998) [4 minor is not qualified for ARTICLE 69 — Penalty for incomplete justification and exemption 1, The penalty may be reduced by one or two degrees if ma jority of the conditions required to justify or exempt from inal lability are present. In such case, the incomplete justification or exemption is a privileged m stance. circum ly be an ordinary mitigating circumstance, which lower the penalty. to the minimum period. 3. PENALTIES ca Penalty lower by one or two degrees shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable. If majority of the require- ments for defense of property are present, the penalty may be lowered by two degrees to prision correccional. And when incomplete self-defense is coupled by two more mitigating circumstances, the penalty under Article 64(5) may further be reduced by one degree, that is, aresto mayor, because of the presence of 2 mitigating circumstances and no aggravat- ing circumstance. (People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA) Articles 11 and 12 vis-a-vis Articles 69 and 13(1): Allrequistes present — Justifying/Exempting — Article 11/12 2ormore presert — Privileged mitigating — article 69 only present Ordinary mitigating — Arde 131) et . -oimplete justification is a special or privileged mitigat- ing circumstance, which, not only cannot be offset by ag- gravating circumstances but also reduces the penalty by 1 oF 2 degrees than that prescribed by law. The instant case would have fallen under Article 11, paragraph 5 had the 2 - conditions therefor concurred which, to reiterate: first, that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or the law ful t oF office; and second, that the ited be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of ; only the first condition was 69 is applicable, although “that the ‘majority of such conditions be present,” is immaterial since there are only 2 conditions that may be taken into account. Article ly in favor of the accused as it provides. for a penalty lower than that prescribed by law when the crime committed is not wholly justifiable. The intention of[ [ [ E C [ mm fnao| 8 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ture is to mitigate the penalty by reason of the n of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent we lesser perversity of the offender. R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000) Article 249 prescribes for homicide the penalty of reclu- poral, the range of which is 12 years and 1 day to 20 g circumstance of full id be 1 degree low iayor, pursuant to ion to Article 61(2} and Article 71, to be impost in its minimum since accused — voluntarily surren- dered to the authorities and there was no aggravating cir- cumstance to offset this mitigating circumstance. (id,) ARTICLE 70 — Successive service of sentences 1. When the culprit is given multiple sentences, the same must be served simultaneously if the nature of the penalties per mits it. Otherwise, the penalties shall be served successively. ‘Simultaneous service isthe rule, whereas successive service wen. ‘Thepenalty is to be served in the order herein prescribed Be observing the following limitations: penalty to may be flicted after the total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such_maximum 2. get the most severe penalty (from Article 70) b. muy ©. add the durationel the diliesontsantences. PENALTIES, ne d. compare the results of b and c e acoso to serve the lesser pesioc-auhich shall not ox ceed 0years— 4. This article deals with service of sentence, not with impo- sition, hence, for the prison director to ot for the ae courts. The courts should impose the cot severity, 5. Consequently, all the sentences on the prisoner imposed by any court for whatever crimes whenever filed should be covered by this rule. 6. If the penalties imposed are all equal, the period thereof shall be considered as the most severe when applying the 3-fold rule. 7. When the death sentence is executed, all the death sentences when more than one is meted are deemed simultaneously served. be 30 year fhius)30 multiplied by ‘Shall serve WES Bub 40 yeareBecau off ARTICLE 75 — Increasing or reducing fine Fines are reduced by one or two degrees when the felony is attempted or frustrated or when imposed upon the accessory or the accomplice. For each degree, 1/4 of the maxizsumremorntis taken, The penalty as computed shall in no case belower than the munimum prescribed by law. For instance, if the fine prescribed y Taw Ws P50 to P200, 1/4 of the maximum amount of P200 is taken, that is, P50. If the penalty is to be reduced by 2 degrees, the penalty is computed as follows:=) Pee ce 0 (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW a > Step 1— P200 divided by 4 = P50 INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 2— P50 multiplied by 2 degrees = P100 1. Modifies the imposition of penalties under both the Revised 3 P200 minus P 100 = P 100 Penal Code and special laws. The sentence must fix a mini- mum and a maximum period éfpenaly The penalty as lowered by 2 degrees therefore is P50 to Pio. ARTICLE 77 — Complex penalty one which js composed of 3 distinct the lightest of which shall — is the next shall be the medium and themost-— . The-phitosophys Sever Wot to be confused with complex Lawis tat of pect _ a ng unne lex penalty is ) Thus, after serving the ‘minimum and upon showing that he has reformed, the pris- oner is given parole. ction 20 a complex penalty composed doting. mal to reclusion perpetua — by 1 be prision correcional to reclusion tem- 4. Thelaw igot)pplicable: 3 al in its maximum period to a. Indivisible penalties of death and life imprisonment the penalty for murder prior to R.A. 7659) and reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63, para- i divisible penalty consisting of 3 periods. 7 raph 1 that when the penalty imposed is single and 255 SCRA) ‘gaivisible, the same shall be imposed withoutseogid IN} difying ci paragraph of Article 77 which deals with com- {2.any modify ie cxcumstance provides that “whenever the penalty pre- b. Prison terms of f@Pmore than I year (1 year of less ate ee © Grimes? eason Propasslar Canspisacyto-Comsit be distributed, applying S90, Misprision of Tueason, i thats, those Teason, Rebellion. Espionage, provided by Section 1 of temporal in its maximum. Habitual delinquents, escapees minimum period thereof is ent, evade; 20 years and the maximum i, GR. No. 128547, February 22, 1974) Offender is ified to avail of ‘benefits of the law even if the crime is committed while Re cca ifthe crime is committed while3 we See 12 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW he is on parole. (People vs. Calreon, CA 78 O.G. 6701, November 19, 1982) e, Non-prison sentences of destierro, disqualification, ete. (Seetion eseer neers we The sentence must the offense, considering any modifying eupetance 7 lisse crams a ‘only in the imposition of the. ‘Lax The one degree lower p ‘with the penalty for complex ¢ imum period. The presence of the third mitigating circum- 2 INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 1 e an not indeter, imposed an indeterminate ‘minimum penalty and an indeterminate maximum penalty. ‘The Supreme Court said that it was gross ignorance on the part of the judge. ‘The fact that the lesser offense, and its necessarily lower sulted from a plea bargaining agreement is of no ‘moment as far as the penalty to be imposed is concerned. Plea-bargaining is authorized by the present Rules and is in fact required to be considered by the trial court at the pre- trial conference. In determining whether an indeterminate 20 those enumerated in Section 2 thereof. (Ladino vs. Garcia, 265 SCRA) ‘Tn parole. the minimum sentence must be served;.in. paidan, service is not required. v. benefit granted by law, specific ‘determinate Sentence Law; Pardonis power of the President under the Notwithstanding the absence of any hhabers corpus or any similar judici release from im- risonment is in order after the maximurn of the recomput-(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ed penalty under the amended Dangerous Drugs Law has been served. (People vs. Simon) PROBATION 1 It is a special privil fenders. T essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible and save him the time, effort expenses to jettison an appeal. Tancisco vs. CA, GR. No. 108747, April 6, 1995) ._ The grant of probation rests primarily upon the discretion of the court which is to be exercised mainly for the benefit of the society as a whole and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused . Probation isa mere privilege noba right, Its benefits cannot Extend to those expressly excluded. Itis an act of grace and, clemency or immunity conferred by the State which may be granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant ‘who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty im- posed by law for the offense. (id.) Objectives: a. To promote correction and rehabilitation of offender by giving him individualized treatment (positivist the- ory); b. To provide a better opportunity for the offender to re- form; ¢ Toprevent further commission of crimes as he is placed ‘under the supervision of probation officer, 4. To decongest our jails; and @. To save the government much needed funds which would be spent on maintaining him inside the jail. PROBATION 1, 6. ‘7g am appeal as prescribed by Section 4. Prevailing ji ma prudence treats appeal and probation as mutual remedies, Consequently, probation the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be re- ted, who manifest spontaneity, contri- ) from applying for probation if the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty to “qualify” for probation is contrary to the mandate of the law. es ‘appeaTand probation are inutually exclusive remedies because they oppose one an- other. Cemstanr Pony rin pst aon seul Cities d. Who have been on:10. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW society as well as the fact that the seriousness of the offense shall not be depreciated must likewise be taken into consid- eration “Maximum” i the term used by the law, ence jf the come . Accused issued 3 bad checks to complainant, 3 separate informations were filed, 1 case was assigned to a Branch which ied the accused and imposed a fine of P4,648 while the 2 other cases we e assigned to another Branch of the same court, which also held him guilty of the same violation and imposed 30 days’ imprisonment in each case. ‘The accused should be disqualified for probation. The eat- lier conviction imposed a fine of more than P200 and under Section 9(c), the accused should be disqualified as the word " refers to the conviction, not to the commission fense, notwithstanding that the crime arose out of a single act or transaction. The probation law is not a GR. No. 125108, August 3, 2000) An order granting probation is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and should be set aside where the accused who ‘was convicted for 54 counts of violations of BP. 22, resorted to devious chicanery and artifice to evade the implementa- tion of a writ of execution against het by executing a simu- lated “Deed of Sale” over her Benguet property and thereby render unenforceable the judgment. Verily, she is not the penitent offender who is eligible for probation within legal contemplation. Her demeanor manifested that she is inca- pable to be reformed and will only be a menace to society should she be permitted to co-mingle with the public. To, allow her to be placed on probation would depreciate the PRORATION 7 seriousness of her wrongdoings. (Santos 1s. CA, GR. No. 127899, December 2, 1999) a1 Toreport to the designated probation officer with inZDhayesafter receipt ofthe order Boye 22. To report periodically to the officer-at least once ‘month or sooner as the latter may deem. 1s which depend upon the court id not unduly ‘and not offensive to, bation is not appealable. The proper remedy is to petition for certiorari if the decision is made without the benefit of a hearing, 5. The legal effect of probation is only tory pending sesalution at his application. (Dela Torre vs COMELEC, GR. No. 121582, July 5, 1996) Probation ask must not be more must be more than Sentence than 6 years Lyear Penalty imprisonment or imprisonment only fineeee =m COMPACT REVIEWEX IN CRIMINAL LAW Peotantio nn, tee Disposition ‘sentence is sus- minimum is served pended Violation entire sentence unexpired portion shall be served is to be served Appeal forecloses right no effect on opera thereto tion of the law Available only once everytime as long as the offender is not disqualified Character Privilege; must be mandatory; appli- applied for cation not neessary Article 80 — Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth 1 Welfare Code) R.A. 9344 did not expressly and entirely repeal PD. 603 for it makes reference to the latter. There are however provi- sions of both laws which are repugnant to each other hence, ‘modified or impliedly repealed. One of these is the right to suspension of sentence which under R.A. 9344 shall be enjoyed by the youthful offe der even if he is already 18, oF over at the promulgation of judgment. But the minor re- mains disquali i ‘The fact that the youth has not shown himself to be incor- rigible is not a ground for reducing his penalty for for reducing the penalty. (David vs. CA, July 1998) But the minor remains disqualified for suspension if his penalty is life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, . If the accused alleges minority and the prosecution does not disprove his claim by contrary evidence, such allegation can be accepted as a fact. Wi idence to this point may not be entirely satisfactor sufficient to raise a rea- sonable doubt upon this question to the benefit of which the defendant is entitled. The baptismal certificate or other evidence of this character if obtainable, should be in- troduced. EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY we ARTICLE 81 — Execution of death penalty (Rendered inoperative by R.A. 9346) ARTICLE 89 — Total extinction of cr} ARTICLE 94 — Partial extinction ARTICLE 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executive ARTICLE 23 — Pardon by the Offended Causes of total extingtion: Death of convict; Service of the sentence; Amnesty; Absolute pardon; ao Prescription of crime; £. Prescription of penalty; & Marriage of the offended woman under Art. 266-C; hh. _ Express repeal of penal law (act decriminalized). ee Paxtial extinction: 1. Conditional pardon; a b. 1 of sentence; lowance; Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law; Probation under PD. 968; Implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the penalty. 3. ty at any stage if death occurs before final the penalty requires personal death occurs there will be nobody toaoe 10 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW serve the penalty for the crime, “Final” judgment refers to executory judgment. (People us, Baygias, GR, No_ 102002, September 2, 1994) 4 cused pending appeal thereof, said civil action cannot sur- vive: The defor dul f obligation ¢g., quasi-delict, law, contract, quasi-contract. (ay 5. The period of time during which the evader of sentence was at large during his 4 escapes should be excluded from the service of his sentence in fixing the date of his release. Dur- ing that period he cannot be regarded as in service of sen- of deprivation of his liberty. He can- bbeen deprived of his liberty during the tution, (Martin vs. absolute pardon. AMNESTY crimes and, fenders relieves the offender XECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY Ps Aranesh Pardon Congess —cvcurenee_—_cncueneggS> quired———_ needed When given ‘even before con- after final convic- vietion tion To whom usually toaclass toa specific indi- given of persons vidual Nature GiaBasta ine resident Evidentiary nojudicialnatice, value mandatoryon ‘mustbe pleaded courts and proved Pardon is given by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the courts take no notice thereof; amnesty is by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Ton the offense tacit ‘80 overlooks and obliterates the of- fenses with which he is charged that the person released by amunesty stands before the law precise SOMMERS Pape ts. Casido, GR No. 116512, Maich 7, 1997)a Peure rs COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW because where the President is not so prevented by the Constitution, not even Congress can impose any restriction to prevent a presidential folly; and ‘That such power does not extend.to cases of impeach. smcal-(Poople vs. Salle, GR. No. 103567, December 4, 1995) Consequently, before ap} {t may be validly granted pardon, he must first withdraw his appeal, ic,, the appealed conviction must first be brought to finality. judgment of conviction becomes final: a. When no appeal is seasonably perfected; b. When the accused commences to serve the sentence; When the right to appeal is expressly waived in writ- ag ee d. When the accused applies for probation, thereby waiv- ing his right to appeal. 9. Rardonof the offended. compared with pardon by the Chief Executive: extinguishes criminal liability; pan. does not extinguish criminal Ii- tin Articles 266.0-(rape) and 24d, is granted after final conviction; par- must be granted before institu- ion of the action because when the case is finally filed in court, the State is regarded as the primary offended the complainant is relegated to the role of ing witness. Hence, the prosecution of the 8 the prerogative of the State. (Under she neueanlsapadas however appears eS aE fon ; Beading” action shall. be dis 10. Ah . 2 [EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY 16 cannot extinguish the civil liability ‘foffender; the offended may expressly waive the civil liability Anaffidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accused’s defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circum- stances which, when coupled with the retraction or desis- create doubts.as to the truth of the testimony given by sses atthe trial and accepted by the judge. (People labare, G.R. No. 108871, November 19, 1996) Denial and alibi cannot outweigh the positive identifica- tion and convincing testimonies given by the prosecution. Hence the affidavit of desistance which the victim herself intended to disregard must have no bearing on the crimi- ral prosecution against the accused particularly on the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. (People vs. Echegaray, C.R. ‘No. 117472, February 7, 1997) by the express pardon of the girl herself. Here, even ifit be assumed that the initial desistance of the mother from tak- against the accused constitutes pardon, such eff ithout the express concurrence of the minor herself. (People vs. Tadulan, G.R, No, 117407, April 15, 1997) Prescription of crime refers to the loss of the right of the, Sta secute offenders. It cannot be waived or extend- efit of the accused. Once prescrip- in, the courts automatically lose jurisdiction, In_ ion of crime:f c [ Ree eee ee fede ata) ra Ce See eS eee eee eee eS ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee aaa aaa COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a. The basis is the higher penalty if there were several iscovery of the crime could effectively commence the rur.ning of the period of prescription. Azticle-Siof the Code provides that the period of prescr day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. This rule makes no disting Tr_bot tion between a public crime and orc authoritigs. of ett agents. (Garcia ts. CA, GR. No. 119063, January 27, 1 Prescriptionofpenaliy occurs when the_convict escapes z evades the service of bis sentance. Eva- ‘sion of service of seritence is condition precedent to the run- * ning of the period. is manner} b, The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement au- thor officer for any violation of law. Sar i, GR. Nos. 11171-77, November 9, 1993) is mandatory for any officer to inform the arrested of his. services of an independent and compe- provision of confession without coun- mn of actual force, manual touching of the body, restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not re-eee tere eae eee vate eee ered een eed ee mae ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 4 §. Persons under custody of the law are classified as follows: a. Subjects — those covered by a general inquiry into an unsolved crime; b. Suspects — inquiry ceases to be general inguiry and focuses on the person as the probable criminal agent. ‘The rights on custodial investigation bes ¢. Detainee or detention prisoner — one who is in prison who has yet to be. e whose case has.not been terminated or desided: 4. Accused — preliminary investigation may have been completed and an jpformation filed in cay. The right against self incrimination, the right to be informed of against him, and ins for the release of a detained person, eg. haheas corpus proceeding, The same penalties under Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer who delays for the period specified therein: 1. The performance of any ju release of a prisoner or de jal or executive order for the ion prisoner, or (CRIMES AGAINSTTHE FUNDAMENTALLAWS OF THESTATE 171 2. Unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner, or 3, Delays the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation ‘of such person. ARTICLE 127 — Expulsion 1. This crime is against the constitu change his residence 2. QalvsheLresident of the Philippines in the exercise of his power of deportation agd. the, caustsafter final judgment sentencing the accused to destierro or as a condition in his probation are autharized-bylaw-iaeupelat.compel parsons tochangeabode.. ARTICLE 128 — Violation of Domicile |. This crime is committed by a put a. The public officer enters any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; b. He was allowed entry but thereafter be searches pas ‘ers op otherettacts found therein without the previ- us consent of such owner; ©. Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and be- ing required to leave the premises, he refuses to do so.C r Sa ey ‘COMPACT REVIEWER lenotes that the offender ig- of the owner which may be express oF door is closed even though not locked. fn the member of the household who ad ARTICLES 129-130 — Search warrants maliciously obtained; # use in service; searching without witnesses fen if the search warrant is valid violation of domicile is. still committed when: a, The officer exceeded his authority under the search warrant; b. The sear destruction employed excessive severity ot use; and The search was made when the occupants were absent and the search is conducted without at least 2 witness- lity where the search ‘es who must come within the was made. 3. Comparing Articles 128,129 and 130in rant; in 129 and 130 (CRIMES AGAINST-THE FUNDAMENTALLAWS OF THESTATE 173 DAVID VS, ARROYO, G.R. No. 171396, May 2006 1. The plain import of the language of the Constitution is that searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued warrant. Thus, the fundamental protection given by this provision is that be- tween person and police must stand the protective author- ity of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest. a. A search warrant is issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offgnce to be determined ~ SF alfirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. (Section 4) b. The search of a house, room, or any other premise is made in the presence ofthe lawful occupant thereat 9 I9pAn the absence of the Ta ©. The warrant must direct that it be served in the day- time, unless the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night, (Section 9) GauantNote The Haman ‘Security Act of 2007 attempts to define the term. See Appendix A] 4. The word “terrorism” appears only once in our criminal tioned in the following provision: “That one who conspires with any other person for the purpose of overthrowing thea7 TTI TI TI TI ee oJ ( C vm 3. David was arrested without warré (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW iscriminate arrests without wart aking into offices and residences, taking over the media enterprises, pr tion and dispersal of assemblies and gatherings. All these canbe effected in the name of GO, No.5. Thgigaltsstodat beyond b t, brought at Camp Karingal, where he was fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a criminal suspect for violation of B.P. 880 and inciting to sedition. The arresting officers observed that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective “Oust Glotia Now” and assumed that David was the leader of the is insufficient to charge him with inciting to 1s, Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 2006) that they are under imminent dan- ger of being arrested without warrant do not justify their the extraordinary remedies of mandamus and pro- remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. Further, he must be delivered to the proper judicial the periods provided in Article 125, oth- ficer could be held liable for delay in ied persons, Should the detention be ‘CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTALLAWS OFTHESTATE 175 without legal ground, the arrestee can charge the arresting officer with arbitrary detention. Alhisis withoutprajadion. to his fli Persie Article 32 of the Civil Cade Lacson vs, Reyes, CR No. 14780, May 20, 2001) ARTICLES 131, 146, 147 1. I Article 13} the asser Tegal purpose, solvedLis: of’ peatetal ‘officer or employee is not a member thereof, and @fhe disturbs the same. 2. Ifthe assembly is not for legal purpose, that is, the meeting. for the purpose of committing any crime under the Re- ised Penal Code, itis illegal assembly under Article 146, ly peaceful and thereafter the speaker started to the commission of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in author- ity or is agent, the meeting may be dissolved because ithas ‘when and where the assembly is tobe held to safeguard the I assembly is mere gathering for the purpose of committing a crime under the Revised Pe- al Code. If the crime subject of the, a. Gathering of persons any or someotwham are armed, ime under the Revi for pun ai Penal Gade, (except for treason, ofc unde? WemB Be low).ease needa es ee eo 2 % COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Treason, Aen or Jnsurrect Baty c Tethe ticle 142 — 7. The gravamen of LUDis the fogattng ation for the pu the Code @special laws 1 2-133 ARTICLES 1259 oti of 1. Article 132 refers to the. ud se Sel aters “lle ators feline wnchie = tne death commemoration are not inchuded. Intermuption-o& such activity is unjust vexation- TITLE CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Crimes covered: b. « 4. Rebellion, insurrection, coup, sedition (RICS); legal assemblies and associations; Direct/Indirect assault, resistance and disobedience; Public disorders — Tumults, alarms and scandals, de- livery of prisoners; Evasion of service of sentence; ARTICLES 134-134.4 1. Distinctions between rebellion and coup: Criminal objective is (g overthrow the government and the ffendersta eaablsh hc owns3 # fee eee pee eee Gad ta y Ir = Rebellion can now Ye complegeoh wf Gommon Chimes ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRMNAL Law ‘CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER wy 14. The view i The essence of the crime is a s is advanced that R.A. 6965 wilt atiack acal 4" allovied the complexin or Objective iste destabilize Jmumabilizeor paralyze the. thin the power ofthe leg- cinissions other than thaty. jous acts. It was not was indeed a mem- ae Gdns ctrceaes he Seana, sedtionor attempted case NO. 0685 Jase Salle absorbed as an clement of eer . 7 Coup deta 5 committed a5 follows B The following ate the acts deleted by 4. 6968 trom article * flow = by a swift atack accompanied by violence, in- we 135: loup deter tay timidation, threat, strategy or stealth % The offender engages in war the forces of gover ®, uly constituted aut ment; i b. Public officers, they destruction of property, © Being public officers, support of rebellion; 'Y Commit serious violence or they exact contribution for the © Number of offenders ~ sings ried out anywhere in the funds ee ‘ese Were appropriated, 4. By lenders divest publ ich th or simultaneously car- ines.m4 1. RA. 7636 dgcriminalized subversi COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 3. Theoretically, a utility worker in the government can com- mit coup because under Article 134-A the crime may be committed singly by any government employee with or without civilian support. by repealing expressly RA. 1700, In People ts. Litoanag (73 SCRA), subversion was distinguished from rebellion thusly: upon the subversive reason is a crime against national secu ies constitute a clear, present inal security. oe and violence; subversive i force and violence but may -eople vs. Asuncion, GR. Nos. Merely because membersof the: at private responder paged governmer th of a government (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER a IL at hand, That a criminal act may have elements common to ‘more than one offense does not rob him of that option and mandatorily require him to charge the lesser offense though the evidence before him may warrant prosecution of the serious one. fe burden of provi i ‘motive being astate of mn any individual knows. al motivation is an element of rebellion, it in the information with all due respect, ged in the information must be proved by the prosecution.) ARTICLES 138, 142, 148, 149, 38) orsedition (142) can only be com: ‘Rebels nat-1 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW states that direct assault is committed “wi 1. Preventing the promulgation or execution of any law; P the holding of any popular election; jie function; Preventing the execution of administrative order; Inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the per son or property of any public officer or employ- Ae 4 Bese rebellion and sedition: i Purpose is political to overthrow theduly.cau- stituted government. (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER aD 8. a e x a a. The purpose may be politica Osocial for carrying out protest against a social class or disobedience from a governmental action and not for the throwing the government. b. The use of firear 1977) sedition absorbs the us use of unlicensed firearm as an element thereof, hence, not aggravating and the sal fenders can no I Svat Poe - Attic U2 (ncing to sedition) ssiglax-288,tumuts) in that GLcrsaiawtistushance.n a public place although the outcry {ends to inciteto sedition whereas in 142 there is also publi Aisturbance: but the fie). Ifthe purpose is nougrising th is convaitted a. Without a publi uprising, b. Shall employ fore ori of those enumerated in 13 jidation, © Fopshe attainmentgf any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimeg’ of rebellion and sedition. races {atentados con- ‘autoridad 0 sus agenesa COMPACT REVIEW! Awe ‘The first is not a true gtentado as IN CRIMINALLAW ‘employed in the attack, or 2) the offender is a public officer, or (3) the offender lays hands upon a public authority. (People vs. Abalos, ‘The elements of the 2adinsmobateniadonaue There must be an attack, use of force or serious in- the accused must have ire or assault the of- authority or an agent ‘when the assault results in the kill- ‘ persor in authority, there arises the ‘got for the purpose. He is accountable for the complex crime of direct assault with murder as Labine was a member of the INP and thus was an agent of a person in authority. He was in the actual per- formance of his d attacking him, and his defiant conduct clearly demonstrates (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 15, that he really had the criminal intent to assault and injure an agent of the law. (id) 9. A person in authori iy ts any public 10, An agent of a person in a hos is defined as any psragn who. law, by elect jintment, Hetunton other words, Fssault the136 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 13, Ithas been held that as an exception to the general rule, ifn the exercise of authority, the person in authority or his agent acted in an illegal manner or beyond his authority, he ceases to be a public officer but is acting in his private capacity. ic officer onl ing within the ‘assault, thus, Ris bein ic officer i aggtavating circumstance pursuanttathorulain Article 62, wd 15. Article 152 clothes any person who comes to the aid of a person in authority or his agent with the fiction of an agent ‘of a person in authority. Any assault on hi assault, Thus, for indirect assault to be committed, it is neces- feary that, a. The victimis a ci authority or his ag He is attacked while and due to the direct assault be- coming to the aid of a person in and ARTICLE 153 — Tumults 1. Crimes covered: a. Serious disturbance in any public place, office or estab- lishment, b. Interruption or disturbance of public performance, function, or gathering if the actis not covered by: Article 131 — interruption of peaceful meeting, or (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER w in 131 and 132, the offender is a public officer and Theat prohibling, “preventing, and disslving peaceful meeting or religious worship. In 153, the of fender is “any person.” Making any outery tending t . 1 body of a person legally ex- cuted (eath penal), (Unenforceable per RA, 9346) ‘Creating disturbance in public can result tox a. ‘Serious disturbance of public order under Article 153 b. faterruption, prohibition and disturbance of peacefulyy nepublic officer whose jOus worship under Asticle 13X7) ublic of mayi- 4. ‘Alarms and scandal under Article 155/fthe distur. bance is not serious; @. Inciting to rebellion or inciting to seditigjy under Ar ticle 138 or 14 the original the person who made statements that tend ta incite the. listeners to rebellion or sedition. ARTICLE 155 — Alarms and Scandals 1. Thascrimes penalized as dlarms and scandal are: ischarge of firearms, firecrackers and other explo sives in public place causing alarm and danger;‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW b. Charivari or other disorderly meeting: ©. Engaging in nocturnal amusement disturbing the pub- | lic place; and d. Any disturbance of scandal in-public placee Fa amounting fabamblisunder Article 153 he-use of firearms may bring about any of the following ‘crimes: a, ‘Alarms and scandals when the offender di firearm in a public place but the firearm is not toa particular person when discharged. (Article 155) b. ge of firearm if the firearm was directed 4. Physical injuries if the person was hit and injured but there was no intent to kill, Grave threat if the weapor ly pointed to another threat wrong and imposing a condi {Other light threat if drawn in a quarrel but not in self- defense. ot discharged but mere- ing the commission of a mn. g Grave coercion if the threat was direct, immediate and serious and the person is compelled or prevented to do something against his will. Charivari is a mock serenade where the offender actually eaitive- ‘CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 1 lent to breach of the peace in municipal ordinances. Ifthe act is directed to annoy particular person or family, the crime is ‘unlust_vexation which is a form of light coercion under Ar- ticle 287, par. 2 ARTICLES 156-158 — Delivery of prisoners; evasion of ser- vice of sentence Delivery of prisoner from jail is committed byfemoving any person confined therein or helping in his eseape by one who is not a custodian of such person who is helped to escape of removed from confinement. IL4H€ removal or escape is by means of viol L establishment by Taking the guards by surprise, this crime is also committed and the respective penalties (Or simple and for qualified

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5794)
• Legal Research Exam

  

  Document3 pages

  Legal Research Exam

  nathalie bermudez

  No ratings yet
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (400)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Obligations and Contracts Cases

  

  Document90 pages

  Obligations and Contracts Cases

  nathalie bermudez

  No ratings yet
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (537)
• RPC Compact Reviewer Boado PDF

  

  Document234 pages

  RPC Compact Reviewer Boado PDF

  nathalie bermudez

  100% (2)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (895)
• Martial Law Philippines Opinion

  

  Document2 pages

  Martial Law Philippines Opinion

  nathalie bermudez

  No ratings yet
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (838)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (588)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (73)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1891)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (599)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (440)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1090)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (344)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1015)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1712)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1839)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (121)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1937)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2322)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4609)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2102)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4200)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1103)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (821)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)