Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes

)

Vena V. Verga

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I. History of the Revised Penal Law Codification Movement -- sought to have all laws codified or written in a single body of aw. Spanish Codigo Penal which, without expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty on their commission. Note: Non-payment of taxes is merely a civil liability/indemnity. The tax code as it exists today which carries punishments may be considered penal provisions. People vs. Moran Facts: The accused violated the election code and was sentenced by the lower court. He was asking for reconsideration and filed a special motion alleging that the crime complained of had prescribed under the provision of section 71 of Act 3030, enacted by the Legislature on March 9, 1922. Issue: W/N penal laws provide for not only penalty but also prescription. Decision: Yes. Decision: The court found the crime to have prescribed (in accordance with the new law) and set aside the decision. The Election law contained in the Administrative Code and Act 3030 which amended and modified the former, it is evident that the provision declaring that offenses resulting from the violations of said Act shall prescribe one year after their commission must have retroactive effect, the same being favorable to the accused. An exception- to give them retroactive effect when favorable to accused. The exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of crime: Art 22 applies to a law dealing with prescription of an offense which is intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time for prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense. Penal laws not only provide for penalties but also prescriptions. III. Rationale of Penal Laws US vs. Sotto Facts: Vicente Sotto is the director, editor, publisher and printer of a weekly paper. On May 1915, he edited the paper with the intention of attacking them reputation of Lope K. Santos and two other principals of a labor group. He was found guilty of libel. Issue: W/N Sotto was guilty Decision: Yes. Penalties are used to deter people from doing the same crime. A deterrent effect upon others is one of the purposes of the infliction of a penalty for the violation of the criminal law (Exemplarity). People vs. Carillo and Raquenio

A. B.

The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directing the execution of the royal decree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands, as well as the Provisional Law of Criminal Procedure which accompanied it. These two laws, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, became effective in July 14, 1876. (US. vs. Tamparong)

C. D.

Codigo Penal ng Pilipinas – modified the Spanish Penal Code. US Period – they tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas were defectively translated

II. Definition of Penal Law and Criminal Law

A. B. C. D. E. F.

Penal laws – laws which relates to penalties Criminal laws – laws which relates to crimes Felony -- A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law. Offense -- A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutory offense. Misdemeanor --A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. Crime -- Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.

Lorenzo vs. Posadas Issue: W/N Art. 3606 of a tax law is a penal law thus can be applied retroactively in conformity with the provisions of Art. 22 of RPC. Decision: A statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state. “Penal Statutes” are statutes, which command or prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, and even those,

/vvverga

Page 1 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Facts: Carillo was sentenced with death penalty for the crimes of robbery, attempted rape and homicide. His accomplice was only charged for robbing Emma Abaya and Marcelino Lontok. Issue: W/N the penalty for Carillo was justified. Decision: The accused is a dangerous enemy of the society thus, imposition of the highest penalty if justified. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The latter must protect itself from such enemy by taking his life in retribution for his offense and as an example and warning to others. In these days of rampant criminality it should have a salutary effect upon the criminally minded to know that the courts do not shirk their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty in cases where the law so requires. People vs. Young Facts: Jimmy Young is a hired killer who committed a crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC. He refused to plea guilty because according to him, his guilt is lighter than those who ordered the killing of Alfonso Liongto. He was sentenced with death penalty in accordance with Art 248 in relation to Art 64 of the RPC. However, RA 296, which was approved 17 June 1948, provides that for a penalty of death is imposed, all justices of the Supreme Court must first concur. Said law is procedural thus can be applied to cases pending at the time of its approval. Issue: W/N Young should be charged with the crime of murder. Decision: One of the justices dissented, thus death penalty was not imposed. The killing in question was attended by evident premeditation which qualified the crime as murder: (a) it was committed in consideration of a price reward or promise and (b) with treachery. This case also provides the notion of aggravating circumstances (acts that would provide for higher penalties – art 14) and mitigating circumstances (provides for lighter penalties – art 13). Death penalty was imposed to rationalize the concept of Exemplarity: making a person example to serve as a deterrent) People vs. Revilla Facts: The accused was charged for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoners. Nicasio Junio, the prisoner, was only sentenced to suffer six days of arresto menor only, a penalty that may be served in the house of the offender because of the condition of his health. The municipality also could not feed him Nicasio for lack of appropriation, Revilla then believed that this act in permitting Nicasio to sleep in his own house was not grave in nature, being at most a mere relaxation of the rules prescribed for the care and custody of municipal prisoners. Revilla was charged under Art 223 for his actions.

Vena V. Verga
Issue: W/N the charge against Revilla is proportionate to the act he committed. Decision: No. His action then was due to a mistaken conception of his duty, hence it is obvious that the penalty imposed against him is notoriously excessive to the extent of being cruel for being out of proportion with the crime committed. The penalty was not proportionate to the evil to be curbed. Retribution, the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The penalty imposed upon the accused for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner sentenced to only six days of arresto menor being excessive, such fact should be brought to the attention of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines for him to decide whether or not it would be convenient to recommend to the national assembly the amendment of art 223 of RPC (conniving with or consenting to evasion) so as to make it more in consonance with the amplitude of the matters that a court must consider in meting out punishment to whoever may have the misfortune f infringing the precept regarding infidelity in the custody of prisoners or detained prisoners. People vs. Galano Facts: Galano was accused of falsification of one peso bill, which he used to purchase four eggs. He was found guilty and was sentenced to suffer intermediate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years and 10 months. The Solicitor General believes that the punishment is too harsh. Issue: W/N the penalty if too harsh Decisions: The punishment is too harsh and it may not actually serve the purpose of the legislator. Imprisonment may change an individual but it can also expose the person to hardened criminal. Thus, punishments should be applied with care. A copy of the decision was sent to the president for the exercise of executive clemency. IV. Two theories in Criminal Law

A.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Classical Theory Basis of criminal liability is human free will and purpose of penalty is retribution “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” – Oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente.] Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious act than upon the man. Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty

/vvverga

Page 2 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
5. The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard to the human element.

Vena V. Verga
provisions of a municipal ordinance. The petitioner was criminally convicted by the trial court for not paying the surcharge. Issue: W/N the petitioner can be prosecuted criminally of her non-payment of the rental. Decision: No. The surcharge for non-payment if not a penalty under criminal law but only an amount added to the usual charge. It is more of an administrative penalty, which can be recovered only by civil action. VI. Common Law Crimes

B.

Positivist theory 1. Man is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenal which pushes him to do wrong in spite or contrary to his volition 2. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon, it cannot be created and checked by application of abstract principle of law and jurisprudence nor by imposition of penalties, fixed and determined a priori. 3. Rehabilitation by means of individual measures on case to case basis. Advocates personal and individual investigation, conducted by competent body of psychiatrist and social scientist.

A. B. C.

V.

Crimes Definition 1. Felony 2. Offense 3. Infraction of Ordinance (a) When penalty imposed is not an exercise of sovereign power to define crimes and provide punishment.

A.

definition: body of principles, usages and rules of action which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of the will of the legislature common law crimes are not recognized in the country the codification movement provided for all crimes to be codified, thus, a crime not punishable by law is not a crime at all.

VII.Power to define and punish crimes

People vs. Santiago Facts: Defendant was found guilty of killing a seven-year-old boy. He is now appealing the decision stating that Act 2886 of the Philippine Legislature, which provides that “all prosecution for offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines” is unconstitutional for amending General Order No. 58 which has a character of a constitutional law. Issue: W/N Act 2886 is unconstitutional. Decision: The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the constitution but is left in the hands of the legislature so that it falls within the real of public statutory law. The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses. People vs. Taylor Facts: The defendant, being the acting editor and proprietor, manager, printer and publisher of Manila Bulletin was accused of committing libel against a member of the Philippine bar. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of libel.

De Guzman vs. Subido Facts: de Guzman who is a civil service eligible for passing the civil service exam was disqualified from any appointment for having violated the Jaywalking laws and ordinance concerning cocheros, which according to the lower court constitutes a crime. Issue: W/N said acts constitute a crime Decision: No. A penalty imposed for breach of a municipal regulation does not necessarily constitute a criminal offense. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve a least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct, corruption, malice or want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of the public office. A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public laws. Ordinances are not public laws. Criminal acts, in its commission, have some immoral intention. Conde vs. Mamenta Facts: Petitioner refused to pay the new rates of the stall she was holding stating that the increased rate was excessive. The increase is based on the

/vvverga

Page 3 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Decision: In the Philippines, there exist no crimes called “common law crimes” No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so by law. Libel is made a crime here by Act 277 of the US Philippine Commission. However, in order to prove that the defendant is Guilty of the crime, it must be proven that he is the ‘auditor, editor, or proprietor’ of the said newspaper. There was no proof of this because evidence shows that he is merely the manager. Petition was dismissed. People vs. Pomar Facts: The manager of La Flor granted a maternity leave to Macaria but refused to pay Php 80.00 to which the employee is entitled as her regular wage as stated in Sec. 13 of Act 3071. Issue: W/N Act 3071 us unlawful exercise of police power. Decision: The police power is the power vested in the legislature of the state to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, which are not repugnant to the constitution as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the state US vs. Pablo Facts: Andres Pablo, a policeman, reported that he saw Rodrigo and Malicsi in the jueteng arena and then testified on the contrary during the trial. He was charged with perjury and convicted under Act. 1697 which was said to have repealed articles 318 and 324 of the penal code. Issue: Can the defendant be punished? Decision: The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community as well as rights of each individual. Imposing punishments should be the last resort: our laws do not merely provide for retribution but it also provides for laws that are in favor of the offender. US vs. Gustillo Facts: Gustillo was already convicted of a crime for illegal possession of firearms. However, another information was filed against him for the same crime but for a different ammunition which he already possessed at the same time and same place the first information was filed against him. Issue: W/N Gustillo may be prosecuted for the second time for the same violation. Decision:

Vena V. Verga

The prosecution violated the Philippines Bill and Act No. 89 which embody the principle that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense because this rule covers as nearly as possible every single criminal act born of a single criminal intent even though more than one crime is committed by said act. People vs. Chong Hong Facts: The defendants were convicted for violation of Ordinance No. 394, which prohibits the playing of jueteng. The court ordered for the dismissal of the case on the ground that said ordinance is null and void for it conflicts with Art 195 of the RPC, which provides for lesser penalties than the ordinance. Issue W/N Ordinance 394 conflicts with the law. Decision: It is admitted that jueteng is already prohibited and penalized in article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. But the fact that an act is already prohibited and penalized by a general law does not preclude the enactment of a municipal ordinance covering the same matter. The rule is well settled that the same act may constitute an offense against both the state and a political subdivision thereof and both jurisdictions may punish the act, without. infringing any constitutional principle. As a general rule, additional regulation to that of the state law does not constitute a conflict therewith. The fact that an ordinance enlarges upon the provisions of a statute by requiring more than the statute requires creates no conflict therewith, unless the statute limits the requirement for all cases to its own prescription. Both the ordinance and RPC prohibit and penalize the same act and the distinction in penalties is necessary because of the peculiar conditions of the locality. Ngo Yao Tit and Chia Eng Cheng vs. Sheriff of Manila Facts: Before the court is an application for the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners were charged of visiting a house where opium was smoked. They now claimed that the court erred in their decision because it does not have jurisdiction over the case. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: It is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial court of its authority to try, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is brought in the name of the city of Manila instead of the United States. That fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action does not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose a valid sentence. Offenses committed in the Philippines are crimes against the people of the Philippines.

/vvverga

Page 4 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
1. VIII.Characteristics of criminal law (a) (b)

Vena V. Verga
Persons subject to Military Law (Art. 2 of the Commonwealth Act No. 408, articles of war) are not immune from suit but are covered by the articles of war. Officers, members of nurse corps and soldiers belonging to the regular forces of the Philippine Army All reservist from the date of theor call to active duty and while on such active duty All trainees undergoing military duty All persons lawfully called/drafted Cades. Flying cadets and probationary third lieutenants Retainers to the camp All persons under sentence adjudged by courts martial As provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. Example: Bases agreements between US and Philippines and RP-US Visiting Forces Accord. RA No. 75 – law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic representatives. It extends the diplomatic privilege to the members of the household and domestic servants that were registered with the DFA The constitution is a law of preferential operation By virtue of principles of Pubic international law – these people possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country: Absolute Exemptions (a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state (b) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires, ambassadors extraordinary (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Protocol) Relative Exemptions (c) consuls and vice consuls: honorary consuls not exempted. Note: a) b) Public International Law and treaties are deemed part of the law of the land. For a person to be immune, he/she must be able to invoke a provision of public international law/treaty; law of preferential application or customary international law.

A.

GENERAL -- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (art 14, New Civil Code).

People vs. Galacgac Facts: Enrique Galacgac was a naturalized US citizen. He arrived in the Philippines to visit his wife and in his possession is a gun, which is gift to the said spouse. Upon reaching his in-law’s home, he and his wife had a fight, which caused his brother in law to beat him on the head. In retaliation, he fired indiscriminately wounding his wife’s brothers and sisters. He was accused of attempted parricide but retorted that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over him since he is an American Citizen. Issue: W/N Galagcac enjoys extra-territoriality rights Decision: No. No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of customary law of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. Note: As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused US vs. Sweet Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US Army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military authorities deprived the court if the jurisdiction to try and punish him. Issue: W/N Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try Sweet Decision: An assault committed by a military employee upon a prisoner of war is a violation of the general penal law, and as such it imposes criminal responsibility. Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary. Exemptions to the Principle of Generality 3. 2.

(c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(a) (b)

(c)

Schneckenburger vs. Moran Facts: Petitioners is a honorary consul of Uruguay in manila charged with falsification of private documents. He objected on the jurisdiction of the Courts

/vvverga

Page 5 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
of First Instance on the ground that under the Philippine an US constitution, lower courts have no jurisdiction to try him Issue: W/N the lower courts have jurisdiction to try the consul. Decision: It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. Courts of First Instance were vested with original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls. Time Inc. vs. Reyes Facts: Enrile and Villegas filed a suit against Time Inc for an article regarding corruption in Asia where the two were featured. RA 4363 provides that public officials should file their petitions in the place where they are rendering their service. Villegas filed his petition in Rizal and not in Manila. Issue: W/N the case will prosper and W/N corporations may be sued Decision: The rule is that where a statute creates a right and provides a remedy for its enforcement, the remedy is exclusive; and where it confers jurisdiction upon a particular court, that jurisdiction is likewise exclusive, unless otherwise provided. Hence, the venue provisions of Republic Act No. 4363 should be deemed mandatory for the party bringing the action, unless the question of venue should be waived by the defendant which was not the case here. A corporation is immune from suit but it may, by writ of prohibition, seek relief against the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. And a foreign corporation seeking a writ of prohibition against further maintenance of a suit, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is not bound by the ruling of the court in which the suit was brought. WHO vs. Aquino Facts: Respondent judge issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects of the petitioner, an official of the WHO. Despite intervention of the Solicitor General and the DFA that Mr. Verstuyft is covered with diplomatic immunity, the judge refused to withdraw the search warrant. Issue: W/N the action of the judge is a violation of RA 75 and thus an abuse of discretion. Decision: Yes. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by 1. 2. 3. 4.

Vena V. Verga
the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of government as, in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."

B.

PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY -- As a rule. Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. If the power to define crimes is the power of the sovereign, it must be followed that such sovereign can only exercise such power within its jurisdiction/territory. Territory Atmosphere Interior Waters Maritime zone

Note: Limits of the territorial sea (by UNCLOS) is only 3 miles from the seashore. What is followed now is the 12-mile rule plus the 12-mile contiguous zone. But for purposes of criminal law, our jurisdiction only extends to the territorial sea. Classification of Vessels: 1. Foreign public vessels – war vessels/war ships (ex. Lawton Ship in US vs. Fowler). War vessels are considered to be an extension of the nationality of the owner of said vessel and cannot be subjected to the laws of the state (a) US vs. Fowler Facts: Theft was committed on board a transport while navigating the high seas. The accused were brought to trial and defendants contends that the Court of First Instance have no jurisdiction over the case because the crime was committed in a foreign public vessel and on high seas. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case. Decision: No. Courts of First Instance of the Philippines have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of crimes committed on the high seas on board of a transport or other vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. Warships are Foreign Public Vessels

/vvverga

Page 6 of 100

Importation is complete when the ship anchored in the Philippine port. such crimes are triable in that country where they were committed. the person in possession of opium on board the vessel is liable. A US Army transport is considered a warship. Bull) English Rule –The English only exercise their jurisdiction on issues that involve the internal management of vessel. Jose). carabao and other animals from Formosa to Manila. Decision: When a foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port. does not bring about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates on avoiding. Bull Facts: H. Defendant brought eight cans of opium and upon inspection. (US vs. Decision: When a vessel comes within 3 miles from the headland which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay. Issue: W/N the courts have jurisdiction over a foreign vessel in transit. (b) Foreign Merchant Vessel In Transit Foreign Merchant Vessels Note: A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs. which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. (US vs. The defense moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the courts have no jurisdiction since the act does not constitute a crime. (c) US vs. It is not necessary that the opium be discharged or taken from the ship (US vs. It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. Verga US vs. /vvverga Page 7 of 100 . not the citizenship of its owner. because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country 1. No.N Bull.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong an cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. Note: In the Philippines. French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against another. Foreign merchant vessels – more or less subjected to the territorial laws. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the Philippine laws. But our courts acquire jurisdiction when the tunes of opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine sol. failed to provide suitable means for securing animas while they are in transit. the laws of the Philippines shall apply. without being used in our territory. The mere possession of opium on such a ship. who was the master of a vessel transporting cattle. Ah Sing Facts: Defendant is a fireman of the steamship Shun Chang. 2. regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. This is just a matter of comity. A continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters. which was of English nationality. Bull contends that the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over his offense. Such neglect was a violation of Act. A charge of illegal importation was served against him. Look Chaw Facts: The defendant was charged with unlawful possession and sale of opium. Vena V. Decision: Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in the Philippines. otherwise. 275 of the Philippine Commission. which came from Hong Kong and was bound to Mexico via the ports of Manila. Foreign Merchant Vessels not in transit Note: The state is not obligated to give immunity on crimes done in foreign public vessels. the vessel is within the territorial waters and thus. Issue: W/N the crime of illegal importation of opium in to the Philippines was proven. a foreign steamer. unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. Issue: W/N the Philippines has jurisdiction over this case. Bull) 5. we observe the English rule (a) US vs. Exemptions to the territorial application of criminal law Article 2 of RPC provides that its provisions shall be forced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who: 1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. authorities found said substances. He was on board the steamship Errol. which docked at the port of Cebu. French Rule – such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country.

conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. Issue: W/N Act. Note: This include. unless they are favorable to the person accused. An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal in act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done. or makes it greater than it was. even in abroad. to the economical interest of the country. He was sentenced to pay a fine and was also sentenced to imprisonment in case of insolvency with respect to the fine imposed. It is logical for laws to look forward and not backward. should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. 2) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities by the Government. Nullum crimen." Piracy is a crime not against any particular State but against all mankind. 3) When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction to the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. Note: This case is an exception to the exception. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which lie may be carried. By virtue of the Treaty of Paris. (2) aggravates a crime. but not to common law countries. This is true to civil law countries. C. subsidiary imprisonment can not be lawfully imposed. nulla poena sine lege -. 4) When the offender. which took effect two months after the trial. People vs. inciting was and giving motives for reprisals. and punishes such in act. LOL-LO and SARAW Facts: The defendants were charged of the crime of piracy for pirating two Dutch boats as well as raping two of the women. Note: Introducing fake currency in the Philippine is as dangerous as forging or counterfeiting of the same. violation of neutrality. piracy and mutiny on the high seas. "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands. Inasmuch as Act No. the word should be substituted by the expression. Macasaet Facts: The defendant was proven guilty of selling native wine at retail without the license required by law. Verga Decision: Yes. Note: Counterfeiting or forging Philippine coins or bank notes in a foreign country may be prosecuted before Philippine civil courts. The judge imposed a sentence with heavier penalty in accordance with a new law. Ex post facto laws Rule: No ex post facto laws shall be enacted. espionage. while being a public officer or employee. PRINCIPLE OF IRRESTROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY – penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was not committed. Note: crimes that may be committed. when committed. treason. it should be substituted by the words "United States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned. At 366 of RPC provide that crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. or other offense. flight to enemy’s country. Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the US. correspondence with hostile country. 1732 which imposed both the fine and the imprisonment should be applied on this case. in the exercise of public functions are: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 5) direct bribery indirect bribery frauds against the public treasury possession of prohibited interest malversation of public funds or property failure of accountable officer to render accounts illegal use of public funds or property failure to make delivery of public funds or property falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position. US vs. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. No. 1732 did not go into force until after the commission of the offense. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and law of nations. Decision: No. /vvverga Page 8 of 100 . It is but a logical construction that wherever "Spain" is mentioned in the Penal Code. Issue: W/N the provisions of the penal code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force. Penal statutes cannot be made retroactive with respect to a crime. Defendants contend that the provisions of the penal code dealing with piracy are no longer in force.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V.

Lower court states that he should suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Although section 18 penalizes a violation of any of the provision of RA 1632. The CA ordered the accused to pay a fine of 500 pesos and indemnity is reduced to 5. having already served for more than three years is entitled to be discharged under the provisions of Art. Decision: No. or a proclamation of amnesty. Section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act expressly states that the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed "After the approval of this Act. as long as he is not a habitual delinquent. interest of accused in the twostorey building. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws (When penal law apply retroactively) 1. Mayor Arsenio Lacson in the sum of 10. the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetuated prior thereto. Santos Facts: Petitioner was convicted for the crime of estafa and was sentenced to serve for 2 years and 11 months imprisonment to indemnify the offended party. 22 of the penal code. Verga People vs.000 pesos only. The said law prohibits the petitioner’s nominee to be nominated in the constitutional convention since he represents a part. Inc. and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. Lower court issued a writ of injunction. 22 of the RPC. (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only. 39 as amended.A. Decision: Yes. Issue: W/N the petition is justified. 39. (a) Degree of Imposable Penalty is reduced People vs. Macasaet Escalante vs. are punished. Ferrer Facts: The defendants assail the constitutionality of RA No. The principle of the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as it is favorable to the defendant is sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code. This was denied. 8 (a) and 18 of RA No. 5465 which exempts an accused person from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. /vvverga Page 9 of 100 . 1700 or the Anti Subversion Act on the ground that is a bill of attainder.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. even if the same was not stated in the decision of CA. 1957. become or remain members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association" after June 20. Applying Art. but the same was registered in the name of Agapito Subido. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. Issue: W/N Subido be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Accused-appellant is favored by the retroactive force of Art. Subido Facts: CFI of Manila found the accused guilty of libel and is hereby sentenced to 3 months of arresto mayor with accessory penalties of the law. to indemnify the offended party. Appellant said that he could not be required to serve the amount of fine and indemnity in the form of subsidiary imprisonment because said judgment did not expressly provide that. Considering that Art. the same should be made applicable to him. to pay a fine of 500 pesos. 39 of the RPC. Bill of Attainder as Ex Post Facto Law People vs. as amended is favorable to the accused." Only those who "knowingly. In re: Kay Villegas Kami. 6132 saying that it is an ex post facto law. he cannot also be required to serve his civil liability to the offended party in form of subsidiary imprisonment because this is no longer required by the aforesaid article. in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability. When favorable to the accused Vena V. After 3 years. It is so provided in Art. Sheriff then attached whatever rights. He is petitioning for habeas corpus. not to laws. he has not yet been released. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. Issue: W/N the law is unconstitutional Decision: A bill of attainder is a legislative act. The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal matters. lighter penalty. Appealed to the Court of Appeals. and so he filed a third party claim enjoining the sheriff to proceed with the sale. Decision: No. Even if the accused is serving final judgment. The petitioner. which inflicts punishment without trial. Facts: The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of Sec. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. as amended by R. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. (4) alters the legal rules of evidence.000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with. Issue: W/N the said law is an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional. which concern civil matters. he can avail of the amended.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Note: Removal of subsidiary imprisonment to pay civil liability (b) Prescribing Grounds for Mitigation or Extinction of Criminal Liability Vena V." The general rule that penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the accused has no application where the later law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. XI. Issue: W/N Laceste should be freed. last paragraph. Decision: It is believed that the Revised Penal Code. Laceste vs. so far as the same may be in conflict herewith. Decision: No. IX. applies to the case of the herein petitioner.Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the /vvverga Page 10 of 100 . Act No. as it was in the Code that preceded it. 21) PERSONAL – Penal laws does not allow anyone to assume another’s criminal liability PRINCIPLE OF CERTAINTY – every act made punishable by law must be so defined as to leave no penumbra of doubt or uncertainty as to its applicability to a given case. This is true to civil law countries. 22) (b) Accused Disregards Later law and invokes prior statute under which he was prosecuted. Issue: W/N the new law can apply to the accused. Free-will or freedom to choose between right and wrong. and that he should be discharged from prison. committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code. but as to such causes of action or pending actions existing laws shall remain in full force and effect." If it was not the intention of the Legislature to make the new Code retroactive. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY: Nullum crimen. no liability if felonious act is committed without free will Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted No person shall be held to answer for criminal offenses without due process of law – criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. 1773. Section 13 of the new act provides as follows: "All laws and parts of laws now in force. because section 366 provides: "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in article 22 of this Code. and was accordingly relieved from the criminal prosecution by virtue of section 2. felonies and misdemeanors. all crimes must be so defined and penalized under the law (art. Valdez A. Verga Facts: The accused was charged with offense of injurias graves under articles of the RPC. nulla poena sine lege -. B." The principle of retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they favor the defendant. has been sanctioned in the Revised Penal Code. which provided that such a marriage extinguished penal liability. shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission. which was not affected by the marriage of his coaccused and the offended party. and sentenced to commitment for the crime of rape.There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. it would have used the words "notwithstanding" or "in spite of". but not to common law countries. Nicola Lachica married the victim. Magdalena de Ocampo. Principle of Pro Reo -. F. and hence. instead of "without prejudice. With Nicolas Lachica. 3815. Clemente Laceste. People vs. has clearly intended to give retroactive effect to article 22. found guilty. All penal laws have been declared retroactive by the Honorable Supreme Court. Other fundamental Assumptions of Penal Law A. Moran Exceptions to retroactivity of laws (a) Accused is a habitual criminal (Art. Act No. Santos Facts: The petitioner. But the petitioner herein continued serving his sentence. And the Legislature. B. are hereby repealed: Provided. under section 366 of the New Penal Code. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law A. and article 448 of the Penal Code then in force. E. the penalty. pleading that there is no sufficient legal ground for continuing his imprisonment any longer. That nothing herein contained shall operate as a repeal of existing laws in so far as they are applicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. X. article 344. he had been prosecuted. prays the court to set him at liberty through the writ of habeas corpus. (c) Later Statute Precludes Application to Existing Actions or Pending Cases Tavera vs. (c) Providing for Prescription of offenses D.

the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to which mankind would be safe. nisi mens sit rea -. which leads to acquittal. The purpose is not to enable the guilty person to escape punishment through technicality but to provide precise definition of forbidden acts. The reason for this is the “tenderness of the law of the rights of individuals. Where inculpatory facts are susceptible of two interpretations. This rule may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. 9. Decision: No. and the discretion of the court limited. This is true to a felony characterized by dolo. Alzaga Facts: Roy Alzaga was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of murder. then we have to sustain the interpretation. There were two witnesses with contradicting testimonies. The court agrees with the accused that where facts are susceptible of two interpretations. This kind of construction is very much open to police extortion thus must be avoided. Gatchalian). During arraignment. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused (US vs. Purisima Facts: Twenty six petitions for review were filed by the People of the Philippines involving the information filed charging the respective accused with violation of PD No. The case at bar falls short to the quantum of evidence required to sustain a conviction of rape thereby creating reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt. People vs. Where the law is clear and unambiguous. Decision: No. Issue: W/N the evidences were enough to warrant a charge of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The informations merely contained the first element – that is. Penal laws should be construed strictly. Decision: No. The courts of first instances issued an order quashing the in formations filed alleging that the facts failed to state one essential element of the crime Issue: W/N the informations filed by the people were sufficient in form and substance to constitute an offence of ‘illegal possession of deadly weapon’ penalized under PD No. See: Principle of Pro-reo B. There were also testimonies which were inconsistent to the guilt of the accused. Actus non facit reum. Vena V.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it. People vs. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not made clearly so be a statute. Verga XII. carrying outside one’s residence of any bladed.Construction of penal laws A. Liberal Construction In Favor of the Offender (a) Reason Note: Ambiguity – occurs when an act falls under more than one law or when the law is susceptible to more than one interpretation People vs. or those that result from negligence. The accused maintained his innocence saying that tit was the victim who accidentally shot himself while they were battling for the gun. 9. the accused should be acquitted since evidence failed to fulfill the test of moral certainty to support a conviction. The rule is that reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused. Penal statues must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. Charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of the one who complains of rape should be regarded with utmost caution and that the person charged with the offense should not be convicted unless the complainant's testimony is impeccable and rings true throughout. one consistent and another inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies. blunt or pointed weapon – but it failed to include the second element. /vvverga Page 11 of 100 . The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for moral certainty of guilt -. but not a felony resulting from culpa. Ng Facts: The defendant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. B. which is the intention or motivation behind it. there is no room for the application of this rule (People vs.The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. Abad Santos). RTC convicted the defendant but he appealed contending that evidences were not enough to warrant a conviction. accused pleaded not guilty. Proof of guilt must convince beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: W/N the Alzaga should be charged beyond reasonable doubt.

respondent filed a case against her for violation of Republic Act 4200. The contention is nonsense.A. 1696 of the Philippine commission which prohibits the display of any flag. CA) Facts: This case involves an act of overhearing a conversation by use of an extension line. Decision: Yes. is not the same with private communication. Sec. Decision: There is no ambiguity. the task of the court of to know the meaning and intention of the law. the court shall resort to the principle that the spirit of the law controls the letter.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (a) When the law is clear. and (d) Appellant contends that since in his town. No. 30. 1 of Act. that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the legislature. US vs. Verga the statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders” as among the acts punishable. The intention of the legislature and object aimed at are to control the literal interpretation of a particular language in a statute. The phrase is ambiguous and the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. /vvverga Page 12 of 100 . In support of her allegations. In cases like this. Gaanan vs. she presented a transcript of her conversation with the respondent. He contends that he is ignorant of the law and that the prohibition is only against the actual use of identical banners and devices which were used during the Philippine insurrection. the preamble may be used. Issue: W/N the defendant incurred liability. there are no slaughterhouses. Vena V. Toribio Facts: Defendant was charged for violation of Art. Garcia for allegedly vexing and humiliating her. Issue: W/N the accused should be held liable for the violation. 4200 because a telephone extension device was neither among those devices enumerated in Section 1 of the law nor was it similar to those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein. and there is doubt as to the subject matter to which the law is to be applied. the law is applied according to its express terms. 30 and 33 of Act 1147. US vs. The case of Ramirez turns on a different note. If the law is ambiguous. Petitioner also alleged that private conversation. Language capable of more than one meaning is to be taken in the sense. The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle from theft.A." Must be followed. which regulates the registration. There are two constructions of these prohibitions: (c) The phrase ‘at the municipal slaughter house’ may be taken as limiting and restricting both the word ‘slaughtered’ and “killed for food” in section 30 and “killing for food” in section 33. Court of Appeals Facts: Petitioner filed a case against private respondent. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the phrase "device(s) or arrangement(s)" Decision: The use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R. Intermediate Appellate Court (in contrast with Ramirez vs. entitled An Act to prohibit and penalize wire-tapping and other related violations of private communication. and other purposes. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. which will harmonize the intention and object. and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice. Decision: Yes. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity. 30 and 33 of the act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in sec. policy and purpose. there is no room for interpretation. the latter construction should be adopted. The phrase “ at the municipal slaughterhouse” may bet taken as limiting and restricting the words “killed for food” (b) Ramirez vs. the prohibitions of Act 1147 does not apply. thus. Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of any gadget. banner or device used during the insurrections in the Philippines. Will not also apply when strict construction will defeat the intent. Issue: W/N there is ambiguity in the meaning of private conversation and private communication. branding and slaughtering of large cattle without a license. When the language if a statute is susceptible of more than one construction. As a result of her actions. The afore stated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person. The task of the court is to apply the law. because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R. which she and the respondent had. When there is ambiguity. Chico Facts: Defendant was charged for violating sec.

The accused was tried and convicted. People vs. For these amendments. he contended that the term rice does not only mean hulled rice but also includes palay. Issue: W/N the plea for double jeopardy should be granted. but by the chief of police.. which is controlling. the Spanish text governs.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the defendant submits that the doubt should always be resolved in favor of the accused. In cases of doubt in the interpretation of the Revised Penal Code. Decision: The term "any prisoner" in the English text of Art. the Spanish text is controlling. Decision: It is in the light of our cultural environment that the law must be construed. and the defendant was never in jeopardy. The victim then filed the same complaint. abduction. The first complaint was made by the chief of police of Dumagete. Mesias Facts: The defendant was accused of robbing seven sacks of rice and before arraignment. If the word rice includes the grain in its original state without the hull being taken away. Baking vs. Our society is a tolerant one and surely. Manaba filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of jeopardy for the same offense.” It will be observed that the Spanish equivalent of the word "filed" is not found in the Spanish text. After the death of husband Emilio. People vs. there is no need to go back to the Spanish text. then "rice' is included under the term 'semilla alimenticia' or cereal seed. 97 regarding good conduct allowance is. the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons." The allowance for good conduct "for each month of good behavior" then unquestionably refers to good behavior of a prisoner while he is serving his term as a convict and not otherwise. Intermediate Appellate Court Facts: Petitioner has been living with a married man for 20 years and the relationship ended with the death of the man. the Spanish text should prevail. This came to the knowledge of the real spouse thus she filed a complaint against Corazon for using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio. but the judgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court /vvverga Page 13 of 100 . Manaba Facts: Manaba was charged with rape. used in the Spanish text of article 303 of the Revised Penal Code. because the complaint had not been filed by the offended party. Issue: W/N Art 97 of the RP is applicable to detention prisoners or prisoners who are just serving preventive imprisonment. the offense with which the appellee is charged in the information does not fall under article 303 of the Revised Penal Code but under the second to the last paragraph of article 302 where the offense therein defined is penalized with arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional. into which was translated the phrase "semilla alimenticia". Since the first complaint filed was not the complaint of the offended party. There is no doubt that Article 97 does not embrace detention prisoners within its reach. shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party…. The judgment of the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. "el penado. the thing stolen was really hulled rice (arroz) but there is nothing in the complaint which shows that fact. Inasmuch as hulled rice (arroz) cannot be considered as seedling (semilla alimenticia). Therefore. rape or acts of lasciviousness. which remained in their original form. is incorrect. Note: There are already amendments that use English terms. Under the circumstances. the Spanish text is controlling. Verga had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter of the action. in the Spanish text. it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. Corazon filed for support for their son. Decision: The third paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: The offenses of seduction. Decision: The English word "cereal". Inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish. Issue: W/N the phrase "hulled rice" was within the meaning of "semilla alimenticia" as used in the Spanish text. But for those.not one under "prison preventiva. He is claiming for allowance for good conduct as provided for by Art 97 of the RPC. Director of prisons Facts: Petitioner has been in detention for 18 years of preventive imprisonment for the crime of rebellion. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC. Cultural environment by which the legislature is operating can also be a source of the meaning as well as the intention of the law. The complaint merely alleges that the object stolen was seven sacks of rice." who is a convict or a person already sentenced by final judgment. D. Legamia vs. as it was the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the Legislature. Because it speaks of the buena conducta observada por el penado . This time. It may be hulled rice (arroz) or it may be rice seeds (palay). Issue: W/N Corazon violated the Anti-Alias Law. C.

applies to the case at bar. which prescribes a minimum efficiency of 85% for promotion. Decision. The conflict arose from the ambiguous term “any other members” which is necessary for the charge. a hand. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other member". Thus. cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing. Verga Decision: The repeal is absolute. has ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law. a foot. Issue: W/N the accused is still liable for his actions. Where the repeal is absolute and not a reenactment or repeal by implication. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty. Balubar Facts: Balubar was found guilty of the crime of physical injuries by the lower court. Issue: W/N EO 503 was repealed by Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules. The prohibition against pre-threshing has no more raison d'etre because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in section 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code. the legal maxim cessante ratione legis. the ordinance was repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being prosecuted. "laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse. the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act. Later cases seem to suggest that loss of teeth does not constitute disfigurement because it can easily be replaced. the offense ceases to be criminal.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. He further contends that EO No. Issue: W/N Almuete violated a law. David vs. 1) Different effects of repeal of penal law If repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law. or custom or practice to the contrary. the new law shall be applied. 503. Almuete Facts: The defendant supposedly violated Sec 39 of he Agricultural Tenancy Law which is premised on the existence of the rice share tenancy system. 1971. the crime is obliterated. The Code instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject to certain conditions indicated in section 4 thereof. was superceded by the Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules under which his rating of 84% is considered a high degree of efficiency. One who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. Spanish text is given more weight. Dancel Facts: Petitioner is assailing the promotion of Angel Dancel to Chief of Tax Registration a position to which he claims to be lawfully entitled. XIII. /vvverga Page 14 of 100 . the Code of Agrarian Reforms. series of 1934 since under Article 7 of the Civil Code. No. The English text contained “loss on any other part of his body” while the Spanish text provided the loss of “any other member” resulting in “disfigurement”. which was penalized under the old law. To prosecute it as an offense when the Code of Agrarian Reforms is already in force would be repugnant to the policy and spirit of that Code and would subvert the manifest legislative intent not to punish anymore pre-reaping sod pre-threshing without notice to the landholder. 6389 which took effect on September 10. Issue: W/N the absolute repeal obliterated the criminal liability. Decision: In this case. or the Code of Agrarian Reforms. The accused is not relieved of liability from the requisite “deforme” even if the victim can lessen the deformity through artificial means. 2) 3) People vs." People vs. is no longer punishable. or a leg resulting to "Deforme" or "disfigured". Such is the case at bar. The Compilation of Civil Service Laws and Rules was prepared merely by the Bureau of Civil Service and could not possibly have repealed Executive Order No. as redesignated in Republic Act No.Repeals A. People vs. the law itself also ceases). Tamayo Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an ordinance. Decision: The Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in sections 4 and 35 of the Code). meaning any other member than an eye. The act of pre-reaping and pre-treshing without notice to the landlord. It is significant that section 39 is not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform Code whose section 172 repeals "all laws or part of any law inconsistent with" its provisions. The victim lost four of his front teeth. While the case was pending appeal. The defendant must be acquitted. except when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. which was an offense under the Agricultural Tenancy. 503. an arm. an Administrative Compilation.

Act No. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. the crime still remains to be a crime. the former is thereby repealed. Sometime of 1976. Castro Facts: The defendant was charged with injuries graves for sending letter to a medical health officer which contained insults and accusations. and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject. Express or implied repeal – Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done. Defendant questions whether this article is still in force or whether the Libel law already repealed it. 1. he could not be punished. People vs. abuse or insult any minister of the Crown or other person shall be punished. may be repealed either expressly or by necessary implication. shall defame. Art 256 of the Penal Code provides that any person who by writing. 277-the Libel Law. previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary implication. has had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as related to written defamation. Issue: W/N Art 256 is still in force. like any other statute. (a) (b) Repeal by implication is not favored There is implied repeal if there are irreconcilable inconsistencies. it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them. 1. so that if the repeal is more lenient to them. and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused. abuse. or insult. Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal. and which was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule applicable to the subject. if the case is still pending in court. and such statute or law is repealed by implication if the later statute is so repugnant to the earlier one that the two cannot stand together or if the whole subject of the earlier statute is covered by the latter one having the same object. Decision: The Philippine Libel Law. Effects (1) Pending Criminal Action is not dismissed B. PD No. when those crimes are expressed publicly in writing. for the reason that said provisions of the Penal Code had been repealed by the Libel Law (Act No. If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment. even if the repealing law is partial or relative. Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic principles of government. Defendant was acquitted. one of the two laws must give way. editor of La Nacion was found guilty of violating Art. 885 which repealed RA 1700 took effect. the latter is held to be repealed by necessary implication.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. A penal law. (1) Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law. Buscayno vs. and (b) that even though the evidence did show that he had violated the provisions of the Penal Code providing a punishment for injurias graves. it shall be the one applied to him. Military Commissions No. 6 and 25 Facts: The petitioners were accused of rebellion for having allegedly participated in public uprising to overthrow the government. They were accused of subversion under RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). An implied repeal will take place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law. which define and punish grave insults. c. One of the petitioners contends that her criminal liability was extinguished by the repeal. So whether he is a habitual delinquent or not. Where the later statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts. are repealed by Act No. Perfecto Facts: Gregorio Perfecto. Where the latter or revising statute clearly covers the whole subject matter of antecedent acts. the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. Verga Decision: Provisions of the Penal Code. such that the two laws cannot stand together. The appellant contends (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial did not show that he was guilty of the crime of injurias graves as defined under the Penal Code. 277). If a criminal law deals with the same subject as a prior law and is inconsistent with and repugnant to the prior law. Issue: W/N the penal code provisions were already repealed by the Libel Law. 277. 257 of the Penal Code for attacking the virtue of the members of the Senate. People vs. It is the earlier that will give way to the later law because the later law expresses the recent legislative sentiment. (2) C. /vvverga Page 15 of 100 . 2.

Act. expressly provides in its Section 7 that "acts committed in violation" of the former law before the effectivity of the said decree "shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former Art" and that nothing in the said decree "shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of" Republic Act No. XIV. good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N in repealing RA 1700. good faith is not a defense 2. That saving or transitory clause is reenacted in section 14(i) of the National Security Code. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. is not expressly. 319 of the penal code. In crimes punished under special laws. 1697 was expressly repealed by a Section in the administrative code. which expressly repealed a prior law. No. No. (2) But penalty under second law will be applied if favorable to accused. 2657 expressly repealed Act no. 885 does not mention the CPP does not mean that the party is no longer regarded as a subversive organization. is itself repealed. Vena V. Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment. It is similar to article 366 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the effectivity of the Revised Penal Code shall be punished in accordance with the old Penal Code and the laws in force at the time of their commission. the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. No 3155 is constitutional. That decree. which repeals a prior law. Youngberg Facts: Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of Act No. People vs. Issue: W/N the criminal liability was extinguished because of the repeal. It is entirely unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the statute attacked because even if it were declared unconstitutional. No 3155 will be revived. Soliman Facts: Defendant was accused of perjury under Art 1697. is itself repealed. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal former laws or parts of laws by implication. Therefore. the old rule continues in force where a law. As to moral trait of the offender In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied /vvverga Page 16 of 100 . D. PD No. So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. the petitioner would not be entitled to relief because of Act. Act. Respondent demurred that even id Act No. 3155 which prohibits the importation of cattle from foreign countries to the Philippines. unless the crime is the result of culpa In crimes punished under special laws. The purpose of the party is the decisive factor in determining whether it is a subversive organization. which is the Revised Anti-Subversion Law. Decision: Section 12 of the administrative code provides that a law. The fact that Presidential Decree No. (3) Effects of nullity of repealing laws Cruz vs. 1697 impliedly repeals Art. 3155 was declared unconstitutional. since being void. but by implication. While he was serving his sentence. the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law. Act no. the provisions of the penal code is revived. Accused contends that his criminal liability should be extinguished because of the repeal. 1700. Verga (1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed. the first law repealed shall not be revived unless expressly provided. 885 extinguished the criminal liabilities of persons charged with violation of the older law. 3052 which was repealed by Act. Issue: W/N Act. which also defines and penalizes perjury. it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. No. Decision: No. 1697. 1700. 3052. 2. As to use of good faith as defense In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. the petitioner would still be prohibited from importing because Act. the moral trait of the offender is considered. it is not inconsistent with such former law. so the act or omission will no longer be penalized. in repealing or superseding Republic Act No. thus. (2) If the repeal is express. the moral trait of the offender is not considered.Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes punished under special laws 1. No. Decision: Yes.

it was held by he Supreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime. What was the crime committed? Grave coercion. 2. the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. A mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender. but because with or without a law. The contention of the mayor that he did not profit anything from the transaction. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice. the military was alerted. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability. She was also the highest bidder. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. On appeal. the election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. Rule. good faith is a defense. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. Judgment affirmed. Sunico. there are attempted. As to degree of participation In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. arise. Source of RPC (1) Rafael del Pan’s Correctional Code of 1916 (2) Code of Maruecos /vvverga Page 17 of 100 .Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. He appeals alleging his defenses raised in the Sandiganbayan that he did not profit from the transaction. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. 3. Where malice is a factor. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalized only when the pernicious effects. accomplice and accessory. an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter’s register the name of a certain voter. that act is wrong. Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code. but before the same could be accomplished. and that he did not act with intent to gain. but the trial court sustained its validity. frustrated. there are no attempted or frustrated stages. In crimes punished under special laws. that the contract was advantageous to the municipality. which such law seeks to prevent. thus. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. he was acquitted. it is malum in se. In crimes punished under special laws. There is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. Questions & Answers 1. then malice must be proven. The award was even endorsed by the municipal council as In violation of special law. Under special laws. thus. When given a problem. The crime involved is malum prohibitum. Consequently. In other words. unless the special law punishes an omission. Article 2 A. the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated. In trial. Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law. the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. 4. Verga the most advantageous to the municipality. In crimes punished under special laws. take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law. and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. is not a defense. offenders are classified as principal. good faith is a defense. 5. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. when there is more than one offender. will the act still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”. The losing bidder challenged the validity of the contract. and that he did not act with intent to gain. XV. In the case of People v. unless the special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. The case goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for violation of Republic Act No. They compelled the pilot to change destination.

/vvverga Page 18 of 100 . unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel. Under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure. as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country. Then the vessel entered our territory. C. Otherwise. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied. Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Any crime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel. Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere. B. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under international law. because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong. Verga When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country. except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. The intention is to do away with that requirement so that as long as the vessel is not registered under the laws of any country. for our courts to take cognizance of any crime committed on board a vessel during its voyage. As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters. Will the Revised Penal Code apply? Yes. However. The French Rule The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies. Intraterritorial application In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code. A crime is committed outside Philippine territorial waters. however. (2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications: (1) (2) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory. Extraterritorial application Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule. the requirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Philippine laws has been deleted from Section 25. which applies only to merchant vessels. do not limit this to land area only. Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas. these rules will not apply. A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. interior waters and maritime zone. there are two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are: Question & Answer A vessel is not registered in the Philippines. Philippine laws shall govern. paragraph c of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. there is no occasion to apply the two rules. So whenever you use the word territory. the vessel must be registered in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws. except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. our courts can take cognizance of the crime committed in such vessel.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) Original Draft of German Penal Code of 1913 Where offense punishable under RPC is also punished under military law Piracy is triable anywhere (see Lo-Lol and Saraw) (1) Vena V. it is the foreign country’s criminal law that will apply.

Under international law rule. they can be prosecuted. The crime may be regarded as an act of piracy as long as it is done with “intent to gain”. However. [they] should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions:” As a general rule. registration is not anymore a requirement and replaced with generally accepted principles of international law. Paragraph 5 of Article 2. you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code. those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Question & Answer Vena V. because the bigamy was committed in a foreign country and the crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of Article 2.00.000.Article 3: Felonies HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE /vvverga Page 19 of 100 . therefore. Under the Rules of Court. Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. if the Filipino. a definite provision of the law making it the consul’s function to take depositions. because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. use the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. the crime would not have been prosecutable in our court. because Title I of Book 2 does not include rebellion. The functions contemplated are those. After the deposition. after the second marriage. he may be prosecuted here. which are. Verga More than this. There is. In your answer. the taking of the deposition is not the function of the consul. XVI. reference should be made to the provision of paragraph c of Section15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. returns to the Philippines and cohabits here with his second wife. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country. the revised provision added the phrase “in accordance with generally accepted principles of International Law”. When he agreed to the falsification of the deposition. Will the crime be subject to the Revised Penal Code? If so. however. what crime or crimes have been committed? Yes. he commits the crime of concubinage for which he can be prosecuted. But the Filipino can not be prosecuted when he comes back to the Philippines. a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general. With the revision. since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines. Normally. his function being the promotion of trade and commerce with another country. a consul can take depositions or letters rogatory. if the second marriage was celebrated within the Philippine embassy. The daughter persuaded the consul and the latter agreed. Falsification. such that wherever the pirates may go.” This is a very important part of the exception. he was doing so as a public officer in the service of the Philippine government. Prior to the revision. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being public officers or employees. under the law. Illustration: When a Filipino who is already married in the Philippines. Piracy is considered a crime against the law of nations. However. A consul was to take a deposition in a hotel in Singapore. the deponent approached the consul’s daughter and requested that certain parts of the deposition be changed in consideration for $10. contracts another marriage abroad. The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to any other crime committed in a foreign country which does not come under any of the exceptions and which is not a crime against national security. the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions. Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his official duties. the crime committed is bigamy. So the intention is clear to adopt generally accepted principles of international law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course of its voyage. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government in a foreign country.

mere silence and failure to give alarm. WITHOUT EVIL INTENTION. If there is no law that defines an act as a crime and provides for its penalty. Catangay was tasked to negotiate the distance. Decision: One who. On the night of the crime. So whenever you encounter the term felony. B. Unfortunately. undertakes to render medical assistance to another person. 2. WHEN THERE IS NEITHER MALICE OR FAULT People vs. one killing his companion. it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code . which reads: A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment. But as he was nearing the quarry. which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws. Catangay Facts: Catangay was found guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. 2. without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. Divino was held liable for culpable felony because the acts he committed were out of ignorance with the intent to bring about remedy instead of harm. Issue: W/N Divino committed a crime considering he acted on good faith. nulla poena sine lege. is liable for any injuries resulting. Note: The phrase “punishable by law” is not only constrained to those acts that are punishable by the RPC. /vvverga Page 20 of 100 . Culpable Felonies – performed without malice.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Acts may be omissions or commissions. the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same. PERSON CAUSING INJURY. Definition: Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the law. Note that the word "felony" is used. from such treatment. not being regular practitioner. The case of Romana was appealed because there is no strong evidence that can prove that she was an accomplice of Martin. act committed by means of culpa (a) Negligence – lack of foresight (b) Imprudence – lack of skill 1. Crimes can also be punishable by special laws. Classification of Felonies Intentional Felonies (a) Act or omission of offender is malicious. Verga Decision: No. act committed by means of dolo (b) Act is performed with deliberate intent. Divino Facts: Divino was charged for the crime of lesiones graves for burning the feet Alfonsa believing in good faith that applying petroleum on her sores and ulcers would cure her wounds. Note: Reckless Negligence means voluntary act without malice. People vs. only external acts are punished Omission is synonymous to inaction. Nullum crimen. A specific instance is found in Article 160 – Quasi-Recidivism. Romana was acquitted. Issue: W/N Romana’s act of omission is punishable. 3. This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used. Alfonsa became more injured and deformed after the treatment. Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime. Elements: 1. although his ignorance may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. There must be a low requiring the performance of such act. Silvestre and Atienza Facts: Martin and Romana were both convicted of the crime of arson by the Court of First Instance. Punishable by the Revised Penal Code The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. and the fact that he acted in good faith and according to the best of his ability does not relieve him from responsibility. such act is not a crime. MAY BE LIABLE FOR CULBABLE FELONY US vs. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony. Issue: W/N Catangay was guilty of reckless negligence A. he accidentally stumbled onan embankment and two shots were discharged. shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty.

When the language is plain and positive. Maleza Facts: Maleza and Adlaon were charged with crimes of falsification of public documents by reason of reckless negligence. Note: Reason for punishing acts of negligence: A man must use common sense. the eyes of a man is not luminous in the dark thus it would be impossible to mistake it to that of a deer. Issue: W/N there is reckless imprudence on this case. He performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun. It is a mistaken notion that positive. willful intent. careful. Crimes punished under special laws. and it is done by some person. Maleza and Adlaon). then through fear of incurring punishment. and those of his fellow beings. He asked his two companions to watch over their prey while he looks for another. Benito Siy Cong Bieng appealed for: (a) He did not have any knowledge of the acts done by his agent which was the sale of adulterated coffee. The discharge of a firearm that caused the. although the resulting homicide was without malice. 3. victim's death having been purely accidental and wholly involuntary on the part of the accused. it is his duty to be cautious. But nonetheless. Otherwise his own person. willful intent and purpose. nothing is left to interpretation. no dolo is required (US. and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense. would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury. and the offense is not made to depend upon the positive. this is especially so as to statutory offenses. Decision: Under the Philippine Pure Food and Drugs Act. The fact that the defendant offered to the mother of the deceased a carabao and a horse by way of indemnity indicates that the defendant admitted the commission of the crime although he performed that act without criminal intent and only through imprudence. Go Chico) Act alone constitutes the offense US vs. Decision: Yes. to violate the criminal law. and another committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally. (People vs. Mala Prohibita and Mala in Se Mala in Se Mala Prohibita /vvverga Page 21 of 100 . if not from instinct. Rule: There is no need for the pattern analysis for acts that involve public policy (statutory law). He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts. there was no intent because Catangay had a very good relationship with the victim. Moreover. he seemed to have seen an eye of a deer and shot it. the law implies conclusively the guilty intent. an intermediate act which the Penal 2. Verga Code qualifies as negligence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: No. rights and property. because he did not have the intention of killing the deceased. To his surprise. which requires that the damage be inflicted without malice but through a voluntary act. thus. Siy Cong Bien Facts: Defendants Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong were convicted of a violation of Section 7 of Act. Ramirez Facts: Pedro Ramirez went on hunting together with two other companions. he should have exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable accident. C. as distinguished from a mere intent. 1. vs. performed without malice. Issue: W/N defendant Siy Cong Being should be held liable for the actions of his store manager. is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense. which no one would have performed. The accused is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. but at the same time punishable. (b) Co Kong was in charge of the store. 1655 of the Philippine Commission known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act. he shot one of his companions. Vena V. Issue: W/N reckless negligence is considered a crime. Maleza is the municipal treasurer and he certified an account showing payments for the construction of the municipal building. US vs. though in a lesser degree and with an equal material result. he knew he had two companions. The embankment cannot also be anticipated. except through culpable abandon. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). After walking for about 50 meters. Defendants maintained that falsification does not constitute the crime complained of. In this case. his action lacks the element essential for holding that it was performed with reckless negligence. without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration or criminal intent in the making of the sale. or reckless negligence. and exercise due reflection in all his acts. REASON WHY CULPABLE FELONIES ARE PUNISHED People vs. there exists another. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done. and prudent. proof of the fact of the sale of prohibited drugs and food products is sufficient to sustain a conviction of a violation of the statute. Adlaon signed that he received the money when in fact the money was never for the construction of municipal building but was to be given to Bastes who loaned a sum of money to the municipal president and treasurer. There was no negligence either because opening the latch while approaching the quarry is very usual for hunters. No. although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he violates. Decision: Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally.

Ongsod contends that it was Orquijo who owned the gun and it was merely in his possession when the Philippine constabulary seized it." The third element being absent in the case at bar. The mere unlicensed possession of firearm. /vvverga Page 22 of 100 . he barricaded some establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying with certain health and sanitation requirement. in addition. In statutory offenses. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance as well as nuisance per se. he was still sentence by the lower court. Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct the complainants were public nuisance. as mayor of the town. It does not matter for the conviction of Ongsod that he is the owner or borrower of the gun because this fact has no bearing on his guilt. Exceptions to the good faith rule in crimes of Mala Prohibita. enough to call for a conviction. People Facts: The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. Facts: Orquijo and Ongsod were guilty of the crime of robbery. a fact corroborated by an office of the constabulary. petitioner incurred no criminal liability. he should be exempted from the law prohibiting illegal possession of firearm. any doubt as to his claim should be resolved in his favor. either it be right or wrong. shall by means of violence. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty. petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion. Intent to perpetuate the act is required. The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Good Faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws (Mala Prohibita) People vs. Issue: W/N the lower court was correct in their decision. Decision: The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighborhood. 5. and without even bothering themselves to legalize such possession. Since the offense is malum prohibitum punished by special law. for the court can adopt a more liberal view. it is enough that the statue has been violated and that it is not necessary to inquire whether there was intent to violate it. Orquijo and Ongsod Vena V. Issue: W/N Mapa should be exempted from complying with the law. Mallari Facts: Mallari was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. without authority of law. Good faith can be invoked as defense for violation of the RPC (Mala in Se) Timoner vs. The testimony of the witnesses were credible and accurate. 6. Special penal laws Intent to perpetuate a crime People vs. which expired some 3 months before he was arrested. Decision: No. Where the accused had a pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm. RPC Criminal Intent Acts that are wrong merely because it is prohibited by a statute. Mapa Facts: The accused is a secret agent contending that being such. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will. Petitioner. People vs. However. Despite his plea that he already applied for the renewal of his license. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. He further stated that he has every intention of surrendering the gun. The spirit of the law regarding possession of firearms is to punish those who possess the same without knowledge of the authorities concerned.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Definition Acts that are wrong from their nature. Intent is not important. merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Intent governs. Issue: W/N the absence of criminal intent and good faith are valid defenses in crimes punishable by special laws. The owners of the stalls charged the petitioner with the offense of grave coercion. and such possession was not unknown to an agent of the law who advised the former to keep it in the meantime. Decision: The accused was absolved. Verga Intent Violates Minimum required for a person to incur criminal liability 4. regardless of the intent of the holder is sufficient to sustain a conviction. and good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. Ongsod was also found guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

intent is wanting in such felonies. Disclosure of motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime. Pattern of analysis in determining criminal liability Was there criminal intent (dolo)? Or was the act done by means of culpa (imprudence/negligence)? Delito Deloso and Delito Culposa Elements Delito Deloso (dolo) Freedom Intelligence Intent (a) Delito culposa (culpa) Freedom Intelligence Negligence/Imprudence E. which ordered the Fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence. Fiscal exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. 2. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa. namely. Revised Administrative Code. The victim's parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice. Dionisio Ballonico and Fernando Dorico were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murdering Gervacio Dapulag and was sentenced each with death penalty. The petitioner was in position that "discernment" connotes "intent". hence. This not a situation which falls under ‘who had done it’ since DIONISIO BALLONICO was positively identified by credible witnesses as one of the assailants of the victim. and negligence. Proof of motive is not essential for conviction. 1. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act. Issue: 1. from possessing any firearm. the former refers to the /vvverga Page 23 of 100 . was playing with his best friend. Dionisio said that he was merely a bystander and did not participate in the crime Issue: W/N motive is relevant to establish guilt Decision: It is true that no motive has been shown why he would kill Gervacio Dapulag. For him to be criminally liable." WHEN MOTIVE IS RELEVANT People vs. it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. While both are products of the mental processes within a person. They were target-shooting a bottle cap placed with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. intelligence. Ignacio Almodovar Facts: Petitioner John Philip Guevarra. Intent Defined distinguished from discernment Guevarra vs. Indeed. Hon. W/N the term "discernment". a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense under Article 365. However. Appellant is not also exempted from the requirement of license. Verga desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his death. D. 4. freedom of action. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. Dorico Facts: Romualdo Dorico. In the course of their game.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent. 2. three (3) elements are indispensable. The Solicitor General insists that discernment and intent are two different concepts. Distinguished from Motive Decision: As secret agent is not included in the enumeration in Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code of persons who are not prohibited in Section 878. but this Court has repeatedly held that motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The three were said to have killed the accused because he insisted on filing a criminal complaint against Romualdo for the killing of his nephew. Discernment constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine. It is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. 11 years old. intelligence remains as an essential element. W/N an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Obviously. which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. (b) (1) (2) (c) Kinds of Intent general notion of intent – motive is not essential in establishing this notion of criminal intent specific notion of intent – there is no great difference between specific criminal intent ad motive. he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Decision: The two terms should not be confused. as amended by Republic Act No. There was no reason shown why the witnesses for the prosecution would foist a crime on DIONISIO BALLONICO if he did not really commit it. who commits an act prohibited by law.

Ramirez /vvverga Page 24 of 100 . and that their business operations over a period approximately eighteen months just prior to the fire had resulted in a considerable loss. Issue: W/N the motive is needed to convict the defendants. attack and kill Ananias. Verga An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime with a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. they found a hole. Issue: W/N the defendant is guilty of the crime of parricide. The defendant was not held suddenly hot up in his sleep left the room meeting with his wife who tried to stop attacked other. he was able to tell his wife who his attackers were. Since the prosecution was not able to establish the motive. the accused had a fight with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla. Maximo also contended that the trial court erred in saying that the motive of the killing was a land case because he has no interest therein since it was his father who was the plaintiff in the said case. 26. that it was insured for three times its value. fact that was seen in the vicinity of the crime. WHEN MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT When assailant is positively identified People vs. On the day the crime was committed. Go Foo Suy Facts: Fire broke out in house no. The appellants had been conducting their business at a loss for nearly 18 months. 26 broke out when the fire in House no. it was noted that the defendant was not feeling well. Or. Motive is not important to have a conviction. A person who with a bolo in his hand. It appears from the evidence that that the day before the commission of the crime. and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down. and the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is completely inconsequential. After some time. Maximo and Cesaria contended that it was Ananias who first attacked them and that Maximo merely defended himself. for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where they may be found. thus. they heard something moving. and when he was about to go down. he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet. 30 was about to be put out. he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. and wounding his father in law and two of their guests. his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction and the failure of the State to establish his motive is of no moment. The success of their crime meant that they would receive about twice the value of their stock of goods and thus converting a losing investment into a profitable one. When they got inside. Decision: No. by reason of which he got up. The question of what motive is sufficient to impel one to commit a particular act is always relative and no fixed norm of conduct can be said to be decisive of every imaginable case. which supported the fact that someone. Diva Facts: Maximo Diva and his wife were accused of murdering Ananias Bano. Maximo and Cesaria Diva conspired to attack the victim. 30. On the day of the commission of the crime. However. wounded her abdomen and he had no criminal intent. fire also broke out in House no. liable for the crime. 26. proof of crime US vs. Taneo Facts: Potenciano Taneo was accused of parricide for killing his wife. the identity of the appellant as the author of the killing is not disputed as he admitted having killed the deceased. and upon him. for having acted in a dream. he was stopped by his wife and his mother. Before the victim’s life expired. but that simply they are not known to us. Maximo claims that he should not be convicted of the crime. Decision: No. he apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none. he went to bed and slept. furnishes a powerful motive for the commission of the crime (circumstantial evidence). an aid to the prosecution. The accused had dry goods store in house no. who invited him to come down and fight. as in this case. which was just across the passageway from House No. Note: When assailant is positively identified. US vs. While the firefighters were trying to break into the storeroom. Where. Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused People vs. Decision: The accused were found guilty of the crime. MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT PROOF OF CRIME Note: Circumstantial Evidences defined: indirect evidence. witnesses testified that the fire in House no.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. But motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit or where the offender had admitted the deed. it is not a sufficient ground for him to ambush. bidden away and inaccessible to our observation. Even if there is such motive. Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of arson. The fact that the defendants owned a stock of goods. set fire on house no. Their dispute was regarding boundaries of the adjoining lands they own. 30. The defendant states that when he fell asleep. 26. motive need not be established HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED.

where such intention exists. the crime committed by him cannot be that of homicide through reckless imprudence. When the grenade exploded. (d) When crimes may be committed without criminal intent Decision: Yes. In the words of Viada. During the 1935 elections. Julio won over Mariano for the office of representative of Ilocos Norte. While the defeat of Marcos followed by such insulting parade. the injury caused to another should be unintentional. Simeon died because of the injuries he sustained. although it was not that of killing. is inconsistent with reckless imprudence. During the victory parade. and this intention. Marcos ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT Vena V. the existence of a motive alone. he was /vvverga Page 25 of 100 . all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail. acts are voluntary (People vs. Hence. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. much less of the guilt of the defendants-appellants. In throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him. criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended to do. the court found the testimony of Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. Quirino Lizardo were accused for the murder of Julio Nalundasan. The act could not have been done deliberately. Nanquil GR No. for in accordance with article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Decision: Yes. Guillen GR No. Verga extremely disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to redeem his promises made by him during the presidential election. People vs. By and large. The Marcoses and Lizardo became the suspects. L-1477 January 18. Mariano’s archrival. Decision: No. Nanquil struck Severino with his gun. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. Issue: W/N the accused should be charged with a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. The primary witness of the prosecution was Lizardo’s bodyguard who said that he was there when the crime was committed and the motive was said to be the victory parade before Julio’s death. it injured Simeon Varela and four other men. 17933 March 23. it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. The following night. Where the principal and basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails. his son Ferdinand Marcos and brother in law. The accused having had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which resulted. he was determined to assassinate the president. Issue: W/N Julio Guillen is guilty of the crime charge considering that it was the president which he intended to kill and not Simeon Varela. is not proof of the commission of a crime. Ramirez) Acts that are negligently executed are voluntary Intent is shown by overt acts FELONIES COMMITED BY MEANS OF CULPA See: US vs. 1922 Facts: Nanquil was investigating a certain Severino Ramiscal for the theft of Juan Rosas’s carabao. Julio was found dead. or became aware of it. General Castaneda. upon seeing the grenade. the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced. Divino OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AS MALA PROHIBITA (e) Intentional and Culpable Felonies Distinguished People vs. the victim died after a few moments. thus it shall be discredited. 1950 Facts: Julio Guillen was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder. (f) (g) (h) in both. It is neither necessary nor profitable to examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. though perhaps an important consideration. PROOF OF MOTIVE CONVICTION People vs. He carried two hand grenades in Plaza Miranda and hurled it on the stage where the president was making a speech. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. Issue: W/N the parade was a sufficient motive to warrant a sentence. In criminal negligence. the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. According to the accused. even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced”. As a consequence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) It must be noted that there could be no motive in this case because Ramirez and the victim were good friends. “in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene. Facts: Mariano Marcos. Julio’s men were said to have passed over Mariano’s house to humiliate the defeated candidate. During the investigation. might have irritated the herein defendants. because he did have the intention to do some evil unlawfully (maltreating the deceased). kicked it away from the platform.

in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in the satisfaction of the judgment rendered by him. Decision: Yes. US vs. a felony under Art. (i) Criminal Intent Presumed from Commission of the crime Mistake of fact – while ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis non excusat). The circumstances proved that in Ah Chong’s mind. Note: It is a prima facie evidence in Malversation that such missing funds or property have been put to personal use or used for personal ends by such person.00 for each case. the accused dismissed the appeals and ordered said sums attached and delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. Issues: W/N the accused is guilty of frustrated murder. Good faith negates intent. each one for damages resulting from a breach of contract. was charged of malversation of public funds. One night. but the latter refused on account of the accused having frequently visited the house of a certain Carmen. 6486 02 March 1911 Facts: The defendant.00 and a bond of Php 50. In this case. if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negate a particular intent which. Everything he did was in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent and that the defendants did not present new bonds within the time fixed by the accused as justice of peace. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may properly be considered. Without intent. When there is no intent. get the gild and kill anyone who would stop him. Mistake of fact indicates good faith. who turned out to be his roommate. In other words. an error of the mind operating upon a state of facts. the defendants deposited Php 16. if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up a defense against the attack. is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal. A crime is not committed if the mind if the person performing the act complained of be innocent (actus non facit reum. Believing that he was being attacked. he will enter the house. and both were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room." but homicide or murder as the case may be. Later on. Would the facts been as he though them to be. the crime is not simply "discharge of firearm. he was being attacked. When they were about to go up their house. Good faith negates intent. the accused threatened that if Juana refuses to see him. from which the defendants appealed. One day. the accused fired a shot intended for Juana but which wounded Perfecta instead. nisi mes sit rea). Decision: That act of the accused. Catolico GR No. provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. there is no crime. he seized a kitchen knife. was not unlawful. except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence. under the law. the accused followed the girl and her niece on their way home. the accused invited Juana to take a walk with him. After the devotion. Upon petition of the plaintiffs. 217. Good faith is a defense and in this case. there would have been no crime. ignorance or mistake of fact relieves tha accused from criminal liability (ignoratia facti excusat) MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE People vs. Although the mere act of firing at a person is not proof per se of intent to kill. it was not proven that the accused justice of peace used the money for personal use. a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code. Mabug-at Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. and in cases where.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Thereafter. He rendered decisions in certain cases. the accused went to a house where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion. struck and fatally wounded the intruder. at most a pure mistake of judgment. there is no crime. Ah Chong Facts: Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a house boy. yet when the surrounding circumstances of the act are such that they leave no room for doubt that the intention was to kill the person fired upon. Issue: W/N Ah Chong should be acquitted because of mistake of fact. The act committed. there is no criminal liability. Decision: Under such circumstances. after the defendant had gone to bed. there is good faith. Note: People vs. regardless of the circumstances outside him. /vvverga Page 26 of 100 . a justice of peace. As required by law. even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill. or become aware of it. Verga Issue: W/N the accused was guilty of the said crime considering that his actions were not contrary to law. so far as appears form the record. and called out twice. he was awakened by some one trying to open the door. The accused was prosecuted for malversation.

4.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 2. the act would have been lawful. Gona). In effect it suffices to remember the first article. Formaran No. the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. no crime. People vs. One cannot be convicted under Art. 2. they did not include in the counting booklets 4100 to 4120. Penalosa GR No 424 January 27. No criminal intent. Good faith negates intent. Conching and the others sincerely believed that booklets 4100 to 4120 were sample ballots because three ballots from the booklet were detached and two ballots were used to cover the openings of the boxes that was given to them before the election. there is no crime. because the intention was to kill another. Note: Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case. They have no way of checking since the receipt copy signed by Coching when he received the ballots were not given to them. that so her parents gave her to understand ever since she was young. 1902 Facts: A minor married without parental consent. Decision: No. in violation of Art 475 of he old Penal Code which punished any minor who shall contract marriage without /vvverga Page 27 of 100 . Mistake of fact establishes good faith because have the facts been as she thought them to be. The case at bar is a case of ignorance of the fact. Fernando) Vena V. because he relied on the opinion of the provincial fiscal that unjust vexation does not involve moral turpitude and he thought it was not necessary to mention it in Civil Service Form No. Issue: W/N Coching and the others are guilty of the crime charges. Coching Facts: Coching and several others were accused of falsification of public document and violation of the election code. 1 before a notary public that he was never accused of a violation of any law before any court or tribunal. which states that where there is no intent there is no crime. People vs. In mistake of fact. Issue: W/N the husband and the wife violated the said provision of the Penal code Decision: A minor who marries without parental consent in the false belief that she is of age is not criminally responsible. the act of the defendant in answering “no” to the question can be considered only as an error of judgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the crime of perjury. 1. and she did not ask them concerning her age. When there is no intention. an act that falls within the sphere of ethics if there is not a moral wrong. The Court is in disagreement with this notion. The lower court was in agreement that the defendants did not intend to perpetuate the act. The defendants are in honest belief that the series of unused ballots were not official but sample ballots. 12089-CR Facts: Formaran was accused of a crime of perjury for having sworn to a Civil Service Form No. when the truth and in fact he had been charged with the offense of unjust vexation in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court. being an act mala prohibita has no bearing on the case because this is not a case of willful or conscious violation of a penal statue. 475 when by reason of a mistake of facts there does not exist the intention to commit the crime. Lack of intent to kill the deceased. to the husband). The act. Upholding the maxim ignorantia facti excusat as established in People vs. 3. nor of ignorance of the law. In the same instance. intention is immaterial. Good faith is transferable (in this case. But according to them. the defendant claimed that he answered “No” to the question whether he had been accused of a violation of any law. Decision: No. the husband relied on the statement of his wife that she is of age when they got married. according to the court. When he testified in his defense. In order to assert without fear of mistake that in our Code the substance of a crime does not exist if there is not a deed. since the act is malum prohibitum – against a law/statute. It is not criminal negligence for a husband to rely upon his wife's statement of her age nor for the wife to rely upon that of her father. The courts should judge the accused not by the facts as they later turned out to be Good faith has many sources (a) Mistake of fact (b) Act is lawful The point is: when good faith is established. Note: There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. The women believed that she was born in 1879. Verga the consent of his or her parents. The defendant was not liable for the crime because he had no intent to commit the crime. Bautista) When the accused is negligent. There is no crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact (US vs. mistake of fact is not a defense. Issue: W/N Formaran was unjustly prosecuted on the case at bar. Thus. It appeared that he was previously prosecuted twice for perjury for answering ‘NO’ to the same question but he was acquitted on the first case and the second case was dismissed. does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility (People vs. (People vs. it negates criminal intent. it was held that in view of the factual background of the case. People vs. Oanis.

they saw a person going up the stairs dressed in dark clothes and carrying a bolo. Infuriated. Issue: W/N de Fernando was guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. who might be escaped prisoners from a nearby penitentiary. acted with reckless negligence in failing to exercise the ordinary diligence that. prowling around the vicinity. One of the crew remonstrated that they would be able to work better if the accused stops insulting them.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) but what they believed to be as facts at the time of the offense and the conditions obtaining them (US vs. or was really what be thought him to be. As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one of the escaped convicts. Defendants were acquitted. But in view of the evidence. The person. Decision: Yes. An agent of the law. as he seemed to have called somebody in the house. While doing rounds in the barrio. Neither was there any indication that the accused was aware of the victim’s presence. there could have been no crime committed. logical consequence of felony committed When act is lawful XVII. the accused moved towards the victim with big knife threatening to stab him. Under the circumstances. which ensued between the defendant and a certain Pacas. Had the defendant tried to wound his adversary and instead had bit the bystander. The act being lawful. is not guilty of murder or homicide. Crisanto was holding the victim’s grandfather in order to prevent him from fighting with the defendant’s father. The defendant was acquitted. and thinking him to be an evil-doer. He however. the injury was accidental and the defendant should be acquitted. de Fernando fired a shot in the air. and the said agent of the law considering that the said stranger has not been recognized by any person in the household. SALINAS 62 O. under the circumstances. Issue: W/N Bindoy should be charged for killing Emigdio Decision: The appellant should be acquitted since there is no evidence. After some time. he was called by the daughter of a certain Delgado to inform him that three unknown persons were prowling around their house. Jaime died after falling from his mother’s hold while the mother was freeing his father from Crisanto’s hold. and later in the evening sees a person with a bolo in hand approaching the house in the -attitude of going up the stairs. which makes said officer guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. threw himself in water and never resurface. which shows that Emigdio took part in the fight. (1) PEOPLE vs. Vena V. the accused fired directly at the man who turned our to be the nephew of the house. (b) US vs. Oanis People vs. a policeman. BINDOY Facts: The accused was charged of the crime of homicide for wounding with his bolo Emigdio who was merely a spectator of the fight. have had to answer for his criminal act. before shooting him. of course. it cannot be held that the accused was committing a crime and it cannot be said that the death of the child was a direct result of a crime. believing that he is going to be killed. 1. MISTAKE OF FACT NOT A DEFENSE See: People vs. to whom notice had been given of the presence of suspicious looking persons. Issue: W/N the defendant should be liable for his crew’s death /vvverga Page 28 of 100 .Article 4: Criminal Liability A. he would. he should have exercised by inquiring of the occupants of the house whether the stranger was known to them. The accepted rule is that an offender is always liable for the consequence of his criminal action even though the result be different from what he intended. Issue: W/N Crisanto should be liable for the death of the baby Decision: No. was informed that three convicts had escaped. The residents of the barrio were alarmed of the news. shoots and kills him. de Fernando GR No 24978 27 March 1926 Facts: The accused. and continues his advance notwithstanding that the latter had fired a shot into the air. The victim. natural. and who enters a house to keep watch. Committing a felony even if the consequences are unintended Elements: (a) Felony is committed Facts: The accused was not satisfied with the slow raising of the anchor which caused him to abuse his men with offensive language. Ah Chong). did not answer thus. Verga PEOPLE vs.G. 3186 Facts: Crisanto Salinas was charged for the death of Jaime Tibule. VALDEZ Wrong done is direct. who does not answer the challenge of the officer of the law. Accused called out to the person to identify himself.

Thus. It was also natural that the rescuers would innocently approach the bus to extend aid. Defendant contends that the victim would have survived if he did not remove the drainage placed to isolate the infection. The girl died from shock as a result of the wound inflicted by the defendant. Due to overturning of the bus. ET AL.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 61 PHIL. who was in charged in making sure that the roasted pig will not be consumed before the end of the parade gave a blow to Juan Magsino who tried getting a piece of the pig. a d in order to escape jumps into water. the assailant us responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning. PEOPLE vs. Verga Facts: The appellant and victim were having an illicit relationship. A fight ensued between the two when Urbano learned that Javier /vvverga Page 29 of 100 . QUIANSON 62 PHIL. a deranged person who constantly asked for food from the former. The reason that when the vehicle turned. impelled by the instincts of self-preservation. a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm. which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased. The accused is presumed to have intended the natural consequences of the wrongful act. vs. Issue: W/N the appellant should be acquitted considering the fact that the wound was only a slight one Decision: No. Decision: Yes. he should be responsible. which bruised the liver and produced internal hemorrhage. the bus was set on fire. Issue: W/N the overturning of the bus was the proximate cause of the death. There was no intent but this does not extinguish the crime. death could reasonable be anticipated. it is a well settled that such is not the law. it is evident that the act in question should be qualified as homicide. Before the explosion. MEDINA 102 PHIL. When the victim tried to end their affair. Juan died of internal hemorrhage and contusion on the liver. If a person against whom. causing said bus to overturn. the appellant dragged the deceased towards the streets and stabbed her in the chest with the fan knife. which was the cause of the death. Victim was treated in the hospital but died. the vehicle zig-zagged into a canal. the leaking of the gasoline was the natural consequence. 544 Facts: The defendant. That the victim had a delicate condition and suffered from incipient tuberculosis does not affect criminal liability of the defendant who gave him a severe blow. Issue: W/N Quianson should be held liable for the death of the victim Decision: One who inflicts an injury on another is deemed by law to be guilty of homicide if the injury contributes mediately or immediately to the death of the victim. when the rescuers came with torches came near the bus. As the wound. Appellant’s assault being the proximate cause of the death. which determined his death. (2) Blow was proximate cause of death PEOPLE vs. was convicted of a crime of homicide for the death of Andres Aribuabo. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the victim. The defendant took hold of a firebrand and applied it to the abdomen of the man who pestered him. There is intention in the commission of the crime because when a person who stabs another with a lethal weapon. (ii) Definition URBANO vs. A person is responsible for the consequences of his criminal act even of the deceased have been shown to be suffering from a deceased heart (which was not shown). husband of the petitioner. even of the weakened condition made the blow more fatal. It was the defendant’s blow in the right hypocondrium. The victim was said to have died from shock. REYES Blow was efficient cause of death Vena V. the efficient cause of the death remains the same. 181 Facts: The victim. The crew’s death was a consequence of the defendant’s action. 341 Decision: Yes. (1) PEOPLE vs. DE BATACLAN. 162 Facts: The defendant. ILLUSTRE 54 PHIL. the gasoline leaked soaking the soil underneath thus. the burning of the bus was a natural cause and should be attributed to the negligence of the driver and the conductor. was the cause. Decision: Yes. died from the explosion of the bus of which he was a passenger. In this jurisdiction. (i) How proximate cause is determined VDA. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT 157 SCRA 1 Facts: Urbano was charged for the crime of homicide for the death of Marcelo Javier. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the actor of responsibility.

wherefore the latter fell to the ground and had hardly risen and started to walk when he again fell down dead. which in natural and continuous sequence. PALALON 49 PHIL. Decision: No. The child did not /vvverga Page 30 of 100 . It appears that the examination of the body was incomplete and the conclusion of the doctor have been much more than mere guesses. In case of death under suspicious circumstances. it was proven that fever was prevalent among the children in the locality thus. Decision: No. Marcelo was only hit in the palm and while the wound was healing. the child died. produces injury. It is possible that the victim may have been inflicted with a mild tetanus but since Javier died only two or three days from the onset. it is the duty of the physician performing the post mortem. Since there may be other efficient causes of the death. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. EMBATE Facts: The child has been seriously ill for three weeks. It is a rule that in criminal conviction. but suggillations or "death spots" formed after the death. in the abdomen and in the back. (iv) Death attributable to tetanus URBANO vs. Decision: When the fact is well established that the accused struck the victim twice with his fist. Two days later. Furthermore. One day. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. the crime committed is rightly classified as homicide and the accused is responsible therefore. the accused should be acquitted. 177 Facts: Appellant was found guilty of the crime of homicide for the death of a child whom he slapped after answering insolently. Even though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause any external wound it may easily produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death. Issue: W/N the defendant should be held liable for the death of the child. RODRIGUEZ Facts: The defendant was charged with having dealt with Manciano Magno with two blows which knocked the victim down. Proximate cause it the case. the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. No autopsy of the body was made and the physician admitted that his conclusions were partly based upon the statements of the members of the family of the deceased. examination to exercise the utmost care and not draw unwarranted conclusions from external appearances susceptible of different interpretations. The hacking incident could not have been the cause of the victim’s death since the tetanus appeared only on the 22nd day after the hacking incident. it is logical to assume that there may be other causes other than the hacking incident. Appellant therefore should be acquitted. there is reasonable doubt as to the true cause of the death. One-half days later. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4) Blow accelerated death PEOPLE vs. that he examined the body of the deceased on the day after the commission of the crime and found ecchymosis on the body from which he concluded that hard blows had been inflicted on the deceased and that as a result thereof. which is distinct and absolutely foreign to felonious act of accused (i) Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim (ii) Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality Vena V. the victim continued working. in substance. and without which. (iii) Cause of death not proved US vs. the result would not have occurred. After 22 days. Embate was acquitted.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) opened the floodgates thereby causing his palay to be flooded. That same afternoon. the child died. there was a congestion of the right lung which was the principal cause of the death. The child fell but continued to work. and even though the victim may have been previously affected by some internal malady. Issue: W/N the hacking incident can be considered a proximate cause of Marcelo’s death. as the child lain on a damp floor. defendant ordered said child to transfer. Since the cause of the death was unknown. he died from tetanus. PALALON The defendant was convicted of homicide largely on the testimony of a young physician who stated. It was found that Magno provoked the defendant. (c) When there is an intervening cause US vs. The doctor testified it was the blow which was the cause of the death. (iii) When felony committed not proximate cause: (3) Intervening active force. yet if a blow with the fist or foot accelerated death. he who caused such acceleration is responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and unlawfully inflicted. the defendant cannot be held liable for said death. defendant struck him on the thighs with a slipper. Decision: No. Verga obey thus. Held: That the testimony of the physician was not conclusive and that the ecchymosis described by him might have been nothing. (1) Instances not constituting efficient intervening cause: PEOPLE vs. the child was brought home sick by his father.

cannot lessen the assailant's responsibility. as the defense itself claims. SUPRA PEOPLE vs. he is guilty of murder because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Neither do we believe that the fact that he "And any such person who shall make a false or fraudulent return shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. The accused is then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical consequences. That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another. although useless at present. GONA There can be no doubt that the defendant killed Mapudul and that he is guilty of the crime charged. SUPRA (ii) Nervousness or temperament of victim PEOPLE vs. in no way could be considered as a relief from his criminal act.. SUPRA (iv) Neglect of victim or third person: (1) Victim refused medical attendance or surgical operation PEOPLE vs. (d) Even if unintended. that the finger. on account of which it is admitted that his constitution and physical condition retarded the healing of his wounds. A person injured in an assault is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the person who assaulted him from the results of his crime. the court said: "Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto. simply because the doctor was of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days. This contention is contrary to earlier decisions of this court. had acted voluntarily and with the knowledge that he was performing an act prejudicial to his health. OANIS PEOPLE vs. as this should be attributed to his pathological condition and to his state of nervousness and restlessness on account of the physical pain caused by the peritonitis from which he was suffering. the victim was mentally deranged. VALDEZ. (1) Error in personae: mistake in identity of victim PEOPLE vs. MABUG-AT (3) Prater intentionem: injurious result is greater than that intended PEOPLE vs. and because his responsibility cannot be lessened on account of the bad state of health and the weakened constitution of the victim. 2. GARDON /vvverga Page 31 of 100 . REYES. such act of the victim does not have the effect of altering the natural juridical consequences of the punishable act of the accused all the more because. In the case of United States vs. but his attorney argues that in view of the fact that said defendant had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake. cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. even that. but because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant. he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide. 242). according to the opinion of the physician who attended him. in removing the drainage from his wound. when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully. could be restored to substantially its normal condition by a surgical operation. (2) Victim did no know how to swim US vs. because he is responsible for all the consequences of the personal injury which was produced by the act that he had willfully performed in violation of a prohibitive law. if opportunity were given. although he did not intend to kill the deceased. in view of the mortal wound which he inflicted upon the latter.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (i) Weak or diseased physical condition of victim Vena V. not because of carelessness or a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant. the crime is homicide and not merely slight physical injuries. If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner. ALMONTE When a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders. BAYUTAS The fact that the victim was addicted to the habit of drinking tuba. QUIANSON Where it does not appear that the victim. CAGOCO Keywords: Fell backwards Decision: Under the circumstances of this case the defendant is liable for the killing of the deceased because his death was the direct consequence of defendants felonious act of striking him on the head. a motion for a new trial will be denied when based upon the allegation that appellant would be able to prove. Mendieta (34 Phil. and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery. ILLUSTRE. Verga fingers of the left hand. Cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused US vs. PEOPLE vs. he should have been found guilty of homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code and not of the graver crime of intentional homicide. or both. beyond the time that it should have taken." (2) Aberratio ictus: mistake in the blow PEOPLE vs. (iii) Causes inherent in victim: (1) Addiction to tuba drinking US vs. MARASIGAN Where it appears from the evidence in the case that the appellant inflicted a wound upon the complaining witness which destroyed the use of one of the PEOPLE vs.

To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actor's will. Finally. When we say inherent impossibility. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room. Impossible crime An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. CA In our jurisdiction. this means that under any and all circumstances. Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos distinguiere debemos. It is customary for the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. because the act would have been a crime against chastity. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. A started kissing his passenger. Furthermore. that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code – desecrating the dead. That the act was done with evil intent 3. will render useless the provision in Article 4. where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape. the victim may be a man or a woman. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape. impelled by the instinct of self preservation. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness. A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. Question & Answer Vena V. he climbed into the ceiling. and gave him fist blows. deserves no consideration. It is. employing the same mean or the same act. there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts. it would be an attempted felony. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. is there any crime committed at all? It cannot be an impossible crime. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual 4. paragraph 2. Under Article 336. he cruelly asked "are you already dead?" Appellant's bid for acquittal in his sixth assignment of error. when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. And under Article 4. the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. however. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Even if the victim is a man. therefore. 1. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. A suddenly swerved his car inside. The determined resolution to do the victim wrong was evident when." In that case. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment x x x. the crime could not have materialized. Note. However. not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. even after the victim had disappeared beneath the surface of the sea. /vvverga Page 32 of 100 . which makes a person criminally liable for an act "which would be an offense against persons or property. the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. Verga 1. Before. A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Under Article 4. 2. if this was done against the will of the passenger. but an act penalized by itself. but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man. and so he pushed him out of the car. The act performed should not constitute a violation f another provision of the RPC INTOD vs. the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning Appellant should likewise be chargeable with Homicide. When he reached a motel. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in appellant's favor. placed himself on top of her and abused her. meaning to say. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense. all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. it is not an impossible crime. Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. Is an impossible crime committed? Yes. act performed is against property 2. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES Requisites: 1. with the new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons. II.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water. Because this person was exquisitely dressed. went inside the room of his master. impossible crimes are recognized.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) therefore. then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. 5. against persons and those against property under Title X. be careful about the question asked. There is an impossible crime. A and B were lovers. Whether an impossible crime was committed or not? It is not an impossible crime. Is there an impossible crime? No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. Everyday. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other hand to the door knob. not only the money inside the vault or safe. nothing happened to him. important to know what are the crimes under Title VIII. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery. so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast has no effect to her. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily. Is A liable for an impossible crime? /vvverga Page 33 of 100 . But if due to the quantity of vetsin or sugar or soda. an unloaded firearm will never fire. then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”. and therefore. 4. A. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. 3. Was an impossible crime committed? No. A and B are enemies. He prepared her breakfast every morning. she developed a physical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to any kind of poisoning. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes. He succeeded in opening the safe. There was no bullet at all. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition. not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. Scott is working in an electronic shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. Charles resented this. Although objectively. 7. There are other things that he could take. it would have fired. he did not realize that the firearm was empty. The idea was that. Hence. Is an impossible crime committed? If not. assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door knob and plugged the other end to an Vena V. A thought of killing his wife. he would be electrocuted. One day. he will not be liable for an impossible crime. They are jealous of each other’s social status. it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. If they were new. If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”. A and B are neighbors. an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. when he started squeezing the trigger. he placed a little dose of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. When Scott opened the doorknob. But in a department store. no crime is committed. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. when it was already closed. but the safe was empty. but subjectively. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. what crime is possibly committed? This is not an impossible crime. because under any and all circumstances. an attempted homicide. Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage. If it were a case of poisoning . where there is plenty to steal. the poison would have taken effect. and every morning. 6. It would be a case of physical injuries. the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime. then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code. The crime committed is frustrated parricide. if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old. none of them discharged. Scott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house. then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed. when Scott comes home to open the door knob. A entered a department store at about midnight. this is a catching question. Verga electric outlet. But if let us say. Unknown to Charles. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart. upon seeing B. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC. the crime could not have been realized. shot B. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime. got the revolver of his father. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. he is a criminal. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. Under any and all circumstances.

would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime? Vena V. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred. a redundancy and duplicity would be perpetrated. the culprits set fire on the intended victim’s house. yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose. thus. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted from the wrongful act done. went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom. But to play safe. Somehow. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime. the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. and the court finds that there is no law applicable.00. we have to respect its ruling. As a result. incurred: 1. believing she was there when in fact she was not. regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. CA. add another paragraph: However. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. four culprits. the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. an impossible crime is committed. Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted. that is. the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed. unknown to the culprits. Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended. all armed with firearms and with intent to kill.00 to P500. the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. which would have constituted a crime against persons or property. this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod v. petitioneraccused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house. But whether we agree or not. this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort. where a felony resulted. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. the answer is yes. considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime. depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender” (Article 59). There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets. because on the basis of the facts stated. the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim. /vvverga Page 34 of 100 . Some asked questions: Was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and. to wit: Art 4. the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. instead of using firearms. the Supreme Court has spoken. In the Intod case. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act. could not and did not constitute another felony. it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provisions in the Revised Penal Code. In other words. If you want to play safe. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Verga Until the Intod case. If the question is “Is an impossible crime is committed?”. Otherwise.. NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT When a person is charged in court. 2. if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended. 215 SCRA 52. et al. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony. and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. Otherwise. the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. In this case. the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200. then that will be the proper way. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property. Modified concept of impossible crime: In a way. thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening.

there is no attempted stage yet. Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime. not to imagine what crime is intended. licenses or impose for the government. under the article. the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may be just an ingredient of another crime. In criminal law. and therefore. In the attempted stage. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. After that. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability. then you have an attempted felony. (2) Question & Answer A and B are husband and wife. So the policemen went to A’s house and found A still unwrapping the arsenic poison. So also. Is the charge correct? No. he met D. you are not allowed to speculate. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages. So. then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. But the act of entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. he went to the drugstore and bought arsenic poison. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. The word "directly’" emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender. if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized. whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. In criminal law. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony. D asked him who was sick in the family. Under sub-paragraph a of Article 213 on Illegal exaction. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime. In the attempted stage. but apply the provisions of the law of the facts given. that act is already trespassing. if the act so far being done does not begin a felony. shall demand an amount bigger than or different from what the law authorizes him to collect. The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency. the judge should impose the law. but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why. Verga – there is yet something to be performed – but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. A met C who was willing to marry him. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be committed. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution /vvverga Page 35 of 100 . A thought of eliminating B and to poison her. An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue in its natural course would definitely result into a felony. the law uses the word “demanding”. In law. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime. it is always in the consummated stage. in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized to collect taxes. This is significant. For example. Police arrested him and charged him with attempted parricide. Formal crimes Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. but he is already married. Article 5 covers two situations: (1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. Before this. the definition uses the word “directly”. not the felony he has in his mind. A confided to D that he bought the poison to poison his wife in order to marry C. The proper judgment is acquittal. The policemen asked A if he was planning to poison B and A said yes. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with the food his wife is going to take. in oral defamation.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Literally. When a person starts entering the dwelling of another. The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. On the way out. The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. they parted ways. There are felonies which do not admit of division. there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. D went directly to the police and reported that A is going to kill his wife. there is such a thing as preparatory act. criminal liability correspondingly does not begin.

because there was desistance. To a layman. In another instance. illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. and The nature of the crime itself. since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman. The removal of the panelling is just an attempt to trespass. she may already be the victim of lascivious acts. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender. the Supreme Court held it is only attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the wood panel. it is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. and told B. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony. He. and A went out of the window again. the act done is already in the frustrated stage. however. he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. Namaja. Other than that. In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated. What is negated is only the attempted stage. already criminal offenses.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. the only conclusion that will come to your mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit B. There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime. the common concept of bribery is that /vvverga Page 36 of 100 . but which are. The crime is not attempted abduction but acts of lasciviousness. (Incidentally. Although. Do not go far and imagine what you should do. no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. because there was an intention to kill. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony. There was force applied in order to enter. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first. Desistance Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. You only hold him liable for an attempt. under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code. In abduction. But B's wound was not mortal. for what crime are you going to prosecute him? The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep. and (2) illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools. What A then did was to approach B. It does not mean. He was already able to detach two wood panels. found out that B was nude. A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. there are three criteria involved: (1) (2) (3) The manner of committing the crime. When A entered the house through the window. One evening. but there may be other felony constituting his act. He would not be there just to sleep there. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling. that there is no more felony committed. but the latter screamed. let us take the crime of bribery. Beside the man was a bag containing picklocks and similar tools. the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) In US v. “Now you are dead. Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery. If you were to prosecute this fellow. The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries. so far as could be reasonably linked to the overt act done by him. not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other. he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. your desire may lead to acts of lasciviousness. If under the definition of the felony. Thus. that offender will still be criminally liable for the Manner of committing a crime For example. however. so he lost interest and left. not an attempt to rob. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Can a be accused of attempted rape? No. he can be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) qualified trespass to dwelling. He can only be prosecuted for trespass. which is not intended for entrance. which prevented the crime from being consummated. I will kill you. Illustrations: A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. Qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. He found out that the man entered his sala by cutting the screen on his window. Verga felony brought about his act. Question & Answer A awakened one morning with a man sleeping in his sofa. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. Vena V. In so far the woman being carried is concerned. The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution. But in criminal law. by themselves. The elements of the crime.

Actually. there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. and. Once there is penetration already. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt.) The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit -. He lighted these. Only attempted or consummated. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. Without the resulting felony. Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People v. the receiver has no intention of being corrupted. On the other hand. If the public officer was arrested. the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. Hence. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration. For instance. As far as the stage is concerned. If you have bribery only. there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts or not. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. but there is no meeting of the minds. There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. Orita. there is only an attempted stage. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime. there is no bribery. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money. the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened. Because of this. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. the offense is consummated. the corruptor turns down the demand. the crime of adultery. the Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the arson as a consequence. If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give. In US v. This is because it requires the link of two participants. An example of this is the crime of rape. do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession. the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. For this reason. when it takes two to commit the crime. when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty. in the crime of arson.the giver and the receiver. or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof. consummated. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes. This was the ruling in the case of People v. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official. it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. that means that the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution. Garcia. if such link is absent. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption. the only act done by the giver is an attempt. no frustrated stage. rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages. the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not to prosecute him. Valdez. but actually. it is only attempted bribery. In arson. it is only possible in the attempted stage. But indirect bribery is always consummated. If that link is there. The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something. Actually. there could hardly be a frustrated stage. only corruption.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. arrested him. the crime Vena V. In short. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration. The public officer received the money but just the same. and as soon as the jute /vvverga Page 37 of 100 . If you have a corruption only. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. no matter how slight. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. but he had reported the matter to higher authorities. if there is a meeting of the minds. In rape. There is no frustrated adultery. No penetration at all. if only one side of the crime is present. Similarly. This is also true in the crime of arson. there is no meeting of the minds. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson. has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire. the moment it begins to burn. bribery is the crime of the receiver not the giver. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place. the crime is already frustrated bribery. there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn. they cannot arise without the other. the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these inside the room. he has already performed all the acts of execution. It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished. if there was no penetration yet. you cannot have a consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn. there is only an attempted adultery. it is possible only in the attempted stage. Slightest penetration or slightest connection. therefore. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender. there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. the crime is consummated. Because of that. Verga is consummated. If it has not begun to burn. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver.

in determining whether the felony is attempted. The ruling in the case of US v. the crime has already passed the subjective phase and. But in the case of People v. If you say physical injuries. somebody holds that arm. where the offender. frustrated or consummated. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6. in law. he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow. Valdez is still correct. On the other hand. It is enough that any part of the premises. Actually.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) sacks began to burn. he ran away. unless a part of the premises has started to burn. has begun to burn. therefore. or the stages of execution of the felony. This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People v. as a consequence. This is because. having already put kerosene on the jute sacks. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson. you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. This was applied in the case of US v. lighted the same. This being so. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime. But the torch burned out. he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. the analysis in the case of US v. if a person who was about to give a fist blow to another raises his arms. so he ran away. the house being a nipa hut. One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. Valdez. On the subjective phase. Verga In that case. Here. like physical injuries. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code. you do not know which article to apply. the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. it is no longer attempted. If the felony follows as a consequence. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson. it is consummated. you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed. the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. it is beyond the attempted stage. Vena V. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence. Garcia. But even then. The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. less serious or slight. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened. On the other hand. the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries. it is either already frustrated or consummated. the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. but also his belief. arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. Is there an attempted slight physical injuries? /vvverga Page 38 of 100 . The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. Questions & Answers 1. but before he could throw the blow. Garcia was handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. there would be attempted physical injuries. in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase. there is no simple crime of physical injuries. the situation is different. The occupants of the room put out the fire. it is already frustrated. There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage. he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread. The trouble is that. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. frustrated. That act demonstrated that in his mind. If the felony does not follow as a consequence. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious. no matter how small. If the felony did not result. if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime. The explanation is academic. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony. it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. Valdez is correct. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence.

the theft is not yet consummated. Without that carrying away. But in receiving the property. the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted. so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. On the other hand. In our concept of theft. frustrated or consummated? The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. not even gain is important. He can exercise his will over the wallet already. the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. What crime is committed? Is it attempted. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. After the surgery. you have to consider the manner of committing the felony. even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved. the commentator’s opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If there is no result. That cannot be estafa. Illustration: I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. not estafa. the offender need not move an inch from where he was. etc. Vena V. While taking the table out of the room. the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room. The injuries would have resulted in deformity were it not for timely plastic surgery. What is necessary only is intent to gain. what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. But as long as the wallet remains on the table. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet. Under American common law. the recipient may be committing theft. Therefore. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. it is frustrated. the larceny cannot be consummated. If instead of the wallet. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. he can drop this on the floor. For the crime of estafa to be consummated. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved. A stranger comes inside the room. In determining whether a felony is attempted. If there is no damage. a deformity can be said to exist. Elements of the crime In the crime of estafa. The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. simply means exercising control over the thing. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under. It is not a matter of carrying away. When you are discussing estafa. In estafa. this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. do not talk of damage. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. there must be misappropriation already done. you do not know. you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. B became more handsome. the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft. the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process. three factors must concur: (1) (2) (3) The injury should bring about the ugliness. In order that in law. Along this concept of deformity in law. If there is no damage yet. the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. Verga If the personal property was received by the offender. the offender receives the property. frustrated or consummated. then there is no problem. estafa cannot be considered as consummated. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. /vvverga Page 39 of 100 . and the wallet is there. A threw muriatic acid on the face of B. I apprehended him. If the offender did not receive the personal property. do not talk about intent to gain. 2. When there is deformity. otherwise. If he has started lifting the wallet. he does not take it. this is only theft or none at all. In law. gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. such that he could exercise his own control on the thing. if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. There is no real hard and fast rule. The ugliness must be visible. if it were a crime of theft. but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s consent. You cannot classify the physical injuries. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity. It is consummated. not the table. The crime is not yet consummated. “Taking” in the concept of theft. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well. attempted.

When the receptacle is locked or sealed. Espiritu. even though no mortal wound was inflicted. As far as the crime committed is concerned. A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. and before he could leave the room. they were checked at the checkpoint. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things. in both cases. Hence. He opened it found some valuables inside. Diño. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. One evening. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law. in lieu of theft. homicide or murder as a result. what were taken were hospital linens. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. and the offender broke the same. the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. the control is complete. These were taken from a warehouse. the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will Vena V. Adio and People v. it is frustrated and in the other. The emphasis. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. If the wound is not mortal. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control. because it is only then that death will follow. the crime is only attempted. it is clear that his will completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop. the offender. it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. it was consummated. the taking is not complete. Under the definition of the frustrated stage. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room. However. This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar. Diño compared with People v. it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. In this case. In US v. It was held that what was committed was frustrated Theft. in the case of People v. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. Nature of the crime itself In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted. A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. it is consummated? In the case of US v. the crime was already consummated. An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest. The crime is consummated theft. there is frustrated theft. the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern. Illustration: A and B are neighbors. the crime is only frustrated. the moment he brought it out. Diño. Espiritu. theft is consummated. the taking is not complete. he was apprehended. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide. which was erroneously laid in some commentaries. Verga no longer affect his criminal liability. the crime is robbery with force upon things. Espiritu. and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage. it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide. the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. On the other hand. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned. so they were not able to leave the compound. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. murder or homicide as a consequence. that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. the offenders were not able to pass the checkpoint. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. or from the perimeter of the compound. homicide. the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor. In People v. it is the confines of this room that is the container. But why is it that in one. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned. is that. the act is already in the frustrated stage. the return of the owner’s property is not desistance anymore. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMITE A FELONY /vvverga Page 40 of 100 . From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it. put them in his pocket and was arrested. as long as the object has not been brought out of that room. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop. He took the valuables. If the crime is one of theft. If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room. and being consummated. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft.

and coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. However. Article 4 of the Penal code says that there is a conspiracy when two or more persons act together for the commission of a crime. When several offenders act in a synchronized. MERE CONSPIRACY AS CONSTITUTING COMMISSION OF CRIME Combinations in restrain of Trade (Art 186) Brigandage (Art 306) Certain violations of the dangerous drugs act /vvverga Page 41 of 100 . The information in this case charges the defendants with the crime of estafa. PERALTA Facts: The accused were OXO members and were charged for multiple murder for killing three members/sympathizers of the Sigue-Sigue gang during a prison riot. the sovereignty of the State is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains undisturbed. The Penal code defines certain acts as conspiracies and makes them punishable. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. Decision: Under the common law. or a lawful act by unlawful means. The crime of conspiracy known to the common law is not an indictable offense in the Philippines. B. LIM BUANCO Facts: Defendants are being accused of estafa for defrauding El Banco EspanolFilipino.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. when in resolute execution of a common scheme. Reyes manipulated the books as to make them show an apparent credit when in fact Lim Buanco was owing the bank a large sum of money. There is an implied agreement. Issue: W/N the defendants should be charged with conspiracy or estafa. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. The crime of conspiracy as known to the common law does not exist under the system embodied in the Spanish Penal Code. Sigue-sigue’s members are predominantly Tagalogs while OXO’s members came from Visayas and Mindanao: Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in this case Decision: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proposals punished in the code (a) proposal to commit treason (Art 115) (b) Proposal to commit rebellion (Art 136) 4. An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act from the viewpoint of morality. and Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability When conspiracy itself is a crime. otherwise. a felony is committed by two or more malefactors. Treason. conspiracy existed between the defendants for the withdrawal of funds from the bank regardless of whether Lim Baunco had funds in the bank to his credit or not. General Rule: conspiracies and proposals to commit a felony are not punishable Not indictable in the Philippines US vs. sedition. Exception: As provided by Law 2. conspiracies punished by RPC (a) conspiracy to commit treason (Art 115) (b) conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art 136) (c) conspiracy to commit sedition (Art 141) 3. However. The prison riot was an offshoot of the long standing clashes between the warring groups. and does not attempt to charge them with the crime of conspiracy (a) But of pivotal importance perpetuators of crime in determining liability of Two ways for conspiracy to exist: (1) (2) There is an agreement. 5 (b) RA 1700 II. the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. rebellion and sedition. conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides for a penalty therefore as in treason. rebellion. a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act by lawful means. the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. Lim Buanco had an account with the said bank and drew large sums of money therefrom by means of checks that were signed by him and endorsed by Reyes. conspiracies punished by special laws (a) commonwealth act no 616 sec. the existence of conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of liability of the perpetrators. to the prejudice of an individual or public is a distinct offense. 1. and decide to commit it. PEOPLE vs. Generally. Two kinds of conspiracy: (1) (2) Conspiracy as a crime. but as long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent design. which defines certain specific acts as conspiracies. A. C. Verga provides that a conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically makes them so. and A. coordinated manner. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy.

Two or more persons come to an agreement (US vs. Decision: Yes. Suddenly. B. and that under the provisions of article 4 such proposals can only be punished in cases where specific authority therefor is to be found in the Penal Code. Figueras) They decide to commit it. a 1909 decision. VI. The conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. LIABILITY OF CONSPIRATOR determination to commit felony taking part in every detail is not essential PEOPLE vs. According to People v. the godson of one of the defendants. Moreover. for 'concurrence of wills' or unity of action and purpose. Magcomot. Issue: W/N Cabiling is as guilty as his other companions for the murder of Guido. if proposal is accepted. Thus the defendant." the accused. Verga an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. not a felony but only a means of incurring criminal liability. OGAPAY Facts: The defendants was said to have conspired to kill Ogapay. A. the victim did not support the defendant during the elections. and its refusal on the part of the official whom it was proposed to bribe alone prevented the consummation of the crime. and that there is nothing in said code which penalizes a proposal to commit the crime of bribery. MERE PROPOSAL AS OVERT ACT PUNISHED BY LAW: BRIBR NOT ACCEPTED (Art. as the offer of money is an overt act in a crime of this nature. Decision: There is no conspiracy in this case. CABILING Facts: The victim was a driver of a truck that was to deliver a truckload of rice to Manila. or that one should know the exact part to be performed by the other conspirator in the execution of the conspiracy.' The usual phraseology employed in many of the later cases is 'common and joint purpose and design. B. wherein it is said that "there is an attempt when the guilty person makes a beginning in the commission of a crime by direct. Decision: It is urged that the said offer was a mere proposal to commit a crime. by reason of some cause or action other than his own voluntary desistance. Issue: W/N there is conspiracy in the case at bar. It is not essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act. ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY A.’ 'Thus a conspiracy need not be proved be direct evidence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. In the case in question the proposal was in fact an "attempt" as defined in article 3 of said code. Conspiracy implies concert of PEOPLE vs. ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL A person has decided to commit a crime He proposes its commission to another 1. IV. three men. he approached the treasurer of said treasurer of said province. V. Defendant was charged with “attempt" to commit the crime of bribery” Issue: W/N the act is punishable by the RPC. A conflict arose between the victim and one of the defendants when the former accused the latter of land-grabbing lands owned by the former’s grandfather. If such be the case then. who previously had a confrontation with one the truck passengers. There is need in the language of Justice Mapa in the early leading case of United States v. a member of said board. Their truck broke down while in the highway causing them to stop. came and attacked the persons inside the truck killing the victim. Cabiling contends that he could not have killed Guido since he was not the one with the lead pipe. III. 212. Pudpud : "A conspiracy 'exists when two or more persons come to /vvverga Page 42 of 100 . That must be their intent. can not be said to have made a mere proposition. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed. Malilay and People v. VII. B. Villarino) Agreement concerns commission of felony (US vs. overt acts and does not perform all of the acts of execution which constitute the crime. and offered and promised to give him the sum of 200 pesos if he would "lend his aid and support to the said protest. C. having made an offer of money for the purpose of bribery. with several others had the victim killed. the act of one is the act of all the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree of liability as the others. 'The objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission punishable by law. RPC) US vs. Note: When conspiracy relates to crime actually committed. Upon filing a protest. it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. Guido died from traumatic injuries in the head. there is a conspiracy CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS DISTINGUISHED CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT TO CRIME FROM A. GLORIA Facts: Gloria was an unsuccessful candidate for election as president of his town.

provided that he has not taken direct part in the execution of the crime or forced or induced others to execute it. C. had a heated encounter with the victims in topside café. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal. B. he went along with Toling because he was afraid to displease the latter and he only learned of their purpose on their way. QUINTO Facts: The defendants were charged of murder for hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of Patrolman Butawa’s body mortal gunshot wounds. IX. through apparently. or cooperated in its perpetuation by an indispensable act. there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. Quinto’s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt thus he was acquitted.50. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed. An accomplice is one who cooperates in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts. Conspiracy is not proven in this case because it does not appear that the appellants had a common design. the criminal responsibility of several accused is individual. Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy 2.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) design and not participation in every detail of execution. or A. Issue: W/N Bolando is as guilty as the other defendants Decision: Conspiracy not having been established. in the acts leading to the commission of the felony has not been established by the evidence for the prosecution. it is necessary to prove who shot and killed the victim. Considering that Bolando after knowing that thy were to rob someone still went with them to the Barrio. But if Union B accepts the proposal. for the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together at all stages of the conspiracy. Toling shot Isabelo thereby killing him. Question & Answer Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments. Upon seeing Isabelo. VIII. According to Bolando. among whom could have been the culprits. C. the nature and extent of appellant's participation. there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. there is no evidence tending to show conspiracy. inferences presumptions LIABILITY IN ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY Individual liability A. It was said that Quinto and his companions. Bolando contends that he did not know of Tolings plan till they were in the barrio. who were at that time already drunk. at the accomplishment of some unlawful object. In the absence of conspiracy. it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony. Toling an Bolando robbed a certain Francisco Lumpayao. Alonzo) Solidary indemnity for victim’s indemnity DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY Same Degree of proof required to establish crime 1. Conspirators need not all join in the agreement at the same time Collective criminal responsibility: Act of one. Upon seeing this. the prosecution was not able to establish whether it was really the defendant who killed the victim. he should be criminally responsible as an accomplice for the crime of robbery. will your answer be different? There is no crime committed. act of all (People vs. does not establish criminal liability. Vena V. Francisco shouted for help. Mere presence at crime scene does not establish conspiracy Positive and convincing Founded on facts and not mere conjectures. TOLING Facts: The defendants were all found guilty for the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide. However. in the company of others. It is settled that where conspiracy is absent. each doing a part so that their acts.50 share in the loot that was promised to him. were in fact connected and cooperative. if any. The victim went to Francisco’s house. PEOPLE vs. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. Issue: W/N Quinto should be acquitted Decision: It is significant that in the instant case. In the instant case. Every one of the conspirators who took active part in its execution is therefore responsible for all he acts of the others done in the furtherance of the common design. It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused. E. conspiracy may be inferred although no actual meeting between them to conspire is proved. as mere Presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. PEOPLE vs. D. by their acts. He only joined them because of the Php . When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability. each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own act. /vvverga Page 43 of 100 . which caused his untimely death. Verga and although he did not directly participate in the robbery he gave moral encouragement to them with his presence and shared in the loot in the amount of Php .

unless there is an overt act. the court will not consider the same. this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. A conspiracy of the second Vena V. the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion. All will be liable for the consequences. 186 SCRA 5980. But when one of them commits any overt act. there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. none of the co-conspirators would be liable. Unfortunately. but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. or approval of the act. This was the ruling in People v. B had already killed A. the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the coconspirator regarding the commission of the felony. for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed. such a desistance would negate criminal liability. This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion. On the other hand. agreement to cooperate. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. Their agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. otherwise. the act of one is the act of all. The wife ran away. So. This is just a preparatory act. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. there was no proposal but a conspiracy. Illustration: Three persons plan to rob a bank.000. In People v. We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime. one party makes a proposition to the other. 204 SCRA 9. anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. CA. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective. /vvverga Page 44 of 100 . it requires two parties. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability. In the evening of that same day. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion. Verga kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously. indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective. the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. Laurio. In this case. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability.00. B. all of them shall be held liable. it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. acquiescence to. Illustrations: A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. the police were caught in traffic causing their delay. conspiracy is bilateral. Do not think that participants are always known to each other. so that when they reached the place. if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act. Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it. a conspiracy arises. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. 200 SCRA 489. and his desistance negates criminal liability. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim. This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up. however. there is no crime yet. Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50. Pinto. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability. All that there is the agreement. without cooperation or at least. Proposal is unilateral. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable. Once the proposal was accepted. In Taer v. Illustration: A.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) When the conspiracy itself is a crime. the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. not by conjectures or speculations. it was held that mere knowledge. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued.

This notion is no longer absolute. In case the crime committed is a composite crime. there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim. For example. Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness. In the crime of robbery with force upon things. In the case of People v. a victim was found dead. The taxi driver agreed but said. Question & Answer There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. Composite crimes Composite crimes are crimes which. A. the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. They ransacked the house. B and C learned about this. All /vvverga Page 45 of 100 . A raped the girl upstairs. they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice. robbery with physical injuries. CA. The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved. Illustration: A. robbery with rape. C and B followed. There.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) As pointed out earlier. His cooperation was not really indispensable. Vena V. he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. This is because. and C. such that even without his cooperation. For example. and they attacked the victim simultaneously. what he only extended was his cooperation. all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. thus. hence. B saw a camera and took that. When A looked back at the young lady with D. they even visited the lady on intervening hours. A would ransack the second floor. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy. Illustrations: A. the law shall reward him for doing so. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death. they have equal criminal responsibility. Pursuant to their agreement. In Siton v. in the eyes of the law. all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible. B. B was to wait outside. the participants are punished as principals. Unknown to B and C. there was a planned robbery. all are principals. nobody would be prosecuted. it was held that conspiracy was present. There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower. consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law. Nierra. When A. in substance. After the robbery was finished. and after committing the robbery I will return later”. B. “I will bring you there. Eventually. Without the principle of conspiracy. and C decided to commit robbery in the house of D. the young lady agreed to marry D. A stabbed D. On several occasions. D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. and C found a can of salmon and took that.” Where there are several persons who participated. there is only one crime. it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. Because of this. conspiracy exists. and the taxi driver was present during the planning. Verga the crime could be carried out as well. Do not search for an agreement among the participants. broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. Before this stage. and C would stay on the first floor. like in a killing. At most. The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. under the influence of marijuana. such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. In this case. A. desistance is true only in the attempted stage. a co-conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. When they fled. And when conspiracy exists. the crimes of robbery with homicide. At that instance. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention. B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. acting out a common criminal intent. he saw D laughing menacingly. if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts. so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had. B and C became hostile with one another. the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him. do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. One day. As a general rule. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. A got a colored TV. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known? There is collective responsibility here. there is only a preparatory stage.

Illustration: A. That was what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require candidate to classify but also to define. As far as the homicide is concerned. 6 and 9. C inspected the pocket of the victim and found that the victim was wearing a ring – a diamond ring – and he took it. less grave or light? To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not. B would stay in the first floor. The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied. when there is conspiracy. A. Even if B and C did not know that rape was being committed and they agreed only and conspired to rob.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) of them will be liable for robbery with rape. The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. these are felonies classified according to their gravity.. felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave. the examiner was after classifications under Articles 3. the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. While A was ransacking the second floor. (3) Vena V. This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply because it was not the crime agreed upon. In other words. Verga What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3. C will be the only one liable. the not the the CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified? /vvverga Page 46 of 100 . frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act. B and C will be liable for robbery with homicide. When they saw the opportunity. A killed him. So C will be liable for homicide and theft. and C stands guard outside. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies. intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent. B and C killed D and after that. A. The crimes committed are homicide and theft. Therefore. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes. A and B ran into different directions. and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. Do not write classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. B and C agreed to kill D. stages and the penalty attached to them. lack of foresight or lack of skill. and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned. felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional. B and C agreed to rob the house of D. and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 6 and 9. it is well settled that any killing taking place while robbery is being committed shall be treated as a single indivisible offense. they are classified as. and. A. This is because. consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. even though the co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime. It was agreed that A would go the second floor. the owner was awakened. B and C are liable because that was agreed upon and theft was not an integral part of homicide. As a general rule. A. reckless imprudence. Felonies are classified as follows: (1) According to the manner of their commission Under Article 3. which is not a complex crime. According to their gravity Under Article 9. (2) According to the stages of their execution Under Article 6. yet rape was part of robbery. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. The crime committed is robbery with rape. the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. all will be liable for such crime. Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense. Rape can not be separated from robbery. and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence. but an indivisible felony under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. All went to their designated areas in pursuit of the plan.

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. crimes prescribe in two months. because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special law. which prescribes in five years. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes. If the offender escapes while in detention after he has been loose. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. So Presidential Decree No. it can be promulgated even if absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. If the crime is correctional. punishing cattle-rustling. murder was committed. it is already a special law. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. there is no criminal liability. In justifying and exempting circumstances. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed. The amendments of Presidential Decree No. When an accused invokes them. except arresto mayor. Martinada. After two months. For example. the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. do not give suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law. Verga Revised Penal Code. so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. 7659. means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. 533. Mitigating circumstances. With regard to Article 10. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. he can be made to suffer the fine. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law. the fine of P200. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. It can absorb the crime of murder. Aggravating circumstances. There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code: (1) (2) Absolutory cause. Exempting circumstances.00. it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion. apply Article 26. But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code. Thias was the ruling in People v. If in the course of cattle rustling. In Article 10. For example. Circumstances affecting criminal liability There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Justifying circumstances. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Vena V. and Extenuating circumstances. His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party. Rodriguez. If the penalty is exactly P200. In the case of light felonies. if there was already judgment that was passed. observe the distinction. which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code. and Alternative circumstances. and (2) illegal possession of firearms. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. it prescribes in ten years. because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party. if needed to avoid an injustice.00. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code. In People v. the state loses the right to prosecute unless the running period is suspended. If no justice would result. it is only considered a light felony under Article 9. Presidential Decree No. Hence.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If the penalty is fine and exactly P200. there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws”. if he would not be indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years. is not a special law. or simply correlate the violated special law.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Article 26. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that would be caused to the private offended party. he in effect admits the commission of a crime but /vvverga Page 47 of 100 . In the crime of sedition. two prosecutions can be had: (1) sedition. considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes.

legitimate. he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. abduction. The time came when he was offered a stick of cigarette and he tried it to see if the cigarette would affect him. The law enforcers cannot themselves penetrate the house because they do not belong to that circle so what they did was to convince a prominent member of society to visit such house to find out what is really happening inside and that so many cars were congregating there. the crime is committed with dolo. therefore. before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. Prescription of the penalty. descendant. the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. Amnesty. It is confused with entrapment. and as to pecuniary penalties. He was only there upon instigation of the law enforcers. then he should try it to find out whether it is loaded with dangerous drugs or not. Under Article 219. Absolutory cause The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence. the raid was conducted and he was among those prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Under Article 247. but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12. Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies. he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation. Verga party are related as spouse. Under Article 332. he would not be there. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Is he criminally liable? No. Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses. in cases of seduction.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) tries to avoid the liability thereof. there is no criminal liability but only civil liability. and rape. the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. not the burden of proof. natural and adopted brothers and sisters. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. hence. in entrapment. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. It did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Then. the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and. swindling and malicious mischief. Unfortunately. are incompatible with dolo. In instigation. a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. If the crime is culpable. Service of the sentence. when the offender and the offended Vena V. ascendant. acts of lasciviousness. There is absence of criminal intent. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance. or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and. Illustrations: An agent of the narcotics command had been tipped off that a certain house is being used as an opium den by prominent members of the society. discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. Under Article 344. brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. This fellow went to the place and mingled there. in the case of theft. Absolute pardon. On his own. Difference between instigation and entrapment In instigation. On the other hand. ascendants. The law enforcers told the undercover man that if he is offered a cigarette. and Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. do not talk of instigation. /vvverga Page 48 of 100 . although not from civil liability. Prescription of the crime. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation. Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished: Death of the convict as to the personal penalties. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. descendants. The reason he is there is because he cooperated with the law enforcers.

because he would not have come out for the marijuana leaves if the law enforcer had not instigated him. the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. The law enforcer ascertained if it is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In other words. “Are you selling that? How much? Could you bring that to the other fellow there?” When he brought it there. The law enforcer asked him. The means employed by the law enforcer did not make the accused commit a crime. This is entrapment. so this is entrapment. A fellow wants to make money. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute /vvverga Page 49 of 100 . In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping. he is not committing a crime. this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances. In another instance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment. A policeman suspected a fellow selling marijuana. nobody would offer him a cigarette because he is unknown. although there is civil liability. the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. who happens to be a law enforcer. If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be not a law enforcer. only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13. this is not a case of instigation. The fact that he was appointed to another person to find out its contents. this act is justified. When that fellow was delivering the package. This is a case of entrapment and not instigation. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned. there is a crime committed by him: illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment. there is no criminal liability. In instigation. He apprehended the fellow. He arrested the fellow. the person. How can one sell marijuana if he is not in possession thereof. unaware of what he is doing. If not. penalty is lowered by two degrees. the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. to whom the package was brought to found it to be marijuana. If element of voluntariness is absent. because there is no mistake of fact anymore. The law enforcer is only ascertaining if this fellow is selling marijuana leaves. but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. On the other hand. Selling is not necessary to commit the crime. If the instigator is a law enforcer. he pleaded to spare him a smoke so this fellow handed to him the cigarette he was smoking and found out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. It is a case of entrapment because the fellow is already committing the crime from the mere fact that he is possessing marijuana. Mistake of fact is not absolutory cause. Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor. Is he criminally liable? This is a case of instigation. both will be criminally liable. not instigation. but even without those ways and means. both will be criminally liable. He was approached by a law enforcer and was asked if he wanted to deliver a package to a certain person. the offender is already committing a crime. because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime. Verga a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer. Even if the law enforcer did not ask for a cigarette. Illustrations: An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. If the instigator is not a law enforcer. the offender was already committing a crime. it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be. So in mistake of fact. He is moving like a robot. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him. He approached a person suspected to be a pusher and prevailed upon this person to sell him two kilos of dried marijuana leaves and this fellow gave him and delivered them. there is criminal liability. he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act. Defense is instigation. Extenuating circumstances The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. mere possession is already a crime. he was apprehended. This is a case of inducement. he is already possessing the marijuana. Defense was that he would not give a cigarette if he was not asked. and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12. is to discover whether the crime is committed. refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause. a law enforcer pretended to be a buyer of marijuana. the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence. In entrapment. The offender is acting without criminal intent. Even without bringing. The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness. It is not even mitigating. because he is asleep. entrapment is not an absolutory cause. without which he would not have been a criminal. Is he criminally liable? Yes. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. you cannot have a case of instigation. Even without selling. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. When he saw somebody. Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. Since there is a material If the law enforcer were able to enter the house and mingle there. the person instigated cannot be criminally liable.

When he was about five feet away from B. and because there is no crime. Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed. In exempting circumstances – (1) (2) (3) The circumstances affect the actor. there is no crime. One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. he approached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. it is the element of unlawful aggression that is in issue. not the act. /vvverga Page 50 of 100 . if any? The act of A is nothing but a provocation. When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. however. there is absence of dolo or culpa. while a woman was sleeping. Mere provocation is not enough. this can only be justified if it was done to save the life of the person defending or the person being defended. The reasonableness of the means employed depends on the gravity of the aggression. In the facts of the problem given above. Therefore. This is not exempting. an unlawful aggression is an attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life and limb of the one resorting to self-defense. there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability. The equation is “life was taken to save life. the act of B in shooting A is not justified. not the actor. B pulled out a revolver and shot A on the chest. It cannot be characterized as an unlawful aggression because in criminal law. depriving him of the consciousness of his act. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability. Mateo. So this is an extenuating circumstance. Verga (4) Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty. But he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13. there is a crime. Distinctions between circumstances justifying circumstances and exempting Vena V. In US v. Defense of rights is included in the circumstances of defense and so is defense of honor. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the woman. there is civil liability for the wrong done. this is an extenuating circumstance.” Self Defense In justifying circumstances. If the unlawful aggressor was killed. That bolo does not produce any real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. As long as that arm of A was down holding the bolo. A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. When this is given in the bar. Since there is no crime or criminal. However. but the actor acted without voluntariness. her sister and brother-in-law went to see a movie and came home late that evening. There is no criminal. Illustration: A and B are long standing enemies. in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12. The accused was In justifying circumstances – (1) (2) (3) (4) The circumstance affects the act. is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence Justifying circumstances Since the justifying circumstances are in the nature of defensive acts. there must be always unlawful aggression. When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances. He is a mere tool or instrument of the crime. Since the act is considered lawful. the most important is self-defense. there is no criminal. it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law. Because of their continuous quarrel over the boundaries of their adjoining properties. hence. The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above. Since the act complained of is actually wrongful. there is neither criminal nor civil liability. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband. when A saw B one afternoon. killing him. what was said was that A was holding a bolo. But because the actor acted without voluntariness. The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law. The act complained of is actually wrongful. there is no imminent danger to the life or limb of B. But there is no criminal liability. at the time she was abandoned by her husband. that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without.

In this case. it was held that it was not possible to rape the accused because the whole thing transpired in the church. Defense of honor here is being equated with one of abuse of chastity of a woman. The woman who was pouring gasoline had a bolo. depending on how the court will regard the absence or presence of conditions to justify the act. resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor. Verga justified. where there were so many people. On the other hand. She said that she believed that her own honor was at stake. it means that not all the requisites to justify the act are present or not the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. It will be defense of stranger. This mitigating circumstance is either privileged or ordinary. he awakened the accused. it will be his own life that will be lost. Apparently. Is he entitled to a justifying circumstance? Yes. One shot the other. Do not confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. Defense of property rights This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. The shooting was not justified. the condition that a person making the defense did not act out of revenge. But while there may be no justifying circumstance. they wrestled for possession of the gun. At that moment. you cannot invoke self-defense. so she started hacking the other woman with it. In US v. But if it is privileged. The accused claimed as having acted in defense of her honor and mistake of fact. The policeman who shot the other guy fell on the floor. under the Revised Penal Code. In law. it would still apply. if the relative defended is still within the coverage of defense of relative. He started feeling through the dark. This is only required in defense of strangers. In the process. If that is not the situation. It was held that the hacking was not Vena V. On that point. it has the effect of lowering the penalty by one to two degrees. the one who jumped out of the house was able to wrest the bolo away and started hacking the other woman. Life cannot be equal to property. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended. The brother-in-law came up first while his wife was still in the staircase. She could not possibly be raped in that place. /vvverga Page 51 of 100 . Rodriguez. she jumped out to prevent this other woman from pouring gasoline around the house. and that the person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression. Actually. Defense of stranger If the person being defended is already a second cousin. the offended party placed his hand on the thigh of the woman who was then praying. This is a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 13. even if there was an unlawful aggression that has already begun. a woman went into the house of another woman whom she suspected of having an affair with her husband. When the lights were turned on. even though he acted out of some evil motive. Incomplete self-defense or incomplete justifying circumstance or incomplete exempting circumstances When you say incomplete justifying circumstance. Touching the arm could not produce such danger as would really be imminent to the honor of the woman. That will be the situation. her availing of defense of honor is not tenable. They grappled with the bolo. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge. he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. Jaurigue. That is the focal point. he started emptying the revolver of the other policeman who was lying on the floor. Since the woman has children inside the house. this policeman who was shot at the thigh was already able to get hold of the revolver. it was held that the defense of self-defense is no available. Question & Answer The person being defended was a relative – a first cousin. There was already some sort of aggression but it was not enough to warrant the act resorted to by the accused in getting a small knife from her bag and thrusting it on the chest of the offended party. The other was wounded on his thigh. At the time the accused killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. she got a pair of scissors and stabbed the man. Therefore. It was held that the whole matter is purely her imagination. What justifies the killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the aggressor. Illustration: Two policemen quarreled inside a police precinct. do not forget the incomplete self-defense. Believing that her honor was at stake. If ordinary. she realized that she had stabbed her brother-in-law. her life and limb were no longer in imminent danger. In that position. the honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity. resentment or evil motive is not a requirement in defense of relative. you do not invoke defense of relative anymore. and in the process. there is no self-defense. was her life in danger? If the answer is no. In People v. The policeman who was wounded on the thigh jumped on the arm of the fellow who shot him.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) already asleep. But the fellow who killed the aggressor had some score to settle with the aggressor. She started pouring gasoline on the house of the woman. it has the effect of reducing the imposable penalty to the minimum period. when she killed the supposed unlawful aggressor. In this case.

defense of relative or defense of stranger because in these cases. The penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees. If the question refers generally to justifying or exempting circumstances. his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. This is what you call incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty or incomplete justification of exercise of a right. to have incomplete self-defense. there can be no incomplete self-defense. “how may incomplete justifying circumstance affect criminal liability of the offender. the offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance. A owns the land for planting certain crops. Illustration: A and B are owners of adjoining lands. destroying it and killing the occupant therein. the accused Chief of Police and the constabulary soldier were sent out to arrest a certain Balagtas. but C is not civilly liable because he did not receive benefits. If C who drove all the goats is accused of malicious mischief. and the first condition is present. A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so that when he reached the curve. For example. the offender will be entitled to a privelege mitigating circumstance. or defense of stranger. State of necessity The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances. Dam was opened. the offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. In that case. Civil liability is based on the benefit derived and not on the act. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. B owns the land for raising certain goats. if at all. The author of the act is C.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. with respect to other circumstances. if only the element of unlawful aggression is present. Second. He swerved his car towards a house. In such a case. He will not be civilly liable. In People v. the penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees. C drove all the goats of B to the land of A. if at all?” Make a separate answer with respect to self-defense. Verga How. but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa. the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance. there would be no incomplete selfdefense. the presence of one shall be regarded as the majority. if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite. It is wrong to treat this as an exception to the rule that in justifying circumstances. The accused arrived at the house of a dancer who was supposedly the girlfriend of Balagtas. you need only to say this: If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. Or absent. defense of relative or defense of stranger. A cannot be justified because the state of necessity was brought about by his own felonious act. his defense would be that he acted out of a state of necessity. The goats rushed to the land of A to be saved. When there are only two conditions to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability. the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In general. supposedly a notorious bandit. although he was not the actor. Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of necessity. but the land of A was destroyed. the question should be. There was an order to kill Balagtas if he would resist. otherwise. On the other hand. and The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office. but not all. Invariably. persons who did not participate in the damage or injury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity. Fulfillment of duty In the justifying circumstance of a person having acted out of fulfillment of a duty and the lawful exercise of a right or office. There was heavy rain and floods. First. Third. you have to qualify your answer. When they were there. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the state of necessity. they saw a certain person who resembled Balagtas in all his bodily appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but facing the /vvverga Page 52 of 100 . the other requisites being absent. the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of the requisites present. defense of relative. Oanis and Callanta. are present. when you are given a problem on this premise. you always have to specify the element of unlawful aggression. there is no criminal nor civil liability. on the principle that “no one should enrich himself at the expense of another”. If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present. C used another land for a vegetable garden. B will answer only to the extent of the benefit derived by him. there are only two conditions: (1) (2) The felony was committed while the offender was in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. defense of relative or defense of stranger. damage or injury caused. Without this. It was B who was benefited. He cannot claim that it was fortuitous event. may incomplete self-defense affect the criminal liability of the offender? If the question specifically refers to incomplete self-defense.

he will be given the benefit of an incomplete fulfillment of duty. the reason for the exemption lies on the involuntariness of the act – one or some of the ingredients of voluntariness such as criminal intent. the unlawful aggression ceased. or whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime. imprudence. Minority In exempting circumstances. there is absence of freedom of action or intelligence. But if. the most important issue is how the minority of the offender affected his criminal liability. This means he is a first timer. Imbecile has an IQ of 7. 1991. started firing at the man. In People v. the following are the two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity: (1) (2) The test of cognition. Dungo. Presidential Decree No. lack of foresight or lack of skill. If the sentence is not suspended. It seems that the view of many is that when the offender is a youthful offender. But although he will be criminally liable. or absence of negligence. decided on November 21. There could not be any danger on their life and limb. The second requisite is absent because they acted with negligence. intelligence. and The test of volition. The intellectual deficiency is permanent. there must be an application filed with the court which should pronounce sentence. Verga Imbecility and insanity There is complete absence of intelligence. The policeman would be held criminally liable because he acted with imprudence in firing toward several people where the offender had run. Schizoprenia (dementia praecox) can only be considered a mitigating circumstance because it does not completely deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. as defined is limited to mental aberration of the mind. a hoodlum. As long as he was not acting out of malice when he fired at the fleeing criminal. or whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will. Self-defense cannot be invoked. However. In case it is a culpable felony. There is no lucid interval unlike in insanity. he becomes the unlawful aggressor. or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing. Illustration: A. in the eyes of the law. 1179 requires that before a youthful offender may be given the benefit if a suspension of sentence. After firing a shot in the air. Do not confuse fulfillment of a duty with self-defense. This is wrong. B died. The justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be invoked because the unlawful aggression had already ceased by the time A shot B. A youthful offender can only be confined in a reformatory upon order of the court. B did not stop so A shot B who was hit at a vital part of the body. while waiting for his wife to go home. Hence. he cannot be made criminally liable. they were held guilty of the crime of murder because the fellow was killed when he was sleeping and totally defenseless. When the unlawful aggressor started fleeing. 603. since suspension of sentence requires certain conditions: (1) (2) The crime committed should not be punishable by reclusion perpetua or death penalty. They found out later on that the man was not really Balagtas. let us say. to bring the criminal to the authorities. /vvverga Page 53 of 100 . Note that the commitment of the offender in a reformatory is just a consequence of the suspension of the sentence. the policeman still fired indiscriminately. The commitment is in a penitentiary. Is the act of A justified? Yes. Vena V. there is no commitment in a reformatory. You apply paragraph 5 on fulfillment of duty.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) other direction. Exempting circumstances In exempting circumstances. was suddenly stabbed at the back by B. this is true only if it was the person who stabbed was the one killed. who mistook him for someone else. Rafanan. The offender should not have been given the benefit of a suspended sentence before. without going around the house. The offender was not only defending himself but was acting in fulfillment of a duty. The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental aberration or disease of the mind and must completely impair the intelligence of the accused. There was nothing that prevented them from looking around the house and looking at the face of the fellow who was sleeping. Under the amendment to Presidential Decree No. a policeman. the policeman was stabbed and despite the fact that the aggressor ran into a crowd of people. If the person attacked runs after him. he drew his revolver and went after B. The accused. However. the Supreme Court granted them the benefit of incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty and the penalty was reduced by one or two degrees. Under common law countries. emotional or spiritual insanity are exempting circumstances unlike in this jurisdiction because the Revised Administrative Code. This was the ruling in People v. They tried to invoke the justifying circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of a duty. he must necessarily be confined in a reformatory. When A saw B.

the penalty to be imposed is discretionary on the court. where generally there is civil liability. you do not apply Article 275. the court will promulgate the sentence but the minor shall be entitled to the reduction of the penalty by at least two degrees. that he was doing it with due care but somehow. However. the offender was negligent. That means promulgation of the sentence shall not be suspended. (2) Damnum absque injuria Under Article 12. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head. If the prosecution would want to pin criminal liability on him. he is exempt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. but lowered by at least two degrees. This type of offenders are absolutely exempt. the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability. If the youthful offender has filed an application therefor. he would have to be committed to a penitentiary. If the sentence is promulgated. Suspension of sentence is not automatic. If over nine but below 15. the penalty is qualified to a higher degree. in the case of the so-called hit and run drivers who have injured somebody and would abandon the victim of the accident.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (3) He must be below 18 years old because a youthful offender is one who is below 18. Notice that in the last paragraph of Article 365. It cannot be less than two degrees. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the offender acted with discernment. An offender below 18 is always entitled to a mitigating or exempting circumstance. Note that the age of majority has been reduced to 18. Here. under paragraph 4 of Article 12. Vena V. What is the liability of the driver? There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor. the court will impose a penalty one degree lower. The driver is not under obligation to defray the medical expenses. yet. The reason is because if the sentence were to be suspended. It is a crime. it will be Article 365 on criminal negligence. Although. It is to be imposed one degree lower and in the proper periods subject to the rules in Article 64. tripped on a stone with one of his car tires. paragraph 4. he would be committed in a reformatory. there is no exemption anymore but he is also given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions stated earlier and if at the time the sentence is promulgated. there is no civil liability as well as criminal liability. Instead. It is not for the minor to prove that he acted without discernment. How does the minority of the offender affect his criminal liability? (1) If the offender is within the bracket of nine years old exactly or less. the exemption is absolute. he cannot avail of a suspended sentence. Since he cannot be committed to a reformatory anymore because he is not less than 18 years old. It may be lowered by three or four degrees. a distinction has to be made whether the offender acted with or without discernment. There is no more bracket where the offender is a minor yet no longer entitled to a mitigating circumstance. Here. Even if the offender nine years or below acted with discernment. if the offender was exempt from criminal liability because the prosecution was not able to prove that the offender acted with discernment. he is only civilly liable but he will be committed to the surveillance of his parents who will be required to report to the court periodically on the progress or development of the offender. this should not be taken against him because in this age bracket. this is where the court may give him the benefit of a suspended sentence. the infliction of the injury by mere accident does not give rise to a /vvverga Page 54 of 100 . injury resulted by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. If the sentence should not be suspended. This means that the offender must be performing a lawful act. correlate paragraph 4 of Article 12 with the second paragraph of Article 275. he is not 18 years old or over yet. while considering the condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that time. This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim “damnum absque injuria”. Illustration: A person who is driving his car within the speed limit. it has to prove that the crime was committed with discernment. If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment. (4) If the offender is 15 years old and above but below 18. Here. the accident referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 275 is in the concept of paragraph 4 of Article 12. This time it is fixed. Verga When the offender is over nine but below 15. If at the very beginning. All that the minor has to show is that he is within the age bracket. The limitation that it should be lowered by at least two degrees is just a limitation on the power of the court to reduce the penalty. Article 275 gives you the crime of abandoning the victim of one’s own accident. this is just an exempting circumstance. in paragraph 4 of Article 12. depending upon whether the court deems best for the interest of the offender. although the minor may be qualified. (3) If at the time the judgment is to be promulgated he is already above 18. paragraph 2.

When the circumstance which mitigates criminal liability is privileged. do not compensate because that would be violating the rules. it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is punished under the second paragraph of Article 275. If less than a majority of the requisites for exemption are present. In exempting circumstances. Verga Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees. In bar problems. So also. But then in the problem given. You can easily detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of the offender is privilege or not. he is entitled to a discretionary penalty of at least two degrees lower. whether to act or not. It takes preference over all other circumstances. even if force was employed on him or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear. Privilege mitigating circumstance aggravating circumstance. lower first the penalty to the proper degree. That means that the penalty prescribed of the crime committed shall be reduced by one or two degrees in accordance with Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. /vvverga Page 55 of 100 . yet. you give effect to it above all considerations. you have to apply that circumstance first. The offender shall be given the benefit of privelege mitigating circumstances. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum period. when the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. therefore. the facts state. Question & Answer A 17 year old boy committed parricide.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) criminal or civil liability. the offender shall be given only the benefit of ordinary mitigating circumstances. it is privilege. Although the bulk of the circumstances in Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances. Compulsion of irresistible uncontrollable fear force and under the impulse of an Vena V. Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the rules of imposing the penalties under Articles 63 and 64. provided the penalty is a divisible one. he is not exempt from criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. but the requisites for exemption are not all present. that is. even if there is an aggravating circumstance. the offender is a 17-year old boy. depending upon what the law provides. but the person who caused the injury is duty bound to attend to the person who was injured. Being a 17-year old boy. If he would abandon him. in cases where the offender is below 18 years old. it is a privilege. If the offender has still freedom of choice. paragraph 2. That means the penalty shall be reduced to the minimum period of the prescribed penalty. unless the mitigating circumstance is offset by an aggravating circumstance. You have learned that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. Mitigating circumstances Distinctions between ordinary mitigating circumstances (1) mitigating circumstances and privileged As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. the offender is still entitled to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete exemption under paragraph 1 of Article 13. The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating. the offender must act without voluntariness. It cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance. But if over nine but under 15. Apply the rule if majority of the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present. if the penalty is reduced by degree. When there is a lowering of penalties by degrees. That is precisely why this circumstance is considered privileged. the penalty would go one degree lower and the penalty for parricide which now stands at reclusion perpetua will go down to reclusion The offender must be totally deprived of freedom. when you are given indeterminate sentences. therefore. Will he be given the benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law? Then. before you go into any circumstance. That circumstance is privileged. Article 69 would apply. In other words. such an offender if criminally liable is entitled to the lowering of penalty by one degree. except in paragraph 1. among other situations. if not offset. In a situation where the offender would otherwise be exempt. two or more of this ordinary mitigating circumstances shall have the effect of a privilege mitigating circumstances if there is no aggravating circumstance at all. So before you go in the Indeterminate Sentence Law. can never be offset by any (2) As to effect Ordinary mitigating circumstances. where it is privilege. Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. when the crime committed is punishable by a divisible penalty. these articles are very important.

so he was humiliated and embarrassed. However. Although the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is reclusion perpetua. but if provocation did not come from the person offended. The accused tried to reason out but the bully slapped him several times in front of so many people. he was armed with a knife and he stabbed the bully to death. the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime shall be the basis. Can A invoke sufficient provocation to mitigate criminal liability? No. thus. there was a ruling that if a period of one hour had lapsed between the provocation and the commission of the felony. When you arrive at the correct penalty. He shall be given the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Illustration: The accused went to a barrio dance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) temporal. the recent rulings of the Supreme Court. There may actually be sufficient provocation which immediately preceded the act. under paragraph 3. But for purposes of suspension of the sentence. it is the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be promulgated. is reclusion temporal. Sufficient provocation must come from the offended party. The person provoked cannot retaliate against him. The evidence for the accused showed that when he went home. This is one of the three instances where the offender has performed a felony different from that which he intended. that is not the imposable penalty. Before. that is the time when you find out whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not. this circumstance does not avail. this mitigating circumstance is no longer applicable. not the age of the offender at the time the sentence is to be imposed. there was a bully and he told the accused that he is not allowed to go inside. Praeter intentionem The common circumstance given in the bar of praeter intentionem. as well as the Court of Appeals. he cannot fight the bully at that time because the latter was much bigger and heavier. Privilege mitigating circumstance will apply over and above all other considerations. some of whom were ladies who were being courted by the accused. Question & Answer A was walking in front of the house of B. therefore. the felony was committed precisely because he was then and there provoked. there is more reason to give him its benefit. mitigating circumstances does not apply. thinking of the humiliation and outrage done to him. you disregard the privileged character of minority. /vvverga Page 56 of 100 . The answer. Accused had no choice but to go home. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. Although in fact. Article 13 will not apply. In that gathering. this time. so A boxed C. Therefore. A boxed him. B at that time was with his brother C. the law presupposes that during that interval. the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed is not considered. despite the lapse of about 22 hours. the courts are generally considering that there must be no break between the provocation or threat and the commission of the felony. he did not fight back. B approached A and boxed him. is yes. That privilege lowers the penalty by one degree. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed. Reclusion temporal is already governed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. For purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. However. therefore. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or culpa. Sufficient threat or provocation This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the very person who made the threat or provocation. In other words. Verga that of provocation was given by somebody. means that there must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. whatever anger or diminished self control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or disappeared. It is wrong for you to determine whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply or not on the basis of reclusion perpetua because that is not the imposable penalty. The common set-up given in a bar problem is Vena V. the person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or on an elder father. The commission of the felony must be immediate to the threat or provocation in order that this circumstance be mitigating. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to this and so the offender will be given its benefit. paragraph 4. Between giving the offender the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and withholding it away from him. The moment you do that. Criminal laws are to be construed always in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. he was not able to sleep throughout the night. and because he was small. In applying this mitigating circumstance. but A cannot hit back at B because B is bigger. has stretched this criterion – it is not only a matter of time anymore. You are only treating it as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. The imposable penalty. there is sufficient provocation. this is the product of intentional felony. If there is sufficient break of time before the provocation or threat and the consequent commission of the crime. not a culpable one. it is not mitigating because the one who gives the provocation is not the one against whom the crime was committed. C told B that sometime in the past. When he saw the bully again. since being 17 years old is a privilege mitigating circumstance.

here. then you use the criterion based on the time element. in one case. facts are given indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime. it almost three days before accused was able to locate the house where Chinaman brought the woman. This is the reason why it is mitigating. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be given in favor of the offender. adopted or legitimate and that is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. However. a Chinaman eloped with a woman. then he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. Verga The word “immediate” here does not carry the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime. The outrage was so serious unless vindicated. he came home and surprised his common law wife having sexual intercourse with a friend. So. This is the correct interpretation of paragraph 4. As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat. Passion or obfuscation This stands on the premise or proposition that the offender is suffering from a diminished self control because of the passion or obfuscation. the accused was given the benefit of the circumstances and the basis of considering passion or obfuscation in favor of the accused was the act of the common law wife in committing adultery right from the conjugal bed. Vindication of a grave offense The word “offense” should not be taken as a crime. The same is true with the circumstances under paragraphs 4 and 5. he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6. In considering whether the wrong is a grave one upon the person who committed the crime. one of the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4. He killed the friend and he claimed passion or obfuscation. his age. However. In a case where the relationship between the accused and the woman he was living with was one of common law. This infuriated him. The reason stated by the Supreme Court for allowing the accused to be benefited by this mitigating circumstance is that the effect of the humiliation and outrage emitted by the offended party as a provocation upon the accused was still present when he committed the crime and. Diokno. in vindication of a grave offense. Whether or not they are married. his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister. It is enough if what was imputed or what was done was wrong. education and social status will be considered. his spouse. or vice-versa. However. it need not be the same person who committed the grave offense or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party. he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him. sufficient provocation was one of mitigating circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in favor of accused. The passion must be legitimate. 5 and 6 stands or arises from a set of facts. The word “immediate” here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the Spanish word is “proxima” and not “immediatementa. then you can predicate any one of these circumstances on one fact and the other on another fact and so on. When a married person surprised his better half in the act of sexual intercourse with another. he gets the benefit of Article 247. Hence. If the case involves a series of facts. unlike in sufficient threat or provocation where the crime should be inflicted upon the very person who made the threat or provocation. therefore. On review. the reason for paragraph 4 still applies. You have to look at two criteria: (1) If from the element of time.” Therefore. consider whether passion or obfuscation is generated by common law relationship or by some other human consideration. was the the the Vena V. Here. and another mitigating circumstance arises from another set of facts. So. whether natural. Actually. any man who discovers that infidelity was committed on the very bed provided by him to the woman would naturally be subjected to obfuscation. Here. /vvverga Page 57 of 100 . As a rule. Since they are predicated on different set of facts. he is acting under a diminished self control.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) The Supreme Court gave him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. the prohibition against considering all these mitigating circumstances together and not as one applies only if they would be taken on the basis of the same set of facts. there is a ruling to the effect that if the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4. although they arose from one and the same case. that requisite which in (2) In People v. Article 13. it cannot be based on common law relationship because common law relationships are illicit. The trial court denied his claim because the relationship was a common law one. However. the vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed. they may be appreciated together. it is enough that the offender committed the crime with the grave offense done to him. The accused was still acting under a diminished self control because he was thinking of the humiliation he suffered in the hands of the offended party. if there is that time element and at the same time.

If. a receptionist in a beerhouse. Ingratitude was shown here. She practically waited for him day and night. Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. the offender must have surprised his/her spouse actually committing sexual intercourse should be present. the surrender is not considered as indicative of remorse or repentance. his act of doing so will be considered as indicative of repentance and he also saves the government the time and the expense of looking for him. It was held that jealousy is an acknowledged basis of passion.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the first place. she stabbed the groom in the chest. the accused will be given the benefit of sufficient provocation if the intercourse was done in his dwelling. If he would give up. it is not mitigating. This was held to be obfuscation. The crime committed was estafa. Illustrations: A is courting B. a male classmate is escorting B. his act of surrendering under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also thereby saves the government the effort. voluntary surrender is not applicable. must be spontaneous. If this act was done somewhere else and the accused kills the paramour or the spouse. his arrest by policemen pursuing him being inevitable. A saw this and stabbed C. Mindac. because (1) he acknowledges his guilt (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expenses of searching and capturing him. when a married man upon coming home. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime committed. he tried to avoid responsibility by claiming self-defense which however he was not able to prove. Hence. Article 247 does not apply. the surrender is not spontaneous. It was held that passion and obfuscation were considered mitigating. this is not voluntary surrender. decided December 14. then even if the law enforcers do not know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out. had evaded the law enforcers and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. Although he admitted his participation in the killing. if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. demonstrating an intent to submit himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent in authority. the offender did not flee and he went with the responding law enforcers meekly. Although this is the ruling. Therefore. C danced with B. under this circumstance. then Article 247 does not apply. some men whistled lustfully. if after committing the crime. As a general rule. Verga However. vindication of a grave offense will be mitigating in favor of the offender. instantly killing him. If he kills them. such fact is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. Where the reason for the surrender of the accused was to insure his safety. The male classmate stabbed said men. Surrender to be considered voluntary and thus mitigating. this may be considered as mitigation of a grave offense to him or otherwise as a situation sufficient to create passion or obfuscation. In a case where the offender is deaf and dumb. On the scheduled wedding day. The surrender here is only done out of convenience to save his own self. after having committed the crime. However. Where the offender went to the municipal building not to own responsibility for the killing. the fact that he did not flee is not voluntary surrender. The fact that he was deaf and dumb is not mitigating because that does not bear any relation to the crime committed. a female classmate. he continues to elude arrest. If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been /vvverga Page 58 of 100 . such man cannot claim passion as a mitigating circumstance. On the way out. almost naked. the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim. the offender had the opportunity to go into hiding. If the surprising was done not in the actual act of sexual intercourse but before or after it. there is a ruling that if after committing the crime. The common law wife learned that he was getting married to a classmate. still. the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him. A man and a woman were living together for 15 years. In this case. surprises his wife who was nude and lying with another man who was also nude. In short. if he comes out from hiding because he is seriously ill and he went to get medical treatment. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. She gave him the best years of her life. Physical defect The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. People v. 1992. She confessed and explained that any woman cannot tolerate what he did to her. Voluntary surrender The essence of voluntary surrender requires that the offender. The man left the village where they were living and never returned home. Even if the offender may have gone into hiding. the ruling was that voluntary surrender is mitigating. Vena V. A. personal property was entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. When a man saw a woman bathing. for which reason he raped her. the offender would come out in the open and he gives himself up.

Verga because there is no qualifying circumstance that is not aggravating. However. If any one of the three circumstances was proven. If not alleged but proven during the trial. reward or promise were alleged as aggravating. can be offset by an ordinary mitigating No need to allege this circumstance in the information. Analogous cases The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender. If let us say. If it is not so included. Vena V. The crime committed was physical injuries. evident premeditation and act was done in consideration of a price. Specific or those that apply only to a particular crime. The act of a thief in leading the authorities to the place where he disposed of the loot has been considered as analogous or equivalent to voluntary surrender. he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. (3) In qualifying circumstance – (1) The circumstance affects the nature of the crime itself such that the offender shall be liable for a more serious crime. it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. as long as it is proven during trial. the court would consider the same in imposing the penalty. such circumstance is not mitigating. (2) (3) An aggravating circumstance is qualifying when it is an ingredient of the crime. you understand that only one is qualifying. Therefore it is included in the provision of law defining the crime. Only one of these is qualifying. it is not qualifying. The circumstance is actually an ingredient of the crime. It is not an ingredient of a crime. In Article 248. Aggravating circumstances Kinds of aggravating circumstances: (1) (2) (3) (4) Generic or those that can generally apply to all crime. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. they are only to be taken as The aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certainty. if you find qualifying circumstances. his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will not be considered mitigated by incomplete state of necessity. with the same degree of proof required to establish the crime itself. Three of these circumstances: treachery. they are susceptible of being offset by a mitigating circumstance. Most important of the classification of aggravating circumstances are the qualifying and the generic aggravating circumstances. Being an ingredient of the crime. in the crime of murder.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) slandered. this is not so where the offender became impoverished because of his own way of living his life. Distinctions between aggravating and qualifying circumstances: In aggravating circumstances – (1) (2) The circumstance circumstance. even if they are alleged in the information or complaint. This is so /vvverga Page 59 of 100 . the law specifically mentions thereunder several circumstances which are aggravating under Article 14. defense or communication with others are not restricted. It only affects the penalty to be imposed but the crime remains the same. Qualifying circumstances to be appreciated as such must be specifically alleged in the complaint or information. the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are referred to simply as aggravating circumstances. All of these will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. In the examination. In practice. The Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only way is to use his force because he cannot strike back. Inherent or those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was committed. he cannot talk so what he did was. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices. it will be considered only as generic aggravating circumstance. If the offender is blind in one eye. the accused was charged with murder. The so-called qualifying aggravating circumstances are simply referred to as qualifying circumstances. To say qualifying aggravating circumstance is redundant. the crime was already murder. Qualifying or those that change the nature of the crime. as long as his means of action. If it is proved during trial. as a result of which he became poor. If this happens. however. If the other two are also proven. you have to think about these as aggravating circumstances which are the ingredients of the crime.

During the trial. What was committed is different from what was agreed upon. it will only aggravate the criminal liability of those who employed the same. it is only appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. the accused cannot be convicted of murder because the circumstance proven is not qualifying but merely generic. The others will merely be considered as generic. 182 SCRA 601). Article 62 gives you the different rules regarding aggravating circumstances. Therefore. The servant poisoned the child. the fellow was hired to kill the parent of the one who hired him. only one will qualify the crime. In a case where the offender is a servant. If there is any mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. This is only true however. If not alleged in the information. Even if any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 on murder was proven. dwelling is no longer aggravating. If the confidence is reposed by another. not against property like Robbery with homicide (People v. The fellow who induced him becomes a co-principal and therefore. When the aggravating circumstance refers to the material execution of the crime. Illustrations: A mother left her young daughter with the accused because she had nobody to leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. professors. if there are three of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the complaint or information. If the crime charged is qualified trespass to dwelling. age. colleges and universities. If any of these qualifying circumstances is not alleged in the information. reward or promise as a consideration for killing. The accused abused the child. Correlate Article 14 with Article 62. (People v. it cannot be considered qualifying because a qualifying is an ingredient of the crime and it cannot be taken as such without having alleged in the information because it will violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. The treachery was not proved. If he was driven by the master already out of the house for some time and he came back and poisoned the child.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) generic. if that is not the circumstance alleged in the information. It was held that abuse of confidence is aggravating. abuse of confidence is no longer aggravating. That fellow killed the other guy and employed treachery. like treachery. Ga. provided the mitigating circumstance is not a privileged mitigating circumstance. Article 14. let us say. supervisors of public and duly recognized private schools. Illustration: A person induced another to kill somebody. The reason is because that confidence has already been terminated when the offender was driven out of the house. It is generic because it is not alleged in the information at all. The fellow who hired him will not be liable for the crime he had done because that was not the crime he was hired to commit. What is present is betrayal of trust and that is not aggravating. the treachery will qualify only the criminal liability of the actual executioner. such will be wiped out by these circumstances. however. Teachers. the offended party is different from the fellow who reposed the confidence and abuse of confidence in this case is not aggravating. what was proven was the price. However. Taking advantage of public position Article 62 was also amended by the Republic Act No. Verga circumstance. Thus. It was held that the abuse of confidence is not aggravating. Taoan. what was alleged in the information was treachery. it cannot qualify the crime. if there is any ordinary mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. the offended party is one of the members of the family. if the servant was still in the service of the family when he did the killing. although initially they are considered as qualifying. As far as the killing is concerned. The legal import of this amendment is that the subject circumstance has been made a qualifying or special aggravating that shall not be offset or compensated by a mitigating Vena V. but not for purposes of aggravating circumstances in paragraph 2. as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance. the two other circumstances which are otherwise qualifying could be offset by the mitigating. Just the same. Aggravating circumstances will not be considered when it is the crime itself. he is liable for the same crime committed. /vvverga Page 60 of 100 . The mitigating circumstance referred to in the amendment as not affecting the imposition of the penalty in the maximum are only ordinary mitigating circumstances. He killed a stranger and not the parent. sex Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor. This is aggravating only when the very offended party is the one who reposed the confidence. 7659. Abuse of confidence Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of trust. 156 SCRA 790). but proven during the trial. Do not hesitate to offset on the principle that a qualifying circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance because only one is necessary. Disrespect due to rank. Privileged mitigating circumstances always lower the penalty accordingly. Let us say.

If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender. Dwelling was considered aggravating on the part of the paramour. if the offended party while answering the call of nature is killed. If the place used is on the second floor. the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not present. dwelling is not aggravating. Illustration: Husband and wife quarreled. Dwelling is aggravating. dwelling will be aggravating. It should also not be the dwelling of the offender. provided that the offended party is considered a member of the family who owns the dwelling and equally enjoys peace of mind. if the paramour was also residing on the same dwelling.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Dwelling Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the dwelling of the offended party. Roof still part of the house. like what the salesmen do when they are assigned in the provinces and they rent rooms. In the provinces where the comfort rooms are usually far from the house proper. Peace of mind and comfort. The wife left the conjugal home and went to the house of her sister bringing her personal belongings with her. A person while in the room of his house. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind. Whenever one is in his dwelling. Due to the wife's refusal to go back to the conjugal home and live with the husband. each one is his own dwelling. All the appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort. If the offended party was inside the house and the offender was outside and the latter shot the former inside the house while he was still outside. If the attack is made while B was on the stairs. A occupies the ground floor while B the upper floor. If he is killed there. when an attack is made while A is on the stairs. Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. Illustrations: A man was fixing something on the roof of his house when he was shot. dwelling is already aggravating. The paramour is not a resident of the same dwelling. the stairs which are used to reach the second floor is considered a dwelling because the second floor cannot be enjoyed without the stairs. maintaining the room. Vena V. If a young man brought a woman in a motel for a short time and there he was killed. It was held that dwelling is aggravating. The term “dwelling” includes all the dependencies necessary for a house or for rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. If the offended party was assaulted while on the stairs. dwelling is not considered aggravating. Husband inflicted physical violence upon the wife. the same being necessary and an integral part of his house or dwelling. The stairs here would form part only of B's dwelling. When he is only a visitor there. where the offended party seeks privacy. The sister accommodated the wife in the formers home. in order to be aggravating must be owned by the offended party is no longer absolute. was shot. then dwelling is aggravating because the comfort room is a necessary dependency of the house proper. So. even if the offender caught up with him already out of the house. rest and peace of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a dwelling. Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. dwelling is still aggravating. the law is presuming that he is not intending to commit a wrong so one who attacks him while in the tranquility of his home shows a degree of perversity in him. dwelling is not aggravating. provided that he also stays there once in a while. is considered a dwelling. Dwelling can be aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended party. Dwelling is still aggravating even if the offender did not enter the house. Illustrations: A and B are living in one house. considering that any dependency necessary for the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered a dwelling. rest. the husband pulled out a knife and stabbed the wife which caused her death. The crime of adultery was committed. rest. dwelling is not aggravating. Even a room in a hotel if rented as a dwelling. A man was killed in the house of his common law wife. The reason is because he could not have left his dwelling were it not for the fact that the attacker entered the house. Hence. A person has more than one dwelling. A room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of permanence. if a man has so many wives and he gave them a places of their own. Hence. peace of mind and comfort. For this reason. If the offender entered the house and the offended party jumped out of the house. /vvverga Page 61 of 100 . The husband went to the house of the sister-in-law and tried to persuade the wife to come back to the conjugal home but the wife refused because she is more at peace in her sister's house than in the conjugal abode. then the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. this aggravating circumstance. Verga However. It was held that dwelling was aggravating although it is not owned by the offended party because the offended party is considered as a member of the family who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is where she enjoyed privacy. The rule that dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating in this case because the house was provided by the man. comfort and privacy. privacy and comfort.

Uninhabited place It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense . Illustration: (1) Recidivism under Article 14 (9) – The offender at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. it is not considered part of the dwelling. Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset to sunrise. no aggravating circumstance just by the fact of nighttime alone. but there was light. Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender A garage is part of the dwelling when connected with an interior passage to the house proper. not so far away. Nighttime What if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime? This is not aggravating. Darkness is what makes this circumstance aggravating. Even if the crime was committed at night. it is not a band. dwelling is aggravating since here. Even if there was darkness but the nighttime was only an incident of a chance meeting. The way the law defines a band is somewhat confusing because it refers simply to more than 3. from dusk to dawn. hence. a “home”. even for a brief moment. The crime is the band itself. as well as crime began at night and ended at day is not aggravated by the circumstance of nighttime. It must be shown that the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness and the offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense. considering the fact that A and C before being able to give assistance still have to jump into the water and swim towards B and the time it would take them to do that. Dwelling is aggravating where the place is. The Supreme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance of nighttime. As a rule. B and C also are on board on their respective bancas. Correlate this with Article 306 . darkness was not present. Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) – The offender has been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an equal or (2) /vvverga Page 62 of 100 . If the dwelling portion is attacked where even if the store is open. a crime was committed near the lamp post. there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. where brigandage is actually committed. All of them should be armed. Crime began at day and ended at night. Whenever you talk of band. band becomes aggravating. D showed up from underwater and stabbed B. the chances of B receiving some help was very little. 1992). Is there an aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place here? Yes. Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is appurtenant to the house Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the crime can be committed without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home (People v. the crime must begin and end during the nighttime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. De Los Reyes. One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used for dwelling but there is only one entrance. shall be necessary. there is no aggravating circumstance here. Band In band. decided October 22. dwelling is not aggravating because whenever a store is open for business. Do not say three or more because it is four or more. Verga A is on board a banca. but only three or less are armed. Even if there are four. Evidence tending to prove that the offender took advantage of the place and purposely availed of it is to make it easier to commit the crime. However. there should at least be four persons. always have in mind four at least. If not connected.Brigandage. Suddenly. The mere forming of a band even without the commission of a crime is already a crime so that band is not aggravating in brigandage because the band itself is the way to commit brigandage. Illustration: One evening. despite the fact that there were other persons not so far from the scene. the store is not a public place as in the first case. when actually it should be 4 or more. However. the circumstance is aggravating. it is a public place and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. there is another separate entrance to the portion used for dwelling. in case the store is closed. If the dwelling portion is attacked. although he is not the owner thereof as when victim was shot in the house of his parents.

even if it is absolute because only excuses the service of the penalty. Recidivism may be considered even though not alleged in the information because this is only a generic aggravating circumstance. hurto. he committed theft in 1983. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was committed. (c) robbery. The crimes are not specified. there was no other crime of which he was convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater. when a person commits a crime under different titles. Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance. He also did not appeal this decision. He was found guilty and was convicted of theft also in 1983. no aggravating circumstance is present. (4) Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency In recidivism – (1) (2) (3) (4) Two convictions are enough. it would only increase the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed to its maximum period. In recidivism. The circumstance must be alleged in the information. If not offset. (3) Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) – The offender within the period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries. it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the penalty. but not the conviction. . the fourth. (e) estafa or swindling and (f) falsification. the fifth and so on . the crimes committed should be felonies. Illustration: In 1980. The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical injuries. an additional (3) (4) /vvverga Page 63 of 100 . (b) less serious physical injuries. While the case was being tried. (5) Vena V.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. ordinarily. If the offender has already served his sentence and he was extended an absolute pardon. the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was previously convicted by final judgement of a felony and subsequently found guilty of another felony embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. if he is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 – Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by law for the new felony. hence it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. It is important that the conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed earlier than the subsequent conviction. it is enough that they may be embraced under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of a special law. Recidivism does not prescribe. It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Recidivism is imprescriptible. . (d) theft. estafa or falsification. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute recidivism. Verga penalty shall be imposed depending upon whether it is already the third conviction. . . The conviction became final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his earlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. robo. the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more penalty so it shall be understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime. (5) In habitual delinquency – (1) (2) At least three convictions are required. Recidivism In recidivism. Aside from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed. Pardon does not erase recidivism. is found guilty of the any of said crimes a third time or oftener. There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every convictions computed from the first conviction or release from punishment thereof to conviction computed from the second conviction or release therefrom to the third conviction and so on . Hence. The circumstance need not be alleged in the information. There is no time limit between the first conviction and the subsequent conviction. No matter how long ago the offender was convicted. otherwise the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose additional penalty. A committed robbery. The law considers this aggravating when a person has been committing felonies embraced in the same title because the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any specialization.

as long as there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual delinquent. the prosecution tried to prove that the offender is a habitual delinquent over the objection of the accused. If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less serious physical injuries and the second conviction is for robbery. there was no crime committed yet. The trial for robbery ended in 1981. In the absence of the details set forth in the information. if that conviction is subsequent to the commission of the robbery. the court which tried the case. the offender committed robbery. If you will interpret the definition of recidivism. recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. Thus. the accused has the right to avail of the so-called bill of particulars.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the date when the accused was convicted or discharged. it does not have to be alleged in the information because even if not alleged. he was convicted of theft and he did not appeal this decision. it is necessary that the conviction must come in the order in which they are committed. Habitual delinquency refers to prior conviction and therefore this must be brought in the information before the court can acquire jurisdiction over this matter. Habitual delinquency. that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to consider habitual delinquency. On the other hand. Even in a criminal case. After determining the correct penalty for the last crime committed. the dates when they were committed. he is not a recidivist. the trial court can appreciate it. you have a situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no two crimes fall under the same title of the Code. you cannot avoid that he is a habitual delinquent and at the same time a recidivist because at least. an added penalty will be imposed in accordance with Article 62. this would seem to be covered but that is not so. Question & Answer In 1975. the court cannot admit the evidence presented to prove habitual delinquency over the objection of the accused. the court shall consider such aggravating circumstance because it is only generic. it was held that even though the details of habitual delinquency was not set forth in the information. However. the information is defective. although the law defines it as a circumstance where a person having been convicted by final judgement was previously convicted also by final judgement for a crime embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code. This is the correct view because recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. If the accused fails to file such. As such. even if recidivism is not alleged in the information. in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court. even though in imposing the penalty for the robbery. If it is not alleged in the information and in the course of the trial. the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. It must be the other way around. The reason is recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance only. because the robbery which was committed earlier would be decided later. It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information. the prosecution when introducing evidence was objected to. the court can appreciate the same. the present rule is that it can be appreciated even if not alleged in the information. theft or estafa and the third is for falsification. In 1980. In recidivism. he is deemed to have waived the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the habitual delinquency. Habitual delinquency We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the titles of crimes in the Revised Penal Code. Generally. but if the defense does not object to the presentation of evidence during the trial and the same was proven. the objection should be overruled. it must specify the crimes committed. being a special or specific aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information. if proven during trial. It need not be alleged in the information. This is because in 1975 when he committed the robbery. even though over and above the objection of the defense. Even if the accused is in fact a habitual delinquent but it is not alleged in the information. if proven during trial. the penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. there was already a previous conviction. May the judge in imposing the penalty for robbery consider the accused a recidivist considering that he was already convicted in 1980 for the crime of theft which is under the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of robbery? No. Verga When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinquent. Right now. the fourth time will have to fall under any of the three categories. If the prosecution tried to prove recidivism and the defense objected. If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Thus. the procedure you know that when the prosecutor alleges habitual delinquency. the court has no jurisdiction to consider the offender a habitual delinquent. he committed theft. If these are not alleged. then the moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth conviction already. While the same was being tried in 1978. /vvverga Page 64 of 100 . The reason why habitual delinquency cannot be appreciated unless alleged in the information is because recidivism has nothing to do with the crime committed.

since there are already two of them subsequently. If that is the situation. he committed a felony before beginning to serve sentence or while serving sentence. reward or promise The Supreme Court rulings before indicate that this circumstance aggravates only the criminal liability of the person who committed the crime in consideration of the price. If the offender had not yet served out his penalty. because the crime committed while serving sentence is not a felony. repetition is not aggravating. If he committed another lesser one. again commits another felony which carries a lighter penalty. Verga Reiteracion This has nothing to do with the classification of the felonies. that means that the offender was never reformed by the fact that he already served the penalty imposed on him on the first conviction. he will more or less refrain from committing crimes again. but even at this stage. he killed someone. Sentence was promulgated and he was under custody in Muntinlupa. When there is a third conviction. as the case may be. the offender is already a repeater. They are both principals and that is why the recent rulings of the Supreme Court are to the effect that this aggravating /vvverga Page 65 of 100 . in reiteracion. a violation of the Revised Penal Code. It is necessary in order that there be reiteracion that the offender has already served out the penalty. The killing was committed before serving sentence but convicted by final judgement. even if literally.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. The emphasis here is on the crime committed before sentence or while serving sentence which should be a felony. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. or reward but not the criminal liability of the person who gave the price. you disregard whatever penalty for the subsequent crimes committed. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No. Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes. However. he got involved in a quarrel and killed a fellow inmate. Illustration: The offender was convicted of homicide. the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees. He was prosecuted for illegal use of prohibited drugs and was convicted. So. when there is a promise. the law considers that somehow he has been reformed but if he. but then it shall be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a quasirecidivist. However. if there is only a second conviction. While serving sentence in Muntinlupa. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance. forget about reiteracion. In reiteracion. In so far as the earlier crime is concerned. That is why if the offender committed a subsequent felony which carries with it a penalty lighter than what he had served. the law expects that since he has already tasted punishment. This cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and the imposition of the penalty in the maximum period cannot be lowered by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. In consideration of a price. He becomes a quasi-recidivist because the crime committed was a felony. then he becomes a repeater. he committed a felony. It should not be a violation of a special law. However. reward or promise who would execute the crime is a principal by direct participation. The emphasis is on the nature of the crime committed while serving sentence or before serving sentence. he committed a lesser one. reiteracion is not aggravating because the law considers that somehow. That means he has not yet tasted the bitterness of life but if he had already served out the penalty. Assume that the offender was found guilty of illegal use of prohibited drugs. This is so because if the penalty attached to the felony subsequently committed is not equal or higher than the penalty already served. pay attention to the penalty attached to the crime which was committed for the second crime. the offender has already tasted the bitterness of the punishment. it is necessary that it be a felony. he was found smoking marijuana. their responsibilities are the same. he escaped from his guard and in the course of his escape. the penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed should be higher or at least equal to the penalty that he has already served. promise. reward or price offered or given as a consideration for the commission of the crime. While he was serving sentence. Even if the penalty for the subsequent crimes committed are lighter than the ones already served. You will only consider the penalty in reiteracion if there is already a second conviction. this fellow was corrected because instead of committing a serious crime. Quasi-recidivism This is found in Article 160. That is why it is said that reiteracion is not always aggravating. the person making the offer is an inducer. Illustration: Offender had already been convicted by final judgement. then he becomes a repeater because that means he has not yet reformed. because while serving sentence. a principal by inducement while the person receiving the price. While he was in Muntinlupa. the offender is a repeater. reward or consideration. This is the philosophy on which the circumstance becomes aggravating. subsequently. Hence. if he commits a felony carrying a lighter penalty. The offender must already be convicted by final judgement and therefore to have served the penalty already. Reverse the situation.

A boxed B. he waited for B but killed C instead. It is only treachery because the evident premeditation is the very conscious act of the offender to ensure the execution. At the most. "This week shall not pass. But there may be evident premeditation and there is treachery also when the attack was so sudden. In evident premeditation. the crime is arson. A then dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. Can there be evident premeditation when the killing is accidental? No. /vvverga Page 66 of 100 . Illustration: A and B were arguing about something. A did not know that C. the crime is attempted murder because there is evident premeditation. So. A met B and killed him. Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire. qualify. However. thought of killing B on Friday. method and form of attack may be premeditated and would be resorted to by the offender. A told B. There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. If the victim is already dead and the house is burned. I will kill you. acts indicative of his having clung to his determination to kill B. Law enforcers only use this to indicate that a killing occurred while arson was being committed. Insofar as B is concerned. No such crime as arson with homicide. The crime committed is only murder. On Friday. As far as the killing of C is concerned. if the killing was accidental.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) circumstance affects or aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price. Evident premeditation shall not be considered when the crime refers to a different person other than the person premeditated against. he hid somewhere in the house. As a consequence. Is there evident premeditation? None but there is treachery as the attack was sudden. What condition is missing to bring about evident premeditation? Evidence to show that between Monday and Friday. A told B that someday he will kill B. However. Illustrations: A and B fought. the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence. you could designate it as “death as a consequence of arson. as when to kill someone. A killed B. the crime is homicide because there was no evident premeditation. too. What is necessary to show and to bring about evident premeditation aside from showing that as some prior time. there was no evident premeditation. One argument led to another until A struck B to death with a bolo. Is there evident premeditation? There is aberratio ictus. Afraid that A might kill him." A bought firearms. On Thursday. on Monday. By means of inundation or fire Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. it is homicide since it is noted that they were arguing. While it is true that evident premeditation may be absorbed in treachery because the means. It is either arson or murder. Vena V. It could not be murder. this is murder. If the intent is to kill. and subsequently killed the victim. A and B had a quarrel. he told B. A knew that B is coming home only on Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday evening when he comes home. If the intent is to destroy property. Is there evident premeditation in both cases? None in both cases. A and B fought on Monday but since A already suffered so many blows. the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house only. On Friday. the offender has manifested the intention to kill the victim. Verga (3) Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution. the son of B was also in their house and who was peeping through the door and saw what A did. to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. there must be a clear reflection on the part of the offender. that murder cannot be considered for C. "I will kill you this week. Insofar as C is concerned. the offender clung to his determination to kill the victim. the following conditions must concur: (1) (2) The time when the accused determined to commit the crime. C was burned and eventually died too.” Evident premeditation For evident premeditation to be aggravating. A killed B. As far as the killing of B is concerned. Illustration: A. reward or promise but also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer." On Friday. Do not consider both aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation against the offender. there is murder even if the house is burned in the process. you burn down his house while the latter is inside.

employing means to weaken the defense. Illustration: A person who has been courting a lady for several years now has been jilted. B accepted. but once inside the jeepney. If the offended party was able to put up a defense. This is murder – a homicide which has been qualified into murder by evident premeditation which is a qualifying circumstance. This is one aggravating circumstance where the offender who premeditated. Craft Vena V. When A saw B in the restaurant with so many people. Illustration: A and B have been quarreling for some time. The mere fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se constitute abuse of superior strength (People v. A proposed that to celebrate their renewed friendship. It is not necessary that the victim is identified. A decided to seek revenge. He bought a firearm and practiced shooting and then sought B. It is not enough that there is some premeditation. he thought of killing somebody. Instead some other aggravating circumstance may be present but not treachery anymore. Illustration: A and B quarreled. Carpio. A pretended to befriend B. they were going to drink. A saw a knife and used it to stab B with all suddenness. there is no treachery anymore. method or form employed my be an aggravating circumstance which like availing of total darkness in nighttime or availing of superior strength taken advantage of by the offender. However A had no chance to fight with B because A is much smaller than B. robbed the passengers and the driver (People v. Same where A planned to kill any member of the Iglesio ni Kristo. and that the offender took advantage of such superior strength in committing the crime. If this was the very means employed. the offended party was not able to put up any defense. Treachery Treachery refers to the employment of means. One day. even only a token one. Premeditation must be clear. then bought a knife. Lee. B was having too much to drink. 1991). The means. sharpened it and stabbed the first man he met on the street. What is the essence of treachery? The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) A and B are enemies. just to intoxicate the latter. In order for evident premeditation to be considered. It must appear that the offender clung to his determination to commit the crime. A premeditated to kill any member of particular fraternity. It is enough that the victim is determined so he or she belongs to a group or class who may be premeditated against. A thought of killing B but then he cannot just attack B because /vvverga Page 67 of 100 . This is a circumstance that will qualify a killing from homicide to murder. A was just waiting for him to get intoxicated and after which. the very person/offended party premeditated against must be the one who is the victim of the crime. size and strength. They fought on Monday and parted ways. 191 SCRA 12). The fact that the offender premeditated is not prima facie indicative of evident premeditation as the meeting or encounter between the offender and the offended party was only by chance or accident. method or form employed by the offender. method and form in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. There are some crimes which cannot be aggravated by evident premeditation because they require some planning before they can be committed. he stabbed B. Verga Aggravating in a case where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers of a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion. Evident premeditation is always absorbed in treachery. It is essential for this aggravating circumstance for the victim to be identified from the beginning. robbery with force upon things where there is entry into the premises of the offended party. Evident premeditation is part of the crime like kidnapping for ransom. He. Evident premeditation was not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the manner of committing the crime. A did not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a stranger but instead. Intoxication is the means deliberately employed by the offender to weaken the defense of the offended party. A approached B and befriended him. the circumstance may be treachery and not abuse of superior strength or means to weaken the defense. the law says evident. It was held that evident premeditation is not present. decided on December 20. Abuse of superior strength There must be evidence of notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in their age. It is required that there be evidence showing meditation between the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and the time when the offender executed the act. He then killed one. Because of this. and estafa through false pretenses where the offender employs insidious means which cannot happen accidentally.

this is also a qualifying circumstance. The crime committed is murder but then the correct circumstance is not treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. although stabbing may be sudden since A was not shown to have the intention of killing B. decided on July 6. the offended party fought back. the nighttime is generic aggravating circumstance. which is also a qualifying circumstance of murder under Article 248. So. Treachery is out when the attack was merely incidental or accidental because in the definition of treachery. Robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough to show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. In a case of homicide. it is something which offends the moral of the offended woman. Cruelty pertains to physical suffering of the victim so the victim has to be alive. ignominy is adding insult to injury. Ignominy refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order. In a case where the crime committed is rape and the accused abused the victims from behind. they took advantage of superior strength but somehow. B was able to walk a few steps before he fell and died. A upon seeing B pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 times. Illustration: A and B are enemies. A clear example is a married woman being raped before the eyes of her husband. Treachery not appreciated where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a killing. due to the means. 1991).Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) of the latter's size. ignominy is aggravating. Although one of the victims was barely six years old. Distinction between ignominy and cruelty Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man while cruelty is physical. the offended party was denied the chance to defend himself. Although the qualifying circumstance is abuse of superior strength and not treachery. The SC ruled this is only homicide because treachery must be proven. This is how animals do it. But although a quarrel preceded the killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree. Gupo). A positioned himself in the darkest part of the street where B passes on his way home. the body was thrown into pile of garbage. aggravated by dwelling and in disregard of age. B pulled a knife as well and stabbed A also. There must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. In the example where A pretended to befriend B and invited him to celebrate their friendship. 1992. In treachery. the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide. Ilagan. because the victim would be put on guard (People v. Lapan. the implication is that the offender had consciously and deliberately adopted the method. Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was consciously adopted by the Vena V. The reason why treachery cannot be considered as present here is because the offended party was able to put up a defense and that negates treachery. Will that fact be considered as an aggravating circumstance of cruelty? /vvverga Page 68 of 100 . the crime is murder because there is already treachery. the offender shoved the body inside a canal. B died. the crime was homicide only. the accused was convicted only for homicide. while the victim after having been killed by the offender. In plain language. if B despite intoxication was able to put up some fight against A but eventually. What crime was committed? The crime is only homicide because the aggravating circumstance is only nocturnity and nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance. the Supreme Court considered the crime as aggravated by ignominy. means and form used or employed by him. treachery was considered as the victim was not in a position to defend himself (People v. if the offender avails of the services of men and in the commission of the crime. the crime is still murder if the victim is killed. A thought of committing a crime at nighttime with the cover of darkness. In the first situation. In People v. method or form employed by the offender. In the same manner. Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about which are not necessary in the commission of the crime. A was wounded but not mortal so he managed to run away. 191 SCRA 643). the offended party. But where children of tender years were killed. However. ignominy is held aggravating. being one year old and 12 years old. Example: A had a gunshot wound at the back of his head. the killing is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown (People v. treachery cannot be considered present. It must be shown that the victim was totally defenseless. Verga offender to render the offended party defenseless (People v. One evening. Hence. Accused held liable only for the killings. B was not able to put up a defense and A was able to flee while B died. then the attendant circumstance is no longer treachery but means employed to weaken the defense. After having been killed. raping a woman from behind is ignominous because this is not the usual intercourse. So. Gahon. if A and B casually met and there and then A stabbed B. decided on April 30. Toribio). If because of the cover of darkness. The Supreme Court held that it added shame to the natural effects of the crime. A waited for B and stabbed B. whether or not the victim is dead or alive. But in murder.

If mitigating. In the absence of evidence to this effect. there must be evidence showing that the accused inflicted the alleged cruel wounds slowly and gradually and that he is delighted seeing the victim suffer in pain. there is no cruelty. motorized means of transportation or motorized watercraft. 181 SCRA 315). That is wrong. Verga An organized or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. To be aggravating. confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime. Motor vehicle The Supreme Court considers strictly the use of the word “committed”. motor vehicle becomes aggravating if the bicycle is motorized. the court will have to take it as mitigating. that there is an organized or syndicated group even when only two persons collaborated. the circumstance of an organized or syndicated crime group having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a special aggravating circumstance. It is noteworthy. it must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. even though proven during the trial. or mutually helped one another in the commission of a crime. that if the circumstance is present. Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make them aggravating circumstances of cruelty. do not use alternative circumstance. This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the commission of the offense. the said special aggravating circumstance can be appreciated if proven. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed. Where therefore. the court cannot validly consider the circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under Article 14 of the Code as aggravating. If relationship is aggravating. Alternative circumstances Four alternative circumstances (1) (2) (3) (4) Relationship. Do not think that because the article says that these circumstances are mitigating or aggravating. Vena V. paragraphs were added which provide that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime group. refer to it as aggravating or mitigating depending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. however. There is a decision by the Court of Appeals that a motorized bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the offender used only the foot pedal because he does not know how to operate the motor so if a bicycle is used in the commission of the crime. is automatically /vvverga Page 69 of 100 . Lucas. aggravating. and Education. conspiracy in the commission of the crime is alleged in the information. The moment it is given in a problem. it must have been used to facilitate the commission of the crime. if not mitigating. then refer to it as such. the other circumstances in Article 15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. Aggravating when a motorized tricycle was used to commit the crime Organized or syndicated crime group In the same amendment to Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. there is cruelty only when there are evidence that the offender inflicted the stab wounds while enjoying or delighted to see the victim in pain. If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender. The crime is murder if 60 wounds were inflicted gradually. Otherwise. The circumstance being special or qualifying. if not alleged in the information. Use only the term alternative circumstance for as long as the particular circumstance is not involved in any case or problem. Intoxication. With this provision. motor vehicle is not aggravating. Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (People v. refer to it as aggravating. For cruelty to exist as an aggravating circumstance. that the crime is committed with the use of a motor vehicle. the allegation may be considered as procedurally sufficient to warrant receiving evidence on the matter during trial and consequently. Unlawful entry Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. confederated. Except for the circumstance of intoxication. It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating. which acts are inherent in a conspiracy.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. Degree of instruction. absence of this evidence means the crime committed is only homicide.

the indication is that the offender gained strength out of the drinks he had taken. regardless of whether the woman is of bad reputation. The moment it is shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission of the crime. so that if the prosecution wants to deny the offender the benefit of this mitigation. So although the offender may have partaken of two cases of beer. This is the rational why intoxication is mitigating. If the offender did not go higher than Grade 3 and he was involved in a felony. the court will not consider it at all. but if they do not influence the crime. There were 11 stab wounds and this. the Supreme Court said. is incompatible with the idea that the offender is already suffering from diminished self control. There are specific circumstances where relationship is exempting. only he is the black sheep because he did not want to go to school. his behavior after committing the crime must show the behavior of a man who has already lost control of himself. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. intoxication will not be considered mitigating. Example: A has been living with professionals for sometime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) aggravating. The conduct of the offender. even if the woman is 60 years old or more. But if the offender is a brother of the offended woman or an ascendant of the offended woman. The Supreme Court held that although he did not receive schooling. they should prove that it is habitual and that it is intentional. This is an absolutory cause. In such a case. Vena V. Illustration: In a case. The intoxication in law requires that because of the quality of the alcoholic drink taken. One pulled out a knife and stabbed the other. ascendant. Degree of instruction and education These are two distinct circumstances. It may happen also that the offender grew up in a family of professionals. there were two laborers who were the best of friends. It is not the quantity of drink that will determine whether the offender can legally invoke intoxication. In the crime of qualified seduction. Relationship Relationship is not simply mitigating or aggravating. then there is no diminished self control. the same will immediately aggravate. Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does not require an educated person to understand. The idea is the offender. Since it was payday. relationship is qualifying. So if /vvverga Page 70 of 100 . On the contrary. or descendant or if the offender is a brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law of the offended party and they are living together. Those commonly given in Article 332 when the crime of theft. He may just be a maid in the house with no degree of instruction but he may still be educated. Exempting circumstance is the relationship. he is suffering from diminished self control. relationship is a qualifying and not only a generic aggravating circumstance. But it does not follow that he is bereft of education. But the other circumstances. Otherwise intoxication cannot legally be considered. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis of the mitigating circumstance. There is no criminal liability but only civil liability if the offender is related to the offended party as spouse. because of the intoxication is already acting under diminished self control. a spouse does not incur criminal liability for a crime of less serious physical injuries or serious physical injuries if this was inflicted after having surprised the offended spouse or paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse. When they drank two cases of beer they became more talkative until they engaged in an argument. Intoxication does not simply mean that the offender has partaken of so much alcoholic beverages. When arraigned he invoked intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. but after stabbing the victim he hailed a tricycle and even instructed the driver to the place where he is sleeping and the tricycle could not reach his house and so he has to alight and walk to his house. they decided to have some good time and ordered beer. The Supreme Court did not give the mitigating circumstance because of the number of wounds inflicted upon the victim. even if they are present. Among such circumstances are: (1) (2) In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed in Article 20. So the mere fact that the offender has taken one or more cases of beer of itself does not warrant a conclusion that intoxication is mitigating. Relationship may not be considered at all. yet it cannot be said that he lacks (3) Sometimes. the offended woman must be a virgin and less than 18 yrs old. especially if it is not inherent in the commission of the crime. There is diminished voluntariness insofar as his intelligence or freedom of action is concerned. requires that the offender has reached that degree of intoxication where he has no control of himself anymore. the offender had practically lost self control. regardless of the crime committed. he was invoking lack of degree of education. Intoxication This circumstance is ipso facto mitigating. Verga this reason is not present. One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated. the manner of committing the crime. Intoxication to be considered mitigating. There must be indication that because of the alcoholic intake of the offender. crime is qualified seduction. malicious mischief and swindling or estafa. Also in Article 247.

PEOPLE vs. in the commission of the crime. there was not sufficient provocation to justify her in using a deadly weapon. APEGO Keyword: Paranoid sister. LUAGUE Keyword: Woman about to be raped while her husband was at work. There was no reasonable cause for striking a blow in the center of the body where the vital parts are located. Thus. couple coming from Nasugbu. However. defense of one’s person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 . reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph I of Article 11. paragraph 1 of the RPC. All the requisites of exempting circumstance are present and should be taken into consideration. Verga PICKING UP KNIFE OF RAPIST PREPARING TO LIE WITH ACCUSED AND STABBING HIM). mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. and she. and the nature of the wound shows that she was either standing up or sitting up at the time. Decision: When a sleeping woman is awakened at night by some one touching her or grasping her arm. The defendant’s act constitutes a justifying circumstance since: Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our person. because his knowledge has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. notwithstanding the woman's belief in the supposed attempt. we have the right to property acquired by us. In the same manner. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. land dispute. If a child or son or daughter would kill a parent. There is no question that there was aggression on the part of the victims: one of the deceased ordering while the other actually participating in the fencing. and the right to honor which is not the least prized of our patrimony. Decision: No. as the injured person did not insist or repeat any act which could be considered as an attempt against her honor. Appellant is therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only two (2) homicides. WITHOUT INSISTENCE OR REPETITION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AN ATTEMPT AGAINST HONOR. The third element is also present. “gaddemit!”. that will aggravate his criminal liability. Victim. The accused exceeded her right of self-defense since there was really no need of wounding the victim. (a) Vena V. So he understands what is right and wrong. but in order for it to be appreciated. she was not warranted in making such a deadly assault. The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liability if the crime committed is one which he inherently understands as wrong such as parricide. killing his two victims. it is concluded that. believing that some person is attempting to abuse her asks who the intruder is and receives no reply. Decision: Yes. after admitting having shot the deceased from the window of his house with a shotgun under the foregoing circumstances claim that he did so in defense of his person and his rights and therefore he should be exempted from criminal liability. Revised Penal Code. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled on grounds of legitimate selfdefense. self-defense Issue: Can the defendant. although she actually believed it to be the beginning of an attempt against her. attacks the said person with a pocketknife. husband stabbed at the vital organ by the sister with fan knife and TIN CANS. NARVAEZ Keywords: fencing. The fact that he has knowledge of the law will not aggravate his liability. Issue: W/N the defendant can plead complete self-defense. illiteracy will not mitigate because the low degree of instruction has no bearing on the crime. /vvverga Page 71 of 100 . jumping from the window fell on some stones. But if he committed falsification. the offender may be a lawyer who committed rape. where he used his special knowledge as a lawyer. his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. MERE TOUCHING OR GRASPING OF ARM. When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window. EVEN IF INTRUDER DID NOT REPLY WHEN ASKED WHO HE WAS PEOPLE vs. PEOPLE vs. there was present the circumstance of incomplete exemption from responsibility since the second requisite is missing. the following requisite should be present: unlawful aggression. (2) WHEN KILLING HELD UNJUSTIFIED. (1) WHEN KILLING FOR HONOR HELD JUSTIFIED. KILLING OF PARAMOUR NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ATTEMPT TO RAPE ACCUSED WHO MAINTAINED ILLICIT RELATION WITH VICTIM FOR SOME TIME CASES FOR JUSTIFYING. SELF-DEFENSE (PROPIA DEFENSA).Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) education because he came from a family where brothers are all professionals. MITGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES I.

There was reasonable necessity for the means employed by X to repel the attack. there being then no more aggression to defend against. Vena V. Issue: W/N it was the defendant who was the assailant. Decision: No. In the initial stage. Decision: Yes. PEOPLE vs. The resistance was not disappropriate to the assault thus the accused is exempted from criminal liability because he acted in legitimate defense of his person. Since one of the ingredients of self-defense is missing. SUPRA US vs. The crime having been committed by the owner of the house against the person who had by mutual consent frequented the house. it is the offended party who was directly or indirectly affected and who would naturally be interested in demanding an explanation and therefore in seeking the interview. the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. This principle has now given way in the US to “stand ground when in the right” rule. and therefore a statement alleging such violence is improbable and inadmissible as a basis for an exemption from liability. When the deceased retreated. so that when they meet it is to be presumed that such offended party. i. An accused was no longer acting in self-defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary. Guards. there was no longer any danger to the life of the accused but the latter pursued him and inflicted many additional wounds. it cannot be believed that it was necessary for him to resort to violence. PEOPLE vs. There was no provocation on the defendant’s part. POTESTAS Keywords: Woman kills her paramour who was not her live-in partner saying that the latter tried to rape her. The law did not require the accused to retreat. Decision: Considering the preceding relations between the contending parties. the deceased assaulted the defendant but the latter was able to resist the aggression. Accused did not provoke the assault. Both men accused each other for starting the fight. Decision: Yes.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) PEOPLE vs. This doctrine make it the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is justified in meeting force with force. Decision: When it is proven that the deceased had for some time maintained illicit relations with the accused. striking with a “Japanese wood” and inflicting with a tuba knife causing the victim’s death. The ancient common law rule in homicide was denominated “retreat to the wall”. Keywords: Constabulary versus Police. LAUREL Keywords: Stolen kiss. A policeman in the performance of his duty must stand his ground and cannot take refuge in flight when attacked. Under the circumstances. Verga Defendant was a police Issue: W/N the defendant can maintain that he killed the victim in self-defense and that he is exempt from criminal liability. The element of practicability made it impossible for him to determine during the heat of a sudden attack whether he would increase or diminish the risk to which exposed by standing his ground or stepping aside. LUAGUE. There were two stages in the fight. complete self-defense cannot be invoked. DOMEN Keyword: Fight over a carabao. His duty requires him to overcome his opponent and the force he may exert therefore differs somewhat from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. upon the ground that the accused in committing the homicide acted in self-defense. Victim became so angry and threatened to inflict harm on the defendant. threatened by the constabulary. Issue: W/N the defendant is entitled to acquittal for having killed the victim in the exercise of his right of self-defense. and at a time when they were both in bed. Issue: W/N there is a reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the attack. Issue: W/N the woman can plead self-defense considering that the man seems to be asleep when he was killed. the circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered because the nighttime was not purposely selected by the accused. defendant cheated the victim. being accustomed to pass the night in her house. though originally the unlawful aggressor. when not satisfied with the /vvverga Page 72 of 100 . Unlawful Aggression When present Attempt to rape a woman PEOPLE VS. ALCONGA Keywords: Gambling. the force employed by the defendant was reasonably necessary and that he acted in legitimate self-defense. MOJICA PEOPLE vs.

would be the aggressor. VALCORZA vs. the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his sets conform to the practice of /vvverga Page 73 of 100 . To hold the accused guilty of homicide may have the effect of demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical or similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged at the time he fired at the deceased. with the result that thereafter. The appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other passengers in the boat in striking the deceased with an oar in order to make him desist from trying to upset the boat. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender and had no right after evading service of his sentence. Decision: No. the obligation of proving that affirmative allegation rests on the defense. SUBINGSUBING Keywords: 78 year old man aided by another man to parry the blows of X who made unchaste proposals to the old man’s wife. was declared to be exempt from responsibility in repelling the attack of which he was the victim and in wounding his assailant therewith. PEOPLE Keywords: Detention prisoner charged of stealing chickens. then when a person who did nothing more than furnish a weapon to one whom he saw in peril and in great need of defending himself and repelling a serious assault. The victim then can invoke self-defense. BONOAN Keywords: barbershop. Thereby. was justified by the circumstance. while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased. he is completely exempt from criminal liability. to be sure. Decision: No. it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind a reasonable period both before and after that time. PEOPLE VS. Issue: W/N the policeman should be held liable Vena V. it is illogical and unjust to deny to said assistant the same exemption from responsibility and the exoneration granted the slayer on the grounds of self-defense. who used the weapon. HOW INSANITY IS PROVED In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act. and this presumption is confirmed by the evidence. the defense interposed being that the defendant was insane at the time he killed the deceased. In the Philippines. Verga Decision: No. Poultry area. PEOPLE vs. we read the thoughts. Issue: W/N the person who aided the old man by furnishing a weapon to the latter makes the former liable for homicide. In the case at bar. “I’ll pay you” Issue: W/N the prosecution have the burden of proving that the accused was sane at the time he committed the crime. Decision: Yes. The killing was done in the performance f a duty. Decision: The act performed was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. and the means employed having been reasonably necessary in this defense. to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand. CABUNGCAL Keywords: ROCK THE BOAT! Issue: W/N the defendant is completely exempted from all criminal liability. US vs. DELIMA Keywords: Escapee who was killed by a policeman while ordering the latter to surrender. Mind can only be known by outward acts. Where the one. This would be a great detriment to public interest. insanity “I’ll kill you”. there would be halfhearted and dispirited efforts on their part to comply with such official duty. is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Policeman committed no crime. who furnished the legitimate weapon used in his defense should be also acquitted and declared exempt from any responsibility. and when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity. Issue: W/N the action of the defendant can be justified.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) explanation offered. the logical consequence of that declaration of exemption from responsibility is that the other. which although the policeman to resort to such an extreme means which. If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the requisites the penal law lays down for exempting him from responsibility should be acquitted of the charge in a case prosecuted against him. the burden. PEOPLE vs. but sanity is presumed. Direct testimony is not required nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. as was held in the same judgment to be lawful and right. The deceased did not head several warning shots. the burden of establishing that fact rests upon him. although it proved to be fatal. Police only tried to hit the victim on the leg but unfortunately hit him on the back.

Decision: No. baby killed by animal bites. RENEGADO Keywords: Insane security guard. Issue: W/N the defendant should be charged for reason of reckless negligence. and one has not the exclusive right to precede another. he cannot be held liable either civilly or criminally.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) people of sound mind. or at least equal to that which he was required to commit and that it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it might be said. ELICANAL Vena V. insanity exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. it may not have been necessary or at least expedient to make an arrest and bring the offender forthwith before the proper judicial officer. ordinary man would have succeeded to it. brought him before a justice of the peace as soon as "practicable" thereafter. The traveler may pass to the front when he has good and sufficient grounds to believe that he can do so in safety. Applying these principles. that is. Fortaleza followed as to the authority of a municipal president to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence. VICENTILLO Keywords: illegal detention. therefore. Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one. US vs. that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted with the argument that he should be exempted from criminal liability on account of insanity. PEOPLE vs. trivial and unimportant. BANDIAN Keywords: infanticide. in itself. KNIGHT Keyword: chauffer of US Army. mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. vs. The onus probandi rest upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstances and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. and malice because the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person in the absence of evidence to the contrary. notwithstanding the fact that three days were expended in doing so. For purposes of disposing of appellant's defense it becomes necessary to restate certain basic principles in criminal law. the accused is deprived of reason. defense fails. Child was run over while the defendant was trying to overtake. abandonment /vvverga Page 74 of 100 . One person is not compelled to travel behind another on the highway. Decision: No. Whatever may have been the cause of an automobile accident. that the. Issue: W/N the defendant can invoke that he was acting under the impulse if an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary. that is. of the Revised Penal Code. it reduces him to a mere instrument. if it cannot be attributed to the misconduct or the negligence of the operator in the management of his machine. US vs. Impulse of uncontrollable fear of a greater injury should the defendant refuse. suffice (People vs. The case of U. unfortunate circumstances than prolonged the detention. Verga Keyword: Captain killed by shipmates. it must appear that the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater that. paragraph 1. Under all the circumstances of this case. he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern. as set forth in the opinion. that one of the causes which will overthrow this presumption of voluntariness and intelligence is insanity in which even the actor is exempt from criminal liability as provided for in Article 12. Decision: No. if clear and convincing. the defendant. in a particular case of defiance of local authority by the unlawful violation of a local ordinance even where the offense thus committed is. In the eyes of the law. Slave-driver teacher who asked the guard to type test questionnaires. after having arrested the complaining witness without a warrant. with freedom intelligence. trivial crime committed by X to a municipal president. Issue: W/N the municipal president can be found guilty of “illegal and arbitrary detention” of the accused for a period of three days. Decision: Chief mate did not exercise influence over the accused. The defense in a criminal action that the defendant in committing the crime acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear produced by a threat of an equal or greater injury to himself can be held to be sustained. Bonoan). the municipal president being held to have all the usual powers of a public officer for the making of arrests without warrant. circumstantial evidence. PEOPLE vs. To prove insanity. US vs. this court will not presume that. S. that a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso) is presumed to have been done with deliberate intent. or must produce such an effect upon the individual that in spite of all resistance. viz.

" Insanity as defined above is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties. HOW COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES INVOLVING PLEA OF INSANITY Generally. Insanity in law exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence. However. She has in her favor the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances. and his improvident bargains. or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality. DISTINGUISH INSANITY FROM SANITY It is difficult to distinguish from insanity. and characterized by perversion. by giving birth to a child in a thicket and later abandoning it. Direct testimony is not required nor the specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts: thereby we read the thoughts. and the right and wrong test. in order that he may be held liable. an insane person believes in a state of things. in the defense of insanity. his insanity admitted of lucid intervals. the existence of which no rational person would believe.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. or must be conscious of his acts. Under foreign jurisdiction. conscious and. Thus: In considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a prosecution for crime. Insane delusion is manifested by a false belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which would be incredible under the given /vvverga Page 75 of 100 . The fact that the defendant remembered his acts proves that he was not insane or if insane. not because of imprudence or any other cause than that she was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act. Under the delusion test. or at least it must be the result of a voluntary. must be committed willfully or consciously. and through which we determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. namely: delusion test. which is the subject of inquiry. he has lost the power to choose between right and wrong. Decision: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor. a person is insane when he suffers from such perverted condition of the mental and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Verga circumstances to the same person if he is of compos mentis. which is manifested in language or conduct. doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of sanity. In order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility. that the accused be deprived of cognition. Decision: One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts. However. must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties. The law exempts from criminal liability any person who acts under the circumstances in which the appellant acted in this case. A person acts under an irresistible impulse when. it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. and that it is improper to presume that acts were done Issue: W/N the mother can be held liable for infanticide and or abandonment of a minor. that he acts without the least discernment. Otherwise stated. to be punishable. there has been no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity. Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. free act or omission. Under the right and wrong test. inhibition. at the very time of doing the act. in criminal cases. with no fault or intention on her part. However. or by disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties. His unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental defect. such as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance. PEOPLE vs. Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of the person whose sanity is in issue. functional or organic. or by impaired or disordered volition. that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will (People vs. of disease or defect of the brain. DUNGO Keywords: confined in a mental hospital for insanity but found sane while perpetuating the crime. There no definite defined border between sanity and insanity. the law presumes all acts to be voluntary. it is permissible to receive of his mental condition for a reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in question. the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind. So far. irresistible impulse test. under our jurisdiction. under said circumstance. Thus. Even in cases where said crimes are committed through mere imprudence. his irrational acts and beliefs. DAR employee killed. his acts and conduct inconsistent with his previous character and habits. there are three major criteria in determining the existence of insanity. his free agency being at the time destroyed. that is. insanity may be shown by surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject. by reason of duress or mental disease. Puno). every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. the person who commits them. to avoid the act in question. We can apply as test or criterion the definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code. Hiding a deadly weapon and embarking to evade arrest are conscious adoption of the pattern to kill. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense. which states that insanity is "a manifestation in language or conduct. motives and emotions of a person.

e. and after usual and customary words had passed between her and her aggressor. in order to relieve him from liability. she being suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly fired upon with a 45-caliber revolver. Acts penalized by law are always refuted to be voluntary. Issue No 1: W/N murder was committed. namely: (a) the tests of cognition-"complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act. or even escape or divert the weapon. was doubtless unable to flee from the place where she was standing. Premeditation is. tinig ng ibon”. HICKS Keyword: Afro-American soldier and Moro woman having an illicit affair. Jealousy. at close. where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence. on the basis of his mental condition. with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia). Issue: W/N the defendant can be acquitted of the charge of rape on the ground that he was suffering from a mental disorder called schizophrenia at the time he committed the crime. while the injured woman was unarmed and unprepared. Whoever. not an exempting. a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime. Verga person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. therefore. circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. Lastly. the Court has recognized at most a mitigating. AGGARVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES US vs. deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man." examination of the case law has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will. defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code. and intelligently. manifest and evident by reason of the open acts executed by the accused.. and at a time when she was listening to a conversation. The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved. RAFANAN Keywords: Schizophrenic person pleading not guilty for the crime of rape." i. knowingly. Appellant has not successfully discharged the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime as charged freely. which have been fully proven in the present case. in what appeared to be a proper manner. A Vena V. Decision: The above-stated facts. in which she was concerned. constitute the crime of murder. however. /vvverga Page 76 of 100 . behaving himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand. which he described as “parang ibon. in that the woman Agustina Sola met a violent death. if not point blank range. The standard set out in Formigones were commonly adopted in subsequent case. Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit an accused on the ground of insanity. greeting everyone courteously and conversed with his victim." This is perhaps to be expected since person's volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence. notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon and carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver. Accused confined in the mental hospital after the incident. In any case. invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. rather than on the test relating to "freedom of the will. and it is improper to conclude that a person acted unconsciously. Seclusive who allege that he hears sounds. All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused. The woman found another man. and as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent repose and tranquility." The law presumes every man to be sane. Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance. Decision: No. 2: W/N Evident premeditation can be appreciated. "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his Acts. unless his insanity and absence of will are proved. From all of the foregoing it is logically inferred that means. whether that intelligence be diseased be healthy. Evident premeditation. Issue No. (People vs. without an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence. PEOPLE vs. The circumstance of premeditation can be appreciated but should only be considered as merely a generic one. manners. doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design. between her aggressor and a third person. The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety. Without positive evidence that the defendant had previously lost his reason or was demented." and (b) the test of violation-"or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. owing to the suddenness of the attack. and forms were employed in the attack that directly and specially insured the consummation of the crime without such risk to the author thereof as might have been offered by the victim who. Dungo)." But our case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition. Decision: Yes. he entered the house.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) unconsciously. it will be presumed that he was in normal condition. the State should guard against sane murderer escaping punishment through a general plea of insanity.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue No 3: W/N the accused can invoke loss of reason and selfcontrol produced by jealousy. /vvverga Page 77 of 100 . unworthy. a man kills his concubine upon discovering that she had carnal communication with another man. “that woman”. according to her was the cause that led her to stab him. Decision: No. upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. 1: W/N the woman committed a crime. "Considering that an unlawful aggression. such act does not constitute the unlawful aggression mentioned by the Code. which she had a perfect right to do. and immoral passions. not those which arise from vicious. DELA CRUZ Keywords: Due to heat of passion. and the harsh treatment which the deceased gave the accused on the afternoon of the day in question. The only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as originate from legitimate feelings. Verga Decision: Yes. but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him. 4: W/N the defendant is entitled circumstance that she acted under obfuscation. disappointment and anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him. US vs. In the case at bar the impulse upon which the defendant acted. we repeat. This mitigating circumstance should be taken into consideration in favor of the accused. to repel which it is lawful to employ a means of defense which may be reasonably necessary." was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him. Issue No 2: W/N this case can be decided based on Hick’s case. who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover). Issue No. Issue No. 2: W/N a slight pushing of the head which hurt the woman can be considered a mitigating circumstance: Decision: No. but the victim thus wounded and running away was also pursued by the accused. YUMAN Keyword: Man refused to go back to his live-in partner. Decision: No. 1: W/N the circumstances can be considered an extenuation of his criminal liability. The stab-wound inflicted upon the deceased by the accused was not only mortal. Vena V. PEOPLE vs. his reason for killing her being merely that she had elected to leave him and with his full knowledge to go and live with another. Decision: Yes." the evidence disclosing that in the heat of passion he killed the deceased. in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. . Issue No. penknife Issue No. 3: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause grave injury. Decision: No. as a fundamental requisite of self-defense is not necessarily implied in any act of aggression against a particular person. The commission of the offense of which defendant was convicted was marked with the extenuating circumstance defined in subsection 7 of article 9. nor is it necessary to inquire whether or not there was "sufficient provocation" on the part of the one invoking legitimate self-defense because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression. this was a "sufficient impulse" in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the court. Issue No. A slight push of the head with the hand-which. As said by the supreme court of Spain in the above cited decision. In the former case the cause of the alleged "passion and obfuscation" of the aggressor was the convict's vexation. was not present in the instant case.the latter would perhaps have inflicted upon him other wounds had it not been for the timely arrival of policeman who calmed her bellicose attitude and placed her under arrest. which. Issue No 5: W/N she entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. There is no occasion to speak her of the “reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it". especially the fact that the accused had been abandoned by the deceased after living together for three or four years. in that defendant "acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation. Her act of mortally wounding her lover had not been precede by aggression on the part of the latter. when the author of the same does not persist in his purpose or when he desists therefrom to the extent that the person attacked is no longer in peril. and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. knife in hand. to a mitigating Decision: Yes. This marked obstinacy of the accused in her aggression clearly reveals her intention to cause to its full extent the injury she has committed. and which naturally produced "passion and obfuscation. and. a short time before the aggression.

4: W/N nighttime maybe appreciated as aggravating circumstance. /vvverga Page 78 of 100 . 6: W/N the accused can claim a mitigating circumstance of having acted on provocation strong to cause passion and obfuscation. Woman refused to give support and was seeing another man. it is not clearly shown that there was "intención deliberada de prevalerse de la superioridad aprovecharse intencionadamente de la misma" i. The four (4) stab wounds were inflicted indiscriminately. kaingero.. and not infirm. There is nothing to show that the assailant and his common-law wife reposed in one another any special confidence that could be abused. Decision: No. That he watched her movements daily manifested his jealous character. The evidence does not show. was not motivated by any desire to lead a chaste life henceforth. 5: W/N the can be aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness. but there is no evidence that from this jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her life. both lived together as husband and wife. therefore. 3: W/N the crime can be qualified by abuse of superior strength. or connection. Mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and extreme poverty. with the crime committed. stealing two sacks of papers which belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu.e. Vena V. Decision: While it cannot be denied that Alicia was stabbed at the back. a monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful promiscuity. taking into account the emotional excitement of the accused. Issue No. while Alicia was in the prime of her youth. Decision: No. but the physique of the aggressor ought also to be considered. and his rage at her rejection of the proposal. Neither is it shown that the accused took advantage of any such special confidence in order to carry out the crime. PEOPLE vs. or any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to be respected. but he was old and baldado (invalid). not established. Decision: Yes. 5 glasses of tuba. At any rate. The crime was committed at nighttime. treachery cannot be imputed Issue No. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison with the accused. not possessing it. In fact. BELLO Keyword: Old man. the wound was but a part and continuation of the aggression. Issue No. either. Issue No. can be properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. The facts are not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative strength.1: W/N treachery can be appreciated in order to qualify the crime to murder. Decision: Evident premeditation was. MACBUL Keywords: habitual delinquent. since. 6: W/N she is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. PEOPLE vs. 2: W/N there is evident premeditation. The trial court itself found that the stab in the back was inflicted as the victim was running away. without regard as to which portion of her body was the subject of attack. it would be an error to take into consideration this circumstance. Under the circumstance. likewise.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: No. Issue no. None is inferable from the fact that the accused was much older than his victim. We can not see how the accused's insistence that she live with him again. Decision: Yes. The accused had been carrying a balisong with him for a long time as a precaution against drunkards. a remark that so deeply wounded the appellant's feelings that he was driven to consume a large amount of wine (tuba) before visiting the deceased to plead with her to leave her work. Even without benefit of wedlock. Issue No. Decision: No. It will be recalled that the lower court found that the accused had previously reproved the deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Her loose conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by a remark he heard on the very day of the crime that the accused was the husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for purposes of prostitution". Verga Issue No. but showed her determination to pursue a lucrative profession that permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately. White slave trade. hence the circumstance did not aggravate the crime. Possession of a balisong gives an aggressor a formidable advantage over the unarmed victim. deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. the place was bright and well lighted. and which would bear any relation. induced his young bride to work as a public hostess. The defendant is a mere wage-earner and could not even sign her statement before the police and had to affix her thumb mark. For this reason. and without any present plan or intent to use it against his commonlaw wife. True that he was armed with a balisong. and.. any superior strength on the part of the accused. or that he was penniless while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave him money. he could not take advantage of it. but the accuse did no seek or take advantage of it to better accomplish his purpose.

The plea of guilty spontaneously entered by the accused prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution constitutes mitigating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Issue: W/N the court erred in considering the defendant a habitual delinquent. DY POL Keyword: falsification of public document. Undisputed facts show that the victim’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a flannel cloth before he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried in a shallow grave near a creek. Neither is it among those which may be considered as similar nature and analogous to those expressly recognized in accordance with Article 13 section 10 and therefore it cannot correctly be taken into consideration. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life. The mitigating circumstance so invoked. PEOPLE vs. Section 1. Revised Rules of Court). In other words. /vvverga Page 79 of 100 . estafa. Thus. reduction of penalty due to mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and lack of irreparable material damage. This court approves it. or falsificación. Verga Keyword: Debt. one previous conviction against him. Decision: Yes. the time interval when the deceased was actually deprived of his liberty was short and the same was only incidental to the main objective of murdering him. There was no illegal detention and victim was killed and promptly buried. They cannot escape the consequence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. Issue No. which is that the crime committed by the accused has caused no irreparable material damage to the offended party. Decision: No. Issue No. 2: W/N the accused can invoke the fact that no irreparable material damage was caused to the offended part in the commission of the crime. Decision: No. that last one. (Rule 133. On the basis of the foregoing evidence. connivance and unity of purpose and intention among the accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. appellant's first conviction. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution. namely. the accused can hardly be held liable for kidnapping as well. if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of robo. Treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing to murder. The crime was murder only. 3: W/N the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be absorbed in treachery. W/N extreme poverty can be appreciated as a mitigating PEOPLE vs. It may not be amiss to state that an accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. These facts portray well that the tied hands of the victim rendered him defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to commit the crime without risk at all to their person. Kidnapped. The evidence at hand hardly satisfied the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the charge of kidnapping. ONG Vena V. stabbed to death and buried. The necessary result is that the accused can he held liable only for the killing of the victim. he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime. Victim even made a proposal of love to the wife of the accused in lieu the latter’s gambling debt. A person shall be deemed to be habitually delinquent. Decision: Conspiracy. Issue: W/N the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. is not recognized by the RPC. cannot be taken into account because his second conviction took place fourteen years later. Decision: Yes. Hence within the purview of habitual delinquents. Decision: Yes. Issue: W/N the accused be held liable for the crimes of kidnapping and murder. Decision: Yes. 2: circumstance. hurto. Issue No." Therefore. Issue No 2: W/N treachery can be appreciated in qualifying the crime to murder. Issue: W/N treachery can be appreciated as regards the two other accused who did not do the actual stabbing. recognizing the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. The four participated in the planning and execution of the crime and were at the scene in all its stages.

8: W/N there is evident premeditation. Revised Penal Code). Issue: W/N the aggravating circumstance that the accused forced or induced his nephew to murder the priest by hire or reward be appreciated. It is essential too that the confidence be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime. causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act. The purposive selection of an uninhabited place is thus clear from the evidence. Decision: No. nephew refused the money but nonetheless carried on with the crime. Decision: Yes. It is true that he owed his uncle a sum of money and the latter could have used these obligations in order to force his nephew to commit the crime but it has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the uncle actually hired his nephew to kill the deceased since the nephew rejected the offer. Issue: W/N the plead of guilt can be used as a mitigating circumstance. The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to better attain their purpose without interference. the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery. Inducement by the uncle. Issue: W/N the purposive selection of uninhabited place be appreciated. Decision: The place was ideal not merely for burying the victim but also for killing him for it was a place where the possibility of the victim receiving some help from third persons was completely absent. Issue No. Inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the fact that the victims' hands were tied at the time they were beaten. The brief of the Acting Solicitor General agrees with that of the accused in denying the attendance of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. The record does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was forced or induced to commit this crime. 13. The motor vehicle facilitated the stark happening. Verga to kill the victim. A special case therefore is present to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply. Decision: Yes. The accused meditated and tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime and were not prompted merely by the impulse of the moment. It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused. US vs. cannot be considered here. Decision: No. This aggravating circumstance was correctly appreciated by the lower court regardless of whether or not the same was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused for it is clear that the darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime and was taken advantage of by them. 2: Was the crime properly classified as murder? /vvverga Page 80 of 100 . it would appear that the plead of guilty to this information naturally would be most unfair to the accused since the penalty would be that of capital punishment. Issue No. It was merely because the accused had some accounts to settle with him. Issue No. Indeed. 10. Decision: The accused Benjamin Ong is likewise is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that is analogous to passion and obfuscation (Art. the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation (premeditacion conocida) attended the commission of the crime. Since the kidnapping portion of the crime cannot be appreciated beyond reasonable doubt. For cruelty to exist. it appears that the victim's burial was not meant to make him suffer any longer but simply to conceal his body and the crime itself. as it appears from the record. 7: W/N cruelty can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Decision: Yes. and that the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime. the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. bury him. Decision: In order for this circumstance to obtain. it is necessary that there be a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed. The accused showed signs of remorsefulness upon his arrest when he cooperated with the police authorities in the solution of the crime. Issue No. 5: W/N the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated. and to secure themselves against detection and punishment. and flee from the locale of the fearful crime. GAMAO Keywords: Priest killed in exchange of a sum of money.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: It is clear that appellants took advantage of nighttime in committing the felonies charged. Issue No. is an aggravating circumstance. 6: W/N the use of motor vehicle be appreciated as aggravating circumstance. Even granting that the victim died because of asphyxiation when he was buried and not hemorrhage from stab wounds. Cruelty (ensañamiento). Issue: W/N the accused can be credited with any mitigating circumstance. it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually. but can be perceived distinctly therefrom. the group intended merely Vena V. since the treachery rests upon an independent factual basis. The accused and the victim were together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because of said confidence. par.

Issue No.” ran toward the ice plant in search of a revolver and returned. After which. it will be presumed that intoxication is not habitual. and saying “I will show you sons of b—s. security guard threw a pillbox hitting one of the demonstrators in the head. arising from the defense which the priest might make. The crime committed is murder with multiple attempted murder qualified by the use of explosive. Owing to his extreme ignorance. Issue No. II. Also. Issue No. Provocation on the part of Marsh cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since there was no evidence how the quarrel arose. He was unable to see by whom the blow was struck. The victim (Marsh) struck Fitzgerald. Nor can the fact that the homicide was immediately preceded by an affray between the deceased and the defendant may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Verga A. The murderer taking advantage of the darkness was lying in wait for his victim. Decision: In the presence of proof to the contrary. he saw Marsh and fired at him. There can be no question that the latter was directly induced by his uncle to kill the priest. The influence exercised by the uncle over his nephew was so great and powerful that the latter could not resist it. The nephew merely depends on his uncle for his subsistence while the latter was found to be a man of great influence. Issue No. DE LA ROSA Keywords: demonstration. Decision: No. McMann snatched the bolo cutting the latter’s /vvverga Page 81 of 100 . 1: W/N the act of the accused can be characterized as murder and multiple attempted murder Decision: Yes.S. Issue No 3: W/N the accused be credited with aggravating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wong as that actually done. Decision: Yes. FITZGERALD Facts: The accused and the victim had a dispute in a distillery. vs. Marsh died soon after. Issue: W/N a mitigating circumstance can be considered. He had no opportunity to offer any resistance whatever. ii) DEFINING HABITUAL DRUNKARD AS ONE GIVEN TO INTOXICATION BY EXCESSIVE USE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS U. FEATI. I. the owners of the house would not allow them to enter.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Decision: Yes. He selected his nephew to commit the crime and dominated all who were present. Decision: Yes. Fitzgerald immediately arose. INTOXICATION WHEN MITIGATING. (a) NOT HABITUAL PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF NON-HABITUAL CHARACTER OF INTOXICATION US vs. 3: W/N extreme ignorance can be used as a mitigating circumstance. thereby employing means or methods in the execution of this crime which tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself. PEOPLE vs. and the fact that the accused was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime must then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Accused is only entitled to a mitigating defense of intoxication. 2: W/N the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated as well. the SC was compelled to give him the benefits of the mitigating circumstance of lack of discretion since it was shown the nephew was a poor ignorant fisherman and only depends on his uncle for subsistence. which knocked the latter down. Decision: Yes. MCMANN Facts: McMann and on McKay (one the victims) were packers at Camp Vicars in Mindanao. and he is not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance established by the Penal Code. where it appears that the accused fired a loaded revolver at the deceased and killed him. The deceased received the fatal blow while he was in the dark space between the door and the stairs leading to the upper portion of the convent. He hated the Roman Catholic Church and called a meeting in his house where the question of murdering the priest was discussed. McMann and McKay went to the house of a Moro to get some matches with which to light their cigarettes however. it must be presumed that he intended the natural consequences of his act. No other mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in his favor for one who attacks another with a deadly weapon as a revolver must know that the most probable result of such an aggression is the death of the person attacked. McMann then saw another Moro who was carving the head of a bolo. It can be deduced that both are intoxicated. 4: W/N the uncle should be considered as a principal by induction. These facts clearly establish the qualifying circumstance of alevosia in so far as the accused is concerned. i) Vena V.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) fingers. No. Issue: W/N intoxication may be considered a mitigating circumstance. The facts and circumstances narrated by the accused in those different statements tally in important details. Issue No. Issue No. This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code and is not used under special laws. Decision: It is unlikely that the shooting was accidental since he witnesses testified that they say McMann aiming the gun at Mac Kay’s head. she was subjected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suffering. the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders. Uncle killed his niece to taste human flesh. do not use principal. Only use the term “offender. Issue No. descendant. McMann and McKay found themselves waiting in a room (not clear if they were waiting to be investigated. When the Moro tried to run. if only one person committed a crime. defendant cannot claim lack of intention. Decision: No. The accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration only when the offended party is the spouse. 4: W/N Ignominy can be added to the natural effects of the act. 5: W/N the fact that the victim was the niece of the accused aggravate the crime. Issue No. Since the accused was charged of having killed the deceased for more than three years ago. The court also held that the defendant was drunk at the time the crime was committed. because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. banana Vena V. accomplice. 3: W/N sex can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused. The attendant circumstance qualifies the crime committed as murder. Cannibal. as a general rule. If there is. The commission of the crime was attended by aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex.” When a problem is encountered where there are several participants in the crime. when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime. the Moro. /vvverga Page 82 of 100 . Decision: No. legitimate. Nothing in the record shows that before the deceased died. Habitual drunkard is defined as one who habituated to intemperance whenever the opportunity offered ACCUSED SEEN DRUNK TWELVE TIMES OR MORE PEOPLE vs. Do not use the term principal when the crime committed is a violation of special law. Decision: Yes. 6: W/N there are any mitigating circumstance that can be appreciated in favor of the accused. Decision: Yes. So. killed Mac Kay instead. the first thing to find out is if there is a conspiracy. the Revised Penal Code classifies them as: (1) (2) (3) principal. The moro then reported McMann to the authorities. It is probable that McMann was actually going to shoot the Moro but because he was drunk at that time. Clearly. 1: W/N it can be contended that three years after the commission of the crime. 2: W/N the accused used superior strength.” “culprits. But intoxication in this case cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since the defendant is a habitual drunkard. McMann suddenly fired at McKay hitting the latter. Mcmann also fired at him. Verga Decision: Yes. Issue No. PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Under the Revised Penal Code. the criminal liability of all will be the same. The accused had made several statements which were reduced into writing and signed by him. but they were all together during that time). natural or adopted brother or sister or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offended. that the court should have subjected the accused to some psychiatric test to determine his sanity. ascendant. it is not possible now to ascertain the mental condition of the defendant as of the time when he committed the crime of which he is charged. or accessory. Thereafter. BALONDO Keywords: leaves.” or the “accused. Use the “offenders. because the act of one is the act of all.” Also only classify offenders when more than one took part in the commission of the crime to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. The record constitutes sufficient justification for the conclusion that the accused was not insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Decision. The circumstance of his having made a voluntary plea of guilt before the court of evidence by the prosecution. Issue No.

less grave. even the principal and the accomplice are not liable. Apply the doctrine of pro reo. the son was much bigger than the woman so considering the strength of the son and the victim. this would make the cooperator merely an accomplice. the offender could not have caught up with the latter. such that even without his cooperation. then such cooperation would bring about a principal. The act of the father in holding the legs of the victim merely facilitated the penetration but even without it the son would have penetrated.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) However. Examples of inducement: It is not just a matter of cooperation. if the participation of one is so insignificant. In the case of rape. But even the principal and the accomplice will not be liable if the felony committed is only light and the same is not consummated unless such felony is against persons or property. favor the lesser penalty or liability. If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation. Ill advised language is not enough unless he who made such remark or advice is a co-conspirator in the crime committed. His mother then shouted. the offender on top could hardly penetrate because the woman was strong enough to move or resist. Is the mother liable? No. or light. Principal by inducement Concept of the inducement – one strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. Therefore it is only when the light felony is against person or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal or accomplice. When the felony is grave. The accused are father and son. all participants are criminally liable. But if the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime. Understandably he did not cooperate in the mauling. Is that inducement? No. A was mauling B. It must be strong as irresistible force. penetration is possible even without the assistance of the father. The reason for this ruling is that the law favors a milder form of criminal liability if the act of the participant does not demonstrate a clear perversity. The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime. one held the hands. The Supreme Court ruled that the father is liable only as an accomplice. But where the felony is only light only the principal and the accomplice are liable. Principal by accomplice indispensable cooperation distinguished from an Vena V. While in the course of a quarrel. As to the liability of the participants in a felony. a friend of B tried to approach but D stopped C so that A was able to continuously maul B. C. one was on top of the woman. So when they saw the opportunity the young man grabbed the woman. the crime would be committed just as well. The accessory is not. It was held that the fellow who blocked the victim is a principal by indispensable cooperation because if he did not block the way of the victim. the Supreme Court ruled that all participants are principals. Is the person who shouted criminally liable. In a case where the offender was running after the victim with a knife. even though the felony is only attempted or frustrated. In case of doubt. it is more than if the crime could hardly be committed. If they are not and the same is not consummated. /vvverga Page 83 of 100 . “Kill him! Kill him. The father told his son that the only way to convince the victim to marry him is to resort to rape. the one chasing the victim caught up and stabbed the latter at the back.” A killed the other fellow. The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the crime. The son was a robust farm boy and the victim undernourished. or less grave. but accessories are not liable for liable for light felonies. the facts indicate that if the fellow who held the legs of the victim and spread them did not do so. “Shoot!”. This is tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the execution of the crime. where three men were accused. a person shouted to A. Those who held the legs and arms are principals by indispensable cooperation. There was a quarrel between two families. such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice. the Code takes into consideration whether the felony committed is grave. Another fellow came and blocked the way of the victim and because of this. It is not that the crime would not be committed because if that is what you would imply it becomes an ingredient of the crime and that is not what the law contemplates. threw her on the ground and placed himself on top of her while the father held both legs of the woman and spread them. Verga In the first situation. The liability of the fellow who stopped the friend from approaching is as an accomplice. He shot and killed someone. he only stopped to other fellow from stopping the mauling. One of the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. one held the legs. In the second situation. In another case. then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy.

Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour. where the crime committed by the principal was robbery or theft. or as an ascendant. The shouts of his wife “Here comes another. not a command to be obeyed. not simply of an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Code. and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance. Accessory as a fence The Revised Penal Code defines what manners of participation shall render an offender liable as an accessory. birahin mo na. natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree. One must not have participated in the commission of the crime. Verga One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime. They practically become co-conspirators. still an accessory to the crime of estafa. who was 18 yrs old. and considering further that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could have accomplished the deed without his wife’s help.” Oscar stabbed the victim. degree of inducement anymore. Oscar has no rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter. but such assistance merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting. So the accessory shall be liable for the same felony committed by the principal. keeps or in any manner deals with any article of value which he knows or should be known to him to be the proceeds of robbery or theft is considered a “fence” and incurs criminal liability for “fencing” under said decree. Accessories Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable: (1) (2) When the felony committed is a light felony. The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is already consummated. acquires and/or sell. he went home to get a rifle. the participation of one who conceals the effects of robbery or theft gives rise to criminal liability for “fencing”. In People v. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that the words had great dominance and influence over the husband. with intent to gain. She assisted her husband in taking good aim. 35 years old. therefore. Among the enumeration is “by profiting themselves or by assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime”. One who knowingly profits or assists the principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not just an accessory to the crime. Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar. he cannot be an accessory any further even though he performs acts pertaining to an accessory. Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft brings about the presumption of “fencing”. Considering that Ernesto had great moral ascendancy and influence over Oscar being much older. “Birahin mo na.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) “I will give you a large amount of money. but principally liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. Questions & Answers 1. Anyone who participated before the consummation of the crime is either a principal or an accomplice. clothing as well as food and shelter. than the latter. Likewise. However. It was held that there was no conspiracy. Any person who. shoot him” cannot make the wife the principal by inducement. 1612. 186 SCRA 812.” while the felonious aggression was taking place cannot be held liable as principal by inducement. Agapinay. Presidential Decree No. May one who profited out of the proceeds of estafa or malversation be prosecuted under the Anti-Fencing Law? No. When an offender has already involved himself as a principal or accomplice. In People v. He cannot be an accessory. unless the accessory himself profited from the effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom.” “I will not marry you if you do not kill B”(let us say he really loves the inducer). or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate. the one who uttered “Kill him. modified Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse. 1612 has. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). Father challenged everybody and when neighbors approached. The family was not in good graces of the neighborhood. Madali. If the crime is embezzlement or estafa. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the commission of the killing. the son was mauled. Balderrama. such participation of an accessory brings about criminal liability under Presidential Decree No. 188 SCRA 69. Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. In People v. /vvverga Page 84 of 100 . Therefore you do not look into the Vena V. we will bury him. not a fence. There is only a fence when the crime is theft or robbery. the liability of the wife is only that of an accomplice. The penalty is higher than that of a mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft. possesses. Ernesto is principal by inducement.

In both laws. to the piracy or brigandage. as long as that killing is established beyond reasonable doubt. in amending Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code. the civilian does not become an accessory unless the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. The reason is because one who is not a public officer and who assists an offender to escape or otherwise harbors. conceals knowing person is a public officer. Principal was being chased by soldiers. the liability of persons acquiring property subject of piracy or brigandage. the crime committed by the principal is immaterial. in case of a civilian. 533 (Anti-piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Law of 1974). Section 4 of the Decree which punishes said acts as a crime of abetting piracy or brigandage. Harboring or concealing an offender In the third form or manner of becoming an accessory. If this is not the crime. If principal committed robbery by snatching a wristwatch and gave it to his wife to sell. To this end. parricide. Presidential Decree No. parricide murder or attempt on the life of the Chief executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Is aunt criminally liable? No. is the wife criminally liable? Can she be prosecuted as an accessory and as a fence? The liability of the wife is based on her assisting the principal to profit and that act is punishable as fencing. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. The law requires that the principal must have committed the crime of treason. The crime committed by the principal is accessory who harbors. concealing or assisting the principal to escape and a private citizen or civilian harboring concealing or assisting the principal to escape. If the the crime is immaterial. Verga The corpus delicti is not the body of the person who is killed. or conceals such offender. Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage It is relevant to consider in connection with the criminal liability of accessories under the Revised Penal Code. 7659. even if the corpse is not recovered. or murder or parricide or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. The act of knowingly acquiring or receiving property which is the effect or the proceeds of a crime generally brings about criminal liability of an accessory under Article 19. 532. Vena V. murder or attempt on the life of the Chief Executive. Article 20 does not include an auntie. But if the crime was piracy of brigandage under Presidential Decree No. His aunt hid him in the ceiling of her house and aunt denied to soldiers that her nephew had ever gone there. Such officer becomes an accessory by the mere fact that he helped the principal to escape by harboring or concealing. the crime committed by the principal must be either treason. still stands as it has not been repealed nor modified. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 2. However. making use of his public function and thus abusing the same. What is in assisting escape. When the soldiers left. the mere fact that he harbored concealed or assisted the principal to escape does not ipso facto make him an accessory. Although Republic Act No. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. not just an accessory. said act constitutes the crime of abetting piracy or abetting brigandage as the case may be. the nature of material is that he used his public function determinative of the liability of the that the crime is committed. 532 provides that any person who knowingly and in any manner… acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives benefit therefrom… shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Destroying the corpus delicti When the crime is robbery or theft. In the case of a public officer. although the penalty is that for an accomplice. unless the contrary is proven. he becomes an accessory. the aunt even gave money to her nephew to go to the province. 1612 and the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand. incorporated therein the crime of piracy in Philippine territorial waters and thus correspondingly superseding Presidential Decree No. the same act is the basis of liability and you cannot punish a person twice for the same act as that would go against double jeopardy. Illustration: Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom. 7659. Even if the crime committed by the principal is treason. this is not the reason. /vvverga Page 85 of 100 . She will no longer be liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery. if the principal is acquitted of the charges. criminal liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the corpus delicti to prevent discovery. the accessory cannot be held criminally liable without the principal being found guilty of any such crime. Otherwise the effect would be that the accessory merely harbored or assisted in the escape of an innocent man. with respect to the second involvement of an accessory. and is not inconsistent with any provision of Republic Act No. do not overlook the purpose which must be to prevent discovery of the crime. take note that the law distinguishes between a public officer harboring.

There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the accessory and accomplice must be charged together with the principal and that if the latter be acquitted. accomplice and accessory. If there is no crime. Under paragraph 3. The theory of absorption must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses punished under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. But not Presidential Decree No. parricide. Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. whether principal. accomplice. In Taer v. of “(c) Harboring or concealing. Verga of an accomplice or accessory does not depend on the criminal liability of the principal but depends on the quantum of evidence. no need for guilt. the liability of the accused will depend on the quantum of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the particular accused. If the principal is acquitted. punishes acts commonly referred to as “obstructions of justice”. 1829. inter alia. the standard of the Revised Penal Code. the law requires that the principal be found guilty of any of the specified crimes: treason. The paragraph uses the particular word “guilty”. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in art. But the prosecutor must initiate proceedings versus the principal. or attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. which penalizes obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. then the supposed accomplice and accessory should also be acquitted. it is required that all those involved in the commission of the crime must be included in the information that may be filed. the law does not distinguish between principal. either treason. the law specifies the crimes that should be committed. Amin. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape. 1829.] In Enrile v. but under Presidential Decree No. But if the evidence shows that the act done does not constitute a crime and the principal is acquitted. 19.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) However. 1981. Article 19. So in the problem. concealed or assisted in the escape did not violate art. Even if the principal is convicted. 1829. 1829. concealing. aunt is not criminally liable because crime is kidnapping. or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. the civilian who harbored. or assists the escape of the principal. It is a malum prohibitum. In other words.” Here. So this means that before the civilian can be held liable as an accessory. yet there is a special law which punishes the same act and it does not specify a particular crime. or knowledge of the crime. The subject acts may not bring about criminal liability under the Code. 1829 is no longer an accessory. except that he was not charged with fencing. [Taer should have been liable for violation of the Anti-fencing law since cattle rustling is a form of theft or robbery of large cattle. CA. the aunt is criminally liable but not as an accessory. All will be accused and whether a certain accused will be principal or accomplice or accessory will depend on what the evidence would show as to his involvement in the crime. (2) (3) /vvverga Page 86 of 100 . Conspiracy was not proven. take note in the case of a civilian who harbors. Presidential Decree No. prosecution and conviction. there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred for harboring. etc. That is as far as the Revised Penal Code is concerned. effective January 16. or accessory. Article 19 of the Code. parricide. that means he is not guilty and therefore. a person charged with rebellion should not be separately charged under Presidential Decree No. then said accused will be acquitted. the principal must first be found guilty of the crime charged. And in filing an information against the person involved in the commission of the crime. Whether the accomplice and the accessory may be tried and convicted even before the principal is found guilty. the act. the accomplice and the accessory shall not be criminally liable also. although under paragraph 3 of Article 19 when it comes to a civilian. unless the acquittal is based on a defense which is personal only to the principal. then there is no criminal liability. or facilitating the escape of the offender. accused received from his co-accused two stolen male carabaos. 533. Taer was held liable as an accessory in the crime of cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. This special law does not require that there be prior conviction. Such an offender if violating Presidential Decree No. This Decree penalizes under Section 1(c) thereof. Yet it is not always true that the accomplice and accessory cannot be criminally liable without the principal first being convicted. and the offender need not be the principal – unlike paragraph 3. PENALTIES Measures of prevention not considered as penalty The following are the measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties under Article 24: (1) The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital. because there is no crime committed. Although this ruling may be correct if the facts charged do not make the principal criminally liable at all. So the criminal liability Vena V. but under this decree. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. conceals. 80 for the purposes specified therein. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest. if the evidence presented against a supposed accomplice or a supposed accessory does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. murder.

preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted. /vvverga Page 87 of 100 . because he has been detained for a period already equal to if not greater than the maximum penalty that would be possibly be imposed on him if found guilty. under the rules on bail in Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. provides that the period during which he had undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the sentence. He is availing of the benefit of suspension for the first time. he will only be given 80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention. Verga So. he is suffering like a convict. but if he has been convicted for two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not. such detention prisoner shall be discharged. or when he has been previously summoned but failed to surrender and so the court has to issue a warrant for his arrest.15 years old and acted with discernment. superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. he cannot be subjected to the treatment applicable to convicts unless he signs and agrees to be subjected to such disciplinary measures applicable to convicts. 1980. but since he is not convicted yet. Correlating Article 24 with Article 29 Although under Article 24.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (4) Fines and other corrective measures which. then the next thing to determine is whether he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. whatever credit he is entitled to shall be forfeited. When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty. and whether the proceedings are terminated or not. he has practically served the sentence already. Vena V. the same treatment exactly is applied there. liberty and property without due process of law. As such. If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts. Detention prisoner has more freedom within the detention institution rather than those already convicted. the law does not speak of credit. sentence must first be suspended under the following conditions: (1) (2) (3) Crime committed is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua. in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers. yet the law considers this as part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentence. The convicted prisoner suffers more restraints and hardship than detention prisoners. The discharge of the offender from preventive imprisonment or detention is predicated on the fact that even if he would be found guilty of the crime charged. Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code has been amended by a Batas Pambansa effective that tool effect on September 20. This amendment is found in the Rules of Court. Whether the person is entitled to credit is immaterial. He must still be a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. If the crime committed is punishable only by destierro. And also. while he is under preventive imprisonment. If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. Deprivation of rights and reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form. but by express provision of Article24 is not a penalty. the detention would violate the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life. one can see that the detention of the offender may subject him only to the treatment applicable to a detention prisoner or to the treatment applicable to convicts. then he will only be subjected to the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. that is why the credit is full. even though the proceedings against him are not yet terminated? (5) Why does the Revised Penal Code specify that such detention shall not be a penalty but merely a preventive measure? This article gives justification for detaining the accused. From this provision. then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment. But if the offender did not sign an undertaking. the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty. Repeal of Article 80 When may a minor be committed to a reformatory? If the minor is between 9 . unless he is one of those disqualified under the law. the constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Otherwise. Yet Article 29. In the amendment. Under what circumstances may a detention prisoner be released. Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit Under Article 24. if the accused has actually undergone preventive imprisonment. the most the offender may be held under preventive imprisonment is 30 days. if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty imposed involves deprivation of liberty.

Duration of penalties Reclusion perpetua What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? Do not answer Article 27 to this question. Destierro is a principal penalty. Verga The duration of destierro is from six months and one day. by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. which is the same as that of prision correcional and suspension. Questions & Answers If the offender has already been released. Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor. with more reason. limit is upon the authority of the court in vanishing the convict. However. the penalty one degree lower is destierro. Under Article 27.. Under Article 70. Thus. Marital authority. shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. destierro is the penalty imposed in the following situations: (1) When a legally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediately thereafter should kill or inflict serious physical injuries upon the other spouse. The civil liability must be determined. Destierro What is the duration of destierro? (3) (4) (2) Vena V. /vvverga Page 88 of 100 . In the crime of concubinage. There is no provision of the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in jail for 40 years and neither is there a decision to this effect. what is the use of continuing the proceedings? The proceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. the penalty prescribed for the concubine is destierro under Article 334. Civil Interdiction Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty. Under the Revised Penal Code. which is the Three-Fold Rule. this is only by analogy. Proper petition for habeas corpus must be filed to challenge the legality of the detention of the prisoner. he commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. But if the convict himself would go further from which he is vanished by the court. those sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for 30 years. offender during the time of his sentence: (1) (2) (3) (4) Civil interdiction shall deprive the The rights of parental authority. unless such person. This is found in Article 247. the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years. the court cannot extend beyond 250 Kms. but the offender is entitled privileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the prescribed penalty by one degree. it shall be the one imposed. This amendment has been incorporated under Rule 114 precisely to do away with arbitrary detention. In the crime of grave threat or light threat. If a convict who is to serve several sentences could only be made to serve 40 years. one who is sentenced to a singly penalty of reclusion perpetua should not be held for more than 40 years. it follows that he is also civilly liable. or guardianship either as to the person or property of any ward. when the offender is required to put up a bond for good behavior but failed or refused to do so under Article 284. and The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. The duration of 40 years is not a matter of provision of law. The proper answer would be that reclusion perpetua has no duration because this is an indivisible penalty and indivisible penalties have no durations. The right to manage his property. such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so that he would not be able to carry out his threat. and/or the paramour or mistress. If the convict should enter the prohibited places. If he was criminally liable. It is a punishment whereby a convict is vanished to a certan place and is prohibited form entering or coming near that place designated in the sentence. That is why the trial must go on. there is no evasion of sentence because the 240-Km. not less than 25 Kms. to six year.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Understand the amendment made to Article 29.

the court will specify only the principal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the offender will suffer. In classifying the penalties as principal and accessory. how would you resolve the move of the creditor to annul the sale? Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent: (1) (2) Article 40. This is an accessory penalty and. what is meant by this is that those penalties classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. If the penalty of temporary disqualification is imposed as principal penalty. from the right to follow a profession or calling.civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain disqualification during the term of the sentence. he executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of land. Primary classification of penalties Principal penalties and accessory penalties The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the following: (1) (2) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. Death . Penalties which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed penalty are automatically imposed even though they are not stated in the judgment. Article 42. what Its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. The convict can convey his property. If you were the judge.suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.perpetual absolute disqualification.temporary absolute disqualification perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.suspension from public office. Questions & Answers What accessory penalty is common to all principal penalties? Confiscation or forfeiture on the instruments or proceeds of the crime. Prision correccional . (3) (4) Vena V. Illustration: A has been convicted and is serving the penalty of prision mayor. 3. State the principal penalty and the corresponding accessory penalties. Arresto . do not just state the accessory penalties. and perpetual special disqualification from the rights of suffrage if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. As to the particular penalties that follow a particular principal penalty. and perpetual absolute disqualification. The classification of principal and accessory is found in Article 25. what is the duration? The duration is six years and one day to 12 years. While serving sentence. is the duration? If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory. Article 41. Questions & Answers 1. Prision mayor . We refer to the nature of the disqualification. Articles 40 to 45 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The accessory penalties follow the principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of course. A creditor moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not qualified to execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. One of the disqualifications is that of making a conveyance of his property inter vivos. as provided in Article 34. So in the imposition of the sentence. An example is the penalty of civil interdiction. 2. What do we refer to if it is perpetual or temporary disqualification? We refer to the duration of the disqualification.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Can a convict execute a last will and testament? Yes. Verga If asked what are the accessory penalties. Article 44. 4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification. and civil interdiction during 30 years following date of sentence. What do we refer to if it is special or absolute disqualification? (5) There are accessory penalties which are true to other principal penalties. /vvverga Page 89 of 100 . Article 43. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal .

the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no fixed duration. to 33 years and four months. you were asked to state the period in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed. there will be no corresponding accessory penalties that will go with them. eight months and one day. 1994. the designation is wrong. Is it beneficial in deterring crimes or not? This should be the premise of your reasoning. the courts are not at liberty to use any designation of the principal penalty.20 years and one day. May 25. Before the enactment of Republic Act No. to 26 years and eight months. If it is indivisible. it is clear that the two bonds are not the same considering that the legal effect or the failure to put up the bond is not the same. in accordance with the provisions of Articles 65 and 76. 7659. the Supreme Court. GR No. Questions & Answers 1. after being given a problem. there is no such thing as minimum. are they one and the same bond that differ only in name? No. the same article now provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years to 40 years. because when you talk of period. it is an indivisible penalty. it is said to be divisible and. Remember that no felony shall be punished by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission pursuant to Article 21. the medium. which made amendments to the Revised Penal Code.34 years. Conrado Lucas. If. if the penalty has no fixed duration. depending on whether the felony committed is grave or less grave on one hand. and the maximum. it is error for the court to use the term “life imprisonment”. The legal effect of each is entirely different. Illustration: When the judge sentenced the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Maximum . when a penalty has a fixed duration. So it was held that when the penalty should be reclusion perpetua. Thus. should be divided into three equal portions to form one period of each of the three portions. unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. Bond for good behavior Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crimes of grave threats and light threats under Article 234. Medium . Otherwise. As amended by Section 21 of Republic Act No. remember that when the penalty is indivisible. /vvverga Page 90 of 100 . There is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this penalty. The capital punishment You were asked to state whether you are in favor or against capital punishment. the courts are not correct when they deviate from the technical designation of the principal penalty. Explain the issue on the basis of social utility of the penalty. The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either for six months or 30 days. by its First Division. he is not deserving of pardon. Reclusion perpetua as modified Vena V. it sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. but instead of saying reclusion perpetua.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Designation of penalty Bond to keep the peace One of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to keep the peace. you are implying that the penalty is divisible because the period referred to is the minimum. If bond to keep the peace is not the same as bond for good behavior. or it is light only on the other hand. Do not talk of period. four months and one day. As we know. Divisible and indivisible penalties When we talk of period. In other words. with each portion composing a period as follows: Minimum . Understand that you are not taking the examination in Theology. to 40 years. there is no period.26 years. 7659. The nature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the proper penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in Article 63 or the rules in Article 64 should be observed in fixing the penalty. The legal effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under Article 284. speculations arose as to whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty. 108172-73. medium and maximum. Thus. it is implying that the penalty is divisible. Because of this. consistent with the rule mentioned. because the moment they deviate from this designation. The Revised Penal Code provides in Article 27 that the convict shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years. You cannot find this penalty in Article 25 because Article 25 only provides for bond to keep the peace. applied Article 65 of the Code in imposing the penalty for rape in People v. It divided the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three equal portions. Verga Since the principal penalties carry with them certain accessory penalties.

as set out in Article 25. in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code. thus. the First Division referred the motion to the Court en banc. 6425 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated herein. Reyes. 7659 made innovations on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the death penalty: (1) Article 47 has been reworded to expressly include among the instances where the death penalty shall not be imposed. there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. 70 and 21. although. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. The issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty was raised. The original provision of Article 83. then Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence. Innovations on the imposition of the death penalty Aside form restoring the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. Verily. Republic Act No. then it should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code. the death penalty may not be meted out on an offender who was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime because Article 68 the lowers the imposable penalty upon such offenders by at least one degree than that prescribed for the crime. To this end. Since. Article 81 has been amended and. Lucas by quoting pertinent portion of the decision in People v. anent the suspension of the execution of the death penalty for three years if the convict was a (2) (3) /vvverga Page 91 of 100 . four months and one day. the Court concludes that although Section 17 of RA 7659 has fixed the duration of Reclusion Perpetua from twenty years (20) and one (1) to forty 40 years. the case of an offender who is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of penalties. instead of the straight penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. four months and one day of reclusion perpetua. there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion perpetua as the penalty in drug cases. In the matter of executing the death penalty. because instead of beginning with 33 years. The latter is the law on what are considered divisible penalties under the Code and what should be the duration of the periods thereof. and because the issue is one of first impression and momentous importance. if reclusion perpetua was classified as a divisible penalty. the resolution states: After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislation history of RA 7659. four months and one day. thus: The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua. the Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 34 years. the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended RA No. as well. reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal. which have not been touched by a corresponding amendment. such as Article 41 on the accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 61. 1995. it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. 212 SCRA 402. If Article 63 of the Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be a divisible penalty. But even without this amendment. It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of Reclusion Perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal but is less than thirty (30) years. To illustrate. if Congress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty. The appellee seasonably filed a motion for clarification to correct the duration of the sentence. however. it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict’s natural life.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Verga Considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship. regardless of the attendant modifying circumstances. thereof. directs that the manner of putting the convict to death by electrocution shall be changed to gas poisoning as soon as the facilities are provided. Ultimately. the question arises: “What then may be the reason for the amendment fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua?” This question was answered in the same case of People v. then there would be no statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty. pursuant to Article 70. the Supreme Court en banc held that reclusion perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. In fine. Now then. There are. other provisions of the Revised Penal Code involving reclusion perpetua. In a resolution promulgated on January 9. and the sentence shall be carried out not later that one year after the finality of judgment. it was stated as 34 years.

thereafter. It is not within the control of the convict to pay the fine or not and once the sentence becomes final and executory and a writ of execution is issued to collect the fine. the judgment of the court must state this. for the full amount with deduction. if convict has property to levy upon. Subsidiary penalty Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty? No. The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. The convict was detained. if the felony committed is grave or less grave. for which reason he filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his detention is illegal. and When penalty is only a fine. the convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty more than 1/3 of the duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 year . But this will only be true if the one year period is higher than 1/3 of the principal penalty. If the court overlooked to provide for subsidiary penalty in the sentence and its attention was later called to that effect. A subsidiary penalty will only be served if the sheriff should return the execution for the fine on the property of the convict and he does not have the properties to satisfy the writ. This particular legal point is a bar problem. Since it is not an accessory penalty. it tried to modify the sentence to include subsidiary penalty after period to appeal had already elapsed. (2) /vvverga Page 92 of 100 . the convict shall be required to save subsidiary penalty. This is tantamount to double jeopardy. or not to pay the fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. can he be made to pay? Yes. Questions & Answers Vena V. the most that the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six months. limits such suspension to last while the woman was pregnant and within one year after delivery. It will then be the prison authority who will compute this. The court then issued an order for said convict to suffer subsidiary penalty. The sheriff then tried to levy the property of the defendant after it has become final and executory. Therefore.get 1/3 of the principal penalty . so there is no subsidiary penalty that goes beyond one year. the same shall answer for the fine. has been deleted and instead. but the sentence does not specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the convict cannot pay the fine. Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. there is no subsidiary penalty. is returned unsatisfied.whichever is lower. but it was returned unsatisfied. It must be that the convict is insolvent to pay the fine. After undergoing subsidiary penalty and the convict is already released from jail and his financial circumstances improve. This subsidiary penalty is one of important matter under the title of penalty. whether he likes it or not. There are two situations there: (1) (2) When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries with it a fine. it must be expressly stated in the sentence. that convict cannot be required to suffer the accessory penalty. So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one year. That means that the writ of execution issued against the property of the convict.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) woman. The judgment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty. If the judgment is silent. it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve. he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty. such imprisonment should not be higher than six years or prision correccional. can he stay there and not pay fine? No. which is a single penalty. if the judge failed to state in the sentence that the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine. If the convict does not want to pay fine and has so many friends and wants to prolong his stay in jail. Otherwise. he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter is not an accessory and so it must be expressly stated. The sentence will merely provide that in case of non-payment of the fine. there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of damages to the offended party. The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only. the addition of subsidiary penalty will be null and void. ii. Subido. Will the petition prosper? Yes. if the felony committed is slight. so that even if the convict has no money or property to satisfy the fine. otherwise. that means it does not go with another principal penalty. (1) When is subsidiary penalty applied Therefore. if any. Verga In People v. If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which goes with the principal penalty. the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days. If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the principal penalty imposed be fine only. A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty.

Arresto mayor + P200. the charges of all these consumers was a minimum of 10. I am not in the position to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the ThreeFold Rule is to be given effect when the convict is already serving sentence in the penitentiiary.00. It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the means of the convict should improve.payment of the fine of P10. He was convicted. Hence. What penalty would you impose? Reclusion perpetua. when there is a subsidiary penalty. voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon arraignment. what penalty would you impose? May the convict be required to undergo subsidiary penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fine? Vena V.00 in each count. even if the totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond six years. The subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the principal penalty. the judge lowered the penalty by one degree. If you were the judge.00 x 50. The collector appropriated the amount collected and so was charged with estafa. P200. after committing parricide. Is the judge correct? /vvverga Page 93 of 100 . Illustration: A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 houses within a certain locality. Under Article 27.00 multiplied by 3. I would impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of P200. that will be the penalty to be imposed. If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a light penalty. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-Fold Rule.00. Thus. and a penalty with a fixed duration. since in the service of the sentence. Because of that. Illustration: A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. such shall be 1/3 of the period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance. But the subsidiary penalty will be served not by imprisonment but by continued suspension. This being a restriction of liberty with a fixed duration under Article 39 for the nonpayment of fine that goes with the destierro. As far as the court is concerned.” For the purposes of subsidiary penalty. Verga The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. Illustration: There are about four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. Suppose the convict cannot pay the fine. for the non. the penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200. Penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of P200.000. If the totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years. the convict cannot be required to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has no fixed duration. It was also established that he was intoxicated. The term is wrong because the penalty is not only served by imprisonment. This is a penalty where a public officer anticipates public duties.000. then. Court offsets the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances. In this case of 50 counts of estafa. he shall still be required to pay the fine and there is no deduction for that amount which the convict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty. penalty is reclusion perpetua. Do not apply this when there is one aggravating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) There are some who use the term subsidiary imprisonment.00 multiplied by 50 counts and state further that “as a judge. If the principal penalty is destierro. So. may he be required to undergo subsidiary penalty? Yes.Fold Rule. apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine of P200. When he was collecting NAWASA bills. Since it is a penalty with a fixed duration under Article 39. he entered into the performance of public office even before he has complied with the required formalities. This is because the imprisonment that will be served will not go beyond six years. because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. the penalty does not go beyond six years.00 x 50 = P10. Articles 63 and 64 If crime committed is parricide. The accused. the non-payment of the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty. Do not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will be required to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. This means one year and six months only. applying the Three. this being a divisible penalty. even if he has already served subsidiary penalty. It will only be one year and six months. because it is an indivisible penalty. the convict will be required to undergo subsidiary penalty and it will also be in the form of destierro. penalty to be imposed shall be one degree lower to be imposed in the proper period.00. the Three-Fold Rule will apply. So the duration does not exceed six years. Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine. and no aggravating circumstances were present. the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty. suspension and destierro have the same duration as prision correccional.

such penalty should be understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall govern: (1) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Code is made up of a period. In homicide under Article 249. in the scale of penalties graduated according to degrees. Take note that destierro comes after arresto mayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor. if homicide is frustrated. penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a given crime refers to the consummated stage. when it is only ordinary mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance. each degree will be made /vvverga Page 94 of 100 . But if the penalty would be lowered by degree. if it is attempted or frustrated. the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which is six months and one day to six years. or there is an accomplice participating in homicide. In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. In such a case when there are aggravating circumstances. But be this as it is. the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional minimum. So. On the other hand. Article 66 When there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the penalty is only fine. after offsetting. and two degrees lower is prision correccional. Although the penalty is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code as a period. This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated stage. The penalty prescribed by law will be the penalty to be imposed. Because you determine the imposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the offender. but in the minimum period. and the penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor maximum. apply Article 66. while arresto mayor is one month and one day to six months. (3) When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender. the reference is Article 71. Whenever the provision of the Revised Penal Code specifically lowers the penalty by one or two degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed. or prision correcional minimum to medium. provided it is not a light felony against persons or property. since arresto menor is one to 30 days or one month. the penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. whether absolute or special. is prision mayor. like prision correcional minimum. This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is a whole divisible penalty -. (2) When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice. In other words. Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases: (1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated If it is frustrated. it is not a crime at all unless it is consummated. the penalty is reclusion temporal. One degree lower. with respect to the range of each penalty. But generally. Verga prescribed by law depending on what the particular provision of the Revised Penal Code states. Memorize the scale in Article 71. penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law. Cannot go below the minimum period when there is an aggravating circumstance. In Article 27. If it is attempted. by way of destierro or disqualification. like prision correccional medium. (5) Penalty commonly imposed by the Revised Penal Code may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine or. under Article 71. It is necessary to know the chronology under Article 71 by simply knowing the scale. because if it is a light felony and punishable by fine. but destierro. the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code are only in periods. do not go down any degree lower. there is a privileged mitigating circumstance or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated. the range of arresto menor follows arresto mayor. do not go one degree lower because it is not punishable unless it is a light felony against person or property where the imposable penalty will be lowered by one degree or two degrees. it will lower the penalty by one or two degrees than that Vena V.one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be punished as a whole. no matter how many mitigating circumstances there are. to a limited extent. arresto mayor is higher than destierro. Go into the lowering of the penalty by one degree if the penalty is divisible. So do not apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a case where the penalty is divisible. (4) When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever. Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory.

The Three-Fold Rule Under this rule.00. he will actually serve the penalties imposed by law. So. when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever. but primarily. but the felony is frustrated so that the penalty should be imposed one degree lower. the penalty one degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum.00 from P500. The penalty one degree lower is P375. As to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances may affect the penalty. On the other hand. such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the proper period. Instead. (3) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is made up of three periods of different penalties. not the the the This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so. Article 64 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. it cannot go lower than P200. Article 75 – Fines With respect to the penalty of fine. it is discretionary upon the court to apply the fine taking into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the same.00. the fine has to be lowered further. and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper. For instance.00. and their penalty consists of a fine only. For the same crime. the penalty upon an accused who is poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the same crime but who is wealthy . Every degree will be composed of two periods. Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death. and the penalty another degree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium. Illustration: The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. Article 63 governs when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is indivisible.00 shall again be deducted from P375. the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. Article 66 In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the form of a fine.00 and that would leave a difference of P250.00. This is done by deducting P125. the most severe of penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be only term of the penalty to be served by him. the fine is lowered by deducting 1/4 of the maximum amount of the fine from such maximum without changing the minimum amount prescribed by law. the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P200.00 shall be deducted therefrom. Another degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.00. Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern.00. When the penalty is indivisible. you will only apply this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will the penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years. the prescribed penalty is never lowered by degree. Under this article. Illustration: Vena V. when a convict is to serve successive penalties. If at all. every time you go down one degree lower. This penalty made up of three periods. if the fine has to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation. no matter how many ordinary mitigating circumstances there are. However. So. the rules are found in Articles 63 and 64. Hence. the fine will be imposed at P200. the court may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper.00. This rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by degree. the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. Illustration: If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to maximum.00 to P500. These rules refer to the lowering of penalty by one or two degrees.00 to P250. you have to go down by three periods. In other words. every time such penalty is lowered by one degree you have to go down also by two periods.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) up of only one period because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period. These rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances. in no case should penalty exceed 40 years. when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime. It takes a privileged mitigating circumstance to lower such penalty by degree. the penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum – reclusion perpetua – death. To go another degree lower. When the penalty prescribed by the Code is made up of two periods of a given penalty. it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances that the court shall take into consideration. 1/4 of P500.00. when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. /vvverga Page 95 of 100 . Verga (2) If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P200. leaving a difference of P375. P125.

you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by three. even if it would amount to 1.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule. If the sentences would be served simultaneously. Verga A district engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 914 years in prison. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively. the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule. if the valuable human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail. This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively. the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources. what penalty would you impose. as amended Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) (2) (3) Its purpose. If asked. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court. Illustration: Penalties imposed are – One prision correcional – minimum – 2 years and 4 months One arresto mayor One prision mayor . for purposes of imposing the penalty. the two remaining penalties must still be executed. Act No. Within the range of one degree lower. if given a situation. then it does not apply.000 years or more. The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed. If not by Purpose The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment. Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed. at the same time. the court will fix the Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three. Instances when it does not apply. the the the are the Illustration: Vena V. you take the most severe and multiply it by three. because it is proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. they would deteriorate. A person was sentenced to three death sentences. So not only penalties with fixed duration. In other words. So. even perpetual penalties are taken into account. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence. 4013 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). It is not limited to violations of the Revised Penal Code. saving the government expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail. indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code. if you were the judge.to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and. It is only when the convict is serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail. under the Three-Fold rule. It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment.1 month and 1 day to 6 months . The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into account the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. The three-Fold rule will apply whether sentences are the product of one information in one court. whether sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences promulgated by different courts on different days. What is material is that convict shall serve more than three successive sentences. not in the imposition of the penalty. even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into account. it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years. whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. that Three-Fold rule is to be applied. the court will take into account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime -. Even if you add the penalties. and How it operates For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule.6 years and 1 day to 12 years Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a special Law. It is in the service of the penalty. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule. /vvverga Page 96 of 100 . so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification. Significance: If ever granted pardon for 1 crime. you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. imprisonment.Fold Rule in this case. the Three-Fold rule does not govern. If the penalty is perpetual disqualification. The common mistake is. the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum and maximum.

according to – (2) (3) (4) /vvverga Page 97 of 100 . To fix the minimum and the maximum of the sentence. So in the case of statutory offense. Therefore. the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied. Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty. the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the proper rules of the Revised Penal Code. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71. So. This ruling. courts are given discretion to fix a minimum anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law. whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. Verga If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. and when we say maximum. it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (5) Vena V. in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. If the mitigating circumstance is privileged. and go one degree lower than that. For the purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law. In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. months and days. and to set a maximum as the limit of that sentence. when the crime is punished under a special law. If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances. in applying the Indetermiante Sentence Law. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. as long as it will not exceed the limit of the penalty. To fix the maximum. Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. But in so far as the minimum is concerned. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account. courts are required in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve. penalty shall be imposed in the maximum. Just the same. In the same manner. The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. If there is mitigating circumstance. they shall offset against each other. we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the convict may be held in jail. penalty shall be in the minimum. penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed. the court will fix the maximum of the sentence. If the crime is a violation of a special law. Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in determining the minimum. use the term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum. If there is a privilege mitigating circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned. maximum or minimum period. penalty under the Revised Penal Code is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the court must apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law. This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. there are no degree or periods. which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. no mitigating. however. and within the range of the penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro reo. Moreover. If there is aggravating circumstance.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) minimum for the indeterminate sentence. is obviously erroneous. do not say. In one Supreme Court ruling. the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and not that which may be imposed by court. If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code. as long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed. the court may fix any penalty as the maximum without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. In fixing the minimum. Disqualification may be divided into three. as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty under said law. This means – (1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range of the penalty next lower in degree. otherwise. it may happen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum. no aggravating. there is no need to mention the number of years. it is that penalty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should be the basis. Under the law. the court will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law. crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be taken into account. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. So. apply the rules. for purposes of ISLAW. Whatever remains. the rule is. there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve.

the basis for determining whether the penalty disqualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200. of misprision of treason. the most important is probation. So even if he would be convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction. he will be disqualified from applying for Probation. So know the crimes under Title III. the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies (People v. Persons who sentence. even though he may thereafter withdraw his appeal.00.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. Persons convicted of piracy. he is no longer qualified for probation. May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law? (1) (2) (3) The time committed. those who are convicted of subversion or any crime against the public order are not qualified for probation. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment. but not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of Indeterminate Sentence Law. without regard to the penalty. no. 187 SCRA 278). he is not disqualified from probation provided that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of the crime committed by him is not against public order. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. he cannot avail of probation anymore. conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment are those qualified for probation. For the offender to apply in such court. Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court by placing him under supervision of a probation officer. he should not appeal such judgment. if none of the individual penalties exceeds six years. An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the judgment. the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less. Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua. the penalty of which is only arresto menor or a fine. Cempron. if after considering the attendant circumstances. So even if the prison term would sum up to more than six years. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the sentence has become final and executory. This may be availed of before the convict begins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did not appeal anymore from conviction. 968 (Probation Law) Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability. such convict is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. Presidential Decree No. Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term thereto. and The offender involved. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the earliest instance after conviction. Although a person may be eligible for probation. /vvverga Page 98 of 100 . The penalty imposed. the offender is not disqualified by such penalty from applying for probation. Persons convicted espionage. those convicted of a crime against public order regardless of the penalty are not qualified for probation. Persons convicted of treason. under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. Persons who are habitual delinquents. the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of conviction. rebellion. national security or subversion. regardless of the purpose of the appeal. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals. Verga Without regard to the nature of the crime. sedition. On the other hand. If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried jointly and one decision was rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty. shall have escaped from confinement or evaded As a general rule. Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The idea is that probation has to be invoked at the earliest opportunity. Under the amendment to the Probation Law. Once he appeals. If the penalty is six years plus one day.

Generally. As far as offenders who are under preventive imprisonment. unless the convict has waived expressly his right to appeal or otherwise. provided the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject to this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer. Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment. Probation is only available once and this may be availed only where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not perfected an appeal. If the convict perfected an appeal. the convict cannot avail of probation. the moment any of these is violate. and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of conscience of the probationer /vvverga Page 99 of 100 . upon promulgation of the sentence. That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime. the order denying the application therefore is null and void. the court may refuse or deny an application for probation. yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the crime. (2) These conditions being mandatory. then regardless of the penalty. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. that convict can still file an application for probation. So even if the offender may not be disqualified of probation. that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime Vena V. and The convict. because it is an act of the court in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. that does not mean that they already start serving the sentence even after promulgation of the sentence. just the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of the society and the community where the convict would be staying. Mandatory conditions: (1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order approving his application. no right to probation can be applied for. iii. he has partly started serving sentence and in that case. but also the probationable penalty. those against public order and those with reference to subversion. the courts do not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. the courts are always required to conduct a hearing. where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probation Law. although bailable.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to say. less than six years. must report to the PO at least once a month during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO. So it is not along the purpose of probation to grant the convict the benefit thereof. but only based on the report of the probation officer. and Discretionary conditions. the penalty will already be final and exeuctory. If it were the non-probationable crime. because of the prevalence of the crime. the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny the benefit of probation. to decongest our jails. if he would be released on probation. to prevent the commission of offenses. naturally he goes back to detention. as a probationer. Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the benefit of probation or not. In such a case. the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time. the denial is correctible by certiorari. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit of the hearing. Consider not only the probationable crime. Discretionary conditions: The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender. Probation shall be denied if the court finds: (1) (2) (3) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution. he forfeits his right to apply for probation. The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions: (1) (2) Mandatory conditions. To allow him loose may bring about a lack of respect of the members of the community to the enforcement of penal law. because the earliest opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court. Verga committed. they cannot afford to put up a bail. and to save the government much needed finance for maintaining convicts in jail Probation is only a privilege. the probation is cancelled. sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period. Generally. Offenses which are not probationable are those against natural security. or Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.

There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when the convict had already served the sentence such that there is no more service of sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction. In one case. liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment By service of sentence. Suppose. So while a case is on appeal. Parole. 1994) Amnesty and pardon The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. you cannot find among them the election to public office. Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) By conditional pardon. decided on September 2.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. then years later he rebelled again and convicted. he was nevertheless reelected by the constituents. During the ensuing election. he was convicted. the offender dies. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the conviction but also the effects of the conviction itself. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence. (People v. administrative cases but not criminal cases. By prescription of the crime. By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects. one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his constituents. By commutation of sentence. what was given was absolute pardon. Total extinction of criminal liability Among the grounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction. and Probation. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. a public official was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows: (1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties. if he will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that crime. because the pardon wipes out the effects of the crime. So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was given a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore. By absolute pardon. Illustrations: /vvverga Page 100 of 100 . instead of amnesty. By prescription of the penalty. unless the language of the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects thereof. no matter how long ago was the first conviction. By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape. Verga This is only true to EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Always provide two classifications when answering this question. that his constituents have pardoned him. The Supreme Court ruled that the re-election to public office is not one of the But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned. allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence. The offended party may file a separate civil action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. the case on appeal will be dismissed. Death of the offender Vena V. So that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty. For good conduct. the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion. is he a recidivist? Yes. he cannot be considered a recidivist. is he a recidivist? No. Bayotas. then years later. Pardon. and so he was given an amnesty. abduction. although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. Considering that recidivism does not prescribe. Amnesty erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the crime. he shall still be a recidivist. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Where the offender dies before final judgment. and as to pecuniary penalties.

the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescribed. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of Property. Actually.. It is not the filing of the complaint.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) When the crime carries with it moral turpitude. the prescriptive period of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public registry. and the appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue. the period for filing a complaint or information may not be extended at all. and his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon. a crime embraced in the same title. whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not. The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at the public prosecutor’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. the prescription of the crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the accused. After which the prescription will resume to run. After serving sentence for three years. hence. light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. On the other hand. the earlier jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or overruled. and therefore even if he commits theft again. but not the filing with the barangay. Although pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. and the conviction becomes final /vvverga Page 101 of 100 . There is no such thing as a premature amnesty. The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended – (1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7. he shall not be considered a recidivist. the prescription of the crime will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial court. for purposes of prescription. this time he shall be a recidivist. If the 60 th day falls on a Sunday. But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure. pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime. the crime has indeed prescribed. 170 SCRA 191. but the filing of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime. Illustration: In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry. the offender even if granted pardon shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar. When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor’s office. the crime has already prescribed. so he brought the criminal action only then. “Commission of the crime is public” -. prescription of the crime is not waivable. Local Government Code. So if an accused was convicted in the trial court. the State loses the right to prosecute the offender. he was granted absolute pardon. the prescriptive period already commenced to run. it may be given before final judgment or after it. because it does not require a final judgment. but after conviction and during the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed. even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this ground the trial court. Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. even though the last day such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a Sunday. unless the crime was concealed. the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. the period will only commence to run when the convict has begun to serve the sentence. The prevailing rule now is. Factoran. the prescription thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or the government learns of the commission of the crime. Moreover. Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. For instance. Ten years later. as a general rule on the day the crime was committed. it is premature and hence void. if legally. if he has served all six years of the first sentence. Pedro was again prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft. such accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal. If given before this. Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty Prescription of the crime begins. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has already prescribed. not public. the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only after 10 years. the pardoned convict must reapply for the new appointment . but the suspension of the prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. the falsification is deemed public from the time the falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though. From the (2) Vena V. On the prescription of the penalty. in which case. So the earlier rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.This does not mean alone that the crime was within public knowledge or committed in public. Jr. it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. Verga moment the falsified document is registered in the Registry of Property. In Monsanto v. When a crime prescribes. the offended party may not really know of the falsification.

Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty. thus enabling the prisoner to escape. seduction and acts of lasciviousness. Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good faith. on the way to the penitentiary. notwithstanding such marriage. The crime committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. booked there. such convict shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming back. will also benefit from such marriage. prescriptive period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband Vena V. Article 158 refers only to those who leave and return. after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period. Partial extinction of criminal liability Good conduct allowance This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98. if the subject could leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty. the moment the convict commits another crime while he is fugitive from justice. Reparation of the damage caused. otherwise. not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman. so that if the convict was never given parole. Canada. do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under Article 344. placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes. Verga after the marriage. abduction. the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country. This is the partial extinction referred to. he must be brought to Muntinlupa. in relation to Article 158. no matter how long such convict has been a fugitive from justice. no partial extinction. and such property must be returned. When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an extradition treaty. the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned. so that the initial crime of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed. It is only in the crimes of rape. So if the offender goes to any of these countries. the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the offender leaves Philippine territory for that country. Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only cooperated. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may refile the complaint. Indonesia. Parole This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. Restitution or restoration Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property. if there are any. USA and Switzerland. earthquake or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48 hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed. the penalty imposed by the trial court will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. it is the commission of other crime. In the case of the prescription of the penalty. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration. the offended woman. It is only true in the crimes of rape. CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories: (1) (2) (3) Restitution and restoration. although already his wife can still prosecute him again. Marriage In the case of marriage. the prescriptive period still continues to run. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. and Indemnification of consequential damages. but not when such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the crime.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) and executory. although the marriage remains a valid marriage. Presently the Philippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan. abduction. so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence. but also that of the accomplice and accessory. If the property is in the hands /vvverga Page 102 of 100 . Australia. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. For the penalty to prescribe. Marriages in these cases may even compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability.

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party, even though such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, except when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer. For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender. Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is illegally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court. For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of the earrings of the victim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why he got on of the earrings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. The latter crime is not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute the earring to the offended woman. Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person. Where personal property was divested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the property may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid. The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it to him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will

Vena V. Verga
be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him. The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations. The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender. Reparation of the damage caused In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages including attorney’s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and the amount duly proven. Indemnification of consequential damages Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime. The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them. Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and

/vvverga

Page 103 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property of their guests. Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors: (1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest; and The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.

Vena V. Verga
employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused. When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another. If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable. To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here. There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability. Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the following: (1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The person who employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable; In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an equal or greater injury. The person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.

(2)

The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability. Noncompliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve the management from civil liability. Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment. Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper’s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and force upon things. Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requisites concur: (1) (2) (3) (4) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his employee; At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existing between the two; The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable; The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability.

(2)

When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the

The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.

/vvverga

Page 104 of 100

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable. In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute. COMPLEX CRIME Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum period. Purpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo. If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore. Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right). Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal maximum to death. If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code. Plurality of crimes may be in the form of: (1) (2) (3) Compound crime; Complex crime; and Composite crime.

Vena V. Verga

iv. Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide. The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex crime, but “complex crimes” are limited only to a situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave. Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave felonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes. Illustration: A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting felonies are only slight. Illustration of a situation where the term “necessary” in complex crime should not be understood as indispensable: Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat: Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion) The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148.

A compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes. A complex crime strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a complex crime. A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are regarded only as a single indivisible offense.

The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information. When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one act formed, it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be imposed.

/vvverga

Page 105 of 100

the Supreme Court considered this as a complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse. This becomes a complex crime. However performing a series of acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one crime is committed under one information. CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES In criminal law. they are not really used with the same import. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses. Such situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48. These soldiers feared that on the way. however. this is referred to as a continuing crime. The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”. because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Conversely. So Lawas ordered the men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other. regardless of a series of acts done. so no one would Vena V. Hence. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslims from one barrio to another place. it was held that there is only one crime of theft committed. considering that Criminal Law. he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a Hajji. use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less grave felonies. The act of one is the act of all. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue. the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places. The confusion lies in this. Although in this case. a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. In People v. where the accused took five roosters from one and the same chicken coop. when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse. although both terms are analogous. In another case. the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons. The Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse. The nearest article is Article 48. but also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. There are cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. There were a series of acts. when there are several acts performed. de Leon. and the soldiers mechanically fired. even those cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary. some of the Muslims may escape. the offender should be penalized only once. You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime. although. Not because there were several quarters robbed. Lawas ordered his men to fire. If confronted with a problem. The question of whether the constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme Court. a separate penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded. the accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. When the robbers entered the compound. There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the compound. In People v. this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. not because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. there is what is called a continued crime. they were moved by a single criminal intent. Verga run away. Garcia. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. It was held that there is only one crime committed – multiple robbery. because the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse and for ever criminal impulse. another act /vvverga Page 106 of 100 . When the hands of the Muslims were tied. A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose. Lawas. In People v. “Continuing crime” is the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began. but the decision in the Lawas case is correct. one of them protested. so it is clear that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim. The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse. However. the roosters were owned by different persons. the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime. some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. At the height of the commotion. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime. it is regarded in law as one.

Pabasa. But the multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime. yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court. Duplicity of offenses. instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. Each intercourse brings with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband. In People v. In criminal procedure. So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once. a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. there is multiple rape. together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. Bulaong. In People v. This would mean two penalties to be imposed. in order not to violate this rule. two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes. Supreme Court considered this as complex. each committed four crimes of rape. The second part of Article 48 does not apply. regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim. In the eyes of the law. Bojas. Although under Article 48. the singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. because there is no other provision in the RPC. The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. although only the first part thereof (compound crime). there were four participants here. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the others. after all. the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the provision of Article 48. Pabasa. the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino in People v. The rapes Vena V. In earlier rulings on abduction with rape. In People v. regardless of the number of rapes committed. referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense. that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her. 67 Phil. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48. Although the killings did not result from one single act. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith. In adultery. there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. only one complex crime of rape would arise. Tumlos. it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information. In People v. The reason being that.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) out of this is done simultaneously. Apparently. it must be called a complex crime. there is only one information and prosecution only. Therefore. the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v. Jose. except when the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime. one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. Otherwise. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of Article 48. They abducted the woman. because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse. /vvverga Page 107 of 100 . separate complaints/information. it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can. Applying the concept of the “continued crime”. Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence. the four took turns in abusing her. each intercourse constitutes one crime. it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases. This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino. However. the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. 320). a light felony should not be included in a complex crime. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime. that there could be only one complex crimeof abduction with rape. Verga committed were in the nature of a continued crime characterized by the same lewd design which is an essential element in the crime of forcible abduction. the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time (People v. The three rapes are not necessary to commit the other rapes. if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her. Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime – one count or forcible abudction with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them. One of the four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. after which.

that of collecting fees for services rendered. Justice Garchitorena. unless the latter provides the contrary.. Prescription shall not run when offender is not in the Philippines. The dismissal of the criminal action does not extinguish the civil responsibility. Dichupa. 66 Phil. under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. Subsequently. Even if the ten year period commenced to run from the registration and (2) (3) In the theft cases. Sabbun. for the purpose of depriving a person of a legal civil right to which he was entitled. amnesty. 32 amended informations were filed. constitutes one larceny only. Dismissal of the case will not be without prejudice to the right of the widow to enforce the civil liability of the accused. registration of public document Issue: W/N the act charged has already prescribed. 1936. The authorities. US vs. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law – Executive Order No. Decision: No. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one information. PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Keyword: Torrens. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive. Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims (Santiago v. that is taking of several things. Jaranillo). Decision: No. MADLANGBAYAN Keyword: spy. the case will be dismissed. decided on December 2. CIV. Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates. Many courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine. the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases: (1) Two Estafa cases. Upon filing in the court. The idea of amnesty wipes out the crime cannot not be carried to the extent of saying. the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine. June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Article 10. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY • • • • • • Death of the convict as to the personal penalties before final judgment By service of the sentence By amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects BY prescription of the crime By prescription of the penalty By the marriage of the offended party (rape) On the other hand. the oath. the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws. the accused was charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. 10 SCAR 156). Decision: Yes. The date of the violation of the law becomes the operative date for the commencement of the period of prescription. Said acts were committed on two different occasions. The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. whether belonging to the same or different owners. 351). Here. or their agents and shall be interrupted by the filling of the complaint or information and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. Verga (2) (3) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. The accused must first show compliance with the requirements for availing himself of the benefits like taking the required oath. that the criminal act never existed. The date of computing the period of prescription would be from the date of the filing of the application. 324. and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. ARTICLE 91 (PRESCRIPTION) Period of prescription shall run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. Issue: Should the case be dismissed and accused acquitted since the crime was politically motivated. one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December. crime politically motivated Issue: W/N the civil aspect is extinguished too on account of amnesty. (2) caused injury to one party only – the government. and (3) they were done in the same day. 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. 1993). /vvverga Page 108 of 100 . 13 Phil 306). Several malversations committed in May. at the same time and place. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v.

the crimes charges already prescribed. The application of the rule on constructive notice in the construction of Article 92 of the RPC would most certainly be favorable to the accused since the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned with earlier. the employer can not be held liable. the employer is not engaged in business or industry and merely uses automobile for private ends. VALDEZ Keyword: 2 vehicles collided in intersection. The very essence of pardon is forgiveness and remission of guilt. US vs. The employer was also no in the automobile when the accident happened and when it exercised due diligence in choosing a driver. If restitution is impossible. the court will not hesitate to do so if the factual and legal circumstance so warrant. FACTORAN Keywords: Estafa. once registered is a notice to the world. they may repatriate for the injury or indemnify the owner. Absolute pardon dies not blot out the crime committed. Issue: W/N the driver’s employer can be civilly liable. MONSANTO vs. If granted after conviction. Decision: No. Considering the lapse of more than 20 years. Another person aided in procuring registration certificate. subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual performance of his own ordinary duties and he was innocent thereby rendering incapable of satisfying by himself his own liability. The /vvverga Page 109 of 100 . Issue: W/N the jewels can be recovered. REYES vs. Although caution should be observed in applying the rule of construction in civil cases. All persons must take notice. victim cannot collect from the driver. registration being a constructive notice to the whole word. Decision: Yes. thus. the employer cannot be civilly liable. Decision: No. pawned instead of selling them. The owner has an absolute right to the jewels from the possession of whoever holds them. Issue: Can the employer be held liable. Among the civil responsibilities incurred by a person committing estafa is that of restoring the thing taken. Vena V. it removes penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. 91 cannot be construed in such manner as to admit application of the rule on construction. VILLALOBOS Keyword: Theft of carabao. VARELA vs. MC the employer did not know his car was used. This is the reason why the employee is not entitled to backpay when pardoned. Every person criminally liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable. falsification of public documents. Issue: Does Art. jewels Issue: W/N the owner of the jewels direct four pawnshops to restore the jewels without indemnity on the party of the petitioner. The jewels were pawned without the knowledge of the owner thus must be restored by the pawnshop owners. CASTILLO Keyword: Chauffer. Decision: Yes.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) issuance of the free patent title by the register of deed. The subsidiary liability of the master only takes place when the servant. Pardon if granted before conviction. The criminal offense of falsification of public document has already prescribed. Pardon implies guilt. in accordance with the judgment entered in the aforesaid cause for estafa. The title. Issue: W/N that person is mere accessory to the theft or principal. from attaching. victim died. it prevents any penalties and disabilities. the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by the legislative action. it does no erase the crime and the conviction thereof. RUIZ Keyword: Defraud. REYES Keyword: prescription of crime. FINNICK Keyword: Estafa of jewels. The criminal action has been extinguished by prescription. the prescriptive period would lapse on 1986 or 5 months before the filing of the complaint. Verga Decision: No. FULL and ABSOLUTE FREEDOM: Subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution. STEIMETZ vs. Where it admitted that the employer did not know that his chauffer was using the car that day and the he exercised due diligence in hiring the chauffer. consequent upon condition. filling in the register of deeds Issue: W/N the crime prescribed Decision: Yes. PEOPLE vs. MARQUEZ vs. ARTICLE 100 Every person criminally liable for a felony in also civilly liable.

as explained in Number 2 above. Castillo. ipso facto extinguishes the former. provided. Verga exist independently of the criminal responsibility. an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1. in cases where -during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction. Corollarily. of course. if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. before delivery. Said liability is extinguished. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale. poses a problem. BAYOTAS Keyword: Rape. With reference to Castillo's criminal liability. where the civil liability does not /vvverga Page 110 of 100 . depending an the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. them is no question. this issue was settled in the affirmative. SC dismissed the criminal aspect Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability. only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. The case of People v. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. altered the brands on the animals. 4. The law is plain. PEOPLE vs. Such liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. conformably with provisions of the Civil Code. Stated differently. a few days prior to their recovery. however. Although stolen property is acquired in good faith by a third party.Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Vena V. the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription. Where the civil liability survives. He is principal to the crime. Decision: Yes. The civil liability. His participation as an accessory cannot be admitted. In such case. Thus. unless it be satisfactorily shown that the property was stolen by some other person. Decision: Yes. 2. Finally. 3. he can not lawfully withhold the possession thereof from the true owner and insist upon reimbursement. the extinction of the latter by death. It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89. he must be presumed to be the author of the theft and not merely an accessory. that death supervenes before final judgment. 1. A number of stolen carabao were found in the possession of a person who kept them hidden for a time and. Statutory construction is unnecessary.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful