Criminal law deals with crimes, the nature thereof, and their punishment.

Whenever a public law is violated (a crime is committed), there is social injury against the State
and the personal injury of the victim.
In sentencing, the judge imposes imprisonment and/or a fine to remedy the social injury and
imposes a fine for the restitution of the victim.
Felony is punishable by the RPC while Offense is punishable by special law. Infractions of the law
are punishable by laws created by the sanggunian. All are considered crimes.
Congress enacts penal laws, which must be general in nature to respect equal protection of the
laws. Penal laws enacted by Congress must not be ex post facto laws nor bills of attainder, nor
should they impose cruel and unusual laws.
Ex post facto laws punishes acts that were legal when committed. Bills of attainder punishes
individuals without the benefit of a trial.
Generality of penal laws states that they are binding on those who reside in the Philippines, either
citizen or foreign. An exception to this is that heads of states and diplomats are immune from
criminal prosecution by the country they are visiting or are assigned (diplomatic immunity). Note
that consuls do not enjoy this diplomatic immunity, except when there is a treaty stipulation to the
contrary between the consul’s country and the host country or when the consul acts in the
performance of their duties.
Laws of preferential application exempt individuals from criminal prosecution. Example, under
the 1987 Constitution, members of Congress cannot be prosecuted based on their words and
utterances made in the performance of their duties, no matter how defamatory or libelous the words
and utterances are.
Territoriality of criminal laws states that they are applicable within the territory of the Philippines,
both the land, water, and air within such territory. Art. 2 of the RPC provides the exceptions to this
territoriality principle.
Prospectivity of criminal laws states that they shall be given prospective application only. Under
Art. 22 of the RPC, retroactive application is made if the new criminal law is favorable to the
accused, except where the accused is a habitual offender. Another exception is where a special
penal law mandates its own retroactive application (ex. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act).
Liang vs. People. Liang worked at the Asian Dev’t Bank and made defamatory remarks against a
fellow employee. Liang was charged with grave oral defamation. The DFA later sent a letter to the
trial court stating that the Bank and its employees are immune from criminal prosecution. The trial
court then dismissed the case. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, on the ground that the
DFA’s letter was only preliminary nature and should not automatically bind the courts. Liang
would only be immune from prosecution if he uttered his defamatory words in the course of his
official business, which could not be the case.
Minucher vs. CA. Minucher, an Iranian national, was arrested in a drug buy-bust operation and
was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Minucher filed an action for damages against
a US DEA agent who assisted in the arrest. The agent claimed that he is immune from suit and the
action should be dismissed. According to the Vienna Convention, only diplomatic agents have
blanket immunity from prosecution. Since the agent did not represent the US for political purposes,
he is not granted blanket immunity. However, the agent could not be sued based on the concept of
state immunity from suit. The agent represented the USA in assisting the Philippines’s drug
enforcement efforts and suing the agent would be the same as suing the USA itself. Thus, the suit
was dismissed.
Del Socorro travelled to the Netherlands and married a Dutch man, bearing a child with the man.
The couple later divorced. After the divorce, Del Socorro and her child returned to the Philippines
with the father promising to support the child. Support never reached the child. The Dutch man
later travelled to Cebu and married a local woman. Del Socorro sent a demand letter for support
from the Dutch man. She then filed a complaint for violation of RA 9282, with the Dutch man
claiming that he cannot be prosecuted since he is a foreigner and since his failure to give support
took place in his home country, not the Philippines. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments
since the Dutch man’s violation was continuous while he resided in the Philippines. The Supreme
Court applied the generality and territoriality principles of criminal law in rejecting the man’s
arguments.
In a case of malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted
and the judgment became final. Later, R.A. 10591 lowered the imposable penalty for malversation
of public funds, among other felonies. The prisoner argued that she should be penalized according
to the new law. The Supreme Court held that the new law should be applied to the prisoner’s case,
notwithstanding the finality of the judgment of conviction, only for the purposes of lowering the
imposable sentence against her.
Pro reo doctrine – penal laws shall always be applied liberally, interpreted liberally in favor of the
accused and strictly against the state. In dubio pro reo. In case of doubt, rule in favor of the accused.
Reason, constitutional presumption of innocence. All accused under the Constitution are presumed
innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Lenity rule – where a penal law is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which is favorable to
the accused and the other not favorable, the former shall prevail, in accordance with the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Equipoise rule – where the prosecution and defense’s evidence have equal weight, the accused
should be acquitted in accordance with the presumption of innocence.
Utilitarian/Protective theory - the primary function of punishment is the protection of society
against actual and potential wrongdoers. See Magno vs. CA. Even in cases of violation of B.P. 22,
where criminal intent is immaterial, punishments must be imposed against actual and potential
wrongdoers. The basis of this theory is the maxim actus non facet reum nisi men cit rea. The act
is not criminal when the mind is not criminal. We have also nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.
There is no crime when there is no law that punishes the act.
Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita
Mala in se – acts which are prohibited since they are wrong by their very nature; the basis for
criminal liability is the offender’s moral trait; good faith is a defense; the stages of performance
are considered in giving the proper penalty; degree of participation is considered
Mala prohibita – acts which are prohibited by virtue of law; basis for criminal l good faith is not a
defense unless provided by the penal law; there is only a consummation of the violation; degrees
of participation are not considered.
Violations of special penal laws (acts mala prohibita) can never absorb acts mala in se, and vice
versa.
Not all mala in se felonies are punishable by the RPC (plunder; improper increase or decrease of
a candidate’s votes) and not all mala prohibita offenses are punishable of special penal laws
(technical malversation). See cases of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan and Garcia vs. CA.
Classical vs. Positivist Philosophies underlying the criminal justice system
Classical – Man is a moral creature capable of knowing right from wrong. Thus, when he commits
a crime, he chooses to do so. Penalties are imposed for retribution against the offender and is
determined mechanically. Emphasis of the law is on the offense, not the offender, thus the motive
of the offender is immaterial.
Positivist – Man is a social creature shaped by his environment and when he commits a crime,
societal factors should be considered. Penalties are imposed for the rehabilitation of the offender
and is determined on an individual basis after investigation. Emphasis of the law is on the offender,
not the offense, thus the motive of the criminal is considered.
Territorial nature of penal laws and the exceptions thereto (RPC)
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of
its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship (where the vessel is registered
under Philippine laws, regardless of ownership thereof) Note: This is applicable only when the
vessel is in international waters/airspace.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations
and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of this Code.
An intentional felony is one which is committed with deliberate intent.
The elements are:
• Criminal intent on the part of the offender
• Freedom of action in doing the act
• Intelligence of the offender
Culpable felonies are those wherein the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight and lack of skill.
The elements are:
• Criminal negligence
• Freedom of action
• Intelligence of the offender
Both intentional and culpable felonies have the same elements except as to the first element. As to
the first, we have criminal intent, as to the second, we have criminal negligence. Both intentional
and culpable felonies are voluntary acts.
A common element of intentional and culpable felony is freedom of action. The offender is said
to have acted with freedom of action when he performs the act on his own free will, without force,
without duress, without uncontrollable fear. Therefore, if an offender is prosecuted in court and it
was proven that he performed the criminal act because of an uncontrollable fear, because of an
irresistible force employed on him, he shall be exempted from criminal liability. It is an exempting
circumstance. Why? Because there is no freedom of action, an element of voluntariness. Without
voluntariness, there is no intentional felony, there is no culpable felony.
Another common element of intentional or culpable felony is intelligence. It is necessary that the
offender who performs the act must have the intelligence to do it. Therefore, if the said criminal
act is done by an imbecile, by an insane, by a minor (15 and below), he is exempted from criminal
liability because as far as criminal law is concerned, he has no intelligence. Without intelligence,
there is no voluntariness, there is neither intentional nor culpable felonies.
Intent is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result. It is an internal state of the
mind, therefore it cannot be seen.
Q: So how is intent established?
A: It is established by the overt acts performed by the offender in the commission of the crime, or
by the means employed by him to consummate the crime. So if an offender, in attacking the victim,
makes use of a lethal or bladed weapon, he makes use of a knife, a gun—it reveals his intent to
kill.
If the offender opens the bag of another, without opening the permission of the owner of the bag,
it reveals intent to gain. Here, intent is established by the overt acts performed by the offender in
the commission of the crime or the means employed by him in order to consummate the crime.
In the case of Rivera v. People, as far as intent to kill is concerned, there are several factors which
must be looked into in order to establish intent to kill:
• Evidence of motive;
• Nature and number of weapons used by the offender;
• The nature and number and location of wounds inflicted on the victim;
• Manner of committing the crime; and
• The acts or statements made by the accused before, after, or during the commission of the
crime.
There are two kinds of criminal intent:
1. GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT (GCI)
This is presumed by law from the mere doing of an act. This requires no proof. The prosecution
need not prove it because the law presumes its presence.
2. SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT (SCI)
This must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, just like any other element of a
crime.
If SCI is not proven by the prosecution, the offender cannot be convicted of the crime charged; the
offender can either be acquitted of the crime charged or convicted of another crime.
Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act to achieve the desired result.
Motive always comes ahead of intent, because motive is the moving factor in order to accomplish
the intent of the offender. Therefore, motive is always ahead of intent. While intent is necessary to
determine the offender’s criminal liability, motive as a rule is not.
WHEN MOTIVE IS NOT MATERIAL:
• Motive is not material when the identity of the accused is established.
• Motive is not material when the offender admits the commission of the crime.
• Motive is not material when there is direct evidence or eyewitness to the commission of
the crime.
• Motive is not material if the act committed if the act committed is culpable.
• Motive is not material in acts mala prohibita.
Therefore as a rule, motive is immaterial to determine the criminal liability of an offender. There
are exceptions to this. In the following instances, motive becomes material to determine the
criminal liability of an offender:
• When the act of the offender would result to variant crimes;
 • When there is doubt on the identity of the offender; and/or
• When there is only circumstantial evidence to prove the commission of the crime—no
eyewitness, no direct evidence.
Motive + Circumstantial evidence = Conviction
Circumstantial evidence without motive, however, will not merit conviction based on reasonable
doubt.
A defense against criminal intent is mistake of fact. This refers to misapprehension of facts on the
part of the person who caused injury to another. If a person acted under mistake of fact, he is
absolved of criminal liability. It is absolutory cause because the offender acted without criminal
intent.
For one to be absolved by reason of mistake of fact, the following elements must be proven:
• That the act done would have been lawful and justifiable had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be. Granting for the sake of argument that the facts are what they accused
believed them to be, the said act will be justified.
• That the intention of the offender in performing the act must be lawful. He must be guided
by a lawful, legitimate, justified intent.
• That mistake must be without fault, mistake, carelessness, negligence on the part of the
offender.
o It is necessary that the offender must have exercised diligence in ascertaining the
true facts of the case.
o He cannot have acted with negligence and at the same time invoke mistake of fact.
Therefore, mistake of fact can only be a defense in intentional felonies. Mistake of
fact is not a defense in culpable felony.
Under Art. 4(1), criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committed By any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. This
provision is otherwise known as the proximate cause doctrine. Its elements are:
• That the intended act is a felonious act;
• That the resulting act is a felony; and
• The resulting felony is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act of
the offender.
When you say proximate cause, it is the cause that sets into motion all other causes and which
unbroken by an efficient intervening cause produces the felony without which the felony would
not have resulted. An efficient intervening cause is an active force which is a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
Under Art. 4(1), there are three circumstances wherein the offender becomes criminally liable for
the resulting felony although different from that which he intended. We have the so-called: (a)
aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow; (b) error in personae or mistake in the identity; and (c)
praeter intentionem when the consequence went beyond the intention.
Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his
intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on another person. In this case, both the
intended victim and actual victim are there at the scene of the crime. However, because of lack of
precision on the part of the said offender, the blow intended for the intended victim was done on
the actual victim. It was the actual victim who suffered the blow.
It results to two crimes: (a) the crime against the intended victim; and (b) the crime against the
actual victim. If these two crimes happen to be grave or less grave felonies, Art. 48 of the Revised
Penal Code or complexity of crimes shall be applied. Therefore, only 1 Information shall only be
filed in court. But, if one of the resulting felonies happens to be a light felony, it cannot be complex.
Therefore, two cases shall be filed in court.
The second situation under Art. 4(1) is error in personae or mistake in the identity. It is a situation
wherein the offender directed the blow at a person whom he thought was the intended victim but
the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. He has mistaken the actual victim to the
intended victim.
Under Art. 49, if the intended felony is different from the resulting felony in case of mistake in the
identity, the offender shall be prosecuted for the said resulting felony. However, the penalty to be
imposed should be the lesser of the two penalties between the intended felony and the felony
actually committed. Therefore, in this case, mistake in the identity is a mitigating circumstance. It
lowers the imposable penalty since the lesser of the two penalties shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
However, if the intended felony is just the same as the felony actually committed, there is no
difference, there is no variance between the intended felony and the felony actually committed,
then, the same penalty shall be imposed upon the offender. Hence, mistake in the identity has no
effect on the criminal liability of the offender. It will no longer mitigate or extenuate the penalty
to be imposed.
The third situation under Art. 4(1) is known as Praeter Intentionem when the consequence went
beyond the intention. It is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his intended victim
and the intended victim actually received the blow, however, the injurious result is far greater than
what could have been anticipated from the means employed by the offender.
In order for praeter intentionem to lie, the following elements must be present:
• That a felony has been committed;
• That there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and the
resulting felony and out of the means employed, the resulting felony could not have been
foreseen.
In the case of People v. Noel Sales, the father was charged with parricide. After repeatedly hitting
his son with a piece of wood while the body of the son was tied to a tree, the son died. He said that
he has no intention to kill the son, his intention was only to discipline the son. The Supreme Court
held that he was liable for parricide no matter how much he said that he has no intention to kill his
son. The fact that the child died, intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent which requires no
proof.
The RTC, in this case, gave him the benefit of praeter intentionem. However, according to the
Supreme Court, the RTC was erroneous in considering praeter intentionem in favor of Noel Salas.
Praeter intentionem would not lie because there was no notable disparity between the acts done by
the father and the resulting felony. The acts done by the father, in repeatedly hitting the son with
a piece of wood while the body of the son was tied to a tree, are acts that would produce, and
indeed it produced, the death of the son. Hence, the Supreme Court said, praeter intentionem
cannot be considered in favor the said father so as to mitigate his criminal liability.
Under Art. 4(2), criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would
have been a crime against persons or property where it not for its inherent impossibility or the
employment of ineffectual inadequate means.
An impossible crime is one wherein the act done would have resulted to a crime against persons
or property but it is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Therefore, an impossible crime is not, in reality,
a crime. The acts done by the offender did not ripen into a crime, a crime was not produced because
of its inherent impossibility. Nevertheless, even though objectively no crime was committed, the
offender will be charged for an impossible crime because of the offender's criminal tendency.
Therefore, the criminal charge filed in court is an impossible crime.
The elements of an impossible crime are:
• The act done would have amounted to a crime against persons or property;
• The act was done with evil intent;
• The act was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or the means employed
are ineffectual or inadequate; and
• The act does not fall under any other provision of the RPC.
Based on the first element, an impossible crime would only apply if the acts did by the offender,
had it been consummated, would have amounted to a crime against person (Title VIII, Book II of
the RPC) or property (Title X, Book II of the RPC). An impossible crime would not apply to any
other crime.
Under the second element, it is necessary that there is evil intent. Under the third element, the act
was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility. When you say inherent impossibility,
under any and all circumstances, the act would not ripen into a crime. In the case of Intod v. CA,
the Supreme Court discussed the kinds of inherent impossibility. These are:
• Legal Impossibility - all the intended acts, even if accomplished, would not amount to a
crime
• Physical or Factual Impossibility – extraneous circumstances are unknown to the offender,
beyond the control of the offender, which prevented the consummation of the crime.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as
those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
TWO PHASES IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
• Subjective Phase – this is the portion in the commission of the act wherein the offender
commences the commission of the crime up to the time that he offender still has control
over his acts.
o The offender can either proceed with the commission of the crime or desist. If he
desisted, he does not incur criminal liability.
• Objective Phase – the moment the offender loses control over his acts, he is already in the
objective phase of committing a felony.
THREE STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY
A. Attempted Stage
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Elements of an attempted felony:
• The offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts;
• He was not able to perform all the acts of execution; and
• He was not able to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
In the first element, it is necessary that the attempted felony charged is that which is directly
connected to the overt act although the offender may have a different crime in mind.
The second element requires that he be not able to consummate the crime. What is the reason? The
third element. By reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Because if the reason is the offender’s spontaneous desistance, then he is not liable of any crime.
Desistance would only negate a person’s criminal liability if the felony were in the attempted stage.
The moment the felony is already in the frustrated or consummated stage, no amount of desistance
would negate the criminal liability.
B. Frustrated Stage
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Elements of a frustrated felony:
• The offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony; and
• The felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
C. Consummated Stage
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present. The moment all the elements of the felony under Book II are present, it is already
consummated. If any of the elements is absent, it can either be attempted, frustrated or different
felony.
There are certain felonies which do not admit of frustrated stage. One of them is theft, as held by
the SC in the case of Valenzuela. There is no such crime as frustrated theft. SC said based on the
definition of theft under Art 308 in relation to 309, it is committed when the offender takes the
personal property of another with intent to gain without the consent of the owner without violence
against or intimidation of persons or use of force upon things.
Unlawful taking is the only act necessary to consummate theft. Therefore, the moment unlawful
taking is complete, theft is already consummated. Unlawful taking is deemed complete the moment
the offender has possession of the personal property of another, even if the offender has not yet
disposed of the property.
Another crime which does not admit of frustrated stage is rape. It is settled in People v. Pareja that
there is no such crime as frustrated rape. The slightest penile penetration of a woman’s genitalia
already consummates the crime of rape. In order to consummate rape, it is necessary that there is
penetration. However, the penetration required is not complete. The slightest penetration
consummates rape. There is penetration the moment the penis touched the lips or labia of the
pudendum of a woman’s genital. So there is no frustrated rape.
In People v. Pareja, the SC distinguished attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness. If based on
the facts and circumstances, there was intent to lie or have carnal knowledge with the victim, it is
attempted rape. But if there was no such intent, it is only acts of lasciviousness.
If a crime admits of the stages of consummated, frustrated or attempted, or even consummated and
attempted only, these are Material Crimes. But if the crimes do not admit of the stages, it is
considered Formal Crimes. Formal crimes are punished only in the consummated stage. These are
crimes based on result. Hence, they have no attempted and frustrated stage. Example: light, less
serious and serious physical injuries, false testimony.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are punishable only when they have
been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit
a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
General rule: As a rule, conspiracy, and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable acts. They
are mere preparatory acts. In Article 6, to commit a crime, there must at least be the commencement
of an overt act to amount at least an attempted felony. Here, there is no overt act yet. There is only
a conspiracy, a proposal.
Exception: When the law specially provides a penalty for merely conspiring or proposing to
commit a felony, they become crimes by themselves.
Q: What are the 2 concepts of conspiracy?
A:
• Conspiracy as a crime by itself – when the law provides a penalty for merely conspiring.
• Conspiracy only as a means of committing the crime – when the law does not provide a
penalty for merely conspiring. Conspiracy is only used as a means in order to consummate
the crime.
Q: What are the 2 kinds of conspiracy as a means to commit the crime?
A:
1. Direct or Express conspiracy - when the conspirators met, planned, and agreed to commit a
crime. It is a conspiracy based on a preconceived plan. Since there was planning, all perpetrators
who would be present at the scene of the crime could be held criminally liable as conspirators for
the said crime agreed upon.
Even if he did not actively participate in the commission of the crime. Since he was part of the
agreement or preconceived plan, his mere presence at the scene of the crime, his mere exercise of
moral ascendancy at the scene of the crime will make him a conspirator. Therefore, in case of
direct or express conspiracy, the offender can be held criminally liable either by direct or indirect
participation in the commission of the crime because he was part of the agreement.
But, although he was a part of the agreement, if he failed to appear at the scene of the crime, he
cannot be held criminally liable EXCEPT when he is the principal by induction or inducement.
Reason is, although he was part of the agreement, he did not appear at the scene of the crime.
Therefore, he desisted in the actual execution of the crime. Hence, he cannot be held criminally
liable as a conspirator.
2. Implied or inferred conspiracy – A conspiracy deduced from the mode and manner of
committing the crime. The conspirators acted simultaneously in a synchronized and coordinated
manner towards a common criminal objective/design. The conspirators did not meet nor plan. The
conspirators did not agree. There was no preconceived plan. The said conspiracy happened
impliedly, at the spur of the moment, based on the turn of events, based on particular acts they
performed.
It is one deduced from the mode and manner of committing the crime. Mere presence at the scene
of the crime, mere acquiescence, or approval to the commission of the crime will not make one a
conspirator absent an active participation in the commission of the crime.
The moment conspiracy is established, whether it is direct/express conspiracy or implied/inferred
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It simply means that the moment conspiracy is
established, all perpetrators are punished to the same extent, regardless of the quantity and quality
of their participation in the commission of the crime. Therefore, you do not ask who inflicted the
fatal blow or the mortal attack, or who performed a minor act. That is irrelevant.
However, the moment conspiracy is not established, each perpetrator are punished only to the
extent of their participation on the commission of the crime as held in the case of People vs.
Bokingco, People vs. Castillo, GMA vs People. In these cases, the offenders are punished to the
extent only of their participation because conspiracy was not proven.
Q: What are the 2 kinds of multiple conspiracy?
A:
• Wheel or circle conspiracy - When a person or group of persons known as a hub, deals
individually with another person or group of persons known as the spokes.
• Chain conspiracy – a conspiracy generally present in regular business transactions that
applies also in case of transactions involving contrabands. Here, there is that continuous
communication and transaction between the manufacturer and the wholesaler, the
wholesaler and the retailer, and the retailer and the consumer.
For example, A and his cohorts manufacture shabu. B and his cohorts would buy it in wholesale.
C and his cohorts would buy it from B and would repack it to sell it for retail to the consumers.
There was this consistent and continuous action between the manufacturer and the wholesaler, the
wholesaler and the retailer, and the retailer and the consumer.
Conspiracy can be applied in this case because there is an express provision under Section 26 of
RA 9165 which provides that they can be punished for conspiracy. Under section 26 of RA 9165,
the law expressly provides that there is the attempted stage as well as the conspiracy in case of
violation of Section 5 (transporting dangerous drugs). Therefore, since it is the SPL itself that
provides for the said conspiracy, it can be considered against the accused.
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which
the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period
are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor
or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos or both; is provided. Note: Amended Art. 26 of the RPC
"Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. - A fine, whether imposed as a single or
as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds One million two
hundred thousand (₱1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed One million two
hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but is not less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000); and a
light penalty, if it be less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000).
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future
may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Q: What are the circumstances that affect the criminal liability of an offender?
A:
• Justifying circumstances
• Exempting circumstances
• Mitigating circumstances
• Aggravating circumstances
Q: What are justifying circumstances?
A: Those circumstances, which, if present or attendant in the commission of a felony, the offender
is said to have acted within the bounds of the law. The offender is said to not have transgressed
the law. Therefore, there is no crime committed. There is no criminal liability, and as a rule, there
is also no civil liability because there is no crime committed.
If an offender is charged in court and he raised as a defense any of the justifying circumstances
under Article 11, that offender/accused is in effect admitting the acts or omissions alleged in the
information. However, he is avoiding criminal responsibility by saying that his act is justified.
Therefore, the moment the defense raised a justifying circumstance, the trial will be inverted. It is
always the prosecution who has the burden of proof to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
However, the moment the accused says that his defense is any of those enumerated under Article
11, the law prima facie presumes that he already is liable. Therefore, the burden of evidence is
shifted on him to contradict the said presumption made by law. The burden of evidence is on him
to prove the elements of the justifying circumstance that he is raising.
If he failed to prove the elements of the justifying circumstance that he is raising, definitely it is a
conviction because in saying that his act is justified, the law presumes he already admitted the
commission of the crime.
Self defense includes defense of one’s life and limb, defense of one’s honor and chastity, defense
of one’s property coupled by an attack on the person trusted with the said property.
I. SELF DEFENSE
Self defense includes defense of one’s life and limb, defense of one’s honor and chastity, defense
of one’s property coupled by an attack on the person trusted with the said property.
ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE
1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
In several cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that in case of self defense, the primordial
element is unlawful aggression. Without unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression coming from the victim, there is no reason for the accused to defend himself.
Hence, it is necessary first and foremost that there is unlawful aggression. The unlawful aggression
must come from the victim himself, not from any other person.
Q: What are the elements of unlawful aggression?
A:
• There must be a physical or material attack or assault;
• The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent.
• The attack or assault must be unlawful.
Q: What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression?
A:
• Physical/Material unlawful aggression - the attack is by means of physical force or by
means of a weapon;
• Imminent unlawful aggression - the attack is impending or at the point of happening. If
there is an unlawful aggression coming from the victim, the said person defending himself
must use a means reasonable in order to repel the said unlawful aggression coming from
the victim.
2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL
THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Q: What does “reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it” mean?
A: The said act done by the person defending himself must be reasonable or rational in order to
prevent the said unlawful aggression.
Q: What are the factors to be considered to determine whether the means employed is rationally
necessary?
A:
• Nature and the number of the weapons used by the unlawful aggressor as against that of
the person defending himself.
 • Personal circumstances of the unlawful aggressor versus that of the person defending
himself.
• Place and location of the assault.
3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING
HIMSELF
Q: What is provocation?
A: refers to any improper or unjust act which is capable of inciting or exciting a person to commit
an unlawful act.
Q: When is it considered sufficient provocation?
A: when it is adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the
gravity of the act.
What the law requires based on the 3rd element of self defense, is that there must be no sufficient
provocation coming from the accused. There may be provocation. It is allowed. What is not
allowed is sufficient provocation coming from the said accused.
Q: What is the maxim behind self-defense?
A: Stand ground when in the right. It means that when the accused is where he should be, the law
does not require him to retreat when he saw his assailant fast approaching him. Otherwise, he runs
the risk of being stabbed at the back.
TRUE OR FALSE: Self defense applies only in case of consummated felony.
A: FALSE. Self-defense would apply the moment there is any unlawful aggression done by the
victim against the accused The moment the life and limb of the said accused was placed in actual
or imminent danger, whether it is consummated or not, he has to act based on the impulse of self-
preservation. Therefore, self-defense does not only lie in case of consummated felony. It applies
even in case of attempted and frustrated for as long as the life and limb of the person defending
himself was placed in actual and imminent danger.
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Elements:
• Unlawful aggression;
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
• In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had
no part therein.
o Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one provoked the
offended party, as long as the relative making the defense is not a party to the
provocation, there is still could be a valid and legitimate defense of a relative.
It is necessary however, for defense of relative to lie, that those relatives mentioned must be the
one being defended.
• Spouse;
• Ascendants;
• Descendants;
• Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters;
• His relatives by affinity in the same degrees; and/or
• Those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Elements:
• Unlawful aggression;
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
and
• The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
It is necessary under the third element that the only objective of the accused is to defend a stranger.
There was a noble or a disinterested motive or intent to help. He must not be guided by any evil
intent in helping the said stranger.
STATE OF NECESSITY
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:
• That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
• That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
• That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
For as long as the mentioned requisites are present, he would be absolved of criminal liability BUT
NOT OF CIVIL LIABILITY.
The 4th justifying circumstance is an exception to the rule that in case of justifying circumstances,
there is no criminal and civil liability. Under the 4th justifying circumstance, in case of state of
necessity, there is no criminal liability, but there is civil liability.
Under Art. 101 of the RPC, the civil liability in case of state of necessity shall be adjudged against
the accused and all other persons who have been benefited by the said state of necessity. If there
are many persons who have been benefited by the said state of necessity, Art 101 states that the
court shall divide the civil liability proportionately.
PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY
Elements:
 • Offender acted in the due performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office; and
• The resulting felony is an unavoidable consequence of the due performance of his duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office.
It is necessary that the said offender was performing his duty, exercising his right, fulfilling his
duty.
Q: Does it mean that it can only apply to a public officer?
A: NO, even private individuals are included. This does not apply exclusively to public officers
and employees. For example, X, a private individual, saw a person in danger. It is his duty to help
that person. Otherwise, he can be charged with abandonment of persons in danger. Because of the
offender’s due performance of his duty, lawful exercise of a right, he caused an injury, a felony
resulted. If the said injury is the unavoidable consequence of the due performance of his duty, then
the said justifying circumstance would lie in favor of the offender.
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER
Elements:
• An order has been issued by a superior;
• Such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
• Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
It is necessary that the offender has a superior, and the superior issued an order, and the said order
was for some lawful purpose and the means used by the subordinate to carry out the order must
also be lawful.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
It is another justifying circumstance, but it is found under RA 9262.
Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.
Under Section 26 of R.A. 9262, victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense. The moment the accused was
found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome, it is as if she was acting in self-defense.
The woman does not incur any civil or criminal liability. Thus, it is akin to a justifying
circumstance. Even if there is no justifying circumstance, there is no unlawful aggression coming
from the victim because Sec. 26 states even if none of the elements of the justifying circumstance
of self-defense are present.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those circumstances, which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony, would serve to
exempt the offender from criminal liability because the offender acted without voluntariness.
There is either no criminal intent, no freedom of action, or no intelligence on the part of the
offender. Since, he acted without voluntariness, he is exempted from criminal liability BUT NOT
FROM CIVIL LIABILITY because a wrong has indeed been committed.
In justifying circumstances there is no crime, no criminal, no criminal liability and as a rule, there
is no civil liability. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime, but there is no criminal because
he acted without voluntariness. Therefore, there is no criminal liability, but there is civil liability
because a wrong/crime has indeed been committed.
In case of exempting circumstances, just like in justifying circumstances, if the offender is charged
in court and the offender raised as a defense any of the exempting circumstances under Art. 12,
the burden is upon him to prove the elements of the exempting circumstances he is raising. It is an
admission of the acts alleged but an avoidance of criminal responsibility arising therefrom.
I. IMBECILITY AND INSANITY
Imbecile
• One who is already advance in age but he has only the mental capacity of a 2- 7 year old
child.
• Exempting in any and under all circumstances.
• There is no such thing as lucid interval in case of imbecility.
Insane
• One who is suffering from total mental aberration of the mind. He cannot determine right
from wrong. He cannot appreciate the consequences of his act.
• Not exempting under all circumstances. It is necessary that it must be proven that at the
time of the commission of the crime, he was insane and not during a lucid interval. The
civil code presumes that all persons are sane. Therefore, the burden is on him who invokes
insanity to prove that he was insane.
• The insanity that is exempting must be present immediately prior to or at the time of the
commission of the crime. If the offender becomes insane during or after trial, before or
after conviction, and he was found guilty, it will not be an exempting circumstance. He
would not be placed behind bars but in a mental institution. He will stay there until he
regains his sanity.
II. and III. MINORITY
• A person under fifteen years of age.
• A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
Q: What is the effect of minority on the criminal liability of the offender?
It depends on the age of the offender. If the minor offender is 15 years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the crime, he is totally exempted from criminal liability regardless of
discernment.
If the minor offender is over 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime, discernment must be considered. If he acted without discernment, he is still exempt from
criminal liability. However, if he acted with discernment, he shall be prosecuted.
If a child in conflict with law is found by the court to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, there
shall be a pronouncement as to the civil liability arising from the crime committed but there shall
be no pronouncement as to his guilt. Instead, the judge shall place him under suspended sentence
without need of application. There is no need for his counsel to apply for the said suspension. It is
automatic on the part of the judge to place him under suspended sentence. And under Section 38,
the law provides that the suspended sentence shall apply to him even if the minor offender is
already 18 or above at the time of promulgation of judgment. Therefore, he must be placed under
suspended sentence, provided that under Section 40 of RA 9344, he is not yet beyond 21 years old.
The moment he is beyond 21 years old, he can no longer be placed under suspended sentence.
Q: How would you know the age of the offender? What proof is necessary to prove that the accused
was indeed a minor offender?
A: It can be proved through his birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or any other pieces of
documentary evidence. If there are no documentary evidence that may be presented in court, the
minority of the accused can be determined from the information coming from the said minor or
from the testimony of other persons knowledgeable of the said minor offender. It can also be
considered from the physical appearance of the said offender. In case of doubt as to the age of the
minor offender, the doubt shall always be in favor of the said minor offender. He shall enjoy all
the benefits of RA9344 unless and until it is proven that he was 18 years old or up.
IV. ACCIDENT
Elements:
• Offender is performing a lawful act;
• He was performing the lawful act with due care;
• He causes injury to another by mere accident; and
• The injury is without fault or intent on the part of the offender.
It is something that happens outside the sway of things and cannot be prevented even if the accused
was performing a lawful act with due care.
It is necessary that the performance of the lawful act was done with due care. Because even if the
offender was performing a lawful act, if he is not exercising due care, he becomes liable for the
culpable felony of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. In case of accident, there is both no
criminal and civil liability because the offender was performing a lawful act.
V. IRRESISTABLE FORCE
Elements:
• The compulsion is by physical force;
• Physical force must be irresistible; and
• Physical force must come from a third person
It is said that there is irresistible force employed on the doer of the act if the said accused has been
reduced to an instrument such that he acted not only without will but also against his will.
Therefore, he acted without freedom of action, an element of voluntariness. Hence, he has to be
exempted from criminal liability.
VI. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Elements:
• Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
• Fear must be real or at least imminent; and
• Fear of the injury is greater than or equal to that committed.
Whether it is compulsion of an irresistible force or impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury, what makes these circumstances as exempting circumstances would be the lack
of freedom of action on the said offender, which is an element of voluntariness.
It is necessary that the offender totally has no choice but to do the criminal or wrongful act because
of the irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. In so far as uncontrollable
fear is concerned, it is necessary that the threat employed on him must be real or imminent.
VII. LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CAUSE
Elements:
• An act is required by law to be done;
• A person fails to perform such act; and
• Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
This is also another exemption to the general rule that in case of exempting circumstances, there
is no criminal liability, but there is civil liability. In the 7th exempting circumstance, there is both
no criminal liability and no civil liability.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those circumstances which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony would reduce the
imposable penalty generally to the minimum period of penalty prescribed by law.
In so far as exempting circumstances are concerned, the offender acted without voluntariness.
Therefore, he is exempted from criminal liability.
In so far as mitigating circumstances are concerned, the said offender acted with voluntariness,
however, there is a diminution on his voluntariness. There is diminution either on criminal intent,
freedom of action, or intelligence on the part of the offender.
Q: What are the 2 kinds of mitigating circumstances?
A:
• Ordinary mitigating circumstance – can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance.
If not offset, it will serve to lower the imposable penalty to the minimum period of the
penalty prescribed by law.
• Privileged mitigating circumstance – cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance. Its
effect is to lower the imposable penalty by 1 to 2 degrees.
I. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING
Q: What are the rules to determine if an incomplete justifying or an incomplete exempting
circumstance shall be treated as an ordinary mitigating or as a privileged mitigating circumstance?
A:
• When majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt the offender are
present in the commission of the crime, then it is treated as privileged mitigating
circumstance.
• If less than a majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt the offender
from criminal liability attended the commission of the crime, then the incomplete
justifying/ incomplete exempting shall be treated only as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
• If there are only 2 elements necessary to justify the act or exempt the offender from criminal
liability, the presence of one element is already considered majority. Therefore, the said
incomplete justifying or incomplete exempting shall be considered as a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
• In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a relative, or incomplete defense
of a stranger, there must always be unlawful aggression. If only the element of unlawful
aggression is present, the said incomplete self defense, incomplete defense of a relative, or
incomplete defense of a stranger shall only be an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
However, if aside from unlawful aggression, another element is present, then it shall be
considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
II. MINORITY AND SENIORITY
If the offender is over 15 but below 18, and he acted with discernment - not exempting but a
privilege mitigating circumstance. He would no longer be exempted but his minority would mean
a lowering of the imposable penalty by one degree as provided for under Article 68 of the RPC.
If minority is not an exempting circumstance, minority is always a privileged mitigating
circumstance. Seniority is a mere an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
In the previous years when we did not have R.A. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of death
penalty, seniority was a privileged mitigating because if the said senior citizen and the penalty for
the crime is death, automatically, it shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. But now, it applies to
all cases, not only because he is a senior citizen because for any person committing a heinous crime
punished by death, but it shall also be lowered to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346 which
prohibits the imposition of death penalty.
III. PRAETER INTENTIONEM
Elements:
• A felony has been committed; and
• There is a notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting
felony.
IV. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
Elements:
• the provocation must be sufficient;
• it must originate from the offended party; and
• the provocation must be immediate to commission of the crime by the person who was
provoked.
It is necessary that the said provocation must be coming from the offended party. Even if the
accused was provoked, even if there was sufficient provocation that caused the offender to commit
the crime, if the sufficient provocation came from a third person not from the victim, sufficient
provocation would not mitigate the liability of the offender. It must be the victim who provoked
the accused.
Under the 3rd element, there must be no period of time that had lapsed between the provocation
and the commission of the crime by the accused. Right after the offender has been provoked by
the victim, he committed his crime against the victim.
V. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
Elements:
• That there be a grave offense done to:
o the one committing the felony,
o his spouse,
o ascendants,
o descendants,
o legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sister,
o relatives by affinity within the same degree; and
• The commission of the crime was done in immediate vindication of the said grave offense
The grave offense refers to any act that caused the accused pressure, tension, pain and move him
to take a revenge or vindicate himself. It need not be an act punished by law.
The 2nd element also used the word “immediate”. The commission of the crime was done in
immediate vindication of a grave offense. The said grave offense must be the proximate cause of
the commission of the crime. Therefore, the word immediate may allow a lapse of time provided
that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused was still enveloped with the pain
brought about by the said grave offense.
VI. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION.
Elements:
• There be an act that is unlawful and sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation on the
part of the accused; and
• That the commission of the act that produced passion and obfuscation must not be far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time during which
the offender might have recovered his normal equanimity.
Under the 1st element, it is necessary that an unlawful, illegal, or wrongful act was done against
the accused. Because of that, the accused committed the said crime. Therefore, the said feeling of
passion and obfuscation on the part of the said accused must arise from lawful sentiments because
an unlawful/wrongful act had been done against him.
It must be immediate and there must be no considerable lapse of time in between for the offender
to have recovered his normal equanimity.
VII. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER and VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT
There are two mitigating circumstances here:
• Voluntary surrender
• Voluntary plea of guilt
Elements of VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:
• that the offender has not been actually arrested;
• that he surrendered to a person in authority or his agent; and
• such surrender must be voluntary.
Under the first element, the public officer has not yet gone out to look for the offender. It is
necessary that the police officer has not yet gone to the last known address of the offender to look
for him and arrest him. Even if there is already a warrant of arrest issued by the court, if the said
police officer or any public officer armed with the said warrant of arrest had not yet gone out to
the last known address of the offender to serve the warrant, and he surrendered, there is still
voluntary surrender because he has not yet been actually arrested.
2nd element, what did he do? He went to the barangay captain, to the mayor, to the judge, governor,
or any person in authority or to the police to give himself up freely or voluntarily. What was his
purpose? To surrender voluntarily.
The said act of surrendering is said to have been done voluntarily when it is done by the offender
spontaneously and unconditionally. Either the offender felt remorse, or he wanted to save the
government the time, effort, money that they would spend if they would look for him.
Elements of VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT:
• The plea of guilt must be done spontaneously and unconditionally;
• The plea of guilt must be done in open court; and
• The plea of guilt must be done before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
The plea of guilt is said to have been done spontaneously if it is to the original crime charged. The
plea of guilt is said to have been done unconditionally if it is not subject to any condition.
Q: Where should plea of guilt be given?
A: The plea of guilt must be made in open court before the court trying the case.
Q: When should it be given?
A: Before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
VIII. DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND, OR SUFFERING SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT
Elements:
• That the offender was suffering from some physical defect; and
• That the said physical defect has restricted his means of action, defense, or communications
with his fellow beings.
There must be a connection or relation between the physical defect being suffered by the offender
and the crime that he committed. His physical defect must have restricted means of action, defense,
or communications with his fellow beings.
It is necessary that the offender was suffering some illness and the said illness diminishes the
exercise of his willpower. He knows what he is doing. However, he has a diminished control of
his act, a diminished freedom of action. Therefore, it will mitigate his criminal liability.
X. ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
Any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Example (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan): Restitution of the amount malversed in case of
malversation is akin to voluntary surrender. The SC appreciated 2 voluntary surrender: the physical
voluntary surrender and the restitution which is akin to voluntary surrender under Art. 13 of the
RPC.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

❖ Those which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony will serve to increase the
imposable penalty without however going beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law.

❖ The moment the commission of a felony was attended by an aggravating circumstance, the court
shall impose the maximum penalty. However, it is necessary that in imposing the penalty, the court
cannot impose a penalty beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law.
❖ The effect of an aggravating circumstance is to increase the penalty. Reason is because it shows
the greater criminality on the part of the offender. If mitigating shows the lesser perversity and
therefore, the penalty is lowered. In case of aggravating, it reveals the greater criminality and so
the penalty is increased. But the limit is the maximum penalty prescribed by law.

❖ Therefore, no matter how many aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the
crime, the court cannot impose a penalty beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law. So, if a
crime is attended by ten aggravating circumstances, all of them were alleged and proven, the court
cannot impose a penalty beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law. This is the limit.
Different Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstance
• are those which apply to all kinds of crimes
Example: whatever be the crime committed, if it is committed at nighttime, the offender
deliberately sought the cover of darkness to assure the commission of the crime, it will aggravate
the criminal liability of the offender. Nighttime is a generic aggravating circumstance, it applies
to all kinds of crimes whether it be for crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes
against chastity crimes against public order, or crimes against public interest.
PROSEC NOTES: Recidivism is another example.
2. Specific Aggravating Circumstances
• are those that apply only to a certain or particular crimes
Example: In Par. 16 of Art. 14, Treachery. It applies only to crimes against persons, those under
Title 8. Treachery is NOT considered in crimes against public order, crimes against chastity,
crimes against public interest and in crimes against property.
Prosec Notes: Cruelty which applies only to crimes against Persons
3. Inherent Aggravating Circumstances
• are those which are of necessity accompanied in the commission of the crime.
• it is considered as an ingredient or element in the commission of a crime. Without which,
the crime would not have been consummated.
• even if they are present, they are no longer to be considered so as to increase the imposable
penalty because they are inherent elements in the commission of the crime.
Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in ALL crimes against property. Hence, it is not
considered in robbery, theft, estafa because it is inherent.
Prosec Notes: Dwelling is considered inherent In Violation of Domicile.
4. Special Aggravating Circumstances
 • are those which if present would provide for the imposition of the maximum penalty
prescribed by law.
• the moment a special aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime,
mitigating circumstances are no longer considered, except privileged mitigating
circumstances.
• Automatically the maximum penalty should be imposed by the court.
Example: If the crime is committed by an offender who is proven to belong to a syndicate or
organized crime group. Under Art.62 as amended by RA 7659, the maximum penalty prescribed
by law shall be imposed.
5. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances
• are those which either change the nature of the crime to bring about a more serious crime
with a higher penalty or even without changing the nature of the crime it brings about the
imposition of a higher penalty.
Example: If the act of killing is attended by Treachery, Abuse of Superior Strength. From the mere
crime of Homicide where in the penalty is reclusion temporal, it will change the nature of the crime
to Murder with a higher penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Those enumerated under Art 248, Murder. Such circumstances qualify Homicide into Murder and
to increase the imposable penalty.
In case of qualifying aggravating circumstance, for example, A killed B there was treachery, it was
done in consideration of a price, reward or promise, there was also cruelty, so there are three
qualifying aggravating circumstances present. Only one of them will qualify the killing to murder.
So, if treachery is already proven, the crime committed is already murder. Cruelty and the other
circumstance of in consideration of a price, reward or promise shall only be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances.
While Justifying Circumstances, Exempting and Mitigating Circumstances are not alleged in the
Information because they are not for the prosecution to prove, they are for the defense to prove so
as to lower the imposable penalty or exempt the offender from criminal liability. BUT not in
Aggravating Circumstances, because whatever be the crime, in order for it to be considered against
the accused, it must be both alleged in the Information and proven during trial.
If it is not alleged in the Information even if proven during trial, the court cannot consider it
because in doing so the court has deprived the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him because the effect of an aggravating circumstance is to increase the
imposable penalty, he must be given the opportunity to rebut the presence of the said aggravating
circumstance.
I. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
 • Only a public officer can take advantage of his public position in the commission of the
crime. Therefore, this aggravating circumstance can be applied only if the offender is a
public officer.
• In committing the crime, the public officer had taken advantage of his public position.
Q: When can it be said that the public officer had taken advantage of his public position in the
commission of the crime?
A: When the offender use, misuse, or abuse his public position in order to commit the crime or to
facilitate the commission of the crime. The public officer took advantage of the prestige, influence,
or ascendency that his office affords him in order to commit the crime or to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
While under Art. 14, taking advantage of one’s public position in the commission of the crime is
a mere generic aggravating circumstance, under Art. 62 as amended by RA 7659, it is a special
aggravating circumstance because the law provides that the maximum penalty should be the one
imposed.
The moment the crime is committed by a public officer and the public officer took advantage of
his public position to commit the crime, the maximum penalty shall be imposed, EXCEPT, when
it is inherent in the commission of the crime.
II. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.
Elements:
• That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the discharge of his function;
• That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed;
• That the offender knows him to be a public authority; and
• That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the offender from the committing
the crime.
This is considered as an aggravating circumstance because of the offender’s lack of respect of
lawful authorities. He knows that a lawful authority was present when he was committing the crime
but nevertheless proceeded in the commission of the crime.
1. That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the discharge of his function;
It is necessary that the said public authority is discharging his functions at the time that the crime
was committed.
Q: Who is a public authority?
A: Public authority or a person in authority is any person directly vested with jurisdiction whether
an individual or some members of court or governmental commissioner. It is necessary that he has
the duty to govern and execute the laws. Example: Mayors, barangay chairman. Police officer is
merely an agent of a person in authority.
2. That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed;
That the public authority concerned must not be the victim. If he is the victim, then this aggravating
circumstance will be inherent because if he himself is the one attacked or assaulted, it will be
considered as Direct Assault. In case of Direct Assault, in contempt of or with insult to public
authorities is an inherent element. In fact, it is the very essence of the crime.
3. That the offender knows him to be a public authority.
There must be knowledge on the part of the offender that the said person is a public authority.
Otherwise, it cannot be said that he disrespected the said person as a public authority if he has no
knowledge that he is a public authority.
4. That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the offender from the commission of
the crime.
For this circumstance to be appreciated it is necessary that the crime was committed in the presence
of public authorities while the latter is engaged in the performance of their official duties. So even
if there is a public authority at the time of the commission of the crime the offender still committed
the crime, and the presence of such authorities did not prevent the offender from making the crime.
III. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the
latter has not given provocation.
There are four aggravating circumstances under this paragraph:
• Disregard of rank
• Disregard of age
• Disregard of sex
• Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party
These four aggravating circumstances can be appreciated singly or collectively if present in the
commission of the crime.
Disregard of rank, disregard of age and disregard of sex can only be considered in crimes against
persons, those under Title 8 (Homicide, Murder, Physical Injuries) and in crimes against honor,
those under Title 13 (Libel, Oral Defamation, Slander by Deed). This is not considered in crimes
against property, in crimes against public interest, in crimes against public order.
Disregard of rank
Rank refers to a high social standing, a high position in the society. For this to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance, it is necessary that the offender be of lower rank than that of the
offended party.
If there is evidence that the said offender has disregarded or disrespected the high social standing
of the victim in society.
Examples:
 • A student attacking a professor. There was a disregard of rank of the said professor.
• An employee attacking his employer. There was a disregard of rank of the said employer.
Disregard of age
When in the commission of the crime, the offender disrespected or disregarded the minor age or
the senior age of the victim.
Examples:
1. The offended party is 95 years old. A killed him by hitting his head for 25 times with a lead
pipe. Obviously, there was disregard of his age. Considering his age, whereas even one hit of the
lead pipe could have already killed the said old man but he was hit 25 times showing disregard of
the age of the old man.
2. What if a child is 4 years old. He was stabbed 25 times, thereafter his body was placed inside a
dram filled with water and then the dram was covered. There was disregard of age. The victim was
a minor and therefore any attack, just 1 stab, could have killed the minor. But he was stabbed 25
times; not only that, but he was also submerged and the drum was covered, which shows disrespect
of age. If there was disrespect of age and there was also treachery, the aggravating circumstance
to be considered is treachery because it absorbs disrespect of age.
Disregard of sex
When in the commission of the crime, the offender disregarded or disrespected the womanhood of
his victim. Disrespect of sex refers to the female sex. This is inherent in the crime of rape and in
certain crimes involving chastity.
Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party
• Dwelling is considered as aggravating circumstance if the crime is committed inside the
dwelling of the offended party, that is, the offended party was inside his dwelling at the
time of the commission of the crime and he has not given any provocation.
• If the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, it is as an aggravating
circumstance because it shows the greater perversity of the offender than when the crime
is committed in any other place. It is because the constitution itself provides that a man’s
abode
Reason is: It reveals the offender’s greater criminality. He violated the enshrined right in the
Constitution which is the right to privacy of one’s abode. Instances where in even if a crime is
committed inside the dwelling of the victim, dwelling will not be considered as an aggravating
circumstance:
• if the offended has given provocation
• if the offender and the offended party are living in the same dwelling
• when dwelling is inherent in the commission of the crime.
So, in these three instances, even if the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended
party, dwelling is not considered as an aggravating circumstance. Dwelling refers to any building
or structure which is used for rest or comfort, it also includes the dependencies attached, the
staircase, and the enclosures therein.
For dwelling to be considered, ownership is immaterial. It suffices that the offended party uses the
said dwelling for his rest and comfort. He may be a mere tenant, lessee, bed spacer, for as long as
he uses the said place for his rest and comfort, which is considered as his dwelling.
IV. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
There are two aggravating circumstances:
• Abuse of confidence
• Obvious ungratefulness
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
Elements:
• That the offended party had trusted the offender;
• That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime against the offended party;
• That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
When the offender is not being grateful for what had been done for him by the victim. For this
aggravating circumstance to be considered, the ungratefulness must be obvious. It must be
apparent.
Elements:
• That the offended party had trusted the offender;
• That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime against the offended party;
• That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
V. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
These are all places that needs to be respected but the offender committed the crime in these places.
He disrespected the said places. Therefore, it reveals his greater criminality in the commission of
the crime. Hence, it will result in the increase of the imposable penalty.
1. In the palace of the Chief Executive
Regardless of a political or social function or any affair inside the Malacañang, if the crime is
committed there, it will be an aggravating circumstance.
In order however for these aggravating circumstances to be considered, it is necessary that the
offender deliberately sought the said place to commit the crime because otherwise it cannot be said
that he disrespected the place.
2. In the presence of the Chief Executive
Even if the Chief Executive is doing an act in his private capacity, it will always be an aggravating
circumstance for the lack of respect to the chief executive.
3. Where the Public Authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties
It is necessary that at the time of the commission of the crime, the public authorities are actually
discharging their duties. Therefore, it will not suffice that it is a public office. It is also an additional
requirement that at the time of the commission of the crime, these public authorities are performing
their public functions to show disrespect of lawful authority.
4. In a place dedicated to religious worship
If a crime is committed in a place dedicated to religious worship, it is always an aggravating
circumstance. It is immaterial whether there is a religious ceremony or a religious function on
going. It suffices that the place is one dedicated for religious worship, it reveals the offender’s
greater criminality in committing the crime.
VI. That the crime be committed at the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the crime.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of the
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
There are three aggravating circumstances:
1. NIGHTTIME
• from sunset to sunrise
The offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness either to facilitate the commission of the
crime, which is to insure the commission of the crime or to insure or afford impunity. OR because
of the darkness of the night, no one will be able to recognize him.
However, the moment there is any light that could illuminate the place of the scene of the crime,
even if the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness, it will not be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
In the case of People vs. Sibbu, nighttime was not considered because the place was illuminated
by Christmas lights. Therefore, any light illuminating the scene of the crime, nighttime is no longer
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
2. AN UNINHABITED PLACE
• Means a place which is far from town, far from other houses.
Requisites:
• That the place where the crime is committed, there is little or remote of possibility for the
victim to receive some help; and
• The offender deliberately sought and took advantage of the uninhabited place in order to
insure the commission of the crime.
3. BY A BAND
• When more than three (at least four) armed malefactors should have acted (all) together in
the commission of the crime.
VII. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.
If the crime is committed in the occasion of any of these calamities or misfortunes, it shows the
greater criminality on the part of the offender. In times of calamities, they ought to help one another
but here comes the offender, taking advantage of the said calamity/misfortune and committed the
crime.
The mere fact that the offender the crime on the occasion of these calamities, it will already be an
aggravating circumstance and note, if the crime committed is that of a killing of a person, it is a
qualifying aggravating circumstance. Because par.(7) of Art. 14 is included under Art. 248 as a
qualifying aggravating circumstances for murder.
VIII. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
It means that the act of perpetrator of the crime was assisted, was aided, was helped by armed
persons. Therefore, the armed persons participation may be direct or indirect. They are mere
accomplices as opposed to a band. In case of a band, all the armed men participated in the
commission of the crime. They acted together in the commission of the crime in case of a band.
Aid of armed men By a band
There is no requisite as to the number of The law requires a number of persons, that is,
armed men who aided the actual perpetrator at least 4 armed malefactors.
of the crime.
It is not necessary that the armed men acted It is necessary that the armed men must have
together in the commission of the acted together in the actual commission of the
crime because the armed men merely aided crime.
the actual perpetrator of the crime and their
participation may either be a direct or indirect
participation in the commission of the crime.

IX. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have previously been convicted
by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
Elements:
• That the offender is on trial for one crime;
• That at the time of said trial, he was previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime;
• That both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the code; and
• That the offender is convicted of the second offense charged.
It is necessary that he is facing a trial. It is necessary that he is convicted by final judgment of a
first crime. It must be by final judgment. It is necessary also that it is in the second crime or in the
new conviction, that the judge will apply recidivism as an aggravating circumstance.
Recidivism is a mere generic aggravating circumstance. It applies to all kinds of crimes. There
must be at least two convictions. The first conviction on the first crime committed must be a
conviction by final judgment. The second conviction must be for the new crime in which he is on
trial. It is not a conviction by final judgment because it is on this second conviction wherein the
judge will appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance.
Q: How do you prove Recidivism?
A: The State through the Public Prosecutor must present the conviction by final judgment of the
first crime. A mere certification coming from the court of the said conviction for the first crime
must be presented before the court hearing the second crime. A mere certification will suffice
because it is a public document.
X. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
This is otherwise known as “Reiteracion”
Elements:
• That the accused is on trial for an offense;
• That he previously served sentence for another crime to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty; and
• That he is also convicted of the new offense.
The first element requires just like recidivism, the accused is on trial for a new crime. It is also
necessary that at the time he is facing trial for the new crime, he has been previously convicted
and has served sentence for a former crime that he has committed which carries a penalty equal to
or greater than that of this new crime.
If there are only two crimes committed, what the law requires is that the first crime to which the
accused has served sentence must carry a penalty equal to or greater than that of the new crime. It
is the first crime that must carry a penalty equal to or greater than that of the new crime.
But if there are three crimes committed, what the law requires is that the first two crimes of which
he has served sentence must carry lighter penalties than that of the new crime.
Reiteracion is a generic aggravating circumstance, it applies to all kinds of crimes. Just like
recidivism, reiteracion requires that there must be at least two convictions. However, unlike
recidivism wherein a conviction by final judgment will suffice insofar as the first crime, in
reiteracion, what the law requires that the offender has already been punished. The offender has
already served sentence for the first crime that he has committed. A mere conviction by final
judgment will not suffice.
Recidivism Reiteracion
It is only required that there is a first It is required that he has served out his
conviction by final judgment. sentence for the previous crime that he has
committed.
The law requires that the two crimes be The crimes must not be embraced in the same
embraced in the same title of the Code. title of the Code.

FOUR FORMS OF HABITUALITY:

• Recidivist
• Reiteracion
• Habitual Delinquency
• Quasi-recidivist
Recidivism
There must be at least two convictions
It is necessary that the crimes are embraced in
the same title of the Code
Quasi-Recidivism
There must be two convictions (first by final
judgment and second for the second crime
that he has committed)
There is no such requisite, the only requisite
is that the second crime committed by the
offender must be a felony

Recidivism Habitual Delinquency

There must be at least two convictions.
Convictions are for crimes covered by the
same title of the RPC.
No prescriptive period on the commission of
the first offense. Time frame between
commission of the two crimes is irrelevant.
Generic aggravating circumstance that may be
offset by a mitigating circumstance
There must be at least three convictions.
Convictions are for falsification, robbery,
estafa, serious physical injuries, and/or less
serious physical injuries
Prescriptive period between the last
conviction or release for the above felonies
and the 3rd or later conviction is 10 years.
Cannot be offset by a mitigating
circumstance; Provides an additional penalty

XI. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

This aggravating circumstance can be considered both against the person who gave the price,
reward, or promise, which is the principal by inducement and the person who received the price,
reward, or promise, in order to commit the crime, the principal by direct participation.
It is necessary that these must be the primary reason why the crime has been committed. It is the
sole consideration why the crime has been committed by the principal by direct participation.
If the price, reward, or promise, as a circumstance is present in the killing of a person, it is not
considered as a generic aggravating person but a qualifying aggravating circumstance. It is one of
the qualifying circumstances under Art. 248.
XII. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
If the crime is committed by any of this means, it will be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance but if the crime committed by the use of any of these means is that of killing a person,
it will not only be a generic aggravating circumstance, but also a qualifying aggravating
circumstance under Article 248. It qualifies the killing to murder.
XIII. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
The following are the requisites of evident premeditation;
• The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
• An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination;
• Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his acts.
If present, qualifying aggravating circumstance – from homicide, it becomes murder. You never
consider this circumstance in crimes against property.
XIV. That the craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
Craft means intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by the accused, so that he will be able to
carry out his evil design.
Fraud or deceit is manifested by the use of insidious words or machinations resorted to by the
accused so that the offended party will perform an act that will make the offender do the crime
easily.
Disguise - ways and means resorted to by the accused to conceal his identity.
This three can be considered singly, or collectively depending on absence and presence.
XV. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
The requisites for abuse of superior strength are the following:
 • That there be a notorious disparity of forces between the offender and the offended party
in terms of their age, size, and strength; and
• That the offender took advantage of this disparity of forces to facilitate the commission of
the crime.
Inequality of forces:
• Victim is unarmed
• Numerical superiority;
• Difference in physical characteristics such as age strength and size.
Should show evidence that the offender took advantage of his superiority in order to facilitate the
crime. Otherwise, it cannot be appreciated.
XVI. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
The following are the elements of treachery;
• That the offender deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him; and
• That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself.
This will not apply if the crime committed is in the spur of the moment. (first element is lacking)
XVII. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
Ignominy is a moral circumstance which adds disgrace or humiliation, embarrassment, to the
injury suffered by the victim.
XVIII. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
XIX. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window
be broken.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
In correlation to this, paragraph 19 states that as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof,
floor, door, or window be broken.
In 18, the accused enter first before committing the crime. These two are inherent in the crime of
robbery by using force upon things.
XX. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means
of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by R.A.
5438)
BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE
If the crime is committed with the use of motor vehicle in killing a person, it is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance under article 248.
If the motor vehicle is used in the commission of any other crime, it is a mere generic aggravating
circumstance.
AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS
If the crime committed makes use of minors under 15 years of age, it shows the greater perversity
of the offender because he knows that minors cannot be arrested, plus the lack of intelligence.
Persons below 15 years of age cannot be prosecuted, it is among the exempting circumstances.
Therefore, it shows greater perversity.
XXI. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing
other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
Cruelty is the additional physical pain aside from the material injury which is not necessary to the
commission of the crime. Aside from the commission of an unlawful act, the accused is doing
another act, an additional physical pain.
The following are the elements of cruelty;
• That at the time of the infliction of the physical pain, the offended party is still alive;
• That the offender enjoys and delights in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction
of the physical pain;
Ex: Adding cigarette burns before killing a victim
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of
the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended
party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance
when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional,
it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Alternative circumstances are those circumstances which can either be aggravating or mitigating,
depending on their effect in commission of the crime.
• Relationship;
 • Intoxication;
• Degree of Instruction or Education
RELATIONSHIP AS ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
Relationship as an Absolutory Cause
In certain crimes against property, relationship of the offender with the offended party is
exempting.
Example:
• Theft;
• Estafa or swindling; and
• Malicious mischief;
Under article 332 if the crime committed is theft, estafa or swindling, and malicious mischief,
relationship exempts the offender from criminal liability. Intent is to ensure the harmony within
the family.
Relationship is aggravating when the crime committed is serious physical injuries or less serious
physical injuries. Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide and qualified seduction to a
sister.
INTOXICATION AS ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
There is intoxication when the offender has taken such amount of liquor of sufficient quantity as
to affect his mental capacity to determine the consequences of his act.
Intoxication as mitigating
Intoxication is considered as a mitigating circumstance if it is not habitual or subsequent to the
plan to commit the felony.
Degree of Education as Mitigating Circumstance
As a rule, a low degree of education or instruction is considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Exception: if the crime committed is inherently evil or wrong.
Example: Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking the personal property of another. Such is
as wrong as to a learned man as it is to an ignorant man.
Degree of Education as Aggravating Circumstance
A high degree of education is considered as an aggravating circumstance if the offended makes
use of his high degree of education in facilitating the commission of the crime.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Absolutory Causes are those circumstance which have the effect in Article 12. Absolutory causes
exempts a person from criminal liability but not from civil liability.
Examples:
• Mistake of fact;
• Instigation;
• Accessories in Light felonies; and
• Death or serious physical injuries under exceptional circumstances
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Extenuating circumstances are those which have the same effect as mitigating circumstance but
not included in Article 13, to lower the imposable penalty.
Example:
A mother killed her own child (Infanticide) less than 3 days old in order to conceal her dishonor.
The penalty here will be lowered by 2 degrees, from reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty will
be prision mayor.
Intentional abortion - intentionally kills the fetus out of her womb [abortion] - Ordinary mitigating
circumstance
Slight illegal detention - mitigate by 1 degree- privilege mitigating.
Instigation
In instigation, the mens rea originated from the mind of the public officer who only lured the
offender to commit the crime. By public policy, the officer is criminally liable (principal by
inducement) and not the supposed accused, who is exempted.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because entrapment refers to ways and means resorted to
by the public officer in order to trap and capture a criminal in flagrante delicto. Here, the mens rea
originated from the mind of the offender.
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
Principals
The person who can be held liable for the commission of a felony are principals, accomplices, and
accessories. We have three kinds of principals, they are:
• Principals by direct participation; those who directly take part in the execution of the crime.
• Principal by induction or inducement; those who directly force or use others to commit the
crime.
• Principal by indispensable cooperation; those who cooperates in the commission of the
crime by another act without which the crime would not have been consummated.
Both the principal/s by direct participation and the principal/s by indispensable cooperation must
be present at the scene of the crime as far as the principal by direct participation is concerned, he
is the one who directly executes the crime. Without him there is no crime.
As far as the principal by direct cooperation he performs another act which is indispensable without
which the crime would not have been committed. Therefore, both must be present.
However, a principal by induction or inducement need not be present at the scene of the crime
even if he is not in the scene of the crime, if the following elements are proven, he can be held
liable as principal by induction:
• The inducement must be made directly with the deliberate intent of procuring the
commission of the crime; and
• The inducement must be the primary reason or the main consideration as to why the
principal by direct participation committed the crime.
If these two elements are present, even if he is the not person actually committing the crime, he
can be held liable as a principal by induction or principal by inducement. In movies, he is the
mastermind and the mastermind usually does not appear at the time of the commission of the crime.
Therefore, if these are present, he can still be liable as a principal by inducement or induction.
Accomplices
Those, not being principals, cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous
acts. Before one may be considered as an accomplice, the following are the elements:
• That there exist a community of design;
• That the offender performs acts previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime;
and
• That there is a direct relation between the acts done by the principal and those actually
committed by the accomplice.
The first element requires that there must be a community of design.
Community of design - This occurs when the principals, after the authoring of the criminal design,
informs the accomplice, when the accomplice concurs with the said criminal design related to him
by the principal, there is community of design. So, it is the accomplice’s concurrence of the
criminal design that he has been after and decided by the principal and after concurred he performs
acts previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. There must be a direct relation
between the acts of the principal and those of the accomplice.
Accessories
Accessories are those who having knowledge of the commission of the crime and without having
participated therein as principals or accomplices take part subsequent to its commission in any of
the following manners:
• By profiting themselves or assisting to profit by the effects of the crime
• By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or effects or instruments thereof in order
to prevent its discovery
• By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal provided the accessory
acts with the use of his public function or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
 treason, parricide, murder, and attempted to take the life of the chief executive or some
who have been found habitually guilty of some other crime.
If the principal offers the said criminal design and the accomplice concurs with the criminal design,
an accessory does not know the criminal design. An accessory never concurred with the criminal
design. Hence, he has no knowledge prior to the commission of the crime. What the accessory
knows is that a crime has been committed.
Accessories are those having knowledge of the commission of the crime therefore what he knows
is that a crime has been committed he does not know anything prior to the commission of the
crime. He has nothing to do with the criminal design. However, he knows a crime has been
committed. And despite the fact he knows, he takes part subsequent, therefore his participation is
under the commission of the crime.
Note that accessories in light felonies are not criminally liable since they are not included in the
enumeration of those criminally liable for light felonies under Article 16 of the RPC.
Fencing is present when the following elements are present:
• That a crime of robbery or theft was committed;
• That the offender who is neither a principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft
was found in the possession of any article, item, object, or anything of value which is the
proceeds of robbery or theft;
• That the offender knows or should have known that the thing in his possession is the
proceeds of robbery or theft; and
• There is on the part of the offender intent to gain either for himself or for another.
Fencing, however, is exclusive only if the crime committed by the principal is robbery or theft.
Therefore, it would not apply if the crime committed is another crime outside of robbery and theft.
In case of an accessory, the law requires the prosecution must prove, proof of knowledge on the
part of the accessory that a crime has been committed. The burden is on the prosecution to prove
that this offender charged as an accessory knows that a crime has been committed. That is not
required in fencing because in fencing, it suffices that it should have been known to the fence that
the thing was the proceeds of robbery or theft.
Under P.D. 1612, mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which
has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Fencing is not a continuing crime. Therefore, the person accused of fencing can only be prosecuted
before the courts of the place where the stolen items were found.
The second act of an accessory by concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the
instruments thereof for the purpose of preventing its discovery therefore it is either the intention
of the offender in concealing or destroying the body or the instruments used, or the effects thereof
is to prevent the discovery of the crime. If he has any other purpose other than that of preventing
the discovery, he cannot be held liable as an accessory.
Substance of the crime or body of the crime - refers to the fact that a crime has been committed by
someone.
Two Elements:
• Proof of the occurrence of a certain intent; and
• Proof of a person’s criminal responsibility therefor.
But if the crime does not refer to the deceased body of the victim even if the body of the victim
were thrown in the sea and could no longer be seen. If someone has witnessed the act of killing
and the act of throwing, then the body of the crime may be considered could still be proof of the
commission of the said crime by the accused.
In the crime of robbery and theft, the thing taken is the not the purpose. There is no need to present
the thing taken. Definitely, if the thief has hidden the stolen things, the prosecution will not be able
to locate them, let alone photograph them and present them in court. Therefore, it cannot be
considered as the body of the crime or the responsibility. If someone can testify to the said act of
taking there can still be proof of the robbery or theft.
By harboring or concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal. Under the third act there are
two kinds of an accessory:
• Public officer
• Private individual.
If he is a public officer, the crime committed by the principal can be any crime provided that in his
act of harboring or concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal the public officer acted
within his public function.
If, however the offender who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal happens to
be a mere private individual the law requires that the said principal must be guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, an attempt to take the life of the chief executive or is habitually guilty of some
other crime.
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect
to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within
the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
If the accessory who assisted in the escape of the principal, if the who accessory conceals or
destroys the body happens to be a spouse, ascendant, descendant legitimate, natural, or adopted
brothers and sisters or relatives in the same degree he is exempted from criminal liability.
However, if the act performed by the said accessory relative is the first act, by profiting himself or
assisting, the said relative even if he is a relative the exemption would not apply. So, this exemption
for relatives would only apply if the act done would be that of the second as well as the third act
but not the first act.
In case that a person cannot be held liable as an accessory due to Art. 20 of the RPC, that person
can still be liable for obstruction of justice in violation of P.D. 1829.
The following acts are considered as obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829:
• Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force, or threats;
• Altering, destroying, suppressing, or concealing any paper, record, document, or object,
with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as
evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in
the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
• Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction;
• Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution
or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal
circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
• Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court
orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in the office of the Tanodbayan, or
in the courts;
• Making, presenting, or using any record, document, paper, or object with knowledge of its
falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
• Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
• Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honor, or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a
person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
and
• Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing
or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
PENALTIES
Penalties refers to punishment, imposed by lawful authority upon a person who has committed an
intentional felony or a culpable felony.
Congress makes the penal laws which provide the punishments for crimes. Judges can only impose
the penalties provided by law.
There are two kinds of penalties:
• Principal
o Principal penalties are penalties prescribed by law or prescribed by the court.
• Accessory
o Accessory penalties are those which are necessarily included in the imposition of
principal penalties.
o These accessory penalties need not be indicated in the judgement of conviction.
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those
included in the following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
• Death.
o The imposition of the death penalty has been suspended under R.A. 9346.
o Death penalty is still a penalty for heinous crimes. It is just that it cannot be
implemented.
Afflictive penalties:
• Reclusion perpetua,
• Reclusion temporal,
• Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
• Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
• Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
• Prision correccional,
• Arresto mayor,
• Suspension,
• Destierro.
Light penalties:
• Arresto menor,
 • Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
• Fine, and
• Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties
• Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
• Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
• Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
• Civil interdiction,
• Indemnification,
• Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
• Payment of costs.
A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive
penalty, if it exceeds 1,200,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 1,200,000 pesos
but is not less than 40,000 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 40,000 pesos.
The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce
the following effects:
• The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender >may have held
even if conferred by popular election.
• The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected
to such office.
• The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of
the rights mentioned.
o In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the sentence.
• The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.
The penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office, profession or
calling shall produce the following effects:
• The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;
• The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during
the term of the sentence according to the extent of such disqualification.
o The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of
suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the sentence,
according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election
for any public office or to be elected to such office.
o Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the
period of his disqualification.
The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage
shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or
right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions
during the period of his suspension.
DEATH (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)
Under RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed.
SEC. 2 of RA 9346: in lieu of death penalty it shall be reclusion perpetua in case of violation of
the RPC and life imprisonment in case of violation of Special Penal Laws.
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will
be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
The phrase “without the benefit of parole” is required to be stated if the proper penalty would have
been death had it not been for R.A. 9346.
If the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, the phrase “without the benefit of parole” does not need
to be stated since it is already provided by law.
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment
Imposed when the crime is penalized under Imposed when the crime is penalized under
the Revised Penal Code special penal laws
Duration is from 20 years and 1 day to 40 Duration is not fixed
years
Carries the accessory penalties provided by Does not carry any accessory penalties
the RPC

RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of reclusion temporal is 12 years and 1
day to 20 years.
PRISION MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of Prision mayor shall be from six (6)
year and one day to twelve (12) years.
DISQUALIFICATION
Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification Perpetual or Temporary Special
Disqualification may be either a principal penalty or an accessory penalty.
Principal Penalty
As a principal penalty, the duration of temporary absolute or special disqualification shall be from
six (6) year and one day to twelve (12) years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accessory Penalty
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of temporary special or absolute
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual absolute disqualification are the following;
• Death; (thirty years following the date of sentence)
• Reclusion perpetua; and
• Reclusion temporal
The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual special disqualification of the right of suffrage
are the following;
• Prision mayor; and
• Prision correccional
Permanent Absolute Disqualification Temporary Absolute Disqualification
Effective during the lifetime of the convict Disqualification lasts during the term of the
and even after the service of the sentence sentence, and is removed after the service of
the sentence, except:
1. Deprivation of the Public
office/employment;
2. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or
pension for any office formerly held.

CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
PRISION CORRECCIONAL AND DESTIERRO
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalties of prision correccional
shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
DESTIERRO
Under Article 87 of the Revised Penal Code, any person sentenced to destierro shall not be
permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place
designated.
Destierro is a principal penalty and has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years
under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code,
SUSPENSION
Suspension may either be a principal penalty or an accessory penalty.
Suspension as principal penalty
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalties of destierro shall be from
six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
Suspension as accessory penalty
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of destierro is imposed as an
accessory penalty, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
ARRESTO MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be
from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
LIGHT PENALTIES
ARRESTO MENOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be
from one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
PUBLIC CENSURE
A principal and indivisible penalty that has no fixed duration.
PENALTIES COMMON TO THE THREE CLASSESS
FINE
A pecuniary penalty which is imposed by the court in case of the judgment of conviction. Instead
of imprisonment, the penalty imposed is fine.
Article 26 of the Revised Penal determines whether a fine is afflictive, correctional, or light
penalty.
Scale of Penalty Amount of Fine
Afflictive Penalty Exceeds ₱1,200,000.00
Correctional Penalty Exceeds ₱40,000.00 but does not exceed
₱1,200,000.00
Light Penalty Does not exceed ₱40,000.00

BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE

Under Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code, It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give
bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will
not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they
will pay the amount determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount
in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.
Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty.
BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
Bond to keep the peace is different from bond for good behavior.
Under Article 284 of the Revised Penal Code, in cases of grave threats and light threats, the person
making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he
shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
Bond to Keep the Peace Bond for Good Behavior
May be applied to all cases; Applicable only to cases of grave threats and
light threats;
Failure to post a bond to keep the peace If a person fails to post a bond for good
results to imprisonment either for six (6) behavior , he shall be sentenced to destierro;
months or thirty (30) days depending on
whether the felony committed is grave or less
grave on one hand, or a light felony on the
other;

ACCESSORY PENALTIES
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Under Article 34 of the Revised penal Code, Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during
the time of his sentence the following rights;
• Rights of parental authority;
• Guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward;
• Marital authority,
• The right to manage his property; and
• The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.
The offender sentenced to civil interdiction may still make a last will and testament because the
prohibition to dispose property extends only to inter vivos and not to mortis causa. Donation may
also be made by the offender provided that it shall take effect after death or mortis causa.
Civil Interdiction is always an accessory penalty in case of the following principal penalties;
• Death;
• Reclusion perpetua;
• Reclusion temporal;
FORFEITURE AND CONFISCATION
Under Article 45 of the Revised penal Code, every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony
shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with
which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles
which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed by the proper government agency.
PAYMENT OF COST
Cost means the expenses of litigation.
Under Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code, costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course
of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined
by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
Q: Who shall pay the cost?
A: If an accused is convicted of a crime, cost shall be adjudged against him. However, in case of
acquittal, each party must bear his own loss and pay their respective costs.
In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary
liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:
• The reparation of the damage caused.
• Indemnification of consequential damages
• The fine.
• The cost of the proceedings.
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (ARTICLE 38) PECUNIARY PENALITIES (ARTICLE 25)
Imposed by the court in case of conviction but Imposed by the court in case of conviction as
not as penalty; a penalty;

PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Preventive Imprisonment is the detention of accused while the case against him is ongoing trial
either because;
• The crime he committed is a non-bailable offense and evidence of guilt is strong; or
• The crime committed is a bailable offense but he does not have the funds to post the bail
imposed by the court.
Preventive imprisonment ensures that the accused will not escape while their trial is pending.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused be credited to his final
sentence?
A: YES. As a general rule, Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code states that offenders who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases;
• When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any
crime; and
• When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily;
Q: What is the effect if the detention prisoner does not abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners?
A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, if the detention prisoner does not agree to abide
by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service
of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment.
In both acceptance and refusal by the detention prisoner to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed on convicted prisoners, the same must be done in writing and with the assistance of
counsel.
Q: What is the effect if the accused has undergone imprisonment for a period equal to or more than
the maximum imprisonment for the offense charged?
A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the
offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding
on appeal, if the same is under review.
In case the accused failed to appear in the succeeding proceedings, the judge may serve a warrant
of arrest for non-compliance with the conditions for his release.
Preventive imprisonment for Destierro
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment be deducted in case of destierro?
A: YES. Because destierro also involves deprivation of liberty and has a fixed duration of six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
NOTE: If detention has already exceeded the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense
charged but his case is not yet terminated, file a case for Habeas Corpus for the immediate release
of the accused.
PARDON
There are two kinds of pardon;
• Pardon by the offended party; (Article 23)
• Pardon by the President; (Article 36)
Pardon by the offended party
Under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon of the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the
interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
Example;
X killed Y. The relatives of Y filed a complaint for homicide against X. thereafter, X asked
forgiveness from the relatives of Y. The relatives of Y accepted the apology of X and thereby
granted him a pardon.
Q: Will the pardon of the offended party extinguish the criminal liability of the offender in
homicide?
A: NO. In the crime of homicide, pardon by the offended party will not extinguish the criminal
liability of the offender. Homicide is a public crime and it is essentially more of an offense against
the state rather than the offended party because it causes disturbance or public disorder.
Private Crimes
Pardon by the offended party does will only operate to extinguish the criminal liability in private
crimes as mentioned under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code;
• Adultery;
• Concubinage;
• Seduction;
• Abduction;
• Rape; and
• Acts of lasciviousness;
Example;
X filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Y. during the trial, Y asked for forgiveness
from X. X accepted the apology of Y. Thereafter, X granted Y a pardon.
Pardon prior to Criminal proceedings
For pardon to extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, it must be given prior to the
institution of the criminal action.
Q: Will the pardon of X in the crime of acts lasciviousness against Y operate to dismiss the case
already instituted?
A: NO. Although the crime committed by Y is a private crime under Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code, the case will not be dismissed because it was given after the institution of the criminal
prosecution.
Q: What is the effect of pardon given by X?
A: The pardon of X will only serve as to extinguish the civil liability of Y in the complaint for acts
of lasciviousness.
Regardless of whether private or public crimes, the pardon given by the private complainant must
be prior to the institution of the criminal case.
The grant of pardon by the offended party, when it extinguishes the criminal liability, will also
extinguish the civil liability of the offender since it is deemed a waiver of the civil liability.
Marital Rape
Although the general rule is that pardon must be given prior to the institution of the criminal case,
Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, the subsequent valid marriage between the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
Under Article 266-C of the revised penal Code, in case it is the legal husband who is the offender,
the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated
if the marriage is void ab initio.
Pardon by the President
Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to
hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of
the pardon.
Just like amnesty and parol, the pardon by the president does not extinguish civil liability because
the same is personal to the victim.
2 kinds of pardon by the president;
• Absolute pardon; (Article 89)
• Conditional Pardon; (Article 94)
In addition, presidential pardon does not automatically restore the following rights, unless they are
specifically stated by the terms of the pardon;
• To hold public office;
• To vote and be voted; and
• To exercise his right of suffrage;
Pardon by the President Pardon by the Offended Party
Extinguishes criminal liability Does not extinguish criminal liability whether
public or private crime with the exception of

Does not extinguish civil liability of the
offender
Pardon may only be made after conviction by
final judgment
Marital Rape under Article 266-C and under
Article 344
Extinguishes civil liability as it is deemed as a
waiver of such liability
Pardon must be made before the institution of
the criminal case; only in private crimes

SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Subsidiary Penalty is a substitute penalty for fine in case of insolvency by the accused.
Q: If the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine, may he be imposed of a subsidiary penalty
of imprisonment?
A: NO. Absent any express statement of subsidiary penalty by the court, subsidiary penalty cannot
be imposed even if the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine.
Q: Why must there be an express statement by the court imposing subsidiary penalty?
A: Because it is only a substitute penalty. A subsidiary penalty is not a principal penalty nor an
accessory penalty, but only a substitute penalty for fine.
Rate of Subsidiary Penalty
Under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, if the convict has no property with which to meet the
fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 38 of the Revised Penal Code, he shall be subject to a
subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest
minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of
conviction by the trial court subject to the following rules:
• If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and a fine, he shall
remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied,
but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and
in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner;
• When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony,
and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony;
• When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional and a fine, no
subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit, even when the convict is
insolvent;
• If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution,
but such penalty is of fixed duration (suspension or destierro with fine), the convict, during
the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists;
 o If the penalty in this instance is indivisible (public censure), there is no subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
• The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should
improve. (As amended by R.A. 5465 and R.A. 10159).
Limitations of Subsidiary Penalty
Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed on the following instances;
• If the judgment of the court did not impose fine as a penalty;
• If the judgment of the court did not expressly state that in case of nonpayment of fine, the
convict shall suffer subsidiary penalty;
• If the principal penalty that goes with fine exceeds prision correccional or higher than 6
years;
• If the principal penalty that goes with fine does not have fixed duration;
• If what the convict thinks to pay is not fine but damages and cost;
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
2 Kinds of Complex Crime
There are 2 kinds of complex crime;
• Compound Crime;
• Complex Crime Proper;
In both kinds, only one (1) information is filed and the accused shall suffer the penalty for the most
serious crime in its maximum period.
COMPOUND CRIME
Compound Crime is present when the offender performs a single act which constitutes to two or
more grave or less grave felonies.
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Basis
Basis of compound crime is the singularity of act of the offender.
Elements
The elements of compound crime are the following;
• Offender performs single act;
 • Resulted to two or more less grave felonies
o Basis: Singularity of act
Example; aberratio ictus
A aimed the gun at B. But because of poor aim, it shot C a pedestrian walking. Treachery was
attended. As to B, crime committed is attempted murder. As to C, murder. Crime committed is
attempted murder.
Example;
A political rival placed a bomb on B’s car. A person died; several persons injured. A single act
placing the bomb produces two or more less grave felonies. Crime is murder with multiple
frustrated murder.
If two persons died, the charge is double murder. If three or more persons died, the crime is
multiple murder. There is no complex crime of triple murder.
Example;
X wanted to kill Y. to kill Y, X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When Y and wife and 3 children
opened the car, the bomb exploded. As a result, Y and his wife died. However, the children
survived due to medical treatment.
Q: Is X liable for a complex crime?
A: YES. The single act of X in placing the bomb in the car of Y resulted to 5 grave felonies; the
murder of Y and his wife, and the frustrated murder of the children. The charge should be double
murder with multiple frustrated murder.
Q: In the same problem, what is the crime committed if all of them died?
A: X will be liable for multiple murder because the single act of placing a bomb resulting to 5
grave felonies. There should only be one charge or one information filed in court.
Example;
X is armed with M-16 high powered rifle, machine gun. He went inside the conference room. One
pull of trigger, many bullets came out hitting 5 persons.
Q: is X liable for the complex crime of multiple murder?
A: NO. If the weapon used is a high powered machine gun, the factor to be considered is the
number of bullets which came from the machine gun and the number of people wounded or killed
rather than the single act of pulling the trigger. Thus, X is liable for 5 counts of murder.
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
Complex crime proper is present when the offense is a necessary means commit another offense.
Elements
The following are the elements of complex crime proper;
• Two offenses committed;
• One or more of the offenses committed was/were necessary means to commit the other;
o It is not required that the offenses committed were indispensable to commit the
other offense.
o All that is required is that the offenses committed facilitated the commission of the
other offense.
• Both crimes are punished by the same statute (RPC or special penal law)
Example
The following are examples of complex crime proper;
• Rape with forcible abduction - A was on the ladder of the house, B a woman abducted her
against her will and with lewd design;
• Estafa thru falsification of public document. Person falsifies a public document –
Falsification used to defraud another;
Estafa through falsification of private document
There is no offense of estafa by falsification of private document. In estafa and falsification of
private document, there is only one and the same damage contemplated by both felonies. Thus,
only one charge can be made, either for falsification or estafa, otherwise the prohibition against
the twice recovery for damages will be violated.
If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, the correct charge is falsification. Estafa is
merely a consequence.
If estafa can be committed without falsifying, the proper charge is estafa. Falsification is merely
an incident of estafa.
On the other hand, in falsification of public document, damage is not an element of the offense.
Thus, the charge of estafa thru falsification of public document may exist.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
Special complex crimes exist when, in reality, two or more crimes are committed but in the eyes
of law only one.
It is the law which provides what crimes would be complexed and what crimes go together;
• Robbery with homicide; (Article 294)
• Kidnapping with homicide; (Article 267 as amended by R.A. 7659)
• Rape with homicide; (Article 266-B)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME COMPOUND CRIME
The law specifies the crimes which are Crimes are general;
combined;
 Law provides for the penalty; The penalty for the most serious crime is
imposed in the maximum period;
Light felonies are absorbed; Light felonies committed is a separate and
distinct charge;

DELITO CONTINUADO.
Delicto continuado or continuous crime is present when the offender is impelled by a single
criminal impulse commits a series of overt acts in about the same time and about the same place
violating one and the same provision of law.
Basis
The basis is the singularity of the criminal impulse of the offender.
Elements
In the case of Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) the Supreme Court
established the elements of delito continuado;
• Plurality of acts performed during a period of time;
• Unity of penal provisions violated;
• Unity of criminal purpose or aim;
Example;
A, B, C,D lives in one compound. All engaged in the business of selling rooster. One night, 11:00
in the evening here comes X. While they were sleeping, X took the rooster of A, then of B, then
of C, then of D.
Q: How many crimes will you file against X?
A: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled by a single impulse committed overt acts
leading to theft.
Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993)
Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged in the Sandiganbayan with the Anti-Graft &
Corrupt Practices Act for favoring 32 “unqualified” aliens with the benefits of the Alien
Legalization Program. Defender-Santiago moved for a bill of particulars, contending that unless
she be provided with the names and identities of the “aliens” she would not be able to adequately
prepare for trial. Initially, the public prosecutors stated that they would file only one amended
complaint, but they later filed 32 amended informations, separately naming each of the aliens in
each of the informations. The Sandiganbayan admitted the 32 amended informations.
Q: Was it correct to admit the 32 amended informations?
A: NO. For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period
of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means
that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. In this case, the 32
Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on
or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the application
or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the
approval was embodied in the same document.
CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSE.
In a continuing crime, the offender may be prosecuted in any courts of the place where any of the
crime has been committed. This is more of a concept in remedial law, rather than in criminal law.
Continuing crimes include treason, rebellion, evasion of service of sentence, violation of B.P. 22,
carnapping, etc.
Example;
X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated check to Y in Manila, on the maturity date, Y
deposited the check to his depositary bank in Quezon City. The check however was dishonored by
the drawee bank in Caloocan City. Notice of dishonor was sent. X failed to make good the check.
A complaint was filed against X for violation of B.P. 22.
Q: Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22?
A: The complaint may be filed in any of the court where the elements of the crime occurred.
If the BP 22 case has already been filed in the MTC of Manila, the said case can no longer be filed
before the MTC of Quezon City or Caloocan City.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty prescribed by law for
the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony.
Penalty Imposed
Under Article 46, when the law prescribes a penalty for a felony, it shall be understood to mean
that such penalty shall be imposed upon principals of a consummated felony.
PENALTY IMPOSED UPON ACCESSORIES AND ACCOMPLICES
(Articles 50-57)
Articles 50-57 provides for penalties if the offender is a principal, accomplice or accessory whether
or not the felony is consummated, frustrated, attempted.
CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
PRINCIPALS Penalty prescribed by The penalty lower by A penalty lower by
law for the offense; one degree than that two degrees than that
prescribed by law for prescribed by law for
 the principal of a principal of a
consummated felony; consummated felony;
(Art. 50) (Art. 51)
ACCOMPLICES A penalty lower by The penalty lower by A penalty lower by
one degree than that one degree than one degree than that
prescribed by law for prescribed by law for prescribed by law for
principal of a the principal of a principals of an
consummated felony; frustrated felony; attempted felony;
(Art. 52) (Art. 54) (Art. 56)
ACCESSORIES A penalty lower by The penalty lower by The penalty lower by
two degrees than that two degrees than two degrees than that
prescribed by law for prescribed by law for prescribed by law for
principal of a the principals of a principals of an
consummated felony; frustrated felony; attempted felony;
(Art. 53) (Art. 55) (Art. 57)

Exception
Under Article 60, the provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be
applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:
• Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by
law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
• The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the
crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
• Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the
offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices,
and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
• The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate, or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
• Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
o Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by
law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
 o Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for
the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
o Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon
the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
PARAGRAPH 1.
The following aggravating circumstance shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing penalty;
• Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by
law; or
• Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor;
• Aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof (Par. 2);
Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime especially punishable by law.
Example;
• That the crime be committed by means of fire is not considered as aggravating in arson;
(Art. 14, par. 2)
• The crime be committed by means of derailment of a locomotive shall not be considered
in damages and obstruction to means of communication; (Art. 330)
Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor;
Example;
• The crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party is not aggravating in robbery
with force upon things; (Art. 299)
• Abuse of confidence is not qualified theft committed with grave abuse of confidence; (Art.
310)
PARAGRAPH 2.
The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to
such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
Example;
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and theft;
PARAGRAPH 3.
The following aggravating or mitigating circumstance shall serve to aggravate for mitigate the
liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories;
• Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender; or
• From his private relations with the offended party; or
• From any other personal cause;
Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender
Example;
A and B killed C. A acted with evident premeditation, and B with passion and obfuscation.
Q: How should the aggravating circumstance be appreciated?
A: Evident premeditation should affect and aggravate only the penalty for A, while passion and
obfuscation will benefit B only mitigate his liability.
From his private relations with the offended party.
A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. A is the son of B. C is the father of B.
Q: How does A and C’s relationship with B affect their criminal liability?
A: The alternative circumstance of relationship, as aggravating shall be taken into account against
A only, because he is a relative of a lower degree than the offended party, B.
From any other personal cause In the material execution of the act
A and B committed a crime. A was under 16 years of age and B was a recidivist.
PARAGRAPH 4
The following circumstance shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only
who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein;
• In the material execution of the act; or
• In the means employed to accomplish it;
Example;
A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill D. B and C killed D with treachery, which
mode of committing the offense had not been previously agreed upon by them with A. A was not
present when B and C killed D with treachery.
Q: How should the aggravating circumstance in this case be appreciated?
A: The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not be taken into account against A, but
against B and C only. But if A was present and had knowledge of the treachery with which the
crime was committed by B and C, he is also liable for murder, qualified by treachery.
In the means employed to accomplish it
A ordered B to kill C. B invited C to eat with him. B mixed poison with the food of C, who died
after he had eaten the food. A did not know that B used poison to kill C.
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime that the crime be committed by means of poison
applicable to A?
A: NO. The aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed by means of poison is not
applicable to A.
ORGANIZED OR SYNDICATED CRIME GROUP.
An organized or syndicate crime group consists of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating, and mutually helping another for purposes of gain in the commission of the crime.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs
to an organized/syndicated crime group.
The information charges A, B, C, D as collaborating, confederating and mutually helping another
for purposes of gain in the commission of the crime. This is what the information alleges. Trial
found this so. The judge considered conspiracy and considered this special aggravating
circumstance.
Q: Is the court correct?
A: NO. Before the special aggravating circumstance be considered the court, evidence must show
was held to commit crimes involving gain.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date
of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Elements;
• The crime is specified should be serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa;
• There should be at least three convictions;
• Each convictions must come within ten year from date of release or last conviction of the
previous crime;
Effect
Additional penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period being an aggravating circumstance.
 NUMBER OF CONVICTION PENALTY PRESCRIBED
Third Conviction; The penalty for the last crime of which he be
found guilty.
ADDITIONAL PENALTY:
Prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
Fourth Conviction; The penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty.
ADDITIONAL PENALTY;
Prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods;
Fifth Conviction; The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty.
ADDITIONAL PENALTY;
Prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Limitation
The penalty committed for the crime plus additional penalty should not exceed thirty years.
Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency
Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency may be simultaneously considered because they have
different effects on criminal liability of the offender. Recidivism effect is on the theft committed.
It may be offset by mitigating circumstances. Habitual delinquency will give him additional
penalty.
Example;
A was charged and convicted of robbery he served his sentence. Within 10 years from date of
release he committed theft. He served sentence and again released. Within 10 years he committed
another theft. The judgment become final and executory. He served again and out of prison. Within
10 years against he committed another theft. He is now in trial.
Q: Can the judge impose both recidivism and habitual delinquency?
A: YES. He is recidivist because at the time he served theft he was previously convicted of a final
judgment of robbery embraced within the same title of the code. He is also habitual delinquent,
because within the ten years from the date of his last release he committed a theft the third time.
RECIDIVISM HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Generic aggravating circumstance - Can be Cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
offset; circumstance;
Requires at least two conviction; Requires at least three convictions;
 Felony violated must be within the same title
of the code;
No prescriptive period on the commission of
the offense;
No additional penalty;
The felony violated are serious physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, falsification;
Prescribes in ten years;
Provides additional penalty;

QUASI RECIDIVISM
Under Article 160, a person is said to be a quasi-recidivist if after having been convicted by a final
judgment, he shall commit a felony before serving out his sentence or while service of sentence.
The maximum period shall be imposed.
Again it is a special aggravating circumstance.
* The first crime may be any crime. The second crime must be a felony.
Example;
A, while serving a final judgment, he was found in possession of illegal drugs.
Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
A: NO. The second crime is not a felony, it is a special law.
Example;
If A was serving sentence for possession of illegal drugs and then inside a crime he killed a co-
inmate.
Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
A: YES. Maximum period prescribed by law shall be imposed.
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the application thereof;
• When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance,
the greater penalty shall be applied.
• When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied;
• When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied;
• When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act,
the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number
 and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding
rules, according to the result of such compensation;
Outline of the rules.
• When the penalty is single indivisible, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.
• When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed;
o When there is only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
imposed;
o When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty
shall be imposed;
o When there is a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the
lesser penalty shall be imposed.
o When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
allow them to offset one another;
Example;
The penalty for Rape is reclusion perpetua. If the penalty is single and indivisible, it shall be
imposed as is, without consideration of any Aggravating or Mitigating circumstance
Example;
The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death - two indivisible penalties.
Only one aggravating circumstance.
If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstance of trespass to dwelling, the greater
penalty of death shall be applied;
Two or more aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance
If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of trespass to dwelling and
recidivism, the greater penalty of death shall be applied;
No mitigating nor aggravating circumstance
If there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in attendant, apply the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua;
One mitigating and no aggravating circumstance
If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the
lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;
Two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance
If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and
sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall apply;
If there are two aggravating circumstance and one mitigating circumstance
If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of trespass to dwelling and
recidivism, and the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, one mitigating
circumstance will offset one aggravating circumstance. Since only one aggravating circumstance
is left, the greater penalty of death shall apply;
If there are two mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance
If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and
sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, and the aggravating circumstance of
trespass to dwelling, one mitigating circumstance will offset another aggravating circumstance.
Since only one mitigating circumstance is left, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;
PRIVELEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, apply it first before computing the penalties.
Example;
A was charged with the information of Rape. At the time of the commission of the offense, A was
only 16 years old. After trial, he was sentenced to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. In
his motion for reconsideration, A argues that his penalty should be lowered by one degree because
he is a minor. The judge denied the motion on the ground that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible
penalty and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance.
Q: Is the judge correct?
A: NO. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance which lowers the penalty by one degree.
Indivisible penalties shall be imposed as is regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstance.
However, privilege mitigating circumstance takes preference over prior to the computation of
penalties. In this case, since A was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, his penalty
should be lowered by one degree to reclusion temporal.
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which
the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the
provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the
following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
• When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
• When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
 • When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its maximum period.
• When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
• When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
• Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall
not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
• Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
Degree of penalty
Degree of penalty is a penalty prescribed by law for every crime committed whether divisible or
indivisible.
Period of penalty
A period of penalty refers to the subdivision of every said divisible penalty into three portion, the
first portion is minimum, second is medium, third is maximum
Indivisible penalty
Indivisible penalties are penalties without fixed duration, death, reclusion perpetua, perpetual
absolute disqualification, perpetual special disqualification, public censure, fine.
Divisible penalty
Divisible Penalties are penalties with fixed duration and therefore can be divided into three period.
the first portion is minimum, second is medium, third is maximum
*Memorize the rules under Article 64.
Example;
X and Y had a fight. In the course of the fight, X killed Y. X was charged and convicted of
homicide. The penalty for homicide is Reclusion temporal.
No aggravating and no mitigating.
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.
One mitigating and no aggravating.
If there is voluntary surrender in the part of X, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its minimum
period.
One aggravating and no mitigating.
If X was a recidivist, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Both mitigating and aggravating are present.
If the homicide was committed in the dwelling of Y and X acted on passion and obfuscation, the
aggravating and mitigating circumstance will offset one another and reclusion temporal shall be
imposed in its medium period.
Two mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.
The homicide was committed with passion and obfuscation and X voluntary surrendered. A
penalty one degree lower than reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon X. X shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
Two or more aggravating circumstance.
X committed the crime of homicide with trespass to dwelling and disregard of the age of Y.
regardless of the number of aggravating circumstance present, the court cannot impose a penalty
higher than the maximum period prescribed by law. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period.
Three mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.
If there is sufficient provocation on the part of Y, and voluntarily surrendered and there voluntary
plea of guilt, X shall suffer the penalty lower by one degree than reclusion temporal. Thereafter,
we apply the remaining mitigating circumstance in accordance with the previous rules. Thus, X
will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
Four mitigating circumstance.
X committed homicide with passion and obfuscation when he was suffering from an illness which
would diminish the exercise of his willpower, and thereafter voluntary surrendered and there is a
voluntary plea of guilt. The penalty imposed upon him cannot be lowered by two degrees. Thus,
X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
* In order that the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree, it is necessary that there absolutely is NO
aggravating circumstance.
Even if there are many Mitigating circumstances, as long as there is 1 aggravating circumstance,
you cannot lower the penalty by degrees, it is only by periods.
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance
If present, Privilege Mitigating Circumstance must be applied first prior to the application of
penalties under the Rules of Articles 63 and 64.
Example;
X committed the crime of homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
One privilege mitigating circumstance.
X was a minor at the time he committed homicide. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance
which will lower the imposable penalty by one degree. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium period.
Two privilege mitigating circumstances.
X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide. He argues incomplete self-defense. Minority
and Incomplete self-defense are both privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the
imposable penalty by two degrees. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period.
Two privilege mitigating circumstance and one ordinary mitigating circumstance.
X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide with incomplete self-defense. He voluntarily
surrendered to the persons in authority. Minority and Incomplete self-defense are both privilege
mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty by two degrees. The remaining
ordinary mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. Thus,
X will suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period.
2 privilege mitigating circumstance and 3 ordinary mitigating circumstance.
X was a minor who was suffering an illness which diminishes the exercise of his willpower at the
time he committed the homicide with incomplete self-defense on his part. He voluntarily
surrendered to the persons in authority and thereafter voluntarily plead guilty. Minority and
Incomplete self-defense will lower the imposable penalty by two degrees. The two ordinary
mitigating circumstances will operate to lower the penalty imposed after the application of the two
privilege mitigating circumstance. The remaining ordinary mitigating circumstance shall operate
to make the penalty in its minimum period. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. 4103)
Indeterminate Sentence Law modifies the imposition of penalty. It is applied both to the Revised
Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. It provides for a minimum and max term, such that the
moment the offender serves the minimum of the sentence, he shall be eligible for parole. If granted,
he will serve the remainder of the sentence out of prison, but subject to the supervision of the
parole officer
OBJECTIVES
The following are the objectives of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
• Uplift and redeem valuable human material;
• Avoid unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty;
These objectives are achieved when the moment the offender becomes eligible to apply for parole
and he may be able to serve sentence out of jail.
PAROLE
Parole is the conditional release of the offender form the correctional institution after serving
minimum sentence after showing that he has reformed. Note it does not extinguish criminal and
civil liability.
Requisites;
• He must be placed in prison jail to serve an indeterminate sentence penalty which exceeds
1 year;
• Served minimum term of sentence;
• Board of pardons and parole found that his released is for greater interest of society
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW.
The general rule is that everyone is entitled to the Indeterminate Sentence law. However, this act
shall not apply to the following persons;
• Convicted crime punished by death or life imprisonment; (Reclusion perpetua as held by
the Supreme Court in People v. Enriquez G.R. No.158797, July 29, 2005)
• Those convicted of treason, conspiracy, or proposal to commit treason, misprision of
treason;
• Those convicted of rebellion, sedition, or espionage;
• Those convicted piracy;
• Those who are habitual delinquents; (In People v. Jaranilla, G.R. No. 28547, Feb. 22, 1974,
the Supreme Court ruled that recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate sentence law)
• Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; (In People v. Perez,
44 OG 3884, a minor who escaped from confinement in the reformatory is entitled to the
benefits of the law because confinement is not considered imprisonment).
• Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the President shall have violated the
terms thereof;
• Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
Convicts sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law.
In the concurring opinion of Justice Tinga in the case of (People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No.
171271, August 31, 2006) Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Under
Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is after 'any prisoner shall have served the
minimum penalty imposed on him, that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether
such prisoner may be granted parole. There being no 'minimum penalty imposable on those
convicted to reclusion perpetua, it follows that persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion
perpetua could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Q: is the indeterminate sentence law applicable if the penalty imposed is destierro?
A: NO. Destierro does not involve imprisonment.
Effect of disqualification
If the offender is disqualified for the application of the indeterminate sentence law, he shall be
given a straight penalty. The offender must serve the entire term of his sentence and he is not
eligible for parole.
Example;
A final judgment was rendered against X. He was granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive. He violated the terms and conditions of the said pardon. He was charged with evasion
of service of sentence. He was found guilty by the court.
Q: Can the court impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?
A: NO. X is among those disqualified under the law. By violating the condition of his pardon he
cannot avail of an indeterminate sentence law.
Example;
X has been convicted of final judgment of serious physical injuries, thereafter he committed
homicide and the judge found him guilty of homicide.
Q: Can the judge impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?
A: YES. X is a recidivist. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, only habitual delinquents are
disqualified from availing indeterminate sentence. A recidivist is qualified under the law from
availing the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Example;
X is a minor who was charged and convicted for kidnapping with ransom, the penalty of which is
reclusion perpetua to death. Since minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance, we will lower
the imposable penalty by one degree.
Q: is X qualified under for indeterminate sentence?
A: YES. In applying the indeterminate sentence law, we should consider the imposable penalty
rather than the penalty prescribed by law. In this case, since the penalty of reclusion perpetua was
lowered to reclusion temporal, then X is qualified for indeterminate sentence.
Computation for Indeterminate Sentence Law
In order to arrive at an indeterminate sentence in the violation of the RPC, the following rules must
be considered;
• Get first the maximum term of sentence, that being the penalty imposed with consideration
of all the attendant circumstance in accordance with Article 64 of the RPC;
• From that penalty, lower it by one degree. Do NOT consider anymore the attendant
circumstance. The minimum term of sentence depends upon the sound discretion of the
court.
VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
If the offense is punished by special laws, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
Example;
X committed was charged and convicted of the anti-carnapping law. Section 14 of R.A. 6539
(Anti-Carnapping law) provides a penalty for 17 years and 4 months to 30 years if a person
committed carnapping by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon
things.
Q: Under the indeterminate sentence law, what is the duration of the penalty for the violation of
the anti-carnapping law?
A: Under the indeterminate sentence law, if a special law is violated, the courts may sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence provided that it shall not be less than the minimum or more
than the maximum according to the sound discretion of the judge. Thus, anywhere from 17 years
and 4 months to 30 years may be imposed upon X.
Argoncillo v. CA, G.R. No. 118816, July 10, 1998
The crime committed is illegal fishing with the use of explosives. The penalty prescribed by law
is 20 years to life imprisonment. The judge imposed him the penalty of straight 30 years.
Q: Is the judge correct?
A: NO. The Indeterminate sentence law states that a violation of special penal law and the said
special penal law does not use the enumeration of penalties in the RPC, the maximum term of the
sentence shall not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by law and the minimum term of
sentence shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by law. In this case, since the
penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment, it means that the penalty to be imposed
upon the convict must be an indeterminate sentence. SC said the penalty must be 20 years
(minimum term) to 25 years (maximum term)
Article 64 and Indeterminate Sentence law
The indeterminate sentence law did not repeal Article 34 of the Revised Penal Code. On the
contrary, they are related.
Example;
A abducted B with lewd design. His intention was rape. But before A raped B, A was arrested. A
was charged with the crime of forcible abduction punishable by reclusion temporal.
Q: What is the penalty imposed if there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance?
A: The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in medium period since there are no mitigating
or aggravating circumstance. The minimum term is 1 degree lower in any of its periods according
to the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the imposable penalty is prision mayor in any of its
period to reclusion temporal.
Q: What if there is only one ordinary mitigating circumstance is present?
A: Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in minimum period and the minimum term is Prision
mayor in any of its period according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if there is only one aggravating circumstance is present?
A: The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in its maximum period and the minimum term
is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if both aggravating and mitigating circumstance are present?
A: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period because under article 64
you should offset the circumstances. The minimum term will be one degree lower than reclusion
temporal which is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are 2 aggravating circumstance and 1 ordinary mitigating circumstance present?
A: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period applying the last
aggravating circumstance after offsetting the aggravating circumstance and mitigating
circumstance. The minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its period according to the sound
discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance present?
A: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its medium period. Since there are two ordinary
mitigating circumstances, we lower the imposable penalty by one degree. The minimum term is
prision correccional in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are three mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance present?
A: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its minimum period. The two ordinary mitigating
circumstances shall operate to lower the imposable penalty by one degree, the remaining ordinary
mitigating circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. The minimum
term is prision correccional in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if there are four mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance?
A: The maximum term shall still be prision mayor in its minimum period. In case of ordinary
mitigating circumstance, you can only lower the penalty by one degree. You cannot lower the
penalty by two degrees. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances shall operate to make the
penalty in its minimum period. The minimum term is prision correccional in any of its periods
according to the sound discretion of the court.
* In order that the penalty will be lowered by one degree, it is necessary that there is NO
aggravating circumstance.
Even if there are many mitigating circumstances, for as long as there is one aggravating
circumstance, you cannot lower the penalty by degrees. Only by periods.
Example;
A was charged with the information of rape with mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation, against B. thereafter, A voluntarily surrendered. A convicted of rape and was
punished with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Q: since there are two mitigating circumstance, should the judge lower his penalty by one degree?
A: NO. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code,
if the penalty prescribe by law is a single invisible penalty you shall impose it as it is regardless of
any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
Q: What is the penalty of A if, in addition to the 2 mitigating circumstances above mentioned, A
is a minor at the time of the offense?
A: privilege mitigating circumstance must first be applied prior to the ordinary mitigating
circumstance. Since minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance which lowers the penalty by
one degree, the maximum term is prision mayor in its medium period and the minimum term
prision correccional in any of its range according to the sound discretion of the court.
*Only circumstance that can defeat an indivisible penalty is a privilege mitigating circumstance.
Example;
X was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. X voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
In the trial, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication to a grave offense was in
attendant.
Q: What should be the penalty imposed to X?
A: Since the penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor and there are two other ordinary
mitigating circumstance present, the maximum term of sentence is Prision correccional in its
medium period while the minimum term of sentence. Arresto mayor within the range or.
Q: What is the penalty if, in addition to the facts above mentioned, X is minor committing without
discernment?
A: Since the penalty already imposed upon X is prision correccional, we lower it by one degree
more because minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance. Thus, according to Article 64, the
maximum term is Arresto mayor in its medium period. Indeterminate sentence law is not
applicable if the penalty imposed upon the offender does not exceed one year. In this instance we
cannot give him an indeterminate sentence because the duration of arresto mayor is 1 month to 6
months.
If the maximum term of sentence does not exceed one year, a straight penalty shall be imposed
upon him.
PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A. 10707)
Probation is a disposition by which a convict after conviction and sentence is released subject to
the conditions imposed by the court under the supervision of a probation officer.
Objectives
The following are the objectives of probation law;
• To promote the correction and rehabilitation of the offender because he is placed under a
personalized treatment;
• To provide an opportunity for the reformation of penitent offender;
• To prevent further commission of crimes because the offender is placed under an
individualized treatment;
• To decongest cases; and
• To save the Government from spending much-needed funds when the offender will be
placed behind bars
The first three objectives are based on P.D. 968. The last two purposes are jurisprudential.
Probation as a Privilege
Probation is not a right but a privilege. Thus, even if a convict is not among those disqualified of
probation, the judge can still deny the application. This denial is not appealable. The grant or denial
of application is dependent solely on the sound discretion of the judge.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
The following prisoners are disqualified to avail of probation;
• Those whose maximum term of imprisonment is more than 6 years;
• Those who have been convicted of subversion and crimes against national security;
• Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
• Those who have already availed the benefit of probation;
• Those who have perfected an appeal from judgment of conviction;
• Those convicted of an election offense under the Omnibus Election Code;
• Those convicted of drug trafficking or drug pushing;
• Those who filed a malicious report that a person is committing a violation of Anti-money
laundering law and was convicted because of such malicious filing
Example;
X was charged and convicted for alarms and scandals. He was sentenced to 30 days of arresto
menor.
Q: Can X avail probation?
A: If the felony was committed prior to the amendment of the probation law, X cannot avail
probation. Under P.D. 968, a person who is convicted of a crime involving public disorder cannot
avail probation. The felony of Alarm and Scandal is a crime against public disorder. Thus X cannot
avail probation. However, if the crime was convicted after the amendment, X may avail probation.
Under R.A. 1070, crimes against public disorder is removed from the disqualifications. Thus, X
may avail probations
Q: May probation be availed even if the penalty imposed upon the offender is only a fine?
A: YES. Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A. 10707, Probation may be granted
whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only.
APPEAL AND PROBATION
Generally, under P.D 968, appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. This is because
the reason behind appeal and the reason behind probation are diametrically opposed.
If a person appeals, it means that he is questioning the decision of the court. He is insisting on his
innocence. On the other hand, if a person
applies for probation, it means that he is accepting the judgment of the court. He, however, does
not want to serve his sentence behind bars.
Exceptions;
• However, Section 4 of R.A. 10707 which amended the probation law, states that when a
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and
such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant
shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision
becomes final.
o The application for probation based on the modified decision shall be filed in the
trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty
was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled.
o This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek
a review of the modified decision which already imposes a probationable penalty.
• Section 42 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare act provides that the court may, after it shall
have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any
time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account
the best interest of the child.
o For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.
Colinares v. People (G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011)
Colinares hit Rufino twice in the head with a stone. Thereafter, Colinares was charged and
convicted for frustrated homicide in the regional trial court. He was sentenced to 2 years and 4
months of prision correcional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor. Colinares appealed to the
Court of Appeals for the purpose of modifying his conviction from frustrated homicide to
attempted homicide thereby lowering the penalty so that he can avail probation. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Thus, Colinares elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Colinares is only liable for attempted homicide because the
prosecution failed to prove that the wound of Rufino is fatal. Thus the penalty imposed on him
should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years
and four months of prision correccional, as maximum.
Q: Can Colinares avail probation after the perfection of appeal to modify his conviction?
A: YES. Colinares did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for
probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say,
"By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The stiff penalty that the trial court
imposed on him denied him that choice. Besides, in appealing his case, Colinares raised the issue
of correctness of the penalty imposed on him. He claimed that the evidence at best warranted his
conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a probationable
penalty. In a way, therefore, Colinares sought from the beginning to bring down the penalty to the
level where the law would allow him to apply for probation.
Q: When and where do you apply for probation?
A: A grant of probation is applied before the Trial Court which heard the case within the period of
perfecting an appeal or within 15 days from promulgation of judgment.
CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON OFFENDER UNDER PROBATION
There are two conditions imposed upon a person seeking probation;
• Mandatory/Ordinary;
• Discretionary/Special;
Mandatory
The following are mandatory conditions imposed by the court to the probationer;
• Appear before the probationary officer within 72 hours from the receipt of the order;
• Report once a month;
Discretionary
Discretionary or special conditions are dependent upon the sound discretion of the court. Usually
involves engaging in a vocation, not drinking alcohol, not going to house of ill-reputes.
The only limitation on the discretionary conditions is that they must not be so restrictive to the
rights of the accused such that they will no longer be in consonance with his freedom.
Example;
In the case of Baclayon v. Mutia (G.R. No. L-59298, April 30, 1984) the trial court prohibited the
offender, who is a teacher by profession, to teach as a condition during the period of probation.
This is a restrictive condition. It deprives the offender his means of livelihood.
 SENTENCE PERIOD OF PROBATION
Imprisonment of not more than 1 year; Will not exceed two years;
All other cases of imprisonment; Will not exceed 6 years;
Fine subsidiary imprisonment in case of Not less than nor be more than 2x than the
insolvency; total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment, taking into account the highest
minimum wage rate prevailing in the
Philippines at the time of the rendition of the
judgment.

EFFECT OF PROBATION
Probation will suspend the execution of the sentence. However, it will not extinguish civil liability.
Under Section 16 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707, the final discharge of the probationer
shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to
totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation was granted.
Moreno v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)
Moreno ran for the public office of punong barangay. However, a petition for disqualification was
filed against him because he was convicted by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention
and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years
and Four (4) Months. Moreno argues that the disqualification under the Local Government Code
is for those who have served sentence for more than 1 year. Since Moreno applied and was granted
of probation, he did not serve his sentence because probation suspends the service of the offender.
Q: Can a person who was convicted by final judgment but was granted probation run for public
office?
A: YES. The phrase service of sentence, understood in its general and common sense, means the
confinement of a convicted person in a penal facility for the period adjudged by the court. During
the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the court
but is merely required to comply with all the conditions prescribed in the probation order.
Furthermore, he accessory penalties of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a
profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage,
attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended upon the grant of probation.
Example;
Lindsay Lohan, after conviction, applied for probation and was granted the same. Thereafter, she
filed an appeal questioning the civil indemnity imposed upon her. The judge denied the appeal on
the ground that Lindsay already applied for probation. Therefore, the appeal cannot be granted.
Q: Is the judge correct?
A: NO. The only effect of probation is to suspend the execution of the sentence. It has nothing to
do with the civil aspect of the case. Insofar as the civil aspect is concerned, the convict can still
appeal it.
Example;
D, under the probation for two years, was imposed the condition that he could not change his
residence. For two years, he complied with this condition. After the lapse of two years, D now
changed his residence. The probation officer learned about this and filed for a Motion to Revoke
the probation. D contended that the period of probation (2 years) has already been completed, so
he is already allowed to change residence. The trial court granted the revocation.
Q: Is the trial court correct?
A: YES. The expiration of the period of probation does not ipso facto mean the termination of
probation. Probation is only terminated upon the issuance of the court of a final discharge of
probation. This happens when after the lapse of the period of probation, the probation officer will
file a Motion before the court with a recommendation stating that the convict has complied with
the conditions imposed and therefore, he should be discharged. The court will then issue a final
discharge of probation. Only then will probation be terminated.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits
established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the
culprit.
FINE
Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed by court in case of judgment of conviction.
Factors to consider in imposing fines;
• Aggravating and mitigating circumstance;
• Wealth and means of the offender
Scale of Penalty in case of Fine
Article 26 of the Revised Penal determines whether a fine is afflictive, correctional, or light
penalty.
Scale of Penalty Amount of Fine
Afflictive Penalty Exceeds ₱1,200,000.00
Correctional Penalty Exceeds ₱40,000.00 but does not exceed
₱1,200,000.00
Light Penalty Does not exceed ₱40,000.00

Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be
necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law,
without however, changing the minimum.
If a fine is imposed to an accomplice or an accessory, the fine shall be reduced or increased,
respectively for e each degree, by one fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
Example;
If A prevented the meetings of congress by means of fraud, the penalty imposed upon him is P200
– P2000. If he is merely an accomplice, the fine will be lowered by one degree and a decrease of
¼ of the maximum amount prescribed by law. Since ¼ of P2,000.00 is P500.00, the penalty
imposed upon the accomplice is P200.00 to P,500.00.
Example;
A, B, and C was charged and convicted of an impossible crime. A as the principal, B as the
accomplice, and C as the accessory. The court imposed upon them a fine of P200.00 to P500.00
as prescribed by law.
Q: How much would A, B, and C, pay?
A: A, as the principal, is liable for a fine ranging from P200.00 – P500.00. To get the liability of
B as an accomplice we take ¼ of the maximum amount of fine and deduct it therefrom. So the
maximum amount of fine is P500.00 ¼ of P500.00 is 125. Deduct P125.00 from P500.00. This
will now be P375.00 Thus, B, as an accomplice, is liable for P200-P375. Let us say the offender
is a mere accessory, deduct ¼ or P125.00 from the maximum fine. The sum is P250.00. Thus, C
as the accomplice is liable for P200.00 - P250.00
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties,
he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the
following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that
they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been
granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity
of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:
• Death,
• Reclusion perpetua,
• Reclusion temporal,
• Prision mayor,
• Prision correccional,
• Arresto mayor,
• Arresto menor,
• Destierro,
• Perpetual absolute disqualification,
 • 10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
• Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a
profession or calling, and
• Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's
sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of
the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after
the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be
computed at thirty years. (As amended).
SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Under Article 70, as a rule, when the convict has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit.
Penalties that allow simultaneous service of sentence;
• Imprisonment and fine;
• Imprisonment and suspension;
• Imprisonment and public censure;
Q: What penalties cannot be served at the same time?
A: All forms of imprisonment.
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
All forms of imprisonment cannot be served simultaneously.
Example;
X was convicted of two counts of homicide. A penalty of reclusion temporal was imposed upon
him for each count of homicide. Reclusion temporal has a duration of 12-20 years. X will satisfy
the first 12-20 years of imprisonment. Thereafter, he shall serve another 12-20 years of reclusion
temporal for the second count of homicide.
Order of Severity.
In the imposition of penalties, the convict shall first serve the most severe penalty imposed upon
him in accordance with the scale provided for in Article 70.
THREE-FOLD RULE
The three-fold rule provides that when multiple successive penalties are imposed upon the
offender, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. However, such
maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
Example;
X raped her daughter 5 times. He was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape. The penalty for
1 count of rape is reclusion perpetua.
Q: What penalty shall the court impose on him?
A: 5 counts of reclusion perpetua.
Q: Since reclusion perpetua is 20-40 years, does that mean X will serve 200 years in prison?
A: NO. Under the three-fold rule the when the offender is serving multiple successive sentences,
the maximum duration of the offender’s sentence shall not exceed three folds of the length of the
most severe penalty, provided that such penalty will not be more than 40 years. In this case, since
the penalty imposed upon X is 5 reclusion perpetua, his service of sentence will not be more than
three-folds of the length of reclusion perpetua which is the most severe penalty imposed upon him.
However, since three counts of reclusion perpetua is 120 years which exceeds the maximum
penalty of 40 years, X will serve the maximum sentence of 40 years.
Example;
X was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and a civil
liability of P50,000.00. The judge, applying the three-fold rule, sentenced X of 40 years of
imprisonment and a civil liability of P50,000.00.
Q: Is the judge correct?
A: NO. The three-fold rule is not for the judge to impose. The 40 years imprisonment in accordance
to three-fold rule refers to service of sentence, NOT to the imposition of penalties.
Q: If the judge will not impose the three-fold rule? Who will impose it?
A: The three-fold rule is for the Director of Prisons to apply and compute, and not for the judge to
impose.
Q: How should the judge impose 5 counts of rape?
A: The judge shall impose upon him a penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime of rape. Likewise, the judge shall impose upon the convict
the civil liability of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.
Q: does the three-fold rule also apply to civil liabilities of the offender?
A: NO. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim therefore, civil indemnity is
separate and distinct from the criminal offense of rape. The civil indemnity shall be the number of
times the victim was raped.
In answering questions regarding penalties, you need not state the equivalent duration. It suffices
that you state the designation, i.e. prision mayor, prision correcional, etc.
Article 71. Graduated scales. - In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher
by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be
observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the
given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
• Death,
• Reclusion perpetua,
• Reclusion temporal,
• Prision mayor,
• Prision correccional,
• Arresto mayor,
• Destierro,
• Arresto menor,
• Public censure,
• Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
• Perpetual absolute disqualification,
• Temporal absolute disqualification
• Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a
profession or calling,
• Public censure,
• Fine.
Q: What is the importance of 1 day in the duration of the period (6 yrs. and 1 DAY -12 years)?
A: The 1 day separates the different degrees of the penalty. It also separates a divisible penalty
from an indivisible penalty. It also determines whether subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed
on the offender.
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found
guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates
of the judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of time.
The penalties shall be satisfied according to the scale of Art 70.
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts
shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the
provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory
penalties are also imposed upon the convict.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES
Subsidiary penalties are deemed imposed.
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
Unlike subsidiary penalties, the subsidiary imprisonment must be expressly stated in the decision.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of
the former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty, and the accessory
penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty.
If the decision or law says higher than Reclusion perpetua or 2 degrees than Reclusion temporal,
then the penalty imposed is Reclusion perpetua or Reclusion temporal as the case may be.
Death must be designated by name. However, for the other penalties, this does not apply.
Example;
The penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than RP. The penalty imposed is prision mayor.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be
necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law,
without however, changing the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are
made proportional.
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible
penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the
medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in the following table:
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in
which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a
period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the
maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this
Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by
virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of
the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected
therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they
may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at
least into different departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a
convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution
of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the
second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of article 12 being observed in the corresponding
cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty
shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs
while the convict is serving his sentence.
INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR AFTER THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED
BY FINAL JUDGMENT
There will be a suspension of sentence. The accused cannot be made to suffer the sentence.
The moment he regains his sanity he is required to serve his sentence. Provided, that the period of
penalty has not yet prescribed.
Art 80 (as amended by PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code)
Note: refer to R.A. 9344 (Minority)
Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed.
Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit.
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same.
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial.
As of writing, the death penalty is suspended by virtue of R.A. 9346.
Under RA 9346, the prohibition pertains only to the imposition of death penalty. But for heinous
crimes, the penalty shall still be death. Only that it cannot be imposed.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto
mayor. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision
correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments
provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place
or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not
more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
DESTIERRO
Destierro is considered as a principal correctional and divisible penalty. Therefore, jurisdiction
over crimes punishable with destierro lies with the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Destierro shall be imposed in the following cases;
• Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under exceptional circumstance;
• Person fails to give bond for good behavior in grave and light threats;
• Concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage;
• When after reducing the penalty by one or more degree, destierro is the proper penalty
Execution of Destierro
• Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place designated in the sentence nor within the
radius specified, which shall not be more than 250 and not less than 25 km from the place
designated;
• If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of sentence
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in
the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court
so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons
which may seem satisfactory to it.
COMMUNITY SERVICE (R.A. 11362)
ART. 88a. Community Service. - The court in the discretion may, in lieu of service in jail, require
that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor may be served by the defendant by rendering
community service in the place where the crime was committed, under such terms as the court
shall determine, taking into consideration the gravity of offense and the circumstances of the case,
which shall be under the supervision of a probation officer. Provided, that the court will prepare
an order imposing the community service, specifying the number of hours to be worked and the
period within which to complete the service. The order is then referred to the assigned probation
officer who shall have responsibility of the defendant.
The defendant shall likewise be required to undergo rehabilitative counseling under the social
welfare and development office of the city or municipality concerned with the assistance of the
DSWD. In requiring community service, the court shall consider the welfare of the society and the
reasonable probability that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering a public
service.
Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity which inculcates civic
consciousness, and is intended towards the improvement of a public work or promotion of a public
service.
If the defendant violates the terms of the community service, the court shall order his/her re-arrest
and the defendant shall serve the full term of the penalty, as the case may be, in jail, or in the house
of the defendant as provided under Article 88. However, if the defendant has fully complied with
the terms of the community service, the court shall order the release of the defendant unless
detained for some other offenses.
After promulgation of judgment or order where the imposable penalty for the crime or offense
committed by the accused is arresto menor or arresto mayor, it shall be the court's duty to inform
the accused of and announce in open court his/her options within 15 calendar days from date of
promulgation to wit:
• file an appeal;
• apply for probation as provided by law; or
• apply that the penalty be served by rendering community service in the place where the
crime was committed.
It shall further be explained to the accused that if he/she chooses to appeal the conviction, such
resort thereto bars any application for community service or probation.
In the event accused opts to apply for community service, the application must be filed within the
period to perfect an appeal. Likewise, said application shall be resolved within 5 calendar days
from the filing thereof. For this purpose, the court should set a hearing to render or promulgate the
ruling on the said application within the said period.
If the accused was required to post bail, pending resolution of the application for community
service he/she may also move that he/she be allowed on temporary liberty under the same bond
he/she posted or be granted recognizance as provided for under Section 15, Rule 114 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service in jail shall be availed of only
once.
The period for the community service to be rendered should not be more than the maximum
sentence imposed by· law, but not less than 1/3 thereof.
If the accused is sentenced with a penalty higher than arresto menor or arresto mayor, and on
appeal the penalty was lowered to arresto menor or arresto mayor, which became final and
executory, the accused may, upon written application with the court of origin, seek community
service in lieu of imprisonment, which may be acted upon subject to the provisions of these
guidelines. With respect hereto, in no case shall community service be allowed if the defendant is
a habitual delinquent.
In the event the court denies the application for community service, and the period to appeal has
not yet lapsed, the accused may still choose to appeal the said judgment or apply for probation.
An accused who has applied and was granted probation in a previous case is not disqualified to
apply for community service in a subsequent case.
MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
• By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final
judgment;
• By service of the sentence;
• By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
• By absolute pardon;
• By prescription of the crime;
• By prescription of the penalty;
• By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art 344 of this Code;
Article 89 is incomplete. The following are the modes of extinguishing criminal liability;
• Death;
• Service of Sentence;
• Amnesty;
• Absolute pardon;
• Prescription of crime;
• Prescription of penalty;
• Valid marriage of the offended with the offender;
• Express repeal of the penal law; (Decriminalization of the act)
• Probation under PD. 986 as amended by R.A. 10707;
DEATH
Death is the permanent cessation of life.
Q: When does death extinguish criminal liability?
A: Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceedings, be it before or after
conviction. This is because the moment the offender dies, there is no one to serve the personal
penalty.
Extinguishment of Civil liability through Death
In People v. Amistoso (G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013) the Supreme Court laid down rules in
case the accused dies prior to final judgment:
 • Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon;
• Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if
the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157
of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability
may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
o Law;
o Contracts;
o Quasi-contracts;
o (delict);
o Quasi-delicts;
• Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate
civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained
above.
• Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate
civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action
and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil
action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted
during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of
the Civil Code, which should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of
right by prescription. (Citations omitted.)
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Service of sentence means satisfaction of the penalty imposed. If it is imprisonment, it means that
he has fully served his sentence behind bars. If it is fine, it means that he has paid the total amount
of the fine.
AMNESTY
Amnesty is an act of grace from the power entrusted with the execution of the law which does not
only exempt the offender from the service of penalty for the crime committed, but also obliterates
the effects of the crime. It does not only suspend the execution of the sentence. It also obliterates
the effects of the crime.
ABSOLUTE PARDON
Absolute Pardon is an act of grace received from the power entrusted with the execution of the law
which exempts the offender from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed.
PARDON (Whether absolute or conditional) AMNESTY
Merely suspends the execution of sentence, Obliterates all effects of crime as if no crime
erases the penalty to be imposed; was committed;
 Granted only after conviction by final
judgment;
Private act of President. As such, the person
pardoned must plead and prove it before the
courts. There is no judicial notice of the grant
of pardon;
May be given to all kinds of offenders;
Granted at any stage of proceedings, before
during or after final judgment;
Public act of President. Granted with the
concurrence of Congress. Courts take judicial
notice of it;
Generally granted to a class or group of
persons who have committed political
offenses;

VALID MARRIAGE
A valid marriage between the offender and the offended party extinguishes criminal liability only
in relation to private crimes; i.e. seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and one public crime
which is rape.
• Under Art 266, the valid marriage of the offended with the offender extinguishes criminal
liability as well as the penalty.
Example;
Jack raped Rose. Rose filed a case of rape against Jack. Trial on the merits ensued. During trial,
Jack and Rose would often see each other and because of this, they fell in love with each other.
Later on, they got married. This valid marriage will extinguish the criminal liability of Jack.
Q: IS the criminal liability extinguished if the marriage took place after the offender was convicted
by final judgment?
A: YES. Even if there is already a final and executory judgment, such as when the offender is
already behind bars, a valid marriage between the offender and the offended will still extinguish
criminal liability and the penalty imposed.
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion
temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of
the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As
amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966.)
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to
run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence
to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted,
or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
Prescription of Crime is the loss or forfeiture of the right of State to prosecute an act prohibited by
law. The moment that a crime has already prescribed, the court has to dismiss the case even if the
accused has not moved for its dismissal. The courts lose their jurisdiction to try the case.
Period of Prescription of Crimes
Penalty of Crimes Prescriptive Period
Death, Reclusion perpetua, reclusion 20 years;
temporal;
Other afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties, except arresto mayor; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Libel and other similar offenses; 1 year;
Oral defamation and slander by deed 6 months;
Light felonies; 2 months

COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

The running of the prescriptive period shall be from the time and date of the commission of the
crime, if known. If not known, from the time and date discovery by offended party, authorities, or
agents of the authorities.
Example:
X and Y had a quarrel. In the course thereof, X killed Y. Thereafter, X buried the body of Y in his
backyard. Unknown to X, neighbor A witnesses A burry the body in his backyard. After 25 years
from the commission of the crime, the neighbor became old and sickly. He then told the police
what he witnessed 25 years ago. The police then went to the backyard, dug the ground, and saw
the bones of Y.
Q: Can the State still prosecute H for parricide?
A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The authorities and their agents only came to know the
crime 25 years from its commission. This is the only time when the prescriptive period for the
crime shall commence to run. Also, the neighbor who knew the commission of the crime is not the
person required by law to discover the crime in order to start the running of the prescriptive period.
Therefore, the State can still file the case of parricide.
Example;
Niki and Mariah were friends. Niki, before going to Mindanao, left the titles of her properties to
Mariah for safekeeping. Mariah became interested in one of the properties. While Niki was in
Mindanao, Mariah falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale forging the signature of Niki, making it appear
that Niki sold the property to her. Mariah then registered the Deed before the Registry of Deeds.
The title was thereafter transferred to the name of Mariah. 20 years thereafter, Niki came back to
Manila and acquired the titles she left to Mariah. Niki noticed that one title was missing. She
eventually discovered that the property covered by such missing title was already transferred to
the name of Mariah.
Q: Can Niki file case of falsification of public document punishable by Prision mayor, against
Mariah?
A: NO. The crime has already prescribed. If a document or transaction involves real properties
(sale, lease, attachment), the moment the document is registered before the Registry of Deeds, such
registration constitutes constructive notice. As such, the law presumes that the whole world,
including Niki, knows about the registration.
The period of prescription commences to run from that time. Since 20 years have already lapsed
in this case, the crime has already prescribed. This concerns only criminal liability. But Niki can
still file a civil case for damages or any civil action to recover the property.
VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
In the case of People v. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012), the Supreme Court said
whether it is a violation of a special penal law like the BP 22 or a violation of the RPC, the filing
of a complaint before the office of the public prosecutor suspends or interrupts the running of the
prescriptive period. It remains suspended until the case has been decided the accused being
acquitted or convicted or the case has been dismissed for any reason not imputable to him.
Here the checks were issued, and the notice of dishonor was received by the maker in 1995. The
cases were filed before the prosecutors in 1997, and they filed the information in the MTC in 2000.
The MTC and RTC ruled that the crime did not prescribe. The CA held that the crime had
prescribed, and that the filing of the complaint before the prosecutors did not suspend the running
of the prescriptive period.
The CA cited the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes and ruled that the violation of BP 22 has already
prescribed because according to the CA, in case of violation of special penal laws, the running of
the prescriptive period is only interrupted upon the filing of the case before the appropriate court
because the Supreme Court interpreted the word “proceedings” as judicial proceedings in Zaldivia
v. Reyes.
The SC said that the interpretation of the CA is erroneous. SC said it is now settled in jurisprudence
that whether it is a violation of a special penal law or a violation of the RPC, the filing of the
complaint with the public prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive period.
Violation of Municipal Ordinance
In Zaldivia v. Reyes (G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992), what is involved is a violation of a municipal
ordinance. It is only in case of violation of municipal ordinance wherein the running of the
prescriptive period is interrupted upon the filing of the complaint before the proper court. The
filing of the information in 1997 suspended the prescriptive period and the same remains
suspended; thus the crime has not yet prescribed
Example;
Gerald and Kim were spouses. Gerald, as a medical representative, was assigned in Visayas
leaving his wife, Kim, in Manila. 20 years thereafter, Kim while watching TV saw Gerald
presenting another woman, Maja, as his wife. Furious, Kim went to Visayas and therein discovered
that there was a registered marriage certificate between Gerald and Maja, the woman she saw on
TV.
Q: Can Kim file a case of bigamy?
A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The rule on constructive notice by registration is
applicable only if the transaction involves real properties. Registration as to other documents or
transactions with the Office of the Civil Registry does not constitute constructive notice to the
whole world. Since the wife herein discovered the bigamous marriage only 20 years thereafter,
this shall be the starting point for the running of the prescriptive period of the crime.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SUSPENDED
The Prescriptive period shall be suspended upon filing of complaint or info before the fiscal’s
office or before the court/public prosecutor for purposes of preliminary investigation. It remains
suspended until the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is terminated without the fault of
accused.
The term shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
Situations which do not follow Art. 91;
• In continuing crimes-prescriptive period will start to run only at the termination of the
intended result;
• In crimes against false testimony, prescriptive period is reckoned from the day final
judgment is rendered in the proceeding where such false testimony is utilized not when the
false testimony is made;
• In Election offenses;
• If the discovery of the offense is incidental to judicial proceedings, prescription begins
when such proceedings terminate; or from the date of the commission of the offense.
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe
as follows;
• Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
• Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
 • Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor,
which prescribes in five years;
• Light penalties, in one year.
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties
shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence,
and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some
foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another
crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Prescription of penalty is the loss of the right of the State to execute the sentence.
Prescription Period
Penalty Imposed Prescriptive Period
Death, Reclusion perpetua; 20 years;
Other afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties, except arresto mayor; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Light penalties; 1 year

COMMENCEMENT PERIOD
The running of the period shall commence from the time the convict evaded the service of his
sentence. It is necessary therefore that the convict is serving his sentence and while serving, he
escaped. It is from the time of escape that the prescriptive period runs.
Example;
Garcia was convicted of homicide. The judgment became final and executory. He was brought to
serve sentence in Muntinlupa. While serving sentence, he escaped. Police failed to capture and
find him. It was only after 20 years that Garcia was located and brought behind bars. Garcia’s
counsel filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus contending that the penalty prescribed and therefore,
Garcia could not be imprisoned.
Q: Is the counsel correct?
A: YES. The penalty has prescribed. Homicide prescribes in 15 years. Here, Garcia was captured
20 years from escape.
Example;
Cuenca was charged with homicide. Being a bailable offense, Cuenca posted bail. During the
arraignment and pre-trial, Cuenca appeared before the court. However, during the trial proper, he
did not appear. Trial in absentia ensued. Judgment was for conviction. Warrant of arrest was issued
against Cuenca. It was only 20 years thereafter that the police were able to arrest Cuenca and bring
him behind bars. Cuenca’s counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that the penalty
has prescribed.
Q: Is the counsel correct?
A: NO. The penalty has not prescribed. In fact, prescription has not even commenced to run. For
the period to run, it is necessary that the offender is serving sentence and while serving sentence,
he escaped. The running of prescriptive period only starts from the escape of offender. In this case,
the offender has not even served his sentence.
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF PENALTY
The following are the grounds when the prescriptive period of penalty is suspended;
• When offender surrenders;
• When offender went to a country which has no extradition treaty with the Philippines;
• When convict commits a crime before the expiration of period of prescription;
• When the offender is captured;
Prescription of Crimes v. Prescription of Penalty
Prescription of Crimes Prescription of Penalty
Loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to Loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to
prosecute; enforce final judgment;
Starts counting upon the discovery of the Starts counting upon the escape or evasion of
commission of the crime; service of sentence;
Mere absence from the Philippines interrupts Absence from the Philippines interrupts the
the running of the prescription; period only when the convict goes to a
foreign country without an extradition treaty
with the Philippines;
Commission of another crime before the Commission of another crime before the
expiration of the prescriptive period does not expiration of the period interrupts the
interrupt prescription. prescription.

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially;
• By conditional pardon;
• By commutation of the sentence; and
• For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
MODES FOR PARTIALLY EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The following are the modes for extinguishing criminal liability;
• Conditional Pardon;
• Commutation of sentence;
• Good conduct allowance;
• Special Time Allowance for Loyalty;
 • Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
• Implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the penalty;
CONDITIONAL PARDON
Conditional Pardon is an act of grace received from a power entrusted with the authority to execute
the law, but the pardon herein is subject to strict conditions.
Because of this strict conditions, there must be acceptance on the part of the offender. The moment
he accepts, it becomes incumbent upon him to comply with the strict terms and conditions of the
pardon.
Failure to comply with any of the strict conditions, the State can file a criminal case under Art 159
- evasion of service of sentence. In addition, the Chief Executive can order the immediate
incarceration of the offender under the Administrative Code.
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
In commutation of sentence, a new sentence imposed shall be in lieu of the original sentence.
Example;
Death penalty commuted to Reclusion perpetua.
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for
preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any
penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the
following deductions from the period of his sentence;
• During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days
for each month of good behavior during detention;
• During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
• During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
• During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and
• At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of
fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching
or mentoring service time rendered. (As amended by R.A. 10592)
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good
conduct.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE (as amended by R.A. 10592)
Good conduct allowance is awarded to the offender if he has been behaving properly in prison.
The Director of Prisons shall compute the good conduct allowance in favor of the offender so that
he will be immediately released.
In the case of Inmates of New Bilibid Prison vs. De Lima, the Supreme Court held that Art. 22 of
the RPC refers to substantive laws, not procedural laws. However, even if R.A. 10592 is not a
substantive law, it has the affect of lowering the penalty of prisoners, which would be certainly
advantageous to them. Thus, the Supreme Court declared that R.A. 10592 can be given retroactive
application.
Under R.A. 10592, recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons charged with heinous
crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. Persons deprived of liberty who have been
convicted of heinous crimes are also excluded from this law’s coverage.
Period of Imprisonment Deduction
First two years; 20 days for each month of good behavior
during detention;
Third to fifth year, inclusive, of his 23 days for each month of good behavior
imprisonment; during detention;
Sixth until the tenth year, inclusive, of his 25 days for each month of good behavior
imprisonment; during detention;
Eleventh and successive years of his 30 days for each month of good behavior
imprisonment; during detention;
At any time during the period of Another deduction of 15 days, in addition to
imprisonment; numbers one to four hereof for each month of
service time rendered for:
• Study;
• Teaching; or
• Mentoring;

ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the period of his
sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the
service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives
himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing
the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of two-
fifths of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place
of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in
Article 158 of this Code. (As amended by R.A. 10592)
Example;
During the time Bin Laden was serving his sentence behind bars, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake
suddenly occurred prompting Bin Laden to escape. He then went to the house of his mother. While
Bin Laden was watching TV in the house of his mother, he saw the President announcing that the
earthquake subsided. Within 48 hours from announcement, Bin Laden surrendered. Because of
this surrender, Bin Laden is entitled to the special allowance for loyalty for being so loyal to the
government.
If Bin Laden remained in prison despite the 8.9 magnitude earthquake, he is entitled to a deduction
of 2/5 from the period of his sentence.
However, if Bin Laden did not return, there will be an additional 1/5 to the term of his sentence.
If Bin Laden merely remained in prison, there will be neither deduction nor addition to his
sentence.
Prisoners by final judgement and detention prisoners are covered under Art. 98.
CIVIL LIABILITY
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.
As a general rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. For every criminal action
filed in court, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted.
Reason
The commission of a crime, 2 injuries are inflicted;
• Social injury against the State for the disturbance of social order; and
• Personal Injury against the offended party and his heirs;
The social injury against the state will be answered by reparation. The personal injury will be
answered by the civil indemnity.
Exceptions to Implied Institution of Civil Action
The following are the exemption to the general that a civil action is impliedly instituted in a
criminal case;
• When offended party waives the civil action;
• When the offended party reserves the right to file a separate civil action, which must be
made prior to the presentation of evidence of the prosecution;
• When the offended party files the civil action prior to the criminal action
ACQUITTAL; EFFECT ON CIVIL LIABILITY:
In the following cases, acquittal in a criminal action bars recovery in a civil action;
• If the judgment of acquittal states that the alleged criminal acts of the offender were not
committed by him;
• If the judgment of acquittal states that the accused is not guilty of criminal or civil damages;
In the following cases, the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case is not a bar to recover civil
liability;
• When judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt - This is because civil actions
require mere preponderance of evidence;
• When judgment of acquittal states that the liability of accused is not criminal but civil in
nature - This usually happens when the case is estafa and there is a contract between the
accused and complainant, upon which the accused failed to comply with the terms of the
contract. There is breach of contract;
• When the judgment of acquittal states that the civil liability does not arise from the crime
but from other sources of obligations;
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this
Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the
following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under fifteen years of age, or by one over fifteen but
under eighteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having
such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with
the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm
has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall
be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the
liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in
all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their
agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or
causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those
doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from
execution.
INSANE, IMBECILE, MINOR
In case the offender is insane, imbecile or minor, the civil liability arising from their acts shall be
shouldered by the persons who have custody of the insane, imbecile or minor.
Secondary liability falls on the property of the insane, imbecile or minor, except those properties
which are prohibited from being attached.
STATE OF NECESSITY
All persons who have been benefitted during the state of necessity shall bear the civil liability. If
there are many persons benefitted, the liability shall be divided by the court proportionately.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Borne by the person who enforced the threats to the offender. Secondary liability falls upon the
principal by direct participation, who is the one who acted under the compulsion of irresistible
force or uncontrollable fear.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.
— In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or
corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where
a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been
committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within
their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that
such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him,
of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged
in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the discharge of their duties.
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY
Parents, teacher, employers, and proprietors shall be subsidiarily liable for the crimes committed
by their children, students, employees, servants.
Subsidiary Liability of employers
Employers may be held subsidiarily liable for the acts of their employees provided the following
requisites are present;
• Employer must be engaged in some kind of industry;
• Employer and employee relationship;
• Employee committed a crime in the exercise of his duties as employee;
• There must be conviction of the crime and the employee was found insolvent to pay civil
indemnity;
The moment the employee was found insolvent, the liability of the employer now becomes
absolute. A motion for the issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution must then be filed by the
complainant
Example;
Paris Hilton, a guest in a hotel, told the representative of the hotel that she carries valuables. The
representative of the hotel told Paris about the rules regarding the care and vigilance of the
valuables. However, during nighttime, a robbery occurred inside the hotel. Among those taken
were the valuables of Paris. The offender was arrested, convicted and civil liability was imposed
upon him.
Q: In case of insolvency of the offender, does the proprietor of the hotel or establishment have
subsidiary civil liability?
A: YES. The guest complied with the rules and regulations as to the care and vigilance of the
goods. He also informed the representative of the hotel of the presence of his valuables.
Example;
Same situation as above. The guard of the hotel tried to fight the robbers. One of the robbers shot
the guard. Prosecuted for robbery with homicide and was convicted.
Q: In case of insolvency, is the proprietor of the hotel subsidiarily liable?
A: NO. The crime committed is robbery with homicide, which is a crime under robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons. If the crime committed is robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons, the proprietor is not liable, except if the offender is the employee of the
hotel or establishment.
Solidum v. People (G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014)
Gerald Gercayo was born with an imperforated anus. Two days after his birth, Gerald underwent
colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal
wall, enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body. When
Gerald was three years old, he was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation.
Dr. Leandro Resurreccion headed the surgical team along with the anesthesiologists which
includes petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum. During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia,
and went into a coma. His coma lasted for two weeks,9 but he regained consciousness only after a
month. He could no longer see, hear, or move. Thus, the mother lodged a complaint for reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries against the attending physicians and Ospital ng
Maynila.
Q: Is Dr. Solidum civilly or criminally liable?
A: NO. The Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia
to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. It would
consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the first three elements of
a negligence and malpractice action were attendant.
Q: Is Ospital ng Maynila subsidiarily liable?
A: NO. For one, Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its
fundamental right to be heard was not respected from the outset. Second, granting for the sake of
argument that Ospital ng Maynila was impleaded, still it cannot be subsidiarily liable because the
requisites for the subsidiary liability of the employers are not present. First, there is no employer-
employee relationship because based on the evidence, Dr. Solidum is a consultant and not an
employee of OM. Second, OM is not engaged in some kind of industry, it is a charitable institution
that caters hospital services to poor patients; there is no profit. Also, Dr. Solidum
was not criminally liable. Lastly, granting that Dr. Solidum was held liable for civil liability, there
was no proof that Dr. Solidum was insolvent such that OM will be subsidiarily liable.
Example;
A municipal ordinance provides that Establishment XYZ should only be open during weekdays.
However, this establishment violated the ordinance as it opened on a Sunday. A crime was
committed during the Sunday it opened.
Q: Is the proprietor of the establishment liable?
A: YES. There was a violation of the ordinance. Any crimes committed in the establishment will
make the proprietor subsidiarily liable for civil liability only, not for criminal liability.
Example;
Vin Diesel was a driver of XYZ Corporation engaged in the business of distributing goods to
supermarkets. Vin Diesel was driving recklessly as he was headed to one supermarket. In the
course thereof, Vin Diesel hit a car. The car was damaged. Because of this, a crime for reckless
imprudence resulting to damage to property was filed against Vin Diesel. Court found him guilty.
The penalties imposed were fine and payment of damage caused. When the judgment became final
and executory, a writ of execution was issued but was returned unsatisfied due to the insolvency
of Vin Diesel.
Q: Is there need to file a separate civil action?
A: NO. There is no need to file a separate civil action. In the very same action for reckless
imprudence resulting to damage to property, the moment the employee is found to be insolvent,
the liability of the employer becomes absolute. However, even if it is absolute, it is not automatic.
The complainant has to file a Motion for the Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of Execution. This is
not an ex parte motion, but a litigated one. Thus, the other party (XYZ Corp) must be informed for
due process.
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101,
102, and 103 of this Code includes;
• Restitution;
• Reparation of the damage caused;
• Indemnification for consequential damages.
Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever
possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who
has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may
be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person
in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
RESTITUTION
Restitution is the return of the very thing taken.
Exception
Exception: if the innocent purchaser acquired the said property in a public sale. Then, it can no
longer be taken away from him.
Q: What is the remedy of the offended party if the thing can no longer be returned?
A: The remedy of the offended party is reparation.
Art. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking
into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to
the injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Reparation
In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the value of the property
stolen. The court shall determine the value of the thing taken including its sentimental value.
Art. 107. Indemnification — What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages shall
include not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime.
INDEMNIFICATION
Indemnification includes moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary damages.
Moral Damages
Moral damages in case of rape or murder need not be proved. It suffices that the crime has been
committed. The law presumes that the victim suffered moral indemnity because of the crime
committed.
Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages can only be granted if there are aggravating circumstances in the commission
of the crime.
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for
consequential damages and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation
to make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages
devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs
of the person injured.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there are two or more persons civilly liable for
a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
If there were 2 accused convicted, insofar as the civil liability is concerned, it is the court which
shall determine the civil liability of the 2 accused
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices, and accessories of a felony
— Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the
principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally
(in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons
liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against
that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom
payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their
respective shares.
Example;
X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery. They were all charged as principals. But the judge
ruled that X is a principal, Y is an accomplice and Z is a mere accessory. The judge divided the
civil liability proportionately. Their liabilities among themselves are in
solidum.
Q: Against whom can the private complainant recover said civil liability?
A: The private complainant can recover the entire civil liability from X, the principal but X now
has a right of action against Y and Z insofar as their respective civil liabilities are concerned. If X
cannot pay, the private complainant can go against Y. Y can now go against X and Z because their
liabilities are in solidum but subsidiary insofar as the private complainant is concerned
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated
gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent
to the extent of such participation.
Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and
103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Law.
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY:
Civil Liability shall be extinguished by the following acts;
• By pardon of the offended party;
• Other modes for extinguishing civil liability under Civil Code; (payment, condonation,
etc.)
Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by pardon, amnesty, probation, commutation
of sentence, etc. Civil liability can only be extinguished in the same manner as in Civil Law, by
the extinguishment of obligations, i.e., payment, loss of the thing, remuneration, compensation,
etc.
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as
provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil
liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served
his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve
the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.