Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notes On Crim. Law Review Part 2
Notes On Crim. Law Review Part 2
In People vs. Santonero, the High Court held that the failure to account for the non-
presentation of the weapon allegedly wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of self-
defense (cited in People vs. Bosito, GR No. 209346, Jan. 12, 2015)
There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against
the person who resorted to self-defense. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated,
there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude as against the one claiming self-
defense.. It is well-settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful
aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful
aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former
aggressor. Otherwise, retaliation, and not self-defense, is committed. Retaliation is not
the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured
party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the
aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused (People vs.
Casas, GR No. 212565, Feb.20, 2015)
When the accused admits that he is the author of the death of the victim and his
defense is anchored on self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the
justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. In People vs. Ramos (702 SCRA
204), THE ACCUSED ADMITTED KILLING THE VICTIM IN SELF-DEFENSE AND THUS THE
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IS SHIFTED TO HIM TO PROVE THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF SELF-
DEFENSE ARE PRESENT.
A plea of self-defense is belied by the nature, number and location of the wounds
inflicted on the victim “since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined
effort to kill and not just to defend. With regard to the second element of self-defense,
the Court finds that the means employed by the accused is grossly disproportionate to
the victim’s alleged unlawful aggression who was violently slain and practically
butchered (Ibid)
There was no unlawful aggression. The petitioner was not justified in using his knife as
against the bare fists of the unarmed group of his alleged assailants. The accused was a
little too fast and imprudent in the use of his breadknife, for there really was no
imminent danger to his life and limb when he wielded it against the deceased and
Rodolfo Cumarat. The second requisite of self=defense was absent. ( Andres vs. Court
of Appeals, GR L-48957, June 23, 1987)
Both self-defense and defense of relatives require that unlawful aggression to be present in
order to be held valid. For the accused to be entitled to exoneration based on self-defense
or defense of relatives, complete or incomplete, it is essential that there be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, for if there is no unlawful aggression, there would be
nothing to prevent or repel. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an
actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening
or intimidating attitude (People vs. Credo, 700 SCRA 63, 2013)
At the very least, petitioner acted in defense of a stranger…To properly invoke the
justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, it must be shown that there was
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, that the means employed to repel the
victim were reasonably necessary and that the accused was not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive…An attack showing the aggressor’s intention is enough
to consider that unlawful aggression was committed. Thus, the attack on Pamela should
have been considered as unlawful aggression for purposes of invoking the justifying
circumstance of defense of stranger…The state of mind of the accused during the
2
alleged act of self-defense or defense of a stranger must be considered in determining
whether a person’s means of repelling an aggressor were reasonable. Reasonable
necessity does not mean absolute necessity. It must be assumed that one who is
assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and make
comparisons which can easily be made in the calmness of the home. It is not the
indispensable need but the rational necessity which the law requires. In each particular
case, it is necessary to judge the relative necessity, whether more or less imperative, in
accordance with the rules of rational logic. The defendant may be given the benefit of
reasonable doubt as to whether he employed rational means to repel the aggression
(Mariano vs. People, GR No. 224102, July 26, 2017)
*** EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Bar ’78-’80. ’84, ’89, ’90, ’92, ’94, ’95, ’98, ’00, ’03, ’04,
’10, ’11, ’12)
Insanity must be present at the time the crime had been committed.. .The defense of
insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved for there is a presumption that the acts
penalized by law are voluntary…Insanity under Art. 12 Par. 1 of the RPC exists when
there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act i.e., the appellant is
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because of complete absence
of the power to discern, or there is a total deprivation of the freedom of the will. The
onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance, and
he must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. In People vs. Isla, the Court
elucidated that insanity must related to the time immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which the accuse dis charged.
Otherwise, he must be adjudge guilty for the said offense. In short, in order for the
accused to be exempted from criminal liability under a plea of insanity, he must
categorically demonstrate that: 1) he was completely deprived of intelligence because
of his mental condition or illness and 2) such complete deprivation of intelligence must
be manifest AT THE TIME OR IMMEDIATE BEFORE THE OFFENSE…Establishing the
insanity of an accused often requires opinion testimony which may be given by a
witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused; has rational basis to conclude
that the accused was insane based on his own perception or he is qualified as an expert,
such as a psychiatrist. (Verdadero vs. people, GR No. 216021, March 2, 2016)
ACCIDENT -
To successfully claim the defense of accident, the accused must show that the following
circumstances are present: 1) a person is performing a lawful act; 2) with due care; 3) he
causes an injury to another by mere accident and 4) he had no fault in or intention of
causing the injury (Nieva vs. People, GR No. 188751, Nov. 16, 2017)
3
The defense invoked Art. 12 Par. 4, RPC to release the accused-appellant from criminal
liability. Pursuant to said provision, the essential requisites of accident as an exempting
circumstance are : 1) a person is performing a lawful act; 2) with due care; 3) he causes
an injury t another by mere accident and 4) without fault or intention of causing it.
Accused-appellant was not performing a lawful act at the time his wife Auria was stabbed.
..The defense of ACCIDENT presupposes lack of intention to kill. This certainly does not
hold true in the instant case based on the aforequoted testimony of the accused-
appellant. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses, who were then within hearing distance
from the bedroom testified that they distinctly heard Auria screaming that she was going
to be killed by the accused-appellant. (People vs. Macal, GR No.211062, January 13, 2016)
***MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Bar ’75, ’79, ’81, ’83, ’88, ’90, ’92, ’93, ’96, ’97, ’99-
’03, ’08, ’09, ’11-’14)
Before Art. 247 of the RPC can be operative, the following requisites must be present: 1)
that a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person; 2) that he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of
them any serious physical injury in the act of immediately thereafter; 3) that he has not
promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not
4
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.. Implicit in this exceptional circumstance
is that the death caused must eb the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity (People vs. Gelaver, GR No.
94347, June 9, 1993)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTACES (Bar ’76,’78,’79, ’80, ’81, ’83, ’86, ’87 – ’89, ’91, ’93, ’94,
’96-‘9, ’00, ’01, ’03, ’08, ’11, ’12, ’14, ’15)
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
5
TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE and thereby resultantly
increase the criminal liability of an offender, the same must accompany and be an integral
part or concomitant of the commission of the crime specified in the information, and
although it is not necessarily an element thereof, it must not be factually and legally
discrete therefrom… The lower court erred in considering against the accused the
supposed aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud or disguise (People vs. Medina, GR
No. 127157, July 10, 1998)
The Court agrees with the trial court when it held that abuse of superior strength
is deemed absorbed in treachery. Since treachery qualifies the crime of murder, the
generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in
the former (People vs Bosito, GR No. 209346, Jan. 12, 2015).
MURDER is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or
infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Art. 248,
RPC, one of which is treachery. The killing committed in this case is neither parricide or
infanticide and the same was attended with treachery. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or
forms int he execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make…
In this case, treachery is evident form the fact that the victim cold not have been aware
of the imminent peril to his life. He was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and
unprovoked attack on his person when appellant stabbed his back with a knife then
swiftly run away )People vs Jalbonian, 700 SCRA 280).
*TREACHERY -
Treachery is present when the following conditions are present: 1) the employment of
such means of execution that gave the one attacked no opportunity to defend oneself or to
retaliate and 2) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. In People vs.
6
Osianas, the SC held that there is treachery when the means used by the accused-appellants to
insure the execution of the killing of the victims, so a to afford the victims no opportunity to
defend themselves was the tying of the hands of the victims.
There is treachery when the victim was too unprepared and helpless to defend himself as when
he was unwarily texting inside the tent (People vs. Buenafe, GR No. 212930, Aug. 3, 2016)
Treachery is present when the victim had no inkling that he would be shot such that h3e did not
have any real chance to defend himself (People vs. Joven Geron, GR No. 208758, Aug. 24, 2016)
When the shooting of the unsuspecting victim was sudden and unexpected, TREACHERY WAS
PRESENT (People vs. Berk, G.R. No. 204896, Dec. 7, 2016)
HOWEVER, THERE IS NO TREACHEY WHEN THE ACCUSED DID NOT CONSCIOUSLY AND
DELIEBRATELY ADOPT THE PARTICULAR MEANS, METHODS AND FORMS OF ATTACK. In Rustia
vs. People, GR No. 208351, Oct. 5, 2016), the Supreme Court held that accused had not set out
to kill the victim when they both agreed to meet; he did not appear to have prepared his own
weapon to commit the crime; he was filled with anger and rage and excitement and had not time
to reflect on his actions, hence TREACHERY SHOULD NOT BE APPRECIATED AGAINST HIM.
THE ESSENCE OF TREACHERY is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape. The manner the victim was stabbed by accused-appellant has treachery written
all over it. The Court cannot think of any other reason accused-appellant would make the friendly
gesture of offering a drink t a person he intended to kill, other than to intentionally lure the latter
into a false sense of security (People vs. Hatsero, GR No.m192179, July 3, 2013)
THE ESSENCE OF TREACHERY is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed
and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Treachery may be committed even if
the attack is frontal, but no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel
it or offer any defense to his person. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim
was forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself. (People vs Pidoy, GR 146696, July 3, 2003 )
NOTE ON DAMAGES – The SC said that the trial court erred when it awarded the amount
of P50,000 as moral and exemplary damages without indicating what amount constitutes moral
damages and exemplary damages. The award of P50,0000 by the trial court should be deeme3d
as moral damages, which are awarded without need of further proof and in line with prevailing
jurisprudence. It is awarded for the anguish suffered by the victim’s wife because of the victim’s
death. In addition, exemplary damages must also be awarded considering the attendance of
treachery which qualified the killing to MURDER. Under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary
damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances, which should be understood in its generic or broad sense since
the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance
is a distinction that should be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of
the offender (Ibid)
7
**WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE COUP DE GRACE TO A FINDING OF TREACHERY IN THIS CASE IS THE
APRECIATION BY THE TRIAL COURT OF THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION. Passion
cannot co-exist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and reason while
in treachery the means employed are consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-
control could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the
execution of the crime
WE END THE DISCUSSION on treachery by emphasizing that its presence under the
attendant facts has not been proven as fully and convincingly as the crime itself. The doubt, must
therefore, be resolved in favor of the appellant. But while the trial court may have erred on this
issue, its findings as to the presence of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
passion, nonetheless, deserve affirmance. Voluntary surrender was correctly appreciated
because it appeared spontaneous and unconditional as appellant’s claim that he voluntarily gave
himself up to the policeman after shooting the victim remains undisputed. Passion also existed
as it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or legitimate feelings, having committed the serious
crime due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his mentally retarded brother, that
triggered his anger which diminished and weakened the exercise of his power .
APPELLANT SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF THE LESSER CRIME OF HMICIDE which, under Art.
249 of the RPC, carries with it the penalty of reclusion temporal, Considering the presence of 2
mitigating circumstances and the absence of any aggravating circumstance, the imposable
penalty is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence to be meted appellant should be within the range of prision correccional
and the maximum thereof, within the range of prision mayor ( People vs. Germina, GR
No.120881, May 19, 1998)
***AN UNEXPECTED AND SUDDEN ATTACK WHICH RENDERS THE VICTIM UNABLE and
unprepared to put a defense is the essence of treachery. Likewise, ti has been held that the killing
of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of the assault is not shown because
the weakness of the victim due to her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the
accused…IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE ESSENC EOF TREACHERY IS TH SUDDEN AND
UNEXPECTED ATTACK ON AN UNSUSPECTING VICTIM WTHOUT THE SLIGHTEST PROVICATION ON
HIS PART. This is event truer if the ASSAILANT IS AN ADULT AND THE VICTIM IS A MINOR. Minor
children, who by reason of their tender years cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus,
when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists (People vs. Umawid, GR No.
208719, June 9, 2014).
***CRUELTY –
Cruelty is present when the victim suffered excessively prior to his death. ..THERE IS
CRUELTY WHEN THE CULPRIT ENJOYS AND DELIGHTS IN MAKING HIS VICTIM SUFFER SOWLY AND
GRADUALLY, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. The
test is whether respondent deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering or outraged
or scoffed t his person or corpse…The autopsy results that LAUDE died of ‘asphyxia due to
drowning and strangulation” shows that while he was still breathing, respondent drowned him
by forcefully submerging his head in the water inside the toilet bowl. This grisly scenario, coupled
with Laude’s other major injuries, clearly show that he suffered excessively prior to his death.
Respondent opted to kill him in a manner that increased his suffering and caused him
unnecessary physical pain before his death (Joseph Scott Pemberton vs Leila de lima, GR No.
217508, April 18, 2016).
8
***SPECIAL QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE IN RAPE – When rape is committed by an assailant who
has no knowledge of the victim’s mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death (People
vs. ROSALES, GR No.197537, July 24, 2013).
9
Art. 18 of the RPC provides that an accomplice is one wo, not being a principal, cooperates
in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. A person is considered as an
accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the crime is of a minor character. To be convicted as
such, it is necessary that he be aware of the criminal intent of the principal and thereby
cooperates knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid for the efficacious
execution of the crime, It is well-settled that if there is ample of criminal participation but a
doubt exist as to the nature of liability, courts should resolve to favor the milder form of
responsibility that of an accomplice (People vs. Fronda, GR Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993).
*** The above circumstances do not disprove conspiracy, Based on the facts proven by the
prosecution, appellant is liable for the crime as a principal by indispensable cooperation under
Art. 17, Par. 3 of the RPC. The fact that appellant held the deceased whew the latter was
assaulted by Antonio Go constitutes direct participation in the commission of the crime. It is true
that there is no evidence on record of a previous agreement between the accused to kill victim
Danilo de Claro, and to having seen or heard the accused conspire at no witness testified. (People
vs. Obello, GR No. 108772, Jan. 14, 1998)
Art. 14 of the RPC, considered in connection with Art. 13 defines an accomplice to be one
who does not take. Direct part in the commission of the act, who does nor force or induce others
to commit it, nor cooperates in the commission of the act by another act without which it would
not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or
simultaneous actions…In the case of accused-appellant, there is no evidence of moral or material
cooperation, and none of an agreement to commit the crime in question. Her mere presence and
silence while they are simultaneous acts, do not constitute cooperation, for it does not appear
that they encouraged or nerved Martin Atienza to commit the crime of arson, and as for her
failure to give the alarm, it being a subsequent act it does not make her liable as an accomplice
(people vs. Silvestre, GR No. L-35748, Dec. 14, 1931).
***ACCESSORY -
Art. 19, Par. 2 o the RPC defines accessories as those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroying the body of the
crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. In the case at bar,
the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove Radan’s liability as an accessory were neither
clear nor convincing. His presence during t he time when the DENR officers turned over custody
of the seized items to Arriola is not enough roof of complicity nor the fact that the confiscated
lumber was placed in his fathers house.
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
10