Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Up Crim Reviewer
Up Crim Reviewer
CRIMINAL
BAR REVIEWER
Criminal Law 1
Criminal Law 2
LAW
Dean Danilo L. Concepcion
Dean, UP College of Law
Camille Umali
Charmaine Sto. Domingo
Criminal Law Subject Heads
2012 UP LAW
CRIMINAL
BAR REVIEWER
LAW
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2012
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Ramon Carlo Marcaida |Commissioner
Raymond Velasco • Mara Kriska Chen |Deputy Commissioners
Barbie Kaye Perez |Secretary
Carmen Cecilia Veneracion |Treasurer
Hazel Angeline Abenoja|Auditor
CRIMINAL LAW TEAM 2012
COMMITTEE HEADS Faculty Editor | Prof. Jay Batongbacal
Eleanor Balaquiao • Mark Xavier Oyales | Acads Subject Heads | Camille Umali •
Monique Morales • Katleya Kate Belderol • Kathleen Mae Charmaine Sto. Domingo
Tuason (D) • Rachel Miranda (D) |Special Lectures
Patricia Madarang • Marinella Felizmenio |Secretariat LAYOUT TEAM 2012
Victoria Caranay |Publicity and Promotions Layout Artists | Alyanna Apacible • Noel
Loraine Saguinsin • Ma. Luz Baldueza |Marketing
Benjamin Joseph Geronimo • Jose Lacas |Logistics
Luciano • RM Meneses • Jenin Velasquez •
Angelo Bernard Ngo • Annalee Toda|HR Mara Villegas • Naomi Quimpo • Leslie
Anne Janelle Yu • Alyssa Carmelli Castillo |Merchandise Octaviano • Yas Refran • Cris Bernardino
Graciello Timothy Reyes |Layout Layout Head| Graciello Timothy Reyes
Charmaine Sto. Domingo • Katrina Maniquis |Mock Bar
Krizel Malabanan • Karren de Chavez |Bar Candidates’ Welfare
Karina Kirstie Paola Ayco • Ma. Ara Garcia |Events
OPERATIONS HEADS
Charles Icasiano • Katrina Rivera |Hotel Operations
Marijo Alcala • Marian Salanguit |Day-Operations
Jauhari Azis |Night-Operations
Vivienne Villanueva • Charlaine Latorre |Food
Kris Francisco Rimban • Elvin Salindo |Transpo
Paula Plaza |Linkages
LAW
Copyright and all other relevant rights over this
material are owned jointly by the University of the
Philippines College of Law and the Student Editorial
Team.
13
2012 UP LAW
BAR REVIEWER
CRIMINAL
Criminal Law 1 LAW
CRIMINAL LAW TEAM 2012
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2012
Faculty Editor | Prof. Jay
Batongbacal
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Subject Heads | Camille
Ramon Carlo Marcaida |Commissioner Umali • Charmaine Sto.
Raymond Velasco • Mara Kriska Chen |Deputy Commissioners Domingo
Barbie Kaye Perez |Secretary
Carmen Cecilia Veneracion |Treasurer
Hazel Angeline Abenoja|Auditor LAYOUT TEAM 2012
Layout Artists | Alyanna
COMMITTEE HEADS Apacible • Noel Luciano • RM
Eleanor Balaquiao • Mark Xavier Oyales | Acads Meneses • Jenin Velasquez •
Monique Morales • Katleya Kate Belderol • Kathleen Mae Tuason (D) • Rachel Mara Villegas • Naomi
Miranda (D) |Special Lectures Quimpo • Leslie Octaviano •
Patricia Madarang • Marinella Felizmenio |Secretariat Yas Refran • Cris Bernardino
Victoria Caranay |Publicity and Promotions Layout Head| Graciello
Loraine Saguinsin • Ma. Luz Baldueza |Marketing
Timothy Reyes
Benjamin Joseph Geronimo • Jose Lacas |Logistics
Angelo Bernard Ngo • Annalee Toda|HR
Anne Janelle Yu • Alyssa Carmelli Castillo |Merchandise
Graciello Timothy Reyes |Layout
Charmaine Sto. Domingo • Katrina Maniquis |Mock Bar
Krizel Malabanan • Karren de Chavez |Bar Candidates’ Welfare
Karina Kirstie Paola Ayco • Ma. Ara Garcia |Events
OPERATIONS HEADS
Charles Icasiano • Katrina Rivera |Hotel Operations
Marijo Alcala • Marian Salanguit |Day-Operations
Jauhari Azis |Night-Operations
Vivienne Villanueva • Charlaine Latorre |Food
Kris Francisco Rimban • Elvin Salindo |Transpo
Paula Plaza |Linkages
2
Take note of Art. V, which defines criminal jurisdiction over
United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in
the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the
1
Sec. 8, P.D. No. 533 Philippine Government.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary United States shall notify each other of the
right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses disposition of all cases in which both the
committed by United States personnel, except in authorities of the Philippines and the United States
cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 have the right to exercise jurisdiction.
(b) of this Article.
17
(b) United States military authorities shall have the b. Laws of Preferential Application
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United
States personnel subject to the military law of the Examples:
United States in relation to: Members of Congress are not liable for libel or
slander for any speech in Congress or in any
(1) offenses solely against the property or security committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987
of the United States or offenses solely against the Constitution)
property or person of United States personnel; and Any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as such
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done by the President, or any domestic or domestic
in performance of official duty. servant of any such ambassador or minister are
exempt from arrest and imprisonment and
(c) The authorities of either government may whose properties are exempt from distraint,
request the authorities of the other government to seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75)
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in Warship Rule – A warship of another country,
a particular case. even though docked in the Philippines, is
considered an extension of the territory of its
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United respective country. This also applies to
States military authorities to maintain good order embassies.
and discipline among their forces, Philippine
authorities will, upon request by the United States, c. Principles of Public International Law
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction
except in cases of particular importance to the Art. 14, NCC. ―xxx subject to the principles of
Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines public international law and to treaty stipulations.‖
determines that the case is of particular
importance, it shall communicate such The following persons are exempt from the
determination to the United States authorities provisions of the RPC:
within twenty (20) days after the Philippine (1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
authorities receive the United States request. (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
minister resident and charges d‘ affaires.
(e) When the United States military commander (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
determines that an offense charged by authorities Relations)
of the Philippines against United States personnel Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT
arises out of an act or omission done in the exempt from local prosecution. (See Article 41,
performance of official duty, the commander will Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)
issue a certificate setting forth such determination.
This certificate will be transmitted to the Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not
appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will subject to local jurisdiction.
constitute sufficient proof of performance of
official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) Note: Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
of this article. In those cases where the
Government of the Philippines believes the 2. Territoriality
circumstances of the case require a review of the
duty certificate, United States military authorities GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the country have
and Philippine authorities shall consult force and effect only within its territory.
immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest
levels may also present any information bearing on It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its
its validity. United States military authorities shall territory.
take full account of the Philippine position. Where The territory of the country is not limited to the
appropriate, United States military authorities will land where its sovereignty resides but includes
take disciplinary or other action against offenders also its maritime and interior waters as well as
in official duty cases, and notify the Government of its atmosphere. (Art. 2, RPC)
the Philippines of the actions taken.
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the 3. Non-imposition of cruel and
same.
unusual punishment or excessive
Limitation: fines
Not every law punishing an act or omission may be Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall
valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
ambiguous, it is null and void. punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
5. Strict Construction of Penal Laws heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
Against State: The ―Doctrine of reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Pro Reo‖
a. Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Pro reo doctrine: Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law admits of two
Death Penalty in the Philippines (R.A.
interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one 9346)
strict to the offender, that interpretation which is Republic Act 9346
lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death
Penalty.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and presumption Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A.
of innocence of the accused. 8177) and the law imposing the death penalty (R.A.
7659) (Sec. 1).
Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Const. In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion
innocent until the contrary is proved. perpetua for offenses under any act using the
nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the
punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under
Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
any act which does not use the nomenclature of the
RPC (Sec. 2(b))
EQUIPOISE RULE:
When the evidence of the prosecution and the
defense are equally balanced, the scale should be 4. Bill of attainder
tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the Art III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or
constitutional presumption of innocence.8 bill of attainder shall be enacted.
8
Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime He who commits an intentional felony is responsible
when committed; for all the consequences which may naturally and
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
authorizes conviction upon less or different intended or not.
21
testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
of a right for something which when done was
lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some
lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code
citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.)
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car
acting first and producing the injury, either of A.
24 immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of In this case, the immediate cause of the damage to
events, each having a close causal connection with the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the
its immediate predecessor, the final event in the proximate cause.
chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first acted, The proximate cause is the negligence of E (using
under such circumstances that the person his cellphone while driving) because it sets into
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary motion the collision of all the cars.
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default US v. Valdez (1921):
that an injury to some person might probably result The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel.
therefrom.‖ Accused is in charge of the crew members engaged
in the loading of cargo in the vessel.
GENERAL RULE: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE
for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his Because the offended party was slow in his work, the
felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious accused shouted at him. The offended party replied
act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm. that they would be better if he would not insult
them.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although
the wrongful act done be different from that which The accused resented this, and rising in rage, he
he intended in the following cases: moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand
threatening to kill him.
(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of
the victim; injuring one person mistaken for The victim believing himself to be in immediate peril
another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its threw himself into the water. The victim died of
maximum period) drowning. The accused was prosecuted for homicide.
(a) At least two subjects His contention that his liability should be only for
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C grave threats since he did not even stab the victim,
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no that the victim died of drowning, and this can be
criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his considered as a supervening cause.
act is a felony.
Held:
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when The deceased, in throwing himself into the river,
offender intending to do an injury to one person acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-
actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on preservation, and was in no sense legally responsible
complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in for his own death. As to him, it was but the exercise
its maximum period) of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable
(a) There is only one subject. person under the same circumstance might have
(b) The intended subject is a different subject, done the same.
but the felony is still the same.
This case illustrates that proximate cause does not
(3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater require that the offender needs to actually touch the
than that intended (Art. 13 – mitigating body of the offended party.
circumstance)
(a) If A‘s act constitutes sufficient means to It is enough that the offender generated in the mind
carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim of the offended party an immediate sense of danger
praeter intentionem. that made him place his life at risk. In this case, the
accused must, therefore, be considered the author
Proximate Cause v. Immediate Cause v. Remote of the death of the victim.
Cause
Illustrations:
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles along Urbano v. IAC (1988):
Ortigas Ave. A‘s car was ahead, followed by those of A and B had a quarrel and A started to hack B with a
B, C, D, and E. bolo. B was wounded at the back.
When A‘s car reached the intersection of EDSA and Upon intervention, the two settled their differences.
Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the
immediately stepped on his brakes, followed by B, treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also
C, and D. whatever loss of income B may have suffered.
However, E was using his cellphone and therefore B, on the other hand, signed a statement of his
was not aware that the traffic light had turned to forgiveness towards A and on that condition, he
red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of withdrew the complaint that he filed against A.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the victim being addicted to tuba drinking. (People
doctor pronounced that the wound was already v. Buhay and People v. Valdez).
healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm.
(4) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as
A month later, B came home and was chilling. Before the refusal by the injured party of medical
25
midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. attendance or surgical operation, or the failure
of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to
The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A. the injured person. (U.S. v. Marasigan).
Example: in rape, the slightest penetration Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks
already consummates the crime; the same is of grave and less grave felonies, the definition
true for arson where the slightest burning makes a reference specifically to Art. 25 of the
already renders the crime complete. Revised Penal Code.
Valenzuela vs. People (2007): Do not omit the phrase ―In accordance with Art. 25‖
No crime of frustrated theft. because there is also a classification of penalties
under Art. 26 that was not applied.
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a
box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super This classification of felony according to gravity is
Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the store important with respect to the question of
parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed prescription of crimes.
the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able (3) Ex. If the penalty is a fine and exactly
to dispose of the goods. P200.00, it is only considered a light felony
under Art. 9. If the fine is imposed as an
Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the
have not been designed in such fashion as to fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional
accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. penalty under Art. 26, hence a less grave
Again, there is no language in Article 308 that penalty.
expressly or impliedly allows that the ―free
disposition of the items stolen‖ is in any way
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. 26 For an act to be punishable, there must be a
(with respect to prescription of penalties). It is CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE ACT and the INTENT.
considered as a correctional penalty and it
prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is b. That the act or omission must be 27
apprehended at any time within ten years, he punishable by the RPC;
can be made to suffer the fine.
c. That the act is performed or the
4. As to Count omission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa.
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
a. Compound Crime, Dolo is DELIBERATE INTENT otherwise referred to as
b. Complex crime; and criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom
c. Composite crime. of action and intelligence on the part of the
offender as to the act done by him.
5. As to Nature
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) Liability even in the absence of criminal intent
There are two exceptions to the requirement of
a. Mala in se criminal intent:
b. Mala prohibita (a) Felonies committed by CULPA. (infra)
(b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA. (infra)
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of
this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may Intentional Felonies
be punishable under special laws are not subject to The act or omission is performed or incurred with
the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be deliberate intent (with malice) to cause an injury to
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should another.
specially provide the contrary.
Requisites
NOTE: Please refer to p. [1] for the table comparing i. Freedom
mala in se and mala prohibita Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits
the act or omission.
9
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and Example: In frustrated homicide, specific intent to
abandonment of one's own victim. kill is not presumed but must be proven, otherwise it
10
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. is merely physical injuries.
11
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The general criminal intent is presumed from the INTENT DISCERNMENT MOTIVE
criminal act and in the absence of any general intent Determination The mental It is the moving
is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be to do a capacity to tell power which
proved by the accused. certain thing, right from impels one to
an aim or wrong. do an act (ex.
Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its purpose of vengeance).
existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by the mind.
the State just as any other essential element. Establish the Integral to the Generally, it is
nature and element of not an essential
This may be shown, however, by the nature of the extent of intelligence, element of a
act, the circumstances under which it was culpability in NOT intent. crime, hence, it
committed, the means employed and the motive of intentional need not be
the accused felonies. proved for
purposes of
Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is no conviction
dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no (except in
intentional felony.12 certain cases
enumerated
Categories of Intent below)
General Criminal Intent Specific Criminal Intent When Motive Becomes Material in Determining
The intention to do The intention to commit Criminal Liability (ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
something wrong. a definite act.
i. When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g.
Presumed from the Existence is not kidnapping v. robbery13)
mere doing of a wrong presumed. ii. When there is doubt as to the identity of the
act. assailant.
The burden is upon the Since the specific intent iii. When there is the need to ascertain the truth
wrong doer to prove is an element of the between two antagonistic versions of the crime.
that he acted without crime, the burden is iv. When the identification of the accused proceeds
such criminal intent. upon the prosecution to from an unreliable source and the testimony is
establish its existence. inconclusive and not free from doubt.
v. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime,
Illustration: and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a
Ernie, without any provocation, stabbed Bert. number of persons.
vi. When the evidence on the commission of the
The very act of stabbing is the quantum of proof crime is purely circumstantial.
needed to establish the fact that Ernie intended to Lack of motive can aid in achieving
do something wrong. This is the GENERAL CRIMINAL acquittal of the accused, especially where
INTENT. there is doubt as to the identity of the
accused.14
However, Ernie can be liable for more than one
crime; thus, prosecution must establish Ernie‘s Illustration:
SPECIFIC INTENT in order to determine whether he Ernie came home and found his wife in a pleasant
planned to kill Bert or merely to inflict a whole lot conversation with Bert, former suitor. Thereupon, he
of pain. went to the kitchen, opened a drawer and pulled out
a knife. He then stabbed Bert.
Ernie can overturn the presumption of general
criminal intent by proving that he was justified The moving force is jealousy.
(infra), entitled to any exempting circumstances
13
People v. Puno (1993)
12 14
Visbal vs. Buban (2003) People vs Hassan, 1988
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The intent is presumed from the resort to the knife,
so that means he desires to kill Bert, the former Requisites:
suitor. (a) That the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
Ernie‘s deliberate choice of something as lethal as be;
29
the knife shows the presence of intelligence because (b) That the intention of the accused in performing
it is his very awareness of the danger which the act should be lawful;
prompted his choice. This only means that he knew (c) That the mistake must be without fault or
what is right from wrong and deliberately chose to carelessness on the part of the accused. When
do what is wrong. the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a
defense.16
Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of
intent, merely intelligence.15 Thus, discernment is US v. Ah Chong (1910):
necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa. A cook who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly
mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a
People v. Delos Santos (2003): series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out
Delos Santos stabs Flores with a kitchen knife hitting sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under
him on the different parts of his body, inflicting attack, cannot be held criminally liable for
upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his homicide.
death.
1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were
He then argues that since the prosecution witnesses really what the houseboy believed? Yes. If it was
testified that there was no altercation between him really the robber and not the roommate then
and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be the houseboy was justified.
attributed to him. 2) Was the houseboy‘s intention lawful? Yes. He
was acting out of self-preservation.
Held: 3) Was the houseboy without fault or negligence?
The court held that the argument of Delos Santos is Yes. His deliberate intent to defend himself
inconsequential. with the knife can be determined by the fact
that he cried out sufficient warnings prior to the
Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, act.
particularly where the accused is positively
identified by an eyewitness and his participation is Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to
adequately established. be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part
which led him to take the facts as they appear to
In People vs. Galano, the court ruled that in the him and was pressed to take immediate action.
crime of murder, motive is not an element of the
offense, it becomes material only when the evidence
is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some
doubt on whether the accused had committed it. However, mistake of fact is NOT availing in People
v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257), because the police officers
In this case, the court finds that no such doubt were at fault when they shot the escaped convict
exists, as witnesses De Leon and Tablate positively who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his
identified Delos Santos. identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined
to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that
killing the former would be justified)
(1) Mistake of Fact (ignorantia facti excusat) (2) Culpa (CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT)
(ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS) Although there is no intentional felony, there could
It is a reasonable misapprehension of fact on the be culpable felony.
part of the person causing injury to another. Such
person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without The act or omission is not malicious; the injury
criminal intent. caused being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.
Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of
intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the The element of criminal intent is replaced by
defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of
in culpable felonies, where there is no intent to skill.
consider.
Is culpa merely a mode of committing a crime or a
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption crime in itself?
of criminal intent which arises upon the commission
of a felonious act. (a) AS A MODE
15 16
People v. Cordova 1993 People v. Oanis, 1988
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Under Art. 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality physical injuries through reckless imprudence for
by which a felony may be committed. which he was tried and acquitted.
30 Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
Act of Dolo Act of Culpa imprudence was filed.
OR
Accused claimed that he was placed in twice in
FELONY jeopardy.
Held:
The second case must be dismissed.
People vs. Faller (1939): Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
It was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability. prosecuted again for the same act.
For the essence of the quasi-offense under Art.
In this case, the accused was charged with malicious 365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an
mischief. imprudent act which would be punishable as a
felony.
Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under The law penalizes the negligent act and not the
Article 327. Thus, there is no malicious mischief result.
through simple negligence or reckless imprudence The gravity of the consequences is only taken
because it requires deliberateness. into account to determine the penalty. It does
not qualify the substance of the offense.
The Supreme Court pointed out that although the As the careless act is single, whether the
allegation in the information charged the accused injurious result should affect one person or
with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously several persons, the offense remains one and
and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an the same, and cannot be split into different
information, covers not only dolo but also culpa crimes and prosecutions.
because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.
Negligence - Indicates deficiency of perception,
failure to pay proper attention, and to use diligence
(b) AS A CRIME in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be
In Art. 365, criminal negligence is an omission which caused. Usually involves lack of foresight.
the article specifically penalizes.
Imprudence - Indicates deficiency of action, failure
The concept of criminal negligence is the to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person or damage to property. Usually involves lack
person performing or failing to perform an act. of skill.
Art. 365 creates a distinction between imprudence Reason for punishing acts of negligence or
and negligence; simple or reckless, one might think imprudence: A man must use his common sense and
that criminal negligence is the one being punished. exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to
be cautious, careful and prudent.
Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE CRIMES
Illustration:
D. Impossible Crimes The victim was tortured to death. He was later shot
in the back to make it appear that he was killed
Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress while trying to escape. The accused is not a
criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. principal to an impossible crime but an accessory to
Objectively, the offender has not committed a the killing committed by the principal (People v.
felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal. Saladino).
(c) Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311) As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
(d) Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313) imprisonment of only six months of arresto
32 (e) Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314) mayor for the felonious act he committed with
(f) Swindling and other deceits (Art. 315, 316, 317 intent to kill: this despite the destruction done
and 318) to the intended victim‘s house.
(g) Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
(h) Arson and other crimes involving destruction
(Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326) E. Stages of Execution
(i) Malicious mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and
331)
Classification Under Art. 6
Modified concept of impossible crime a. Consummated Felony
When all the elements necessary for its execution
Intod v. CA (1992): and accomplishment are present; the felony is
In this case, four culprits, all armed with produced.
firearms and with intent to kill, went to the
intended victim‘s house and after having b. Frustrated Felony
pinpointed the latter‘s bedroom, all four fired When the offender performs all the acts of execution
at and riddled the said room with bullets, which would produce the felony as a consequence
thinking that the intended victim was already but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason
there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
It so happened that the intended victim did not
come home that evening and so was not in her c. Attempted Felony
bedroom at that time. When the offender commences the commission of a
Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform
convicted by the trial court for attempted all the acts of execution which should produce the
murder. felony by reason of some cause or accident other
CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified than his own spontaneous desistance.
the same and held the petitioner liable only for
the so-called impossible crime.
Development of a Crime
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSUMMATED
LIABILITY
Lacking due to: Intervention other
i. inherent than own desistance;
Actus Reus impossibility some but not all acts
ii. employment of of execution
inadequate means
Mens Rea
Concurrence
Result
Causation
a. Attempted Stage
But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the
Elements: desistance was made when acts done by him already
(1) The offender commences the commission of the resulted in a felony,
felony directly by overt acts;
(2) He does not perform all the acts of execution The offender will still be criminally liable for the
which should produce the felony; felony brought about by his act.
(3) The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his own What is negated is only the attempted stage, but
spontaneous desistance. there may be other felonies arising from his act.
Marks the commencement of the subjective phase: Note: Desistance is true only in the attempted stage
of the felony.
Subjective phase - That portion of the acts
constituting a crime, starting from the point where If the felony is already in its frustrated stage,
the offender begins the commission of the crime to desistance will NOT negate criminal liability.
that point where he still has control over his acts
including their (act‘s) natural course Illustration: Supposing Ernie (because he thought
killing Bert was too easy a revenge) desisted mid-
If between those two points, the offender is stopped stroke. However, Bert felt the movement and
by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary turned. He was so shocked that he suddenly backed
desistance, the subjective phase has not been away and tripped over his own feet. As Bert went
passed and it is merely an attempt. down, his left eye caught the sharp corner of a table
causing a puncture on his eyeball rendering him
Illustration: The subjective phase for Ernie was from completely blind on the left side.
the moment he swung his arm to stab Bert up until Ernie would not be liable for attempted
he finished his stroke. This is the interim where he murder because of his desistance (regardless
still has control of his actions. of his reason for doing so)
His liability would now be for serious physical
Desistance – is an absolutory cause which negates injuries because his act of raising the knife was
criminal liability because the law encourages a the proximate cause for Bert losing an eye.
person to desist from committing a crime.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word There was only a shelling of the castle but no
“directly.‖ bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
34
The word ―directly‖ emphasizes the requirement
that the attempted felony is that which is directly b. Frustrated Stage
linked to the overt act performed by the offender,
not the felony he has in his mind. Elements
(1) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
People v. Lamahang (1935): (2) All the acts performed would produce the felony
The accused was arrested while he was detaching as a consequence;
some of the wood panels of a store. He was already (3) But the felony is not produced;
able to detach two panels. (4) By reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
Held: In criminal law, since the act of removing the
panel indicates only at most the intention to enter, The end of the subjective phase and the beginning of
he can only be prosecuted for trespass. There is the objective phase.
nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding
that his final objective, once he succeeded in Objective phase – the result of the acts of
entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
injury to the inmates, or to commit any other
offense. The removal of the paneling is just an If the subjective and objective phases have been
attempt to trespass, not an attempt to rob. Although passed there is a consummated felony.
Lamahang was charged with attempted robbery, the
Supreme Court held that he is only liable for People v. Listerio (2000):
attempted trespass because that is the crime that Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they
can be directly linked to his act of removing the met a group composed of men who blocked their
wood panel. path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed
weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from behind.
Jeonito‘s brother, Marlon, was hit on the head.
There are some acts which are ingredients of a
certain crime, but which are, by themselves, already Held:
criminal offenses. 1) The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony
not an attempted offense considering that after
People v. Campuhan (2000): being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as
The mother of the 4-year-old victim caught the a result of which he lost consciousness and fell.
houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost raping her Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was
daughter. already dead and fled.
2) A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless
The hymen of the victim was still intact. However, the offender, after beginning the commission of
since it was decided in People v. Orita that entry the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against
into labia is considered rape even without rupture his will, by some outside cause from performing
and full penetration of the hymen, a question arises all of the acts which should produce the crime.
whether what transpired was attempted or 3) In other words, to be an attempted crime, the
consummated rape. purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a
foreign force or agency which intervenes and
Held: compels him to stop prior to the moment when
There was only attempted rape. he has performed all of the acts which should
Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis produce the crime as a consequence, which acts
is already rape. it is his intention to perform.
Touching should be understood as inherently 4) If he has performed all the acts which should
part of entry of penis penetration and not mere result in the consummation of the crime and
touching, in the ordinary sense, of the voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it
pudendum. cannot be an attempt.
Requires entry into the labia, even if there be
no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina, to warrant a conviction for Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage
consummated rape.
Where entry into the labia has not been (a) Rape
established, the crime amounts to an attempted The essence of the crime is carnal
rape. knowledge.
The prosecution did not prove that Campuhan‘s No matter what the offender may do to
penis was able to penetrate victim‘s vagina accomplish a penetration, if there was no
because the kneeling position of the accused penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
obstructed the mother‘s view of the alleged offender has performed all the acts of
sexual contact. The testimony of the victim execution.
herself claimed that penis grazed but did not
penetrate her organ.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
We can only say that the offender in rape depending on the duration that it took for the
has performed all the acts of execution damage to heal.
when he has effected a penetration.
Once there is penetration, no matter how (f) Theft
slight it is, the offense is consummated. Once there is unlawful taking, theft is
35
consummated.
People v. Orita (1990): Either the thing was taken or not.
For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. (see element of theft under the RPC.
the previously cited case of People v. Campuhan for
the most recent doctrine on penetration). Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require any
result do not have a frustrated stage.
(b) Arson
One cannot say that the offender, in the Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a
crime of arson, has already performed all Felony
the acts of execution which could produce a. The manner of committing the crime;
the destruction of the premises through the b. The elements of the crime; and
use of fire, unless a part of the premises c. The nature of the crime itself.
has begun to burn.
The crime of arson is therefore These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint
consummated even if only a portion of the whether the crime is still in its attempted,
wall or any part of the house is burned. The frustrated or consummated stage.
consummation of the crime of arson does
not depend upon the extent of the damage a. The Manner of Committing the Crime
caused. (People v. Hernandez)
(1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one
(c) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers instant, no attempt.
The manner of committing the crime (a) Ex. Slander and false testimony
requires the meeting of the minds between (b) There can be no attempt, because
the giver and the receiver. between the thought and the deed,
If there is a meeting of the minds, there is there is no chain of acts that can be
consummated bribery or consummated severed.
corruption.
If there is none, it is only attempted. (2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act.
(d) Adultery (a) Ex. Flight to enemy‘s country (Art. 121)
This requires the sexual contact between and corruption of minors (Art. 340)
two participants.
If that link is present, the crime is (3) Felony by omission
consummated; (a) There can be no attempted stage when
the felony is by omission, because the
(e) Physical Injuries offender does not execute acts, he
omits to perform an act which the law
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
requires him to do.
physical injuries is penalized on the basis of
the gravity of the injuries.
(4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two
There is no simple crime of physical
persons to commit them are consummated
injuries. There is the need to categorize
by mere agreement.
because there are specific articles that
(a) In bribery, the manner of committing
apply whether the physical injuries are
the crime requires the meeting of the
serious, less serious or slight.
minds between the giver and the
Thus, one could not punish the attempted
receiver.
or frustrated stage because one does not
(b) When the giver delivers the money to
know what degree of physical injury was
the supposed receiver, but there is no
committed unless it is consummated.
meeting of the minds, the only act
done by the giver is an attempt.
Illustration:
When Bert lost his left eye, Ernie‘s liability was
(5) Material Crimes – have three stages of
automatically for serious physical injuries. He would
execution
have no liability if the eye was intact.
Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
If the eye suffered damage due to the impact, the
pivotal in determining the end of the
crime would not be frustrated nor attempted
subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
physical injuries because the RPC still considers this
performs the act in the manner provided for
as a consummated physical injury, its gravity
in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE
PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS EXECUTION.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. Proposal to commit a felony - when the person who
has decided to commit a felony proposes its
Note: There must be participation in the criminal execution to some other person or persons. (Art. 8,
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a RPC)
person may only make him liable as an accomplice.
Examples: Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit and proposal to commit coup d‘état, rebellion or
a felony are not punishable. insurrection (Art. 136).
instance, A stabbed D. C and B followed. In this but he will still be liable for the homicide under
case, it was held that conspiracy was present. the conspiracy theory.
38
In some exceptional situations, having community of
design with the principal does not prevent a
malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if
his role in the perpetration of the homicide or
murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor
character. (People v. Nierra)
Illustration:
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver
was present during the planning.
The taxi driver agreed for the use of his cab but
said, ―I will bring you there, and after committing
the robbery I will return later.‖ The taxi driver
brought the conspirators where the robbery would
be committed. After the robbery was finished, he
took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought
them away.
2 Concepts of How
Stage Legal requirements Illustration
Conspiracy incurred
A, B, C and D came to an
39
agreement to commit
rebellion. Their agreement
was to ring about the
rebellion on a certain
date.
Even if none of them has
The RPC must specifically punish the
performed the act of
act of conspiring (and proposing)
rebellion, there is already
The act MUST NOT BE
criminal liability arising
ACCOMPLISHED, else the conspiracy
AS A FELONY Preparatory Mere from the conspiracy to
is obliterated and the ACT ITSELF IS
IN ITSELF acts agreement commit the rebellion.
PUNISHED.
But if anyone of them has
QUANTUM OF PROOF: Conspiracy committed the overt act of
as a crime must be established rebellion, the crime of all
beyond reasonable doubt is no longer conspiracy but
rebellion itself.
This subsists even though
the other co-conspirators
do not know that one of
them had already done the
act of rebellion.
Participants acted in concert or
simultaneously or IN ANY WAY which
Three persons plan to rob
is indicative of a meeting of the
a bank. For as long as the
minds towards a common criminal
conspirators merely
goal or criminal objective.
entered the bank there is
The act of meeting together is not
no crime yet. But when
necessary as long as a common
one of them draws a gun
AS A Commis- objective can be discerned from the
Executory and disarms the security
BASIS FOR sion of overt acts.
acts guard, all of them shall be
LIABILITY overt act THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED, if
held liable, unless a co-
there is only conspiracy or proposal,
conspirator was absent
THERE IS NO CRIME TO BE PUNISHED.
from the scene of the
QUANTUM OF PROOF: Reasonably crime or he showed up,
inferred from the acts of the but he tried to prevent the
offenders when such acts disclose or commission of the crime.
show a common pursuit of the
criminal objective. (People v. Pinto)
G. Multiple Offenders
Quasi-Recidivism; Habitual
Recidivism/Reincindencia; Habituality/Reiteracion/
Art. 160 Delinquency;
Art. 14 (9) Repetition; Art. 14 (10)
Art. 62 (5)
Before serving or Specified:
Sufficient that the
while serving 1. less serious or
offender have been
Necessary that the sentence, the serious physical
previously convicted by
Crimes offender shall have served offender commits injuries
final judgment for another
committed out his sentence for the a felony (NOT a 2. robbery
crime embraced in the
first offense crime) 3. theft
same title of the Code on
4. estafa
the date of his trial
5. falsification
Period of Before serving or Within 10 years
time the while serving from his last
No period of time
crimes are sentence release or
committed conviction
Number of The second conviction for The previous and Offender commits
Guilty the third
crimes an offense embraced in subsequent offenses must a felony
time or oftener
committed the same title of RPC NOT be embraced in the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1. Recidivism
Requisites
Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as shown (1) Offender had been convicted of any of the crimes
by his inclination to commit crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa, or falsification
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one (2) After that conviction or after serving his sentence,
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final he again committed, and, within 10 years from his
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title release or first conviction, he was again convicted
of the Revised Penal Code. (People v. Lagarto, 1991) of any of the said crimes for the second time
(3) After his conviction of, or after serving sentence
Requisites for, the second offense, he again committed, and,
(1) Offender is on trial for an offense within 10 years from his last release or last
(2) He was previously convicted by final judgment of conviction, he was again convicted of any of said
another crime offenses, the third time or oftener
(3) Both the first and second offenses are embraced
in the same title of the RPC Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty
(4) Offender is convicted of the new offense To render more effective social defense and the
reformation of habitual delinquents (REYES, quoting
Note: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the People v. Abuyen)
time of commission of the crime. (Reyes, Revised
Penal Code) See also: Aggravating circumstances
Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2 crimes. Compound crimes under Art. 48 is also applicable to
But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE felonies crimes through negligence. Thus, a municipal mayor
must be who accidentally discharged his revolver, killing a
(1) the result of a single act, or girl and injuring a boy was found guilty of complex
(2) an offense must be a necessary means for crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries
committing the other. through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro)
criminal impulse, hence each will have a separate grave or less grave felonies resulted, but only
penalty. the first part is applicable, i.e. compound
42 crime. The second part of Art. 48 does not
Requisites: apply, referring to the complex crime proper
(1) That at least two offenses are committed because this applies or refers only to a
(2) That one or some of the offenses must be deliberate commission of one offense to commit
necessary to commit the other another offense.
(3) That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the same statute. 2. Special Complex/Composite crimes
Note: The phrase ―necessary means‖ does not mean The substance is made up of more than one crime
―indispensable means‖ but which in the eyes of the law is only
(1) a single indivisible offense.
People vs. Comadre (2004): (2) all those acts done in pursuance of the crime
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand agreed upon are acts which constitute a
grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of single crime.
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be considered Special Complex Crimes
only as a single crime in law on which a single (1) Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
penalty is imposed because the offender was (2) Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
impelled by a ―single criminal impulse‖ which shows (3) Robbery with Arson
his lesser degree of perversity. (4) Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
No complex crime proper: (5) Kidnapping with rape
(a) Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible (6) Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape. (7) Arson with homicide
(b) Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is
a direct means to commit a grave offense. When crimes involved cannot be legally
(c) No complex crime, when one offense is complexed, viz:
committed to conceal the other. (1) Malicious obtention or abusive service of
(d) When the offender already had in his possession search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
the funds which he misappropriated, the (2) Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the
subsequent falsification of a public or official custody of prisoners;
document involving said offense is a separate (3) Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with
offense. serious physical injuries;
(e) No complex crime where one of the offenses is (4) Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with
penalized by a special law. serious physical injuries; and
(f) There is no complex crime of rebellion with (5) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275)
murder, arson, robbery, or other common and crimes against minors (Art. 276 to 278)
crimes (People v. Hernandez; Enrile v. Salazar). with any other felony.
(g) In case of continuous crimes.
(h) When the other crime is an indispensable
element of the other offense.
3. Continued and Continuing Crimes
(Delito Continuado)
General rules in complexing crimes:
(a) When two crimes produced by a single act are Continued crime (continuous or continuing) - A
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all
two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of arising from one criminal resolution.
higher jurisdiction shall try the complex
crime. Cuello Calon explains the delito continuado in this
(b) The penalty for complex crime is the penalty way: When the actor , there being unity of purpose
for the most serious crime, the same to be and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each one
applied in its maximum period. of which, although of a delictual character, merely
(c) When two felonies constituting a complex crime constitutes a partial execution of a single particular
are punishable by imprisonment and fine, delict, such delictual acts is called delito
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment continuado. Example: One who on several occasions
should be imposed. steals wheat deposited in a granary. Each
(d) Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code abstraction constitutes theft, but instead of
does not provide a definite specific penalty for a imposing on the culprit different penalties for each
complex crime. theft committed, he is punished for only one ―hurto
(e) One information should be filed when a complex continuado‖ for the total sum or value abstracted.
crime is committed.
(f) When a complex crime is charged and one Continuing offense - A continuous, unlawful act or
offense is not proven, the accused can be series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and
convicted of the other. operated by an unintermittent force, however long a
(g) Art. 48 also applies in cases when out of a single time it may occupy.
act of negligence or imprudence, two or more
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Although there is a series of acts, there is only one some were mortally wounded, the accused
crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be should be held for the complex crime of
imposed. multiple homicide with multiple frustrated
homicide.
There is a complex crime not only when there is
43
Real or material
Continued Crime a single act but a series of acts.
plurality
There is a series of acts performed by the offender. It is correct that when the offender acted in
The different acts conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and
Each act performed prosecuted under one information.
constitute only one
constitutes a separate Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill
crime because all of the
crime because each act one person but killed different persons, the Supreme
acts performed arise
is generated by a
from one criminal Court considered this as complex.
criminal impulse
resolution.
People v. De Leon (1926): a thief who took from a Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the
yard of a house two game roosters belonging to two criminals should be punished only once, because
different persons was ruled to have committed only they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal
one crime of theft, because there is a unity of impulse:
thought in the criminal purpose of the offender. The it is necessary to embody these crimes under
accused was animated by a single criminal impulse. one single information.
It is necessary to consider them as complex
A continued crime is not a complex crime. crimes even if the essence of the crime does not
The offender here does not perform a single act, fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no
but a series of acts, and one offense is not a other provision in the RPC.
necessary means for continuing the other.
Hence, the penalty is not to be imposed in its Applying the concept of the ―continued crime‖,
maximum period. the following cases have been treated as
constituting one crime only:
A continued crime is different from a transitory i. People v. Tumlos, (1939): The theft of 13 cows
crime (moving crime.) in criminal procedure for belonging to two different persons committed
purposes of determining venue. by the accused at the same place and period of
time;
When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal ii. People v. Jaranilla, (1974): The theft of six
action may be instituted and tried in the court of the roosters belonging to two different owners from
municipality, city or province wherein any of the the same coop and at the same period of time;
essential ingredients thereof took place. iii. People v. Sabbun, (1964): The illegal charging of
fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time
(ASKED TWICE IN BAR EXAMS) he collected veteran‘s benefits on behalf of a
While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a client who agreed that attorney‘s fees shall be
single act constitutes two or more grave or less paid out of such benefits. The collections of
grave offenses, those cases involving a series of acts legal fees were impelled by the same motive,
resulting to two or more grave and less grave that of collecting fees for services rendered,
felonies, were considered by the Supreme Court as a and all acts of collection were made under the
complex crime when it is shown that the act is the same criminal impulse.
product of one single criminal impulse.
The Supreme Court declined to apply the concept
TIP: If confronted with a problem, the Supreme in the following cases:
Court has extended this class of complex crime to i. People v. Dichupa, (1961): Two estafa cases,
those cases when the offender performed not a one which was committed during the period
single act but a series of acts as long as it is the from January 19 to December, 1955 and the
product of a single criminal impulse other from January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts
were committed on two different occasions;
People v. Garcia (1980): ii. People v. CIV: Several malversations committed
The accused were convicts who were members in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to
of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the conceal said offenses committed in August and
other gang. October, 1936. The malversations and
falsifications were not the result of one
Some of the accused killed their victims in one
resolution to embezzle and falsity;
place within the same penitentiary, some killed
the others in another place within the same
In the THEFT cases:
penitentiary.
The trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine:
The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should
i. taking of several things,
be punished under one information because they
ii. whether belonging to the same or different
acted in conspiracy.
owners,
The act of one is the act of all.
Because there were several victims killed and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Imputability – is the quality by which an act may be An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of
ascribed to a person as it author or owner. It implies evidence rests on the accused who must prove the
that the act committed has been freely and circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.
consciously done and may, therefore, be put down
to th doer as his very own There is NO crime committed, the act being
justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered
Responsibility – is the obligation of suffering the criminals.
consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking
the penal and civil consequences of the crime. Basis: Lack of criminal intent
aggressor retreats to obtain a more Prosecution claimed that Dela Cruz and Rivera had a
advantageous position to ensure the success relationship and that the accused was madly in love
of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is with the deceased and was extremely jealous of
deemed to continue. another woman with whom Rivera also had a 45
(3) Must come from the person attacked by the relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hand,
accused. that on her way home one evening, Rivera followed
(4) Unlawful aggression must also be a her, embraced and kissed her and touched her
continuing circumstance or must have been private parts. She didn‘t know that it was Rivera and
existing at the time the defense is made. that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera
Once the unlawful aggression is found to so she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him
have ceased, the one making the defense of in defense of her honor.
a stranger would likewise cease to have any
justification for killing, or even just Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife in
wounding, the former aggressor. [People vs. repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
Dijan (2002)] honor. It was a dark night and she could not have
identified Rivera. There being no other means of
Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an self-defense.
agreement to fight and the challenge to fight
was accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of People v. Juarigue (1946): Amado (deceased) has
an agreed time or place is unlawful aggression. been courting the accused Avelina in vain. On the
day of the crime, Avelina and Amado were in
b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to Church. Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his
prevent or repel it. hand on her thigh. Thereafter, Avelina took out her
knife and stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the
Test of reasonableness death of Amado.
The means employed depends upon:
(1) nature and quality of the weapon used by Held: Although the defense of one‘s honor exempts
the aggressor one from criminal liability, it must be proved that
(2) aggressor‘s physical condition, character, there is actual danger of being raped. In this case, 1)
size, and other circumstances the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people
(3) and those of the person defending himself in the church, including the father of the accused
(4) the place and occasion of the assault. and other town officials. In light of these
circumstances, accused could not have possibly been
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of raped. The means employed in defense of her honor
defender was evidently excessive.
(1) In case there was a provocation on the part
of the person attacked, the attack should b. Defense of Property:
not immediately precede the provocation
for defense to be valid. People vs. Apolinar: This can only be invoked as
(2) Never confuse unlawful aggression with justifying circumstance if
provocation. (1) Life and limb of the person making the defense
(3) Mere provocation is not enough. It must be is also the subject of unlawful aggression
real and imminent. Unlawful aggression is (2) Life cannot be equal to property.
an indispensable requisite.
(4) If there is unlawful aggression but one of People v. Narvaez (1983): Narvaez was taking his
the other requisites is lacking, it is rest inside his house when he heard that the wall of
considered an incomplete self-defense his house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer
which mitigates liability. and Rubia, were fencing the land of the father of the
(5) Self-defense includes the defense of one‘s deceased Fleischer. He asked the group to stop but
rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment they refused. The accused got mad so he got his
of which is protected by law. shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
(6) Retaliation is different from an act of self- jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
defense. accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he
acted in defense of his person and rights.
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense. (3) The person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
46
Note: If the person being defended is a second
cousin, it will be defense of stranger.
2. Defense of Relatives
Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may
Elements: do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly
(1) Unlawful aggression by and see his companion killed without attempting
Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of to save his life
fact, it can be made to depend upon the honest
belief of the one making the defense. Reason: The 4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil
law acknowledges the possibility that a relative, by
virtue of blood, will instinctively come to the aid of Requisites:
their relatives. (1) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
(2) Injury feared be greater than that done to
(2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to avoid it
prevent or repel it (3) There is no other practical & less harmful
means of preventing it
(3) In case person attacked provoked attacker
defender must have no part therein The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not
have been produced by the one invoking the
Reason: Although the provocation prejudices the justifying circumstances.
person who gave it, its effects do not reach the
defender who took no part therein, because the GENERAL RULE: No civil liability in justifying
latter was prompted by some noble or generous circumstances because there is no crime.
sentiment in protecting and saving a relative
EXCEPTION: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
Relatives entitled to defense: paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in
i. Spouse proportion to the benefit which they have received.
ii. Ascendants
iii. Descendants Illustration:
iv. legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers/Sisters A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so
v. Relatives by affinity in the same degree that when he reached the curve, his vehicle skidded
vi. Relatives by consanguinity w/in the 4th civil towards a ravine. He swerved his car towards a
degree house, destroying it and killing the occupant therein.
A cannot be justified because the state of necessity
Illustration: was brought about by his own felonious act.
The sons of A honestly believe that their father was
the victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it Ty v. People (2004): Ty's mother and sister were
was their father who attacked B. If they killed B confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital. Ty signed
under such circumstances, they are justified. the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment"
in the Contract of Admission. The total hospital bills
Balunueco v. CA (2003): of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua payment of the obligation in installments. To assure
non, for without it any defense is not possible or payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital
which were all dishonored by the drawee bank due
aggression was actually committed, it is necessary
to insufficiency of funds. As defense, Ty claimed
that an attack or material aggression, an offensive that she issued the checks because of ―an
act positively determining the intent of the uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.‖ She
aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made;a averred that she was forced to issue the checks to
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not obtain release for her mother who was being
sufficient to justify the commission of an act which inhumanely treated by the hospital. She alleged
is punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption that her mother has contemplated suicide if she
would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was
from liability on the ground that it was committed in
found guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of
self-defense or defense of a relative. violation of BP22.
other forms of security instead of postdated checks Mamagun vs. People (2007): A policeman in pursuit
to secure her obligation. of a snatcher accidentally shot one of the
bystanders who was actually helping him chase the
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to snatcher. 47
be availing, the greater injury feared should not
have been brought about by the negligence or Held: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty,
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the without more, do not completely justify the
actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced petitioner’s firing the fetal gunshot at the victim.
checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to pay True, petitioner, as one of the policemen
her mother's hospital bills. responding to a reported robbery then in progress,
was performing his duty as a police officer as well
5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful as when he was trying to effect the arrest of the
suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot
Exercise of Right or office said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in
the absence of the equally necessary justifying
Requisites: circumstance that the injury of offense committed
(1) Offender acted in performance of duty or be the necessary consequence if the due
lawful exercise of a rig ht/office performance of such duty, there can only be
(2) The resulting felony is the unavoidable incomplete justification, a privilege mitigating
consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty circumstance under Art. 13 and 69 of the RPC. There
or the lawful exercise of the right or office. can be no quibbling that there was no rational
necessity for the killing of Contreras. Petitioner
Note: If the first condition is present, but the second could have first fired a warning shot before pulling
is not because the offender acted with culpa, the the trigger against Contreras who was one of the
offender will be entitled to a privileged mitigating residents chasing the suspected robber.
circumstance. The penalty would be reduced by one
or two degrees.
escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect In People Vs. Genosa, the Court ruled that the
himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified battered woman syndrome is characterized by a
48 in using unnecessary force or in treating him with ―CYCLE OF VIOLENCE‖, which is made up of three
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means phases.
when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
People v. Beronilla (1955): i. First Phase: Tension Building Phase
Held: Where the accused acted upon orders of
superior officers that the, as military subordinates, (1) Where minor battering occurs, it could be a
could not question, and obeyed in good faith, verbal or slight physical abuse or another form
without being aware of their illegality, without any of hostile behavior.
fault or negligence on their part, the act is not (2) The woman tries to pacify the batterer through
accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is not a show of kind, nurturing behavior, or by simply
committed if the mind of the person performing the staying out of the way.
act be innocent. (3) But this proves to be unsuccessful as it only
gives the batterer the notion that he has the
right to abuse her.
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstance
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING ii. Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident
CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
It affects the act, not It affects the actor, not (1) Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and
the actor. the act. sometimes death.
The act is considered to (2) The battered woman has no control; only the
have been done within batterer can stop the violence.
The act complained of is (3) The battered woman realizes that she cannot
the bounds of law;
actually wrongful, but reason with him and resistance would only
hence, legitimate and
the actor is not liable. worsen her condition.
lawful in the eyes of the
law.
Since the act iii. Third Phase: Tranquil Period
complained of is
Since the act is actually wrong, there is (1) Characterized by guilt on the part of the
considered lawful, there a crime but since the batterer and forgiveness on the part of the
is no liability. actor acted without woman.
voluntariness, there is (2) The batterer may show a tender and nurturing
no dolo or culpa. behavior towards his partner and the woman
There is a crime, also tries to convince herself that the battery
although there is no will never happen again and that her partner
criminal, so there is will change for the better.
There is no criminal or
civil liability (Except:
civil liability. Four Characteristics of the Syndrome:
Art. 12, par. 4 and 7
where there is no civil (1) The woman believes that the violence was her
liability. fault;
(2) She has an inability to place the responsibility
for the violence elsewhere;
Anti-Violence against Women and Their (3) She fears for her life and/or her children‘s life
Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262) (4) She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
Battered Woman Syndrome- refers to a omnipresent and omniscient.
scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering B. Exempting Circumstances
relationships as a result of cumulative (ASKED 14 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
abuse.
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. SIX TYPES of exempting circumstances:
– Victim-survivors who are found by the 1. Imbecility/Insanity
courts to be suffering from battered woman 2. Minority
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil 3. Accident
liability notwithstanding the absence of any 4. Compulsion of irresistible force
of the elements for justifying circumstances 5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
of self-defense under the Revised Penal 6. Insuperable or lawful cause
Code.
IMPORTANT POINTS:
In the determination of the state of mind of The reason for the exemption lies in the
the woman who was suffering from battered involuntariness or lack of knowledge of the act:
woman syndrome at the time of the (1) one or some of the ingredients of criminal
commission of the crime, the courts shall be liability such as criminal intent, intelligence, or
assisted by expert psychiatrists/ freedom of action on the part of the offender is
psychologists [SECTION 26, RA 9262] missing
(2) In case it is a culpable felony, there is absence
of freedom of action or intelligence, or absence
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
of negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or (2) The test of volition, or whether the accused
lack of skill. acted in total deprivation of freedom of will.
(People vs. Rafanan)
1. Insanity and Imbecility 49
Juridical Effects of Insanity
Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age, has a (1) If present at the time of the commission of the
mental development comparable to that of a child crime – EXEMPT from liability.
between 2 and 7 years of age. Exempt in all cases (2) If present during trial – proceedings will be
from criminal liability SUSPENDED and accused is committed to a
hospital.
Insane - There is a complete deprivation of (3) After judgment or while serving sentence –
intelligence in committing the act but capable of Execution of judgment is SUSPENDED, the
having lucid intervals. During a lucid interval, the accused is committed to a hospital. The period
insane acts with intelligence and thus, is not exempt of confinement in the hospital is counted for
from criminal liability the purpose of the prescription of the penalty.
conflict with the law until s/he is proven to be 18 Upon suspension of sentence and after considering
years old or older. the various chcumstances of the child, the court
50 shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as
The age of a child may be determined from: provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in
The child‘s birth certificate, Conflict with the Law. (Sec. 38)
Baptismal certificate, or
Any other pertinent documents. Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law. -
Upon the recommendation of the social worker who
In the absence of these documents, age may be has custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the
based on: case against the child whose sentence has been
information from the child himself/herself, suspended and against whom disposition measures
testimonies of other persons, have been issued, and shall order the final discharge
the physical appearance of the child, and of the child if it finds that the objective of the
other relevant evidence. disposition measures have been fulfilled.
In case of doubt as to the child‘s age, it shall be The discharge of the child in conflict with the law
resolved in his/her favor. shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the
commission of the offense, which shall be enforced
d. Exemption from criminal liability in accordance with law. (Sec. 39)
The circumstances under Article 13 are generally Example: When the one making defense against
ordinary mitigating. However, paragraph 1, is unlawful aggression used unreasonable means to
52 treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance if prevent or repel it, he is entitled to a privileged
majority of the requisites concurred, otherwise, it mitigating circumstance.
will be treated as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69). Note: When two of the three requisites mentioned
therein are present, the case must be considered as
a privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in
Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. Article Art. 69 of this Code. (Article 69 requires that a
13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of majority of the conditions required must be
imposing penalties under Articles 63 and 64. present.)
TIP: In bar problems, when you are given b. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
indeterminate sentences, these articles are very avoidance of greater evil or injury
important.
Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 11:
Distinctions (1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually
Ordinary MC Privileged MC exists;
Cannot be offset by (2) That the injury feared be greater than that
Can be offset by any done to avoid it;
aggravating
aggravating circumstance (3) That there be no other practical and less
circumstance
harmful means of preventing it.
The effect of
If not offset by aggravating imposing upon the
circumstance, produces Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying
offender the penalty
the effect of applying the circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in
lower by one or two
penalty provided by law par. 4 of Art. 11 are present.
degrees than that
for the crime in its min provided by law for
period in case of divisible But if any of the last two requisites is lacking, there
the crime.
penalty is only a mitigating circumstance. The first element
is indispensable.
If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th physical appearance of the child and other relevant
requisite are absent, the case will fall under evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child,
Art. 365 which punishes reckless it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
imprudence. 53
If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict
requisite are absent, it will be an with the law prior to the filing of the information in
intentional felony (Art. 4, par. 1). any appropriate court may file a case in a summary
proceeding for the determination of age before the
(2) Incomplete exempting circumstance of Family Court which shall decide the case within
uncontrollable fear. twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.
Requisites under par. 6 of Art. 12:
(1) That the threat which caused the fear was If a case has been fiied against the child in conflict
of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, with the law and is pending in the appropriate court,
that which he was required to commit; the person shall file a motion to determine the age
(2) That it promised an evil of such gravity and of the child in the same court where the case is
imminence that an ordinary person would pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
have succumbed to it. proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
Note: If only one of these requisites is present, there In all proceedings, law enforcement officers,
is only a mitigating circumstance. prosecutors, judges and other government officials
concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the
2. Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of Age age of the child in conflict with the law. (Sec. 7, RA
9344).
a. In lowering the penalty:
Based on age of the offender at the time of the Basis: Diminution of intelligence
commission of the crime not the age when sentence
is imposed 3. No Intention to Commit So Grave A
Wrong (Praeter Intentionem)
b. In suspension of the sentence:
Based on age of the offender (under 18) at the time There must be a notable disproportion between
the sentence is to be promulgated (See Art. 80, the means employed by the offender and the
RPC) resulting harm.
The intention, as an internal act, is judged
c. Par. 2 contemplates the ff: o not only by the proportion of the means
(1) An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who employed by him to the evil produced by his
acted with discernment. act,
(2) An offender fifteen or over but under 18 o but also by the fact that the blow was or
years of age. was not aimed at a vital part of the body;
(3) An offender over 70 years old o this includes: the weapon used, the injury
inflicted and his attitude of the mind when
Legal effects of various ages of offenders: the accused attacked the deceased.
1. 15 and below - Exempting The lack of intention to commit so grave a
2. Above 15 but under 18 years of age, also an wrong can also be inferred from the subsequent
exempting circumstance, unless he acted with acts of the accused immediately after
discernment (Art. 12, par. 3 as amended by RA committing the offense, such as when the
9344). accused helped his victim to secure medical
3. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the treatment.
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No. This circumstance does not apply when the
603 as amended by PD 1179) crime results from criminal negligence or culpa.
4. 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility. Only applicable to offense resulting in death,
5. 70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of physical injuries, or material harm (including
death penalty; if already imposed. Execution of property damage). It is not applicable to
death penalty is suspended and commuted. defamation or slander.
This mitigating circumstance is not applicable
Determination of Age – The child in conflict with
when the offender employed brute force.
the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is not
He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict
appreciated where the offense committed is
with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen
characterized by treachery.
(18) years old or older. The age of a child may be
When the victim does not die as a result of the
determined from the child's birth certificate,
assault in cases of crimes against persons, the
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent
absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony
documents. In the absence of these documents, age
to mere physical injuries, but it does not
may be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
constitute a mitigating circumstance under Art. on the part of the person presence on the part of
13(3). defending himself. the offended party.
54 (People v. CA, G.R. No.
103613, 2001)
People v. Calleto (2002):
Held: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so TIP: The common set-up given in a bar problem is
grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the that of provocation given by somebody against whom
weapon used, the part of the body injured, the the person provoked cannot retaliate; thus the
injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or
fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in on the father. Although in fact, there is sufficient
attacking the victim from behind, without giving provocation, it is not mitigating because the one
him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows who gave the provocation is not the one against
that he intended to do what he actually did, and he whom the crime was committed.
must be held responsible therefor, without the
benefit of this mitigating circumstance. You have to look at two criteria:
a. If from the element of time,
People v. Ural (1974): (1) there is a material lapse of time stated in
Held: The intention, as an internal act, is judged the problem and
not only by the proportion of the means employed (2) there is nothing stated in the problem that
by him to the evil produced by his act, but also by the effect of the threat of provocation had
the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a prolonged and affected the offender at the
vital part of the body. Thus, it may be deduced time he committed the crime
from the proven facts that the accused had no (3) then you use the criterion based on the
intent to kill the victim, his design being only to time element.
maltreat him, such that when he realized the b. If there is that time element and at the same
fearful consequences of his felonious act, he time,
allowed the victim to secure medical treatment (1) facts are given indicating that at the time
at the municipal dispensary. the offender committed the crime, he is
still suffering from outrage of the threat or
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat provocation done to him
(2) then he will still get the benefit of this
Elements: mitigating circumstance.
(1) That the provocation must be sufficient
(2) That it must originate from the offended party Romera v. People (2004: Provocation and passion
(3) That the provocation must be immediate to or obfuscation are not 2 separate mitigating
the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime circumstances. It is well-settled that if these 2
by the person who is provoked circumstances are based on the same facts, they
should be treated together as one mitigating
Provocation - Any unjust or improper conduct or act circumstance. It is clear that both circumstances
of the offended part capable of exciting, inciting, or
arose from the same set of facts. Hence, they
irritating anyone.
should not be treated as two separate mitigating
Provocation in order to be mitigating must be circumstances.
SUFFICIENT and IMMEDIATELY preceding the act.
(People v. Pagal)
―Sufficient‖ means adequate to excite a 5. Immediate Vindication of A Grave
person to commit a wrong and must Offense
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
(People v. Nabora).
Elements:
Sufficiency depends upon: (1) That there be a grave offense done to the one
a. the act constituting provocation committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
b. the social standing of the person descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
provoked brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity
c. the place and time when the within the same degree.
provocation is made. (2) That the felony is committed in vindication of
Between the provocation by the offended such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed
party and the commission of the crime, between the vindication and the doing of the
there should not be any interval in time. grave offense.
Reason: When there is an interval of time (3) The vindication need not be done by the
between the provocation and the person upon whom the grave offense was
commission of the crime, the perpetrator committed
has time to regain his reason.
Note: Lapse of time is allowed. The word
Sufficient provocation as Provocation as a ―immediate‖ used in the English text is not the
a requisite of incomplete mitigating circumstance correct translation. The Spanish text uses
self-defense ―proxima.‖ Although the grave offense (slapping of
It pertains to its absence It pertains to its the accused in front of many persons hours before
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
the killing), which engendered the perturbation of during which the perpetrator might recover his
mind, was not so immediate, it was held that the normal equanimity. (People v. Alanguilang)
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity, lasted
until the moment the crime was committed. (People Note: Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful 55
v. Parana). sentiments.
The question whether or not a certain personal Passion or obfuscation not applicable when:
offense is grave must be decided by the court, a. The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS.
having in mind b. The act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE.
a. the social standing of the person,
b. the place and The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising
c. the time when the insult was made. from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor of the
accused whose relationship with the woman was
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or illegitimate.
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and
independently. Also, the act must be sufficient to produce such a
condition of mind. If the cause of loss of self-control
People v. Torpio (2004: The mitigating is trivial and slight, obfuscation is not mitigating.
circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
considered apart from the circumstance of Moreover, the defense must prove that the act
vindication of a grave offense. These two which produced the passion or obfuscation took
circumstances arose from one and the same place at a time not far removed from the
incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by commission of the crime. (People v. Gervacio, 1968)
Anthony, so that they should be considered as only
one mitigating circumstance. Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from
causes existing only in the honest belief of the
Provocation Vindication offender.
It is made directly only The grave offense may
to the person be committed against US v. De la Cruz (1912): De la Cruz, in the heat of
committing the felony. the offender‘s relatives passion, killed the deceased who was his querida
mentioned by law. (lover) upon discovering her in the act of carnal
The offense need not be The offended party must communication with a mutual acquaintance. He
a grave offense. have done a grave claims that he is entitled to the mitigating
offense to the offender circumstance of passion or obfuscation and that the
or his relatives. doctrine in Hicks is inapplicable.
The provocation or The grave offense may
threat must immediately be proximate, which Held: US v. Hicks is not applicable to the case. In
precede the act. admits of an interval of Hicks, the cause of the alleged passion and
time between the grave obfuscation of the aggressor was the convict's
offense done by the vexation, disappointment and deliberate anger
offended party and the engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue
commission of the crime to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a
by the accused. perfect reason to do. In this case, the impulse upon
It is a mere spite against It concerns the honor of which the defendant acted was the sudden
the one giving the the person. revelation that his paramour was untrue to him and
provocation or threat. his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of
another. This was a sufficient impulse in the
ordinary and natural course of things to produce
6. Passion or obfuscation (Arrebato y the passion and obfuscation which the law declares
Obsecacion) to be one of the mitigating circumstances to be
taken into the consideration of the court.
Elements:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it Passion and Obfuscation cannot co-exist with:
naturally produces passion or obfuscation in (1) Vindication of grave offense
him. Exception: When there are other facts
closely connected. Thus, where the
Requisites: deceased, had eloped with the daughter of
(1) That there be an act, both unlawful and the accused, and later when the deceased
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; saw the accused coming, the deceased ran
and upstairs, there are 2 facts which are
(2) That said act which produced the obfuscation closely connected, namely: (1) elopement,
was not far removed from the commission of which is a grave offense for the family of
the crime by a considerable length of time, old customs, and (2) refusal to deal with
him, a stimulus strong enough to produce
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
passion. The court in People v. Diokno manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
(G.R. No. L-45100), considered both surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
56 mitigating circumstances in favor of the because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) wishes
accused. to save them the trouble and expenses that would
(2) Treachery (People v. Wong) be necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
(Andrada v. People). If none of these two reasons
Passion/Obfuscation v. Irresistible Force (Reyes, impelled the accused to surrender, the surrender is
Revised Penal Code) not spontaneous and therefore not voluntary.
Passion/Obfuscation Irresistible force (People v. Laurel).
Mitigating Circumstance Exempting circumstance
Cannot give rise to Physical force is a The accused must actually surrender his own
physical force because it condition sine qua non. person to the authorities, admitting complicity
does not involves of the crime. Merely requesting a policeman to
physical force. accompany the accused to the police
Passion/obfuscation Irresistible force comes headquarters is not voluntary surrender.
comes from the offender from a third person. (People v. Flores)
himself.
Must arise from lawful Irresistible force is Effect of Arrest
sentiments to be unlawful. General Rule: Not mitigating when defendant was in
mitigating. fact arrested. (People v. Conwi)
Held: No sufficient evidence or medical finding was The aggravating circumstances must be established
offered to support his claim. The court also took with moral certainty, with the same degree of proof
58 note of the fact that the defense, during the trial, required to establish the crime itself.
never alleged the mitigating circumstance of illness.
The alleged mitigating circumstance was a mere According to the Revised Rules of Criminal
afterthought to lessen the criminal liability of the Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying aggravating
accused. circumstances must be alleged in the Information in
order to be considered by the Court in imposing the
12. Analogous Mitigating sentence. (Rule 110, Sec. 9)
Circumstances Basis
1. the motivating power behind the act
Any other circumstance of similar nature and 2. the place where the act was committed
analogous to the nine mitigating circumstances 3. the means and ways used
enumerated in art. 513 may be mitigating. 4. the time
5. the personal circumstance of the offender
(1) The act of the offender of leading the law and/or of the victim
enforcers to the place where he buried the
instrument of the crime has been considered as Kinds
equivalent to voluntary surrender. 1. GENERIC – Those that can generally apply to all
crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,
(2) Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out 14, 18, 19, and 20 except ―by means of motor
of extreme poverty is considered as analogous vehicles‖. A generic aggravating circumstance
to incomplete state of necessity. may be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
Canta v. People: Canta stole a cow but alleges that 2. SPECIFIC – Those that apply only to particular
he mistook the cow for his missing cow. He made a crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and
calf suckle the cow he found and when it did, Canta 21.
thought that the cow he found was really his. 3. QUALIFYING –Those that change the nature of
However, he falsified a document describing the the crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying
said cow’s cowlicks and markings. After getting AC which qualify the killing of person to murder.
caught, he surrendered the cow to the custody of If two or more possible qualifying circumstances
the authorities in the municipal hall. were alleged and proven, only one would qualify
the offense and the others would be generic
Held: Canta’s act of voluntarily taking the cow to aggravating. (ASKED TWICE BAR EXAMS)
the municipal hall to place it in the custody of 4. INHERENT – Those that must accompany the
authorities (to save them the time and effort of commission of the crime and is therefore not
having to recover the cow) was an analogous considered in increasing the penalty to be
circumstance to voluntary surrender. imposed such as evident premeditation in theft,
robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage.
(3) Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to 5. SPECIAL – Those which arise under special
over 70 years of age mentioned in par. 2. conditions to increase the penalty of the offense
(People v. Reantillo). and cannot be offset by mitigating
(4) Voluntary restitution of stolen goods similar to circumstances such as:
voluntary surrender (People v. Luntao). a. quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
(5) Impulse of jealous feelings, similar to passion b. complex crimes (Art. 48)
and obfuscation. (People v. Libria). c. error in personae (Art. 49)
(6) Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to d. taking advantage of public position and
incomplete justification based on state of membership in an organized/syndicated
necessity. (People v. Macbul). crime group (Art. 62)
(7) Testifying for the prosecution, without previous
discharge, analogous to a plea of guilty. (People Generic aggravating Qualifying aggravating
v. Narvasca). circumstances circumstances
The effect of a generic The effect of a qualifying
D. Aggravating Circumstances AC, not offset by any AC is not only to give the
(ASKED 24 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) mitigating crime its proper and
circumstance, is to exclusive name but also
increase the penalty to place the author
Those circumstances which raise the penalty for a
which should be thereof in such a situation
crime in its maximum period provided by law
imposed upon the as to deserve no other
applicable to that crime or change the nature of the
accused to the penalty than that
crime.
MAXIMUM PERIOD. specially prescribed by
law for said crime.
Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE – there are
It is not an ingredient The circumstance affects
no analogous aggravating circumstances.
of the crime. It only the nature of the crime
affects the penalty to itself such that the
be imposed but the offender shall be liable