\ COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Books | & it Revised Panal Code and Special Laws ‘Atty. Leonor D. Boado FIRST EDITION | 2004FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 1. Penal laws ar acts ofthe Legislature protibiting certain acts ‘and establishing penalties for thir viclations. Those that ‘define crimes, eatof their nature and provide for their pun- ishment(Lacsen ve. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA298,Jant- ary 1988) 2 Criminal law isa branch of public law because it teats of facts of omissions which are primarily wrongs against the State 3. Constitutional imitations onthe power of Congress to er ‘ct penal laws among the Bil of Rights: ‘a. The law must be general in applistion (equal protec tion. >. Itmust observe substantive and procedural due proc: ce Itshould aot impose crue and unusual punishment or excessive ines. 1d. tshouldnot operate as a bill of athinder ce. Ttimust not operate as an ex pos! fat aw. 4. The prohibition on expos cto law applies solely to penal lawer It anno: prohibit the retroactivity of procedural laws. suchas one that prescribes ules of procedure by which courts ‘applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice, fch as the Extradition Treaty: (Wrig't vs. CA, GR. No. 113213, August 15, 1994) 5. Provisions in he Code complementing ex post facto law: ‘a. Asticle 2: no felony shall be punishable by any penalty ‘at prescribed by aw prior tots commission. 1b. Adicl 2: penal lawa shall havea retroactive effect in- Sear as they favor the offender who is nota habitualdelinquent. Therefor, law which increases the pen- ity for an act or omisnion cannot be given retroactive effet. 6. Bxamples of expat fact law: 14. Makes an actor omission criminal which when com- ritted was not criminal '. _Aggravates the seriousneyn of the crime than when it ‘wae committed, ‘= Impose a penalty tht is higher than when the crime ‘wae committed, 4. Makes iteasier for the provection to establish the guilt ‘of the accused than when ty crime was commited, Requires a les n when the crime wat committe not evidence t Alters, in elation tothe offen orituconsnquences, the Situation af a person Wo his clludvaniage. 1 Astumen to regula civil sigh and remedies only but in effect impones a penalty or deprivation of aright ‘which when done wa aw 1h. Deprivesa person avs ferme of some lful pro- tection to which be has become eniltled, such as the protection ofa former convietin or acquit ora proc lamation of amnesty. (Lawn vs, Executive Secretary, (GR. No. 128056, January 20, 1999) 7. Characteristics of penal 8. Generalty — (persons tobe governed) — penal law is binding onall persone wh rede or nojoumnin the Phil= ippines whether ctzens oF not Basis — Art. 1, Civil Code; Ant. 1) 1987 Con- b. Terstoraity — (jurisdiction oF the place where appli cable) — the law isapplicable to all eimes comunitted ‘within the lints ofPilippine teretory. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 3 ‘Basis — Art 2, Revised Penal Code Prospectivty — (when the law shallbe applicable) — the law should have only prospective application &x- cept it isfavorable tothe offender, (iretroxpectivity prohibits the retroactive application of penal laws.) ‘Basis —Arts.21 and 2, Revised Penal Code ‘At (22), Constitation (ex post feta) ‘At. 4, Civil Code 8. Doctrinal appicntion ofthe prospectivity rufe: re arineen ST E see eebite anal to adil deeions which though sr een as wh Himes sieecettee teas isis Gace cr ep re sia wis He oc ge ren an eae eiess one eet iin ee var ce ee iy deca en erent ail Recon ate a fries ietcomtte i e Seep ag creer cele ae wena ven ef i ni eee eee in items ee So ey Sk een ee9. Philosophies underlying the criminal law justice syste: a. Classical or jurstic 1. Basis of criminal ability —huvnan ree wil, 2. Purpose of the penalty — rtritution, forthe right ofthe State and/or the private lfended party ust be observed 3. Impotable penalty — predetermined penalty for 4. Emphasis of the Under the cawical theory on which he penal code is mainly base the bas of erinina laity is human fre will, Man is esserlly & moral creature with an absolutely free wil chuoxe between good and evil ‘When he commits 3 felonious or criminal act (delito dole, the act is prosamed to have been dane volun- tarily, Le: with from, intelligence a Arent. Man therefor, should be aljulged Or held accountable for ‘wrongful acts so long as ree will appears unimpaired. (People ve. Genoss, GX. No. 135981, September 29, 72000) b. Posiivist or realist 1. Basis of criminal lability ~-the consideration that man is inherently good but because of his envi- Tonment an upbringing he becomes sally sick 2. Purpose of the penalty —currelive or curative to reform the offender 3. Determination of penalty —on an individual ba- sis after con lering hia circumstances. The Inde- terminate Sentence Law, Probation Lawyete.exem pity this 4. Emphasis —on th «& Eedectic (or mixed) combines the god features of both theclassical and the positivist theories. Mealy theclas- 1 RINDAMENTALPRINGILES : sia theory is applied to heinous crmes, wheres, the outst te made fo work on exenomic and socal ‘heinous crimeisa grievous ious and hate cferoe wiih reason ofisinherent or mares wick- ‘cas, vicousos aro and perversity, separ SS cerouly eutageoun 1 the cormon standards or Sarma of decency and morality ins vied acd Seder sosiey (RA E59) > Uiitaanor prev teory unde which primary funcon af punishment in minal law it protect, ‘Ciety om potetial and atl wrongdoer. The = ‘Roudherpatot peal shouldbe ted agaist them Theluw shouldnt be applied to farther mates- Slam andopporturiam (Magnovs.CA,GRNO. 9152, June, 19) Pep laws are construed tly againstthe Stat and ber Jin fnvor a the accused. Whenever wo interpretations Ste pein ere non POE tory nerpeteton shall prev conan wih the elon raumpln of innocence, This prinole, for istance, 1s Finfeged inthe te fold rule the rales on mitigation of Thine andthe requement that qulfing creustance Sou be proved bythe sre quantum of evidence nece= Sip tocoublih gl, among ober. Under tn equipoise rule, when the evidence of he proseeuton and he deena st equal balanced the scale ‘aie tied i favor ofthe are in obedience the {Prattatonal presumption of inocers (Urea ve SERAIU,70SCAD, Apa 1996 Conpuzys People IASCRA 75, February 191) Where te State fas to meet the quan- {him of prot required fo overcome the eonstationa pre- mpl of tmocence, te sooued eed to qu a ater ofigt regardless of he weakness or even the “etna of is tense: For any onion must et on he Seng ofthe prosecution’ ase and ot onthe weless Sf defeon(Cooep va People, 250 SCRA 378, May 1988)11, Classification of erimes: ‘As to commission (Article) 1. aloo felonies committed with deliberte intent 2. Culpa or those conmltied by mans of eu ‘As to stage af execution (Article 6) 1. Attempted 2 Frustrated 3. Consummated Related to this isthe vawifcation of elomis as to 1 Formal felonies, thone which are alwaysconsum- mated becauseth flere ean perform the act ‘necesary for thelr execution without corsummat- {ng the offense for instance physical injures which are punished to rel, whether serious, less se- ious, orslight The degre of injury eansotbe de- termined withont fit consumunating the offense. 2. Material felonies, or those which have various stages of execntin. 3. Crimes which have no frustrated stage, such as rape because ils essence is carnal knowledge. Hence, even the slight penetration ofthe female ‘organ consummates the rime. (People vs Clopino, ‘GH.No, 10353, May 21,1998) Likewise arson can ‘only be attempted ar consummated, beeause the ‘lightest uring ofthe property consummate the ‘rime of arson especialy since he amount of damn- age inthe property has heen deleted in the amend ‘ments to the nw on arson. sto gravity (Art. 9) 1. Grave felonies 2 Less grave felonies ant 3. Light felonies 4 [As to count —~ composite, compound, complex, continued, continuing ‘As to nature — mala in e and mala probit 1%. Crimes mala ins: and male probibita ‘Anact or emission may either be incerenty evil (mala jnse)or evi because there isa law prohibiting the same (ala prohiita Generally felonies under the Code arem nse whereas thove In pecial laws are mala prokiia. However, ti really the nature of the act or omission that makes a (ime either mala in ae or mala prokiia. Also, even if Special law uses the terms of penalties in the Code, that ‘lone will rot make the at oF omisson a crime mal in Se The law may only intend to make the Code apply suppletorily thereto. For instance, Presidential Decree No. 530 is an amendment of Ars. 38, 309, and 310 of the RPC. Thus, catle rustling is sil mal in se, Taer veCA, 186SCRA 598, June 1950) ‘Mal in se involve moral turpitude whereas male pro- laia do net. The doing of the act itelf and not its pro- hibition by statutes fixes moral turpitude. It does not Include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but ‘whose ilegality les in its positivelr being prohibited. {Dela Torte ws. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483, uly 1996) Distinetiors: In male 1, Basis — moral state of the offender hence, good faith or lack of cininal intents a defense 2° Modifying circumstances — taken into account in imposing the penalty on the offender because his ‘mora! traits the basis of this aime. 3, Degree of participation —penalty is computed on the basis of whether he isa principal offender, or merely an accomplice or accesory.uw 4. Stage of acaunplishment — the penalty imposed depends on whether th erime i consummated, frustrated, or attempted. in mala prota 1 Basis —voluntariness, hence, yd faith of ack of ‘criminal init no a defense unless intent is an slement of there og nSec. Se} ofA. No. 3019, Modltying ircumstances ~- not considered be- cause the law intends to discourage he commis: ‘om ofthe cet specaly probibited 3, Degree of participation — the penaly on the of fenders isthe same as they are all deemed princi pale. 4. Stage of accomplishment — viclation of law is punished only when accomplished or consum- mated, Effect of repeal of penal law on the accused a. Absolute or total repeal or express repeal — the act or ‘omission is decrininalize 1. Pending cae — linmissed whether the accused is habitual delinguentornot. 2. Offender iscanviete and /or serving sentence — released ihe is ol a habitual delinguent oF the law provides that detention is to sole. b. Partial 1. First law will povern if the accused ishabitual de- Hinguent oe when the favorable secend law pro- hibits retroutiy. 2. Secontavy will yowenif favre tothe offender sha isnot habitual delinqueet or thelaw is lent ‘a i rlratvty tive repeal rime rezeal or repeal by ‘TheSpanish version should prevail over the English version for the Code was orginally ayypraved and enacted in Eng lish (Section 15 Revised Administrative Code). For instance, ‘Article 267 of the Code uses the term “lockup” (encerar) ther than "kidnap" (seuster or rapt, nus, the Spanish version should prevail inthe interpretaon ofthat Article (People vs. Astrga, 288 SCRA 420, December 197) '. Finality of acquittal rule: the fundamental philosophy high- lighting this rue cuts decp int the humanity of the laws and in jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, ‘when brought in unequal contest with ee State. The State ‘with all it resources and power shoul nat be allowed to ‘make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an al- Teged offense, thereby subjecting him toembarrassment, x= ‘pense and ordeal and compelling him tolve ina continuing, ‘State of anxiety and insecurity as wells enhancing the pos- ‘sibilty that even though innocent, he may be found guilty. (People vs. Velsco, G.R. No. 127444, 340 SCRA 207, Septem- ‘ber 13,2000) ARTICLE 2— Scope of appiication of the Code 1, Two applications ofthe Code: 4, Inro-terntoral application —within the Philippine chipelago including ts atmosphere interior waters and maritime zone, >. Extraderrtorial — the Code may be given application ‘evento those crimes committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction (Note: when the question asks for the exceptions tothe ap- plication oftheCode, donot inehudein the answer the intra- territorial appcation in paragraph one for that is the ger- eal ule) 2, ‘Treati and lays of preferential application prevail over the provisions of te Code such as RA. No.75 on immunity of Aiplomatic representatives of foreign countries. Under nter- national laws, sovereigns, heads of stakes and their oficial representatives enjoy immunity from suits.3 Inthe ease of international bodies, mere invocation of the Jmmunity lause (ADB, in thls ease) does notipso facto result the dropping ofthe charges in court. There is ail a need to inguire whether the accuse i covered bythe provision ofthe immunity clause. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the recelving tate except in the ‘cate ofan action relatrg to any professional or commerdal activity exercised by the diplomatic agent la the receiving State outside of his ofidal functions. (Liang ws People, 323 ‘SCRA 692, January 2000) First exception —crimecommitd within a Philippine ship/ airship: a, This is subject to the limitation that the vessel isnot within the trritoaljuradiction of another country, otherwise, the latter's law will govern becuase penal Tas ave primarily territorial, Buti te foreign country did not assure jurisdiction, the Philippines will have jurisdiction. The country of regatry determines the nationality of the ship or airship, no its ownership. Thus a Filipino ‘owned ship registered i Tome oantry ia foreign ship. «French/English Roles ofr to the jurisdiction over mer- ‘chant vessels of one country located In another coun- try. The rule does nut apply to war vessels. The effect ‘on jurisdiction over the ere uncer ether rule com- ‘ited in a merchant vewel In about the sane because the general rulcof ene s the exception in he other Thus 1. French rule rcugnlze flag or nationality of ves: sa. The country of reglary will have juriadiction but when the crime violated the peace and order ofthe host country uch as drugrtaticking) the host country will have jurisdiction. {Mismory aid = French - Fl) 2, English rule here srietly to the territoriality prineipleorstusct the crime. The country of regis- 5 try wil have jurisdiction only where the crime re- lates tointeral management ofthe vessel-In other ‘cases (such a5 drug-trafficking the host country will have jurisdiction, Second and third exceptions: a. Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to Dearer of to order the appearance of a true gersine document or by eras- ing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained ‘herein. (Ant 169) b, lf forgery was committed abroad, itmust refer only to Philippine oin, currency note or obligations and sect sities. Fourth exception: a publicofficer/ employee who commitsa crime related tothe exercise of his offic. Without this rela- tion they are acting in thelr private capacity and hence bound by the law ofthe host country. Under the fifth exception: crimes against national security and the law of rations include Treason, Espionage, Provok- ing War and Disloyalty in Case of War, racy and Mutiny but not rebellion. When rebellion is committed abroad, the Philippine cours will not have jurisdiction because rebel- lion isa crime agaast public order. ‘The referral to she Government ofthe Fhilippine Islands should be changed to Government of the Republic of the Philippines ARTICLES 1 Felony refers exclusively to acts or omlasons punished un- der the Code, Intent ia the use ofa particular means to effect the desired ‘result, The use cf lethal weapon would show the criminal {nent to kil although death didnot res.COMRUHENSIVE RIVE IN CMINAL a Intent s @ mental state thus the need to determine it by the sneane used. This intent demonsrated by the overt acts of a person. intent presumed suck as intent te kill when the vietim dies. But where intent san element fof the crime (specific criminal intent, such as intent to gain Tn tel) or if the act reiltn to vaeant crimes such a5 inj res which could give nse to either attempted frustrated Fhomicide or physical injuries: aclu of Iapiviausness oF al- tempted rape, nent cannot be premunned but mus: be etab- lished ‘Asa general rule, crim -wo instances when the offruer cane crminally Eable even ‘if there i no evil ine lonies commited by cup and 1, Offenses mala potbis ‘Actus non faci rem, nisimens sit ra the ct cannet be exe ‘nal unless the mind iscriminal-(Llamovo vs Sandiganbayan, GR Now. L-&2408 4 64105, Aut 7 1985) A felory requires iminal intent Hence, whic inent is absent as te mind is ‘hot criminal, no crime is cnnunite. This doctrine applies fon to doo Motive is the moving power or fora (auch a8 vengeance) which impels person i devired resul. Generally, motive {immaterial in determining evaninal sblity, except 2. When the act bring abot variant rimas, eg. kidnap ping or robbery (Iwaple vs, Pun, GR. 97471, Feb fuary 17,1993); bh. There is doubt whether the accused committed the Crime or the idenity of the accuse is doubtful and ce Theevidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial. |Where the identity of the aula in spate, motive becomes relevant, al when motivels supported with sui FUNOAMENTAL PRINCES » cient evidence fora conclusion of gull, a conviction i sus- tainable. (People vs, Macoy, GR. Nos. 9669-90, july 1997) Art 3 compared with Art. 365: in Art. 3, cpa is a mode of commiting @ crime hence Kling, for instance, is denomi- ‘rated homicide though reckless imprudence. In Art. 365, ‘up ells the rime punished, thus the Kling is denomi- Ine recess imprudence resulting to homicide. ‘While a criminal negligent actis nots simple modality ofa willful erie, (Quizon vs. Justice ofthe Peace of acolo, GR. No, L-6Al,Jaly 28,1995) bute distinct crime in the Penal Code, designated as a quasi-oflense however, a ‘conviction forthe former can be had under an information ‘Oclusvely charging the commission ofa wilful offense upon the theory that he grate inudes the essar offense. (Cabello vs. Sandiganbayany 197 SCRA 94, May 14,1991) 9 Intelligence is the capacity to understand what is right and ‘whats wrong, Discernmentis relevant tc intelligence, NOT Tointent tt doesnot mean though, that when a person acted with discernment he intends the crime er the wrong done. {Teople vs, Cordova, 24 SCRA 319, July 1993) Inteligence Ian element of both dao and culpa, thus, whether the esul- ing felony Is intentional or culpable, discemunent isan ele- tment. Absent dicemment, there is no offense whether dolo ror culpa ‘Uh. When insanity js interposed asa defense ora ground of a motion to quath theburden rests upon the accused toestab- Tish that fact forthe law presumes every man to be sane. Hence inthe absence of sufficient evidence to prove insan- the legal presumption of one’s sanity stands. (Zose vs CA, GR No, 15641, March 10, 1994) ARTICLE 4 1. Article 3 deals with how a felony is cocumitted; Article 4, ‘who commits afelony. Thereare two kinds of offenders hee: those who commit a felony, whether dole o culpa, and those ‘who commit ar impossible crime.“There are to clauses inn. of thy article 8. “By any person cormitting a lelony eto” referring, to both doo an ul, Note thatthe article specifically Included in parenthesis the wort deli b. “Although the wrong act one be different from that which he intended," erring to dala because ofthe pres- tence of intent (note he word “intended”), Theelements inthe second clause are: 1. An intentional felony is committed. 2, The wrong done i the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed even though dif ferent from that intel Factors affecting intent saw cortexpondingly the eiinal i ability 8. Mistake of fact; bb. Aberatio cts (stake in the vietim ofthe biow); ‘&_Ervorin personae (mistake in identity); 18. Pructerintetione yra intended} an! 1 wrong caused than that 6 Praximate cause (the caune ofthe cause isthe cause of the evil caus) Mistake of fact is that which had the facts been true tothe belief ofthe offence, that act he did ean be justified, hence, wll negative criminal Halilty (gnoranta ft excuse, for, theelement of criminal tet absent Ts mistake of fact is relevant only in doo, ence if the offender is negligent in fcertaining the true site of fact, he may be fee fom dolo Thu not fom cue Mistake of fact reer tthe situation itself, and does ot apply to identity becoaw ithe later there eximinal fatent. In aberratia ictus or errr inthe vitim of the blow the of- fender intends the injury en one person but the harm fll on FUNDAMENTALPRENGPLES » another. There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended vicimand the actual vitim. Consequently, the act may result in a complex crime (Art. 48) cei two felonies, although there is just one intent. Thus cberatoictus may result toa greater criminal lability tothe offender. Error in personaeor mistake n identity involves only one of- fended party but the offender committed mistake in ascer- taining the deny of the victim Unlike in erat ictusthere are only two persons involved: the actual but unintended ‘lei and the effender. The effect of err in personze depends upon the intended rime and seta rime committed: 4. Hfthese areof diferent gravity, Article 49 shall apply — the lower penalty between the intended and the actual felony commited shall be imposed. In effect error in persone is extenuating creumstance b, Ifthe actualand intended crimes are the sme, then there {sno mitigation of penalty forthe mistake in the iden tity ofthe victim cari the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended vidim. The main rea- fon behine this conclusion is the fat that the accused hhad acted with euch a disregard forthe life ofthe vie- tims without checking carefully the latter's identity as {oplece himselfon th same legal plain as one who kills nother wilfully, unlawfully and floniousy. (People ¥5:Pinto, GR. No. 39519, Novernber21, 1991) {n procter intentonem, the injury ison the intended victim ‘bul the resulting consequence is much more grave than in tended. It is niligating dreumstance (Art. 13,no.2). Butt the means emp oyed in the commission ofthe crime would Togieally and naturally bring about the actual felony com- rmited,practeritentionem will not be aporeciated. 1 does not apply to culpa: “intentionem denotes in- “The mitigating circumstance flack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciatedwhere the accused had i intent to kill but only to init Injuries when he attacked the vietim. (People ws Flores n- fra) 9, Proximate cause ia that cause which, in its naturel and com tinuous sequence, unbrcken by aneffiient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which te result would not have occurred. Proximate cane i tobe considered gener- ally in determining whether the consequence of the act should alo be borne by the offender. (Art. 4,0.) ‘The perceived delay in giving medica treatment does ‘ot break at all th cau corinection betwaen the felonious sactof the offender and the injures sustained ky the vitin It ‘Joes not constitute an ecient intervening cause since the itis death ie sill duc to the injuries inflicted by the of- fender for which the laleris eiminally responsible. (People vs Acuram, CLR. No. 10954, April 27, 2100) ‘Thus, anyone who inflicts injury voluntarily and with intent i Hable forall te consequences of his erminal act, such as death, that suparveni aga consecuence of the injue ‘es, Here, accused-appllant i lable forthe denise of the victim for euch was caused by inflicted on the vial party of lores, 252 SCRA) Impossible Crim 1. Elements 8. The acts performed would have been a crime against persons or property: 1b. There i riminal i ¢Itienot accomplished because ofthe inberet impos bility or because the means emplayrd is inadequate oF ineffectual. 2. Theact performed by the offenuler cannot procucean offense against persons or property because: a) the commission of the offense i inherently inypoable of accomplishment; oF {() the means employed is either (1) inadsquate or (2) inef- fectual. (ntod ve, CA, GR. No, 103119, October 21, 1992) {Impossible crime ls punished to suppres lawlessness or to teach a lesson tothe offender. Subjectvely, the offender is a ‘criminal although objectively no crime hasbeen committed. “There sno attempted or frttrated stage. 4. There is now the impossible crime of rape because of the amendment brought about by the Anti-Rape Law which - ete Lagaspt GA. Nos. 1366465, Apel 20, 2001) ‘The raonale forthe requirement to be informed of he ox- cree ef cali creumstanc for aczed to pre- sere ropely rh danse to mecthen-on equaling aoe eernty and because such czcunstance changes the‘Taking advantage of off nature ofthe charge against him. (People vs. Abuyen, Sep- tember 1952) [Article 395 as amended ly RA 7689, (now 256-A, RA 8353) prescribes the death penalty when the rape wictim is ender {and the offender isa parent ascendant, stepparent, guard- in, relative by consanguinity or affinity withn the third vil degre, or the commor-Iaw spouse of the parent ofthe vic~ tim The relationship ofthe aecused anu the vicim and the {ninoriy ofthe offended party must be specifically pleaded in the Information to be appreclate forthe purpose of im- posing the death penalty. (Peuple vs. Ralls, uly 1999) For Frotance, te description ofthe offender in the faformation tz uncle ts insufficen to snfor the offer as the law fe ‘quires “affinity withinthvedvvildegee.” might be that am uncle beng a usin of the vielin' parent outside of the third Gil degree. ‘Where one of the aggravating ireumslances has been used as a qualifying circumstance he others wil be deemed as ener, Since treachery has alronty bewn used te qualify the {rime as murder, evident premeditation shoul be consid- fred as only a goneric aravating circumstance (People vs Fabros, October 1992), Conspiracy is neither agpravating nor qualfyng but i & manner of incurring clletive criminal lbilty among every o-conspirator in an cal dere such that th act of one becomes the ac fall The pnsunee of conspiracy annot per se qualify ailing to munter. (People vs. Feran,Cctober 1992) | position Intaking advantage ef official postion the testis: “Did the accused abuse his office inorder to commit the crime? If he did then this reumsiance is prevent. (Sanchez va Demetriow, Jinja) Wisconsidered onewent when fo instzncethe offender falsifies a document in connection with the duties of his of- fice which convist of either making or preparing or other- ‘wise intervening inthe preparation of a document. (Layno ‘vs People, September 1992} (See notes under Article 62) 2, That accused appellant used his service fivearm in shooting the vicin should not be considered as takng advantage of public palin, For such tobe considered aggravating, the Pblc oficial mist use the influence prestige and ascend hey which his fice gveshim n ealizinghis purpose-(Peo- ple we. Amion, GR. No, 140511, March 1,201) Incontampt of or with Insult to pubic authorities 1 Requisites: t. The publicauthorty is engaged in the discharge of his duties; by Ofender ows te identity ofthe ple authority: Tec wa commited in ips, sn Tae Site peron in authority for then the cxime aE De aed anal and tis irumstance wil be orbed ting iheret therein. 2 Aen in authority sone vested with uiiion or au Ieee Gert pol sa public aunty besuse hes cpeeBlaty duty bound to prosete anc append viol era sand muriepl erases. He beads and tol the ele ple fre in he munity. A pepeiyay Chacman belo» persona suthoty beste he arphicton over the barangay anda xpress provided Uinderthe Loc Goverment Code ‘Age, Sox, Rank, Dwelling 1. ‘There are four circumstances inthis paragraph but only one ‘Healt should be given if all are present fr they al refer to {he creumstarceof lack of respect due > the offended. 12. There must be proof that offender deliberately intended to ‘ffend or insult the age or sex ofthe offended. Thus, this Ghrcumstance cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation ‘Because here the offender lost his contral oF reason. 3. Themeze fact thatthe victim isa femaledoes noteuffce, The egravating ezcumstace of sx snot sustained oolely by‘he fact that the victim was a woman. Imus further appear ‘hat inthe unlawful taking of her lif, there was some spe- ‘fi insult or disrespect sown to her womankood. (People vs, Ursa, 121 SCRA 409) These are considered in crimes against persons sccurity oF honor It isnot considered in crimes where genderis an ele ment asin parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction; or in Crimes against property such as the special complex crime fof robbery with homicie. (People vs. Paraiso, GR, No. 427840, November 29, 1959) However, in Peoples. dls Reyes, (October 1992, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was taken into account in the imposition of the proper penalty ‘eeause robbery with hamicide can be committed without necessarily tranegressng the sanctity ofthe home “Rank” should be given a plain, ordinary meaning, hence refers to high social position or standing, It is absorbed. in the crime of direc asvul since rank ivan element there- Pa It should be clearly demonstrated thatthe accused deliber- ately intended to act with insult or in disregard of the re- Speet due the victim on account ofhis rank, That the accused ‘tas cognizant ofthe rank of the deceased police officer oF that he articulated hatral against all policemen in general doesnot per se sulfice to prove this aggravating dreumstance. (Or when the raiding poice officers were no: even in uni- form. (People vs Vercher, June 1994) ‘Age refer to bth the ederly andthe yout, For rtanc, japvce as barely sx ear old when rubies stabbed fourteen tes Before hs body wan nabmerged in the pi Iva er forthe cout not to have conidered his ge tan aggravating ccamaance, (People Lapan, Ja 1992) cauaae Dueling” (mara) ncides dependencies, seas, and crcloure unde the nti ot ney ta ewe teowned bythe ofended I induds a voor ie bouring Mouse, Home i tht which he aw seks top! or up 0, | his not neces hold against any intruder whether the dweller ib lessee, boarder ora bed pacer. ‘Adwelling mustbe a building or structureexchsively wed forrest and comfort. Where the crime was commitied in @ Store whichis aboot fifteen meters away from the complain- 2 dwelling or even a dependency of complainant's home. (People ve. Joys, October 1993) ‘Dwellings not aggravating when: a. the offended has given provocation bb. both the offended and offender live therein, ‘¢._velling fe inherent in the crime such as trespass 19 dwelling o: robbery in an inhabited place ‘Reason for tis aggravating reumstance —the offender's frener perversy in deliberately invading the tranquty of nother’ domisle, (People vs. Lapan July 1992) I the crimes of abduction and ilegal detention were the ‘ifended i aken from his house, dwelling may be taken as Shaggravating reumatance, However, ths crcumstancehas ‘ho cflect when se imposable penalty is:ndivisible (Article £63) (People ve Grefiel, November 1992) that the accused should have entered the ‘dwelling of the vietim to commit the ofense; it is enough that the victim was attacked ini his om house, although the aszailant may have devised means to perpetrate the 85- saul from outside the house. Thus, although the attack was ‘ade notfrominside but from below the floor ofthe hous, “dwelling may be considered a in fact the target victim was [tineidehis omnbouse People vs. Dacizas, GR. No. 111256, February 2000) or when the victim was abducted while she tras in te salcase People vs. Magat, CR. No, 130026, 332 SCRASI7)‘Abuse of confidencelobvious ungratafulnoss 1 Requistes of abuse of confidence /obvious ungratefulness Offended had trust the offender Offender abused sud trust ¢ Such abuse of confidence facilitated commision ofthe crime 2. Theconfene betwee prin mut he mmnedtand personal Committed in the palace ofthe Chief Executive, ete, 1. Performance of function snot necessary in the circumstances of the offense being committed in the palace of the Chief Executive ina place devoted to rligious worship or in the presence ofthe Chief Executive 2. Oifender must have sought any of the four places in parae graph S forthe commission of the crime. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band, ald of armed men 1. “Nighttime” isthe period of darkness beginning at dusk and, tending at dawn of from sunsct to sunrise. The crime must be committed exclusively at nighttime and not earted at daytime, Its not considered in crimes where nightie isa mereaceident orhas no influence the porpetatio thereof. 2. Nighttime is absorbed in reacury if itis part ofthe teach ‘erouls means to insure ebecution of erime. (People vs. Ong, January 30, 1975) 3. The aggravating circumetance of nocturmty cannot be con sidered whore the prosecution established no more than the ‘simple factthat the crimewas committed at night, Nighttime ‘must be deliberately sought i he perpettation of th crime. (People vs. Ferer, 255CRA) 4. Thecrime mustbe covered by darkness Ifthe light wasbright ‘enough to ace whal Ws going on and to recognize the as- sailants, nocturity doesnot ually as an aggravating cc- 10 0 CORCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRMANALLIABLITY « cumstance under er he subjective or bjtve tests (Peo ple igen uly 1992) by and fit rightime i ntan aggravating roumstance. Fo ae he tesa by te oF Tey or aken avantage by Him to faite the commis- sere the enme etve es) oto ese his aity from capture (ubjectve te) People v. atin, ober 199) Night snotaqualiying rcamstance der Acie 248 Mle ose, cope va. Vateran, Septemser 155) * Uninkaited pas determined by the asonable pos Tae Ste ee seclving some hp or where tere are efor any number ef houses wih 8 penmeter of tes an 20 mes Sand cosas of more than thee (teat us) armed male Ses baganied withthe intention of eying ut 80 ‘laf dean They should have ate together nthe aan ofl che. People ve Rtlegn, November i) ‘and inherent in brigandage It fsshmlrto abuse of supe aan eh whe eteee the liza ofthe combined Sees Br te alone to overpower he vc 0 con Sunmatetheofewe “The elements of id farmed men are: Armed menor persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and The accused availed himself oftheir sid or relied upon them whenthe crime was committed, ‘Compare withthe cceurnstance of aid of armed men: ‘4. Inband there mustbe atleast four arsed men; ina of fanned men there is no required nember of malefac- tors ‘The band members areal principals for they take part inthe commission of the felony uncer the same Plan@ CCOMPREHNSIVEREVIWELN CHIMNAL LAW and for the same purpose. The armed men whe aided the paneipal offender are mere accomplices forthey give snaterial and moral i and encouragement inthe con Inission ofthe erime, Band absorbs ald of armed men. (On the oceaston and by means of calamity or misfertune ‘The “other calamity or misfortune” in paragraph 7 refers to the eceasion of conflagration shipwreck, earthquake orepidemic ‘when the offense was commited. n paragraph 12, the calamity {sthe meanain the comuniscionof the crime. Aggravating because ofthe onder ited nding it othe vicina db tothe sufferings. Recidivism, relteracion, habitual delinquency ‘and quaskrecidivism 1. There are four forms of habituality, to wil: recidivism, riteracon habitual delinquency (Adie 62, No.8) and quas- recidivism (Art, 160), 2. Arecidivit is one who, athe tne of his rial For one crime, ‘hall have been prevoulyconoited by inl jadgment of an- ther crime embraced in th sme ile tv Coe, Tere must be two convictions 3. "Pinal judgment” means executoy. i: 15 days have elapsed fom ity promulgation without the conviet appealing the eonvitin: b.olfender started serving wntenees ce expressly waived is igh dd, he applied for probation 4 Recidivism cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to present “certifi Inve copies of the judgment of conviction” inthe other case since the sume is not cared by the failure ofthe accusad to object to such lack of presenta- tion. Recidivism ivan affirmative allegation whenever alleged appeulor CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECHNG CRMNAL LARLY ° {nthe information and when the accused enters ples ofnot tpuily fo such information there i a joiner of issues not Ely ast his gullr innocencebat also as the presence or ‘sence ofthe modifying circumstances so alleged. (People ‘vs Moline, GR. Nos. 1347778, July 24, 200) Inreteracion,theoffender has been previtsly punished (ras served sentence) The first offense was punished with an ‘equal or greater penalty; othe committed two of more rimes Deviously where he was meted lighter penalty. The ration- Fe here is that despite the previous punishment, offender id not lean hislesson ‘Recidivism compared with reiteracion: ‘4, Recidivism quires previous convicionby finaljodg- ‘ment; reiterecon requires service of sentence b. In recidivism the offenses are under the same Tie in rriteracion itis not oo required, Inthe former there i no requirement as to penalty in {helatcr the prior crime must havebeen imposed with 1 panalty equal to or greater than the second exime or fhe must have served fortwo or mor crimes carrying lighter penalty. Habitual delinquency is special aggravating circumstance land unlike the other kinds of aggravating circumstances ‘which merely irereases the penalty forthe offense commit- tea, habitual deinquency hasits um penaly which escalates ‘with the increaein the numberof convicions. Thus the pen- iy is forthe felony commited pls forthe habitual delin- “Guency the total of which should not be more than 30 years. ‘A pecson is a habitual delinquent if witin a peiod of ter ‘yen fom the date of his release or last conviction of the ‘Times ofFalsifcation, Robber, Estafa, Theft, Serious Less Serious Physical Injuries (memory aid — FRETSeL) he is Found guilty ofsai crimes a third time or oftenes Falsifca- tion i's crime against public intrest, Robbery, Estafe anc ‘Theft are again Property and the last two are against per- tons. An olfencer may bea recidivst and a habitual delin-0. COMPRESSIVE REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW quent at the same time if he was convicted forthe third time af the erimes within the same tile of the Code ‘There must be three convictions within 10 yeas ofthe cov- ted crimes. The 10-year period ls counted from the date of release if he had been rekaredl when again convicted. Comparing recidivism and habitual delinquency: 1 Inecidivisn, a second conviction inenoughvinbabitual delinquency, a third conviction is necessary. b. Recidivism requires thatthe crimes involved be both under the same Ti jn hail dein: ‘quency, the crimes. Recidivism does not prescribe because there no tne limit between the Is and 2rd convictions; hatitual de- Tingueney prescribes if the He Tilt between convic- tions ia exceeded, 4. Recidivism ina generic aggravating drcumstance which ‘can be offset by an ordinary mitigating dzcumstance; Thabitual delinguengy Is a special aggravating circum- stance which must be conuidered by the court in the imposition of penalty (Quasi recidivism isa specal aggravating crcumstarce which ‘may not be offiet by an onlinary mitigating clrcumstance. ‘The offender has been previously convicted by final judg- ment and before beginning to serve such rentence,or while serving the sare he committed a felony. (Quasireeidivism ie penalized in addition to habitual dein- quency Because of the opening, phrase in Article 160, thas: Tesides the provisions of rule’ of article 62." The effect is to penalize the conviet with te maximum peried frthe new felony committed plus tw penalty for the original convic- tion plus the penalty for Hue habitual delinquency 1 (1) in theservioe ofthe ist corviction, he reached the agz of 70, oF (2) he shall complete the service of the origizal conviction ailer that age, he shall be pardoned, unten hei habitual minal or his conduct cr other circumstances show that he is not worthy of pardon. CCRCUNSTANCES AFFECTING CUMINALLTAELITY 6 Price, promise or reward Price, promise or reward aflcts equally the offeror and the acooptor The effeor i principal by inducement and the acep- toe the principal by direct participation. The inducement is the Ffonaldration in the commission ofthe crime for this ci- Eamatance tobe aggravating, Evident pramoditation 1 The elements of evident premeditation are a. TheTIME when the offender delermirad to commit the crime; bb. ANACT manifest indicating that be has clung to his determination; and c_Sulficient LAPSE of time between such determination land executien to allow him to reflec upon the conee- quences ofis act. 12 Itmst be shown when the plan to kill ws hatched or the Tength of time that elapsed before it was carried out for the nce of evident premeditation is stubbern adherence to 8 ‘etnion to comnita felony. Otherwise stated, the execution ‘ofthe plan must be preceded by coal thought and reflection (of the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of ime eulicient to arrive ata calm judgment. 4. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify @ {alling tommurdesin the absence of evidence, not only ofsuf- ficient lapse of time, but leo of the planning and prepara- tlon to kl wheathe plan was conceived. (People vs. Nel, Bt SCAD) The information that Edgardo beard Arturo was hunting” him because of competition over gis not sue fidentte prove evident premeditation (People vs, Wencesl30, ‘August 1992) or of alleged resentment does not constitute Conclusive proof of evident premeditation. (People vs Padame, GR, No, 132197, October 1999) 4 Evident premecitation means the lapse ofa period sulicint {va pdt sere to afford fll opportu for meditation“ ‘COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWARIN CROANALLAW and reflection and sulfcient wo allow te consdnoe ofthe {ctor to overcome theresolation ofhis wil31/2hour fom the plan tots execution is sullen te for th accused to Alpassionatelyrefleet upon the consequences af is act ot todas from ts exestion. 5, Brident premeditation not inherenta roUber withhomi- cide. In such an ofese, the evident premeditation must inte to the llling end not tothe robbery. (People vs Manareala, July 1992) 6, eth atack upon te village i planned, the Kling of any individul during heads atfended aliaby evident pre eftation 7. Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is direlly e- tablished wth proof ofthe atendant deliseration and se- lection ofthe method, time and means of exccuting thecrime, theesistence of eidentpromeditation canbe presumed But tin he cas of pled copay benuse evden premed lation may not be appreciated in the abeence of proof as to how and when the pan fo Xl the vicki was faced or ‘What ine elapsed before twas cased out forthe accused to have “sufficient time between its inception and Its failmentdispassinatly to consider and aexept the con- sequences” (People vs. Manareaa d; People vs. Paden, May 1950) raf traud,dleguiso 1 Crafts caning orinelectultickery oxchicanery resorted tether to cn uthis ei dep. x ofender assum poston of ethorty to gain enty Ina howe feigr- {ng rendship tole viet to an uninhabited place. Fused tongue the commision ofthe rie aga eons) With- outs to offender, is aborbed by teacher. 2 Fraud constitutes dest manifested by insdicus words ot ‘machinadans,Dingiesresored to conceal the dent If in spit of thé disguise, the offender was ecogrized such cannot be aggravating, Not aggravating lid not fel- fate the commisionefthecsime ort isnot alm advantage ofby the offender inthe course ofthe assault. feat fraud ‘or dlgguse was used to insure the comission ofthe crime {Gegainat persors) without rk to offendes they are absorbed Dy treachery. eee ae eae ey earere 1 Auten se sere le eect Sep ee et ee ae area pat ttt spin noe oa eee nner cn en ten caer seer nent Soreness eer unmet ihm der ia eo eer en pie pe tara elle aloe eee eae on a ee Anca sh eo oat ate rota en ere Sa ee cee hn a he seen se es nla ce a even irene ere ey oe 1999) ‘Troachery (alovesia) 1. When itis shown that the attack wasrotmade with alevosla (Greachery) he number of the assallats and the simultane- ty of the atlack upon a defenseless person may constituteCCOMPREHENSIVEREVIOWER ILCEDENAL:AW | abuse of force. This is manifest where the vicim was un- fsmedandwastyingt fee while the two fdonswere armed ‘used their weapons in perpetrating the crime. (People se Alice, july 290) PMNS ‘Where three persons assaulted the victim inside his house ‘and the appeliant stabbed the deceased while the latter was ‘fimly held by the two other companions, treachery cannot be appreciated because it is included in abuse of superior “Treachery mus) insure tha the offended wat not ble fo Bu up any deft ot ven en defer an) the ‘near manney and form was consciously and deliberately cesen People a Magallanes, August 1°97) The mem meio orforma ofthe xc he ten ste tciously adopted becase the law requires that ae ame i Sare lis exoction. The tack mua be ineded to fatate the perpettin of the ling thot rk ote offender froma defene the vicim mightofer ‘Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim was ‘wamed of the danger to his person, for wat is decaive is that the execution of he tack made t impose forthe im to defend himeelf or retaliate. (People va ye at. (People vs Landicho, This a special aggravating circumstance because present in ‘crimes against persore only. Its qualifying in murder. In serious physical injurss, is a specal aggravating creum- stance which increases the penalty. ' ‘There is no treachery Ifthe attack is an impiulse ofthe ac- ‘cused or when te kllng is du to pasion or when the ac- ‘sed did not make any preparation to kil the deceased 80 ‘sto insure the commission ofthe crime. ‘When the attack is frontal, generally, there is no But thene is treachery when the attack although frontal is sudden and made in ach a manrer that tends directly and {Spec tnure scion fom danger end cout risk to the offender. wth 18, Wheres the easence of evident premeditations cool thought and reflection, the essence of treachery i the swiftness and the unexpectedness of the attack upon fhe unsuspecting and ‘unarmed vieim, who does not give te slightest prowoca- tion. (People ve. Rebamontan, April 1999) ‘9. Generally itamust be presenta the inception ofthe attack. If the attack wee without treachery tits inception, there mut ‘bea breakorinterruption in the atackforitto be considered ifthe attack was conaummated with reschery. After the com ‘mencement of such an attack, and before its termination, an fccused person may have employed means or methods ‘which were of treacherous character and yet sch means ‘ormethods would not contitute the sumstanceofalevosia. ‘ne continuous altack cannotbe broken upinto two ormore arts. ‘Where helone witness was nat abl to observe the com- mencement ofthe assault he could not testify on how it all began and developed. Absent any particulars as to the man- ‘net in which the aggression commenced or how theact which resulted in the death ofthe victim unfolded, treachery can rot be appreiated to qualify the ling to murder 410, Treachery mas be proved as convincingly asthe crime itself ‘becauteiteannotbe presumed. Itcannst be inferred just from ‘thelocation ef the wound because the evidence should show the manner ofthe attack and how the victim reacted thereto. 11, Ifthe victimis a young chil, there i treachery even If the ‘manner of te attackisnotshown. Theeisablatantinequal- ity of trength between the offender andthe victim but abuse ‘of superior eength cannot be apprecated as itis necessa fly absorbedin treachery. 12, The allegation in the Information the! the victims are both minors is tobe considezed complianc: with the above-men- ‘Honed rule. itis commonly understood in practice that wher the vitim inphysieal injures, homicide or murder casest2 child of tencer years, he is described in the information a8 ‘minor. Mincrity in such eases should rot be equated withitsn ‘COMPREHENSIVE aVEWaR RS CADINALLAN stator meaning — thats, below 18 yeas fage is used ‘ota sthantoyins naga var mor a desertion oft site plese te Young tim. (People vs Abuyen) * 19, Treachery absorbs both nightime and taking advantage of sxperorstengthin flight of thecieumstanasofthecse 7a. Considering that treachery qualifies thekilling of the four victims inthis cae, the accused-appellant is gly of four counts of murder. People vs. Bechaya, August 1992) 1. Treachery may be appreciated in aber ces. When ollender ed ths verry bt ed tevin wee alpen heaves The dents wee muds ‘ot simply homicidesince the ats were qualified by treach- ery (People ws. Hors, jme 23,2000) " 15. ‘The “retaliation” relevant in the spprecation of treachery ‘ust come from the victim, not from anyone else. That the sit ofthe crime was heavily populated where others could thus intervene isnot significant at al, People vs. Coste, GR No. 134311, Ocuber 1999) gnominy and eruelty 1. Ignominy pertain tothe moral oder whic lds dagzce 2d eblogey tothe ntl iry eased byte ete produce more sai on tonto eating ef Eos tan not appt ina ue wher seed a tsa wns ot sho ashing ban done by seed patho vicintochan oiling hin epic Dine, ER No 196i Ocmer 199) 2. Ignomin lates o nora eufrng where oy refers tS pia tinge seul when cle lglnmakingh cater lowly al ral ets Ingunnecnay mor and pyilpin me conse fon of he cnt 2 whch einen to omen The umber of wounds se ove no inde tly es Scena toshow ht se wernt unncsaly wie theicin wae alve prong his pst suing “CIISTANCES AFFECTING CRDANALLABLITY a ‘3. The mere fat that there were mumerous stab wounds will ‘oteause appreciation of the dreumstance of cruelty because fhe offender may be overwhelmed by passion or obfusca- ton oritmey be that the victim was already dead when the Stab wounds were inflcted and can ro longer suffer pain in ‘exces of that necessary to commit the crime, 4. Assuming that the victim was sil alive during the entire period ofthe ordeal to which he was eubjcte, there ald [Possibly beeruelty since appellants éeliberately augmented the wrong they committed. On the oher hand, ifthe victin tied imecaily afterhe was stabbed then could be held to have outraged his corpse when they Bendishly slashed his intestines to pieces, Further, the intervening tore ‘between the intial attack and subsequent acts must be sul ‘nfl established to enable the Court to determine whether ‘hey were one continuous eries of sts or were s0 deliber- ately spaced as to constitute either emlty or outrage (Peo- ples. Balter, October 1994) 5. “The killing was done with cruelty, by deliberately o nk marly augmenting the efering of te victim or outraghng, ‘or scoffng at hi person or corpse. No greater outrage, in- Sultor abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than Yo fever the head thesedrom. The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence directs! towards it cannot be Interpretedinany other manner than an outrage this corp. (People ve Binondo, October 1992) 6. As the vidim rolled tunconscious after she was ravished, fll hacked her, almost spiting her face in two. Such bestiality is a form oferty and perversity which ag- igrvated te crime, it being unncczsary tothe commission. {Rreroot, aed manifestly an outrage on the victim's person, (People ve Nesco, December 1994) Unlawful entry breaking of door, ete. “heres unawl entry when an etance is ele by way ntirtendd forth perposs. But making doo tener ot unlawul entry since his covered by paragraph 19 ofA‘de 14 which statsthat “asameans to the commission ef the cme wall roof, loo, door, or window be broken” showing that une Jawa entry excludes ingress by means of euch breaking. ‘Aid of minor, uso of motor vehicle 1. These are two distinct circumstances: with the ad of minor showing greater perversity ofthe offender and the use by modem cininas of fate mea of conveyan commit ‘cme. Considered when the moter vehicle was purposely used to {facilitate the commission ofthe offense or when it is shown that without itthe offerse charged could not havebeen com- mitted or when it was intentionally sought to insure the euc- cossof theact. “Other similar means” should refer to other means of trans portation that are similar to motor vehicles or aihipa, ef. ‘moor eycles under the principle of "adem gener” Pea {snot nuded. Its not aggravating ifthe vehi was not used directly oinairety to facilitate the cri nal at. (People 5 Amion, GR. No. HSI, March 1, 2001) ‘The use by criminal of motorized means of conveyance to Tian CANCURGTANCES AFFECTING CRDABAC IAB memory aid —SADBroSA] of the offender. Stepparents and_ stepdildren ae included by analogy but not uncles and eas, gating eae property by analogy othe 2 REE Sr wich xenpts he ofer fr i, ‘estafa and malicious mischief, In serious physical injuries Seemed egurot the child due o ie peer’ excesive ‘Festiement lationship not ggrating 5 Sveimes apna chatty sch at act of acvoumesy, ‘A lnortptagravating (People Masta, GR. No, a estan 141183, January 18, 2001) a Mis oe eet rc ae Be aie mee Jacks cas convic Fwhat was not charged against WM I a Seca i ex cape trip nage G hulp Beier te oo ead ny mandiary. ae an altemative a -2ty ance Srgald no longer be applied in view ofthe commit the crime is penalized because they pow dificalty Te Cine sua smundments Introduced by RA.76E. It may be pointed, tothe authorities in apprehending them. 1h haratfe, ware at wethou he freeing mere elton an aggreeating Grcumatance in ARTICLE 15 — Altorativ Circumstances GL ship woul oat ee ac ee 1. Aleratvecrcumstaces arethote which mst be taken nto consideration as aggreating or mitigating sorting fo the ‘ature and elec of he xine and oer conditions stené- {git comoinsion. They are considered only when they n= Basen gecesi The three aigmatve dreumatancesanrelatonsp, ntox- cation andere of nstraction and edteation of the of [Relationship is taken into consideration when the offended ap partys the Spouse, Ascendant, Descendant legitimate, natu- SA®6N iPr ral, or adopted Brother or Sister or relative by Affinity ol ere etc Bane le ‘Manhuyod, May 1998) 8. lKatoxieatioa should affect the offender's mental faculties. ‘Mere drinking of liquor prior to the cammission of the crime (seca clea \ pol HX erson pleading intoxcationas a mitigating ium- ane ct Gb ha tae gut al follc bevenge proe tothe commission ofthe erm, ff “Gent to reduce the elect of cbfasrting reason; and (2 Be, {Sots aitual drinker and did notte the aloholic dirk feldthe intention reinforce hisesclve to comunitthe ce, (People vs.Pinca, G.R. No, 129256, Nc 7” ‘CONREMENSIVESEVIEWERIN CRIMINALLY 9, Cgaes tain bilansmay be considered a8 ‘aipatng or aggravating depending upon te nature of “crime. committed, Ifthe crime is bosically wrong, such a5, paride, theft or ape is immaterial whether te ofender Erchooled or noe _Thehighdegecteaming shoul be akin elton to tha lime conunlted whether is ecueton pushin ato ‘Tooter pon ae ordnay offenders 10, isnot literacy alone but the lack of intelligence ofthe of ender that s considered. If one isnot iterate but intel gent or mentally alert or comes from a fami of profession- ts that he exsly realizes the significance offs ac, there is ‘no mitigation. 11, CAVEAT. the degre finstruction or education may already have been considered in the penalty such af abortion practiced by physician, in which exseithould not be considered anymore. xme.sse— he cimnany ade a eet gone an Pipes Aon Seas Rene eee To EE re SLE rte i a eet = : a. pent pone tad Sacra Soasteesse Ce wc naunt pennants bx ‘eyton (Bape we ate ‘al evo et oma sree ARTICLE 17 —Piincipals 1. (Grincpatnby direct participation are those who materially ‘execute the crime, They mustappsacat thesoene of the crime Prin = “emeUNTANCES APFBCTING CHMINA UABTITY andpemacereoesuryninecommisionatheotine sob bi —— 2 Tmeanspiragy by prior agreement, al by ERS We oes nk appear oe cee ofthe cine nt ible ea a His nonappearance is deemed Gesetanes which i favored ane encouraged: 1b Conspiracy is peerally nota crime unless the aw pepe Seer ese ie 8) Ths Say Poonapring the wee bepartispator aot ye ‘ounmited any erime unless he ‘appear at the saa tne rea perform an act diel orie- ‘amanneras to become the dete hace, Where he words uteed dl rob ‘oscea dominance or moral ascendancy over the offender Mall not wake himn a principal by inducement. A. The inducers generally able as an accomplice bonus the {aw favors a lesser penalty. 5 Se re “They did gob appear in cme wauldnt hevebeen commie we! a= ao ahs fo commit he cane Flag Eeoaarniesmeaiecine “Thefact thatit was Manall ard not pettoner who dealt ively with aid fixer cannot exulpate petitioner fromthe‘charge of falsification. He isa principal by inducement in the commission of sid crime. (i) 6, Art. 17 ofthe Code provides that *disect induce others fo commitan offense. One Tsliduced to commit a cime eer by 9.0 cpt) ‘fora consideration (aco) orby any other siiar act which ‘constitutes the realand moving caus ofthecrimeand which 2. ‘as done for the purpose df inducing such criminal act and ‘Which was sufficient for that purpose. (People vs Dumancas, GR-Nos, 138527-28, December 13, 1998) 7. ‘Tobe considered 2s « principal by indispensable on, there mast be “Bigh by another act without which: eld not have. te a ak Gaile wha, ihdveeluent uly? 4 » costaat ob) Rhett. ad uly sive act mist be of such importance that ua} | jun vi lone woul not ave been commited whos hn o Sach pate in Oberon cn trod» Final by tdpesasecospersaon (People ve. ‘ronda, May 1993) " pupal neers copaptin-aay cae tor ander he doch a taped cosplay TS Seay pans a kinder isa mit sach cimes, setting them spart from the commen offenses, aside fom thelr esectally involving a mes- sive conspiracy of nationwice magnitude. (Gane Padila va. Envle, 121 SCRA) Squating, hence even if the legal occupancy of the property of snather commenced prior tothe promtl- {ation of PD 772 on August 2, 1975, sinceit continued ‘up tothe fling ofthe information, the offender can be held able under the law. (Dacutanan vs. People, Aa- gust 1990, Minute Resolution People vs. City Cour, General Santos Cy, April 1999) Violation of BP. Blg. 2. Venus is determined by the place where the laments of making, issuing or draw- {ng ofthe check and delivery thereof are commited ‘Thus, a person indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any jursdition where the offence ‘was in part committed. The ple where the billa were writen, signed, or dated does ot necessary fx ot de- termine the place where they ware executed. What sofwe ‘COMPREHENEIVEREVISWERIN CHMINALLAW ecisive importance is the delivery thereat. The dei tery ofthe instruments the final act essontia tots con- SSthumation as anbligation. (basco vs. CA, September 1996) 4. Abduction, kidnapping snd legal detention, B. When an actor acts constitute more than one offense, the accused may be lable elther for: a. A-single crime, with one crime absezbing the other offenses 'b. Acomplex crime when the offenses constitute grave oF Jess grave feloiss or when one crime isthe necessary tocommit the other & _Aspecial complex crime, with each offenses constitut- ing elements ofthe composite offense 4. Twoseparate crimes For instance the taking of woman forcibly and thereaf- {ex rape was committed on her How should the offenders be charged? ‘a. TF the original intents to rape the taking is merely a ‘means fo commit the intended offense in which case, the evime is simple rape, the abduction being a neces- sary means to bring about the desired result. ifthe intention i to take the woman against her will ‘with lewd designs there i the complex erime offre ble abduction with rape. ¢_lftheoriginl intention sto kidnap the woman for ran- som and thereafter, rape is committed as an alter- ‘hought the ofensecomitted is special complex crime cof kidnapping with ape 4. IFin (B) above there wore several courts of rape, the fst rape shall be complexed with the forcble abduc- _ tion and the subsequent apes reated.as separate crimes of tape. ARTICLE 49 1. Thepenaltis fr the intended and theactual crime commit ted aze compared and the lower penalty is imposed in the _muaxmtam period, Forinstane, if theistended crime ishomi- ‘de but due to eror i personae, te artual rime commited {sparricid, the penalty shallbe for mide. Ifthe intended ‘on the other hand is paricide and the actual crime ited s homicide, the penalty shall Bkewise befor te homicide. 2. Article 49 rovides forthe imposition ofthe lower penalty in the maximum period, whereas aricle 48 prescribes the penalty forthe most serious offende in the maximum pe od. 3. Compare th penalty forthe intended crime and for the ac: cz coomitted, Impose the lower penalty in the mas sum period, Exception: if the crime committed constitutes fan attempt or frustration of another with a higher penalty land the lax provides a higher penalty forthe frustrated or ‘attempted, the penalty for the later shall be imposed in the ‘maximum period. ARTICLES 50-57 — Penalty for attemptad and frustrated {felonies on the accomplices and eccessorlos ARTICLE 64 —Rules for graduating penaltios ARTICLE 71 —Graduatod scales 1 Art 71 provides the sale from whichthe penalty prescribed ‘nthe rule in Ar. 61 shall be taken. Art. 61 prescribes the rules fr applying the penalty next lnwer in degree in Arts, 501057. 2. Inthe application ofthe rules in Arte 6, ‘stopd that each penalty presaibed bylaw for every felony is ‘2 degree, Thus, generally when the penalty imposed ecm rises of two pariods, the penalty is one degree End the peralty nextlowerin degree should be composed of two periods also. tobe under3. Thepenaltiesin Book I ofthe Code are understood tobe: (a) the prindipal penalties imposed (b) upon the principal of- fender (c) fr the consummated felony. (Arce 46) Hence, there ie a need to provide the rules whan the crime isnot ‘onmmmated, and when the offenders include aecomplicos and/or acessories. 4. Miustrating Articles 50-57, the penalty forthe three stages against the offendes: Consuurmated Prustrated Principal lessOdegree oss 1 degree ess 2 degrees ‘Accomplice Jess Ldegree ess 2deproos as 3 degrees ‘Accessory less 2degrece ese 3 degrecs less 4 degrees Additional deductions from the penalties are provided fn Articles 250 of ene degree for Fused and attempted ppsrcide, murder or homicide because ofthe gravity ofthe penalty prescribed. 5. According to Art. 71 the penalty nextlowerin degree than resto mayor ies and notaresto mer, whereas undet ‘AP. 70, deste fellows ersto menor inthe degree of ever- ity 6 The rules for graduating penalties under tice 61 are as follows When the perlty prescribed i single ad indivisible thenextlowerin dgrecis the penalty immediately fl- lowing under At. 71. Thus, Relulon Perpetua is one degrestower han Death '. Fortwo indivisible penalties, the next lower i that im- ‘mediately folowing the minimum oo for Recusion Perpetua to Death, the penalty next lower is Recuson Tempra. c._ Whenthe penalty presarbed is composed of one ormore * divistlepenalies tobe imposed to ther fullextent the Attempted penalty nex lower in degree she be that immediately following the lesser, eg. prision mayor to recusin te poral the penalty next lower is psion correcconal. Incase of one or more indivisible penalties and the max- ‘mum cf a divisible penalty, the next lower in degre shall be composed ofthe medium and minimum per ods of hat divisible penalty and the maximum period ofthat immediately following. Thus, one degree lower than Rectusion Temporal maximum to Death is Prior ‘Mayor maximum to Reclsion Temporal medium. (Peo- ple vs. Paredes, November 1996), ‘The penalty for brigandage under Arle 206i prion. ‘yor ints medium period to relusion temporal in sminimum peri, a penalty composed of three corresponding to diferent divisible penalties, The pen aly etlower shal lewsebeemposed of the ‘Maximum — prision mayor minimm ‘Medium — prison corecioal, maxdenum Minimum — prison correceonal, medium ARTICLE 62 1. The different kinds of modifying ieumetances referred to here ae: » “Those which in themselves costitute «crime (fare apt much as “by means of errs “hoselncludedby law in defining crime and pres sng the penalty (paragraph 1) ¢g-layinghands upon» Freon aahoatyinDeee Aaa PO ‘hose aherent inthe crime (pargraph eg. evident premeditation in robbery. “s “hese circumstances shallnclongerbe considered Jnimpesing the penalty because and) they were Already considered by the lew n presen the perCOMPRELENSVEREVIEWER INCRMENALLAW alt forthe offerse and in (c) the circumstance is ab- sorbed by the cine committed 4. Those pertiningto the moral atibutes of heoffender orhis relations wth the offended or any otter personal ‘causes (paragraph 3) — only the offender having such ‘attribute shal be affected, a for instance, enly the one blinded by passion a obfuscation shall have his labile ‘ty mitigated. In ape, the relationship af one ofthe of- fender will be considered against him only and not against the other offenders. Habitual delinquency will be considered agiint the ane to whom it pertains and ‘wil not aggravate the crime ofthe athe ofenders. “The inserted provision of Art. 62(1)a) ofthe Code of syndi- cated of organized crime group is the deed of a group of, ‘persons at least two in number, which is oxgarized for the ‘Purpose of committing crimes for gain. Ths special aggra- ‘ating circumstance quires proof thatthe group i organ- ined forthe general purpore of commiting crimes for gal. which is the essence cf syndicated /organized crime group. (People ve. Alberca, June 1996) Another new provision referring to the aggravating cireusn- stance of sbuse of offdal postion where the peralty shallbe Imposed in the maximum pesiod regardless ofthe mitigat- ing circumstances, This complement the canstitional pre- ‘ceptof publicofice isa pubic trust. Its submited however that when the penaltyiampesable is eluson wert todeath under Art. 63 and thee are mitigating cxcumstances con- turing or when the aggravating circumstance of abuse of fill postion concurs with a privilege mitigating circam- stance this provision under Art 62(1.) should give way. ‘The phrase “same rule” in no, 2 of Art. 62 should refer to ‘paragraph 1 of no, 1 without regard to no. 1(2)because the fatter was a mere insertion. Thus the same mule i, aggra- vating reumotances which are inhverentin he cime to rach degree that it shall ofnecessity accompany the offence shall ‘no longer increas the penalty therefor. ARTICLE 63 — Rules for application of indivisible penaltios 1. There are to asses of penalties in hs astcle each witht own rls: ‘Single indivstle penalty under pat. 1— (rectusion perpetia OR deal) (Memory Ald— SIP) — modi. {ng creamstance are never comidere Tindale penalties under pez 2— _(reclusiox pepe TO death) (Memory Asd—TIP) Here the rules -Moiifying Circumstance Polly tobe imposed 1 mitigating — reclusion perpen ‘aggravating = death ‘No aggravating/no mitigating — recluson perpetus Some mitigating/some — offset then apply aggravating the forgoing ries 2, Thepenaltycarnotbelowered by onedegreeno matterhovw ‘many mitigating ircumstances are present. The courts can ‘only impote the lesser penalty, whichis Reclsion Pepe. ‘The rein Article 64{5] which allowesone degree deduction ‘when there are two or more mitigating with no aggravating ‘circumstances present does not apply in Article 63. 3. The mitigating circumstances refered to in Articles 63 and (64 ae ordinary mitigating circumstances because privileged -mitigating drcumstances are always considered whether the penalty imposed fs divisible or indivisible. 4 While Art. 248 ofthe Code punishes murder with “1 perptua to death” it doesnot follow ‘hat courts should x [pose thase two indivisible penalties. What shouldbe imposed {s one or the other depending on the presence of modifying ‘Gccurnstances, (People vs. Rabanilo, May 26 1999) 5. Under the amendatory sections of R.A. No. 759, the pene ty of reclusionpepetua to death s also imposed on treason1 ‘COMREENSIVEEVEBVERD CRINALLAW by alipino(Sc.2), qualified precy (Sec. 9, paid (See. 8} murder (Sec. 6, Kidnapping and serious legs detention (Gee 8)robbery with hide Gee 9), datructvearson See 10), rape committed under certain creumetancs (Sec. 1) and plunder Se. 12) Since rectuson pepetua s an inva penalty thas no minimum, medium or maximum period. (People vs. Villanueva, 54 SCRA) And wher the lw proses asi sleindiviible penalty it shall be applied, parse of any nligaling or aggravating crewmstances that may Rave at fended the commission ofthe eine, (People ve. Dons 254 sow) ARTICLE 64 — Rules for application of Divisible ponslty 1. Therules when the penalty impossble is a divisble penalty Madifying Creumsionces Proper Period No aggravating and’no — Medium mitigating b. Mitigating only — Minimum © Aggewaingonly Maxam Some of both cscum- — oft chen apply the stances present towers © Two or more mifgating — one degree lower In and no Aggravating ‘ha preparperiod ‘Ast. 64 Is important in the application of Indeterminate ‘Sentence Law (SLAW) because the modifying crmumstances are frst considered inthe determination of the ‘penalty. On the basis ofthe maximum penalty inpored, the ‘minimum penalty shall be computed. ‘8. The court shall imposs the penalty next lower to that pre- scribed by the Code inthe period that it ay deem applicx- ble depending upon the number and nature ofthe miigat- ‘ng circumstances pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Artie. For instance in the crime of homicide which is punishable ‘with elusion tempor, whore there are tro mitigating with ‘no aggravating circumstances, the imposible penalty is one degre lower or prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law; the convict must be meted the penalty with the minimum within the range of prisin corecioal and the _ maximum thoeof within the range of prion mayor. (People '. Germin, Nay 1998) 4 Courts cannot: 4. Lowerthe penalty by degree when theres an aggzavat- ing crcurstence even ifthe net ect ofthe ‘is two or more mitigating circumstances lf (pat. 5); ', Impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law ‘no maiter how many aggravating circumstances are present. 5. Article 64 does not apply to quasi-offemes because Article 365, paragraph 5 provides thet in the imposition ofthe pen- alts for impradence, the courts shall evercce their sound discretion without regard tothe rules prescribed in Article (64, Modifying circumstances substitute for the discretion of thejudgeintheimposition ofthe penalties, hence when these ‘reumstances are not applicable, the fuige ie given leeway toexercise his sound discretion. 6. ‘Thesignificanc of ne day inthe beginsing of the period of penalty is that separates one degree from the ther. For Instance, pisos correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 year) {sceparated fram prision mayor (years acd 1 day to 12 years) by one day. The one-day difference dessrmines whether & ‘convict shall be eligible for probation oe not, whether sub- ‘iia penalty can be imposed or not ec. ‘The I-day difference separates recsion temporal from, clusion perpetia wich determines wheher the rules in a= ticle 63 or artic 64 willbe applied in determining the proper period of penalty in view ofthe presence or absence of the modifying creamstances,[ARTICLE 65 — Rules when penalty not compesed (of portods [ARTICLE 76— Legal duration of penalty 1L_ Ast.76is the lw on duration of divisible penalties which is {hat divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into 3 periods: the miniawm, medium and maxiarum. The dur ‘on ofthe period ofa divisible penalty is computed as fol lows: Using as an example prison mryor wits a perlod of 6 years and I day to 12 years: ‘Step 1— Deduct the beginning of the period from the ‘end of the period. 12yeare minus 5 years = 6 years Step 2 — Divide the difference by 3 corresponding to ¢the3 periods of minirrum, medium and marimim. 6 years divided by 3=2 years Step3—Ada the quotient instep 2to the beginning of cach period darting with the minimum. 6 years and 1 day plas 2 years =8 years. Hence: Minimum — 6 yeas and 1 day to8 years Medium— 8 years and 1 day 100 years ‘Maximum — 10 years and I day to yeas 2. Art 65 applies when the penalty is divisible busis not com- poted of 3 periods, Fr instance ebbery in an uninhabited lace is penalized by prism crrecciona in ts medium and Fnoximum periods (Art 302) The duration of his penalty is 2 years, 4mos. and 1 day to 6 years. ‘3. Harmonizing these two provision, the penalty shall be con- ‘verted info one with thee periods to comply with the legal ‘duration of the penal. The steps are: a. , Getthe duration ofthe penalty 6 yrs Jess 2 yrs.Amonths =3 yrs and 8 mos. or Ames. b. Divide the duration of the penaltyby 3 to get the dur tion of ech period. ‘4hmos./ 3= 14 mos. and 10 dayseach period ‘& Add the quotient tothe minimum of each period. The owestisthe minimum peciod thesecond the medium, ‘and the highest the maximum. Thus, ‘Minimum =? yes. 4 mos. 1 day to3 yrs 6 mos. 10 days Medium =3 yrs. 6 mos. 11 days tod yr. 8 mos. 20 days ‘Maximum =4 yrs 8 mos, 21 daysto 6 yrs. ARTICLE 66 — Imposition of finos. 1. The factors to consider in the impesition of fines tothe cul- pritare: ‘4. Presence of mitigating and aggravating creumstances, Th one tase, the Supreme cour: reduced the fine of 1000000 to only P2000.00 in view of the presence of three mitigating circumstances. (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayar, supra.) ', More particulatly the wealth or reans ofelpsit. Thus, thefineto be imposed may be reduced if notwithtand- ing the presence of aggravating dreumstance, the cil- pritcarnot afford the comet fine. ARTICLE 68 — Penalty on minors 1 Forover 9 bat less than 15 who acted with discernment — take note that the 2-degree reduction AT LEAST and AL- WAYS; thus could be2 degrees, 3 depres ormorebut never Jess than 2, is mandatory in the sane thatthe penalty uc- der paragraph 1 ofthis article should always be loyered in tll cases, and diseetionary in that thejudge has the disc tion to lowerit by two or more degre. 2, Foraver 15 but under 18 —one degree lower but alwaysin the proper period. 5. The age is mckoned at the time of the cortmission of the offs obeented plasmin ATENEO FESSIONAL SUiiUO} LIBRARYCOMFREEENSIVE REVIEWER CROAINAL LAT ‘Unde this Acti, when the acted ses han 1B yeas of the penalty hal avaye blower by at int vo de ‘cst fon comateispnisabl with ath, 0 Specs lowes than that is son tempore ie 7, on Sh oter and stats ha the death penal sall lowered torecsion ppt for endrs es than 18 eis ebm that i Article 6 that shall be ppc ble for fenders lth 1 beease in eof eb gly, the law is tobe conten! nav ofthe cred tpectaly fora clef tender age. Moneovey, Ace © enpsized thn peal shall be AFLEAST to depres ALWAYS. “hus, considering he gravity ofthe ofense and in the Int oft he Spree Court adited thebith er tous of the acesed to prove the miigatingdreumstance tfinonty sihogh sib etfs weenot presented Groene nthe tal court. Peopievs Regan March 193) When the crs sexi 15 thelist cearasohow the penal should be reduced. Ie submited at Ue tere derassaf lnelaw beaplledandincide hem paragraph Totartie 6 ‘When an acised is nolonger 8 years of age ate tne of sentencing, he cntotanyoe stall of the benef of su person of hi entence under the Code Popls v- dlos Reyes 215 SCRA) Te fl tne he apent i atu commit trontand detention coring tal hal however be ceded {Reserve of his setts (PD 60, Ar 197-3) ‘Theburden of proof tht assed was amin athe tine of the commision of the ofc bon hi. ‘he minor was 17 yeas old when he commie he ofenee ‘Minos under pargmph 2 Arle 6 shouldbe apprec tied ina flaver the pealyprscibed for te ctme oa bay wih ope is econ presto deat Te ggraal- ingcicumstinosofnocumityendabose super tera attended the commission ofthe crime, Wi agave ing creunatans prvert wth no ondinary mating Csstances to ft ey the penalty shal be tmponed maxim period. The imposable pnalty preserbed by lar therefore ie reclusion temporal in itsmaximum period. (One degree lower than recusion peru to death because of the privieged mitigating drcumstance of minority) AP- plying the iedeterminate Sentence Lay he is meted the in- Aleterminate sentence of 10 years and day of priion mayer {nits maximam period to 18 years,2 months and 21 daysof reclusion temporal in its maximum period. (People vs. ‘Mendoza, July 1998) ARTICLE 69 — Ponalty for incomplete justification ‘and exemption 1. The penalty may be reduced by one octwo degrees f major. ty ofthe conditions required tojustify a exempt from criml- nal ability ae present. In such eas, the incomplete justifi- ‘ation or exemption isa privileged miigating eumstance 2. fthereis presentlees than amajorty ofthe conditions, thor rl beaten mitigating cumstance whichl lower the penalty to the minimum period, 3, Penalty lower by one or two degrees shall be imposed if the deed snot holy excusable IFmajorty ofthe requtemers for defense of property are present, te penalty may be on ered by two degrees to prison corel. And when incom plete self-defense is coupled by wo moremitigating cum stances the penalty under Article 6415) may further be re duced by one degree, that i, areso mayor, because ofthe presence of? mitigating cumstances and no aggravating ‘Grourstance. (Poople vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA) A, Arts. 11 and 12 vies Art. 69 and Art. 130) All equates present — ecempting june 2ormore requisites present — privileged mitigating Srounwtance only present = ondinary mitigating drumetneeBat in defense of self, relatives or stranges,unlawtal aggression must always be present otheriee there is noth- ing to defend. fl '5. Incomplete justifation fsa special or privileged mitigat ing creumstance, which, not only cannot be offset by 8g- ‘gavating creumétances but also redoces the penalty by ne or two degrees than that prescribed by law. The instant tase would have fallen under Art. 11, per.Shad the 2 on- ‘ition therefor concurred whic, to reiterate: fre, that the fenased acted In the performance of a duty or the lawl texercse ofa right or office; and second, thatthe inary ot fffense commited be the necessary consecuence of the due oe of such dity or the lawful exercise of such Fight or office. But kere, only the fist cxndition. was ful- filed. Hence, Art $9 is applicable, although “that the ‘majority of such conditions be present,” is immaterial since there aze only 2 conditions that may be taken into account “Article 6 1s obviously in favor of the accumd as it ‘ides fora penalty lower than that presebed by law when the erime colmmitted ie not wholly justifiable. The inten- tion of the legislature isto mitigate the penalty by reason. Of the diminution of either freedom of action intelligence fr intent or of the lesser perversity of the offender. (People ¥e. SPO! Ulep, GR No, 132547, September 20 2000) Article 29 prescribes for homicide the penalty of elu: sion temporal, the range of which is 12 years and 1 day 1020, Years. For an incemplete justifying cireumstance of Talllinent ofa duty the penalty should be 1 degree lower, fe, from reciusionlenporl to prison mayor, pursuant to Art. in relation to Art 61, par. 2, and Art. 71, tobe imposed in ts minimum period since accused — voluntarily surrendered. tothe authorities and there wasno aggravating circumstance ‘to offset this mitigating circumstance, (id ARTICLE 70 — Successive service of sentences 1. When the culprit iegiven multiple sentences, he same must be served simultansovaly if the nature of the penalties per- sits Others, the penalties shall beservedsuecesivey Simnlaneos services the rue whereseucrsive service inthe exception “The penalty sto be served in the onder hein prescribe ‘hoering the flowing liiations: 4 The mrsimum duration ofthe conv sentence shal tot be moe than feel! he gh of ie cones pont tothe most severe ofthe peas ‘other penalty to which he maybe inble shall be - Ftd afr the otal of those igooed equals the sare fran period, (Threeold ne) Such maximum peti shall inno cate exceed forty yea. Steps to determine the duration of erence tobe served: get the mos severe peully (rom At 7) slip by dd the duration ofthe diferent sentences compare the rests of band c cused to serve the lesser period which shall not ex- ‘ened 40 years. “This Articledeals with SERVICE of sentence, not with impor ‘ition hence, for the prison Director to follow, not for the courts Thecourts should impose the correct penalties even {f these wil amount to more than the lifetime of the pri ‘oner The reason is that “should a pardon be granted aa t2 the penalty or penalties frst imposed” (Art. 70, pat. 2) he [embining tentences shall be servedin the order of seve, Consequerty, ll the sentences on the prisoner imposed by ‘say court for whatever crimes whenever filed shouldbe or- cred by this rae, “the penahies imposed are all equal the period thereof shall ‘be considered asthe most severe when applying the 3-foid rule. ppeeem6 ‘CoMFHEENIVE REVIEWER CRDNALLAW 7. When the death eontences executed; the desth sentences -winen more than one is meted are deemed simultaneously served. 8, When the moit severe penalty is reclusior perpetun o life ‘imprisonment (pena perpetua), the imputed duration shall be ‘years, thus 30 multiplied by 3is90 years. The culprit shall ‘servenst 90 but 40 years because of the expreslimitation in artide 70. ARTICLE 75 — Increasing or reducing fine Fines are reduced by one or two degrees when the felony is attempted or frstrated or when imposed upon the accessory or the acoomplice. For each degree, ~ of the maximum amount is taken. The penalty as computed shall inno casebe wer than the minimum preecribed by lw. For instance, if the fie prescribed bylaw is P50 to F200, —ofthe maximum aroun of F200istaken, ‘hati, PSO I the penalty is to be reduced by 2 degrees, the pen- alty computed as follows: Step1 — P200 divided by 4=P 50 2. — P5muliplied by 2 degrees = F100 3.— P200 mings P 100 100 sgt Pel a lowed by to degre here FD 12 ARTICLE 77 — Complex penalty 11. Acomplex penalty sane which is composed of thee dis- ‘inet penatles each forming a period, the Hightst of which ‘halle the minimum the next shall be the medium and the ‘most severe the mapimum. (Not to be confusad with com- plex rime under ar 43) 2. In People vs. Simon the Court corrected the eor in RA 7659 ‘which imposed in See. 20 a complex penalty composed of {four periods — prison corecionl to reusion prpetua —by cng i eb rir ei orto te |SDETERANATESETINE LAW w 2. peny whi provide oa ey reso tempo rea odo nciaepencempecad spa ah cng 3 ec oe Li seed The 2nd ungrpht Ar.77 ol Code which dal nh aplen pee thnee Fee Ti aneti os pote cots {Borin is Cate te psn ave ote o- Toit tay ered ati ewe A, Breet Tee ibe pel pened eee Sod renee icin pn! infin ete edn per emia ped cea odie dy to 0 yearend mann poche) INOETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 1. Modis thelmpeston of penalter nde both th Revised NESESISAND opal lee theseercemest xan emtenteavinan pod penal 2. Witndeermsate ater te cont haere th mim ‘ly her he tecmescligblefor pul ars contr Feat npc dept upon scone The Sinmun butbeseved Where ert ofhis ‘celssrvel ot of psn nde te sopeeson Senate 2. Theplspiyunderingheindsterninat Sent Lan oti elemental on ree soeetemcanry dopa penenlibety sd eran tees i a gar othe poco of he oc ‘Sher ieee Coe Tus ererving emma ifegon ding eta oad ie pooner vn pole 4. Tela snot appleable 2. nial penal f dest nif impreonnnt ‘Rubin edln pope parmuant Arie rng which prods thal when te perl i‘COMPREZENSIVEREVIEWERIN CRDUINALLAW posed is single and indivisible the same shall be im- posed without gard to any modifying cicamstance. ‘Frison terms of not more than 1 year (one year or ess) (Crimes of Treasen, Proposal or Conspiracy to Commit “Treason, Misprsion of Treason, RebeLion, Espionage, Sedition, Piracy (Offenders who a: habitual delinquents escapees from ‘confinement, evaders of sentence, viclators of eondi- ‘onal pardon granted by the Chie Executive Recdivists are entitled to an indetomninate sen- ‘tence. (People vs. Jarailla, February 2, 1974) Offender {snot disqualified to aval ofthe benefisfofhelaw even if the rime i committed while he som pale. People v8, Calon, CA78 0.G. 6701, November 8, 1982) ‘Nom-prison sentences of deter, disc ualifeation, ee. Gee.) 5. How ISLAW operates: ‘The sentence must stat: “Within the ange of (fr in- stance) prison mayor as alnimum, and within therange of rection temporal ag maxdsnuan.” This is necessary ‘because ofthe accessory penalties, “The maximum period is determined by considering the presence of mod fying circumstances applying therules {bn Art. 64, Privileged modifying creumstances must fist be considered before applying the said rules, “The minimum is ixed atone degree lower than that provided by the Code. ‘The minimum thercof shall be taken from any pe- riod ofthe pnaliy next ower degree. (Penple vs. Lian, 2555CRA) The penalty next lower shoulé be based on the penally presebed by the Code forthe offense, with- cout fret considering any modifying crcimstance at- + tendant to the commission ofthe crime. The determi- nation of the miniznum penalty is. Jft by law to the sound ciscretion ofthe court and it can be anywhene within the range ofthe penalty ned lower without any {ference tothe periods into which it might be subdi- ‘ided. The modifying circumstance are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeter- ‘inate sentence, (People vs Sale, july 1998) 6. Forcomplexcrimes, the penalty for the most serious offense shall be the bass for applying the Indeterminate Sentence ‘Law, Theone degre lower penalty should conformably wh the penalty for complex crimes, be lm2oced inits maximum. ‘period, The presence ofthe third mitigating circumstance of ‘rater ilentonem would result imposing perio the court Tnay deem applicable. Considering, however, that the pene tity has fobs imposed in the maxdanen period the only ef fect ofthis addtional mitigating circumstance is to impose ‘only the minimum portion of tha! maximum period, (Nizurtado ve. Sandiganbayan, supra) 7. ‘Therequirementof imposing definite maximum and mini ‘mum terms is mandatory. (Bacar vs. de Guzman, Jt, 27. SCRA) 8. Thefactthalthe lesser offense, ands xecessarly ower pen ally, resulted from a plea bargaining agreement is of 00> tment as far asthe penalty tobe imposed i concerned. Plew- bergaining s authorized by the present Rules and isin fac: tobe considered by the trial court at the pretrial ‘conference Ladino vi. Garla, 265 SCRA) n determining, ‘Whether an indeterminate sentence and not a stmight pert tty is proper what sconaidered isthe penalty actualy ia ‘poved by the tial court, aftr considering the attendant cit- Eumstances and not the impossble penalty. t would bean ‘unduly straned postulate hata ents-cearsved atby acoust ‘after vali plea bargaining should conatitate an exception to the Indeterminate Sentence Law ination to those ent ‘merated in Section 2 thereof. (Ladino s. Garcia, 265 SCRA) ©, Parole under the indeterminate Sentonce Law and parden: a. In parle, the minimum sentence must be served: fn pardon, service isnot required.Paroleisa benoit granted by lav, specifically the Inde terminate Sentence Law; Pardon isan exercie of the power of the President under the Constitution. 10, Notwithstanding the absence of any petition for a wait of habeas corpus oF any sila judicial reli, release irom im- prisonmentisin order after the maximum of the recomputed penalty under the amended Dangerous Drugs Lawhas been served. (People vs. Simon) PROBATION 1. tkinaepecil privilege gant by the Stat to guid of fenders easel refit appetin and encosuge ano wise cligbiconict immediately admits sity and Sve te tine effort apenest ton an appeal. (Pr Gioove.CA, APG 198) 2. The grant of probation rt primal upon the dition of thecourt whichis tobe eresed purl forthe bene of thesocity ae wholeand only incdentlly forthe bene of the aces 3. Probation is a mere plilege, nota right Its benefits cannot extend to those expressly excluded, Its an ac of grace and ‘demency or immunity confered by the State which may be (granted by the court to atcemingly deserving dafendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law forthe offense. (iL) 44. The convict should not assume that his application would automatically be granted. Ahearing is required by due proc- tess of law to give the presecution a chance to bebeard ifits, Inclined to oppose the application. 5, Objectives: a. Topromote comection and rehabilitation of offender by giving him individualized treatment (postvist theory) Ta provide better opportunity forthe offender to r= form; ¢Toprevent further commission of cimes asheis placed ‘under the supervision of probation oficer; 4, To docongest our jails; and fe. Tosave the government much needed funds which ‘would bespent on maintaining him inside the jal, “The application must be filed within the period for periect- ‘ng an appeal as prescribed by Sec. 4 Prevaling jurispru- ddencetreats appeal and probation as muraally excusiverem- cedies, Consequently, probation should be avaled of atthe first opportunity by convicts who are willng to be reformed and rhabilitaled, who manifest spontanelty, contrition and remone. (it) Section 4ofthe Law cleazly mandates thttno application for ‘probation shal be entertained or grand ifthe defendant ‘has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. ‘Therefore, that an appeal ehould not bar the accused from applying for probation f the appeal ia taken solely to reduce the penalty to “qualify” for probatio: is contrary to the ‘mandate ofthe law (id) 3. Appeal presupposes thatthe convict disagrees with the find {ng of He guilt whereas probation admits his gut and ir plies emorte on his pat. Thus, appeal and probation ae [stualy exclusive remedies beeuue Cy oppose one a oiher Disqualifedcffenders: Those: ‘Sentenced toa maximum term of more than 6 years (Probaticnable penalty is 6 years and below) Convicted of subversion or any crime against ration security or the pubic omer, &Previouy convicted by final judgment ofoffense par- {shed by imprisonment of not eas than 1 month and | day andor fine of not les han 7200.0; 4. Whohavebeen ner on probation{evalsbleonly once: fe _Alwady serving sentence upon theetfectivity of prob tonlews1 ‘COMFRENENSIVE REVIEWER I CRDONALLAW Whoave perfected an appeal. “Maximum jo the term used bythe law henceifthe convict ‘was sentenced to multe prison term those terms willnot beadded together to determine whether theonvctis quall- fied for probation ifthe total does not exceed 6 years but ‘what wil be consideredis the maximum among the sentences imposed. Ii. case the accused esued three bad checks fo one com Plainant, thre separate iformations were fled ne case was Essigned fo one Branch which convicted the oecused and [imposed a fine of P4800 wale the two eter eass were ‘ssgoed fo another Eranch ofthe ame eur which also ‘eld him gly ofthe sane violation and spose 30 days {imprisonment ineschease, the acruzed should be digual- ed for probation. Ths ealer conviction imposed a fine of ‘ore tan 20.0 andunder Section 9 the seeused should ‘Be disqalifed as the word “previous” rfers tothe convio ton not to the commision of the offers, notwithstanding thatthe cine sroce ost of single ac o taasaction, The probation law is note penal statute; the peneipe of liberal [nterprelation doesnct apply. Pablo vs. Jaége Castile, Aue gust, 2000) ‘An order granting pbation i tainted with grave abuse of discetion and should be et aside where the sccused who Svas convicted for 4 coun ofvoltions of BP 22, resorted qo devious chicanery and artifice to evade the implements- ton of writ of execution against her by eeeting asm lated "Deed of Sale” over her Benguet property and thereby render unenforceable the judgment. Very, se i not the penitent offender who is eligi for probation within legal Enniemplation, Her demeanor manifested thet she i nese able tobe reformed and will only be a menace to socety Should che be permited to co-mingle withthe public Toal lovher tobe placed en probation would depredate the ser ‘ousness of her wrongdoings (Santon, CA, Desember 198) Conditions impossbls on the grantee: ‘ Mandatory conditions which are: ‘a1 ‘Toreportto thedesignated protation officer within ‘72 hours after receipt ofthe onder 122 To port periodically tothe cficer atleast once a ‘month or sooner asthe latter may deem b, iseretionay conditions which derend pon the court to impose. These must be constructive and not unduly restrictive ofthe offender's ibertyand not offensive to is conscence. 1M, The deco of ta court onthe appleaton for prob tion is not eppealable. The proper remeiy i to petition for ‘cerforar if thedecision i made without he benefit of hear ing. 15, ‘Thelegal effect of probationis only to suspend theexecution Of the sentence. The conviction of fencing which involvet ‘oral turpitude subsists and remains totally unaffected not- wit the grant of probation, Infact, a judgment of ‘conviction ina criminal ease becomes ipso facto final when the accused apples for probation, although itis not exect- tory pending resolution of his appllceon. (Dela Toere vs. ‘COMELEG, July 1996) 16, Probation and indeterminate Sentencelaw (SL) compared! Probation 1st Sentence mutnotbemore than must be more than 1 than 6 years yen Penalty imprisonment or ne mprisonment only Disponition sentence ssuspended minimum to be Violation entirsentenceshallbe unexpired portion is served ‘obewerved ‘Appeal foreclosesrightto pro- no effecton law's op- bation tration ‘Available only once as long a8 case not excludedPa ‘COMRERENSIVEREVIEWER IS GDGNALLAW Article 60/Presidontial Decree No. 603 1. Chapter II of PD 608 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) has ‘oxpressly repealed Article 60. Article 189 of PD 603 defines "youthful offender” esa child, minor, or youth including ‘one who is emancipated in accordance with law, who is lover 9 years but under 18 years of age af the time ofthe commission of the ofewe. Obviously, the teal ecurt erred in ‘considering the age ofthe accused atthe time of trial. The testimony of the appellant that he was only 15 when he committed the offeree is material because Article 68(2) {imposes upon a peron over 15 and under 18 a penalty ‘ext lower but in the proper perlod. (Pecple vs, Paredes, November 1996) Note: Article 68 like article 12 contains a lacuna in the ages of exactly 15 anc exacly 9, respectively. Inthe Paredes ‘tse, the court clasified exactly 15 under paragraph 2 of ‘Asticle 68, which gives to the youthful ofender a one-de- igiee deduction instead of under paragraph 1 ofatleast two- ‘degree deduction) 2. Nor the fact thatthe youth has not shown himself to be Incorrigible, a ground for reducing his penalty. This is a ‘ground for suspension of judgment of youthtil offenders, {those over 9 but under 18. But this could no longer be ‘ordered since at the tme the trial court rendered its decision petitioner was already over 18, Ths snot a mitigating cr- ‘umstance and should not be used as basis forreducing the ‘Penalty. (David vs. CA, July 1998) 3, Ietheaceused alleges minority and the prosection does not dsprovebis claim by contrary evidence, such llegaton can bbe eccepted asa fact While the evidence t this points not centiely satisfactory yet itis sufficient to raise reasonable doubt upon this material question to the berafit of which the defendant is enttled, The baptismal exrifcate or other evidence ofthis character If obtainable, should have been Introduce. ARTICLE 81 —Execution of death penalty RA. No, 8177 — LETHAL INJECTION LAW 1. ‘The powerof the Supreme Court te review a decision ir- poring the death penalty cannot be walved ether by thewe- used or by the cours. The judgmentof conviction and sen- tence by the tral court dacs not condude the tia until the Suprenve Court hae reviewed the fax's and the law as ap- pled thereto by the court below. The judgment of convis- fon entered on the trial court isnot fal, cannot be executed, and is wholly without force or efféctuntil the case has boen passed upen by the Supreme Court na sense the tril court Eetsasa Caminiesioner who takes the testimony and reports thereon to the Supreme Court wilh his recommendation (chegaray vs, Se. of Justice, October 1998) 2. ‘Thedeath penalty eraeienoterus, degrading or inhuman. Punishments are rue when they involve torture ora linge fing deathybut the punishment of death is not erie, within the meaning ofthat word as used inthe Constitution. Itim- plies there something inhuman and barbarous, something {rove than the mere extinguishment of life. (i) (Harden vs. Director 0: Prisons) 3. ‘The “cout” which designates the date of execution is the {tal court which convicted the accused afte the Supreme Court has reviewed the entire receds ofthe case and hes aimed te judgment of the lowe: court. Thereupon, the jirdgmentis entered 15 days after Ws promulgation and 10, ‘aye treater, the record ae remanded tothe court belew including a certified copy of the judgment for execuic. (id) 4. “The death sentence shall be cariod out not easier than 1 yearnor liter than 18months after the judgmenthas become Final and execatory, without prejudice tothe exercise by the resident of his executive clemency powers at all ties. ‘Hence, the death convict isin effet assured of 18 mans from the ie of te finabty of judgment imposing the dexth ‘penalty wherein he can sock exectrive clemency and ailend {pall his temporal and spiritual afar. (id)5. Any iafction of pinin eta injection f mel nie ta cain tte exertion ofthe death poaly and Soe not a Sen te const! pronsipion agaist cae egeding ethene priser a ited Sense, ‘Syhing a eral which io claated fo give pln or dle ‘ec ed since punhiea! tpt pain or suffering fo oti ny be bata piste re ral Bur the Constuton doesnot mean that ene for Bis on iste go unpunished. The rely gat whic the aration pte a convced mann aay inherent fr the method of pune ot the neansmy cueing Svolvel i eny menod employed to exngu fe ur ‘Sonal The few mites of pain does not a cost ttn lation) 6 While Art 8, as amended by Secon 252 RA 762s Pons the inplemertaton of he death pealty wile « San pepe win 1 year ser deer, Seaton Tale hdpienentg lesen yer pod flow lagers as anne when he de sertnce is Su toda ae ya oud fr supersion of sertence ro ge found ures A 88, whch nthe tee ven reprieve ss woman's entmced. Tisai’ tamu tos ‘fnder’arcl trinity wile the onion a iste contaveton ofthe appa law As Seton ‘5'Eocn no supa in A 83a ner est be de clare invalid 7. Since the woes of te 5 justices fl shor of he majorly 8 stesteede atten he dent setee, he pele ibe prpete should be ipod flowing Arc 7 of the Code toamende by A709. og) 6 tno case shal the ail ofthe parson sentenced to death Rad wi pomp whch conte vation of Ar 13 SnPublc Datubance. 9, The feature ofthe ath nection Law are The death pensity shall be given preference over any other penalty and shall consti putting the person to * death by lethalinjection. The death sentence shall be carsied out not eacier than. 1 year nor more than 18 months afer the judgment has ‘become final and executory witout prejudice to the cxercoe by the President of is exeative emency pow cersatalltimes. Persons already sentenced by judgment, which has be- come firal and executory awaiting death by electrocu- ‘Hon or gue polsoning shal be covered by that Act. ARTICLE 89 —Total extinction of criminal ability ARTICLE 94— Partial extinction [ARTICLE 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executive ARTICLE 28 — Pardon by the Offended 1 Causes of total extinction: ‘Death cf convict (pecuniary abity is extinguished t death o:cus before ina judgment); Servlce ofthe sentence: Amnesty: ‘Absolwe pardons Prescription of crime; Prescription of penalty Marsage ofthe offended woman under Art. 2666 ‘Bepres repeal of penal law (actdecriminalized). 42. Pantilextretion: Conditional pardon; Comuntation of entence; Good conduct allowance; Parole under the SLAW Probation under PD 968; implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the penalty lent eie‘COMPREHENSE REVIEWERIN CHBANALLAW Death of convict extinguishes criminal lability at any stage ofthe proceeding il aty if death acu befor fl judgment The reac i thatthe penalty requires personal Service of sentence If death occurs there willbe nobody to serve the penalty fo the crime. (People va. Bayotas, Septezn- ‘ber 1994) “Final” judgment refers to execatory judgment. Civil ability exdeleto is rooted in the court's pronounce ‘ment ofthe uit orinnocence ofthe accused, In such cases, ttinction ofthe criminal ation due to the death of the c- ‘cused pending appeal inevitably signifies the concomitant ‘Stinction ofthe cv ability. The fal determination ofthe ‘riminal Liability ia condition precedent te prosecution, ‘of the dvl action, hence, when the criminal action is extn [uished by the death of the accused pending appeal thereof, ‘hid civil ection eannot survive. The cisim ior civil action ‘urvivesnotwithetanding the death of theaccused if thesame ‘nay aloo be predicited on a source of oigaon other than ‘ali (eg, quas-delic, law contract, quas-contract) (i) “The perio of time during which the evader of sentence was, at lange duting his four escapes chould not be Incuded in the gervies of his euntence in fixing the date of his release. ‘During that period he cannot be regarded asin service of ‘sentence which consists of deprivation of hslibery. He can- ‘not be sald to have been deprived of his iberty during the periods he was athrge. Moreover, Artie 8 tipulates that ‘hall be served in & penal instaton. (Martin vs. Eduardo, 121 SCRA) t Distinguish betwem amnesty and absolute pardon: AMNESTY PARDON generally to polit: generally to ordi- fal erimes and of ary cimesand of fenders fenders fect on convict obliterates the ef- relieves. the of fects of conviction fender of penalty an if the act were but the effects of noteciminal conviction stay Application Congress concarence concurrence not required needed Whengiven _eventbeforeconvic ‘after final convie fon fon Towhomgien usually toaclasscf to a specific ind- persons vidual Nature public act of the private act ofthe President President evidentiary value judicial notice mut be pleaded Taken tnd proved by a= tse Pardoni given by the Chief Execitive and as such tis 2 puvatacthich mst be pledod an proved bythe par sony ‘because the courts ake no notice thereof; ‘amnesty isby Proclamation ofthe Chief Executive withthe ‘concurtence of Congress, and it isa public act of which the ‘courts chould take judi! notice. ‘Pardon locks forward and relies the offender from the consequences of an offense of wich he has been con victed, that it abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for that reacan doesnot work the restoration ofthe rights tc hold publicefice or the rights of utfage unless such hts be expressly restored by the terms ofthe parson,’ and itn ‘no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the cv {indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence’ (Article 6, Revised Penal Code) While amnesty looks backward and abolishes ard puts into oblivion the affenceitelf, itso over: Tooks and obliterates the offenses with which he s chargec thatthe perion released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had commited no offense. (People ‘Casio, March 1997) ‘The limitations on the pardoning power of the Chief Execu- tive are ‘That the power be exercised after final conviction, be- ‘cause where the President is not so prevented by the1 ‘COMFREEENVE EVIEWER IN CHRANALLN Constitution noteven Congress can impose ay restic+ tion to prevent a presidential folly and ‘Before an appellant may be validly granted par- don, he must is sak forthe withdrawal ofhis appeal, fe, the appetled conviction must Est be brought to 8 ality . That such power does not extend to cases of impeach- ment, (People vs Salle, December 1995) A judgment of conviction becomes final ‘a When ne appealisseasonably perfected; 'b. When the accused commences to serve thesentenes; ‘& When the right to appeal is expressly waived in writ- ing, except wher the death penalty was imposed by the tial court; d. When the acused applies for probation, thereby walv- ing hs ight to appeal. 9. Pardon ofthe offended compared with pardon by the Chit xeeative: a. Executive Pardon extinguishes criminal lability par- on by the offended does not extinguish criminal liabil- ity except in Arte 266-C (Anti-Rape Law) and 344, Executive Pardon is granted after final conviction par- ‘don by the offended must be granted before institution Of the action because when the ease s finaly filed in our, the State is regarded as the primery offended ‘erty and the private offended party iseegated to the {ole ofa complaining witnesses. Hence, the prosecu- tion ofthe case becomes the ive ofthe State. {Under the new Antt-Rape law however itappears that the pardon may now be at anytime because the law stated pending ation shall be disensted). ce Executive Pardon cannot extinguish the civil Habilty of offender, the offended may be expresly waive the * civil abi. 10, u. PROBATION an "an affdavitof esistance is merely an sional ground to tutes the acrised’s defenses, not the ole consideration hata oultikecquital There asthe ther creumstances snhlch, when coupled wilh the retraction or desistance, ere Te doubts ato te rth ofthe testinony giverby the wit- ‘eases at the tal and accepted by de judge. (People vs Balabere, November 1996) Denial and lf cannot outweigh the postive deatiation and convincing testinaies given by te prosecution Hence the afldavit sf dsistane which ‘Bo vicim heel intended to diaegard must have no bear {ng onthe eiinal prossetion agate accused particu Indy on te te cout arisen over he case. (People va: Bhegaray, February 1997 ‘There are authorities holding that pardon rt be granted rotoniyby th parensof an offended minor but also bythe ‘nor herslf tbe effactive nan expres pardon under Ar fide, (Arde 266-G RA S358) Thus Ppl cs. Lao, Js {6A} 0G 9660, hed the pardon byte parent standing one i ineffeacious Too, the express pardon of a person ipl ofaterrptd abduction ofa mines granted by heat ee parents snot ulcer to emoveeriinal respons bili but mist be accompanied by tix expres pardon of the gt here (OS vs Luna, 1 Ph 6 he present case the supposed pardon ofthe accused was allegedly granted by the nother without the concurence of the offended mi ‘oe Henee even if tbe assumed tat he inal dessance Of the mother from taking any action aginst the ceased. onaitutes perdon, such pardon ineffective without the expres concarencoftheminor hers (People. Tadulan. ‘Apa i957) Presciption of crime referstotheloeoftherightof the State to prosecute ofender, tcannotbe waived er etended since {tor the benefit ofthe aceused. Onc prescription has se Inythe courte automatically Toe fradhion In prescription otaine: ‘a, Thebasiis the higher penalty if tere were several,13, 1 15. ‘COMPREHENSIVE EVISWAR IN CHTONALLA 'b. Running of the period stars from discovery by the of ended orth euthortes or their agents. This ist is ex- clusive, €Therunning ofthe periods interrupted by the fling of the complaint er information or when the offender is cout ofthe eouniry 44. Thepetiod runs again when the proceedings are termi rated without acquittal or convictca fer reasons not attrbutable to the offender. Prescription of penaly occurs when the convict escapes fom, ‘detention or evades the service of his sentence. Evasion of Service of sentence fs condition precedent to the running of the period. ‘Tolling of period of prescription of penalty ocours when he commits another crime, ors captured or goes to another ‘country with whichthe Philippines has no extradition treaty, “The law on presarition would be meaningless ifthe delay in the proseeution of crimes would be fatal tothe State and. the offended parle, In fixing the differnt prescriptive peri- fodson the basis ofthe gravity ofthe penalty prescribed, the Tw takes into acceunt or allows reasonable delays in the ‘prosecution thereof Ina numberof cases, a delay of17 days, 3 daysor even 6 month by a victim ofrapein reporting the Sttackon her honor does not detract from theveracty ofher charge. (People vs. Gecomo, 254SCRA) It's entirely incarnet to state that only the State i the of fended party, and therefore, only the Sta’ discovery ofthe cxime could flectvel commence the rennirg ofthe erod of prescription, Article 9 ofthe Code provides thatthe pe- ‘od of prescription shall commence to ran fom the day on ‘Which te crime fs discovered by the offended party, the au- ‘horities, or thei agents. This rule makes na distinction be- tween a publicerime and a privatecrime. Inboth cases then, the discovery may be by the offended party the authorities, ot their agents, (Garcia vs:CA, January 1997) 16,_ Article 91 doesnot define the term offended party Is defin- tion isin Section 12, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as ‘the person againstwhom or against whose property the offense ‘as committed” More specially itis reasonable to assume the offended party Isto whom the oferder is civilly able, inthe igh othe 100 ofthe Cade The private indivi to whom the offender is civilly Usble isthe offended party. id) 17, Trips abroad do not constitute the “absonco” contemplated inArtidet. 16. If the Civil Code isto be resorted to in the interpretation of the length'of fhe month, so should it ke resorted to in the ‘computation cf the period of prescription. Besides, Article 1Bof the Civil Code exprestly drocs that any deficiency in any special law (ouch as the Reviged Penal Code) must be suppliod by it ‘As the Revised Penal Code i de- ficient in that k doesnot explicitly define how the period is tobe computod, resort must be had tots Article 13, which contains in deal the manner of compuing a period, ‘The other question is whether a month mentioned in [Article 90 should be considered asthe calendar month and ‘not the 30-day month tis tobe noted hat no provision of the Revised Penal Code defines thelengiof the month With the approval ofthe Civil Code, R.A. 386, a month i to be considered as the regular 0-day month Article 13). This pro- ‘ston ofthe rev Civil Code has been intended for general "pplication in the interpretation of thes As the offense ‘charged in the information in the case st bar took place on ‘May 28, 1953, after the new Civil Code tad come into effet, this new provision should apply and in accordance there. ‘with the month in Actiele90f the Revised Penal Code should bbe understood to mean the regular 30-day month. (People vs, Del Rosarb) 5 ARTICLE 85 — Conditional pardon 1. conditional pardon is in the nature cf contact between, the Chief Executive and the convict tothe effect that theformer will release the latter aubject to the condition that if ‘he does not comply with the terme ofthe pardon, he will be ecommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion ofthe fentence or an adétional one. (Alvarez vs. Diz Of Prison 80 Phil. 50) By the pardonee's consent to the tems stipulated in this contract, dhe pardonee has thereby placed himself un- ‘er the supervision of the Chief Execuiive or his delegate ‘tho is duty-bound to see toi thatthe pardonee complies ‘withthe terms andconditions ofthe pardon, Under Sec. 640) Df the Revieed Administrative Code, the Chief Executive is fanthorized to order “the arrest and reinearceration of any fsuch person who, in his judgment, shall failto comply with the condition, or conditions of his pardon, parole, oF sus- ‘pension of sentence.” Torres vs. Di of Bureau of Correc- ‘ons, December 195) ‘Conditional pardcn can be extended tothe convict in three ways: ‘a. Through the operation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law; 'b. Through the grant of probation under the Probation Lawsand Through the exercise ofthe President motu proprio of the power under the Constitution. ‘Aconaitional pardon when granted does not extinguish the ‘Gui liability arising from the crime, (Nosanto vs. Factoran Je, 7OSCRA 19011980]; People vs. Nacional September 1995+ Temustbe given after FINAL judgment and mustbe accepted Deze ofthe nons which mas be sy comptes wit ‘When conditions violated the offender is: ‘Rearrested an reincarcerated by rder ofthe President under the Revised Administrative Code; OR bb. Prosecuted under Art 159 ofthe RPC. “The exercise of presidential judgments beyond judicial scro- tiny, The determination of the violation ofthe conditions] pacion rests exclusively in the sound jaigment ofthe Chief Executive. The pardonee, having consented to place his ib erty on condonal pardon upon the judgment ofthe power ‘hathas granied it, eannot invoke the ad ofthe courts, how ‘ever erroneoss the findings may be upon which his ecom- ‘mitment wasordered, (Tesoro vs. Dit.ci Prisons 68 Phil 154) ‘A final jiicial pronouncement as to the guilt of « pardoneeisrota requirement forthe President to determi ‘whether or not there has ben a breachot the terms ofa con- ‘itional paréon. There is kewise nila basis forthe courts ‘effectuate the reinstatement of acondtional pardon revoked ‘by the President inthe exercise of powers undisputed solely and absolutely lodged in his office. (Taces vs. Di. of Burea ‘of Corrections, December 1995) ‘Te mater not that Torres had allegedly been acquitted fn two ofthe three criminal cases Sled against him subse- {quent to hisconditéonal pardon, and thatthe third ease re {rains pending for thirteen (3) yearsin apparent violation (of is right a speedy trial. (i) Habeas Corpus is not the remedy cf the reinearcerated ‘pardonce, Habens corpus les only where the restraint of + Person's lierty has been judicially adjudged as illegal or inlaw. The incarceration of Torres remains legal consid tring that, were it not forthe grant of conditional pardon ‘hich had been revoked because of breach thereo, the ‘determination of which isbeyond judicial crutiny he would Ihave served his fal sentence for hs first conviction unt November 2, 2000 (i) Uttimtely solely vested inthe Chief Executive, whoa the frst place was the exclusive author ofthe conditional ‘paion and ofits revocation isthe eorllary prerogative [einstate the pardon ifn his own judgment, he acquittal of thepardonee from the subsequent charges filed against him, ‘warrants the ame, Courts have noatchortytointrfere with the grant by the President of aparden toa convicted cxin- sal. (id)1 COMIRENSIVEREVIEWERINCRMINALLAW ARTICLE 98 — Deduction for loyalty 1. Leaving without retursing within the time period prescribed 1/5 addition to theremaining sentence which should not ‘bemore than 6 months thats, 1/5 of the balance ofthe sen- tence tobe served or months whichever is leser 2. Leaving and thereafter returning within the time period pre- serbed — 1/5 deduction from his sentence as provided n- ‘der Article 98 3. Not leaving —no deduction for what is g.ven premium is the loyalty shown by ttuming, not the “martyrdom” of not Teavingjllin the face of calamity, is oubmitted thatthe deduction for loyalty under Ar- ticle 98 should be based on the original sentence. As the AT tle dia not qualify the word “sentence” unlike in Article 4158 which expressly stated tha the sentence tobe added shall ‘eased on the period “tillremaining tobe served.” Under the familiar rule sttutony construction, wher thelaw does rot qualify, nether should the coust do. Moreover, Article {158 specified that the additional sentence should not exceed ‘months showing the intent of Congress to limit the penalty to the acaused, whereas in Article 9, there is ro such quall- ‘cation. Finally the rule all doubts must be construed in favor ofthe accused, Since its more favorablelo the accused that the lowering ison the basis of the original sentence, then that construction should be followed. [ARTICLES 1004113 — Civil abity 1 Bvery person criminally liable fr a felony is also civilly le able, Civil lisbiity in case the felony involves death, covers {indemnification for coneequential damages (Act. 104) incud- {ng thove sulfered by his familly or third persons by reason of the crime. (Art107) 2. Acquittal ofthe accased does not automaticaly extinguish his evil Habit forthe quantum of proof in criminal pros: echtions is differentirom thatin the civil, Acquittal shall bar the Gil action arising from crime where the judgment of acquittal holds that: . ‘a. Theaccused did not commit the ads imputed to him: orthat 1b. ~ Hewas nt guily of eximinal or cv negligence. ‘But, his acquittal will NOT bara cil action in the fallowing eases: ‘a. Where theacquital a based on reasonable doubtas only ‘a preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases; 1b. Where the court declared that accused's liability is not cciminal tut only vl in nature; Where the civil Hability does not aise from or is not based upen the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted. ‘Acquittal of the accused, even ibasod on a finding tate is ‘ot gully, does not carry with it the extinction ofthe civil liability Besed on quas-delic. A separate cv action lies agains the offender in a criminal ac, whether or not he is ciiminally ‘and found guilty oF acquitted, pro- ‘Vided that the offended pasty isnot allowed, if eis actually ‘charged also criminally to recover damages on both scores ‘He would then be ented only tothe bigger award in the nother words, the extinction of cel ability refered toin Rule 11 Sec. 20) (Rules of Court refers exclusively te ‘dil liability founded in Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, Wheres the iil lability forthe same act considered ‘past- delle orly and not a8 a crime isnot extinguished even ‘By a declaration in the criminal case thatthe criminal act aan est happened orhasnotbem comity he ‘The civilease for damages i not barred since the cause faction ofthe heen baced on quas-dlct. Even fthe dam ‘ages are soughton the basis of rime and not quss-dlict, the ‘eauittal of te bus driver will not bar recovery of damagesCONSTR REVIEWER I CADNALLAW ‘because the acquittal was based not ona finding thathe was not guilty butonly on reasonable doubt. (Guaring, J. vs.CA, ‘March 1997) ‘What is inched in svi Habit ‘a. Restitution >, Reparation of damage caused Indemnification for consequential damages Restitation is the return of thing itself whenever poss- ‘le, Otherwise reparation ofthe thing should be made, There are only two peciniary abilities — Resttaton OR repara- ton and indemnification. Reparation shall only be made if ‘etitution Is not possible, This isin accord with Article 38, ‘hich sates thatthe pecuniary abilities owing to the of fended party are reparation ofthe damage caused ond in- ddemnifeation of consequential damages, Indemnification for consequential damages shall in- ‘dude not only those cased the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason ofthe ‘ime, The Civil Cede enumerates those eases when third ‘persons can recover damages by reason of the crime. (Art- es 2206, 2219) " (Civil ability in particular eases (101) a. By insane, imbecile, under 9, ver 9but under 15: 11. Te devolves upon the person. wha has control or ‘authority upon them, unless he s without fault or negligence. 2. Ththerebanosuich person, oriftieis insolvent the Repent the miro eae el ase Hiabilty except for those exem3t froin exec tion: 'b. Person who avoided a greater evil injury (Art. 1, par-4)~theone who benefited from such avoldanceis [ile there were several persona benefited, the court + shall determire thes proportionate sha, Incase of xesiatibleforoeor uncontmllablefear— those ‘who employed the force or caused the fear shall be pr- ‘aly ble; secondary ability ison the actor. 6 When the commission of a crime resus in death, the civil obligations arising therefrom are governed by penal laws, subject to the provisions of Art. 2177, nd of the pertinent ‘provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Tile on Human Rela- Eons and of Tile XVII of BookIV, regulating damages. (Art 1161, Civil Code) Thus: ‘a. _Asindenity forthe death ofthe victim ofthe offense P1200 (now P50,000), without che need on any evi- ‘dence or proof of damages, and even though there may’ have been muligating circumstances attending the com- snisson of the erie. by Asindemnity forlos of eaming capacity ofthe deceased. an amount to be fixed accoedingto the circumstances ‘ofthe deceased related to his actual income at the time of death and hie probable life expectancy, the sid fo- ‘demnity tobe asseased and awarced by the court 8 matter 0! duty ness the deceased had no earning c>- pacity at said time on account of permanent dsebility fot aud by the acrused. Ifthe deceased was obliged to give aipport, under Art. 291, Cvil Code the rei tent whois hot an hefg may demand suppor from the accused fornot more than five yer theexact duration tobe fixed by the court. ‘¢ _Asmoral damages for mental angaish—an amount bbe fixed by the court. This may be recovered even by the illegitimate descendants and ascendant ofthe de- cased, 4. Asexerplary damages, when thecrimeis attended by one or more aggravating clcumslances — an amount tobe fixed in the discretion of the court, the same tobe considered eeparate from fines, ‘e. _Asatiomey’s fees and expenses cf litigation — the as- tual amount thereof, (but only when a separate chil(CONPREHENSE REVIEWERINCRANALLAW action to recover cil lability has Baen fled or when exemplary damages are awarded), Interests in proper casés, ‘The recovary of attorney's fees in the concept of cual compton anagem lone ne he ‘Seatac roid forint 28 of he Cl ode ne of hen th conten que thet stony eer xpos gation SEndate mores. plow berpaebrony 27, 0) ° Jnsdaionto theory cal danger hepiaaton! tant rps ih col bored by ip tie honever ie eson Aen ter an able © rset tea fo he unre parin w bcne fe Wier tpetate fed soe tule fay ple meus which heh td st tin theta Unrate the Ch Gs emer: fe damages ay beter ities 6h py tuted Soe peony but he acd at om Senate a ecm bs eproved wher a hee [Sho doubt alte eum incued eral copes “hough the mots twat he ot es pve Propo swans PS 0000 ay often regs Eke of the vein, Coole: Pane, Ce ee May 2) sis eorforhejudge opal haat dagen cnc rons he mot scot cxnpanye demoges se Ot eierent nature snd we ome on list cote fe Some doc! protuncment on damage Teenie foros fering apace de aed ond for mora damages a veal ope eomantin dditon te feeds F070) Conmponngthindeniy.for te efctof deth and that theeedamages may be respectively increased of Issenes according to the mitigating or RoBATION Py aggravating circumstances (Peope vs. Techankee, J, (Ociober1955) The lower court however erred in eategorizing the ard of P50,000 to the offended party as moral dam= ‘ages. In Gementiza January 1998] ae indemnity catego ‘Heed ascii lability ex dete forthe offended party, in the atnount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and aside from other proven actual damages, i itt fequivaent to actual or componsttory damages in civil lave Ite not tobe considered as moral damages ther under, the latter being based on diferent jural founda ‘dons and asessed by the cout icthe exercise of sound ‘discretion. People vs. Victor July 1998) Indictments for rape continue unabated and the legis- lative response has been in the rm of higher penal- ties. Onlike coneiderations, the jursprudential path on the dv aspect should also follow the same direction. “Hence starting with the case at ar, ifthe crime of rape is committed or effectively qualiied by any ofthe ex- ‘cumetancee tinder which the death penalty is author- Izedby the present amended law the indemnity forthe ‘etm shall be inthe increased amount of not less thar P7500. This ie not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the finandal ‘Buctuatons overtime butalso ac expression of the dis- pleasure of the court over the incidence of heinous (Grimes agnint chant. (0d) IinRape, civil indemnity tothe offended woman for the ‘wrong done to her is separate and distinct from the {ward of moral damages. The indemnity provided in ciminal law a cv ibility is be equivalent of actual or tory damages in cvl law, and is distinct from moral damages. As curently fxed, the indemrity {for raps ia P50,000.00; bu if qualified by any of the i= ‘cumstances which would justife the impostion ofthe ‘death penalty, the indemnity shall be not less then P75 00000. People vs. Malapo, 13115, August25, 1986)‘COMTRENENSIVE REVIEWER CRDANALLA In Zuucta o,at A (9 SCRA), the aad fr ora

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 (5814)
• 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

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• 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 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• 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 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• 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 (897)
• 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 (540)
• 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 (2104)
• 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 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• 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)
• 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 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1866)
• 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)
• 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 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• 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 (401)
• 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 (4770)
• 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)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)
• 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)
• 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 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 (4203)
• 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)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• 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)
• 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)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• 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)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• 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 (74)
• 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)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)