CIMINAL LAW

BOOK I

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.

Crime – Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or

commanding it.

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law

1. The Revised Penal Code (RA 3815) and its amendment
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine
Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang
Pambasa
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. GENERAL – Criminal Law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory, regardless of nationality, gender, or other personal circumstances.

Example: US citizen carrying gun in the Philippines

EXCEPTIONS:
a. Treaty Stipulations – Example: Bases Agreement between USA and the
Philippines stipulating that the USA has jurisdiction of any offense happened in
the base;
b. Laws of Preferential Application
c. Principles of Public International Law (enumerations i to v are exempt from the
application of our Criminal Law if the event that they commit crime/offense in
the Philippines)
i. Sovereigns and other heads of state
ii. Charges d’ affaires
iii. Ambassadors as representatives of sovereign state officially (related to his
function)
iv. Ministers plenipotentiary
v. Ministers resident
 Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign
nations cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to
ambassadors and ministers.

2. TERRITORIAL – Penal Laws of the Philippines have force and effect only within it
territory.
Exceptions: ARTICLE OF THE RPC
i.

3. PROSPECTIVE – Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it

was not punishable when committed. Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal
law if they are committed after a penal law had already taken effect.
EXCEPTION: Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient
or favourable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:

1. Where the new law expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of
action.
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal

Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical Theory – Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to
choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of
the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
2. Positivist Theory – Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.

Construction of Penal Laws

1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no
person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any
act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.

Art. 1.  This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.

 The RPC consists of 2 books.
 Book One consists of two parts a)basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20) and
b) the provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113).
 In Book Two are defined felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped
under 14 different titles (Arts. 114-365).

Art. 2.  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:
a. Against those who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
i. Any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship or airship while the same
is outside of the Philippine territory can be tried before Philippine Courts for violation of
the Penal Code;
ii. But when the Philippine Vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the
crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country;
iii. Ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace. Under
international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of
any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in
general, such that wherever the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.
iv. A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the
Philippine Bureau of Customs
v. It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the
Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship.
vi. Just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory, foreign merchant ship is
considered an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs.
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;
i. Any person who makes false coins or forges bank notes in a foreign country may be
prosecuted before Philippine Courts;
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
i. Some of these crimes are bribery, fraud against national treasury, malversation of
public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds; e.g., A judge who accepts a
bribe while in Japan;
ii. As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions, those having to do with the
discharge of their duties in a foreign country.  The functions contemplated are those,
which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of
the Philippine government in a foreign country.
iii. Exception:  The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the
Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country.  This is because
embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty.

e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations
i. Crimes such as treason, piracy, espionage, Etc.

Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels:

1. French Rule – Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered.
2. English Rule – Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things
within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. (This is applicable in
the Philippines)

The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications:

(1) Intra-territorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the
Philippine territory;

(2) Extra-territorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the
Philippine territory.

INTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code, Article 2 makes it clear that
it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere, interior
waters and maritime zone. So whenever you use the word territory, do not limit this to land
area only.
A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with
Philippine laws. Under international law, as long as such vessel is not within the territorial
waters of a foreign country, Philippine laws shall govern.

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
 Extra-territorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board
Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not
within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. Otherwise, it is the foreign
country’s criminal law that will apply.

However, there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal
law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these
are:

1. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels
are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong;
2. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts
the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime
committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country.

 Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt
with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb the
public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper
authorities of the local jurisdiction.
 Foreign merchant vessel in transit – possession of dangerous drugs is not punishable
(crimes not involving a breach of public order), but use of the same is punishable
 Foreign merchant vessel NOT in transit – mere possession of dangerous drugs is
punishable because it can already be considered as illegal importation.
 Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and
cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. (even if the said warship is on ports
or territorial waters of a foreign country)

Art.3 Definition – Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault
when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Art 3.  Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.

 Acts – an overt or external act
 Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law. Example of an omission: failure to
render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in an uninhabited place or is
wounded – abandonment.
 Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
 Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law

What requisites must concur before a felony may be committed?

There must be (1) an act or omission; (2) punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the
act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

ACT – bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. The act must
be an overt act of the felony. Ex. Theft
Overt Act – an external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be
committed.

Only external act is punished – the act must be external, because internal acts are beyond
the sphere of penal law. Hence, a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how
immoral or improper it may be, will never constitute a felony.

OMISSION – meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act. Ex. P. 32

Examples of Felony by omission

1. Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person whom he finds in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of dying, is liable for abandonment of persons in danger
(Art 275, par. 1)
2. An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as
provided by law, is guilty of illegal exaction (Art. 213, par. 2(b))
3. Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having
knowledge of any conspiracy against the government, who does not disclose and make
known the same to the proper authority, is liable for misprision of treason. (Art. 116)

 It will be noted that in felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be
performed and the person required to do the act fails to perform it.

Classification of felonies according to the manner of their commission

Under Article 3, they are classified as:

1. deceit (dolo)/ intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and
2. fault (culpa) /culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Intentional felonies and culpable felonies distinguished
In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious. The act is
performed with deliberate intent. The offender, in performing the act or in incurring the
omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another.
In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury
caused by the offender to another person is “unintentional, it being simply the incident of
another act perform without malice. As stated, the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

 How felonies are committed:

1. by means of deceit (dolo) – There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent.
Requisites of dolo or malice
In order that an act or omission may be considered as having been performed or
incurred with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur;
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent
FREEDOM – when a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool.
Thus a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal
liability.
 That the act or omission was voluntary and without external compulsion.
 They are mere instruments of the crime and are not criminally liable.

The following have no freedom:

1. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force;
2. A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury

INTELLIGENCE – without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no
crime can exist. Thus, the imbecile or the insane, and the infant under 16 years of age as well
as the minor over 15 but less than 18 years old, and acting without discernment, have no
criminal liability, because they act without intelligence.
 The capacity to know and understand the consequences of an act.

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
2. A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
3. Child above 15 years but below 18 years of age unless he acted with discernment

INTENT – intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed
and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.

 The purpose to use a particular means to achieve an objective.

 One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another. One
who act without intelligence has no such intent.
 But a person who acts with freedom and with intelligence may not have the intent to do
an injury to another. Thus, a person who caused an injury by mere accident had
freedom and intelligence but since he had no fault or intention of causing it, he is not
criminally liable.
 If there is no intent there is no felony committed by dolo but a felony may still exist if
culpa is present.

 The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person because intent is a
mental state.
 There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.

May a crime be committed without intent?

Yes, in crimes mala prohibita and in culpable felonies.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means,
that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful.  On the other hand, violations of
special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.

Distinction:
1. Crimes mala in se are wrong from their nature. Crime mala prohibita are wrong because
they are prohibited by special laws.
2. In crimes mala in se, intent governs while in crimes mala prohibita, intent is immaterial.
Good faith and lack of intent are not valid defences.
 3. Crimes mala in se are penalized under the RPC while crimes mala prohibita are
punishable by special laws.
4. The stages of execution affect the penalty imposable in crimes mala in se. Thus, the
penalty depends on whether the crime is consummated, frustrated or attempted. The
stages of execution are not considered in crimes mala prohibita.

Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes
punished under special laws

1.             As to moral trait of the offender

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is
considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission
of the punishable act.
In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is
enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.

2.             As to use of good faith as defense

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa
In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

3.             As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the crime
is taken into account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and
consummated stages in the commission of the crime.
In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly
penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.
4.             As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is
considered.
In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not
taken into account in imposing the penalty.

5.             As to degree of participation

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one offender, the
degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in
imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory.
In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not
considered.  All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent.  There is
no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.

Mens rea – it is a wrongful criminal intent.

Example: X intends to rob a bank. This is a wrongful criminal intent. A wrongful criminal
intent by itself does not make one criminally liable.

Actus rea – It is a wrongful act. It is act in furtherance of a wrongful criminal intent.

Example: Pursuant to the earlier plan X entered a bank and robbed it and its customers. To
incur criminal liability for an intentional felony, mens rea and actus rea must be present. In the
foregoing, X is liable for Robbery. Both mens rea and actus rea are present.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

It means, “the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.” Since intent is an
essential element of intentional felony, when the accused acted in good faith, there is no crime
committed. The maxim applies only to intentional felonies.

Distinction between intent and motive

Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is
not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.
On the other hand, motive implies motion.  It is the moving power which impels one to do an
act.  When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent.  
But a crime may be committed without motive. 

Motive – is the reason why a person commits an act. It impels him to commit an act for a
definite result.

 Motive is not an element of a crime. It is immaterial in the commission of a felony.

Hence, it is not determinative of criminal liability. It is intent that is material. It is intent
that determines whether a person is criminally liable for a felony.
 Motive alone will not make one criminally liable because under the RPC, there must be
an overt act of execution. No matter how wrongful a criminal thought or plan is, as long
as there are no overt acts, there is no crime committed.

When motive is material or important:

1. The act brings about variant crimes.
Example: X, a criminology student of the KCP boxed Y, a professor. Is X liable for Direct
Assault or just physical injuries.
Answer: It depends. If Y was assaulted while engaged in the performance of his duties or by
reason of past performance of his duties, then the crime is direct assault. If not, then the
crime is physical injuries.

2. When the perpetrator has not been positively identified as when nobody witnessed the
commission of the offense. (When there is only circumstantial evidence as to the
identity of the accused.)
3. To determine whether a shooting was intentional or accidental.

2. By means of fault (culpa)

Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action. Negligence indicates a deficiency of
perception. If a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or
damage to property, there is imprudence. If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use
due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused, there is negligence.
Negligence usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence usually involves lack of skill.

 Example: Vehicular Accidents

 HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT/MISTAKE OF FACT
It is an act or omission which is the result of a misapprehension of facts that is voluntary on
the part of the person who caused the injury to another. The actor is not criminally liable.
Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be;
2. in performing the act, the intent of the accused was lawful;
3. The mistake must be without fault of carelessness on the part of the accused
 
Example:  United States v. Ah Chong.
Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by placing a chair against
the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody who was trying to open
the door.  He asked the identity of the person, but he did not receive a response.  Fearing that
this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should
he attempt to enter.  At that moment, the chair struck him.  Believing that he was attacked,
he seized a knife and fatally wounded the intruder.

 Ignorance of the law (ignorantia lege neminem excusat) excuses no one from
compliance therewith; but mistake of fact (ignorantia facti excusat) can relieve the
accused of criminal liability since it means there was no criminal intent accompanying a
felonious act.

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

MODE 1:
By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.

 Art. 4 paragraph 1 applies only to intentional felonies. It does not apply to culpable
felonies.
 A person committing an intentional felony is criminally liable although the wrongful act
done be different from that which is intended. This is true whether the result is
foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended. He is liable for all the direct, natural
and logical consequences of his felonious act.
 the felony is the proximate cause of the wrong done. “El que de la causa es causa del
mal causado.” He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.

Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order
of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would
necessarily produce the event.

Proximate Cause – that cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.
Requisites:
 1. the direct, natural, and logical cause
2. produces the injury or damage
3. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
4. without which the result would not have occurred

Examples:
1. One who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead, is liable for the injury
caused to C, although the one who fired the gun had no intention to injure C;
2. One who have a fist blow on the head of D, causing the latter to fall with the
latter’s head striking a had pavement, is liable for the death of D, which resulted
although the one who gave the fist blow had no intention to kill D;
3. One who stabbed another in the dark, believing that the latter was E, when in
fact he was G, is liable for the injury caused to G, although the one who stabbed
him had no intention to injure G;

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury:
1. (Doctrine of Efficient Intervening Cause) when there is an active force that
intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused;

Example: A boxed B. B fell on the ground. An incoming car bumped B which caused his
death. A is not liable for the death of B because there was an efficient intervening cause,
the car that bumped B. The boxing of B by A was not the proximate cause of the death of
the victim. At most, A is liable for physical injuries.

2. When the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
Example: A stabbed B and inflicted injuries upon the latter. B was hospitalized. Finding
boredom in the hospital, B removed his dextrose and went home. B later went to a dirty
ditch to catch fish. As a result, his wound developed infection which caused his death. A,
under the circumstances, is not liable for the death of B. His death was due to his own
intentional act.

 proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of
the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the
offended party the belief that made him risk himself.

When the wrongful act done be different from that intended

1. Error in personae or mistake in identity of the victim – injuring one person who is mistaken
for another (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he
instead shot C because he (A) mistook C for B.

 In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime.   It was the
actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended
victim. 

How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?

In error in personae, the offender is liable even if the victim turns out to be different from the
intended victim.

In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a
different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.  But if the
crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty
for the lesser crime will be applied.  In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance
where Article 49 applies.  Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed,
the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance

The transferred intent Rule – this applies in error in personae. It results when the actual
victim turns out to be different from the intended victim. The intent to kill or the intent to
cause injury is deemed transferred to the actual victim.

2. Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow – that is when the offender intending to do an
injury to one person actually inflicts it on another. The offender is still liable although
the one he injured or killed is another person because it resulted from his felonious act.

 Hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances (this
is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking together.  A wanted to
shoot B, but he instead injured C.
 In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of
poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else.  In aberratio ictus, the intended victim
as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
 In aberration ictus, three (3) persons are involved; the offender, the intended victim
and the actual victim. The act may result in two (2) or more felonies. But considering
that a single act was performed, the accused is liable for a complex crime. The penalty
for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum period pursuant to Art. 48 of
the RPC.

Example: A with intent to kill, hacked B. B was not hit but C who was behind B was hit. C died.
A is liable for his attempt to kill B. A is also liable for the death of C. The death of C is a
natural consequence of the felonious act of A.
 The transferred intent rule is also applicable, that is, the intent to kill B was transferred
to C. But considering the fact that A performed a single act, A is liable for the complex
crime of Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The penalty for the graver offense of
Homicide which is Reclusion Temporal must be imposed in its maximum period.

3. Praeter Intentionem or lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. This takes place
when the result of the felonious act is graver than what was intended. It is a mitigating
circumstance. The offender is liable for the felony actually committed but the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Example: A boxed B with the intention of inflicting a lump on B. As a result of the blow, B lost
his balance and fell to the ground with his head hitting the pavement causing his death. A is
liable of homicide. The law provides that he is liable even if the result of his felonious act is
greater than that intended by him. The penalty impossable is Reclusion Temporal in its
minimum period.

 praeter intentionem is mitigating circumstance.  In order however, that the situation

may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the
means employed and the resulting felony

 In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated
by criminal intent. However, in order that a person may be held criminally liable for
felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is important that an intentional
 felony has been committed. If the act of the accused is lawful (he is not committing a
felony), then Art. 4 paragraph 1 is NOT applicable.

Example: X attached Y with bolo. He hacked Y several times and the latter retreated until such
time that he had nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Thereupon, Y drew his gun and fired at
X who persisted in his attack. Y missed X and hit a bystander who died as a result. Y is not
liable for the death of the bystander. His act of shooting X in self defense is lawful. He was not
committing a felony. The death of the bystander is accidental under Art. 12, par. 4.

 But if Y fired his gun in self-defense but indiscriminately, and hit an innocent bystander
killing him in the process, Y committed a culpable felony. Thus, even if the act of the
accused is lawful but committed with negligence, there is criminal liability, not for an
intentional felony but for a culpable felony.

MODE 2:
By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Requisites: (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property
2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law
3. There was criminal intent
4. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were
employed.

Inherent impossible of accomplishment

1. Factual or physical impossibility – It occurs when extraneous circumstance unknown
to the perpetrator prevent the commission of the intended crime.

Example: Stabbing a person who is lying on bed, the offender having the intent to kill him and
thinking that he was only sleeping, when in fact that person had already been deed before he
stabbed him. The act performed by offender would have been murder, an offense against
persons, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, it being impossible to
kill a person who is already dead. He must be punished because he is a potential criminal. He
had a criminal tendency.

 But if the offender knew that his would be victim was already dead when he stabbed
him, he is not liable for an impossible crime because his mind was not criminal. He
knew that he cannot inflict any injury anymore to a dead person.

Example: Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is already dead but the offender
thought that she was alive. Rape cannot be committed against a dead woman. Rape is now a
crime against persons under RA 8353. It is no longer a crime against chastity that it used to
be under Art. 335 of the RPC. Hence, there is now an impossible crime of Rape.

Example: Picking the pocket of another person which turns out to be empty. The offender
would have been liable for theft, an offense against property, were it not for the inherent
impossability of its accomplishment, since theft cannot be committed when there is no
personal property that could be taken.
 The crime of theft was impossible of accomplishment. There was nothing to be stolen.

2. Legal impossibility – It occurs when an essential element of the crime is not present
during its commission making it impossible of accomplishment.

Example: A surreptitiously took a watch from the possession of another which turned out to be
the same watch he owns but lost 2 weeks earlier. An essential element of theft is that the
offender must take a personal property belonging to another. This element is absent. A cannot
be a Thief of his own property. However, he may be held liable for impossible crime.

Example: A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B’s wallet. Once in possession
of the wallet, A opened it, but finding it empty, he threw away the wallet. Is A guilty of an
impossible crime? NO, because the wallet has some value and the crime of theft is
consummated from the moment the offender has taken possession of the wallet with intent to
gain. Hence, that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime, but of theft.

Example: (Means employed is inadequate) – With intent to kill, X put poison in the coffee of Y.
Unsuspecting, Y drank all the contents of the coffee. The coffee laced with poison had no
effect upon Y because the quantity of the poison put in the coffee was too small. X is liable for
the an impossible crime. It is not attempted murder because the crime was inherently
impossible of accomplishment.
Example: (means employed is ineffectual) – Believing that certain white powder was arsenic or
poison, A mixed it with the coffee intended for B. When B drank it, he was not injured at all
because the white powder turned out to be sugar. He is liable for an impossible crime.

 Notes:
1. Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing
another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
2. The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
3. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

 Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.
 Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.
 Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just sleeping.  B was already dead.  A shot
B.  A is liable.  If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
 When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances,
the crime could not have materialized.  If the crime could have materialized under a
different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible
crime; it would be an attempted felony.

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME:

A. INTERNAL ACTS – exist in the mind and are not punishable. Example: plan to rob, kill
and rape.
B. EXTERNAL ACTS
a. Preparatory Acts
b. Acts of execution
Preparatory Acts – are those initial acts of a person who has conceived the idea of
committing a crime, but which cannot by themselves logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense. They are not even overt acts and hence, they do not constitute the
attempted stage of the acts of execution.
- Acts tending towards the crime

Examples:
1. Buying or obtaining an instrument to commit murder, homicide, robbery, or abortion
2. Preparing false vouchers and receipts

Are preparatory acts punishable?

Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable because the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible, except in rare and exceptional cases when the law makes the
preparatory act punishable and provides a corresponding penalty.

The following preparatory acts are punishable:

1. Possession of picklocks which is preparatory to the commission of robbery and with
force upon things;
2. Possession of unlicensed firearm
 The above-mentioned acts are punished by law not as preparatory acts but as
DISTINCT CRIMES punishable under Art. 304 of the RPC, PD 1866 as amended by RA
8294, as amended by RA 10591.

Acts of Execution
1. Directly connected to the intended crime
2. In punishable under the RPC
3. Usually overt act with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense.
 The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed by the offender.

What is an indeterminate offense – it is one where the purpose of the offender in performing
an act is not certain. Its nature is relation to its objective is ambiguous. The accused may be
convicted for a felony defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of desistance.
Example: X intends to kill Y by means of poisoning. X buys a poison in a drug store. Is X
criminally liable?
Answer: NO, X is not criminally liable. The mere act of buying a poison does not constitute an
overt act. It is only a preparatory act which has no direct connection to the crime intended to
be committed. The act is susceptible to many interpretations. Mens rea (wrongful criminal
intent) alone will not make one incur criminal liability.

3 stages of execution of a felony

1. Attempted
2. Frustrated
3. Consummated - A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present

The stages of commission do not apply to the following:

1. Offenses punished by special laws.
2. Formal crimes – consummated by a single act (slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible crimes – as these crimes cannot even be consummated
 4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason,
corruption of minors)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (betting in sports, corruption of public officers)

2 Phases of Felony:
1. Subjective Phase
2. Objective Phase

Subjective Phase – it is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point
where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control
over his acts, including their natural course.

 If between these two points, the offender is stopped by reason of a cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed
and it is only in the attempted stage.

Objective Phase – It is that portion of the acts of the offender, where he has no more control
over the same. All the acts of execution have been performed by him. He is now in the waiting
stage.

ATTEMPTED FELONY – a felony is 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.

 Attempted stage is the beginning of the subjective phase

What is overt acts – an overt act is physical activity or deed, indicating an intention to commit
a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles, nor by
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will logically ripen into a concrete offense.

 The existence of the overt act is important only in the attempted stage of the acts of
execution. It is not necessary to determine the existence of overt act in the other
stages of execution, because in frustrated stage, as well as in the consummated stage
of execution, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which necessarily
implies that the offender has done more than an overt act.

Essential Elements of Attempted Felony:

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce thefelony
3. He is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than
the offender’s own spontaneous desistance.

NOTE: In crimes involving violence and there is intent to kill, the offender does not perform all
the acts of execution if he does not inflict a mortal wound. The crime is only in the attempted
stage.

Example:
 1. A with intent to kill hacked B but missed hitting him. A is criminally liable for Attempted
Homicide. By hacking B with intent to kill A commenced the execution of the crime
directly by overt acts. It is only in the attempted stage because A did not perform all
the acts of execution by not inflicting mortal or serious wound.
2. A with intent to kill hacked B. B was hit and suffered a small cut on the arm that
required medical attendance or incapacity for labor for 4 days. A committed attempted
homicide. By hacking B with intent to kill A commenced the execution of the crime
directly by overt acts. It is only in the attempted stage because A did not perform all
the acts of execution by not inflicting a mortal or serious wound.
3. A boxed and kicked B and inflicted physical injuries upon the latter. The injuries
required medical attendance for 4 to 5 days. A committed the crime of slight physical
injuries. This is so because there was no intent of kill on the part of A.

RAPE
Full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge. Mere contact by the
male’s organ of the labia consummates rape. But mere epidermal contact or peripheral contact
with the females sex organ is dully attempted rape.
 Mere skin to skin contact between the penis and the labia consummates rape.

EFFECTS OF SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE BEFORE THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE

ACTS OF EXECUTION
The spontaneous desistance of the offender is exculpatory only if made during the
attempted stage and provide further that the acts already committed do not constitute an
offense.
In attempted felony, if the offender spontaneously desists before performing all the acts
of execution he is not liable for attempted felony.
Desistance – is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law allows a
person to desist from committing a crime.
Example:
1. A with intent to kill stabbed B. B was not hit. When A was about to stab B again, A
changed his mind and left. A is not liable for attempted Homicide. A was not able to
inflict a mortal wound because of his own spontaneous desistance.
2. A with intent to kill stabbed B and inflicted a slight injury upon him. When A was about
to stab B again, the latter pleaded fro mercy that A spare his life. A took pity upon B
and voluntarily desisted from further attacking B. He walked away and left B. A is not
liable for attempted homicide. A was not able to inflict a mortal would because of his
own spontaneous desistance. However when A desisted, he had already inflicted a light
injury upon B. He is liable for that but not for attempted homicide but for physical
injuries. BUT if had already inflicted moral wound when he desisted and B did not die
due to causes independent of the will of A then he is liable for frustrated homicide.

FRUSTRATED FELONY - 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.
 Frustrated stage is the start of the objective phase.
 If the crime is not committed, it is by reason of causes independent of the will of the
accused.
ELEMENTS
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (belief of accused
as to whether or not he had performed all acts of execution is immaterial)
3. But the felony is not produced; and
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Illustrations:
1. A with intent to kill stabbed B. B was mortally wounded. He was rushed to the hospital
where he was operated on and was saved by timely medical intervention. A committed
frustrated homicide. This is because by inflicting a mortal or serious wound, A was able
to perform all the acts of execution. The crime of homicide was not committed because
of timely medical intervention, a cause independent of the will of A.

Frustrated Felony Distinguished from Attempted Felony

1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose.
2. In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony while in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution.
 In other words, in frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in
attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase.

Other Applications:
1. A put poison in B’s food.  B threw away his food.  A is liable – attempted murder.
2. A stole B’s car, but he returned it.  A is liable – (consummated) theft.
3. A aimed his gun at B.  C held A’s hand and prevented him from shooting B – attempted
murder.
4. A inflicted a mortal wound on B.  B managed to survive – frustrated murder.
5. A intended to kill B by shooting him.  A missed – attempted murder.
6. A doused B’s house with kerosene.  But before he could light the match, he was caught
– attempted arson.
7. A cause a blaze, but did not burn the house of B – frustrated arson.
8. B’s house was set on fire by A – (consummated) arson.
9. A tried to rape B.  B managed to escape.  There was no penetration – attempted rape.
10.A got hold of B’s painting.  A was caught before he could leave B’s house – frustrated
robbery.

Art. 7.  Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.
 Examples of light felonies: slight physical injuries; theft; alteration of boundary marks; 
malicious mischief; and intriguing against honor.
 In commission of crimes against properties and persons, every stage of execution is
punishable but only the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies,
accessories are not.
ARTICLE 8: CONSPIRACY

Art. 8.  Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefore.

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.

1. CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY
Requisites of Conspiracy
1. That two or more person come to an agreement;
2. that the agreement concerns the commission of a felony; and
3. that the execution of the felony is decided upon

 Conspiracy is punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefore.
 Conspiracy becomes a felony only if there is a law making it a felony. If there is no law
penalizing it, then there is no crime committed.

Examples of Conspiracy as a felony:

1. Conspiracy to commit treason
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion
3. Conspiracy to commit insurrection
4. Conspiracy to commit arson
5. Conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat
6. Conspiracy to commit sedition and lately,
7. Conspiracy to commit terrorism under RA 9372

CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF

INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 As a rule, conspiracy is not a felony. Conspiracy becomes a felony only when the law
especially provides a penalty therefore. In such case, the mere agreement and decision
to commit a particular felony becomes punishable.
 However, if after the conspiracy the offenders actually committed for instance,
rebellion, they are liable for rebellion, and the conspiracy ceases to be a felony and
becomes only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that is, the act of one conspirator
is the act of all the other conspirators.

2. CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
 It holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively
liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in
concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose of objective. The
existence of conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in
pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act of all.
There is implied conspiracy if it is proven that two or more persons aimed their acts
towards the accomplice of same unlawful objects each doing a part so that their acts although
apparently independent are in fact connected and cooperative indicating a unity of purpose.

REQUISITES:
1. Overt acts done before, during or after the commission of the crime;
2. Words, remarks or language used before, during or after the omission of the crime;
a. They must be distinct from each other, independent or separate
b. They must be closely associated, closely related, closely linked, and coordinated
c. They must be for a common criminal resolution, or concerted action, geared
towards the attainment of the felony.

THE ACT OF ONE IS THE ACT OF ALL

When conspiracy is established all who participated therein irrespective of the quantity
and quality of their participation are liable equally, whether conspiracy is planned or
instantaneous. The criminal liability of one is the same as the criminal liability of one of the
others, unless ne or some of the conspirators committed another crime which is not part of
the intended crime.
Example: A, B and C agreed and decided to kill X. A acted as the driver. B was the look out. C
stabbed X to death. All of them are equally liable for the death of X. The act of X in stabling X
to death is also deemed the act of A and B. When there is conspiracy, each o the offenders is
liable only for the act he executed.

Example: A and B agreed and decided to commit Robbery in the house of X. In the process, B
committed rape on one of the occupants without the knowledge of A. B is liable for the
complex crime of Robbery with Rape. A is only liable for robbery because the crime of rape
was not a part of the conspiracy. BUT if A saw B committing the crime of rape and did nothing
to prevent the latter, A is also liable for Robbery with Rape because he was aware of the act
committed by B and he did nothing to prevent him.

ARIAS DOCTRINE
“that all heads of office have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and
on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations.”
When his only infraction is reliance in good faith on a subordinate upon whom primary
responsibility rests, be should not be held liable unless there is a clear case of conspiracy or
reckless imprudence or his part. In order that there be conspiracy it is necessary that there is
a conscious design to commit the crime. Conspiracy cannot be the product of negligence. It is
based on the intentionality of the person to commit the crime. As such, they cannot be held
under the theory conspiracy by mere signing of the documents prepared by a subordinate
employee.
WHEN CONSPIRACY EXIST INRE TO ARIAS
While there are cases when heads of offices, whose actions involved the very function
he had to discharge, cannot be swept into a conspiracy convictions, the court finds the same
to be inapplicable where the accused heads of their respective divisions were knowing
participants in the conspiracy considering that despite the patent irregularities in the document
presented to them, they still affixed their signatures thereto-all the individuals acts of the
accused were se synchronized and concerted leaving no room for any doubt that there was
conspiracy and connivance among them.
SYNDICATE CRIME VS. CONSPIRACY
1. Syndicate as defined in Sec.23 of RA 7659 refers to a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually aiding one another for the purpose of gain
in the commission of any crime. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree
and abide to commit any crime;
2. In syndicate, an offense is committed by a group for purpose of gain. Such is not
necessary in conspiracy;
3. In syndicate, a crime group is an organized group. Such organization is not
necessary in conspiracy.

BASIS ARTICLE 4 paragraph 1

Example: ABCD gang up X, O use stone, X dead.

The death of X is the natural and logical consequence of the beating by A, B, C and D.
Whether or not D used a stone.

Example: A, B, C, and D conspired to kill X and designated D as the trigger man. As a result X
was shot, dead. But Y also was shot by D.
 SC: The killing of Y is not the logical and natural consequences of the criminal
resolution of A, B, C and D.

 A conspirator is not liable for another’s crime which is not an object of the
conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical consequences thereof
Conspirators are liable for the acts of another conspirator when though such arts
differ radically and substantially from that which they intend to commit. This is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4 paragraph 1. But when the conspirators
selected a particular individual to be their victim, and another person was killed by
one of the, only that conspirators who killed another person would be liable
therefor.
 Mere knowledge or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party
to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a
view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends
companionship.
 Mere presence at the crime of the incident, knowledge of the plan or agreement thereto
is not a sufficient ground to hold a person liable as a conspirator.
  The mere fact that the gunman arrived and left the crime scene together with the
accused persons does not automatically mean that they shared a common design and
unity of purpose in killing the deceased.

When is there a proposal to commit a felony?

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.

1. Proposal to commit treason

2. Proposal to commit rebellion
3. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat
4. Proposal to commit insurrection; and lately
5. Proposal to commit terrorism

Requisite:
1. The person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. He proposes its execution to some other person or persons

There is no proposal when:

1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony;
2. There is no decided concrete proposal
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed

Example: Japan invaded the Philippines. Armed hostilities have begun. Guerrero is a Filipino
citizen who had been sick and tired of the Filipino way of life. He wanted to adhere to the
Japanese soldiers and give them aid or comfort but he was afraid to do so. He went to A, B, C,
D, E and company and proposed to them adhere to the enemies and give them aid or comfort.
HE IS NOT LIABLE for proposal to commit treason. From the facts of the case, it appears that
Guerrero was not decided to commit treason because he was afraid to adhere to the Japanese
soldiers and give them aid or comfort. There is proposal to commit a felony when the person
who proposes its commission is decided to commit it.

Art.  9.  Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 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 he penalty
of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both is provided.

 Capital punishment – death penalty.

 Penalties (imprisonment): Grave – six years and one day to reclusion perpetua (life); 
Less grave – one month and one day to six years;  Light – arresto menor (one day to 30
days).
  Importance – to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the
penalty pursuant to Art. 90 and 92 of the RPC.

CRIMINAL LAW (BOOK 1)

MIDTERM NOTES

MODIFYING/AFFECTING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
5. Alterative Circumstances (Art. 15)

Keyword: JEMAA

1. Justifying Circumstances – Any person acting under any of the justifying circumstances
does not incur criminal liability. The act of a person under any of the justifying
circumstances is in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liabilities except in par. 4 of
Art. 11, where the civil liability is to be shared by the persons who benefited by the act.

2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12) – Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the
exempting circumstances commits a crime. However, due to the absence of any of the
conditions which constitutes free will, no criminal liability arises. There is wanting in the
agent of the crime any of conditions which makes the act voluntary or negligent. There
is however civil liability except in paragraph 4.

3. Mitigating Circumstances – These circumstances are based on the diminution of either

the freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
It results to the reduction of the penalty in terms of degree or period.
 4. Aggravating Circumstances – these are based on the greater perversity of the offender
manifested in the commission of the felony.

5. Alternative Circumstance – the basis of these alternative circumstance is the nature and
effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. It is either
mitigating or aggravating.

OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF FACTORS WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Absolutory Causes
a. Instigation
b. Spontaneous desistance in attempted felony (Art. 6)
c. Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16)
d. Certain accessories in light felonies (Art. 20)
e. Art. 247 physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

2. Extenuating Circumstance which are mitigating circumstances not found in Art. 13.
a. Art. 333; If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being
abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower
in degree shall be imposed.
b. Art. 255 (Infanticide – killing a 3 year old baby); If the crime be committed by
the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Definitions:
1. Imputability – is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author
2. Responsibility – is the obligation of suffering the penal and civil consequences of the
crime
3. Guilt – is an element of responsibility that a person has not only committed an act but
that it also amounted to a crime

Justifying Circumstance – those where the acts of a person is said to be in accordance with
law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free both criminal
and civil liability.

Basis – The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening
sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability.”

What are the justifying circumstances

1. Self-defense
2. Defense of a relative
3. Defense of a stranger
4. State of necessity
5. Fulfilment of a duty
6. Obedience to a lawful order
7. The battered women syndrome (RA 9262)
 1. SELF-DEFENSE – Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following concur:
a. Unlawful aggression (from the victim)
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person
defending himself)
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Reason of Self-defense:
The State cannot afford to give 24 hour protection to its inhabitants and cannot always come
to the aid of the person under attack. He then has to defend himself by following his instinct
of self-preservation. The State recognizes this inherent right of a person.

Rights included in self-defense:

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person who is assaulted but also that of his
rights. Thus, it includes:
1. Right to honor. A slap on the face is considered an unlawful aggression. The face
represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious physical attack.
2. Defense of property. This can be invoked if there is an attack on the property owner or
legal possessor.

Nature of self-defense as a defense:

It is an admission and avoidance. Admit the killing and avoid criminal liability. But in such
case, the person defending himself must prove the elements clearly and convincingly.

FIRST ELEMENT: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non (condition precedent) for upholding the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. There is no self-defense if there is no unlawful
aggression.

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – it contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or

imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

2 kinds:
1. Actual – actual aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon which
show the positive determination of the aggressor to cause injury. It partakes of an act
that is positively strong and poses a real danger to the life or limb of another person.
Thus, a mere push or nudge does not constitute unlawful aggression.
2. Immediate or Imminent – means an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening. It is not required that the attack already begins for it may be too late.
Examples:
a. Brandishing a knife with which to stab the victim; or
b. Aiming the gun with intent to shoot

 Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression but if the threat is offensive and
positively strong, showing that wrongful intent to cause injury, that threat is an
unlawful aggression. It cannot consist merely oral threats, although it is not necessary
that the attack already begins. Only the presence of an untoward and material
aggression will constitute offensive and positive threat.

 The mere cocking of an M-14 rifle by the victim without aiming it at the accused does
not constitute unlawful aggression.
  When there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. Both could be
aggressors in the contemplation of law.

 Verbal abuse without physical attack does not constitute unlawful aggression.

 Unlawful aggression no longer exist when the aggressor runs away after the attack, or
when the weapon has been wrested from the aggressor who has manifested refusal to
fight.

However, if the latter vigorously tries to wrest back possession of the weapon divested
from him, unlawful aggression still exists and the accused can use reasonable means to
prevent or repel it.

 The act of self-defense must succeed the unlawful aggression without an appreciable
interval of time. There must have been no time for the offended party to deliberately or
think coolly.

 The rule now is self-defense is “stand ground when in right.” The law does not require
a person to retreat when his assailant is fast advancing to him with a deadly weapon.
This is because if he flees he runs the risk of being attacked at the back.
 Retaliation is not self-defense – In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense,
the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense.

 In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing
of the deceased by the accused be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased,
or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.

 Placing of hand by a man on the woman’s upper thigh is unlawful aggression.

SECOND ELEMENT: REASONABLE NECCESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO

PREVENT OR REPEL THE AGGRESSION
The second requisite of defense means that 1) there be a necessity of the course of action
taken by the person making a defense, and 2) there be a necessity of the means used. Both
must be reasonable.

This element depends upon the attending circumstances of the case. Whether the means used
is reasonable depends on the:
1. Nature and quality of weapon
2. Physical condition
3. Character and size of the protagonists
4. Other circumstances as well as those of the person attacked
 5. Time and place of the attack

 The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be wounded or killed, and
while the danger to his person or life subsists, he has a perfect and indisputable right to
repel such danger by wounding his adversary and, if necessary, to disable him
completely so that he may not continue the assault.

 In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled, human nature does not
act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-
preservation. The reasonableness of the necessity to take a course of action and the
reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed depend upon the
circumstances of the case.

 A knife is more dangerous than cub. Its use is reasonable if there is no other available
means of defense at the disposal of the accused and he could not coolly choose other
less deadly weapons.

 The means employed must meet the requirements of fair play such that if the unlawful
aggression is not that fatal like a slap on the face, a person cannot use excessive
means to defend himself like using a knife or a gun.

 Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of
the aggressor is not required, neither is the material commensurability between the
means of the attack and defense. BECAUSE the person assaulted does not have the
luxury of time and tranqulity of mind to ponder on the manner of defense.

 The person defending himself must aim at his assailant and not indiscriminately fire his
gun.
 If the accused had fired one shot at the aggressor paralyzing him, he is not justified in
firing his gun at him 5 times more killing him in the process. In such case, there was no
more unlawful aggression to repel. He is liable for Homicide or Murder as the case may
be.

 Settled is the rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no longer
any right to kill or wound the former aggressor otherwise retaliation and not self-
defense is committed.

THIRD ELEMENT: LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE

PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF

Provocation – to incite to anger, arouse, encourage, excite, spark, stimulate

 There is no provocation from the accused

 Even if there was provocation from the accused, it was NOT sufficient
 Even if provocation is sufficient, it must not come from the accused.
  Pepito calls Juan “Pogi” although the latter is ugly. This constitutes provocation. “a
praise undeserved is slander is disguise.” However, this is not sufficient provocation and
is does not justify Juan to wound or kill Pepito.

 Romeo who was in a joking mood disarranged the hair of Vicente. The latter god mad
and said: “Guluhin mo an ang buhay ko, huwag lang ang buhok ko” and stabbed
Romeo. The act of Romeo is disarranging the hair of Vicente was provocative but it was
not sufficient enough for Vicente to stab Romeo.

 Failure to inform the police of the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and to
surrender the knife used in stabbing him militates against the claim of self-defense.

 Persons who act in in legitimate defense of their persons or rights invariably surrender
themselves to the authorities and describe fully and in all candor all that has happened
with a view to justify their acts. The fact that the accused declined to give any
statement when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-
defense.

 The presence of many wounds on the victim negates self-defense. It is an oft-repeated

rule that the presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their seriousness
would negate self-defense.

 Flight is veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense.

 Defense of property can be invoked as JC only when it is coupled with an attack on the
person on one entrusted with the property.

 There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused
believed it was a real gun.

DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, or legitimate
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and
those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided the following requisites are
present:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the
defense had no part therein.

Relatives who can be defended:

1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
 3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees. Death of a spouse terminates the relationship by affinity.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Exampe: A slapped B twice and thereafter attacked him with a bolo. A hacked B twice and
inflicted injuries upon B. A continued his attack upon B. Thereupon, B defended himself and
parried the attack of B by using his bolo. A fell on the ground still holding the bolo. When B
was about to hack A, that was the time when C, the brother of A arrived. Before B could hack
A, C shot B who died as result. Is C liable? Why?

Answer: No, C is not liable. He acted in defense of his brother A. Although A was the
aggressor, C did not know about it. When he arrived, he saw that the life of his brother was in
danger. As things appeared to him, there was aggression of the part of B which he had to
repel. He acted pursuant to his honest belief. Under the circumstances, the use of the gun was
a reasonable means to repel the aggression. He had no part in the provocation made by A.
The 3 elements are present in this case.

 Of the 3 elements of defense of a relative, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua

non, for without it any defense is not possible or justified.

DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger provided the following
requisites concur:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

STATE OF NECESSITY/AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

ANY PERSON, who in order to avoid evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided the following requisites are present:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
Example: Jackie eloped with Ely after all the wedding preparations with JB were made. She
was a no-show at the church wedding. Jackie was charged with Slander by Deed. She was
acquitted. The doctrine of state of necessity is applicable. There was a necessity on the part of
Jackie to avoid a loveless marriage. The prospect of living a marital life in perpetual agony
constitutes an injury greater than that done to avoid it.

There is civil liability when wedding invitations have been printed and distributed.

Example: A person driving his car on a narrow road with due diligence and care when
suddenly he saw a “six by six” truck in front of his car. If he would swerve his car to the left
he would fall into a precipice, or if he would swerve it to the right he would kill a passerby. He
was forced to choose between losing his life in the precipice or sacrificing the life of the
innocent bystander. He chose the latter, swerved his car to the right, ran over and killed the
passerby.

Example: Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to prevent its spread, to
adjacent houses of strong materials, the surrounding nipa houses are pulled down.
Example: During the storm, the ship which was heavily loaded with goods was in danger of
sinking. The captain of the vessel ordered part of the goods thrown overboard. In this case,
the captain is not criminally liable for causing part of the goods thrown overboard.

ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN THE FULFILLMENT OF THE A DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE

Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office
2. That the injury caused by the offense committed be the necessary consequence or the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Performance of Duty
If a prisoner who was escaping disregarded the warning shots of the jail guard and there is no
other remedy except to fire at him to prevent him from escaping the guard is not criminally
liable. It is his duty to prevent the escape of the prisoner and in doing so, he has the right to
employ any means which is not capricious, arbitrary and unreasonable.

 A security guard to shot a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified. He may have
acted in the performance of his duty but he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty.
 Although an officer in making an arrest is justified in using force as is reasonably
necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his
escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with a wanton violence, or
in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.

Exercise of a right:
The doctrine of self-help under Art. 429 of the Civil Code is applicable and which states:
“The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.”

Example: A constructed a small house in a piece of land which he believed to be a disposable

public land. He had been occupying the lot for over a year. One day, B, came and claimed
ownership over the land. B proceeded in dismantling the house of A. The latter pleaded to A to
stop but his plea fell on deaf ears. Thereupon, A pulled B to prevent him from further
dismantling his house. In the process, B fell on the ground and suffered physical injuries.

Answer: A is not liable. Under the law, he has the right to employ reasonable force to repel or
prevent actual or threatened assault on his property. His act of pulling B was reasonably
necessary to protect his possessory right over his property.

Problem: Suppose in the same example, A shot B with his 45 caliber gun instead of pulling
down B and B dies as a result.

Answer: This time A is criminally liable for the death of B. His act of shooting B to death is not
reasonably necessary to prevent the invasion of his property. For A to be justified in killing B,
the attack against his property must be coupled with an attack against his person and that
there must be reasonable necessity of the means employed by him to prevent or repel the
aggression.

ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR

FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out such order is lawful

 An individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to an order issued by a

superior, if such order, is for some lawful purpose and that the means used by the
subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

 A subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware of its
illegality and he is not negligent.

 If a police officer, upon order of the police chief, kills a suspect for not giving an
extrajudicial confession, he is criminally liable because the order to execute the suspect
is illegal and the police officers is not bound to obey it.

THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

RA 9262 known as the Anti-Violence against women and their children act of 2004 provides:

Battery – refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to
physical and psychological or emotional distress.

Who is a battered woman?

A battered woman is one who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern
for her rights. In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the
acute battering cycle at least twice.

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.

In order to be classified as a battered woman, the accused and her spouse must go through
the battering cycle as least twice.

3 phases of the so-called “cycle of violence” in the battered woman syndrome

1. Tension-building phase – during this phase, minor battering occurs. It could be verbal
or slight physical abuse or another form hostile behavior.
2. Acute battering incident – is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes
death.
 3. Tranquil period – the final phase of the cycle of violence begins when acute battering
incident ends. The couple experience profound relief. The batterer may show tender
nurturing behavior towards his partner

 Victims-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 elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
 Trapped in the cycle of violence, the perception of danger on the part of the battered
woman has changed. Mere sight of the husband batterer became synonymous with
unlawful aggression. Actual physical aggression is not required. It is a requisite thought
that the accused be found to be suffering from the syndrome.

ARTICLE 12: CIRCUMSTANCECS WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Exempting Circumstances – are those that exempt a person from criminal liability because
there is an absence in the agent of the crime any of the conditions that would make the act
voluntary or negligent.

 the exemption from criminal liability is based on the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom, intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
 In exempting circumstance there is a crime but no criminal liability arises. There is
however civil liability except under the paragraph 4.

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as
a felony, the court shall order the confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without
first obtaining the permission of the same court.

Insanity – exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence of freedom or the will.
Mere abnormality is not enough.

Imbecility – is feeblemindedness. It exist when a person while of advanced age, has a mental
development of a child between two and seven year of age.

 He who alleges insanity must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the
commission of the crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.

Effect of Insanity of the accused:

1. At the time of the commission of the crime – exempting
2. During trial – criminal proceedings will be suspended
3. After Judgment or while serving sentence – the execution of judgment of conviction
shall be suspended and the court shall order the accused be committed to a hospital

Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity

When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal
attack is common, because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his
property is being taken. During the period of excitement, such person has no control whatever
of his acts.
Crazy is not same as insane – the fact that person behaves crazily does not mean that he is
insane. The popular conception of the word “crazy” is being used to describe a person or an
act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner but it does not
necessarily and conclusively prove the he is legally so.

Kleptomania
It depends and must be investigated by psychiatrist. If the unlawful act is due “to his mental
disease or a mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the accused has been
deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from
doing the act,” the irresistible impulse, should be covered by the term insanity
On the other hand, if the mental disease or mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his
will-power, and did not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, then it may be only
mitigating.

 Epilepsy may be covered by the term “insanity”

 Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the offender could distinguish right from
wrong.
 Somnambulism or sleep-walking (committing a crime while in a dream) is covered by
the term insanity.

In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely
acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep.  He is
moving like a robot, unaware of what he is doing.  So the element of voluntariness which is
necessary in dolo and culpa is not present.  Somnambulism is an absolutory cause.  If
element of voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability, although there is civil
liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12, refer to the
circumstance as an absolutory cause.

2. A child of 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is
exempt from criminal liability. The child shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Sec. 29 of the RA 9344;

3. A person over 15 years of age and but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and he be subjected to an intervening program (diversion
proceedings), unless he/she acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with RA 9344;

 Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability.
 Age to be computed at the time of the commission of the crime.
 In case diversion proceedings failed, or refusal thereto, the criminal case shall proceed.

Automatic Suspension Of Sentence – once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committees. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place
the child in conflict with law under suspended sentence, without need of application. Provided,
however, that the suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already
18 years of age but not more than 21 years of age at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt.

Child in conflict with the law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine Law.s

Discernment – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of an unlawful act. It can
be shown by the manner the crime was committed and the conduct or utterances of the
offender after the commission of the offense.

SENILITY – it is said that the end of our earthly life is very much like its beginning, and that is
why a senile person is said to be in his second childhood. Hence, senility which is the age over
70, is only mitigating. It cannot be considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.

4. Any person who while in performing a lawful act with due care, causes injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it. (Accident)

Elements:

1. Performance of a lawful act

2. With due care
3. Causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without any fault or intention of causing it

Basis: Any happening beyond the control of a person the consequence of which are not
foreseeable. If foreseeable, there is fault or culpa.

Accident – something that happens outside the sway or our will, and although it comes about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

Example: Jordan was driving his car moderately and was observing traffic laws and
regulations. All of a sudden, a child dashed across the street. Jordan instantaneously stepped
on his brake and swerved to the left to avoid hitting the child. Despite his efforts, the child
was hit resulting to his death

Answer: Jordan is not criminally liable and civilly liable. He was driving his car carefully and
with due care. He had no intention of hitting the child and there was no fault or negligence on
his part.

Example: A policeman fired his gun on the ground to stop the persons engaged in a fight to
stop. The bullet ricocheted and fatally hit bystander who died as a result.

Answer: There was negligence on his part when he willfully discharged his firearm. He did not
consider the fact that the place was populated and the likelihood that his bullet might hit other
persons.
  The exemption from criminal liability under the circumstances showing accident is based
on the lack of criminal action. For an accident to be an exempting circumstance, that
act has to be lawful – the act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.

5. Any person who, while under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

Basis: complete absence of freedom of action, an element of voluntariness

Elements:

1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force

2. That the physical force must be irresistible
3. That the physical force must come from a third person
4. The irresistible force must be made to operate directly upon the person of the accused
 The force must be irresistible as to reduce the actor to mere instruments who act not
only without will but against his will. A threat to kill or future harm is not enough.

 The accused acts not only without a will but against his will. The irresistible force must
be physical force or violence and must come from a third person and produces an effect
upon the individual that in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument
and as such incapable of committing a crime.

Example: A, B and C took turns in beating X to compel him to open the safe of a bank.
Considering that X could not withstand the pain, he opened the safe and the culprits got the
money deposited inside the safe. The act of X was compelled by physical force and violence.
He was reduced to a mere instrument of a crime. He is not criminally liable.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury

Impulse of an uncontrollable fear – the fear must be of insuperable and the person who acts
under insuperable fear is completely deprived of freedom.

Elements:

1. The threat which caused the feat is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to that
which the accused was required to commit;
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would succumb
to it;
3. The uncontrollable fear may be generated by a threatened act directed to a third
person such as the wife of the accused.
Basis: “Actus me invite factus non est meus factus” – an act done by me against my will is not
my act. It is based on complete absence of freedom.

 For duress to exempt the accused of the crime charged, “the fear must be well
founded, and immediate and actual damages of death or great bodily harm must be
present and the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to
accused for escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat.
Example: A threatened to blow the heard of B with a shotgun if B does not kill X. For B, his life
is far greater than the life of X.

 The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense.

Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear – in irresistible force, the offender
uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a crime; in uncontrollable
fear, the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause.

Insuperable Cause – a cause which prevents a person to do what the law requires. It
applies to felonies by omission.

Elements:

1. That the act is required by law to be done

2. That a person fails to perform such act
3. That his future to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Example: A police officer was not able to file the case within the period prescribed by Art. 125
(12, 18, and 36) because he was prevented by the distance from the place of arrest up to the
municipality. This constitutes a non-performance of the duty due insuperable cause.

Basis: Because the accused acted without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in
intentional felony.

Justifying Circumstance vs Exempting Circumstance

1. A person who acts by virtue of JC does not transgressed the law, that is, he does not
commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act as
well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person is in itself both just and
lawful.
There is no civil liability except in par. 4 (causing damage to another in state of
necessity)

2. In Exempting circumstance, there is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified, but
the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability except in par. 4 (causing injury by
 mere accident) and par. 7 (failing to perform an act required by the law when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause)

Aside from the 7 exempting circumstances instigation and absolutory causes also produce
exemption from criminal liability.

Absolutory cause – those where the acts committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
the accused is exempt from criminal liability.

1. Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6) – the spontaneous desistance of the person who

commenced the commission of a felony before he could perform all the acts of
execution.
2. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, estafa and malicious mischief (Art. 332)
a. Spouses, ascendants and descendants
b. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another
c. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together
4. Instigation committed by a peace officer
5. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
a. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both
of them in the act of immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro;
b. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents, with
respect to their daughters under 18 years of age, and their seducer, while the
daughters are living with their parents.
6. Marriage (Art. 344) – in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape,
the marriage of the offended with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provision of this paragraph shall
also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices, and accessories after the fact of the
above-mentioned crimes.

INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.  Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate
his criminal liability.  But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in
instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting
without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal
act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

Example of Instigation:

An agent, representing himself as engaged in gambling, approached the accused and induced
the latter to look for an opium den where he said he could smoke opium the agent went to the
accused three times to convince the latter of his desire to smoke opium. Because of the
insistence of the agent, the accused made efforts to look for a place where both of them could
smoke opium until finally he found one. Both of them then smoke opium. After a while the
agent arrested the accused.

Entrapment – refers to the ways and means resorted to by a peace officer for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.

A buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. In such
operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the
dangerous drug and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns over or
delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or other
consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be
held to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the
buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has
just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the
presence of the arresting police officer or private person.

Difference between instigation and entrapment

1. Instigation takes place when a peace officer induces an innocent person to commit a
crime. Entrapment signifies that ways and means are resorted to by peace officers to
apprehend a person who has committed a crime.

2. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to
the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. In entrapment, mens rea
originates from the mind of the criminal.

3. In instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with
whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting
only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties.
On the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the
person entrapped. It did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping
him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to
facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.

4. The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent
as an element of voluntariness.

5. If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable,
because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the
crime, without which he would not have been a criminal.  If the instigator is not a law
enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. 

6. In instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when
the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself.  It would be
contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law
enforcer.  The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when
the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. If the person
instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he
 knows him to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation.  This is a case of
inducement, both will be criminally liable.

7. In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap
him was a law enforcer.  The idea is incompatible with each other because in
entrapment, the person entrapped is actually committing a crime.  The officer who
entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of
the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is actually
engaged in a violation of the law.

8. Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the
rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal.   On the other hand,
entrapment is not an absolutory cause.  It is not even mitigating.

Extenuating circumstances
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender.  In other words, this has
the same effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is
not found in Article 13.
 
Illustrations:
1. An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor.  The concealment of
dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal
grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. 
Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two
degrees.  Since there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty, this
is an extenuating circumstance.

The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating

circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days
old and above.

In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, 
at the time she was abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to seek the
company of another man.  Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the
woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability.  When the effect of the
circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.

2. A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal
to his desire.  This is not exempting.  One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal
objects of his desire is criminally liable.  But he would be given the benefit of a
mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of suffering from
an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving
him of the consciousness of his act.  So this is an extenuating circumstance.  The effect
is to mitigate the criminal liability.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstance are those which if present in the commission of the crime, do not
entirely free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Basis: Diminution of freedom of action, intelligence, or intent or on the lesser perversity of the
offender.

Classes of Mitigating Circumstances

1. Ordinary mitigating
2. Privileged mitigating

Distinctions:
1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance.
A privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance.
2. One ordinary mitigating circumstance is not offset by a generic aggravating
circumstance has the effect of imposing the minimum penalty. A privileged mitigating
circumstances has the effect of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees lower than
the prescribed by law.
3. The presence of 2 or more ordinary mitigating circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance partake of the nature of a privileged mitigating as the penalty to be
imposed is one degree lower to that prescribed by law.
4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are privileged mitigating circumstance while the rest of those
provided in Art. 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstance.

PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. When the minor is over 15 but below 18 year of age who acted with discernment. (1
degree lower)
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance under Art. 11 when only the indispensable element
of unlawful aggression is present or when unlawful aggression and any of the other
elements are present.
Art. 69. Incomplete Self-defense – if only unlawful aggression is present, the accused is
entitled to a penalty 1 degree lower. If unlawful aggression and any one of the two
other remaining elements are present, the accused is entitled to a penalty of 2 degrees
lower.
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance under Art. 12

 Mitigating circumstance only reduce the penalty, but do not change the nature of the
crime.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
 Those JC and EC when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
a. Incomplete Self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of stranger – unlawful
aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite. What is absent
is either one or both of the last two requisites.
Example: the aggressor was drunk when he was killed. His aim proved faulty and
easily evaded as shown by the fact that the person defending was not hit by the
stab-attempts-blows directed against him. The necessity of the means used to
repel the aggression is not clearly reasonable.

Example: defense of relative - the accused could not been impelled by pure
compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong
 inflicted on his cousin because was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil.
This is because of the running family feud between them.

b. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury – if any

of the last two requisites is absent, there in only mitigating circumstance
c. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty
d. Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order
e. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident – A was driving his car. When he
reached the school zone, he did not slow down despite the traffic signs along the
road. Suddenly, a pupil dashed across the street. He instinctively swerved to the
right but as he was speeding, he still bumped the child who dies as a result.
(element of due care or without fault on the offender is absent)
f. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear

 That the offender is above 15 but under 18 years of age who acted with discernment or
over seventy years. (one degree lower)
Basis – diminution of intelligence or intent
15 and below – exempting
16-17 – exempting unless the CICL acted with discernment in which case the penalty is
suspended
70 years or over – mitigating

 That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed –
this is an effect of praeter intentionem. The result of the wrongful act done is greater
than what was intended.

 That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act.

Provocation – any act of the offended party that excites or stirs up emotions or actions
or capable of irritating anyone.
Threat – indication that harm or injury will be inflicted
Immediate – means that there is no interval of time between the provocation and the
commission of the crime.

Example: kicking the accused, cursing the accused, hitting the ears of the accused,
infidelity of the wife which made the husband kill her.

 The provocation must be sufficient, that is, it must be adequate to excite a person to
commit a crime.
 As to whether or not a provocation is sufficient depends upon the act constituting the
provocation, the social standing of the person provoked, the place and the time when
the provocation is made.

 That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

Requisites:
 a. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
b. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

Immediate – allows a lapse of time as long as the offender is still suffering from the
mental anguish and wounded feelings brought about by the offense to him.

Example: A shouted at the accused who is 70 years of age in a baptismal party, “Hoy
tanda pang ilang balik mo nay an, and siba mo,” in the presense of many guests who
laughed aloud upon hearing the remarks. The accused lunged at A and hit him
repeatedly with a piece of wood.
Example: the act of the victim of urinating on the accused in front of guests; the act of
the victim punching the accused in the presence of so many people at a wedding party.

Example: the act of the accused stabbing the person nearest the body of his dead son.

 The grave offense need not be a crime or felony. The act of the victim in eloping
with daughter of the accused who belongs to an old fashioned family is a grave
offense and scandal in the family.
 Provocation is directed to the person committing the felony; in vindication, the
grave offense may be committed or directed to the
Basis – diminution of the condition of voluntariness.
 That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.
Requisites:
a. That there must be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a state
of mind on the part of the accused;
b. That there was no appreciable lapse of time between the victim’s offending act
and the commission of the crime by the accused
c. The act causing such obfuscation, was committed by the victim himself

 The accused acted upon an impulse; and the impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him.
 To considered a mitigating circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger or resentment
Basis – loss of reasoning and self-control. When there are causes naturally producing in
a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing
the exercise of his will power.

 The act of the offended party must be unlawful or unjust. (jealousy with a legitimate
basis)
 The owner upon seeing the person who stole his carabao, shoots the supposed thief.
 The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation where
he hit the deceased upon seeing the latter box his 4-year old son. The actuation of the
accused arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of his
son, regardless of whether the latter be right or wrong.
 No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours, several hours or half an hour.
 Killing the victim after the accused came to know that he sideswiped his child resulting
to her death or shooting to death the wife and paramour who were embracing and
 kissing each other is so powerful to give rise to passion or obfuscation. (should not be
in spirit of lawlessness or revenge)
 The accused who raped a woman in not entitled to the MC under this just because he
finds himself in a secluded place with that young ravishing woman, almost naked, and
therefore, “liable to succumb to the uncontrollable passion of bestial instinct.”
 Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest
belief of the offender. The belief of the accused that the deceased had caused his illegal
dismissal from his employment is sufficient to confuse his reason and impel him to
commit the crime. (honest belief plus legitimate basis)

g. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.

2 mitigating circumstance
1. Voluntary surrender
2. Voluntary confession of guilt

Requisites of voluntary surrender

1. That the offender had not been actually arrested
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s
agent
3. That the surrender was voluntary
 A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused
to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges
his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his
search and capture.
 The accused must not be actually arrested. The fact that the accused did not escape
after the policemen surrounded his house and arrested him does not amount to
voluntary surrender.
 But surrender solely motivated by self-preservation from what was feared as an
immediate retaliation from the immediate relatives of the victim is not voluntary
surrender.
 If the accused gave himself up to the police when he was served the warrant of arrest
such surrender is not mitigating.
 Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the accused fled immediately after
the killing and took him more than a month and a half to surrender to the authorities.
 Voluntary surrender may done before or after the issuance of warrant of arrest
 VS may be done in another municipality

To whom voluntary surrender should be made

1. Person in authority – one who is directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to
govern and to execute the laws, whether as an individual or a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission.
2. Agent of a person in authority – one who by direct provision of the law or by election or
by appointment by competent authority is charged with the maintenance of public order
and the protection and security of life and property and any private person who comes
to the aid of person in authority.

 Surrender to a municipal treasurer or engineer is not voluntary surrender.

 Requisite of plea of guilty
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent
court that is to try the case;
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution
 Plead guilty to a lesser offense not mitigating
 It is incorrect of the court to assume that the aggravating circumstance of evidence
premeditation is included in the plea of guilty.
 A plea of guilty made after the arraignment and after the trial had begun does not
entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.
BASIS – lesser perversity of the accused. It is an act of repentance and respect for law; it
indicates a moral disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform.
h. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical
defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his
fellow beings.

BASIS – one suffering from physical defect, which restricts one’s means of action, defense or
communication with one’s fellow beings, does not have complete freedom of action and,
therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.
 The physical defect must affect the means of action, defense or communication of the
accused. It must relate to the offense committed.
 The fact that the accused is deaf is not mitigating in homicide or rape.

i. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

Requisites:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of will-power
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his act.
Example:
1. The accused is suffering from a mild behaviour disorder as a consequence of the illness
she had in early life.
2. One who was suffering from acute neurosis which made him ill-tempered and easily
angered because such illness diminished his exercise of will power.
3. The fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the finding in his favor of the
mitigating circumstance.
BASIS – diminution of intelligence and intent

j. Any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned

a. Voluntary restitution of stolen property similar to voluntary surrender
b. Extreme poverty and necessity similar to incomplete state of necessity
c. Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation
d. Over 60 years old with failing sight as analogous to a person over 70 years of
age

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE (Art. 14)

Those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty
without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
BASIS – they are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by: 1) the motivating power, 2) the place of the
commission, 3) the means and ways employed, 4) the time, or 5) the personal circumstances
of the offender, or of the offended party.

4 KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

1. Generic – those that can generally apply to all the crimes
Example: dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism
In art. 14 (Art. 14), the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling),
4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19 and 20, except “by means of motor vehicles,” are generic
circumstances.

2. Specific – those that apply only to particular crimes

Example: Ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in crimes against
persons.
In Art. 14, the circumstance in paragraphs Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21
are specific aggravating circumstances

3. Qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime

Example: Alevosia (treachery) or evidence premeditation qualifies the killing of a person
to murder.
Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing
of person to murder.
a. Treachery
b. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise
c. By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion
d. By means of motor vehicle or with the use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin
e. On occasion of calamaties
f. Evident premeditation
g. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim,
or outraging of scoffing at his person or corpse.

4. Inherent – those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.
Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and
concubinage

 A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance; a

generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance
 A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be such must be alleged in the information.
If it is not alleged, it is a generic aggravating circumstance.

The following are aggravating circumstance:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
 Applicable only when the offender is a public officer.
 It is present when a policeman killed the person he was supposed to arrest or when
he abducted a person while he is still wearing his uniform
 It is present when a policeman raped the girl vendor he arrested.
 This requires that the accused as a public officer used the influence or reputation of
his position for the purpose of committing the crime. If the accused could have
 perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse of
public position.
 His position must facilitate the commission of a crime. The accused must be proven
to have advantage of his position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities
 This AC is present when the accused committed a crime in the presence of a public
authority who is engaged in the performance of his duties and who is known to the
accused as a public authority. His presence did not deter the accused from
committing the crime

Requisites:
a. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
b. That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed
c. The offender knows him to be a public authority
d. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act

Examples of public authority – mayor, governor, councilor, barangay captain and barangay
councilmen

Example: The barangay council organized an assembly attended by the Mayor. While a
consultation was going on, X and Y who both nearby listening to the proceedings had a
dispute. An altercation ensued. X stabbed Y who died as a result.

 Teachers, police officers and lawyers are considered as persons in authority ONLY
for purposes of DIRECT ASSAULT BUT not under this topic.
 Knowledge of the presence of a person in public authority is important. Lack of such
knowledge does not result to contempt or insult of authorites.

3. That the act be committed with insult or disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
 These 4 circumstances can be considered singly or as one AC only. If 4 are present,
they are equivalent to 1 AC.
 The AC of age, sex, and rank can be considered only in crimes against person and
honor.

1. Sex of the offended party – refers to female sex

 Accused must have deliberately intended to show manifest disrespect for the sex
of the offended party.
 A attacked and killed a lady.
 But sex is not aggravating in Parricide, Rape, Forcible Abduction or Seduction
being a woman is an element of the crime.

2. Age of the offended party – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim
 A attacked and killed an 80 year old man.

3. Rank of the offended party – is the designation of the title or distinction used to fix the
position of the offended party in relation to others.

 A attacked and killed B, a RTC Judge during a hearing.

  There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the
offender party
 A private citizen who attacked and injured a person in authority
 A pupil who attacked and inured his teacher
 An attempt upon the life of a general of the Philippine Army
4. Dwelling – must be a structure or building exclusively used for rest and comfort.
Dwelling includes dependencies, staircase and enclosures under the house. It includes a
boarding house, an apartment where the victim stays as a boarder, lessee or
bedspacer. It is aggravating even if the house where the victim was killed or raped does
not belong to him.

REASON – because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. “he who
goes to another’s house, to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who
offends him elsewhere.”

 The offender need not enter the dwelling. Dwelling is AC even if the accused
shot the deceased from the outside of the latter’s house.

Dwelling is not aggravating in the following:

a. When the offended party in his dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation to
the offender – the offender party losses his right to be respected in his home, because
he gave sufficient provocation to the offender.
b. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same dwelling.
c. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent
d. In the crime of trespass to dwelling because it is inherent.

 That the act be committed with 1)Abuse of confidence or 2) obvious ungratefulness

Requisite of abuse of confidence

a. The offended party had trusted the offender
b. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended
party
c. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime

 It is present when trust and confidence exist between the accused and the victim
and the accused made use of such to commit a crime.
 It exist when a maid steal from his employer.
 It exist when the accused in whose custody a young boy was entrusted killed the
latter.

Requisite of obvious ungratefulness

a. The offended party had trusted the offender
b. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party
c. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
d. The ungratefulness must be clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused

Example: One stormy night, Pepita opened her door to Pepito who was wet all over and was
trembling in cold. Pepito pleaded to be accommodated for that night in the house of Pepita.
The latter gave him clothes and foods. She also assigned to him a comfortable room. In the
dead of the night, Pepito crawled into the room of Pepita and raped her. There is a clear,
manifest and unmistakable ingratitude on the part of Pepito who was warmly welcomed and
trusted by the victim.

 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 place
dedicated to religious worship.

 Performance of function (re: contempt/insult to authorities) is not necessary if the crime

be committed in the palace of the President or in his presence or in a place dedicated to
religious worship.
 Ronald shot and killed the victim who was then kneeling and silently praying in the
church pew. The holy and sacred place did not deter Ronald from committing the crime.
 Cemeteries, however, respectable they may be are not considered as place dedicated to
the worship of God.

 BUT there must be performance of public function when the crime is committed in a
place where public authorities are engaged in the performance of duties.

 Thus, it is present when the accused hostaged and then killed the victim while the court
was in session (conducting hearing). But if the accused killed the victim inside the
courtroom after the court adjourned, this aggravating circumstance is not present.

 That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabitable place, or by a

band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of an offense.

When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:

a. When it facilitated the commission of the crime
b. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the
crime or for the purpose of impunity
c. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity

Impunity – means to prevent his (accuse) being recognized, or to secure himself against
detection and punishment.
Nighttime – that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn. The
civil code defines it as from sunset to sunrise.
 Nocturnity not aggravating if it was a casual idea to commit a crime during nighttime
 Nighttime by and of itself is not an AC (if merely incidental/coincidental)
 No aggravating when the crime began at daytime
 When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating

UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – is determined by whether or not in the place of

commission of the crime there was a reasonable possibility of the victim to receive some help.
A place is uninhabited where the place of commission of the crime can be seen and the voice
of the victim can be heard from a nearby house.
 A place where there are not houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from
town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.
  It is present where help to the victim is difficult. Solitude was purposely sought for
facilitate the commission of the crime.

BAND – consists of at least 4 armed persons organized with the intention of carrying out an
unlawful design.
 The armed men must act together in the commission of the crime. They should all be
principal by direct participation.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,

epidemic or other calamity or misfortune
 This is aggravating because the accused “who in the midst of a great calamity, instead
of lending aid or support to the afflicted, adds to their suffering and affliction by taking
advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
 It is necessary that the offender took advantage of the calamity.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime by directly or
indirectly giving aid to the accused
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was
committed.

 Having an armed companion in the commission of the offense.

 Armed men includes armed women

9. That the accused is a recidivist

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Requisites:
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense
b. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
c. That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title in the RPC
Example: On March 15, 2007 X, was charged and tried with theft. Records show that that on
May 6, 2006 he was convicted by final judgment in robbery although he was not arrested. He
is considered a recidivist.

 Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened
between the first and second felonies. It is imprescriptible.

Quasi-recidivism – it takes place when a person before serving his sentence or while serving
his sentence, shall commit another felony.
 The first offense may be punished by the RPC or a special law. The second must be a
felony (RPC).

10. 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 which it attaches a
lighter penalty.

Reiteracion or habituality is when the accused at the time of his trial for an offense, had
previously served a sentence for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty than that attached by law to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which
the law attaches a lighter penalty.

a. Equal penalty
Example: In 2005, X served out a penalty for Homicide. In 2017, he was charged with
homicide.

b. Greater penalty
Example: In 2000, X Served out a penalty for Rape. In March 2017, he was charged for Acts
of Lasciviousness.

c. For two or more crimes to which the law attaches a lighter penalty than that for
the new offense
Example: In 2000, X served out a penalty for theft involving 1 million pesos. In March 2007,
he was charged with theft 5 pesos. There is reiteracion because at the time of his trial for
theft involving 5 pesos, he previously served a penalty for theft involving 1 million pesos.
Obviously, the penalty of theft of property worth 1 million pesos is greater than the penalty of
an item worth 5 pesos.

Example: In 2000 and 2010, X suffered penalties for slight physical injuries and attempted
homicide respectively. In 2015, he was charged with homicide.

Recidivism vs Reiteracion
1. In reiteracion, the offender is previously punished. In recidivism, it is enough that there
be a previous conviction by final judgment
2. In reiteracion, the offenses are not embraced in the same title of the Code. In
recidivism, these offenses must be embraced in the same title of the Code.

4 forms of repetition are:

1. Recidivism (generic AC)
2. Reiteracion or habituality (generic AC)
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (extra-ordinary AC)
4. Quasi-recidivism (special AC)

Habitual delinquency
There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of 10 years from the date of
conviction or last release of a person of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time of
oftener.

Example: Johnny was convicted of Theft in 1980. He served the sentence and was released in
1990. In 1988, he was convicted of Estafa and was released from prison in 2000. In 2006, he
was convicted of Serious Physical Injuries.

Explanation:
1. Johnny is a habitual delinquent. Johnny was convicted of theft, estafa and serious
physical injuries. The 3 crimes are among the crimes enumerated by law.
2. With respect to the second conviction in 1988, it took place within 10 years from his
first conviction in 1980.
3. From the date of his second conviction of estafa in 1988 up to his conviction for the
third offense for Serious Physical Injuries in 2006, 18 years have elapsed (more than
 10 years). However, he was released from prision for the estafa case in 2000.
Reckoning from his date, only 6 years have elapsed (from the date of his last release)
up to the date of the third conviction in 2006. The 10 year period may be counted from
the date of last conviction or last release.

 Crimes committed on the same date with convictions taking place on different dates are
considered as one.
 Convictions on the same day involving different crimes committed on separate dates
are considered as one.
 HD does not apply to special laws.
 HD is not a crime. It is a fact or circumstance, which if present, will give rise to the
imposition of an additional penalty in addition to the prescribed penalty for the crime
committed.

Distinctions between habitual delinquency and recidivism

1. In HD, the crimes are specified, whereas in recidivism, the crimes are embraced in the
same title of the code
2. In recidivism, no period of time is fixed between the former conviction and the last
conviction, whereas in habitual delinquency, conviction of any of the specified crimes
must take place within 10 years from the last conviction or release.
3. In recidivism, it is enough that there be a second conviction of any crime embraced in
the same title of the last as the crime, whereas in HD, there must be at least a third
conviction of any of the specified crimes.
4. Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance, whereas HD provides for the imposition of
additional penalty.

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

 This AC affects not only the person who gave the price or reward but also the person
who received it. this is a qualifying aggravating circumstance that elevates the killing to
murder. The offender who induced others to commit the crime for price, reward or
promise is a principal by inducement and those who committed the crime are principals
by direct participation.
 It is indispensable that the inducement made be the primary consideration for the
commission of the crime.

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use
of any other article involving great waste and ruin.
 These are qualifying aggravating circumstances under Art. 248 of the RPC. They qualify
the killing to murder.
 Burning a house or structure is plain arson. But if a house is burned as a means to kill a
person, Murder NOT murder with arson.
 Under RA 8294, killing of a person with the use of hand explosives like hand grenade, is
now homicide (no longer murder) because the use of an explosive is only an
aggravating circumstance when it is used to kill.
 Killing a group of persons on board a train by derailing the locomotive is Multiple
Murder.
 Killing the victim by using poison, stranding of a vessel or derailment of a train is
murder.

13. The act committed with evident premeditation.

Basis – has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation
implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it.
Requisites:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome
resolution of his will.

Example: In the course of their altercation at around 8:00 AM in the morning of March 14,
2017, X shouted at Y, “I will kill you. You will not last this day.” (On said time and date, the
offender is said to have determined to commit the crime). At around 11:00 AM of the same
morning. X was seen sharpening his bolo (the sharpening of the bolo are act manifestly
indicating that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime). At 2:00 PM of the
same day, X hacked Y to death. X is liable for murder (after 3 hours, he killed the victim. 3
hours constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the offender to realize the consequences of his
contemplated act. The 3 elements of evidence premeditation are present.

 A finding of evidence premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time and
he actually commits it – the prosecution must adduce clear and convincing evidence as
to when and how the felony was planned and prepared before it was effected. And it
must be proved with certainty as the crime itself.
 The date and, of possible, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
is essential, because the lapse of time for the purpose of third requisite is computed
from that date and time.
 The premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere
lapse of time.
 EP is inherent in crimes against property as in robbery, theft, and estafa. There is no
EP in the absence of a pre-conceived plan or if the attack on the victim was made in
the heat of anger. However, it maybe aggravating if the premeditation included the
killing of the victim.

 If the accused decided to kill a particular person and premeditated on the killing of the
latter but he killed a different person it cannot be said that he premeditated on the
killing of the actual victim.

 But if the accused premeditated on the killing of any person, this AC can be
appreciated against him.

Instances when EP cannot be appreciated

a. EP should not be appreciated where there is neither evidence of planning or preparation
to kill nor the time when the plot was conceived.
b. Where it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time
had elapsed before it was carried out, EP cannot be appreciated.

14. That 1)craft, 2) fraud, or 3) disguise be employed.

  This are intellectual means in the commission of the a crime and are separate
aggravating circumstances.

Craft – is intellectual trickery and cunning resorted to by the accused in the commission of the
crime.
Examples:
1. The act of accused in pretending to be a passenger in the taxicab driven by the
deceased, when they were not so in fact, in order not to arouse his suspicion, and then
killing him, constitutes craft.
2. Where the accused pretended to be police officers to gain entry in the place of the
victim.
3. It also exists when the accused feigning friendship was able to lure the victim to go
with him in a secluded place where he killed him.
4. When accused resorted to the use of innocent-looking chocolate candies which did not
arouse the suspicion of the complainant that they contain deleterious drug, the purpose
of the accused in giving them being to weaken her resistance so that she would not be
able to repulse physically and mentally his sexual assault.
Fraud – involves deceit by insidious words and machinations used to induce the victim to act in
a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design.
Examples:
1. When the accused enticed a young girl to go with him to buy foods and toys and then
kidnapped her.
2. Where accused induced his victim to give up his arms upon a promise that no harm
should be done to him, and when the latter gave up his arms, the former attack and
killed him.

Disguise - resorting to any device to conceal identity

Examples:
1. Covering the face with the use of a handkerchief, blackening the face in order that he
should not be recognized at the time he committed the crime.
2. The accused with 2 other robbers wore masks to cover their faces
 The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to conceal his identity and to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
 It may not be appreciated if the wearing of any device is for protection from any
defense that the victim may put up against the said offender.

15. That 1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or 2) means be employed to

weaken the defense.

Meaning of “advantage be taken of superior strength – it means to deliberately use excessive

force that is cut out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person
attacked.
 To be appreciated, the size, age and strength of the parties must be considered. There
must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, given
the latter a superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime.
 But superiority in number alone, does not necessarily mean abuse of superior strength.
It is still necessary to prove that the accused cooperated and took advantage of their
superior strength. But if all the aggressors are armed with weapons, it can be inferred
that they took advantage of their superior strength.
  Should be distinguished with “by a band” in such way that the latter refers to the
number (more than 3) of the assailants regardless of regardless of the comparative
strength. In the former, the assailant took advantage of their comparative strength
regardless of thier number.
Examples:
1. A strong man has ill-treated a child, an old person
2. An armed police officer ill-treated an intoxicated person
3. When a man attacks a woman with a weapon.

“Means to weaken the defense” – the offender employs means that materially weakens the
defense of the offended party
Examples
1. Intoxicating the victim to weaken the defense before the killing. The intoxication was
sought for so the victim cannot put up any sort of defense.
2. One who while arguing with another suddenly casts sand upon the latter’s eyes and
then wounds of kill him

16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)

Meaning of Treachery – there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means method, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk of himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
 Applies only to crimes against persons
 Treachery means that the offended party was not given opportunity to make a defense.

Requisites:
a. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
 The victim was made to lie face down, their hands tied at the back before they
were killed.
 The victim was beaten to death while his hands and feet were tied with a rope.
 The victim was suddenly attacked by the assailants from behind, whom he called
friends, without warning.
 The victim was shot while he was gathering vegetables in his garden.
 The victim was shot while he was urinating.
 Victim is asleep when he was assaulted.
 Victim half-awake or just awakened
b. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.

The mode of attack must be consciously adopted

This means that accused that must make some preparations to kill the deceased in such a
manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person
attacked to defense himself or retaliate.

The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender and must NOT spring from the
unexpected turn of events.
Examples:
a. The act of shooting the victim at a distance, without the least expectation on his
part that he would be assaulted
 b. The circumstances surrounding the killing of the deceased show treachery. His
hands were raised and he was pleading for mercy with one of the assailants
when another struck him on the neck with a bolo.
c. The assailant, in strategically placing himself in a forested area near the highway
and firing at the unsuspecting victim at a distance of eight meters, employed a
mode of execution that insured the consummation of the killing without risk of
himself.

Notes:
a. Attack form behind is NOT always alevosia – the mere fact that the victim had his back
turned or stab wounds at the back will not itself constitute alevosia. It must appear that
such mode of attack was consciously adopted and the question of risk to the offender
must be taken into account. (re: the position of the victim when fatal blow was inflicted
was just incidental)
b. When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare, there was no treachery
(warning)
c. No treachery where shooting is preceded by a heated discussion
d. Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with treachery
e. There is treachery in killing a child
f. Treachery should be taken into account even if the deceased was face to face with his
assailants at the time the blow was delivered, where it appears that the attack was not
preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare himself for his
defense.
g. In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim was the same person
whom the accused intended to kill. (error in personae)
h. The mastermind should have knowledge of the employment of treachery if he was not
present when the crime was committed.

17. That means employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act
Ignominy – a circumstance which adds disgrace or obloquy to the injury caused by the crime
 Applicable only to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, slight or grave
coercion and murder
 This refers to the performance of an act that would add disgrace, shame, and
humiliation to the injury caused by the offense or to add to the moral suffering of the
victim.
 There is ignominy when the accused raped a woman in front of her husband.
 Winding cogon grass around the penis before committing rape is ignominious.

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry

 There is an unlawful entry when entrance is effected by way of not intended for the
purpose.
 Entering the though the window is unlawful entry. But breaking the door to enter ins
not unlawful entry as it is covered under par. 19.
 If the accused escape through the window after committing a crime, it is not
aggravating because the same was not for the purpose of entrance but for escape.
 When the accused gained access to the dwelling by climbing through the window and
once inside, murdered certain persons in the dwelling, there were two AC. Dwelling and
unlawful entry.
 19. That a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window
be broken

 This circumstance is aggravating only in those cases where the accused resorted to any
of said means to enter the house. The breaking of any of these parts of a house or
building must be for the commission of a crime.
 If the accused broke a window to enable himself to reach a cell phone on the table near
the window, which he took while his body was outside the house, the crime of theft
was attended by this AC. It is not necessary that the offender should have entered the
building.

20. That the crime be committed 1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age,
or 2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
 The use of minors, who are exempt from criminal liability, is aggravating. It shows the
greater perversity of the accused for taking advantage of the innocence of mediocrity of
minors for criminal purpose.
 The circumstances of use of motor vehicles is aggravating when the motor vehicle was
purposely used to facilitate the commission of the crime like using the motor vehicle in
going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating
their escape.
 The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use thereof was merely
incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime or to
render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.
 That without it, the offense charged could not have been committed.
 If the motor vehicle was used only to facilitating the escape, it should not be an AC.

Examples:
1. Theft – where the truck was used in carrying away the stolen rails and iron and wooden
ties from the scene of the theft to the place where they were sold.
2. A jeep was used by the accused in fetching and luring the deceased from his house to
go with them on the night of the incident, which they must have used also in taking him
to the spot where later on the victim’s body was found.
3. Where the accused stabbed and inflicted upon his girlfriend, mortal wounds which
caused her death, while they were in a taxi which was hired and used by him, the AC of
by means of motor vehicle was present.

“or other similar means” – should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other
efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented
by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
 Paragraph 21 gives the legal definition of cruelty. It means the deliberate augmentation
of the wrong done is present where the offender performed other acts with the evident
intention to prolong the physical suffering of the victim.
Cruelty – there is cruelty when the accused deliberately adds to the physical pain and suffering
of the victim. The wrong done must be performed while the victim is still alive. It must be
shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making the victim suffers gradually.

Examples:
1. Gagging the mouth of a 4 year old child and dumping him into a box covered with sacks
causing suffocation and death of the child;
 2. There is also cruelty when the eye of the child is extracted from its socket or when the
face and mouth of a child is burned.

 Ignominy involves moral suffering, while cruelty refers to physical suffering

 It is essential that the victim was alive while the sadistic acts were being committed
against him by the accused.
 The number of wounds on the corpse of the victim does not per se mean that there
was cruelty in the commission of the crime. There must be showing that the wounds
were inflicted while the victim was alive and at such intervals as to reveal that the
number of wounds and the manner of inflicting them were intentional designed to
augment and prolong his physical suffering.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
Definition – 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.

3 alternative circumstances
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender

Relationship – the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration

when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

When mitigating and when aggravating

1. In crimes against property, relationship is mitigating
2. In crimes against persons
a. It is aggravating when the offended party is a relative of a higher degree
b. Aggravating when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same
level
3. When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim is a
relative of a lower degree
4. In rape, relationship is aggravating where a step-father raped his stepdaughter or in
case where a father raped his own daughter
5. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating
regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher degree of the offended party
6. In physical injuries
a. It is aggravating in serious physical injuries even if the offended party is a
descendant of the offender
b. It is mitigating in less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the
offended party is a relative of a lower degree, and mitigating if the offended
party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.

INTOXICATION when mitigating

The intoxication of the offender shall be considered as MC when the offender has committed a
felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is:
a. Not habitual – at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken
such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to impair his exercise of will power
 b. That such intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony
 Mere positive alcoholic breath is not intoxication. Romberg’s test and tandem’s gait are
often used to determine if a person is under the influence of liquor. These medical
findings are conclusive of intoxication.
 At the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of
alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control
 State of intoxication – that the offender’s mental faculties must be affected by
drunkenness or his will power was impaired and the could not comprehend the
wrongfulness of his acts.

INTOXICATION when aggravating

a. When the intoxication is habitual or intentional; or
b. When it is intentional or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime – in order to
embolden himself in carrying out his plan

Habitual drunkard – one who is frequently or habitually drunk. The habit should be actual and
confirmed. It is not necessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence.

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION and EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is GENERALLY mitigating. High degree of
instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his learning in
committing the crime.

ORDINARILY, Low degree of instruction mitigating EXCEPT:

1. Crimes against property (estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity (adultery, concubinage, seduction, rape)
3. Treason – because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen
4. Murder or homicide – because to kill is forbidden by natural law which every rational
being is endowed to know and feel

 Having studied up to sixth grade is more than sufficient schooling to give accused a
degree of instruction as to properly apprise him of what is right and wrong
 NOT illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary to invoke the
benefit of the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the determination of which
is left to the trial court.
 NOT MC when the accused is a city resident and knows how to sign his name in a crime
of murder.
 High degree of instruction is aggravating only when the offender took advantage of it in
committing the crime. (a doctor using his knowledge and who prepared some kind of a
poison in killing the victim; an accountant/lawyer who uses their legal knowledge in
deceiving people to invest their money or to stole from the government.

CRIMINAL LAW (BOOK 1)

NOTES FOR FINALS

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

When a single individual commits a crime, there is no difficulty in determining his participation
in the commission thereof. In fact, a single individual committing a crime is always a principal,
and one by direct participation, because he must necessarily take direct part in the execution
of the act.

 When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for the act perform by
him.

Art. 16. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies
For grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories

For light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices
 Accessories are not liable for light felonies

Art. 17. The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act (principal by direct
participation);
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it (principal by inducement); and
3. Those who cooperate by in the commission of the offense by another act without which
it would not have been accomplished (principal by indispensable cooperation)

Principal by direct participation – personally and directly takes part in the execution of the act
constituting the crime. He commits the crime, so to speak.
Examples:
1. One who with intent to kill, personally shoots another is liable is principal by direct
participation in the crime of homicide; or
2. One who burns the house of another is a principal by direct participation in the crime of
arson.

 The PDP must be at the scene of the commission of the crime personally taking part in
its execution.

Principal by Induction (PBI):

1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime, either:
a. By using irresistible force, or
b. By causing uncontrollable fear
Example: A and his gang of robbers threatened to kill all the bank employees if
the bank manager refuses to open the vault of the bank. The manager was
constrained to open the vault and the robbers emptied the vault. The bank
manager is not criminally liable because he acted under the compulsion of an
uncontrollable fear. A and company are liable as PBI .
 When one his forced by another to commit a crime through the use of irresistible force
or causing another an uncontrollable fear, only the person from whom such force or
fear came from is criminally liable and not the executor. The executor acts against his
will, the act is involuntary.
2. By directly, inducing another to commit a crime by
 a. Giving of price or offering of reward or promise
The person giving the price or offering the reward or promise is a PBI while the
one committing the crime is PDP
Example: X induced Y to kill A. X promised to give Y 200K. Y killed A because of
the promise. X is liable as PBI. Y is liable as PDP.
b. Using words of command
To constitute inducement, the inducer must have positive resolution and
persistent effort to have the crime committed by another.

Requisites:
1. that the one uttering the words of command must have the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime;
2. that the one who made the command must have an ascendancy or influence over the
person who acted;
Illustration: A was a poor, ignorant fisherman, dependent upon his uncle B. On the
other hand, B was a man of great influence in the community. B was the local political
leader of his party. In the meeting where the plan to murder the priest was discussed,
B was the prime mover and the dominant figure. B selected A who was present in the
meeting to commit the crime and directed him to do it. the influence exercised by B
over A was so great and powerful that the latter could not resist it.
3. that the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to
physical or moral coercion;

For the utterances of an accused to make him a principal by inducement, it is necessary

that the words be of such nature and uttered in such manner as to become the
determining cause of the crime, and that the inducement precisely was intended to
serve such purpose. In other words, the inciting words must have great dominance and
influence over the person who acts; they ought to be direct and efficacious or powerful
as physical or moral coercion or violence itself.

The words of command must be the moving cause of the offense. Such that the
accused would not have committed the offense if not for the said command. If the
evidence shows that the accused would have committed the act at his own
volition/thinking/decision, even without said words of command, the person who gave
the command cannot be said to the PBI.

4. the words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime;
Thus, when the commission of the crime has already been commenced when the words
of inducement are uttered, this requisites is lacking. A father who simply said to his son
at the time of the engagement of combat with another, “Hit him,” was not responsible
for the injuries after such advice was given.
5. the material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime.
If the PDP has personal reason to commit the crime, the supposed words of
inducement cannot be the determining cause.

Examples:
1. In the case of a married woman who suggested to her paramour that he kill her
husband in order that thereafter they might live together freely and the paramour,
acting upon said suggestion, killed him, it was held that the proposition of the woman
constituted something more than mere suggestion/counsel/advise which her co-accused
was entirely free to accept or not. It was coupled with a consideration which, in view of
 the relations existing between them, furnished a motive strong enough to induce the
man to take the life of her husband. The proposition of the woman, in view of the
relations existing between her and the other accused, was the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the latter.
2. The accused, exercising dominance and ascendancy over his 3 year-old son, compelled
the latter to hurl a stone at another boy, causing injury to the latter’s eye, is clearly a
principal by inducement.
3. Persons exercising ascendancy over minors who were persuaded to commit crimes are
liable as PBI. This is because minors are easily susceptible to the suggestions of the
inducer. Minors usually have no discernment or judgment of their own. When induced
to commit a crime, the influence of the inducer is the determining cause of the
commission of the crime.
4. X induced his son Y to kill, Z, his (X) political enemy. Y killed Z. X is a principal by
inducement. He exercises moral authority and moral ascendancy over his son Y.

Examples NOT a PBI

1. Marivic confided to her friend Gigi that her marital life had been miserable because she
married an irresponsible and philandering husband. Gigi remarked: “A husband like that
should be killed.” Marivic killed her husband. Gigi is NOT liable as PBI because a mere
thoughtless expression is not an inducement to kill. The inducement must be so
influential in producing the criminal act that without it the act would not have been
performed.
2. A induced B to kill X by giving him 500K pesos. For his part, B induced C to kill X for
300K pesos. C induced D to kill X for 200K pesos. D killed X. A and B are not PBI
because they did not directly induce D to kill X. On the other hand C is a PBI because
he directly induced D to kill X.
3. While friends X and Y were conversing, A passed by. X told Y, “A acts as if he is
somebody else. Why don’t you shoot him? With that Y shot A resulting to his death. X is
not a PBI. To be liable, a person must exercise moral authority or ascendancy over the
principal by direct participation. The words of inducement must have great dominance
and great influence over the person induced in a manner so powerful as the physical or
moral coercion or violence itself. Consequently, a thoughtless expression or ill conceived
advice without intention to produce the result is not the inducement contemplated by
law.

 If the PDP was acquitted, generally the PBI will be acquitted. One cannot be convicted
of a crime that is not proven to have been committed by another.

Principal by indispensable cooperation – cooperates with the PDP and without whose
participation the crime would not have been committed. He cooperates after coming to know
the criminal intent of the PDP.

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or
unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime
charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which
it would not have been accomplished.
  Determine first the cooperation of rendered by the offender whether dispensable or
indispensable. If indispensable, he is liable as PIC, but if the cooperation is dispensable,
he is liable as an accomplice.
 Cooperation means to desire or wish in common thing.

Example:
1. X wanted to kill Y who resides in an island. The only means to reach the island is to ride
on the motorboat owned by A. X told A to bring him to the island because he is going
to kill Y. A is PIC. His motorboat is the only means to reach the island where Y resides.
Without his cooperation X would not have killed Y.

 The act of the PIC should be different from the act of the PDP. The law says “by
another act,” which means that it should not be the act of one who could be classified
as PDP.
 If the cooperation of one of the accused consists in performing an act necessary in the
execution of the crime committed, he is a principal by direct participation. Thus, if in
the commission of homicide, one of the offenders held the victim while the other was
stabbing him, the one who held the victim should be a principal by direct participation.

Collective Criminal Responsibility – There is collective criminal responsibility when the

offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the same extent.
The penalty imposed must be the same for all. PDP have collective criminal responsibility. PBI,
except that who directly forced another to commit a crime, and PDP have collective criminal
responsibility. PBI has collective criminal responsibility with PDP.
 All the conspirators are liable as co-principals.

Individual Criminal Responsibility – In the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal

purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime, or community of
criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and
the same person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for
the act committed by him.
Example: 2 persons assaulted the deceased causing less serious physical injuries while the 3 rd
inflicted the fatal wound. In this case, the party who inflicted the fatal wound would be the
only one responsible as principal for the crime of homicide; the other two would be held liable
only for less serious physical injuries.
Art. 18. Accomplices – those persons who, not included in the article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

 They are not part in the conspiracy but concur or conform to the act of the principal by
direct participation.
Requisites:
a. There must be a community of design; that is : knowing the criminal design or the PDP,
he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
b. He cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with
the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an
efficacious way; and
c. There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to
the person charged as accomplice.

 Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a PDP.

How does an accomplice acquire knowledge of the criminal design of the principal which
he/she later concurred or approved?
a. When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of his criminal purpose.
b. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal and concurs with it.

Examples:
1. A stabbed B. C who was a few feet away saw what A did. C boxed and kicked B. B died
because of the stab wound. A is liable as PDP. For his part, C is liable as an accomplice.
By boxing and kicking B after he saw that A stabbed B, he concurred with the act of A
and cooperated by performing a lesser act.

2. On July 5, 2016, A and B conspired to rob X. On the following day, July 6, 2016, A and
B told C about their plan to rob X and asked C to drive them in going to the house of X.
C drove A and B to the house of X where A and B committed Robbery. A and B are PDP.
C is an accomplice. He was NOT part of the conspiracy but after he came to know
about it, he concurred to the plan and cooperated by driving A and B to the house of
the victim.

3. By previous act – lending of a knife or a gun to the murderer, knowing the latter’s
criminal purpose.

4. By simultaneous act – the defendant who held one of the hands of the victim and tried
to take away the latter’s revolver, while his co-defendant was attacking him, is an
accomplice for he cooperates in the execution of the crime by simultaneous act without
any previous agreement or understanding.

Notes:
a. An accomplice is not part of the plan or conspiracy.
b. An accomplice concurs or approves the act of the PDP and performs other acts showing
his conformity to the act of the PDP.
c. The act of acts of the accomplice must be lesser than the act or acts done by the PBP,
that is, they must not be equal to or graver than the act or acts of the PDP.
d. The cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary, not indispensable.

Illustrations:
1. A stabbed C. upon seeing what A did, B also attacked C and stabbed him. C died
because of the stab wounds. What are the criminal liabilities of A and B?
Answer: A and B are both liable as PDP. While it is true that that B concurred and
cooperated in the execution of the crime, his act was equal to the act performed by A.
This makes him equally liable as PBP. He cannot be an accomplice because under the
law, the participation of an accomplice should be lesser than the act of the PDP.

2. A stabbed C. Upon seeing what A did, B rained C with fist blows. C died because of the
stab wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?
Answer: A is liable as PDP in the crime of homicide. B concurred with act of A by boxing
C. B is liable as accomplice because he performed a lesser act.
 3. A boxed C. Upon seeing what A did, B attacked C and stabbed him. C suffered
contusion and died because of the stab wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?
Answer: A is liable as PDP in the crime of slight physical injuries for inflicting contusion
on C. B is also liable as a PDP for the crime of homicide. While B concurred with act of
A, B’s participation was greater than the act performed by A. Thus, B cannot be liable
only as an accomplice.

Quasi-collective responsibility – is one where some offenders in the crime are principals and
the others are accomplices.
 In case of doubt as to the responsibility of the offender as a principal or accomplice, the
court should apply the milder form of liability.

Art. 19. Accessories – those who, having knowledge of the commission of a crime, without
having participated therein, either as principal or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof,
in order to prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author
of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crimes.
 The accessory take part subsequent to its commission – after the crime has been
committed

Number 1; by profiting or assisting

Examples:
1. A person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing that the same
had been stolen, is guilty of the crime of theft as an accessory.
2. Jimmy stole the money of Carlos. Jimmy later gave Mando Php 5K pesos out of the
stolen money. Is Mando an accessory? NO, because he did not know that the money
given to him by Jimmy was stolen.
3. Ranie also stole the cellphone of Erica. Ranie went to Jason and told him that he stole
the cellphone because he is in dire need of money. Ranie asked Jason to pawn the
cellphone for him which Jason did and gave the proceeds to Ranie. Jason is an
accessory. Despite his knowledge that the cellphone was stolen, he assisted Ranie to
profit from it.

Note: IF the act of an accessory however is punished as principal by another law, then he may
be charged as a principal.

Example: A robbed the cellphone of B in Manila. A went to Baguio City and gave the cellphone
to his friend C who kept and used it. A told C that he stole the cellphone. C is an accessory
because he profited/benefitted from the effects of the crime. He is also fence under PD 1612
(Anti-fencing law) because he knowingly possessed an item which was a proceed of the crime
of theft.

Fencing – the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows or should
be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Fence – any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or other organization
who/which commits the act of fencing.

Presumption of fencing – mere possession of any goods, article, item, object, or anything of
value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
Number 2: by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
Body of the crime – “corpus delicti” – means that a specific offense was in fact committed by
someone.

Examples:
a. A killed B. After killing B, A went to C and told him about the crime that he had just
committed. A asked C to conceal the cadaver of B. C dumped the cadaver of B in an
empty well and covered it with stones. C is an accessory because he concealed the
body of the crime.
b. A killed B with a .45 caliber gun. A was pursued by the authorities. A went to his friend
C and after telling him about the crime that he committed asked C to hide the gun that
he used in the commission thereof. C hid the gun, C is liable as an accessory. He
concealed the instrument of the crime.
Number 3: By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.
2 kinds:
A. Public officers who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal of any
crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.
Requisite:
1. The accessory is a public officer;
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony

Examples:
a. A mayor who refuses to prosecute an offender, thus, allowing him to escape, acts with
abuse of public functions and is an accessory;
b. X with intent to kill stabbed Y. The latter was medically attended for 5 days. X was
pursued by policeman. X went to SPO2 Joseph and after apprising him of the crime that
he just committed, asked his policeman friend to assist in his escape. SPO2 Joseph
assisted in the escape of Y. Is SPO2 Joseph an accessory?
ANSWER: Yes. The crime committed by X is attempted homicide which is not a light
felony. However, if the crime committed is slight physical injuries, he cannot be an
accessory because the crime committed is a light felony.

B. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime
or the principal who is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt against the
life of the Chief Executive, or who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

 If the one the offender assisted is merely an accomplice, there is no accessory.

 If the principal committed robbery, the person who assisted in not considered an
accessory because robbery is not one of those enumerated.
  A civilian who harbors a principal who committed kidnapping may not be held as an
accessory because kidnapping is not one of the crimes enumerated by law.
 A person who assisted a person who just committed an offense, and the former knows
that the person he assisted committed also an offense on some other days, is liable as
an accessory.

Effect of the acquittal of the Principal – Generally, the accessory may be acquitted because the
liability of an accessory is subordinate to that of the principal. However, it depends still on the
reason why the principal was acquitted (Exempted or Justified) or if the prosecution was able
to prove the involvement of said person as accessory as defined.

PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice) penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of crimes.
1. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object,
with intent to impair its veracity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as
evidence in any investigation or proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in criminal cases;
2. 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;
3. Giving 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 dat gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background investigation and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to misled the investigator of the court.

Art. 20. The accessory is EXEMPT from criminal liability when the principal is her/his:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Brothers or sisters (even adopted) or brother-in-law or sister-in-law

Examples:
1. A son who helps his father bury the body of a person whom the latter has murdered in
order to prevent its discovery;
2. A grandson who, having knowledge of the commission of robbery by his grandfather,
conceals or destroys the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery;
3. A person who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of his brother who committed
treason.

 This exemption applies only when the acts performed by the accessory are those
pertaining to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 19. Hence, a brother who helps in the sale of
a cell phone which he knows to have been stolen by his brother is NOT exempt from
criminal liability because he assisted his brother to profit from the effect of the crime.
He motivated to help Not because of their relationship BUT because of greed.
 Nephew and nieces not included among such relatives

PENALTIES IN GENERAL
Penalty – is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of law.
Purpose of punishment – The law is a rule or norm of conduct prescribed by the State for an
orderly management of its affairs and for the protection of the rights of its inhabitants. It is
meant to be followed and obeyed, not to be violated. Transgression of the law is an affront or
defiance to the State. To enforce the law, penal sanctions must be imposed in accordance with
the police power of the State.

Theories Justifying Penalty

1. Prevention – the State must punish the criminal to prevent or suppress the danger to
the State arising from the criminal acts of the offender
2. Self-defense – The State has a right to punish the criminal as a measure of self-defense
so as to protect society from the threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal
3. Reformation – the object of punishment is to correct and reform the offender
4. Exemplary – to serve as an example for the public good and to deter others from
violating the law.
5. Justice – that crime must be punished by the State as an act of retributive justice, a
vindication of absolute right and moral law violated by the criminal

3-fold purpose of penalties

1. Retribution or expiation – the penalty is commensurate with the nature and gravity of
the crime
2. Correction or reformation – penalties are imposed to reform a criminal
3. Social defense – a society has an existence to maintain and resort.

Constitutional Restriction – excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted.
 The punishment is “cruel and unusual” when it so disproportionate to the offense
committed as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right and
proper under the circumstances. Example: Those inflicted at whipping post, and the
like.

Art. 21 – A felony shall be punishable only by the penalty prescribed by law at the time of its
commission.

Art. 22 – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual delinquent.
 Generally, penal law should operate prospectively and not retroactively.
Exception to the proscriptive application of criminal law
1. When the act is decriminalized
2. When the law is favorable to accused who is not a habitual delinquent.

Exception to the exception:

1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes
of action; and
2. Where the offender is a habitual delinquent

Art. 23. Effect of the pardon by the offended party – a pardon by the offended party does not
extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this code; but the civil liability
with regard to the interest of the injures party is extinguished by his waiver.

Article 344: Express pardon by the offended party will bar criminal prosecution in the following
crimes:
 a. Concubinage
b. Adultery
c. Seduction
d. Abduction
e. Acts of lasciviousness

 Pardon must be extended to both offenders in concubinage and adultery

 Pardon must be given before the institution of the criminal case
 The parents, grandparents or guardian of the offended minor cannot extend a valid
pardon to the offender without the conformity of the offended party, even if the latter is
a minor.
 The parties under Art. 344 does not extinguish criminal liability. It merely constitutes a
bar to criminal prosecution.

Marital pardon in marital rape – marital pardon granted before the filing of the case, during
the proceedings and even after the final conviction shall extinguish criminal liability and shall
remit or abate the penalty already imposed.

Compromise between the offended party and offender

In actual practice, a compromise between the offended party and the offender could lead to
the dismissal of the criminal action. With former’s civil claim being satisfied, he loses interest in
pursuing the case leaving the prosecution no choice but to ask for dismissal on the ground
that its principal witness had become hostile and without whose testimony it cannot establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – that provided by law for a felony and which is imposed by the court
EXPRESSLY upon conviction.
Capital Punishment:
Death – prohibited by RA 9346

Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
Prison mayor

Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional
Arresto mayor
Suspension
Destierro

Light penalties:
Arresto menor
Public censure

Penalties common to the 3 preceding classes:

Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace
Life Imprisonment vs Reclusion Perpetua
1. LI does not have accessory penalties. RP has accessory penalties.
2. LI is a penalty under special laws. RP is a penalty under RPC.
3. LI has no fixed duration. After serving 30 years, the convict may be pardoned.

ACCESSORY PENALTIES – that penalty deemed included in the imposition of the principal
penalty
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

Art. 26. Fine – when afflictive, correctional or light felony

a. An afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos;
b. A correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos;
and
c. Light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos.

DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES  

 
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from
twenty years and one day to forty years.

 Although it provides for a duration, RP is still an indivisible penalty. Such that it should
be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the crime.

Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years
and one day to twenty years.

Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of

prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to
twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of

prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one
day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one
month and one day to six months.

Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one
day to thirty days.

Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover
such period of time as the court may determine.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. —
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:

1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more
times of any crime; and

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have
failed to surrender voluntarily.

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.

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 maximum penalty to
which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10,
1988).

Preventive imprisonment – it is the period of detention to be undergone by an accused when

the offense with which he is charged is non-bailable or even if bailable, he cannot post a bond
for his provisional liberty.

Purpose of PI – it is to prevent flight of the accused and his going into hiding.

Section Two. — Effects of the penalties according to their respective nature

 
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification.
— The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office
shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender
may have held even if conferred by popular election.

2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or
to be elected to such office.

3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the
exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
 
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.
 4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office
formerly held.

Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. —

The penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office,
profession or calling shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;

2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either

perpetually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of
such disqualification.

Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
the exercise of the right of suffrage. — 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. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any
public office during the period of his disqualification.

Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or
calling, or the right of suffrage. — 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.

Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the
time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as
to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage
his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.

 CI impossible when the penalty is RP or RT

Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — 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.

A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

 This article refers to the pardon made by the President of the RP.

Distinction between the pardon granted by the offended party and pardon granted by the
President
1. Pardon by the offended party apples only to crimes against chastity under the RPC,
while pardon by the Chief Executive applies to any crime.
 2. Pardon by the offended party in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness benefits
the co-principals, accomplices and accessories. In adultery and concubinage, the
pardon must include both offenders. Pardon by the Chief Executive can be granted to
any or all of the accused.
3. Pardon by the offended party cannot be made subject to a condition while the pardon
by the Chief Executive may be absolute or conditional.

Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet
the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos,
subject to the following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and 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.

2. 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.

3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no

subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.

5. 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.

Subsidiary Penalty – an auxiliary personal liability to be suffered by the convict

who has no property with which to pay the fine, at the rate of one day for each
____.

 SP must be expressly imposed by the court in order that the convict may be required to
serve it.

Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent

 
Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not
executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual
absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following
the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in
the pardon.

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. —
The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them
that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case
may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall
suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor,
shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual
special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision
correccional shall carry with it that 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, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen
months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it
that of suspension of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence.

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. —
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.

 Even if the accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, the instruments or

proceeds of the crime may still be forfeited.
 The innocent third person must intervene in the criminal case. He should file a motion
or a third party claim and pray for the release of the instrument to him.

APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
 
Section One. — Rules for the application of penalties
to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same.
 
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.

Art. 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.

Kinds of crime
1. Simple crime – which the RPC defines and prescribes the penalty in single article. Ex.
Art. 249 Homicide is punishable with RT.
2. Plurality of crime – when an offender commits many crimes, each with a corresponding
penalty distinct and separate from those of the others.

2 types of plurality of crimes:

a. Real or material plurality – when each act arises from distinct criminal impulses, in
which case, there will be as many crimes as there are acts.
b. Ideal plurality – where the acts arise from a single criminal impulse, in which case, they
would form a series of acts constituting a single continuing crime.
 In crimes against persons, each act constitutes a distinct act of execution and thus is a
distinct offense. There is no continuing crime against several person.

3. Special complex crimes – these are 2 simple crimes but which the RPC has defined as a
single offense with a single penalty. Ex. Rape with homicide, kidnapping with homicide,
robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, kidnapping with rape and robbery with
arson.
COMPOSITE CRIME – this are crimes which in the eyes of the law are treated as single
individual offenses although in reality are made up of more than one crime. They are also
called special complex crimes or single indivisible offense.

This is not a complex crime but one crime made up of several violations and is deemed a
product of one criminal intent.

4. Complex crimes – although more than 1 crime has been committed, they constitute
only one crime not explicitly prescribed by the RPC and only 1 penalty is imposed
pursuant to art. 48.

What is Complex Crime – a complex crime is one where a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies or where an offense is a necessary means for committing the
other.

2 kinds of Complex Crimes. Art. 48 speaks of 2 kinds of plurality of crimes:

a. Compound crime (delito compuesto) – when a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or
less grave felonies.
b. Complex Crime Proper (delito complejo) – when an offense is a necessary means for
committing another offense.

 A complex crime is only one crime as contemplated by law because the offender has
only 1 criminal intent.

1. Compound Crime
Requisites:
a. That only a single act is performed by the offender
b. That the single act produces 2 or more grave or less grave felonies

Examples:
 1. Double homicide/murder, multiple homicide, homicide with frustrated homicide and
homicide with attempted homicide
2. A with intent to kill, fire his gun at B. the bullet hit B. After hitting B, the same bullet hit
C. Both B and C died. Although 2 homicide resulted from the act, A cannot be charged
with 2 separate crimes of homicide. He is liable for the single offense of double
homicide because the 2 homicide resulted from a single act. Homicide is a grave
offense. The single act resulted in 2 grave felonies. (re: firing 2 shots?)
3. Suppose in the same problem, the same bullet hit B, C and D who all dies as a result. A
is liable for the complex crime of Multiple Homicide. There is no such crime as triple
homicide, quadruple homicide or quintuple homicide. If a single act causes 3 or more
deaths, it is multiple homicide or multiple murder as the case may be.
4. In the same problem, suppose B and C were hit by the same bullet. B was seriously
wounded but survive. C died as a result of the gun show wound. In this case, A is liable
for the complex crime of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide. The single act resulted in
2 grave felonies of homicide and frustrated homicide. In complex crimes, the
designation of the offense always starts with the more serious felony.
5. What if B was hit but was only slightly injured but C died as a result. A is liable for
homicide with attempted homicide. The single act resulted to one grave felony of
homicide and one less grave felony of attempted homicide. Although B sustained a
slight injury, it is still attempted homicide because there was intent to kill on the part of
A.

 A light felony cannot be complex with grave or less grave felony. As such, it should filed
separately.
 The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing murder and multiple murder
attempts constitutes multiple murder with multiple attempted/frustrated murder
 Placing a time bomb in a plane, which caused it to explode in mid-air, killing 13 persons
therein, constitutes a complex crime of multiple murder and destruction of property.
 When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons,
without evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a
single criminal impulse. (re: 1 person fired upon 6 individuals).
 Gang vs gang (riots) when no evidence as to who killed who, complex crime is
applicable.

2. Complex Crime Proper

Requisites:
a. That at least 2 offenses are committed
b. That one of the offense must be a necessary means for committing the other offense
c. That both of the offenses must be punished under the same statute (RPC)
Examples:
1. Estafa through falsification of commercial documents
2. Malversation through falsification of a public document

Problems:
1. A found a lost check payable to B. He endorsed the check by falsifying the signature of
B. The drawee bank have him the equivalent of the check. A committed estafa as
regards the bank because it was deceived by A into believing that he was B. he was
able to commit estafa because of his act of falsifying the signature of B. The falsification
was a necessary means of committing estafa. Therefore, A committed the complex
crime of estafa through falsification.
 2. Abduction as a necessary means for committing rape. However subsequent acts of
intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape.

 No complex crime when one of the offenses was committed for the purpose of
concealing the commission of the other. Example: After committing homicide, the
accused in order to conceal the crime, set fire to the house where it had been
perpetrated. Setting fire to the house is arson. But in this case, neither homicide nor
arson was necessary to commit the other. The arson was not a necessary means of
committing homicide. The arson was resorted to conceal the crime of homicide already
committed. Hence, the offender committed 2 separate crimes of homicide and arson.

Complex Crime vs Special complex Crime

a. An ordinary CC is composed of 2 or more crimes punished in different provisions of the
RPC brought about by a single act or where offense is a necessary means of committing
another offense. A special complex crime or composite crime is made up of 2 or more
crimes which are considered as components of a single indivisible offense.
b. The penalty impossible in ordinary complex crime is the penalty for the most serious
crime in its maximum period. In special complex crime or composite crime the penalty
impossible is the penalty specifically provided by law.

 The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period. The reason for this is to favor the culprit. When 2 or
more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than
when he commits the said crimes thought separate and distinct acts.

DELITO CONTINUADO – or continued crime is one where the accused is impelled by a single
criminal impulse but commits a series of overt acts at about the same time in about the same
place and said acts violate the same offense.
The reason is that neither the criminal act nor the intention is susceptible of division.

Example: A, B and C agreed to rob all occupants of the 5 houses located within the same
compound. By a series of acts they robbed the occupants of the 5 houses one after the other.
They are liable for a single offense of Robbery. While they committed a series of act against
several victims, the said acts were impelled by a single criminal intent.

 There must be a general pan to rob. It should be distinguished from when the intention
to commit a crime was just an afterthought after the commission of another crime.

SINGLE LARCENY DOCTRINE – a doctrine in theft or robbery cases which is very popular in
the Unites States and other countries were the taking of property of properties belonging to
the same or different persons by a series of acts or acts arising from a single criminal intent or
resolution constitutes only one crime.

 the courts now have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine under which there is a
distinct larceny as to the property of each victim.

Examples:
1. A saw 2 goats in his backyard. He decided to get both of them regardless of who is the
owner. With the left hand, he got one goat and with this right hand, he took the other
goat. Here, A committed 2 acts of getting the 2 goats. But he took them as a result of a
 single intent or criminal resolution. Hence, he is liable for the single offense of theft
applying the single larceny doctrine.
2. A and B peeped through the glass window of a classroom. They saw 30 students inside.
They resolved to rob them all of their belongings. By series of acts, they divested the
students of their personal properties by means of threat and intimidation. A and B are
liable for the single offense of Multiple Robbery. The series of acts of dispossession of
the personal properties of the 30 students arose from a single criminal intent.

Exception of the Single Larceny Doctrine

Use of Submachine Gun: Several shots from sub-machine gun causing several deaths,
although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger, are considered several acts.
Does the number of crimes committed depend on how many times the trigger of an automatic
gun was pressed or does it depend on how many bullets are emitted? The SC declared that it
is not the act of pressing the trigger which should produce the several felonies, but the
number of bullets which actually produced them. Hence, where the accused pressed the
trigger of a submachine gun and the gun fired continually and several persons were killed or
injured, there are as many crimes as are persons killed or injured. This is in view of the special
mechanism the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with his finger and it
would fire continually.

CONTINUING CRIME – one where ay of the elements of the offense is committed in different
localities such that the accused may be charged in any place where an essential element of
the crime was committed.

It is not a complex crime because the offender does not perform a single act but a series of
acts and one offense is not a necessary means of committing the other.

Examples:
a. Conrado kidnapped Jenna and illegaly detaine her in Baguio City. On the following day
he brought her to Dagupan City. The next day, he brought her to Tarlac and then to
Manila. All the while, Jenna was deprived of her liberty. Conrado cannot be charged
with 4 separate crimes of illegal detention. His bringing of Jenna to 4 different places
does not constitute separate crimes of illegal detention. He committed the continuing
offense of Illegal Detention (1 count)
b. X negotiated with Y regarding the purchase of the latter’s car in Manila. After the
conclusion of the contract, X and Y met in Angeles City where X paid Y a post dated
check. The check was deposited by Y in his account at the Banco de Oro bank in Baguio
City. The drawee bank dishonored the check for the reason “drawn against insufficient
funds.”
Answer: Y can file a case for Viol. Of BP 22 in Angeles City, or Baguio City. Under the
law, a person can be charged in any place where an essential part of the offense was
committed. Viol of BP 22 is a continuing crime.

NO complex crime in the following:

1. In case of continuing crimes
2. When one offense is committed to conceal the other
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part or an element of other offences
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law
5. In case of special complex crimes
6. When the law provides of a two-tiered penalty
TWO-TIERED PENALTY – occurs when the law provides that a penalty to a particular crime is
in addition to the penalty impossible for another crime which results from the commission of
such particular crime.

Example: Maltreatment of Prisoners (Art. 235) – the penalty of prision correctional in its
medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, IN ADDITION to his liability for the
physical injuries shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo
himself in the correction of handling of a prisoner or detention officer under his charge.

Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated  crime. — The penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall
be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.

Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty

lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. — The

penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated
shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated
felony.

Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a

consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony.

Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated  crime. — The penalty
next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be
imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.

Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated  crime. — The

penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony
shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony.

Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. — The

penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit
a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.

Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. — The

penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony
shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of Impossible Crime — When the person
intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of
the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that
the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because
the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the
result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Art. 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
1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional,

6. Arresto mayor,

7. Destierro,

8. Arresto menor,

9. Public censure,

10. Fine.

Degree – is one unit of a penalty or one of the penalties enumerated in the graduated scales
in art. 71.
Divisible Penalties have 3 equal periods
1. Minimum
2. Medium
3. Maximum
Period – one of the 3 equal portions of a divisible penalty

Art. 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:
 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they
shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the

act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.

3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the

act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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:

TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN
EACH OF THEIR PERIODS

Penalties Time included Time included Time included Time included

in the penalty in its in its medium in its
in its entirety minimum period maximum
period
Reclusion From 12 years From 12 years From 14 years, From 17 years,
temporal and 1 day to 20 and 1 day to 14 8 months and 1 4 months and 1
years. years and 8 day to 17 years day to 20 years.
months. and 4 months.
Prision mayor, From 6 years From 6 years From 8 years From 10 years
absolute and 1 day to 12 and 1 day to 8 and 1 day to 10 and 1 day to 12
disqualification years. years. years. years.
and special
temporary
disqualification
Prision From 6 months From 6 months From 2 years, 4 From 4 years, 2
correccional, and 1 day to 6 and 1 day to 2 months and 1 months and 1
suspension and years. years and 4 day to 4 years day to 6 years.
 destierro months. and 2 months.
Arresto mayor From 1 month From 1 to 2 From 2 months From 4 months
and 1 day to months. and 1 day to 4 and 1 day to 6
months. months. months.
Arresto menor From 1 to 30 From 1 to 10 From 11 to 20 From 21 to 30
days. days. days. days.

Art. 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:

1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional,chan robles virtual law library

6. Arresto mayor,

7. Arresto menor,

8. Destierro,

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

10 Temporal absolute disqualification.

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the
right to follow a profession or calling, and

12. 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.

Examples of penalties that can be served simultaneously:

1. The court imposed upon the accused imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and one day
to 4 years and 2 months and to pay fine of 2K. These 2 penalties can be served
simultaneously.
2. Congressman Al Goze was sentenced to suffer Prision Mayor and disqualification to hold
public office. These 2 penalties can be served simultaneously.

 If the convict was sentenced to suffer Arresto Mayor and Prision Correccional, it cannot
be served simultaneously. They should be served successively according to the order of
severity.

Three-fold rule – means that if the convict were to suffer several penalties, the maximum
duration of his sentence shall not be more than three times the length of time corresponding
to the most severe penalty.
Illustration:
A was sentenced to suffer 4 penalties; 6 years, 5 years, 5 years and 7 years. The total of the
penalties is 23 years. Applying the 3 fold rule, multiply 7 yrs. By 3 and we have 21 years. A
shall serve a total of 21 years only.

 The 3 fold rule applies only if the convict were to suffer at least 4 penalties. If the
convict were to suffer 3 penalties only, the 3 fold rule doesn’t apply.

ACT NO. 4103 The Indeterminate Sentence Law

It is a law which modified the imposition of penalties under RPC and special laws. The courts
are mandated in imposing a sentence of fix a minimum and maximum period of penalty.
The minimum sentence must be served and thereupon, the convict becomes eligible for
parole. When released, he does not become actually discharged because the rest of his
sentence is served out of prison under the supervision of a probation officer.

Not applicable in the following cases:

1. Those convicted of piracy
2. Those who are habitual delinquents
3. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence.
4. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
5. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension
6. Those convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
 
Section One. — General Provisions
 
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed . — No penalty shall be executed
except by virtue of a final judgment.
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.

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.

 Those whose sentences do not exceed 6 months are municipal prisoners; over 6
months but not more than 3 years, city or provincial prisoners; and more than 3 years,
national prisoners. As a rule municipal prisoners shall be confined in the municipal jail;
city or provincial prisoners, in the city or provincial jail; and national prisoners, in the
national penitentiary.

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.

 In death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

 As penalty for the concubine

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.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 
Chapter One
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. 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.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;

4. By absolute pardon;

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this

Code.

FINAL JUDGMENT – means judgment beyond recall. As long as a judgment has not become
executory, it cannot be truthfully said that accused is guilty of the felony. The rules states that
a judgment becomes final after the lapse of period for perfecting an appeal or when the
sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the accused has expressly waived
in writing his right to appeal.

 service of sentence is a ground for extinction of criminal liability. It does not extinguish
civil liability. It has been held that if the accused escapes from prison where he was
serving sentence, the period during which he was not in confinement shall be deducted
in the computation of his total service of sentence.
 Amnesty – is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general pardon for a
past offense, and is usually granted to a certain class of persons who are subject to trial
but have not yet been convicted.
Amnesty wipes out not only the penalty but also the effects of the criminal liability. But
it does not extinguish civil liability.

 Pardon – is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the President
which exempts the offender from punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed.
 Absolute pardon – grants oblivion to all the effects of the conviction. It shall restore all
the civil rights. Under Art. 36, pardon by the Chief Executive shall not work the
restoration, of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights
are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Absolute pardon must therefore
expressly restore the right to vote and hold public office.

Pardon distinguished from amnesty

1. Pardon includes any crime; amnesty generally, includes political offenses
2. Pardon is given after conviction; amnesty is given even before conviction or institution
of the action
3. Pardon as a defense must be proved; the court may take judicial notice of amnesty
 4. Pardon looks forward and forgives the punishment; amnesty looks backward and
abolishes the offense.

Prescription of crime – refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to prosecute the
offender because of the lapse of time.

Prescription of penalty – refers to the loss of forfeiture of the right of the State to execute the
penalty because of the lapse of time.

Marriage - marriage between the accused and the victim extinguishes criminal liability. The
law contemplates a valid marriage. There must be no legal impediment to the marriage.
 In multiple rape, the marriage shall extinguish only the criminal liability of one of the
accused who offered to marry the offended party. The case will proceed as to the other
accused.
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.

 When the last day of the prescriptive period for filing of the information falls on a
Sunday or legal holiday, the information can no longer be filed on the next day as the
crime has already prescribed.

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.

Example:
1. In 1980, X killed Y. For one reason or another, no case was filed against X. In 1985, Z
came into the open and said that he was willing to testify against X as he witnessed the
commission of the crime. IN 2001, X was charged with Homicide.
 HOMICIDE is a grave felony which prescribes in 20 years. In this case, the crime of
Homicide was filed against X only 2001 or after 21 years which is beyond the
prescriptive period for the offense. The fact that in 1985 Z indicated his desire to be a
witness is of no consequence. The prescriptive period started to run in 1980 when the
crime was committed.

2. One fateful night in January 1990, while 5 year old Polo was urinating at the back of
their house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and
playmate, Nene. When peeped inside, he saw Mina, Nene’s stepmother, very angry and
strangling the 5 year old Nene to death. Polo saw Mina carry the dead body of Nene,
placed it inside the trunk of her car and drove away. The deed body of Nene was never
found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Nene went to live with her
grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Polo did not tell anyone, even his
parents and relatives about what he witnessed. 20 and half years after the incident, and
right after his graduation in Criminology, Polo reported the crime to NBI authorities. The
crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for the
death of Nene despite the lapse of 20 and half years?

ANSWER: Yes. Under Article 91, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In this
case, the commission of the crime was known only by Polo, who was not the offended party
nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only
when Polo revealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of
20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the time Polo revealed the same to the
NBI authorities.

Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final
sentence prescribe as follows:

1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;

2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;

3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of

arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;

4. 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.

 If the sentence is not yet final, the period of prescription will not run because Art. 93
refers to the accused who shall evade the service of his sentence. It does not also start
to run where despite his final conviction (finality of the judgment), the accused is not
arrested to serve his sentence.
Example: A was charged with homicide. In 1980, he was convicted and was sentenced to
suffer RT. After serving 6 months in prison, he escaped. He was arrested in 2002. He CANNOT
made to suffer the penalty imposed because the penalty has prescribed. The prescriptive
period of RP, being an afflictive penalty is 20 years. When A was arrested, more than 20 years
have elapsed. The State has lost its right to execute the penalty.

 If the accused is captured and then evades again the service of his sentence, the
prescription that has ran in his favor should be taken into account.

PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished

partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is
serving his sentence.

 Parole and Probation may be included as well.

Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. — Any person
who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying
strictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-compliance with
any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the
provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.

Conditional Pardon – the grant of CP is a silent contract, a covenant between the President
and the convict. To be effective, the conditional pardon must be accepted in writhing by the
accused.

Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the original

sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of
substituting the latter in the place of the former.

Commutation of sentence – is an act where the Chief Executive reduces the degree of the
penalty inflicted upon the convict or by decreasing the length of imprisonment or the amount
of the fine. (when the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of age.

CIVIL LIABILITY
 
Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
 
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable.

Dual character of a crime:

 1. As an offense against the State; and
2. As an offense against the person injured by the crime.

General Rule: When a criminal action is instated, the civil aspect arising from the crime is
deemed instituted.
 Acquittal of the accused does not mean extinction of his civil liability unless there is a
declaration in the decision.
 Civil liability of minors devolve upon the parents of guardians.

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.

 The SL of employer arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case.

WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

 
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in Articles
100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;

2. Reparation of the damage caused;

3. 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.

 Restitution is the return/restoration of the thing itself with allowance for any
deterioration or diminution of value.
 Restitution can be made even from third persons who lawfully acquired the
thing. He can however file an action against the person from whom he
acquired it, unless he acquired it in a manner where the law bars an action
for recovery acquisition from a public auction.

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.

 this is done if restitution is not possible. This applies to crimes against property.
 It requires the culprit in case of inability to return the stolen property to pay the value
of the property or to pay for the damaged property.

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.
  Applies to crimes against persons
 Indemnification for consequential damages which is generally payment of
lost of unrealized salary or earning and includes not only those of the
offended party but his family and even by a third person by reason of the
crime.

Art. 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.

 If the victim dies, the action to demand restoration, reparation and indemnification
descends to his heirs.
 Moral damages are automatically granted in cases of rape, rape with homicide,
homicide or qualified rape without need of further proof. 50K;100K;50K;75K

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.

 Payment or performance
 Condonation or remission of debt
.
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.

 Even if the criminal liability of the offender is totally or partially extinguished by reason
of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or service of sentence or any other
reason, he is still civilly liable.
 The grant of probation to the offender does not extinguish civil liability. Thus, where
the accused pleaded guilty and applied for probation, that fact does not prevent the
trial court from making pronouncement on his civil liability.