Basis of Criminal Liability & Philippine Criminal Law Philosophies

MODULE 1 – PART 1
Basis of criminal liability – the consideration that man is inherently

good but because of his environment and upbringing he becomes
CRIMINAL LAW is a branch of public law because it treats of acts or socially sick.
omissions which are primarily wrongs against the state.
Purpose of the penalty – corrective or curative to reform the offender.

PENAL LAWS are the acts of the legislature prohibiting certain acts E.g. RA 9344
and establishing penalties for their violations. Those that define
crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment. (Lacson
vs Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298, January 1999) Determination of penalty – on an individual basis after considering his
circumstances.
CRIME is an act committed or omitted in violation of public law The Indeterminate Sentence Law, Probation Law, etc. exemplify this.
forbidding or commanding it. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law: Emphasis – on the actor.

 Revised Penal Code (Act. No. 3815) and its Amendments
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS passed by the Philippine ECCLECTIC (or mixed) combines the good features of both the
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, classical and the positivist theories.
National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines and the
Batasang Pambansa
 PENAL PRESIDENTIAL DECREES issued during Martial Law Ideally classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the
positivist is made to work on economic and social crimes.
Note: There are no Common Law Crimes in the Philippines.

UTILITARIAN (or protective theory) under which the primary function
of punishment in criminal law is to protect society from potential and
PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING THE CRIMINAL LAW JUSTICE actual wrong doers.
SYSTEM:
CLASSICAL OR JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY: The retributive aspect of criminal law should be directed against them.
The law should not be applied to further materialism and opportunism.
Basis of criminal liability – human free will. (Magno vs CA, GR. No. 96132, June 26, 1992). E.g. move for
decriminalization of BP22.
Purpose of penalty – retribution, for the right of the State and / or the
private offended party must be observed.
Imposable penalty – predetermined penalty for every crime the gravity THE POWER TO DEFINE & PUNISH CRIMES
of which is directly proportionate to the crime committed.
Emphasis of the law – on the offense. The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the
attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power
Under the classical theory on which the penal code is mainly based, instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to
the basis of criminal liability is human free will. look after, guard and defend the interests of the community, the
individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the
Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose guaranty of the exercise of his rights. (US VS PABLO, 35 PHIL 94)
between good and evil. One of the indispensable powers of the state is the power to secure
society against threatened and actual evil.
When he commits a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso), the act is
presumed to have been done voluntarily, i.e. with freedom, intelligence Pursuant to this, the legislative arm of government enacts criminal
and intent. laws that define and punish illegal acts that may be committed by its
own subjects, the executive agencies enforce these laws,
and the judiciary tries and sentences the criminals in accordance with
Man therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful these laws. (People v. Echegaray y Pilo, G.R. No. 117472, 335 PHIL
acts so long as free will appears unimpaired. (People vs Generoso, 343-414)
G.R. 135981, Sept. 29, 2000) CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE
POSITIVIST OR REALISTIC: CONGRESS TO EN ACT PENAL LAWS AMONG THE BILL OF
RIGHTS:
2022 CRIMINAL LAW I [ARTICLES 1 – 15]; Compiled from the slides of PROS. DAPHNE A. DEGOMA 1|P a g e
 The law must be general in application (equal protection).  A law which makes an act or omission criminal which when
 It must observe substantive and procedural due process. committed was not criminal.
 It should not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive  Imposes a penalty what is higher than when it was committed.
fines.  Makes it easier for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
 It should not operate as a bill of attainder (a bill of attainder is a accused than when the crime was committed.
legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence  Requires a lesser quantum of evidence than when the crime was
is the substitution of legislative act for a judicial determination of committed.
guilt.)  Deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to
 It should not operate as ex post facto law. which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal or a proclamation of amnesty. (Lacson vs.
Executive Secretary)
PROVISIONS IN THE CODE COMPLEMENTING EXPOST FACTO
LAW:
CHARACTERISTICS OF PENAL LAW:
Art. 21: No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed
by law prior to its commission.  Generality – (persons to be governed) – penal law is binding
on all persons who reside or sojourn in the Philippines
Art. 22: Penal law shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor whether citizens or not.
the offender who is not a habitual delinquent. Therefore, a law which
increases the penalty for an act or omission cannot be given Basis: Art. 14 of the Civil Code and Art. III (1) of the Constitution.
retroactive effect.
 Territoriality – (jurisdiction or place where it is applicable) –
the law is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits
of the Philippine territory.
DOCTRINAL APPLICATION OF THE PROSPECTIVITY RULE:
Basis: Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
Legis interpretation legis uim obtinet.
 Prospectivity – (when the law shall be applicable) – the law
Under Art. 8 of the Civil Code, judicial decisions applying the laws or should have only prospective application except if it is
the constitution form part of the legal system. favorable to the offender. (Irretrospectivity prohibits the
retroactive application of penal laws)
The prospectivity rule applies to administrative rulings and circulars, Basis: Art. 21 and 22, Revised Penal Code. Art. III (22), Constitution
and to judicial decisions which though not laws are evidence of what and Art. 4, Civil Code.
the laws mean.
This is especially true in the construction and application of criminal Penal laws are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor
laws where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be of the accused.
reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society (Co. vs CA, GR. Whenever two interpretations of law of appreciation of evidence are
100776, October 28, 1993). possible, the exculpatory interpretation shall prevail, consistent with
Lex prospicit, non respicit. the rule of presumption of innocence.
The law looks forward and not backward. When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally
balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in
The rationale against retroactivity is that a law usually derides rights obedience to the constitutional presumption of innocence (Ursua vs.
which may have already become vested or impairs the obligations of CA 256 SCRA 147)
contract, hence, unconstitutional.
PRELIMINARY TITLE
Prior to the statutes nullification it must have been in force and had to
be complied with. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness Date of Effectiveness and Application of the Provisions of The Revised
and justice if there be recognition of what had transpired prior to such Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930]
adjudication.
EXAMPLES OF EX POST FACTO LAW: ARTICLE 1. Time When Act Takes Effect. — This Code shall take
effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
Intra-territorial application – within the Philippine archipelago,
ARTICLE 2. Application of Its Provisions. — Except as provided in the including its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone.
treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of
this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, General rule: Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but within Philippine territory. Penal laws are enforceable only within its
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: territory.
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; Extra-territorial application – the Code may be given application
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the even to those crimes committed outside the Philippine territorial
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the jurisdiction.
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the Extent of Philippine territory:
preceding number;
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
Treaties and laws of preferential application prevail over the provisions
of the Code such as RA no. 75 on immunity of diplomatic archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines. (Art. 1 of 1987 Constitution)
representatives of foreign countries. Under the international law,
sovereigns, heads of states and their official representatives enjoy
EXCEPTIONS TO TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF RPC:
immunity from suits.
 First exception:
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR CRIMINAL
LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC RPC governs crimes committed on Philippine ship/airship.
INTERNATIONAL LAW:
1. Sovereigns and other chief of state.
Limitations:
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary (a diplomatic agent
ranking below an ambassador but possessing full power and
The vessel must be not within the territorial jurisdiction of another
authority), ministers residents, and charges d’affaires.
country otherwise the latter’s law will govern because penal laws are
They possess immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the country of their primarily territorial. But if the foreign country does not assume
sojourn, they cannot be sued or arrested. (II Hyde, International Law, jurisdiction, the Philippines will have jurisdiction.
2nd edition, 1266)
Country of registry determines the nationality of the ship or airship, not
its ownership. Thus a Filipino owned ship registered in a foreign
NOTE: Immunity is not applicable when foreign country adversely
country is a foreign ship.
affected does not provide similar protection to our foreign
representatives: French / English Rules refer to the jurisdiction over merchant vessels
of one country located in another country. The rule does not apply to
SECTION 7. The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only in case
war vessels.
where the country of the diplomatic or consular representative
adversely affected has provided for similar protection to duly
accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the Republic of FRENCH RULE:
the Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for like or similar
offenses herein contained.||| (Penalty for Acts Impairing Proper It recognizes flag or nationality of vessel. The country of registry will
Observance of Rights and Privileges of Foreign Diplomatic and have jurisdiction but when the crime violated the peace and order of
Consular Agents, Republic Act No. 75, [October 21, 1946]) the host country (such as drug trafficking or white slavery), the host
country will have jurisdiction.
Consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations do
not possess the same status and privileges of ambassadors and
ministers and cannot claim immunity. (Wheaton Int’l Law, Sec 249) ENGLISH RULE:
It adheres strictly to the territoriality principle or situs of the crime. The

Two applications of the Code: country of registry will have jurisdiction only where the crime relates to
the internal management of the vessel. In other cases (such as drug-
trafficking) the host country will have jurisdiction.
Observation: Crimes against national security and the law of nations include
The effect on jurisdiction over the crime under either rule committed in Treason, Espionage, Provoking War and Disloyalty in case of war,
a merchant vessel is about the same because the general rule is the Piracy and Mutiny but not rebellion.
exception in the other.
When rebellion is committed abroad, the Philippine courts will not have
jurisdiction because rebellion is a crime against public order.
Philippines adheres to English Rules – Philippine commercial vessels
are extensions of its territory & it has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein except when such vessel is within the territorial MODULE 2 – PART 1
jurisdiction of another country.
CHAPTER ONE
FELONIES
 Second and third exceptions:
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

ARTICLE 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
felonies (delitos).
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding means of fault (culpa).
number;
xxx (Art. 2 RPC) 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.
Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true Felony refers exclusively to acts or omissions punished under the
genuine document or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering Revised Penal Code.
by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein
(Art. 169 RPC) CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES:
If forgery is committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin,  As to commission (Article 3)
currency or obligations and securities.
Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate intent
Culpa or those committed by means of fault
 Fourth exception:
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense  As to stage of execution (Article 6)
in the exercise of their functions; xxx (Art. 2 RPC) 1. Attempted
2. Frustrated
A public officer/employee who commits a crime related to the exercise 3. Consummated
of his office. Without this relation, they are acting in their private
capacity and hence bound by the law of the host country.
Related to this, is the classification of felonies as to:
The crimes that maybe committed in the exercise of public functions
are: Bribery (Arts 210 & 211), Fraud against public treasury (art. 213), Formal felonies – those which are always consummated because the
possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation (Art. 217), offender cannot perform the act necessary for the execution without
failure to render accounts (Art. 218), technical malversation (Art. 220), consummating the offense, for instance physical injuries which are
failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221) and punished as to result, whether serious, less serious or slight. The
falsification (Art. 171). degree of injury cannot be determined without first consummating the
offense.
Material felonies – those which have various stages of execution.

 Under the fifth exception:
Crimes that have no frustrated stage, such as rape because its
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the essence is carnal knowledge. Hence, even the slight penetration of
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. the female organ consummates the crime. (People v Clopino, GR no.
110353, May 21, 1998)
xxx (Art. 2 RPC)
Likewise, arson can only be attempted or consummated, because the Stage of accomplishment – the Stage of accomplishment –
slightest burning of the property consummates the crime of arson penalty imposed violation of the law is
especially since the amount of the damage in the property has been depends on whether the punished only when
deleted in the amendments to the law on arson. crime is consummated, accomplished or
frustrated or attempted. consummated.
 As to the gravity (Art. 9)
Grave felonies REQUISITES OF DOLO:

Less grave felonies
Light felonies In order that an act or omission maybe considered as having been
As to count performed or incurred with deliberate intent, the following must concur:
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an

Composite act;
Compound 2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing an act or
Complex omitting to do an act;
Continued 3. He must have INTENT while doing an act or omitting to do an act.
Continuing
FREEDOM – When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a
 As to nature human being but a mere tool; his liability is as much as that of the knife
that wounds, or of a torch that sets fire, or of a key that opens the door,
or of the ladder that is braced against a wall of a house in committing
Mala in se – an act or omission that is inherently evil robbery.
Mala prohibita – an act or omission is evil because there is a law Thus, a person who acts under an irresistible force is exempt from
prohibiting the same liability. (art. 12 par. 5)
In the same way, a person who acts under compulsion of

Generally, felonies under the Revised Penal Code are mala in se
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt
whereas those in special law are mala prohibita. However, it is really
from liability. (art. 12 par. 6)
the nature of the act or omission that makes a crime either mala in se
or mala prohibita. For instance, PD 533 amending Art. 308, 309, and
310 of the RPC. Thus, cattle rustling is still malum in se (Taer v CA, INTELLIGENCE AND DISCERNMENT
186 SCRA 598, June 1990)
Intelligence is the capacity to understand what is right and what is

Also even if the special law uses the terms of penalties in the Code, wrong.
that alone will not make the act or omission a crime mala in se. The
law may only intend to make the Code apply suppletorily thereto. Discernment is relevant to intelligence, NOT to intent. It does not
mean though, that when a person acted with discernment, he intends
the crime or the wrong done. (People v Cordova, 224 SCRA 319, July
1993).
MALA IN SE: MALA PROHIBITA:
Basis – moral state of the Basis – voluntariness, hence Intelligence is an element of both dolo and culpa, thus, whether the
offender, hence, good faith or good faith of lack of criminal resulting felony is intentional or culpable, discernment is an element.
lack of criminal intent is a intent is not a defense, unless Absent discernment, there is no offense whether dolo or culpa.
defense. intent is an element of the
crime. When insanity is interposed as a defense or a ground of a motion to
Modifying circumstances– Modifying circumstances– quash the burden rests upon the accused to establish that fact, for the
taken into account in not considered because the law
law presumes every man to be sane. Hence, in the absence of
imposing the penalty on the intends to discourage the
sufficient evidence to prove insanity, the legal presumption of one’s
offender because his moral trait commission of the act specially
is the basis of the crime. prohibited. sanity stands. (Zosa v CA, GR no. 105641, March 10, 1994)
Degree of participation – Degree of participation – the INTENT
penalty is computed on the penalty on the offenders is the
basis of whether he is a same as they are all deemed
 Intent is the use of a particular means to effect the desired result.
principal offender, or principals.
The use of a lethal weapon would show the criminal intent to kill
merely accomplice or
although death did not result.
accessory.
 Intent is a mental state thus the need to determine it by the means Art. 3 compared with art. 365:
used. This intent is demonstrated by the overt acts of a person.
 In article 3, culpa is the mode of committing a crime hence killing
As a general rule, criminal intent is presumed such as intent to kill for instance, is denominated as homicide through reckless
when the victim dies. imprudence.
 In Art. 365, culpa itself is the crime punished, thus the killing is
But where intent is an element of the crime (specific criminal intent, denominated as reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
such as intent to gain in theft) and if the act results to variant crimes
such as injuries which could give rise to either attempted/frustrated
homicide or physical injuries; acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape,
ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
intent cannot be presumed but must be established.
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
Two instances when the offender can be criminally liable even if there
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
is no criminal intent:
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
 Felonies committed by culpa impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
 Offenses mala prohibita employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
PRINCIPLE: (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])

Actus num facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be criminal
unless the mind is criminal (Llmosos v Sandiganbayan GR nos. L- **Article 3 deals with how a felony is committed, article 4 deals with
63408 and 64026, August 7, 1985). who commits a felony.
A felony requires criminal intent. Hence, when intent is absent as the There are two kinds of offenders:
mind is not criminal, no crime is committed.
 Those who commit a felony, whether dolo or culpa
NOTE: This doctrines applies only to dolo.  Those who commit an impossible crime
...although the wrongful act done be different from that which he

MOTIVE intended -- referring to dolo because of the presence of the intent (note
the word “intended”)
Motive is the moving power or force (such as vengeance), which
Elements:
impels a person to desire a result.
1. the intentional felony is committed
Generally, motive is immaterial in determining criminal liability. 2. the wrong done is direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony committed even though different from that intended.
Exceptions:
 When the act brings about variant crimes, e.g. kidnapping or Factors affecting criminal intent and correspondingly the criminal liability:
robbery (People vs Puno, GR no. 97471, February 17, 1993)  Mistake of fact;
 There is doubt whether the accused committed the crime, or the  Aberratio ictus (mistake in the victim of the blow)
identity of the accused is doubtful. The evidence on the  Error in personae (mistake in identity)
commission of the crime is purely circumstantial.  Praeter intentionem (no intention to commit so grave a wrong
 Where the identity of the assailant is in dispute, motive become caused than that intended) and
relevant and when motive is supported with sufficient evidence  Proximate cause (the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
for a conclusion of guilt, a conviction is sustainable (People v caused)
Macoy, GR nos. 96649-50, July 1997)
MISTAKE OF FACT
CULPA:
Mistake of fact is that which had the fact been true to the belief of the
While a criminal negligence act is not a simple modality of willful crime, offender, the act he did can be justified, hence will negate criminal
(Quizon v Justice of Peace of Bacolor, GR no. L-6641, July 28, 1995) liability (ignorantia facti excusat), for the element of the criminal intent
but a distinct crime in the Penal Code, designated as a quasi-offense is absent. Thus, mistake of fact is relevant only in dolo, hence, if the
however, a conviction for the former can be had under an information offender is negligent in ascertaining the true estate of facts, he may be
exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense upon the free from dolo but not culpa.
theory that the greater includes the lesser. (Cabello v Sandiganbayan, Mistake refers to the situation itself, and does not apply to identity
197 SCRA 94, May 14, 1991) because in the latter there is criminal intent.
ABBERATIO ICTUS
Elements of Impossible crime:
1. The acts performed would have been a crime against person or
In abberatio ictus or error in the victim of the blow the offender intends property;
the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. There are three 2. There is criminal intent;
persons involved: The offender, the intended victim and the actual 3. It is not accomplished because of the inherent impossibility or
victim. Consequently, the act may result in a complex crime (Art. 48) because the means employed is inadequate or ineffectual.
or in two felonies although there is just one intent. Thus abberatio ictus
may result to a greater criminal liability to the offender. The act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against
persons or property because:
ERROR IN PERSONAE • The commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment
• The means employed is either: (a.) inadequate or (b.) ineffectual
Error in personae or mistake in identity involves only one offended
(Intod v CA, GR no. 103119, October 21, 1992)
party but the offender committed a mistake in ascertaining the identity
of the victim. Unlike in abberatio ictus there are only two persons Impossible crime is punished to suppress lawlessness or to teach a
involved: the actual but unintended victim and the offender. lesson to the offender. Subjectively, the offender is a criminal although
objectively no crime has been committed. There is no attempted or
PRAETER INTENTIONEM frustrated stage.
In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the There is legal impossibility where the intended acts, even if
resulting consequence is much graver than intended. It is a mitigating completed would not amount to a crime. Example: stealing property
circumstance (Art. 13 no. 3) But if the means employed in the that turned out to be owned by the thief.
commission of the crime would logically and naturally bring about the
actual felony committed, praeter intentionem will not be appreciated. Physical impossibility is present when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation
It does not apply to culpa, intentionem denotes intent.
of the intended crime. Example: Stealing from a vault that is empty.
The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed should be appreciated where the accused had no intent PART 2
to kill but only to inflict injuries when he attacked the victim.
ARTICLE 5. Duty of the Court in Connection with Acts Which Should
PROXIMATE CAUSE Be Repressed but Which are Not Covered by the Law, and in
Cases of Excessive Penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of
Proximate cause is that cause which, in its natural and continuous any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause produces the punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall
injury and without which the result would not have occurred. report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should
Proximate cause is to be considered generally in determining whether the be made the subject of penal legislation.
consequence of the act should also be borne by the offender (Art. 4, no. 1)
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through
The perceived delay in giving medical treatment does not break at all the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed
the causal connection between the felonious act of the offender and proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a
strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the
the injuries sustained by the victim. It does not constitute an efficient
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration
intervening cause since the victim’s death is still due to the injuries
the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
inflicted by the offender, for which the latter is criminally responsible. ||| (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])
(People v Acuram, GR no. 117954, April 27, 2000)
Nulum crimen nula poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is
Thus, anyone who inflicts injury voluntarily and with intent is liable for no law that defines and punishes it.
all the consequences of his criminal act, such as death, that
supervenes as a consequence of the injuries. Here, accused is liable Crime is the product of the law; no matter how evil an act is it is not a
for the demise of the victim for such was caused by the violent kicks crime unless there is a law punishing it. Moreover, article 21 prohibits
which he inflicted on the vital parts of the victim’s body. (People v the imposition of a penalty not prescribed by law prior to the
Flores, 252 SCRA) commission of a felony; and the Constitution prohibits the retroactive
application of a penal law (ex post facto)
DUTIES OF THE COURT
By any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
If the act charged is not punished by law which the court deems proper
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
to repress, it is the duty of the court to render the proper decision which
ineffectual means.
is the dismissal of the case and it should state in its recommendation
to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, its reason why • Directly – the offender shall be liable for the attempted stage of
the act should be made the subject of penal legislation. (par. 1) the felony that is directly linked to the overt act irrespective of his
intention.
In case of excessive penalty – it is the duty of the court to impose the
penalty provided by the law if the accused is guilty but it should also • Desistance – is an absolutory circumstance true only in the
submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of
attempted stage. The attempted stage exists up to the time when
Justice, recommending clemency or such recommendation it may
the offender still has control of his acts.
deem proper. (par. 2)
The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the laws regardless of
the manner their judgments are executed or their private opinion TWO PHASES OF A FELONY
(People v Olaes, 105 Phil 502) A. The subjective phase – the portion of execution of the crime
starting from the point where the offender begins up to the point where
Questions of facts are accorded highest respect on appeal. “x x x he still has control of his acts.
unless arbitrary or without sufficient basis, the findings of trial courts
on questions of facts are accorded the highest respect on appeal, if If it reaches the point where he has no more control over his acts, the
not indeed regarded as conclusive. (People v Arevalo, GR no. 93406, subjective phase has passed.
October 7, 1992)
If the subjective phase is not yet passed, the felony would be a mere
attempt. If it is already passed, but the felony is not produced, as a
ARTICLE 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. rule, it is frustrated. (US v Eduave, 36 Phil 209)
— Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and B. The objective phase – the result of the acts of the execution, i.e.
attempted, are punishable. the accomplishment of the crime. If the subjective and objective
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its phases are present, there is a consummated felony.
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the
offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
Distinctions between attempted and frustrated felonies:
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. • as to the act of execution - in attempted, not all acts of execution
had been done whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
been performed.
of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
• as to causes of non-accomplishment - in attempted, it is a cause
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
desistance whereas in frustrated it is some cause independent of
||| (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930]) the will of the perpetrator.
• in attempted stage, the offender is still in subjective phase as he
still has control of his acts whereas in the frustrated stage, he is
STAGES OF EXECUTION OF FELONY already in objective phase.
 Consummated – all elements necessary for its execution and
example: in attempted homicide, the wound is not mortal, hence the
accomplishment are present.
offender still need to deal another blow on the victim, which he was not
able to do because he was apprehended. In frustrated homicide, the
 Frustrated – the offender performed all acts of execution to
wound is mortal, sufficient to bring about death hence, there is no need
produce the felony as a consequence but the crime does not
of another blow but death nevertheless did not supervene because of
result due to some cause independent of the will of the offender.
timely medical attendance.
(People v Orita, GR no. 88724 April 13, 1990)
Development of Crime:
 Attempted – the offender begins the commission of the felony by
direct overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution • A crime consists of internal and external acts.
which should produce the felony as a consequence by reason of • Internal acts are not punished.
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous • External acts refer to preparatory acts of execution. Preparatory
desistance. acts as a rule are not punished unless these acts are punished in
themselves as independent crimes.
Definitions: • So, proposal and conspiracy to commit a crime are not punished
except in those cases provided for law (Art. 8) like proposal and
• Overt acts (or external acts) – those which if allowed to continue
conspiracy to commit rebellion. Unlawful possession of picklocks
will logically result in a felony; it is the start of criminal liability.
is punished as a felony under Art. 304, although it may only be a Conspiracy is an inchoate crime because the defendants might never
preparatory act to the commission of robbery. complete the offense that is the conspiracy’s object.
• The provisions of art. 6 do not supply hard and fast rule as to The criminal act element required for conspiracy is an agreement to
when a crime is consummated, frustrated or attempted. The commit any crime or to commit a felony. The overt act required for
nature and elements of the particular felony concerned as well as conspiracy can be preparatory activity; the criminal act element
the manner of its execution are to be considered. In other words, required for attempt must be more than mere preparation.
acts which may constitute a consummation in one felony may not The criminal intent element required for conspiracy is specific intent or
be so in another. purposely to agree to commit the offense that is the conspiracy’s
object.
• In the crime of illegal possession of explosives there can be no
frustrated or attempted state because the Revised Penal Code is The acquittal of or failure to prosecute one coconspirator does not
not applicable here even as supplementary for the law punishing prohibit the prosecution of other coconspirators in some jurisdictions.
illegal possession of explosives is a special one and does not
A coconspirator does not need to know every other coconspirator; as
define the frustrated or attempted illegal possession of explosives
long as a coconspirator is aware that there are other members, he or
(People v Natalio, GR no. 000392-CR, March 10, 1966)
she can be criminally responsible for conspiracy.
The overt acts may consist of:

ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. — Light felonies are • active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself;
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the • moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the
exception of those committed against person or property. commission of the crime; or
(Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930]) • exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.
(Pecho v People, GR no. 111399, September 27, 1996)
Examples of light felonies:
General rule: conspiracy to commit a crime is not punishable except
• against person – slight physical injuries (art. 266) as provided by law.
• against property – theft where the value does not exceed Five
hundred pesos (P500) and the offender is actuated by hunger  Examples:
(art. 309, sub-section 8) However, although the accessory is not Conspiracy to commit treason (Art. 115)
 Conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat (art. 136)
liable if he purchased the proceeds of the crime knowing it to be
 Conspiracy to commit sedition (art. 141)
stolen, he will be liable for the offence of anti-fencing (PD 1612)  Conspiracy to commit arson (PD 1613)
 Conspiracy to maliciously damage any building or personal or
real property by explosives or incendiary device (PD 1728)
ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. —
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the Necessarily, conspiracy as a crime cannot be implied conspiracy. It
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. can only be by pre-agreement or planned.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an Two concepts of conspiracy:
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.  as to the crime itself – the subject conspiracy is not yet
committed but the mere act of conspiring is defined and punished
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a as a crime, for instance, proposal and conspiracy to commit
felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. treason or rebellion.
(Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])
 as a basis of incurring liability, the execution of the plan is
 Conspiracy in statutory language exists when two or more persons commenced. Conspiracy by itself ceases to be a crime but is
agree to commit a crime and they decide to commit it (People v absorbed. Hence the crime above is no longer conspiracy to
Sabornido, GR no. 102191, Sept. 18, 1992) commit rebellion but Rebellion under art. 135.
 There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a
felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. As a basis of incurring liability it is necessary to determine whether
 When proposal is accepted, it becomes conspiracy. The essence of there was a prior agreement on how to commit the crime, in which
conspiracy is community of criminal intent. (People v Tilos, 349 SCRA case, a conspirator is liable as long as he appeared in the scene of the
281) crime unless he is the mastermind.
It is essential for one to be liable for the acts of the others that there
Mere knowledge , acquiescence to or approval of the act without
be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the
cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute
furtherance of the common design.
one a party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in the
act with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose supplementary application to the special laws (second sentence)
(People v Bragaes, GR no. 62359, November 14, 1991) whenever the latter uses the nomenclature of penalties in the Code,
thus indicating the intent of the Congress to make the Code apply
The liability of the conspirator is only for the crime agreed upon suppletorily, necessarily, with its duration, correlation and legal effects
except: under its system of penalties (People v Simon, GR no. 930280, July
 When the other crime was committed in their presence and they 29, 1994)
did not prevent its commission;
 When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime The suppletory effect of the Code to Special laws under this article
planned, e.g. homicide resulting from physical injuries. cannot be invoked where there is legal or physical impossibility of or a
 When the resulting crime is a composite crime. prohibition in special law against such supplementary application.
Where the special law expressly grants the court discretion in applying
the penalty prescribed for the offense, there is no room for the
application of the Code (id.)
SECTION 1. Article 9 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The
Revised Penal Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"ART. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — PART 3
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive,
in accordance with Article 25 of this Code. In the Philippines, penal laws subscribe to the classical theory hence
there is a predetermined penalty for each crime. It is the office of
"Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
modifying circumstances to increase or decrease the penalty
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
depending upon their presence or absence.
accordance with the abovementioned article.
"Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of The circumstances which affect or modify criminal liability are:
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty
• Justifying – Art. 11
thousand pesos (P40,000) or both is provided.”
• Exempting – Art. 12
(An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage • Mitigating – Arts. 13 and 15
on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the • Aggravating – Arts. 14 and 15
• Absolutory – exempting circumstances outside Art. 12
Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 10951, [August 29, 2017])
• Extenuating – mitigating circumstances not found in Art. 13, such
as concealment of dishonor in abortion and abandonment in
ARTICLE 10. Offenses Not Subject to the Provisions of this Code. — adultery.
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special
ABSOLUTORY CIRCUMSTANCES:
laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide • Instigation due to public policy
the contrary. • Art. 6(3) – spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage
unless the over act committed constitutes another crime
(Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930]) • Art. 7 – attempted / frustrated light felonies except those
against persons or property
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS define and penalize crimes not included in • Art. 16 – accessories in light felonies
the Code; they are different from those defined and punished therein. • Art. 20 – accessories relatives other than profiting in the
crime
The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves (mala • Art. 247 – death/physical injuries under extra-ordinary
in se) and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive circumstance
law forbids them (mala prohibita). This distinction is important with • Art. 332 – certain relatives in theft, estafa and malicious
mischief
reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. In acts mala
• Somnambulism
prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act
• Mistake of fact
is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial (Dunlao v CA, GR no. • Total repeal of penal law
111343, August 22, 1996)
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not

The general rule is that special laws are not subject to the provisions incur any criminal liability:
of the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 10, first sentence) For instance, the
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
circumstances affecting criminal liability (Art. 11-15) are not applicable that the following circumstances concur:
to violations of special laws. However, the Code shall have • First. Unlawful aggression;
2022 CRIMINAL LAW I [ARTICLES 1 – 15]; Compiled from the slides of PROS. DAPHNE A. DEGOMA 10 | P a g e
• Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed  lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
to prevent or repel it; himself.
• Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. Note: The effect of invoking self-defense is to place the burden in the
accused to prove to the satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his defense because thereby he admits the act complained.
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the  REQUISITE NUMBER 1:
same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION is the primordial requisite which must at
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, all times be present. When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no
and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by self-defense whether complete (Art. 11) or incomplete (Art. 69 and
the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part 13[1])
therein.
Unlawful aggression must be actual, sudden, unexpected attack or
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the attitude. The accused must present proof of positively strong act of
first circumstance of this article are present and that the person real aggression. Unlawful aggression must be such as to put in real
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself or of
motive. others being defended and not an imagined threat (People v Bausing,
GR no. 64965, 199 SCRA 355, July 8, 1991)
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
an act which causes damage to another, provided that the Unlawful aggression must be real or at least imminent. Real
following requisites are present: aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon such
• First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; as to cause injury or danger to life or personal safety. Aggression is
• Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to imminent if an attack is impending or at the point of happening. It must
avoid it; be offensive and positively strong. That petitioner sustained injuries
• Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful does not signify that he was a victim of unlawful aggression. (Roca v
means of preventing it. CA, GR no. 114917, 350 SCRA 414, January 29, 2001)
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful When the aggression no longer exists, such as when the aggressor
exercise of a right or office. ran away after the attack or when the defender was able to wrest the
weapon from the aggressor, there is no need for self-defense.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose.
 REQUISITE NO. 2:
||| (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED depends
upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES are those where the acts of the of the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal.
actor are in accordance with law and hence he incurs no criminal
liability. Since there is no crime, there is no criminal and hence no civil There is no reasonable necessity of the means of defense when the
liability. unlawful aggression on the part of the victim has ceased.
THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE: REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED does not
imply commensurability between the means of attack and defense –
 Defense of self, of relatives and of strangers the law requires a rational equivalence which is determined by the
 State of necessity emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is
 Fulfillment of a duty exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason that moves or impels
 Obedience to superior order the defense. The proportionateness thereof does not depend upon
the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.
(People v Gutual, 254 SCRA 37)
SELF-DEFENSE includes defense of life, chastity, property and honor
of the Accused who must prove with clear and convincing evidence The presence of a large number of wounds inflicted on the victim
the following: clearly indicates a determined effort on the part of the accused to kill
his prey and belies the reasonableness of the means adopted to
 unlawful aggression prevent or repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. (People v Arizala, GR
 reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it no. 130708, October 22, 1999)
“Stand ground when in the right” is the rule which applies when the  That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
aggressor is armed with a weapon and is especially more liberal if the  That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
person attacked is a peace officer in the performance of his duty. This preventing it.
rule has superseded the rule “retreat to the wall” which makes it a duty
of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he meets the TY vs. PEOPLE (G.R. 149275, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 220)
assault with force. – If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or
may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable.
 REQUISITE NO. 3:
If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION on the part of the person may happen in the future, paragraph 4 of Art. 11 is not applicable.
defending himself shows that there may have been provocation but it
should not be sufficient and it must not immediately precede the act. The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or
It is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying. imprudence of the actor.
In DEFENSE OF ONE’S CHASTITY, there must be imminent and The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a
immediate danger of rape to justify the killing. If it were only acts of violation of law by the actor.
lascivousness, the killing is unreasonable means.
SLANDER may be means to repel slander. But it must not be more FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR
than needed to defend himself from the defamatory remarks. OFFICE
In DEFENSE OF PROPERTY, killing is not justified. There must in Requisites:

addition be the necessity to save another life. If the aggression is on  That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the
property even if there was no attack on the defender or owner or lawful exercise of a right or office.
possessor defense is proper but not to the extent of killing the  That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
aggressor otherwise the means used to repel or prevent the consequence of such right or office.
aggression will not be reasonable (People v Navaez, 21 SCRA 389)
The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear to be
 For defense of relatives, the third requisite becomes: “in case the an aggressor but his aggression is not unlawful, it being necessary to
provocation was given by the person attacked, the person fulfill his duty.
defending had no part therein.” Under the civil code (art. 429), the owner or lawful possessor of a thing
 For defense of strangers, the third requisite is that the person has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil thereof.
motives.
 Beyond 4th degrees of consanguinity is defense of strangers and For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
the third element in defense of relatives will be replaced. necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.
The presence or lack of all or some of the requisites for the defense
If in protecting his possession of the property, he injured the one trying
have the following effects:
to get it from him, he is justified under this paragraph.
• ALL REQUISITES ARE PRESENT – justifying circumstance
(Art. 11) OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER:
• TWO REQUISITES ARE PRESENT, unlawful aggression plus
another – privileged mitigating circumstance (Art. 69)  An order has been issued by a superior
• ONE REQUISITE PRESENT which must be unlawful  The order is for a legal purpose
aggression – ordinary mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, no. 1)  The means used to carry out such order is lawful
Even if the order is illegal, if it is apparently legal and the subordinate

is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable (Tabuena v
Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332)
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY PART 4
Requisites: ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability.

— The following are exempt from criminal liability:
 That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted Here, there is a crime but NO criminal.
during a lucid interval. (imbecility / insanity)
Basis:
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an
act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of
order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be negligence on the part of the accused.
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the
same court. The burden of proof to prove the existence of an exempting
circumstance lies with the defense.
2. A person under nine years of age. (minority)
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless INSANITY under section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code is
he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor “a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of brain or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition
article 80 of this Code. (minority) of mentality, functional or organic and characterized by perversion,
inhibition or disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, faculties or by impaired or disordered volition.”
the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the When insanity is interposed as a defense or a ground of a motion to
preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and quash, the burden rests upon the accused to establish the fact, for the
custody of his family who shall be charged with his law presumes every man to be sane. Hence absence of sufficient
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed evidence to prove insanity, the legal presumption of one’s sanity
to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said stands. (Art. 800, Civil Code) The law presumes all acts to be
article 80. voluntary. Not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental
deficiency is insanity (Zosa v CA, GR no. 105641, 231 SCRA 22,
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, March 10, 1994)
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it. (accident) What is IMBECILITY?
 It exists when a person, while of advanced age, has a mental
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. development comparable to that of children between two and
(compulsion of irresistible force) seven years of age.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable What is INSANITY?
fear of an equal or greater injury. (impulse of uncontrollable fear)  It exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence or
freedom of the will.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,
when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause. Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough especially if the
(insuperable or lawful cause) offender has not lost consciousness of his acts.
(Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])
IMBECILE v. INSANE: Are both always EXEMPT from Criminal
Liability?
Distinctions between justifying and exempting circumstances:
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING  An insane person is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted
The act is legal. The act is criminal. during a lucid interval.
There is no crime, hence no There is a crime, hence a
criminal. criminal. The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of
Since there is no crime, there is There is a crime and civil liability commission of the crime in order to be exempt from liability because
no criminal and civil liabilities. but the law exempts the actor the presumption is always in favor of sanity.
from criminal liability.
 But an imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
The emphasis of the law is on The emphasis of the law is on
the act. the actor. When insanity is alleged, the evidence on this point must
Exempting Circumstances or Circumstances for Non imputability refer to the time preceding the act or to the very moment of its
– are those grounds for exemption from punishment, because there is execution. If the evidence pointed to the insanity subsequent to the
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which makes commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted. He is
the ACT voluntary, or negligent. presumed to be sane when he committed it.
Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance and as Malignant Malaria affects the nervous system and causes among
such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. others such complication as acute melancholia and insanity at times,
(Zosa v CA, GR no. 105641, 231 SCRA 22, March 10, 1994) and if clearly proven will be considered as an exempting circumstance
under this paragraph. (People vs. Lacena, 69 Phil 350)
Care must be taken to distinguish between lack of reason (insanity)
and failure to use reason or good judgment due to extreme anger
(passion). Mere mental depravity or moral insanity which results not How do you legally prove INSANITY?
from any disease of mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral Two tests of insanity:
system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from  Test of COGNITION -- complete deprivation of intelligence in
the responsibility for crimes committed under its influence. Thus, committing the crime.
before the defense of insanity may be accepted as an exempting  Test of VOLITION -- total deprivation of freedom of will.
circumstance, there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence not
only of the will – in committing the criminal act. The volition test does not suffice to exempt from liability; it must be
accompanied by the cognition test which alone is sufficient.
Can Somnambulism be included as an exempting circumstance under
Article12, Par1 of the RPC? Article 12 paragraphs 2 and 3 have been amended by Republic Act
9344 or the JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006
Somnambulism or sleepwalking must be clearly proven to be
considered as an exempting circumstance under this Article. What is a Child in Conflict with the LAW?
Sleepwalking, formally known as somnambulism, is a behavior It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
disorder that originates during deep sleep and results in walking or committed an offense under Philippine laws.
performing other complex behaviors while asleep. It is much more
common in children than adults and is more likely to occur if a person What is the MINIMUM age of Responsibility?
is sleep deprived. Under RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), the
following are EXEMPT from criminal liability (Sec. 6):
Is Schizophrenia considered exempting?
15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense.
Schizophrenia has been described as a chronic mental disorder The child shall be however subject to an intervention program pursuant
characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality to Section 20 of the Act.
and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly
called dementia praecox, it is said to be most common form of Child above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment.
psychosis and usually develops between ages of 15 and 30.
Section 20: Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility – If it
In cases where schizophrenia was interposed, it has mostly been has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15)
rejected for if there was impairment of the mental faculties, such years old or below, the authority which will have initial contact with the
impairment was not so complete as to deprive that accused of child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his
intelligence or the consciousness of his acts. Schizophrenic reaction, / her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child’s nearest
although not exempting because it does not completely deprive the relative. x x x x If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be
offender of the consciousness of his acts may be considered as a located or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to
mitigating circumstance under Article 13 (9). the following: a duly registered non-governmental or religious
organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council
Art 12 vs Art. 79 for the Protection of Children (BCPC) x x x x
Art.79 refers to insanity occurring after the commission of the crime,
whereas, insanity in article 12 refers to that at the very moment the What is DISCERNMENT? How is discernment shown?
crime is being committed. “When the convict shall become insane or
an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution Discernment -- is the mental capacity to understand the difference
of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal between right and wrong as determined by the child’s appearance,
penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance attitude, comportment and behavior not only before and during the
number 1 of article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases. If commission of the offense but also after and during the trial.
at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be
It is manifested through:
executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with
• Manner of committing the crime
the provisions of the Code.
• Conduct of the offender
Can Malignant Malaria be considered under Article12(par1) of the Discernment is the mental capacity to fully appreciate the
RPC as an exempting circumstance? consequences of one’s unlawful acts (People v Navarro, [CA] 51
OG4092), or to determine the difference between right and wrong.
This may be shown and should be determined considering all the In the case of People v Agliday, appellant got his shotgun and returned
circumstances afforded by the record of the case, his appearance, his to the kitchen to shoot his son, who had intervened in the quarrel
attitude and his behavior and conduct, not only before and during the between the former and Conchita. A shotgun would not have fired off
commission of the act but also after and even during the trial (People without first being cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun
v Doquena, 68 Phil 580) before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fire at someone.
If a child is exempted from Criminal Liability, is he exempted from Civil Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
Liability as well? guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct
of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent
Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include and reasonable man would not do. (Raynera v Hiceta, GR no. 120324,
exemption from civil liability. April 21, 1999)
The age of the minor as an exempting circumstance is computed up to the
Drivers of vehicle who bump the rear of another vehicle are presumed
time of the commission of the crime charged not up to the trial date.
to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence.
DETERMINATION OF AGE: The rationale behind this presumption is that the driver of the rear
vehicle has full control of the situation as he is in a position to observe
 Section 7 (RA 9433) – The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the vehicle in front of him. Consequently, the responsibility to avoid
the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child the collision with the front vehicle lies with the driver of the rear vehicle.
in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years His is the last chance of avoiding the accident (Raynera v Hiceta)
old or older. The age of the child may be determined from the child’s
birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In case of accident, the actor must not abandon the victim or else he
In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information will be liable for abandonment in Art 275 RPC.
from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his / her favor.
The elements of impulse of uncontrollable fear are:
 The threat which cause the fear of an evil greater than or at least
ACCIDENT equal to that which the accused was required to commit.
 It promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that the
For accident to be appreciated, the following must concur: ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
 the accused was performing a lawful act with due care;
 the injury was caused by mere accident; and Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or
 there was no fault or intent of causing the injury reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative,
(People v Mat-an, December 1992) fanciful or remote fear.
An accident is an occurrence that “happens outside the sway of our Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run
will and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies away if he had wanted to or to resist any possible aggression.
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.”
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE HAS THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS:
It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the
existence of which is shown by a person’s overt acts.  The force must be physical, must come from an outside source,
and the accused must act not only without a will but also against
This is because when the act is with fault, it will fall under culpa; when
his will.
with intent, it will become an intentional felony. The accident must not
 The actor must be reduced to a mere instrument, such that the
be foreseeable or there will be fault or criminal negligence.
element of freedom is wanting.
• The exemption from criminal liability for accident is based on the  The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent
lack of criminal intent. For an accident to become an exempting and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun fear of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done.
at another is not a lawful act. (People v Agliday, GR no. 140794,
367 SCRA 273, October 16, 2001) Basis of the exemption is the complete absence of freedom – an
• Having claimed that the shooting was accidental, petitioner must element of voluntariness
prove the same by clear and convincing evidence. However, the
• The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere
burden of proving the commission of the crime remained with the
instrument who acts not only without will but against his will.
prosecution (People v CA, GR no. 1036613, 352 SCRA 599, • A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
February 23, 2001) such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat. (PP vs Lorenzo, July 9, 1984)
DISTINCTIONS: PART 5
Irresistible force Uncontrollable fear
a physical force coming from a an impulse coming from within Circumstances Which Mitigate Criminal Liability
stranger the actor ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are
actor acts without a will actor acts against his will mitigating circumstances:
because he is endangered by
fear 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal
Both refer to external influences and not to physiological need. liability in the respective cases are not attendant;
IF A PERSON WAS STRUCK WITH THE BUTTS OF THE GUNS OF
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy
THOSE WHO KILLED ANOTHER TO COMPEL HIM TO BURY THEIR
years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against
VICTIM, HE IS NOT LIABLE AS AN ACCESSORY BECAUSE HE
in accordance with the provisions of article 80.
ACTED UNDER THE COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
(US V CABALLEROS, 4 PHIL 850) 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a
A SORT OF MORAL CONTROL OR HOLD UPON ANOTHER SUCH wrong as that committed.
THAT WOULD READILY TAKE ORDER FROM HIM EVEN IN
COMMISSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS CANNOT AMOUNT TO 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR AN IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE party immediately preceded the act.
FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY. (PEOPLE V
KAMATOY, ET. AL., 45 OG 5029) 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of
a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE “X X MUST PRODUCE SUCH AN EFFECT spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or
UPON THE INDIVIDUAL THAT INSPITE OF ALL THE RESISTANCE, adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
IT REDUCES HIM TO A MERE INSTRUMENT AND AS SUCH, HE IS same degrees.
INCAPABLE OF COMMITTING A CRIME. IT MUST BE SUCH THAT,
INSPITE OF THE RESISTANCE OF THE PERSON ON WHOM IT 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
OPERATES, IT COMPELS HIS MEMBERS TO ACT AND HIS MIND naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
TO OBEY. HE MUST ACT NOT ONLY WITHOUT WILL BUT
AGAINST HIS WILL. SUCH A FORCE CAN NEVER CONSIST IN 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
ANYTHING WHICH SPRINGS PRIMARILY FROM THE MAN person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
HIMSELF; IT MUST BE A FORCE WHICH ACTS UPON HIM FROM confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation
THE OUTSIDE AND BY MEANS OF A THIRD PERSON. (PEOPLE of the evidence for the prosecution.
V SERRANO, 136 SCRA 391)
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
A grave fear is not an uncontrollable fear. For example, if the some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
offender was awakened by a shot and fearing it was another raid of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
armed men, fired at a walking figure in the dark, killing him, who turned
out to be a man on his way to fish, there is liability because had the 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise
offender not been too hasty, he would have ascertained that there was of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him
no imminent danger (People v Magpantay, [CA] 56 OG 1652) of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and

INSUPERABLE CAUSE analogous to those above mentioned.
Elements: (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])
 That the act is required by law to be done.
 That a person fails to perform such act. Mitigating circumstances show lesser perversity of the offender and
 That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or are considered to lower the penalty imposable generally to the
insuperable cause. minimum period of the penalty prescribed in the law. They are matters
of defense which do not need to be alleged in the information.
Insuperable cause is an exempting circumstance which applies to
felonies by omission. The law imposes a duty on the offender to perform Article 13 enumerates ordinary mitigating circumstances. Outside of
an act but his failure to do so is due to a lawful or insuperable cause. article 13, are extenuating circumstances such as concealment of
dishonor on the part of the mother in infanticide which have the effect
of reducing the penalty.
The rationale behind the whole concept of mitigating circumstance is INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION OR EXEMPTION
to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of an accused who
has nevertheless shown lesser perversity in the commission of an The first mitigating circumstance pertains to the incompleteness of the
offense. Thus, where the evidence on record bespeaks of vileness and requirements to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability under
depravity, no mercy nor leniency should be accorded an accused who articles 11 and 12.
should be made to suffer in full for the acts perpetrated with complete This should be related to article 69 which prescribes a privileged
voluntariness and intent for their tragic consequences. (People v mitigating circumstance if majority of the requisites to exempt or justify
Santos, supra) are present. Otherwise, Article 13, no. 1 shall apply and the penalty
shall be lowered to the minimum period only.
Kinds of mitigating circumstances:
 Ordinary – lowers the penalty to the minimum period. Any first year law student knows that unlawful aggression is not a
 Privileged – lowers the penalty prescribed by one or more mitigating circumstance, (Estoya vs Singson, Adm. Mat. RTJ-91-758,
degrees whether it is divisible or indivisible penalty. Sept. 1994). It is not unlawful aggression but the incompleteness of
 Specific – applies to specific felony like concealment of dishonor the requisite for defense that is mitigating.
in the case of abortion by the pregnant woman.
MINORITY
Distinctions between ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances:
Minority is always a privileged mitigating circumstance because:
ORDINARY PRIVILEDGED  Article 47 dictates that if the death penalty is imposed the penalty
 Can be offset by generic  Cannot be offset by any kind will be lowered to reclusion perpetua. (If the minor is below 18–
aggravating circumstance. of aggravating circumstance.
the penalty should be lowered to reclusion temporal [note
 Lowers the penalty  Privileged mitigating lowers however that under RA 9344 – minors 15 years of age and below
prescribed to the minimum the penalty by degree. Thus if a
are exempt from criminal liability])
period except in cases where 2 provision of the RPC states that
ordinary mitigating and no the penalty for a particular
aggravating circumstance in felony is lowered by one or two  Article 68(1) mandates that if the minor is over 9 years but under
which case the penalty is degrees in view of the presence 15, he shall be entitled to at least two degrees reduction of the
lowered by one degree only. of a particular circumstance, penalty [note again however that under RA 9344 – minors below
that is a privileged mitigating 15 years of age and below are exempt from criminal liability]
circumstance which cannot be
offset by any generic  Articles 68(2) requires that if the minor is over 15 but under 18,
aggravating. EX. Article 69 on he shall be entitled to a reduction of penalty to the next lower
incomplete penalty but in the proper period.
justification/exemption.
 It is not considered in the  It is considered in whatever Section 38 RA 9344
determination of the proper penalty is imposable.
penalty when the penalty  Automatic suspension of sentence – Once the child who is under
prescribed is a single indivisible eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
penalty. offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE: judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with
the law under suspended sentence, without the need of application:
 Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance
Provided however, that suspension of sentence shall still be applied
 Minority / senility
even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at
 Praeter intentionem
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
 Sufficient provocation or threat
 Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law – Upon the
 Immediate vindication of a grave offense
recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the
 Passion or obfuscation
child, the court shall dismiss the case against the child whose
 Voluntary surrender
sentence has been suspended and against whom disposition
 Voluntary plea of guilt
measures have been issued and shall order the final discharge of
 Deaf and dumb, blind or physical defect
the child if it finds that the objective of the disposition measures
 Illness
have been fulfilled.
 Analogous circumstances
 The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect
the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense,
which shall be enforced in accordance with the law.
Section 40 RA 9344 Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense is
different from sufficient provocation as mitigating circumstance. As
 Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court – If the court element of self-defense, it requires its absence on the person defending
finds that the objectives of the disposition measures imposed himself; as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if part of offended party (People v CA, GR no. 103613, February 23, 2001)
the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with
the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the Provocation is immediate if no interval of time elapsed between the
child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for provocation and the commission of the crime (People v Pagal, 79
execution of judgment. SCRA 570)
 If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18)
years of age while under suspended sentence the court shall Accused cannot claim that he was provoked when the offender ran away
determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this from him because the hapless victim feared for his life having been beaten
Act, or to order execution of sentence, or to extend the up twice by his assailants that same evening. To flee when danger lurks
suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the is human and can never be regarded as a source of provocation sufficient
child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. within the ambit of the Code. In fact when an offended party flees from
his aggressor, the latter has no reason to pursue and attack him (People
Section 42 RA 9344 v Padilla, GR no. 75508, June 10, 1994)
 Probation as an alternative to imprisonment - - The court may

after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
the law and upon application at any time, place the child on
probation in lieu of service of his / her sentence taking into Note that in immediate vindication of grave offense, “offense” need not be
account the best interest of the child. For this purpose section 4 a crime. It may be an act or event which offends the accused causing
of PD 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976 is mental agony to him and moves him to vindicate himself of such offense.
hereby amended accordingly. For instance, insulting an old man (US v Ampar, 37 Phil 301) or eloping
with the offender’s daughter (People v Diokno, 63 Phil 601)
May a birth certificate be presented as proof of minority on appeal if
the same was not presented during trial? “Immediate” means proximate, unlike in sufficient provocation, and allows
an interval of time between the commission of the offense and its
In the case of People v Regalario, 220 SCRA 368, the Supreme Court vindication as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental agony
brought about by the “offense” to him. (People v Parana, 64 Phil 331)
said, “Penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the offender.
Thus, considering the gravity of the offense and in the interest of
justice, the Supreme Court allowed the presentation of and admitted The benefit of mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a
the birth certificate of the accused to prove minority although said birth grave offense cannot be considered in favor of the accused when he
certificated was not presented or offered in the trial court. An official had sufficient time to recover his serenity (People v Santos, supra)
document prepared by DSWD in the exercise of its functions and
which document is incorporated in the records of the case can be
taken judicial notice ex mero muto.” PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
In passion or obfuscation, it is necessary that it arouse from lawful

SENILITY sentiments. There must be an act unlawful and sufficient to excite
passion or obfuscation on the accused. Said act must not be far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
SENILITY (over 70 years of age) is only an ordinary mitigating
of time during which the offender might have recovered his senses.
circumstance except when the penalty imposable is death in which
case it shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to article 83,
thus partaking the nature of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In the case of People v Tiongco, September 1994, the Supreme Court
ruled that “the Court will not appreciate passion or obfuscation
inasmuch as the anger of Eduardo at Francis did not arise from lawful
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION entiments. The delay of Francis in obeying Eduardo’s request to buy
a ballcasterbearing is too trivial a matter as to fairly and justly cause
The elements of sufficient provocation are: such overreaction”.
 the provocation must be sufficient;
Again, in the case of People v CA, GR no. 103613, February 23, 2001,
 it must be immediate to the commission of the crime;
the Court said, “The acts of the accused were done in the spirit of
 it must originate from the offended party.
revenge and lawlessness, for which no mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation could arise.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT Extrajudicial confession is not mitigating because it is not made in
court. The court must be one of original jurisdiction because it must
Voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt are independent of be made at the earliest opportunity and before the presentation of the
each other and can be separately considered in favor of the offender. prosecution’s evidence.
The elements of voluntary surrender are: Voluntary Plea of guilt is mitigating because it is an act of repentance
 The offender surrendered to a person in authority or his agent; and respect for the law. It indicates a moral disposition in the accused
 The offender surrendered before arrest is effected; favorable to his reform.
 It must be voluntary, i.e. spontaneous and must show the intent
of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, Plea of Guilt in capital offenses must not be accepted with eagerness
either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save but the accused must be made to understand fully the nature of the
them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and plea and its consequences. The accused must be acquitted if the only
capture; evidence of his guilt is his improvident plea due to the prodding of his
 There is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed (People PAO lawyer. (People v Mendoza, 231 SCRA 264)
v Taraya, GR no. 135551, October 27, 2000)
Accused did not plea to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape
Voluntary surrender can be appreciated even if the accused turned charges and only bargained for a lesser penalty. In short, he did not
themselves one week after the crime. The fact is they voluntarily plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed. This
surrendered themselves to the police before arrest could be effected. is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, he
(People vs Amaguin, GR nos. 54344-45, January 10, 1994) should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded. It is the
essence of a plea of guilt that the accused admits absolutely and
Since it was the police officer who went looking for the accused unconditionally his guilt and responsibility for the offense imputed to
immediately after obtaining information from eyewitnesses as to who him. Hence, he may not impose a conditional plea of guilty on the
had perpetrated the crime even if he did not resist arrest or deny his court by admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted
criminal act, this cannot be equated with voluntary surrender. (People unto him (People v Magat, GR no. 130026, 332 SCRA 517)
v Rebamontan, 305 SCRA 609)
On the day following the killing, accused surrendered to the Provincial PHYSICAL DEFECT ILLNESS
Commander. That the provincial commander announced over the
radio that he would issue a shoot-to-kill order unless accused The offender being deaf and dumb or blind or otherwise suffering from
voluntarily surrenders, and that he was persuaded to surrender by his some physical defect must be related to the offense committed
employer do not militate against consideration of his voluntary because the law requires that the defect has the effect of restricting
surrender. The stubborn fact was that he was not arrested and that his means of action, defense, or communication to his fellow beings.
he presented himself to the Provincial Commander. (People v Morato, Illness must only diminish and not deprive the offender of the
224 SCRA 361) consciousness of his acts. Otherwise he will be exempt from criminal
liability.
The offender himself should surrender. If the offender did not submit
himself to the authorities and it was his superior who surrendered him
to the custody of the court, such is not voluntary surrender ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
contemplated by law (People v Acuram)
Analogous circumstances must be similar to those enumerated in
The accused surrendered because of his fear of reprisal does not Article 13.
detract from the spontaneity of his surrender and the fact that he saved
the State the time and trouble of searching for him. (People v Amazan, Examples:
GR no. 136251, January 16, 2001) The fact that accused yielded his
weapon at the time of the incident albeit with some persuasion should  Restitution of the questioned funds by petitioner may be
be considered in his favor. (People v Amion, GR no. 140511, March 1, considered mitigating circumstance in malversation of funds
2001) (Nizurtado v Sandiganbayan, 239 SCRA 33) as analogous to
voluntary plea of guilty.

The elements of voluntary plea of guilt are: That petitioner voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall to
 The plea was made in open court (judicial confession) place it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus
 It was spontaneous and unconditional save them the trouble of recovering the cow can be analogous to
 Made before the presentation of the evidence by the prosecution voluntary surrender (Canta v People, GR no. 140937, February
28, 2001)
 Extreme poverty is not among the mitigating circumstances Manifested in the felony as shown by:
enumerated in article 13 and it is doubtful whether it may be 1. Motivating power
considered as circumstance of similar nature or analogous to 2. The place of commission
those mentioned in said article (Gallardo v Tabamo, Adm. Mat. 3. Means and ways employed
RTJ-92-881, June 1994) 4. The time
 5. Personal circumstances of offender or offended party
Even if their formal education were ignored, such attenuating
circumstance is nonetheless unavailing. The fact that the The four kinds of aggravating circumstances are:
defendants belong to non-Christian cultural minorities cannot
reduce from the subjective point of view their awareness of the GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES which:
gravity of the offense for robbery and killing are by their very a) Have the effect of the penalty being imposed in the maximum
nature just as wrong to the ignorant as to the enlightened. period. Note that the penalty prescribed in Book II of the Code is
the maximum imposable, thus the increase in the penalty cannot
be to the next higher degree but only to the maximum period.
PART 6 b) Apply to all felonies.
c) Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
ARTICLE 14 - The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES which
a) Cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with b) Change the nature of the crime and the designation of the
insult to the public authorities. offense.
c) Must be alleged in the information, otherwise it cannot be
3. That the act be committed with insult or disregard of the respect considered against the offender as such because it will violate the
due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation
it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter against him since qualifying circumstances changes the nature of
has not given provocation. the offense. This is beside the fact that the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure now requires specification of qualifying
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious circumstances in the information.
ungratefulness. d) Must be proved as conclusively as the guilt of the offender
because it changes the nature of the offense with corresponding
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, increase in the penalty. For instance, homicide is penalized with
or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the reclusion temporal (20 years maximum). With one qualifying
discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated to religious circumstance, it becomes murder penalized with reclusion
worship. perpetua thus the penalty is doubled.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited SPECIAL OR SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES which
place, or by a band. Whenever more than three armed apply to a particular felony.
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. (in this case: arson being motivated by spite or hatred towards the
owner of the dwelling) They do not change the character of the offense
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, charged but guide the court in imposing the proper penalty. (People v
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. Agguihao, March 10, 1994) The same rule as in generic aggravating
applies to special aggravating circumstances as both do not change
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or person the character of the offense charged.
who insure or afford impunity.
INHERENT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
xxx xxx xxx which is an element of the felony thus no longer considered against
the offender in the determination of the penalty (Art. 62 no. 2)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES - if attendant, serves to increase
the penalty: Aggravating circumstances do not increase penalty if:
 Without exceeding maximum penalty provided by law for
that offense 1) Circumstances constitute a crime specially punishable by
 Based on the greater perversity of offender law WHICH already prescribe a specific penalty. Those
INHERENT or necessary for a crime. Circumstances which
arise from:
 Moral attributes of offender IN CONTEMPT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
 Private relations with offended
 Any other personal cause Requisites:
 Public authority engaged in exercise of functions
**Shall aggravate the liability of principals, accomplices, and  the one engaged is not the offended party.
accessories  Offender knows he is an authority.
 Presence does not prevent offender from committing the crime.
2) Those which consist in:
Bare example:
 Material execution A and B quarrel. The mayor attempts to separate them but they
 Means employed to accomplish continue until A shoots B. A commits homicide “in contempt of public
authority."
**Shall serve to aggravate the liability of persons who had
knowledge of them at the time of the act’s execution. A person in authority is one vested with jurisdiction or authority.
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION is based on the A chief of police is a public authority because he is specially duty
greater perversity of the offender based on his personal bound to prosecute and apprehend violators of the laws and municipal
circumstances. ordinances. He heads and supervises the entire police force in the
 Only applies to public officers who uses influence, prestige, or municipality.
ascendancy of his office.
 Must prove that there was explicit use of the influence to A barangay chairman is also a person in authority because he has
gain an advantage jurisdiction over the barangay and as expressly provided under the
Local Government Code.
U.S. v. TORRIDA AGE, SEX, RANK, DWELLING
FACTS: Accused ordered deaths of all large animals to be reported to These are four circumstances in this paragraph but only one credit
him as councilman. Owners of the animals were induced to pay fines should be given if all are present for they all refer to the circumstance
to him and which he accepted. of lack of respect due to the offended.
Is the aggravating circumstance of Advantage be taken by the offender There must be proof that offender deliberately intended to offend or
of his public position, present? insult the age or sex of the offended. Thus, this circumstance cannot
co-exist with passion or obfuscation because here the offender lost his
HELD: YES. control or reason.
If he was not councilman, he could not have induced them to pay fines. These are considered in crimes against persons, security or honor.
Clearly he took advantage of his public position. It is
AGGRAVATING. It is not considered in crimes where gender is an element as in
parricide, rape, abduction or seduction; or in crime against property
such as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide (People v
U.S. v. DACUYCUY Paraiso, GR no. 127840, November 29, 1999)
FACTS: 39 people requested the councilor to purchase cedulas for However, in People v delos Reyes, October 1992, the aggravating
them. He bought only 16 and kept the rest of the money for himself. circumstance of dwelling was taken into account in the imposition of
the proper penalty because robbery with homicide can be committed
Is the aggravating circumstance of Advantage be taken by the offender without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home.
of his public position, present?
RANK should be given a plain, ordinary meaning, hence refers to high
HELD: NO. social position or standing. It is absorbed in the crime of direct assault
since rank is an element thereof.
The crime committed was a common crime which had no relation to
his influence as councilor. He must be punished as private individual It should clearly be demonstrated that the accused deliberately
W/O aggravation. intended to act with insult or in disregard of the respect due the victim
on account of his rank. That the accused was cognizant of the rank of
If you could have committed the crime w/o occupying the public the deceased police officer or that he articulated hatred against all
position, then it is NOT aggravating policemen in general does not per se suffice to prove this aggravating
circumstance. Or when the raiding police officers were not even in It is not necessary that the accused should have entered the dwelling
uniform (People v Verchez, June 1994) of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his house, although the assailant may have devised
AGE refers to both the elderly and the youth. means to perpetrate the assault from inside the house.
AGE – applies to those who kill an older person or a young person Thus, although the attack was made not from inside but from below
because they’re weaker. the floor of the house, dwelling may be considered as in fact the target
victim was hit inside his own house. (People v Dacibar, GR no.
For instance, Jaycee was barely six years old when ruthlessly stabbed 111286, February 2000) or when the victim was abducted while she
fourteen times before his body was submerged in the pail. It was error was in the staircase. (People v Magat, 332 SCRA 517)
for the court not to have considered his age as an aggravating
circumstance. (People v Lapan, July 1992)
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE / OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
SEX – female sex, NOT male
The requisites of abuse of confidence / obvious ungratefulness:
Ex: When one compels woman to go to his house against her will OR  Offended had trusted the offender;
direct assault upon lady teacher.  Offender abused such trust;
 Such abuse of confidence facilitated commission of the crime.
RANK, AGE, SEX -- Not applicable in these cases:  The confidence between the parties must be immediate and
 Offender acted with passion and obfuscation personal.
 There is a relationship between offended/offender
 Condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission Abuse of confidence is inherent in Malversation (Art. 217), Qualified
of the crime. Theft (Art. 310), Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315)
and Qualified Seduction (Art. 337)
DWELLING (morada) includes dependencies, staircase and
enclosures under the house. As an aggravating circumstance, ungratefulness must be obvious, i.e.
manifest and clear.
It is not necessary that the house be owned by the offended. It
includes a room in a boarding house. Examples:
• Accused who killed his father-in law in whose house he lived and
Home is that which the law seeks to protect or uphold against any who partially supported him (people vs. Floresca, 99 phil 1044)
intruder whether the dweller is a lessee, a boarder or a bedspacer.
• Accused who killed the victim who was kind to him, helped him
A dwelling must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest solved his problems, employed him as overseer of his carpentry
and comfort. Where the crime was committed in a store which is work and had free access to the house. (people vs. Lupangco,
about fifteen meters away from the complainant’s house, the 109 SCRA 109)
aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be considered.
Obviously, the store cannot be considered a dwelling or even a • A security guard who killed the bank officer and robbed the bank.
dependency of complainant’s home. (People v Joya, October 1993) (people vs. Nismal, 114SCRA 487)
Dwelling is not aggravating when: • The mere fact, however, that the accused and offended party
 the offended has given provocation; lived in the same house is not in itself enough to hold that there
 both the offended and the offender live therein; is abuse of confidence where the house is not owned by the victim
 dwelling is inherent in the crime such as trespass to dwelling or (people vs. Aqueza, 51 phil 817)
robbery in an inhabited place.
Reason for this aggravating circumstance – the offender’s greater PALACE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
perversity in deliberately invading the tranquility of another’s domicile PLACE OF WORSHIP
(People vs Lapan, July 1992)
Basis for the aggravating circumstance:
 In the crimes of abduction and illegal detention where the offended They are based on the greater perversity of the offender as shown by
is taken from his house, dwelling may be taken as an aggravating the place of the commission of the offense which must be respected.
circumstance. However, this circumstance has no effect when the
imposable penalty is indivisible (Article 63) (People v Grefiel, When aggravating, it is regardless of whether State or official or
November 1992) religious functions are being held.
The offender, however, must have the intention to commit the crime BAND consists of more than three (at least four) armed malefactors
when he entered these places in order to constitute an aggravating organized with the intention of carrying out any unlawful design.
circumstance.
They should have acted together in the commission of the crime.
Places where public authorities engaged in the discharge of their (People v Robiego, November 1993)
functions (par. 5) distinguished from contempt or insult to public
authorities (par. 2): Band is inherent in brigandage.
1. In both, the public authorities are in the performance of their
duties. It is similar to abuse of superior strength whose essence is the
2. Under par. 5, the public authorities who are in the performance utilization of the combined strength of the assailants to overpower the
must be in their office; while in par. 2, the public authorities are in victim to consummate the crime.
the performance of their duties outside their office.
3. Under par. 2, the public authority should not be the offended The elements of aid of armed men:
party; while under par. 5, he maybe the offended party. (US vs  Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
Baluyot, 40 phil 385) directly or indirectly, and
 The accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when
the crime was committed.
NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, BAND, & AID OF ARMED MEN
DISTINCTIONS
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band, aggravating when: BAND AID OF ARMED MEN
 It facilitated the commission of the crime; There must be at least four No required number of
 It is especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission armed men. malefactors.
of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; The armed men who aided the
Band members are all principals
 The offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. principal offender are mere
for they take part in the
accomplices for they give
commission of the felony under
“Nighttime” is the period of darkness beginning at dusk and ending material and moral aid and
the same plan and for the
at dawn or from sunset to sunrise. encouragement in the
same purpose.
commission of the crime.
The crime must be committed exclusively at nighttime and not started Band absorbs aid of armed
at daytime. men.
It is not considered in crimes where nighttime is a mere accident or

has no influence in the perpetration thereof. ON THE OCCASION AND BY MEANS OF CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE
Nighttime is absorbed in treachery if it is part of the treacherous means
to insure the execution of the crime (People v Ong, January 30, 1975) • The “other calamity or misfortune” in paragraph 7 refers to the
occasion of conflagration (fire), shipwreck, earthquake or
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered epidemic when the offense was committed.
where the prosecution established no more than the simple fact that • In paragraph 12, the calamity is the means in the commission of
the crime was committed at night. Nighttime must be deliberately the crime.
sought in the perpetration of the crime. (People v Ferrer, 255 SCRA) • Aggravating because of the offender instead of lending aid to the
victims, adds to their sufferings.
The crime must be covered by darkness. If the light was bright enough
to see what was going on and to recognize the assailants, nocturnity
does not qualify as an aggravating circumstance under either the Article 14... continuation:
subjective or objective tests. (People v Bigcas, July 1992)
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. It
becomes so only when it is specially sought by the offender, or taken A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall
advantage by him to facilitate the commission of the crime (objective have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
test) or to ensure his immunity from capture (subjective test) (People crime embraced in the same title of this code.
v Pasilao, October 1992)
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to
UNINHABITED PLACE is determined by the reasonable possibility of which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
the victim receiving some help or where there are no people or any more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty
number of houses within a perimeter of less than 200 meters.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, REITERACION
or promise.
In reiteracion, the offender has been previously punished (has served
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, sentence). The first offense was punished with equal or greater
explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, penalty; or he committed two or more crimes previously where he was
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice meted a lighter penalty. The rationale here is that despite the previous
involving great waste and ruin. punishment, offender did not learn his lesson.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. RECIDIVISM compared with REITERACION:
 Recidivism requires previous conviction with final judgment;
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. Reiteracion requires service of sentence.
 In Recidivism, the offenses are under the same Title; in
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be Reiteracion, it is not so required.
employed to weaken the defense.  In Recidivism, there is no requirement as to penalty; in the
Reiteraccion the prior crime must have been imposed with a
penalty equal or greater than the second crime or he must have
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
served for two or more crimes carrying lighter penalty.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which HABITUAL DELINQUENCY is a special aggravating circumstance
the offended party might make. and unlike the other kinds of aggravating circumstance which merely
increases the penalty for the offense committed, habitual
xxx xxx xxx delinquency has its own penalty which escalates with the
increase in the number of convictions. Thus, the penalty is for the
There are four forms of habituality: felony committed plus for the habitual delinquency the total of which
 Recidivism should not be more than 30 years.
 Reiteracion
 Habitual delinquency (Art. 62[b]) • A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten (10) years
 Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of
Falsification, Robbery, Estafa, Theft, Serious or Less Serious
Physical Injuries (memory aid – FRETSeL) he is found guilty of said
RECIDIVISM crimes a third time or oftener. Falsification is a crime against public
interest, Robbery, Estafa and Theft are against property
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have and the last two are against persons. An offender may be a recidivist
and a habitual delinquent at the same time if he is convicted for the
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
third time of the crimes within the same title of the RPC.
embraced in the same title of the code.
• There must be three convictions within 10 years of the covered
There must be two convictions. “Final Judgment” means
crimes. The 10-year period is counted from the date of release if
executory, that is:
he had been released when again convicted.
 15 days have elapsed from its promulgation without the convict
appealing the conviction;
Comparing RECIDIVISM and HABITUAL DELINQUENCY:
 Offender started serving sentence;
 He expressly waived his right to appeal; or
 In recidivism, a second conviction is enough, in habitual
 He applied for probation.
delinquency, a third conviction is necessary.
 Recidivism requires that the crimes involved be both under the
Recidivism cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to
same title; in habitual delinquency, the crimes are specific.
present “certified true copies of the final judgment of conviction” in the
 Recidivism does not prescribe because there is no time limit
other case since the same is not cured by the failure of the accused to
between the 1st and 2nd convictions; habitual delinquency
object to such lack of presentation. Recidivism is an affirmative
prescribes if the time limit between the conviction is exceeded.
allegation whenever alleged in the information and when the accused
 Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be
enters a plea of not guilty to such information, there is a joinder of such
offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; habitual
issues not only as to his guilt or innocence but also as to the presence
delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance which must be
or absence of the modifying circumstances so alleged. (People v
considered by the court in the imposition of penalty.
Molina, GR no. 134777-8, July 24, 2000)
QUASI – RECIDIVISM  The information that Edgardo heard Arturo was “hunting” him
QUASI-RECIDIVISM is a special aggravating circumstance which may not because of competition over a girl is not sufficient to prove evident
be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. The offender has been premeditation (People v Wenceslao, August 1992) or of alleged
previously convicted by final judgment and before beginning to serve such resentment does not constitute conclusive proof of evident
sentence or while serving the same committed a felony. premeditation. (People v Padama, GR no. 132137, October
1999)
Art. 160 RPC
• Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for  It must be shown when the plan to kill was hatched or the length
another previous offense: Besides the provisions of rule 5 of article of time that elapsed before it was carried out for the essence of
62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been evident premeditation is stubborn adherence to a decision to
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence
commit a felony.
or while serving the same shall be punished by the maximum period
of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
 Otherwise stated, the execution of the plan must be preceded by
a cool thought and reflection of the resolution to carry out the
• Quasi-recidivism is penalized in addition to habitual delinquency
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
because of the opening phrase in Article 160, thus: “Besides the
calm judgment.
provisions of rule 5 of article 62”. The effect is to penalize the
convict with the maximum period of the new felony committed
 Evident premeditation means the lapse of a period sufficient in
plus the penalty for the original conviction plus the penalty for the
judicial sense to afford full opportunity for meditation and
habitual delinquency.
reflection and sufficient to allow the conscience of the actor to
overcome the resolution of his will. 3 ½ hours from the plan to
PRICE, PROMISE, OR REWARD
its execution is sufficient time for the accused to dispassionately
Price, promise or reward affects equally the offeror and the acceptor.
reflect upon the consequence of his act or to desist from its
The offeror is a principal by inducement and the acceptor, the principal
execution.
by direct participation. The inducement is the primary consideration in
the commission of the crime for this circumstance to be aggravating.
 Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. In
such an offense, the evident premeditation must relate to the
BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION,
killing and not to robbery. (People v Manansala, July 1992)
STRANDING OF VESSEL, DERAILMENT OF LOCOMOTIVE
 If the attack upon the village is planned, the killing of any
• Take note that each of the circumstance of FIRE, EXPLOSION,
individual during the attack is attended also by evident
and DERAILMENT OF LOCOMOTIVE may already be a part or
premeditation.
an element of a particular crime such as Arson (Art. 320), Crime
involving Destruction (Art. 324) and Damages and Obstruction to
 Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly
Means of Communication (Art. 330), as such, in these cases, they
established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection
do not serve to increase the penalty as they were already
of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the
considered by the law in defining the crimes.
existence of evident premeditation can be presumed.
• As distinguished from par. 7, under par. 12, the crime is
 But in the case of implied conspiracy, evident premeditation may
committed by MEANS of any of the acts involving great waste or
not be appreciated in the absence of proof as to how and when
ruin, while under par. 7, the crime is committed ON THE
the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time elapsed before
OCCASION of calamity or misfortune.
it was carried out for the accused to have “sufficient time between
its inception and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
accept the consequences” (People v Manansala, id.; People v
Padlan, May 1998)
The elements of evident premeditation are:
 The TIME when the offender determined to commit the crime;
CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE
 An ACT manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination; and
CRAFT is cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted to by
 Sufficient LAPSE of time between such determination and execution
the accused to carry out his evil design.
to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
 Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing to Ex. The offender assumed position of authority to gain entry in a
murder in the absence of evidence not only of sufficient lapse of house; feigning friendship to lure victim to uninhabited place. If used
time, but also of the planning and preparation to kill when the plan to insure the commission of the crime (against persons) without risk to
offender, it is absorbed by treachery.
was conceived. (People v Nell, 84 SCAD)
FRAUD constitutes deceit manifested by insidious words or • Where three persons assaulted the victim inside his house and
machination. the appellant stabbed the deceased while the latter was firmly
held by the two other companions, treachery cannot be
DISGUISE is resorted to conceal the identity. If in spite of the disguise, appreciated because it is included in abuse of superior strength.
the offender was recognized, such cannot be aggravating.
Not aggravating if it did not facilitate the commission of the crime or it • When it is shown that the attack was not made with alevosia
is not taken advantage of by the offender in the course of the assault. (treachery), the number of assailants and the simultaneity of attack
upon a defenseless person may constitute abuse of force. This is
 If craft, fraud, or disguise was used to insure the commission of manifest where the victim was unarmed and was trying to flee while
the crime (against persons) without risk to the offender, they are the two felons were armed and used their weapons in perpetrating
absorbed by treachery. the crime (People v Alacar, July 1992)
• Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim was warned of

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
the danger to his person, for what is decisive is that the execution of
Abuse of superior strength is intentionally employing excessive
the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or
force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the retaliate. (People v Landicho, 258 SCRA)
offended party. There must be notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor. • It is special aggravating circumstance in crimes against persons.
It is qualifying in murder. In serious physical injuries, it is a special
• It is not taken into account if the assault was characterized with aggravating circumstance which increases the penalty.
passion or obfuscation or made during a quarrel.
• There is no treachery if the attack is an impulse of the accused or
• It is inherent in parricide as generally, the husband is physically when the killing is due to passion or when the accused did not make
stronger than the wife; and in rape it is absorbed in the element any preparation to kill the deceased so as to insure the commission
of force, hence, already taken into account in fixing the penalty. of the crime.
• Superiority in number does not necessarily mean that the • When the attack is frontal, generally, there is no treachery. But
offenders abused their superior strength or that means are there is treachery when the attack although frontal is sudden and
employed to weaken the defense. It must be proved that the made in such a manner that tends directly and especially to insure
attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from its execution free from danger and without risk to the offender.
superiority of strength.
• Generally, it must be present at the inception of the attack. If the
• An attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and attack was without treachery at its inception, there must be a break
defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength which or interruption in the attack for it to be considered if the attack was
his sex and weapon afforded him. (People v Espina, GR no. consummated with treachery. After the commencement of such an
123102, February 29, 2000) or where the aggressors, who were attack, and before its termination, an accused person may have
all armed, first hit the legs of their unarmed victim, causing the employed means or methods which were of a treacherous character,
latter to fall kneeling; then stabbed him above the knee; and and yet such means or methods would not constitute the
having deprived him of his means to stand or run, took turns in circumstance of alevosia. One continuous attack cannot be broken
inflicting mortal wounds on him. (People v Apelado, GR no. up into two or more parts.
132137, October 1, 1999)
• Where the lone witness was not able to observe the
TREACHERY (Alevosia) commencement of the assault, he could not testify on how it all
Treachery must (1) insure that the offended was not able to put began and developed. Absent any particulars as to the manner
up any defense, not even token defense; and (2) the means, in which the aggression commenced and how the act which
manner, and form was consciously and deliberately chosen. resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be
(People v Magallanes, August 1997) The means, methods or forms of appreciated to qualify the killing to murder.
execution of the crime must be consciously adopted because the law
requires that the same insure its execution. The attack must be • Treachery must be proved as convincingly as the crime itself
intended to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to the because it cannot be presumed. It cannot be inferred just from
offender from a defense the victim might offer. the location of the wound because the evidence should show the
manner of the attack and how the victim reacted thereto.
• Whereas the essence of evident premeditation is cool thought
and reflection, the essence of treachery is the swiftness and the • If the victim is a young child, there is treachery even if the manner of
unexpectedness of the attack upon the unsuspecting and the attack is not shown. There is blatant inequality of strength
between the offender and the victim, but abuse of superior strength
unarmed victim, who does not give the slightest provocation
cannot be appreciated as it is necessarily absorbed in treachery.
(People v Rebamontan, April 1999).
• It is commonly understood in practice that when the victim in physical • There is cruelty when the culprit delights in making his victim
injuries, homicide, murder cases is a child of tender years, he is suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary moral and
described in the information as a minor. Minority in such cases physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act which he
should not be equated with its statutory meaning – that is below 18 intended to commit.
years of age. It is used not so much as to state the age of the victim;
rather it is more of a description of the state of helplessness of the • The number of wounds alone does not indicate cruelty as it is
young victim (People v Abuyen) essential to show that these were inflicted unnecessarily while the
victim was alive to prolong his physical suffering.
• Treachery absorbs both nighttime and taking advantage of superior
strength in the light of the circumstances of the case at bar.
• The mere fact that there were numerous stab wounds will not
Considering that treachery qualifies the killing of the four victims in
automatically cause the appreciation of the circumstance of
this case, the accused-appellant is guilty of four counts of murder.
(People v Becharyda, August 1992) cruelty because the offender may be overwhelmed by passion or
obfuscation or it may be that the victim was already dead when
• Treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus. When the offender the stab wounds were inflicted and can no longer suffer pain in
fired at his adversary but missed, the victims were helpless to defend excess of that necessary to commit the crime.
themselves. Their deaths were murders not simply homicide since
the acts were qualified by treachery (People v Flora, June 23, 2000) • Assuming that the victim was still alive during the entire period of
the ordeal to which he was subjected, there could possibly be
• The “retaliation” relevant in the appreciation of treachery must come cruelty since appellants deliberately augmented the wrong they
from the victim, not from anyone else. That the site of the crime was committed. On the other hand, if the victim died immediately after
heavily populated where others could thus intervene is not significant he was stabbed, then appellants could be held to have outraged
at all. (People v Costelo, GR no. 134311, October 1999) his corpse when they fiendishly slashed his intestines to pieces.
Further the intervening time between the initial attack and
subsequent acts must be sufficiently established to enable the
Article 14...continuation: Court to determine whether they were one continuous series of
acts or were so deliberately spaced as to constitute either cruelty
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which or outrage (People v Balisteros, October 1994)
add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
• The killing was done with cruelty by deliberately or inhumanly
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is
unlawful entry when an entrance is affected by a way not intended augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at
for the purpose. his person or corpse. No greater outrage, insult or abuse can a
person commit upon a corpse than to sever the head therefrom.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence
door, or window be broken. directed towards it cannot be interpreted in any other manner
than an outrage to his corpse. (People v Binondo, October 1992)
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under 15
years of age, or by means of motor vehicle, airships, or other • As the victim rolled unconscious after she was ravished, appellant
similar means. still hacked her almost splitting her face in two, such bestiality is a
form of cruelty and perversity which aggravated the crime, it being
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be unnecessary to the commission thereof, and manifestly an outrage
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for on the victim’s person. (People v Nescio, December 1994)
its commission.
IGNOMINY AND CRUELTY
UNLAWFUL ENTRY, BREAKING OF DOOR, ETC.
IGNOMINY pertains to the moral order which adds disgrace and
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not
obloquy (humiliation) to the material injury caused by the crime.
intended for that purpose.
• It produces more suffering on account of its humiliating effects.
• Aggravating only in those cases where the offender resorted to
breaking of wall, window, etc ., as a means to enter the house. If
• It is not appreciated in case where the sexual assault was not
the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not
shown as having been done by the accused to put the victim to
aggravating.
shame before killing her (People v Diaz, October 13, 1999)
• Ignominy relates to moral suffering whereas cruelty refers to
• It is inherent in robbery.
physical suffering.
AID OF MINOR, USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE • It is mitigating in crimes against property by analogy to the provision
of Art. 332 which exempts the offender for theft, estafa and malicious
• These are two distinct circumstances: with aid of minor mischief. In serious physical injuries committed against the child due
showing greater perversity of the offender and the use of modern to the parent’s excessive chastisement, relationship is not
criminals of faster means of conveyance to commit the crime. aggravating.
• Considered when the motor vehicle was purposely used to • In crimes against chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship
facilitate the commission of the offenses or when it is shown that is aggravating. (People v Marino, GR no. 141183, January 18, 2001)
without it the offense charged could not have been committed or
• Neither aggravating nor mitigating if relationship is an element of
when it was intentionally sought to insure the success of the act.
the crime like parricide. If what was charged was murder or homicide
instead of parricide, relationship becomes generic aggravating
• “Other similar means” should refer to other means of transportation
circumstance because the accused cannot be convicted of what was
that are similar to motor vehicles or airship, e.g. motorcycles under
not charged against him.
the principle “ejusdem generis” Pedicab is not included. It is not
aggravating if the vehicle is not used directly or indirectly to facilitate • The father-daughter relationship in rape cases is special
the criminal act. (People v Amion, March 1, 2001)
circumstance which make the imposition of the death penalty
mandatory. Hence, relationship as an alternative circumstance
• The use by criminals of motorized means of conveyance to should no longer be applied in view of the amendments introduced
commit the crime is penalized because they pose difficulty to the by RA 7659.
authorities in apprehending them.
• It may be pointed, however, that without the foregoing amendment,
relationship would still be an aggravating circumstance in the crimes
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES of rape and acts of lasciviousness (People v Manhuyod, May 1998)
ARTICLE 15. Their Concept. — Alternative circumstances are those • Intoxication should affect the offender’s mental faculties. Mere
which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating drinking of liquor prior to the commission of the crime does not
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other necessarily produce a state of intoxication.
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication
and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. • A person pleading intoxication as a mitigating circumstance
must show that: (1) he has taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect
consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, of obfuscating reason; and (2) he is not a habitual drinker and did not
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or take the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. commit the crime. (People v Pinca, GR no. 129256, November 17,
1999)
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a
• Degree of instruction or education may be considered as
mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in
mitigating or aggravating circumstance depending upon the nature
a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the
of the crime committed. If the crime is basically wrong, such as
plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or
parricide, theft or rape, it is immaterial whether the offender is
intentional it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. schooled or not.
||| (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930]) • The high degree of learning should be taken in relation to the crime
committed whether his education puts him into a better position than
• Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into the ordinary offenders.
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its • It is not illiteracy alone but the lack of intelligence of the offender
commission. They are considered only when they influenced the that is considered. If one is not literate but is still intelligent or
commission of the crime. mentally alert or comes from a family of professionals that he easily
realizes the significance of his act, there is no mitigation.
• The three alternative circumstances are relationship, intoxication,
and degree of instruction and education of the offender.
CAVEAT: the degree of instruction or education may already have been
• Relationship is taken into consideration when the offended party is considered in the penalty prescribed such as in abortion practiced by a
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted physician, in which it should not be considered anymore.
brother or sister or relative by affinity of the offender. Stepparents
and stepchildren are included by analogy but not uncles and nieces.

Basis of Criminal Liability & Philippine Criminal Law Philosophies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basis of Criminal Liability & Philippine Criminal Law Philosophies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE 1 – PART 1

Basis of criminal liability – the consideration that man is inherently

Purpose of the penalty – corrective or curative to reform the offender.

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law: Emphasis – on the actor.

Note: There are no Common Law Crimes in the Philippines.

It adheres strictly to the territoriality principle or situs of the crime. The

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

Material felonies – those which have various stages of execution.

Grave felonies REQUISITES OF DOLO:

1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an

In the same way, a person who acts under compulsion of

Intelligence is the capacity to understand what is right and what is

PRINCIPLE: (Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, [December 8, 1930])

...although the wrongful act done be different from that which he

The overt acts may consist of:

ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not

In DEFENSE OF PROPERTY, killing is not justified. There must in Requisites:

Even if the order is illegal, if it is apparently legal and the subordinate

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY PART 4

Requisites: ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability.

10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and

 Probation as an alternative to imprisonment - - The court may

In passion or obfuscation, it is necessary that it arouse from lawful

U.S. v. TORRIDA AGE, SEX, RANK, DWELLING

It is not considered in crimes where nighttime is a mere accident or

• Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim was warned of

You might also like