DIFFERENT KINDS OF FELONIES
What is the proximate cause of this acts(praetor, aberratio,
Violations of law: you have obligations, culpa contractual,
delicto, quasi-delicts, so you see that in obligations in
contracts.
In felonies, there are different kinds:
- Felony by commission
- Felony by omission
- Felony committed by dolo – when you have malice
or deceit
- Culpa or negligence – lack of foresight or lack of skill
- Mala in se and mala prohibita
Is there criminal intent?
There are felonies that require criminal intent and there are
felonies which not.
Is an honest mistake of fact a valid defense when there is
negligence? There is honest mistake of fact when there is
negligence. It makes you liable. Depending on the act
committed. Will either be dolo or culpa. Kahit negligence siya
if you intended to do it it will become dolo. So it has to do
with cases.
Cuenca case: Can he be charged with illegal possession of
firearms? A firearm of security guard is not licensed with him,
the license belongs to the security organization. So his
possession of firearm during work will not make him liable
even if it is not registered to him because it is registered with
the agency. It will be different if the agency has no
registration.
Basically, not all firearms can be registered. GR, long arms
cannot be registered but Paltik if intended to be registered
can be registered. There is no law, however, na pwede. But
law does not admit of that.
ARTICLE 4
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
When the wrongful act is different than that which is
intended and that which...
Wrongful act – is error in personam, praetor intentionem,
aberattio ictus.
Are you liable here? Yes. But in different modes of liability
depending on how the crime was committed.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
How would you know to determine the liabilities here?
error)? Example is there a fist blow to the head would mean
that there is intention but if the fist blow to the head was not
on purpose that would be error in personam. Lahat kayo
liable dito. Hindi ito defense.
Example you strangle the wife, but the wife still lived but later
died of heart failure so sasabihin mo i did not kill her. Why?
Because i strangled her. But if the proximate cause of the
injury or death was the action that you made then you will be
liable.
If the strangulation was quite far from the time the wife died
of heart attack, then you cannot hold them liable for that.
For example, there was a robbery. To keep the person quiet,
the robber pinuno ng pandesal yung bibig niya, liable for the
crime that you committed.
Error in personam - mistake in identity which applies to
landmark case of Oanis.
Praeter intentionae – lack of intent to commit such grave
wrong as that which was committed.
There are however intervening actions or incidents that might
affect your liability. For example, pre-existing diseases or
conditions. You knew that you wife has heart problem and
you intentionally made her angry so angry that it resulted in a
heart attack. Would you be liable? There was a pre-existing
disease – heart problem. The intervention would be the
reason why you will be liable. The intervening disease or
presumed death by natural causes maybe because you forced
them to do that, lack of intent to commit such grave wrong as
that committed will still make you liable for that incident. You
knew about it.
Impossible crime – impossibility of accomplishment of crime
due to its inherent nature of the act which means physical
impossibility.
For example, there was a land dispute, nagaaway away sila.
You went to house of enemy and fired shots. It just so
happens na wala sila dun. Would it be murder? It could be
considered an impossible crime but you may be held liable for
other crimes which existed. For example, binaril niyo, ano
pwede icharge sa kanya? Maybe malicious mischief kasi sinira
niyo yung bahay.
When you want to commit an act which is a violation of the
law and you intended to do it but unfortunately you intended
to commit the crime but the effect did not result into a crime. If an act is committed even if there is no special law then it is
For example, for lascivious acts, is touching the basic parts of called mala in se. The law is willingful. You willingfully did an
the woman. So what if you thought the person coming act.
towards you is a woman, you lusted at for so long, and you
touched his breasts and there are breasts. Unfortunately they Culpa Dolo
are fake breasts, can you charge him with lascivious acts? No. negligence is deficiency, absent any criminal action,
Kasi kung babae yun, yes. Kung lalaki mahahawakan mo ba negligence is lack of intent, then there is no dolo.
foresight, lack of skill, Kailangang elements ng dolo
yun? Hindi, walang breast ang lalaki. Transwoman ba siya?
reckless imprudence, these is criminal intent. And
That is not yet recognized here. You might be charged with are all under Title 14 freedom of action and
unjust vexation but not lascivious acts which is limited to (Complex crimes – when intelligence – the crime is
women. there are several crimes in dolo.
one Title and you will be
ARTICLE 5 liable for one).

EXCESS IN PENALTIES
When is there crime without criminal intent? Is there a crime
There is no law that makes him liable but because of the without criminal intent? There is. Without criminal intent is a
heinous or gravity of act, he wants to impose more. crime committed with culpa. Crime that is special law that is
committed without intent.
Dolo – criminal intent; a deliberate intent; there is a freedom
of action and there is intelligence when the crime is How do you determine intent? In committing mala in se,
committed with dolo. there is a presumption of intent, that means you will have to
prove intent. However, don’t equate intent with motive. Iba
Without freedom, a man is basically a tool. Para yan yung
yung criminal intent, iba yung motive.
irresistible force, uncontrollable fear, the action would just
become an exempting and not justifying. Intent Motive
Commission of the act Reason for the commission
When it comes to intelligence, the presence of intelligence in
of the act.
dolo, what kind of intelligence are we talking about? Moral Design of the person;
capacity of a person to determine right or wrong not his something that you see,
intelligence as in having PHD or highly educated but his moral purpose of a person; an overt
capacity to understand what is right or wrong. The dolo is act
negated by minority or imbecility or insanity which is In a crime, you don’t need a reason, you just need the
exempting and not justifying. commission of the act. So, if there is no motive, (example:
pumatay out of pleasure – not criminal negligence) he just
How about intent? When a crime is committed, intent is pulled a gun and shot the host, was there criminal intent? Yes.
presumed, always presumed. Intent or malice. The act was Do you need to have the motive? No, because all the
committed with malice. elements are there. Motive is not an essential in the
commission of the crime.
When intent can be negated by mistake of fact, nenegate mo
yung intent, nevertheless, do not equate intentional to Criminal intent is presumed in the commission of an act
voluntary. Voluntary is different from intent. Because in both otherwise, you cannot file the case.
dolo and culpa, both acts are voluntary. When it comes to
dolo, it is intentional because there is no negligence. In culpa, Two Kinds of Intent
there is intent but with fault or negligence. General criminal intent Specific criminal intent
Yung inassume mong may Intent by which you need to
For example, you went out with a stranger, and you drove criminal intent just by the know what particular crime
your car fast, that is voluntary and intentional. But you failed fact that the act was was committed
committed; there was a
to act appropriately and you failed to break, so the car
wrongful act committed; so
skidded, that is voluntary, intentional but because there is this is presumed
negligence, it becomes culpa. Malice, which is present in dolo Requires proof
is an intent to do, an intent to injure someone. That is malice. Prosecution has the burden
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
 of proof
For example, may sinaksak ka, so ang intent mo ba is patayin
or injure lang? GCI is to commit injuries by stabbing. The SCI,
you cannot presume this. You have to prove this by evidence
or facts given.
 Determine elements are, stages of crime committed.
In SCI, if he looks so guilty, he is presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty.
{internet connection problems}
Interpretation in different ways. An act may be
consummated act of another and can be consummated crime
but attempted in another. For example, in physical injuries,
there are no stages of a crime. If in a commission of a crime,
the evidence shoes that there are stab wounds in shoulder,
what is crime committed? Pwede bang malayo naman sa
puso yan. So it’s a defensive wound. What crime would you
charge him? Was the intent to injure you at the hand or to
stab you. SCI papasok to determine what crime was
committed. Physical injury ba? Pero bakit ka nagka physical
injury sa hand dahil you try to protect yourself from attacks.
What will you charge him? Physical injuries or attempted
murder?
 What crime is he liable of?
Motive is not essential when identity is not in doubt.
Mistake of fact is not an element of culpa but is a defense in
dolo. So how will you defend a mistake of fact? You will be
liable but it will be mitigated by good faith. An honest belief.
(Oanis case)
Proximate v Immediate Cause: For example: A, B, C, D, E.
Magkakasunod na car. Then E hit D. D hit C. C hit B. B hit A.
Now, what is proximate cause of crime? Who is proximate
cause ng crime lahat? Kung wala naman nagtulak sa kanila
that becomes the proximate cause. The immediate cause is B
hitting A. Why? suppose that road laws has a law that cars
must have atleast 2-5 meters in between cars. Nung
tinamaan ni D si C. And B maintained that 5 meters span.
Tingin mo aabutin ni D si C. And so on. The proximate cause is
E hitting D.
Efficient intervening cause
Contributory cause – acts which contribute to commission of
crime. Example, that medical assistance was not secured
immediately. May mitigate or aggravate the crime of accused.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
Error in personae – RPC 49; when the crime committed is
different from the crime it intended. The principal will be
liable for the crime committed. RPC 49 applies only in cases
in error in personam and not aberratio ictus therefore, there
is a lesser applicable penalty imposed. Generally, error in
personam under RPC 49 is mitigating.
Praeter intentionem is mitigating.
Impossible crime – crime against person and a crime against
inherent impossibility of the accomplishment. Crime against
property and crime against person.
Rape is a crime against person. Before, crime against chastity.
You cannot commit an impossible crime when the crime is a
crime against persons and crimes against property.
Impossible crime. Example, pumasok sa bahay para
magnakaw, pagpasok walang laman. So you were forced to
open, broke the window, you got into the house. There was
nothing. You were going to rob. There’s an impossible crime
in robbing the house – cannot be. But a crime was committed.
Trespassing.
 If there is a criminal intent, find the purpose.
Eliminate the elements not present
Stages of Execution
If only one stage – physical injuries (walang stages)
Attempted Frustrated Consummated
Did not commit all
the elements of a
crime; not all the
elements were
committed
There are also different kinds of crimes that does not have
stages. Compound crime (only one or two stages). Composite
crime (parang compound).
Attempted. Some cause accident other than his spontaneous
desistance. That means there is failure to commit all the
elements because of some supervening cause o some
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
In attempted, there is an indeterminate or subjective stage.
Pag indeterminate, there are acts that not necessarily lead to
commission of a crime. Example, you break a window, anong
crime? May natutulog sa loob, babaeng maganda, rape ba?
May property sa loob, robbery? That is an indeterminate
stage. There was an initial act, hindi mo pa alam anong
gagawin niya. Although it is indeterminate, pwede na siyang
crime na, malicious mischief.
Subjective stage. When does desistance come in. There are
basically several kinds of desistance. Here, spontaneous
desistance, before crime was committed, the accused
desisted from committing a crime.
Indeterminate – hindi pa nalalaman
Subjective stage – when you already know
 There is no attempted stage in malicious mischief.
Light felonies generally do not have stages.
 Unjust vexation – no stages
 Physical Injuries – no stages
These are basically consummated.
If it is in the frustrated or consummated stage, it would be
difficult to persuade the court that there was a desistance
done. That the accused desisted. Hindi na maappreciate yung
spontaneous desistance sa frustrated and consummated
because the acts are clear. They have gone beyond the
indeterminate stage already, subjective na. Nakikita mo na
gagawin.
For example, I have a gun. I fired at you point blank. First shot,
natamaan kita. Second shot, may baril ako babarilin pa rin
kita pero huminto na ko. Dalawa talaga bala kong nilagay.
Tagalong babarilin kita ng dalawang beses. Now, binaril kita
ng isang beses, nung pangalawa tumigil na ko, ibinaril ko na
sa malayo. Hindi naman kita babarilin talaga, yung una lang
para takitin ka. Pwede bang spontaneous desistance yun? No.
Here offenders acquired complete control of what he
intended to take. If he changes his mind, is not spontaneous
desistance. Nagawa na niya eh.
Criteria to determine which crimes were committed, Three
Elements
1. Manner of committing the crime
- Was it a two way crime? For example, bribery is
committed, by the one who gives and by the one
who takes. On the other hand, if you pretended to
give, and pretended to take, was bribery committed?
Idea is you already committed the act. When the
felony was past the indeterminate stage and the
subjective stage, but what does it mean, it goes
beyond attempted stage. Accused already began
commission of the overt act.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
- But what if he loses control? Lumampas sa
subjective, nagawa niya lahat ng elements, pero
hindi ka tinamaan, that’s the manner in committing
the crime. Fired the gun at you, fired the gun in the
wall.
2. Elements of the crime
- Ano ba gusto niyang gawin? What’s he trying to do?
- For example, in intent, intent is mere taking an item
not yours, taking now is to have control. Depending
on the kind of item, taking can be attempted or
frustrated or consummated.
- People vs Tibi: involves box of rifles taken from
armory but hindi pa nakakalabas ng compound.
Attempted siya. These are arms. You have to take
the item and full control of the item. Because you
have not yet left the compound. Taking pa to.
- People vs Espiritu: mga linen, nailabas niya sa
hospital. Is it consummated? Yes, depending on the
kind of property mas madali ilabas ang box of linen
sa hospital rather than armory. If hindi mo pa
nalalabas yun, frustrated.
- For example, estafa. The taking in estafa must prove
the damage. If you cannot prove the damage. It is
taking but with fraud. It is not just taking but the use
of deceit in taking or control. If you receive any
property without deceit taken by the accused, then
it will not be estafa.
3. Nature of the crime itself
Conspiracy by itself is not a crime. In criminal law and
remedial law, when there are atleast two people charged in
the commission of an act, then conspiracy should be an
element. That is a defect in allegations to a person. If the
information does not allege conspiracy. Helping each other. A
and B acting in conspiracy with each other.
Group of three people who were charged with conspiracy.
Conspiracy in committing estafa. Chinarge si A, B and C. Si X
ang victim. Nabayaran si X ni C. Anong ginawa ni C? Gumawa
siya ng desistance. Desistance, normally is not allowed in
criminal cases. In civil cases, yes. But it does not equate in a
criminal case. So nagdesistance siya kay C. Desistance dapat is
no evidence inconsistent. Evidence aatakihin diyan. So
dalawa na lang. Remember, information charges conspiracy.
What if the second accused was able to pay X money. So X
issued desistance on the ground that there was discrepancy
of evidence. Ano nangyari sa kaso mo? From conspiracy
nawala yun dalawa, conspiracy pa ba? Wala na. Conspiracy
involves at least two. When that happens, the act of one is
the act of all.
Generally, conspiracy is not a crime. There are however
modes of committing conspiracy as a crime. There is an overt
act. If one of conspirators desisted, before an overt act,
desistance will negate criminal liability.
How do you prove conspiracy? Best example is, there was an
agreement to commit an act regardless of fact of you will not
be able to determine their identities. You conspired with
them. The participants acted simultaneously in a very
synchronized manner. There is a meeting of mind and a
common goal of robbing the museum. They should be liable
for conspiracy.
Classification of Felonies
1. Justifying
- There is an actor, person, accused. He committed an
act in accordance with law. Could he be liable? No,
there is no criminal and civil liability.
2. Exempting
- No liability in a criminal case. There is no person.
Absent of an agent in the crime. Although the act is
voluntary there is no criminal liability, only civil
liability.
3. Mitigating
- Reduces penalty. Elements always reduces penalty.
There are insufficient elements of the crime of dolo
and culpa. Although voluntary, there is lesser
perversity in the act.
4. Aggravating
- There are different kinds: generic aggravating and
- Increases the penalty only up to the maximum point
of penalty. For example, you committed it with more
criminal intent, more perversity, it is aggravating but
only up to the extent that the penalty is given.
5. Alternative
Light, less grave and grave felonies
Circumstances affecting criminal liability
Absolutory will depend on whether or not it will aggravate or
mitigate the crime.
When you raise justifying and exempting and mitigating, you
actually admitted to the commission of the act. Not the crime,
but the act. In a criminal procedure and evidence, there is a
reverse trial. Instead of the prosecution, proving their case
first, to prove probable cause, prove reasonable doubt. It is
the prosecution who must offer the evidence first. If you
admitted that you committed an act, however, you admitted
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
that the act was not criminal. Because it is justified. I
committed the act, but I am not liable criminally, only civilly.
Or I committed the act but my penalty should be reduced, it
is mitigated. It admits the commission of the act.
Absolutory cause absorbs you from criminal liability but not
civil. Lack of voluntariness. When it comes to accessory, hindi
na iniimpose yung penalty sa mga asawa, kamag-anak,
descendants within same degree.
Who should allege justifying circumstance? It is the defense.
Justifying, exepting and mitigating circumstances do not
appear in the information. Only the aggravating
circumstances existing in the commission of crime appears in
the information. You prove that not just during the defense
but during the offer of evidence of the prosecution through
cross examination.
How do you cross examine in a criminal case? You do not
reveal your defense. What you do is you create doubt in the
evidence of prosecution.
The justifying circumstances affect the act not the actor.
Actor remains innocent. No crime, no criminal, no criminal
and civil liability because you admitted to the justifying
circumstance. The burden of proof in criminal cases is upon
the prosecution. However, by raising justifying, exempting
circumstances, you actually admit the commission of the
crime. So the prosecution no longer has burden of proof since
inadmit mo na. Burden of proof shifts to you.
Self-defense
- Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity over the means employed that
prevent or repel it
- Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself
 Remember this.
Unlawful aggression
- A condition sine qua non
- Defensive acts; primordial
- There is actual, imminent and real unlawful
aggression
- Actual – material attack; physical force; not mere
threatening attitude (not enough), there must be
some kind of physical assault; insulting, shouting
does not prove unlawful aggression
- There must be an offensive position
Can unlawful aggression be terminated or stopped? Yes.
Once unlawful aggression ceases, then unlawful aggression
stops. Pag huminto, hindi niyo hahabulin. Unlawful
aggression shifts to you. This is what you call desistance.
Reasonableness of means employed
- Depends on the gravity of intent
- Only one which will prevent or repel
- For example, someone came at you with the bolo,
there was nothing around you to repel it, other than
a gun standing at other side. Reasonable necessity is
inabot mo to prevent him. Rational equivalent since
there is danger, imminent danger.
In self defense, life was taken to save another life.
Stand the ground
- Right is ordered when it comes to police officers
- Right is subjective, it depends on how right you are
and how you can avoid injuries
- Presumption: performance of his duty (PO)
- Only defense is create doubt and question credibility
of witnesses against him
When you are in the right is not absolute xxx, the means
employed to prevent or repel it must be the one which
offender can avail of in the circumstance. For example, to
defend yourself, pumunta ka sa bahay kinuha mo gun ng
tatay mo, anong ibig sabihin niyan? The means employed to
prevent or repel it was not reasonable. Why? kasi pumunta
ka sa bahay, bumalik ka may dalang gun. Idea of means
employed to prevent or repel it must be easily available.
Provocation is not enough.
Admission of justifying circumstance. You only admitted to
the existence of facts. Same as exempting. Not to the
admission of guilt. Not to make you liable.
Defense of right and of honor.
Agreement of fight. Will there be unlawful aggression? None.
Because there was an agreement to fight. For example, you
accepted a challenge, is there unlawful aggression? None.
Pero if usapan mag swordfight kayo, tapos nagdala ka gun,
there is violation of conditions of that duel. Violated rules of
unlawful aggression.
Particular defense of self
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
- Self-defense in case of chastity, there must be an
attempt to rape.
- In case of property, was there attack on property? Is
attack is on the property, would there be self-
defense? When attack is on the property, is a mean
to equally attack the person by killing him. Your
reaction or response must be measurate with the
action against you. For example, in libel, when
somebody spoke against you, and you defended
yourself, if you retorted and allege something, if you
want to defend yourself wag muna kayo maglabas
ng defense
Battered Woman Syndrome
- If you are repeatedly subjected to physical and
psychological attacks, here, women in any kind of
relationship (same sex)
- There is a cycle and it happened again
Unlawful aggression
- Primordial element in self-defense
- Absence of one unlawful agresson negates self-
defense
What if it is only antagonistic actions? Not unlawful
aggression. Iwas ka na lang. Tinulak ka, antagonistic lang,
prinoprovoke ka.
- It stops and will not continue
Retaliation
- For example, ganti is not a defense. Retaliation is not
a self defense. Nagsuntukan kayo, nasa baba na siya,
tumigil na ang away pero gumanti ka sumuntok ka
ng mas malakas, aggression stops, you may be
considered the unlawful aggressor
- One who is making the self-defense must never try
to be an unlawful aggressor
- For example, may nagaaway, bigla kang pumasok,
there is no unlawful aggression, you joined the fight.
Defense of self-defense will not be available to the
other party because it was voluntary in his part.
There was no unlawful aggression. Cannot be raised
as a defense.
Sufficient Provocation
- Must be adequate to compel you to commit it
- Accused knew that you will be provoked, it is
sufficient provocation.
 - It must be adequate to excite a person to act, to
commit a wrong
- Provocation must be immediate – if time passed for
provocation, it is not sufficient provocation
- Is vulgar language sufficient provocation?
- Initial aggression must come to the accused himself
and you were not sufficiently provoked into acting
Stand ground when you are not in the right, it is duty of
person assailed to retreat. Kung ikaw sinugod, may unlawful
aggression upon you, idea is to retreat, umiwas ka. Kung
tinapatan mo siya, then aggression might change. His
aggression might not be sufficient, and you might be more
aggressive. If it was simply a provocation, there was a lawful
aggression and you retaliated, did you unlawfully aggress him.
For example, if you are accused, and one who came to you
wanted to take your life by his overt acts. By committing the
elements of crime. All together is that there is attempt to kill
you, how can you react? You can retreat or stand your
ground when you are in the right. If he knows you have the
gun, and you self-defend yourself.
If you believe that you have the grounds to defend yourself in
the right, stand your ground.
Omission of fact is not an omission of guilt. Maintains your
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Is it proper for you to defend your property by taking a life?
Generally, life is not equated to property and therefore, if you
are defending a property, for example may nagtrespass sa
inyo, pag may sign na trespassers will be killed is a warning.
Warning shot is enough but defense of a property is not
justified by taking a life. Not equated to that.
For example, vandalized your car, sinagasaan mo siya,
defense of property? No.
Defense of a relative
- But the person defending
- If alam niya na may nagaaway, unfortunately kamag
anak niya may kasalana, would you still defend him?
Person defending has no part or knowledge. Try to
defend person but try not to be aggressive on
person injured. Accused is kamag anak mo. Alam mo
pinagaawayan. Tapos sumama ka sa kamag anak mo
inaway mo yung isa, if your kamag anak acts in self-
defense, will it translate to you? No. They are
different elements. His only reason to enter the fight
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
is to help the relative who is now in struggle with the
victim.
- Defense of a relative must be clear and convincing
na dinefend mo siya hindi ka lang sumali basta.
- You must have no idea of the reason
Defense of a stranger
- Stranger may be someone you may know who is not
related to you (boyfriend, gf, bestfried)
- Legitimacy of relative
State of necessity
- Must be brought about by felonious act
- Must not be created by one creating by the one
invoking necessary circumstance. For example, you
bumped the tree, slammed into a ravine, state of
necessity on the part of you to avoid injury to
another
Obedience to a superior officer
- Superior officer presumes that there is a hierarchy
- Lawful order is in compliance with laws, rules and
regulations
Two Kinds of Courts when it comes to family Courts
1. Exclusively created Family courts
- Created as family courts
- All judges appointed to that court will be in family
courts forever (from appointment to retirement)
2. Designated family court
- Court was previously a regular court and because of
lack of family courts it was designated as a family
court
- Designation can be removed from the court
- Judge can be a different judge
Paano po pag slight physical injuries? Lagi akong minumura,
binabatukan, iniinis. Under jurisdiction of first level courts.
Physical injuries, unjust vexation, slight threats. Where is it
filed? If it involves the people, then it will be filed with the
family courts because of the nature of crime. Relationship of
the parties.
What can be done here? Protection orders (Barangay PO)
VAWC
 - Law considers women seldom finds courage to
directly file it, they now included people other than
the victim to file the case
- You will apply in the Barangay
- In the court, you will ask for PO (Temporary or
Permanent Protection order). You only need to file
for issuance of PO. It is an independent civil action.
- It can be an incidental relief. Pwede mo ifile without
a criminal case or a civil case pending. Pwede mo
naman ifile while criminal or civil case is pending as
relief sa court.
TPO – 15 days
- Will normally have a PPO scheduled. Hindi na
hihinayin maubos 30 days.
- You must prove it, you need expert witnesses
(psychiatrists, psychologists)
- Confined to a medical facility
- If cured and found to be sane, will he be released or
undergo another trial? No.
- GR: sanity; burden of proof is he is not of sound
mind
Double jeopardy
- One jeopardy plus double jeopardy
- Once exposed to one, criminal case then subjected
to another jeopardy
- No jeopardy in civil cases
Insanity as a defense is an admission.

PPO – 30 days Analogous cases of insanity

Special laws do not have special liabilities na ichcharge mo. It - Use of drugs can really lead to insanity
does not refer to fines or penalties. Civil liabilities are those - Alzheimer
that must be proved by preponderance of evidence and you - Schizophrenia
will be awarded whatever damages you are able to prove. - Nymphomaniac
Private prosecutors are allowed to attend hearings and - Epilepsy
represent the victim when there are private liabilities. - Paedophilia
Therefore, private prosecutors cannot participate to the case - Somnambulism – you do things when you’re asleep
if there is no civil liability.
Different Tests of Insanity (Tanaver case)
Exempting circumstance
1. Irresistible Impulse Test
- Accused is liable for civil liability 2. Right and Wrong Test

Imbecile or insane person Bizarre acts or extrinsicty are not necessarily mean insanity.
Prior confinement does not mean you are insane.
- Permanent situations
- Insanity has periods of lucidity. If you can prove that Mc Naghten Rule (People vs Madarang)
crime was committed during lucid interval, then
- Expert witness was intimately acquainted with
liability is complete. Not exempt from criminal
accused. They used Mc Naghten
liability. No guilty mind
- Imbecile is exempt from all cases. Imbecility requires Irresistible Test Rule
expert witnesses. Imbecility is more permanent than
insanity. Absence of actual intelligence. There is no Durham Rule
lucid interval.
Substantial Capacity Rule
- Insanity is basically temporary. Depriving of
intelligence. Does not understand criminal intent. No Is bipolarity insanity? It depends. But normally, they are
freedom of will. Accused will testify first (reverse dangerous not to others but to themselves.
trial)
- Lucid interval – sanity; naintindihan mo Dementia, Epilepsy? Yes, they are cases in which it is allows.
- Mere abnormality will not make you insane
Jealousy? Not insanity. Insanity must be during the offense to
Insanity be exempted. If you become insane during the trial, the trial

CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes

 Manalo, Angelica 
will be suspended and you are committed to the National Article 12, 14
Center for Mental Health.
Fortuitous events
Person under 9 years of age. Child above 15 years old but
below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime shall be Self-defense Accident
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 It is only justifying An exempting circumstance
of RA 95044, acted with discernment in a program. circumstance
With intent to do an act No intent
Absolute responsibility – 15 years old and below. Without There is voluntariness Lack of intention
discernment, no criminal liability.
RPC 67. Penalty to be imposed
Intervention program
- Absolutory causes. When all the elements of this
Diversion program particular paragraph is not present, there is a
specific penalty. Arresto mayor in its maximum
1517. Person who acts with discernment who has criminal period.
liability but will go to diversion program. There is a
presumption of lack of discernment in these cases. Accident is not equivalent to negligence. An accident is
caused by fortuitous acts, something you have no control
Vagrancy is decriminalized. over. Without human agents (cannot predict it).

Mendicancy Negligence can be avoided. Failure to observe what must be

necessarily protected. It is unusual, unexpected. Without
Discernment – mental capacity to understand the difference human agency. However, it is not lawful. Title 14. Involves
between right and wrong. The consequences. unintentional acts.

How is age determined? Birth certificate (PSA not NSO) Any person acts under compulsion of irresistible force.
Irresistible force is something physical. No moral control of
Age may either be leading or deceiving. If age is given, there
body. Uncontrollable fear is sa mind yan. Accused acted
is a possibility that age is an element in the crime.
without will. Accused becomes a mere instrument.
How to do you determine discernment? Did he used a tool to
Irresistible force is a mere instrument, there must be no
commit a crime? Or has there been a method in committing a
passion of obfuscation.
crime? Therefore it means that he understood it.
Force must be imminent or impending to induce a well-
Age does not necessarily mean that you will not have liability.
grounded fear.
There must be lack of discernment.
Fear must be imminent. It must not be speculative. It must
A person who while performing a lawful act with due care
not be imaginary. There is great possibility. Fear is not just
causes an injury by mere accident without fault – exemption
upon you. Fear to life and limb.
from criminal liability but there is civil liability. There is
absence of intent and negligence. Future threat? No, it must be real and imminent.

There is no injury in performing a right. Irresistible force uses physical violence or force.
Uncontrollable fear there is threat or imminent danger
Performance of Lawful Act: Elements
thereof. The irresistible force comes from a stranger – galing
1. Due care sa labas. The uncontrollable fear is when you are given a
2. Injury without fault threat or fear, but uncontrollable fear is within you (tinakot
ka pero nabuo sayo), accused here acts because he feels he is
Self-defense is a lawful act and duty in danger. He acted with a will.

Paragraph 7. Acts required to be done, person fails to

Incomplete Self-defense.
perform it because of some lawful insuperable force. Example,

CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes

 Manalo, Angelica 
privileges of husband and wife, privilege of lawyer, privilege
of priests, privilege that they might have to divulge
information but you cannot do that because of an
insuperable force.
Exempting circumstances
- Cannot be found in the information (justifying,
exempting, mitigating)
- Justifying and exempting – you actually admitted the
facts of the case. You are not admitting guilt.
- The result of admission of justifying and exempting
circumstance is the admission of the facts which now
allow the courts to go to a reverse trial.
- Lessens perversity and is not allowed, you cannot
see it in the information
Below 15, then 16, 17 and 18 above. 16 and 17, you will not
be liable unless there is to prove discernment. How do you
have discernment? Proven by understanding, by planning. 16
and 17 will not be treated without liability, will have liability
which will allow imprisoning will subject him to some
intervention. Sa prison, mga batang akusado, hindi na
kinukulong. They are brought to bahay kalinga.
9 and below are exempt from criminal liability. Exemption is
absolute even if they acted with discernment. Will the
parents participate in civil liability? If there are some
contributory negligence od parents they shall be liable.
16 and 17 if acted with discernment will not be suspended.
Promulgation is important.
Absolutory causes
- For example, accessories are not liable in light
felonies. Accessories are after the act. Assist in
performance of fact but not in conspiratorial manner.
- Light felonies (walang attempted and frustrated)
Entrapment and instigation
- Entrapment is not a bar from prosecution. When an
accused voluntarily participated in an entrapment,
he will be liable for whatever crime he has
committed. Criminal intent is already present in
accused mind.
- Instigation, you planted the seed and you water the
plant and it grew. The instigators (police assests or
police officers) instigated the crime. Provided them
with elements, with equipments and opportunity to
do so, accused is corrupted to perform the act.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
- People vs cortez, people vs doria
- Intent and predisposition of accused in crime.
- Did intent originate from him?
- Buy-bust operation: it must be clearly proven. Dapat
may initial contact. Then offer to purchase (not offer
to sell).
A witness once assuming the witness stand, is not allowed to
leave the witness stand until his testimony is terminated.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances
- Mga nakikita sa RPC, Art 13
- Offset ng generic aggravating circumstance. Gaano
karami ang dapat ioffset, if there are 2/3/4 MC, one
act one MC, if several MC in one act, it absorbs the
other
- AC: under Art 13
- Reduces penalty (within the degree) within the
minimum
- Minority is an exempting circumstance Art 12 par 2
and 3
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances
- Cannot be offset by generic aggravating
circumstance. Dahil specific sila eh.
- RPC 68 (par 1 and 2) on age, minor above 15, below
18 acting with discernment. Wala siya sa Art 13
- RPC Art 69, if majority of requisites are present it is a
privileged mitigating circumstance
Specific Mitigating Circumstances
Over 70 years old is just mitigating not exempting. Never an
ordinary mitigating circumstance, always a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
Minority exempting pag 12.
Not an Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances under RA 9344 Sec
6 and 16 (RPC 49, 68)
Par 3. Intention to commit such crime so grave a wrong as
that intended – praetor intentionam
Praeter intentionam
- Ordinary mitigating circumstance
- Negated if there is brute force – there is intention to
commit so grave wrong
How do you know the intention? Must show and prove the
intention. Intention is basically internal (you do not see it),
you see intention when it is manifested in an act.
In par 3, it is basically felonies which cause material or
physical harm. Meron material harm sa property and physical
harm on the person. Hindi pwede ang intentional sa
negligence. In negligence, there is an attempted and
consummated part of reckless imprudence.
For example, element does not contain an intention, a special
law, i did not intend to do that, it is consummated when its
done.
If you hit somebody and there was an intervening ailment,
sinuntok mo mahina lang naman, pero nung sinuntok mo may
kidney problem, nadamage kidney niya, namatay siya. That
could be a mitigating circumstance. You did not intend to
commit such a crime as that which you committed.
Intention must be at the particular time that crime was
committed. Hindi yung time elapsed to determine whether or
not crime was committed.
Cybercrime may result in material harm; to a loss of property.
No intention to commit does not apply in murder qualified by
treachery. If you commit a killing and you qualified the killing
with treachery, evident premeditation, you intended to take
advantage of treachery and evident premeditation; here you
cannot use this to mitigate anything.
Defamation, intention is not applicable. You may have vocally
spoken of your intent to the offender at a particular moment
but if you did not commit a crime you are not liable. However,
even if you are still planning and nothing has been done, no
liability. There is lack of intent. It is praetor intentionam.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a crime is not equivalent to
aberratio ictus or error in personam.
Provocation or threat is also an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. Must be sufficient, adequate, immediate, and
must come from the victim. There must be no interval.
Isusumbong kita sa police, is that provocation? No, because
it is a legal act. It must be an improper conduct. Sasabunutan
kita. Act of offending party capable of exciting or guilt taking.
Unjust improper conduct lang yun. Not necessarily to commit.
However provocation should not go beyond unlawful
aggression.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
Provocation must be direct and personal to the accused.
Kung accused mismo ang gumawa, it will be mitigated. But it
will mitigate act of person who precede the provocation but
was not the person who alluded.
If you act in self-defense, but there provocation in part of
accused. No self-defense. Lawful aggression ang acting with
self-defense. Provocation, you do not react with an act which
endanger your life or person or property. That is what you
want to defend. Provocation does not go beyond that. Here
mitigating circumstance will be from the victim.
What if provocation came from the party who made
provocation and thereafter hinabol mo siya, and nasaksak
mo? Provocation is not continuous it ceased. There is no
provocation if the offended party, lumayo or nagcease. You
can use provocation as a mitigating circumstance if you have
no opportunity to reflect.
Vindication of a grave offense. Is it revenge, self-defense? It
means immediate vindication. It is not just a vindication, it
must be immediate vindication of a grave offense. It is only
mitigating.
For example, napahiya ka. Would your act be self-defense?
Or it affected your honor. A sarcastic remark.
It must be proximate to the time that it happened. Sufficient
to cover what happened.
If vindication is with passion and obfuscation, it is only one
mitigating circumstance. It is directed against accused.
What is proximate. immediate. It would have passed for a
few hours because there is discernment. Kasi it is a
vindication of a grave offense unlike provocation. In
vindication, you must realize that there is an offense, that it
was grave enough. Vindication involves family. Hours or days
may pass. Not too long. If you realized what happened and
you understood what happened and you still proceeded with
it then you will not be liable. Equanimity - you were able to
gain composure, sanity or reason to understand what
happened.
Provocation must be direct sa person na accused. Vindication
may involve him or his family. Offended party may have done
a grave offense to his family that is vindication. Sa
provocation it does not need grave offense.
Provocation Vindication
Direct upon accused himself Ikaw and family or ikaw or
family
Need not be a grave offense For a grave offense
committed against you or
your family
Must be immediate to time Appreciates proximate in
act was committed time interval to gain
understanding
Passion and obfuscation (nagdilim ang paningin)
- It is appreciated in crimes against person
- Not against any other crime
- It diminishes self control at that particular time you
are deprived of free will.
- Sets off vindication and provocation
- One mitigating circumstance is enough to reduce the
penalty to the minimum
Why would you prove mitigating circumstance? Because
prosecution might be able to prove aggravating circumstance
and you will use the mitigating circumstance to offset each
other.
When do you prove mitigating circumstance? During
prosecution’s evidence that the complainant or the witnesses
were not able to completely relate the incident and there are
definite signs that there were mitigating circumstance.
Always inform the court of the mitigating circumstance.
In direct examination, nagccross ka, wag mo muna sasabihin
yung mitigating circumstance na prinoprove mo. Why?
because in redirect examination they can clarify, overturn,
ask their witness to provide evidence that it was not
mitigating circumstance. Direct, lay the foundation of your
mitigating circumstance on cross. So sasagot ang prosecution
sa redirect, dun mo na ipapakita yung mitigating
circumstance.
It does not mean that the mitigating circumstance comes
from the defense alone.
In passion and obfuscation there is not much time. It is a spur
of the moment. Similar to provocation, it is immediate. You
are not able to gain equanimity. it is an impulse, you react
immediately. It is upon an act against you that caused passion
and obfuscation. For example, feelings or sentiments directed
towards you.
Can it be directed towards somebody else? Father or mother?
No. Sayo lang.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
When is there passion or obfuscation? Is it mitigating all the
time? No. When the passion or obfuscation happens, your
just waiting to be provoked, and you wanted to commit
revenge upon the person. Revenge is not the passion or
obfuscation. Why? revenge can create enough passion or
obfuscation for you to act but not passion or obfuscation but
revenge. So hindi magagamit ang mitigating circumstance.
If passion and obfuscation came from illegitimate
relationships, it is not passion and obfuscation. For example,
you have a wife and a girlfriend.
Passion and obfuscation is an impulse caused by provocation.
But in provocation, provocation comes from the injured party.
Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery.
Surrendered confession of guilt
- These are two mitigating circumstances
- Basically different and occur in different times,
basically separate from each other
- There are two different circumstances here
Voluntary surrender
- Not just to any person but must be to a person in
authority or an agent in authority
- Personal in authority: police (pag nagsurrender sa
brgy dadalhin sa police)
Is warrant of arrest needed to be issued? No. Warrant of
arrest need not be issued in order for you to voluntary
surrender. If crime was committed and you were there,
necessarily you are a person of interest, you will be taken in
custody. Wala pang determination of probable cause but you
stood your ground.
If you committed a crime and a warrant was issued. Nung
hindi pa naissue yung warrant, you felt the feeling of regret
or guilt, remorse, nagsurrender ka. It is a valid surrender to a
person.
Does the issuance of a warrant of arrest negate voluntary
surrender? No. Problem is if you have knowledge of the same,
if you learned of the warrant of arrest being issued against
you, then your impulse is to go and surrender and that will be
considered.
What if you were arrested at the time the crime was
committed? Would voluntary be given? Yes, if you peacefully
and freely go with the police officer. You did not violate any
crime against them.
You were charged with a crime, before prosecutor and court
were able to consider presence of probable cause, you left for
another province. They issued a warrant for your arrest, and
they released it. Then you learned that a warrant for your
arrest is issued. Your first impulse is to go to court or
surrender yourself to a judge.
If you surrender in another place beyond the jurisdiction of
the court issuing the warrant. To whom should you surrender?
To the court issuing the warrant. Hindi pwedeng hindi sa
kanya. Pwede sa ibang judge sa court na yun with a notice
that judge is not available and there were other judges.
Wala ka pang narereceive na warrant of arrest nagpunta ka
na agad, voluntary surrender? Yes.
Warrant of arrest issued. The court is in one province, and
you were in an adjacent province. You heard a warrant of
arrest was issued and you wanted to surrender in that
province. You do not have a warrant of arrest, voluntary
surrender? Yes. Even if the judge does not know of the crime
committed? Yes.
Ang isang akusado na naissuhan ng warrant of arrest at wala
pang copy. Mahirap siyang magfile ng bail sa isang court
bukod sa copy nang nag issue nun. Why? because wala ka
pang information. Dun nakalagay how much babayaran mo.
Judges can take cognizance of the fact that one voluntary
surrendered. A judge will release him only on recognizance.
Hindi kita mahuhuli kasi walang warrant yung jail pero
nagvovoluntary surrender ka. Yes, valid. If you get hold of
your information, then you can pay bail, on the court where it
was issued.
Information and warrant pwede magbail sa ibang lugar. You
have to make sure that the voluntary surrender is
acknowledged. Court will take note of cognizance so you can
use it sa mitigating circumstance in your case.
Can filing of bail be considered as surrender? No. Because
information and warrant of arrest has already been issued
and released and therefor it is not the first opportunity for
you to learn about it. You actually were arrested and is asking
for bail, technically, it’s not a voluntary surrender.
Must be in open court, accused must be assited by counsel
(whether to admit or not, accused is the one who will enter
plea). Accused is arraigned by reading the information itself.
Due process dictates that it shall be in the language that he
understands or if not to be translated to him in the language
that he understands.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
Even a Chinese citizen is entitled to bail. When he is arraigned
it must be in the language that he understands. And he
understands the meaning of that information.
Information
- Briefly tells you what the crime is and the coverage
of the crime.
- In the end you will be asked if to plea if you will be
pleading guilty or not guilty
Arraignment
- Even if it is voluntary, it requires assistance of
counsel
What is person agrees to be arraigned, waives assistance of
cousel, will that be an entry of plea of guilty? Improvident
plea of guilt. It means the plea of guilty was entered into
against his will, he was forced in entering a plea of guilty.
Therefore, it is not voluntary. If he waives his right to be
assisted by counsel during arraignment, will that be a valid
arraignment? No, he must still be assisted by counsel even if
he waives it. Assisted as he was informed of the charges, he
knew of them. And when he enters a plea, he enters a plea of
not guilty. However, offer of evidence you are given time of
confession of plea before evidence for prosecution is
presented.
When is this? You have arraignment, pre-trial and then trial.
If it is one of the cases falling under ADR, then you will have
to follow ADR. ADR muna the trial. Before evidence is offered
by prosecution, then that is the time you can enter a
voluntary plea of not guilty.
Case of both parties are marked and placed in pre-trial order
so that the parties have an idea of what evidence will be
offered by either of them. Mark all evidence including judicial
affidavits, documentary and otherwise. You can plead guilty
prior to pre-trial.
If during pre-trial you plead guilty to a lesser offense, it is
not just a plea of guilty to the offense charged but a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense, will it be considered as a voluntary
plea of guilty? Plea of guilty to a lesser offense is still a plea
of guilty. If done prior to offer of evidence it may be
considered, requisites to mitigating circumstance.
In homicide, killing without qualifying aggravating
circumstance, and you plead guilty would you be entitled to
mitigating circumstance? [Medyo conflicting sagot dito.
Analyze question first.] Some would say that a plea of guilty,
pleang to a lesser crime would already negate the plea of
guilty. Because you pleaded guilty to a lesser crime. For
example crime is murder, you pleaded guilty to homicide. So
negated na mitigating circumstance ng plea of guilty because
technically the penalty of the crime will not be lowered to the
minimum of reclusion perpetua but lowered to a one whole
degree. No, the plea of guilty can no longer be considered a
mitigating circumstance if a person pleas guilty to a lesser
offense mainly because the benefits of a plea of guilty is
recognized by the mitigating circumstance is already a
granted by a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
On the other hand, a plea of guilty should be considered to
mitigate the plea of guilty. For example, you pleaded guilty
for murder to homicide that would be one whole degree
lower, should you be given the privilege of a plea of guilty to
lower penalty to minimum. Some say that there is no
conclusive rule, law, case on that. That they will grant it since
it is in favor of the accused.
Judge Alaras: para bang lahat na lang ng sagad na pwedeng
isagot mo eh in favor of the accused, well you can do it
naman. But i would rather than a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense is tantamount to a plea of guilty which will mitigate
the offense simply because it did not only mitigate it, enforce
or implement the minimum, but it mitigated it to the next
degree. If you will consider it in favor of the accused, will now
place the penalty to a minimum.
If you were convicted of a crime, instead of appealing you
have two choices: go for probation, if it is under probation
that means penalty does not go beyond 6 years, or you go on
appeal, if appeal you will no longer be able to secure the
probation as a matter of privilege because you waived it
already. Probation is normally one to two years. On the other
hand, in appeal there is a possibility that you will be acquitted
and will no longer be considered and now waive your right to
further appeal if subsequently (cause probation is not a right
it is a privilege, therefore, where you file a probation, you
take the risk that probation will not be granted, if probation is
not granted then you go back to square one and you will have
to serve your penalty) filing of probation is not sure to be
granted. If you apply for probation, you can no longer appeal.
Physical defect of offender
- Must be related to commission of the crime
- It must be a defect that restricted you from
committing the crime in its entirety otherwise it is
not related it should not be given a mitigating
circumstance.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
For example, one that restricts action. Physical defect refers
to crimes which are not dependent on, in crimes that require
physical exertions and the defect resulted in either an
increase liability. Increase of liability will thereby be mitigated
by the defect, for example, you have weak eyes, you try to kill
them by use of gun or knife and you cannot maintain a good
aim and instead of killing one, you killed the other, you will be
liable but may be mitigated by defect.
For example, you have a bolo and you wanted to swing it in
its arm and unfortunately dumeretso siya. It must be a
physical defect (like missing limbs, weakened eyes or hearing).
Illness does not necessarily affect your physical ability to
perform a crime rather it affects ability to exercise your will.
Deprives right to use will in its totality. For example, bipolar,
illness must be fully supported by medical certificates. For
example, sleepwalking, it is more on exempting. Illness of
mind that makes you unable to perceive what is right from
wrong. It reduces capacity to act wilfully and basically. It must
be medically proven and diagnosed and therefore the
commission of the offense must be supported by testimony
of those who saw the illness.
Similar analogous impulse of passion, obfuscation, jealousy.
Testifying for prosecution, if you are accused, would mean
that you are a hostile witness. And you cannot simply say that
you are testifying as a hostile witness. Part of discovery when
a hostile witness is offered as a testimony and put it in a
question and answer and person will answer it in testimony
that will be considered hostile. It was set aside. Not only
testimony of witness but also 2019 filing of civil complaints
and answers would involve filing of evidentiary documents
includes testimonial evidence. Hence when you file a case,
your case must be complete (allegations in complaint must
contain, must be in judicial affidavit true to its form should
have in its attachment the evidence that you offer and prove
your case) because will look at the evidence and when you
fail, it may on its own dismiss it if not enough evidence or
refrain from issuing summons.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
- When present in commission of crime must show
the perversity
- Perversity is the state of mind of the person when
committing a crime. That there proof that there is
intent to commit a crime
How do you know that? The aggravating circumstances
would tell how, when, where and why. For example, how did
he commit the crime? By treachery, armed men.
[Judge Alaras: Who, what, when, where, how, why – gamitin
lang to analyze question and cases]
Motive is not an element of any crime. What you need to
prove are the elements not motive. What you are going to
prove is that the elements are not there. You prove it by
testimony of not your own. To create doubt in testimony of
prosecution.
When a criminal information is charged, especially when
crime is defined by qualifying aggravating circumstance.
What is qualifying aggravating circumstance? Yun yung mga
aggravating circumstance under Art 13 and parts of element
of crime. And those acts are already criminal in nature by
presence of QAC they create another crime, a different crime.
For example, killing someone is just killing, but if killing
without any aggravating circumstance, for example crime has
in its elements treachery, with aid of armed men, ilalagay mo
siya dun it becomes a different crime – QAC. You have
generic aggravating circumstance and a QAC. The QAC must
be in information. Because it defines the crime. The
information shall be defective and subjected to a motion to
quash. A QAC is not simply set off by other. GAC can be set
off by an ordinary mitigating circumstance only.
Aggravating circumstance increases the penalty to its
maximum. Pano pag maraming aggravating circumstance?
It does not increase the penalty in its maximum (same as in
mitigating).
ISLAW law, maximum penalty is maintained, while minimum
goes down.
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
- It does not reduce but makes the crime more serious
- It does not lessen the crime unlike in privileged
mitigating (di ka lang bababa, bababang bababa ka
talaga – one or two degree lower)
- Aggravating circumstance – maximum; qualifying
aggravating – beyond
There is change in nature. For example theft, it is only taking,
no violence. But robbery is also a taking but with violence.
That is why they are crimes against property.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
In mitigating circumstance because it will act to benefit of
defendant analogous circumstances are being considered in
order to mitigate crime. Similar circumstances or analogous
are added. It depends on analogous are raised. You give
accused benefit of doubt kasi pababa yan. in aggravating
circumstance, however, when you add more interpretationto
this, you expose accused to more liability, it is limited to that
which is placed here, exclusive only. Because if you equate
the similarity or analogy to ac it is not favourable to accused
that is why it should be exclusive.
Aggravating circumstance is committed prior to preparation,
conspiracy, planning or simultaneous circumstance. You will
not appreciate aggravating circumstance if it was committed
after or subsequent to the crime. It is basically another crime.
When a crime is created by special law, aggravating
circumstance do not particularly apply and aggravating
circumstance may also be considered in recidivism.
Aggravating circumstance will not be appreciated if
aggravating circumstance is part of definition of crime you
will not consider it an aggravating circumstance. For example,
pag dinefine ang with arms, hindi na siya mag aggravate it
becomes part of definition of a crime.
When 2 or more persons are charged with a crime, a crime
charge will always be attended by conspiracy.
Pag qualifying aggravating circumstance, nandun dapat sa
information. Pano pag generic aggravating circumstance,
some say it should not be information, if proven by evidence
it should be considered to aggravate it. Others say it should
be in information because you should be informed of all the
charges against you even the qualifying circumstance that will
increase penalty so that you may defend yourself.
Generic aggravating circumstance if not offset increases
penalty nagooffset sila. Sa qualifying circumstance it changes
the nature, increase penalty. The general nature of
aggravating circumstance increases the penalty. Generic
aggravating circumstance changes the nature of crime.
Generic aggravating Special aggravating
Recidivism, changes
character
Cannot be offset by ordinary
mitigating
Can you allege retroactive a qualifying aggravating
circumstance? No, pag hindi mo nilagay sa information hindi
makakapag prepare ng defense ang accused.
Judge Alaras: not always for the prosecution, to complete the
crime when proven and no objection, you should allow
presence of aggravating circumstance. But not qualifying. In
generic aggravating circumstances, most of them are used in
counter.
There are specific circumstances which apply only to
particular crimes, for example, cruelty and treachery only
applies to crimes against persons. Hindi ka pwedeng cruel sa
mga material things. Chastity, when victim is a person in
authority, you apply physical injuries. When you use
unlicensed firearm you can use it in robbery, unlicensed will
increase penalty.
[Memorize the circumstances]
Alevosia and treachery when existing in crime of killing
elevates the crime from homicide to murder. An abuse of
confidence in theft, pa gang kumuha ng property is one you
trust, there is abuse, and thus it will become qualified theft.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstance. How it changes the
crime.
When you plead guilty, you plead guilty as to all the
allegations in the information. If not in the information, hindi
siya magagamit against you to offset it. Pag nag plea of guilty
agad, upon arraignment, wala pa naooffer evidence to prove
aggravating circumstance your plea of guilty will not be offset
by any aggravating circumstance because it is not yet proven
because it is not in the information and therefore it will be
lowered penalty.
There are those which are inherent in the crime. For example,
bribery always involves public officers, hindi mo naman
ibbribe ang isang taong wala naman kwenta sayo. Robbery is
always violence and undue fear; you would always anticipate
anything out of ordinary. If you enter place, unlawful entry
robbery na yun, you used something that should not be used
as an entry.
Crime of ignominy is no longer appreciated in the crime of
rape because rape is already crime against persons and not
chastity and therefore ignominy is not appreciated in crime of
rape.
Special aggravating circumstances
- Aggravating circumstances which cannot be offset by
privileged mitigating, quasi-recidivism, complex
crimes and so on
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
Par. 1. That advantage be taken by offender of his public
position
How does offender take advantage of his public position? It
is not just taking of advantage of a position but is used to
realize the purpose of the crime. Hindi ka lang nagabuso, ang
purpose ka talaga.
Not all crimes committed by public officers have aggravating
circumstance. For example, public bidding, instead of holding
it for bidding, you simply negotiate it. It is his access that
allows for this violation.
Police officers are given confidence and any abuse committed
by them are aggravated.
Aggravating circumstances are often deliberate. Hindi pwede
by negligence lang ang pagiging liable.
Abuse of public position to gain access is aggravating.
Par 2. That crime be committed in contempt of or with
insult to public authority
- Requisites:
1. Public authority is engaged in performance of a
duty – it is in his presence that a crime is
committed (kung sa kanya, direct assault)
2. Offender knew that there is a public authority
present at that time – when there is a public
authority give them respect and reference
Public authority
- May jurisdiction siya
- Here, is not judicial in nature
- Judges are persons in authority
- Touches those in executive and legislative branch
- Judges (contempt lang kaya gawin)
- Task is within a specific time period
Tour of duty – time of duty of public officials especially,
police officers; when he was in the performance of his duty;
not on duty or in duty
Is he a public authority even if he is not in duty? No. He is
also a public authority even if he is beyond his tour of duty.
Police officer, congressman, senator cannot say that he is not
in duty.
Public authority also has jurisdiction
 - assigned in a particular jurisdiction (assigned in
Manila, went to Makati)
- Papayagan yan pag in hot pursuit, crime is being
committed during a chase or in pursuit of a criminal
- Public authority should be within his jurisdiction
- If beyond his jurisdiction generally, no unless it is hot
pursuit
- If they see that they will go beyond their jurisdiction,
they will coordinate because their action will take
them beyond their jurisdiction
Public authorities are not always persons in authority. For
example, teachers are deemed public authority but they are
persons in authority.
Agent of a person in authority
Police officer is only an agent of a person in authority.
Aggravating circumstances must be in the information so you
will know what you will defend. Whatever not be pleaded in
the complaint could not be taken against you. All qualifying
aggravating circumstance must be pleaded – must state what
are the qualifying aggravating circumstance so that you can
respond to the information. If none, you should object or
court can take cognizance of the same.
Generic aggravating circumstance must be included in
information to be appreciated, if not in info can it be raised?
Criminalists say that it should be in info because it is due
process. Procedural or remedialists, no, they must be given
opportunity to prove generic aggravating circumstance as
they are revealed during testimony.
Qualifying and generic aggravating must be in information
because you must defend it and can be raised during
testimony. You can raise several aggravating circumstances in
information and even during trial. They should not be taken
numerically. When aggravating circumstance was raised and
generic and mitigating was never set off just one is enough,
one surviving generic aggravating circumstance is enough to
raise its maximum. Regardless of how many aggravating
circumstance is raised and proven in trial then it should be
raised to its maximum, never beyond its maximum.
Aggravating Mitigating
Hanggang maximum lang Will lower it beyond its
because you can only be minimum
charged with penalty
provided for by law
Do not occur after – if after
you can be an accessory
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
Always happen prior to,
when you plan or
preparation for the same
For example, you commit a crime and you use treachery in a
secluded, can you raise it again in another case when it was
already raised in the original case? Yes, best example is
recidivism. If you commit a crime in the same title (same
person, property), however you should not appreciate
aggravating circumstance if it is part of the elements of the
crime. An aggravating circumstance which is part of elements,
you cannot raise it as another aggravating circumstance. For
example, there are 3 of you as part of element of gang you
cannot use it again to raise penalty higher, ibang aggravating
circumstance na gagamitin mo. There are those inherent in
the crime. You may appreciate evident premeditation or
estafa and that can be appreciated and will raise penalty to
maximum.
Recidivism will increase the penalty
In information they seldom separate principals, accessories
and accomplices. They make it as conspiracy. If they cannot
prove the actual participation but they can prove that they
participated, it could be considered as conspiracy. But when
you allege one as accessory definitely iba ang liability nila. If
inallege mo siya as accomplice or accessory tas naprove mo
siya as conspiracy then he information shall be effective since
you allege them as accessories.
Generic aggravating circumstance can be offset by ordinary
mitigating but qualifying cannot be.
Why should generic aggravating be alleged? Because it will
increase the penalty and will make liability graver. In a gac it
will increase penalty to the maximum if not offsetting.
Presence of qualifying aggravating does not only raise it,
qualifies it to another offense. Therefore presence of other
generic aggravating circumstance will still aggravate the crime
so nag qualifying aggravating ka na and do you have to prove
additional aggravating? Yes, because additional aggravating
will still increase application of penalty to its maximum.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Generic
- Par 1-6, 9-10, 14, 18-20
2. Specific
- Aggravating circumstance that applies particularly to
certain crimes, for example, cruelty and treachery,
 cruelty which cannot be filed against crimes on
property because subject matter is property, and
treachery is applied only to persons since they are
the ones vulnerable to treachery. Ignominy cannot
be applied in other crimes other than chastity.
- Use of unlicensed firearm will not be a separate
crime but rather it will act to increase penalty to its
maximum
- Particular crime, it does not apply to others
3. Qualifying
- Changes the nature of the crime and the crime itself
- If nagplead ng guilty, the prosecution cannot ask
additional aggravating circumstance not in
information since purpose of pleading guilty is to
reduce penalty to its minimum
4. Inherent
- If penalty is inherent in an element
- Ac is inherent in commission not in its definition
- Example, fraud
5. Special
- Arise on the condition to increase penalty of the
crime
- Example, quasi-recidivism or abuse of public
confidence in anti-graft and corrupt practices
Advantage taken by person in public position
- Personal circumstance taken offender who has
public position
- Focus on means used by party
- If it is part of elements and not alleged in
information, then you will be charged by that, but if
not in information, then it will only be generic
aggravating
- Use of public position must be used , there must be
intent
- Must prove that he is a public officer, not just to
testify. How to prove? Election
PAR 2. That crime be committed in contempt of or with
insult to public authority
You have a lot of respect to public authority and thus there is
a greater perversity to the commission of the crime.
How do you consider this? Public officer must be in the
performance of exercise of his official duty
“in contempt of or with insult to public authority”
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
- Public officer need not be person against whom the
crime is being committed. Why, if this is the crime
what would it be? Direct assault
- President has certain privileges, one of which is
respect, and is considered a person in authority
- It should not aggravate the crime because it is
inherent
- Why is a person liable for that? Idea is to respect
them and not to commit the crime
- Public authority must be in the performance of a
duty and if it is not a crime against them, it is a crime
in their presence, a crime against them will be direct
assault and if there are such allegations in
information of direct assault, it will be absorbed.
Public authority is not always persons in authority. For
example, teachers (in private schools are not contemplated in
this instance), public school teachers, lawyers.
Agents in authority
- Agent siya nung persons in authority
PAR 3. That the act be committed with insult to or disregard
with respect due to offended party on account of his rank,
age or sex.
- Accommodates two circumstances:
- Presence of one aggravating would be enough to
raise the penalty
- Presence of 2 will offset one, and other one will
remain
- Applies only in particular to cases against persons
and cases against owner of the persons
- Idea is not incidental to the commission of the crime
Pag present silang lahat pwede bang isa na lang silang
aggravating circumstance? If all present in one situation,
they should be appreciated as one aggravating. However if all
of them are present in one situation, you could actually
consider them separately. Only when they are present in one
situation will you consider them as one.
If the crime was committed with passion and obfuscation and
the presence of age, older and younger, rank or weaker sex,
passion and obfuscation will disregard the age, rank, hindi na
siya magiging aggravating to impose a higher penalty.
Rank should not be an aggravating circumstance when the
crime is committed against a public authority. Inherent na
yun. It is an integral part of the crime.
To be aggravating, there must be showing of deliberate intent
to use that.
What is a rank? It refers to the offended party. If you abuse
your authority, dun papasok yun, pero if you used that to
deliberately offend someone lower of rank, dun papasok. You
should qualify.
- Rank would be a difference in social condition and
not just designation or distinction of offender and
offended party
If accused is younger than you, advantage of disregard due to
party apply even if party is younger than you? Judge Alaras:
yes, should be respected on his innocence or ignorance.
Age
- Old and tender age
- Younger or older of offender
- Here, if he did not intend and there is a presence of
negligence or carelessness, it is not an aggravating
- If with passion and obfuscation, not knowing that he
was 10 years younger than you
Sex
- Female
- For example, VAWC
- But if female was abused because of weakness or
there is treachery
Touch all aggravating circumstance is treachery: madami
siya inaabsorb di na need idefine. If hindi mo sinabi and hindi
nakuha sa information and you proved it, it is absorbed in the
crime.
Transgender is not yet recognized, if a transgender who has
breasts and bigla mo hinawakan, hindi mo masasabi na you
took advantage of that.
Rank, sex or age is not applicable if it is a spur of the moment.
And accidental in nature. Intent is important. Deliberate
intent.
Negligence and carelessness negate deliberate intent.
If sex is mistaken, it is not considered. Misrepresenting
oneself.
Dwelling
- Structure exclusively used for rest and comfort
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
If teaching in the house, would you consider that dwelling
place? Judge Alaras: yes. Incidental lang yun.
Work from the home (WFH) would you consider WFH a
possibility? Judge Alaras: WFH is incidental. It is temporary
and home remains to be a place for comfort and privacy.
If offended party gave a provocation then there is a defect
angle. It is like inviting a commission of an offense. If you give
provocation, you consider your home as free and open are
for you to go. Ninenegate yung provocation yung dwelling.
Rape sa bedspacer, need ba ikaw may ari ng house? No, a
bedspacer, is included in dwelling.
Victim is a guest in another house? The victim in the house
of a guest in a house of the host and he is attacked is also
dwelling. (People v Alteche)
People v Jose. Abduction happened when one is in her house,
papasok car in her home, then and there, offenders abduct
her, it was taken into consideration.
Binaril ka mula sa labas? Aggravating, yes.
You were shot from below? Dwelling, yes.
They say that yard is not a dwelling because it is outside, but
if you are near the house where you can get to safety, basta
not outside it is a dwelling.
A man can have many dwellings but only one domicile.
If crime was committed partly outside the house and partly
inside, it is considered as dwelling.
Arson is a completely different crime. If you are inside the
house and it was burned, would it be aggravating? No, it is
arson. It is absorbed in the crime of arson.
Hotel room. Is it dwelling? Judge Alaras: You are occupying it,
you are supposed to be comfortable, it should be considered
dwelling. Permanence is not measured by days. If you are a
visitor in dwelling, no, hindi ikaw nagcheck in.
Dwelling is not aggravating if place is not devoted to
dwelling. There are times that it is exclusive.
Negligence or carelessness, like reckless imprudence. Pag ba
nabangga mo ng kotse yung bahay nung tao, pinasok mo
yung bahay, would you consider aggravating circumstance
of dwelling? No.
If both offender and offended party live in the same house, it
should not be aggravating. Kasi both of them are at the
comfort of their house. But rank, sex and age can be a
consideration.
[Judge A: Read the information and look at the allegations,
tingnan niyo kung lahat ng allegations ng aggravating
circumstance nalagay as aggravating or as description of the
crime. Kasi sa information basically tells you the story of the
crime. In particular ha. Ilagay niyo yung qualifying aggravating
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, kasi
madaming inaabsorb yan. Pag nakalagay sa elements ng
crime yang treachery and evident premeditation. Isipin niyo
na lang ano ang hindi naabsorb ng treachery and evident
premeditation para alam niyo kung itataas.]
Ways and means on how the crime was committed. The
elements if proven separately can be appreciated
independently from each other.
Abuse of confidence does not mean may obvious
ungratefulness na. It has to be separately stated. Basically,
abuse of relationship there is confidential relationship
between you but not necessarily obvious ungratefulness.
Abuse of relationship
- There is regular confidence
- There is a trusting relationship
- Not necessarily official (if official might result to
another crime)
- Abuse in qualifying if its intent qualifies theft,
seduction, otherwise it is simply a generic
aggravating circumstance
- There is a trust on the offender and that offender
abused that relationship so that the victim/offended
party really pulls down his defences then facilitated
the commission of the crime – the offender took
advantage of the crime
- Relationship is indispensable, you must state the
relationship of trust and confidence
- Trust and relationship must be immediate – meron
personal and immediate relationship
There must be a relationship between the abused and the
abuser. Pano po yung yaya, hindi alam ng bata if abuse of
relationship na siya? There is abuse of relationship because
there is trust of confidence between parents and yaya. The
trusting relationship is not in the ward but in the parents.
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation. Qualifying in
theft and estafa.
Obvious ungratefulness
- When are you grateful to somebody? When there is
trust. And that trust was abused, when you are not
thankful about it, then it will be ungrateful.
PAR 5. Crime was committed in the palace of the chief
executive or his presence
- Idea here is the place
- “in the palace” means that the president need not
be in the palace but may just be in the palace, you
have to respect the palace by itself
- “in his presence” means President need not be in
the palace but anywhere where he is.
- There must be an intent to commit the crime in that
place
Church dedicated for religious worship. Even if there is no
mass, it is still dedicated for religious worship. Public place.
Are cemeteries religious worship? No, nagdadasal ka pero
hindi ka sumasamba.
Public authority must not be the offended party. Yun lang
lugar ang pinaguusapan. If Public Authority is offended party
then it may be contempt of insult to but not resulting to
direct assault.
Par 5 – place or the area
Par 2 – regardless of the place, public authority
Crime committed in night time or time itself in an
uninhabited place or by a band
- Isipin niyo if it was intentionally abused and
facilitated
- If not intentionally used and not facilitated the crime,
no, it is incidental
Night time
- Night time itself is per se is not an aggravating
circumstance, if not intentionally used and not
facilitate
- Prevented you from seeing the offender or you
cannot protect yourself, and you took advantage of
it (you planned it)
- Ilagay mo sa information
 - It must be alleged and must not be by chance or
incidental
For example, gabi pero bukas yung ilaw, night time? Yes, the
light is incidental.
What makes night time incidental? Darkness
For example, movie house, it is dark, is it night time? No, but
if it was shown to be intentionally planned and you took
advantage of it, it is the darkness that makes it aggravating
If you haven’t written it in your information, ilagay niyo si
treachery kasi inaabsorb ni treachery ang night time.
Night time is also absorbed in robbery and homicide because
there is treachery.
Uninhabited place
- you deliberately selected the place and it qualifies
them
- it is the solitude of the place
- the possibility of being able to do it without
interference and unable to secure help by victim
- no houses at all or malayo sa bayan or kabihasnan,
great distance from each other or walang dumadaan
na tao
- pag di ka kilala ng mga tao dun
- the problem must show the solitude of the place
(you deliberately went there kasi walang signal yung
phone) will facilitate the commission of the crime to
prevent non identification, avoid help
For example, in the middle of the sea or ginamit mo place to
uninhabited place and do whatever you want to avoid
detection and interference
If it was a chance encounter at an uninhabited place and you
took advantage of it, then it is not aggravating circumstance.
Why?
If committed by a band
- four plus one is armed (at least 4)
- armed means anything that can be considered as
armory, not necessarily firearms (not mentioned na
firearms siya)
- Active participation and by a principal
- Generic aggravating in robbery but it will be
absorbed in abuse of superior strength
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
for example: bato, chain, bote, dos por dos, baril, balisong,
riffle.
Differently armed but still armed, yes. Hindi need na pare
pareho sila ng armed
Brigandage in itself is a crime and committed by a band is
also aggravating. So it is not inherent here.
For 4 armed men to be considered should have acted as
principal by direct participation. Ginamit nila armas nila.
If one of the only used it to induce? No, not four armed men.
Brigandage in aggravating circumstance is not considered in
crimes against chastity. Hindi pwedeng by a band yung
commission of rape. (Rape a crime against persons and thus
aggravating circumstance is not committed against crimes of
chastity). Brigandage is aggravating in crimes against persons
and property, illegal detention and treason.
Conflagration, shipwreck or other calamity or misfortune
- You took advantage of a person or the situation; you
deliberately took advantage of it.
- Natural act of person is not to take advantage but to
lend help
For example, sa Yolanda, may mga tao na finorce open ang
department store pero nung lumabas sila ang kinuha is mga
tv, that is not it. You took advantage of the situation.
Must this occasion be deliberately done? Must it only be an
act of nature yung misfortune na to? Yung intent mo must
be deliberately done. But the conflagration need not be
deliberately done and can be deliberately done.
For example, umuulan, nilalagyan ng takip yung drainange
para bumaha, so hindi makakalakad and they took advantage
of it. Judge Alaras: Treachery or evident premeditation.
Meron fire, nakasalubong mo yung tao tapos nagaway kayo,
sinaksak mo, you took advantage of his not being able to help
himself and not in position to defend himself. You took
advante of that incident. Usually, lawlessness prevails.
PAR 6. With the aid of armed men or persons
- Intentionally sought not by chance
- Actual aid is not necessarily. Moral aid or
psychological support is enough
- You have to make sure that the aid affords impunity
 - If you’re equally armed, you should not consider this,
because there is no aid.
- Treachery absorbs aid of armed men
- Band absorbs aid of armed men
- At least two should be armed
- A qualifying circumstance or generic in some cases
Even if the aid is not essential? “They assisted me, but i can
personally do this crime by myself” NO. Even if by yourself,
aid is not essential. May aid lang pero not necessarily sa
commit ng crime. It is not a defense.
In the stained title
If committed on the same day, it shall be considered only as
one and cannot be separately counted. It should be
considered as one and should be used against accused for
recidivism.
If one was not convicted prior to, it is not be recidivism. If
committed within same day, not recidivism. It shall be
considered separately counted, separate charges. One
incident lang yan.
Whether or not you charged differently, or separately
convicted, it should be considered as one only and cannot
aggravate.

- Same title includes physical injuries. He may be liable In pardon, would recidivism be considered? Pardon means
for murder with physical injuries that the crime is committed. It did not erase recidivism, even
if it is an absolute one. Pardon excuses the service of
What if penalty is time? A few months in imprisonment? Yes sentence for that first crime, but it did not erase the stigma of
the crime.
For example, you were found guilty of final judgement of
physical injuries then you were found guilty of murder. And Equal or greater penalty may be a first or second level court
then, this, should it be maximized? Yes. There are felonies so case
there is no time.
- Penalty not the crime
Considering that an element is an aggravating circumstance - Recidivism vs. Quasi-recidivism vs. Habituality
and not a crime in itself, should the element be included in - Reiteracion – penalty, equal or greater or for 2 or
information or is it alright that the element of recidivism be more penalties which attach a lighter penalty than
proven during trial? Criminalists say it must be in info the crime you are being proved with
because the party should be able to defend himself. Others
say that no, because you are convicted of it, you knew of your Recidivism Reiteracion
conviction and that could be used against you. Putting it in Conviction pa lang ng final Not just conviction, served
the information should not matter because one conviction judgment not necessarily out na yung penalty
should be a public notice and it should be included, so it served it
Always taken in Not always aggravating
should not matter.
consideration
First should be conviction, regardless of kind of crime but it 2 convictions are enough.
Conviction of first and
must be within same title of the crime. Second, condition
second
must be of final judgment. Final judgment can be (1) dumaan Not specific as to crime,
sa appeal under SC or (2) hindi ka na nag appeal, it lapsed penalty but must be in same
into finality. Or even if you appealed, and dun ka nagstop title
hindi ka na pupunta ng SC, that is the kind of final conviction No time limit on commission
being considered. of offenses – imprescriptible
Generic aggravating
Probation when you file it, you cannot expect that probation circumstance
will be approved. What if probation if not approved, what Can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
will the accused do? Who pleaded guilty must now serve his
penalty? Because probation is temporary liberty granting the
accused the opportunity to serve his penalty outside of Jurisprudence: must be in the information
confinement. The probation officer becomes his jailer.
Habitual delinquency – equal penalty for 2 or more crimes
Necessarily, in a first level court, crime of physical injuries
must be finished within a particular time, limited lang yan. - 2 crimes, 2/more crimes or which is lower
CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes
 Manalo, Angelica 
 - There is a time limit in conviction here
- First conviction must be punished and released, 10
years for the second conviction

An accused can be a recidivist and habitual delinquent in the

same time? Yes, if you determine the applicable penalty and
the penalty is the maximum.

Habitual delinquency under Art 62

Quasi recidivism under Art 160

Different Kinds of Repetition under Criminal Law

- Recidivism
- Habituality
- Multi or habitual delinquency under Article 62

Limited. Crimes against person and crimes against property

for theft, estafa and falsification (walang physical injuries).

Extraordinary aggravating circumstance

- Pag nagcommit ka ng pangatlong beses

Quasi-recidivism

- When a person commits a felony before beginning

service or by serving a sentence on a previous
conviction (special aggravating)

1. Recidivism
2. Quasi-recidivism
3. Multi-recidivism
4. Habitual Delinquency

CRIMINAL REVIEW Midterm Lecture Notes

 Manalo, Angelica 